1 An Improved Approach To Updating Regulatory Dispersion Models 8 th Modeling Conference RTP, NC September 23, 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.
Advertisements

Ninth Lecture Hour 8:30 – 9:20 pm, Thursday, September 13
AERMOD Modeling System: Status and Updates Roger W. Brode U.S. EPA/OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group Region 4 Modelers Meeting November 14, 2012 Atlanta,
1 RLINE: A Line Source Dispersion Model for Near-Surface Releases Presented at the 12 th Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC October 28 – 30, 2013.
Introduction to SCREEN3 smokestacks image from Univ. of Waterloo Environmental Sciences Marti Blad NAU College of Engineering and Technology.
Introduction to SCREEN3 smokestacks image from Univ. of Waterloo Environmental Sciences Marti Blad.
2002 MM5 Model Evaluation 12 vs. 36 km Results Chris Emery, Yiqin Jia, Sue Kemball-Cook, and Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Zion Wang UCR.
Template Development and Testing of PinG and VBS modules in CMAQ 5.01 Prakash Karamchandani, Bonyoung Koo, Greg Yarwood and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International.
Session 8, Unit 15 ISC-PRIME and AERMOD. ISC-PRIME General info. PRIME - Plume Rise Model Enhancements Purpose - Enhance ISCST3 by addressing ISCST3’s.
Coupled NMM-CALMET Meteorology Development for the CALPUFF Air Dispersion Modelling in Complex Terrain and Shoreline Settings Presented at: European Geoscience.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
Meteorological Data Issues for Class II Increment Analysis.
8 th Conference on Air Quality Modeling – A&WMA AB-3 Comments on CALPUFF Implementation Issues By Mark Bennett, CH2M HILL.
Use of Prognostic Meteorological Model Output in Dispersion Models Eighth Modeling Conference Research Triangle Park, NC.
The Use of High Resolution Mesoscale Model Fields with the CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling System in Prince George BC Bryan McEwen Master’s project
AERMET 8 TH Modeling Conference RTP, NC September 22 – 23, 2005 Presented by: Desmond T. Bailey
The ANSI/ANS 2.15 Standard for Modeling Routine Radiological Releases from Nuclear Facilities John Ciolek AlphaTRAC, Inc.
1 Modelled Meteorology - Applicability to Well-test Flaring Assessments Environment and Energy Division Alex Schutte Science & Community Environmental.
Introduction to the ISC Model Marti Blad NAU College of Engineering.
Systems Analysis and Design in a Changing World, 6th Edition
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
8 th Conference on Air Quality Modeling – A&WMA AB3 Comments on Nonstandard Modeling Approaches By Ron Petersen, CPP Inc Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins.
Template U.S. EPA’s Evaluation of Long Range Transport Models Ralph E. Morris ENVIRON International Corporation A&WMA CPANS Conference University of Calgary.
Modeling the Co-Benefits of Carbon Standards for Existing Power Plants STI-6102 Stephen Reid, Ken Craig, Garnet Erdakos Sonoma Technology, Inc. Jonathan.
Identifying Non-Linear Flow for Modeling of Routine Releases from TVA Nuclear Facilities Toree M. Cook Kenneth G. Wastrack Doyle E. Pittman Tennessee Valley.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 3rd Annual CMAS Models-3 Conference October 18-20, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC.
September 12, SW Colorado PSD Increment Study Southwest Colorado Nitrogen Dioxide ( NO 2 ) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increment.
PA Department of Environmental Protection Continuous Source Monitoring Manual (Manual, Revision 8)
Understanding the USEPA’s AERMOD Modeling System for Environmental Managers Ashok Kumar Abhilash Vijayan Kanwar Siddharth Bhardwaj University of Toledo.
CONCEPTUAL MODELING PROTOCOL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSESSMENT PROGRAM.
Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.
