1. Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VISTA Technical Lead for Air Quality Modeling) National RPO Meeting St. Louis, MO November 5, 2003

2. Outline VISTAS Phase I Modeling –Objectives –Modeling Team –Literature Review –Initial Model Configuration – CMAQ Sensitivity Results –Schedule for Deliverables VISTAS Phase II Modeling Plans

3. Phase I Modeling Objectives Collect appropriate monitoring data –Model Performance Evaluation Emissions Modeling for 3 episodes – SMOKE Air Quality Modeling for 3 episodes – CMAQ –Recommend Initial Model Configuration –Perform Model Configuration Sensitivity Runs – Recommend Optimal Model Configuration Modeling Protocol Document –Quality Assurance Plan Technical Web Site –http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/

4. Emission and AQ Modeling Team Environ/UCR/AG Air Quality Modeling Team –All CMAQ model performance plots presented here created by AQ Modeling Team Environ International Corporation – Mr. Ralph Morris (Project Manager and Co-Principal Investigator) –Dr. Greg Yarwood, Dr. Gerard Mansell, Mr. Chris Emery, Dr. Bongyoung Koo University of California – Riverside – Dr. Gail Tonnesen (Co-Principal Investigator) –Dr. Tony Wexler, Dr. Bill Carter, Dr. Zion Wang, Dr. Chao-Jung Chien Alpine Geophysics, LLC – Dr. Tom Tesche (Co-Principal Investigator) –Ms. Cyndi Loomis, Mr. Dennis McNally, Mr. Jim Wilkinson, Mr. Greg Stella

5. Model Domain and Episodes Modeling Domain –36 km grid resolution (149 x 113) –12 km grid resolution (169 x 178) –19 vertical layers (collapsed from 34 MM5 layers) Modeling Episodes –January 1 ‑ 20, 2002 (20 episode days + ramp ‑ up days) –July 13 ‑ 27, 2001 (15 episode days + ramp ‑ up days) –July 13 ‑ 21, 1999 (9 episode days + ramp ‑ up days)

9. Literature Review Reports “Review and Assessment of Available Ambient Air Quality Data to Support Modeling and Modeling Performance Evaluation for the Three VISTAS Phase I Episodes” - Revised 07/22/03 –AQS, PAMS, IMPROVE, SEARCH, STN, NADP, CASTNET, PM Supersites, TVA Measurement Network, ASACA, FAQS, NARSTO SOS99 Aircraft Data –http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/reports/VISTAS_Task_3_072203.pdf “Review of Model Sensitivity Simulations and Recommendation of Initial CMAQ Model Configuration and Sensitivity Tests” - Revised 07/25/03 –Evaluation of other PM modeling studies SAMI, WRAP, BRAVO, MRPO, Southeast PM Modeling Study, EPA, CRC, CCOS/SCOS –Recommendations for additional air quality sensitivity simulations –Model performance metrics and goals –http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/reports/VISTAS_Task4a_Report.pdf

10. Initial Model Configuration CMAQ Version 4.3 Horizontal Advection and Vertical Advection –Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) Gas-Phase Chemistry and Solver –CB-IV with MEBI/Hertel Aerosol Chemistry –AE3/ISORROPIA/SORGAM Aqueous-Phase Chemistry –RADM Dry Deposition –Pleim-Xiu MM5 Configuration and Processing –Pleim-Xiu/ACM Soil/PBL models with MCIP2.2 Pass Through SMOKE Emissions –NEI 1999 v2 with CMU NH 3 Adjustments –http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/emis.shtml

11. CMAQ Sensitivity Tests 1)Fugitive Dust Transport Factor 2)Number of Vertical Layers 3)Vertical Diffusivity - Minimum Kz 4)Ammonia Emissions 5)Mexican/Canadian Emissions 6)Boundary Conditions 7)Boundary Layer Heights – Minimum PBLs 8)Alternative MM5 Configuration 9)Aerosol Mass Conservation 10)SAPRC-99 Chemistry 11)CB-2002 Chemistry 12)CMAQ–AIM Aerosol Module 13) CAMx Air Quality Model

12. CMAQ Sensitivity Tests (cont.) Some sensitivities performed with August 2003 pre- release version of CMAQ and some done with official September 2003 release –Benchmark comparison showed minimal differences Evaluated sensitivity case against a basecase reference –Sensitivity run may become new basecase for comparison of future sensitivity runs All sensitivities performed on 36 km grid –Subset of sensitivities performed on 12 km grid Most sensitivities will be performed on all three episodes –Some on just the winter episode and a summer episode

13. Criteria for Selecting Final Model Configuration Model performance evaluation –Speciated Fine PM concentrations Weekly average (CASTNET) Daily average (IMPROVE, STN, SEARCH) Hourly (SEARCH, PM Supersites) –Gaseous concentrations (AQS, PAMS) –Wet Deposition mass fluxes and concentrations (NADP) Scientific acceptability Computational resources

14. Air Quality Modeling Running CMAQ (v4.3) using Initial Model Configuration presented earlier First January 2002 simulation started on 08/22/03 –Running on 12 Linux ~1.7 GHz CPUs in parallel. 36 km grid (~1 hour elapsed time/model day) 12 km grid (~12 hours elapsed time/model day) –Have performed 11 CMAQ sensitivity experiments on the 36 km grid CMAQ version comparison (pre-release vs. official release) First July 1999 simulation started on 09/18/03 –Have performed initial CMAQ simulation (36 km) –Currently running CMAQ sensitivity experiments on the 36 km grid First July 2001 simulation started in early November.