Use of Photochemical Grid Modeling to Quantify Ozone Impacts from Fires in Support of Exceptional Event Demonstrations STI-5704 Kenneth Craig, Daniel Alrick,
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
35 PC-HYSPLIT WORKSHOP Example Simulations Presented on the following slides are several basic trajectory and dispersion simulations and meteorological.
Regional Modeling Joseph Cassmassi South Coast Air Quality Management District USA.
WRAP Workshop July 29-30, 2008 Potential Future Regional Modeling Center Cumulative Analysis Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, California.
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
Proposed Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models
Comparison of the AEOLUS3 Atmospheric Dispersion Computer Code with NRC Codes PAVAN and XOQDOQ 13th NUMUG Conference, October 2009, San Francisco, CA.
1 Tracer Experiments Barrio Logan Working Draft Do Not Cite or Quote Tony Servin, P.E. Shuming Du, Ph.D. Vlad Isakov, Ph.D. September 12, 2002 Air Resources.
Template Reducing Vertical Transport Over Complex Terrain in Photochemical Grid Models Chris Emery, Ed Tai, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International.
Types of Models Marti Blad Northern Arizona University College of Engineering & Technology.
HF Modeling Task Mike Williams November 19, 2013.
WESTAR 2003 Fall Technical Conference Introduction to Class I Area Impact Analyses September 16, 2003 John Bunyak National Park Service.
35 PC-HYSPLIT WORKSHOP Example Simulations Presented on the following slides are several basic trajectory and dispersion simulations and meteorological.
NW-AIRQUEST projects on Agricultural and Wildfire Smoke in the Inland Northwest: ClearSky and AIRPACT-3 presented by: Joe Vaughan WSU-LAR contributors:
1 THE AERMOD MODELING SYSTEM AN OVERVIEW FOR THE 8 TH MODELING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 22, 2005.
AERSCREEN Status and Update James Thurman, Ph.D. U.S. EPA/OAQPS/AQAD Air Quality Modeling Group 2009 NESCAUM PMC Annual Meeting Mystic, CT.
Roger W. Brode U.S. EPA/OAQPS/AQAD Air Quality Modeling Group AERMAP Training NESCAUM Permit Modeling Committee Annual Meeting New London, Connecticut.
Roger W. Brode U.S. EPA/OAQPS/AQAD Air Quality Modeling Group AERMET Training NESCAUM Permit Modeling Committee Annual Meeting New London, Connecticut.
AERMOD Modeling System: Status and Updates Roger Brode & James Thurman U.S. EPA/OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group 2009 NESCAUM PMC Annual Meeting Mystic,
Roger W. Brode U.S. EPA/OAQPS/AQAD Air Quality Modeling Group AERMOD Update: Status of AERSCREEN and AERSURFACE NESCAUM Permit Modeling Committee Annual.
Consequence Analysis Robert Wu South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Comparisons of CALPUFF and AERMOD for Vermont Applications Examining differing model performance for a 76 meter and 12 meter (stub) stack with emission.
Daiwen Kang 1, Rohit Mathur 2, S. Trivikrama Rao 2 1 Science and Technology Corporation 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ARL/NOAA NERL/U.S. EPA.
OAQPS Update June 24, NESCAUM PMC Annual Meeting.
Incident Modeling Capability for Air Releases
AERLINE: Air Exposure Research model for LINE sources
Progress Update MSIS: Bratislava, April 2005
Laura Bright David Maier Portland State University
Attribution of Haze Workgroup Organizational Meeting
Project Name - Testing Iteration 1 UAT Kick-off
FTE Recalibration Kendra Jahnke June 2018.
Overview Activities from additional UP disciplines are needed to bring a system into being Implementation Testing Deployment Configuration and change management.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
Current Research on 3-D Air Quality Modeling: wildfire!
Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation
Status of the Regional OSSE for Space-Based LIDAR Winds – Feb01
Presentation transcript:

1 An Improved Approach To Updating Regulatory Dispersion Models 8 th Modeling Conference RTP, NC September 23, 2005

2 An Improved Approach To Updating Regulatory Dispersion Models Presenters Desmond T. Bailey 1 Roger W. Brode 2 1 NOAA on assignment to EPA 2 MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

3 Standard Operating Procedure Implemented when changes are made to a regulatory dispersion model Completed prior to the release of the updated model

4 Objectives Identify Resolve Document

5 The Analysis Tool Manages the execution of the old and new model components Takes care of file management Extracts results from model output files Identifies differences in model estimates Creates summary reports

6 Resolving Differences Expected (unexpected) ? Model component ? Compiler related ? Significance ? OK to release/approve update ?

7 Options for Approval of Update Approve all components –with qualifications –without qualifications Approve selected components –with qualifications –Without qualifications

8 Transparency Results of the analysis will be made available with the release of the update The analysis tool and all necessary files for running the tool will be made available

9 Overview of CALPUFF Test Dataset Ten scenarios covering range of source types, modeling domains and meteorology Base version of modeling system (April 2003) compared to Beta version (July 2004) – Primary Analysis If differences are found, Secondary Analysis can be performed for affected scenarios Secondary Analysis designed to attribute differences to CALMET, CALPUFF or both

10 Resolving Differences Model Component ?

11 Scenario Components Sources Modeling Domains Terrain Meteorology Dispersion

Description of Scenarios 1.Large-scale domain in Pacific NW - NWS data only 2.Same as 1 with MM5 NOOBS option 3.Medium-scale domain in Pacific NW with MM5/NWS 4.Medium-scale domain near Shenandoah NP 5.Small-scale complex flow with deep valley 6.Idealized hill with steady-state met – similarity 7.Idealized hill with steady-state met – PG 8.Flat terrain with steady-state met – similarity 9.Flat terrain with steady-state met – PG 10.Idealized hill with simulated wind shear

Description of Sources ●Four core sources included in all scenarios:  Ground-level area source (20m by 200m)  10m volume source  30m non-buoyant point source  65m buoyant point source ●Two sets of core sources included in Scenarios 1, 2, and 5 at different locations within domain ●Scenario 3 also includes 99m buoyant stack near coast ●Scenario 4 also includes buoyant area source ●Scenarios 6 and 7 also include three PRIME downwash sources (35m buoyant, 35m capped, 50m buoyant)

14

15

16

17

18

19 Scenario 5 – Columbia River Gorge

Idealized Scenario 6 Scenario 6 includes idealized 300m hill at center of 10km by 10km domain Sources located at left edge of domain, upwind of hill Simulated steady-state meteorology: –6 hours of stable –6 hours of near-neutral –6 hours of convective Uses dispersion based on similarity theory

21

Idealized Scenarios 7, 8 & 9 Scenario 7 is same as Scenario 6, except for use of PG-based dispersion Scenario 8 is same as Scenario 6, except for use of flat terrain Scenario 9 is same as Scenario 8, except for use of PG-based dispersion

Idealized Scenario 10 Uses same idealized hill as Scenario 6 Sources located near southwest edge of domain, “upwind” of hill Simulated steady-state meteorology, with WS and WD shear; using CTDM Profile –6 hours of stable –6 hours of near-neutral Uses dispersion based on similarity theory

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Summary of Results Mostly minor differences in all Scenarios, except for Scenario 10 – all differences attributable to CALMET Maximum difference for ranked high value of 5.2% occurred for volume source in Scenario 4 Maximum differences in ranked high values were generally less than about 0.3% No consistent trend in terms of bias of differences

37

38

39

40 Issues/Lessons Learned Base versions of CALMET and CALPUFF do not support Lambert Conformal (LCC) option Guidance for reference latitudes for LCC option No source grouping available in CALPUFF/ CALPOST – separate runs for each source Fixed array limits – recompilation issues –Prognostic data limits do not match CALMET grid limits –Limit on DEM files for TERREL in Scenarios 1 and 2 No slug option for PRIME sources Unsupported NWS met data formats (ISHWO)