15. Summary of Model Performance January 2002 Episode –Sulfate, Elemental Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Coarse Mass in the “Ball Park” –Large Nitrate Overestimation Ammonia Emissions (Magnitude and Temporal Distribution)? Dry Deposition? Chemistry? Nighttime Mixing? Others? –Large Soil (PMFINE) Overestimation Emissions (Magnitude and Speciation)? Mixing (PBL Heights)? Others? July 1999 Episode –Sulfate, Elemental Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Coarse Mass in the “Ball Park” –Nitrate Underestimation –Soil (PMFINE) Overestimation

16. Fugitive Dust Transport Factor FDTF=0.25 vs. FDTF=1.00 IMPROVE Soils IMPROVE CM

17. Coarse Mass at GRSM IMPROVE Observations, FDTF=1.0, FDTF=0.25

18. Soils at GRSM IMPROVE Observations, FDTF=1.0, FDTF=0.25

19. Fugitive Dust Transport Factor July 1999 Episode (FDTF=0.05) IMPROVE Soils IMPROVE CM

20. Soils Evaluation Composition of IMPROVE and CMAQ “Soils” –IMPROVE Soils = 2.2[Al] + 2.49[Si] + 1.63[Ca] + 2.42[Fe] + 1.94[Ti] –CMAQ: As + Br + Ca + Chl + Cl + Cr + Cu + K + Mg + Mn + Mo + N2 + Na + Ni + P + Rb + Se + Si + Sr + V + Zn + Zr + IMPROVE Soils + misclassified EC, OC, SO4, and NO3 Misclassification of emissions from large source categories into PMFINE –Fires, Fuel Combustion, Industrial Processes, Fugitive Dust –e.g., Forest Wildfires: total (SCC=2810001000) in Alabama PMFINE = 71.80 tons/day PEC=0, POA=0, PNO3=0, and PSO4=0 –Fugitive Dust = 27% of PMFINE in VISTAS states CMAQ “soils” may contain as much as 80% mass that should not be included in the comparison to IMPROVE “soils” Mixing (PBL heights)?

21. CMAQ Vertical Layers 34 Layers vs. 19 Layers IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

22. CMAQ Vertical Layers 34 Layers vs. 19 Layers IMPROVE OC IMPROVE EC

23. Vertical Diffusivity – Kz_min Decreasing Kz_min  decreases mixing –Important at nighttime CMAQ = 1.0 m 2 /s REMSAD = 0.1 m 2 /s CAMx = 0.1 m 2 /s or variable (0.1 – 1.0 m 2 /s depending on land cover) Kz_min = 1.0 m 2 /s vs. Kz_min = 0.1 m 2 /s

24. Vertical Diffusivity Kz_min=1.0 vs. Kz_min=0.1 IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

25. Vertical Diffusivity Kz_min=1.0 vs. Kz_min=0.1 IMPROVE OC IMPROVE EC

26. Vertical Diffusivity Kz_min=1.0 vs. Kz_min=0.1 IMPROVE CM IMPROVE Soils

27. Ammonia Emissions NH3=50% vs. NH3=100% IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

28. Ammonia Emissions NH3=50%(40/90) vs. NH3=50% IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

29. Boundary Conditions Global Chemical Transport Model –GEOS-CHEM run by Daniel Jacob at Harvard 2001 seasonal (3 month) average concentrations for speciated PM and some gaseous species SO2, O3, HNO3, H2O2, NH3, ASO4J, ASO4I GEOS-CHEM sulfate was assumed to be 90% aitken and 10% accumulation mode (similar to CMAQ defaults) May Examine “Ultra-Clean” BCs

30. Boundary Conditions GEOS-CHEM vs. EPA/TVA* IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

31. Boundary Layer Heights Large PBL “holes” produced by MM5 –PBL < 50 m in mid afternoon Set Minimum PBLs –Diurnal Kz profiles adjusted to simulate mixing in areas with PBL “holes” Nighttime min.Daytime min. Winter 109 m (layer 3)294 m (layer 6) Summer 109 m (layer 3) 1071 m (layer 12)

32. PBL Height @ 3pm EST (01/05/02)

33. Boundary Layer Heights PBL_MM5 vs. PBL_min IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

34. Boundary Layer Heights PBL_MM5 vs. PBL_min IMPROVE OC IMPROVE EC

35. Boundary Layer Heights PBL_MM5 vs. PBL_min IMPROVE Soils IMPROVE CM

36. Alternative MM5 Meteorology Dry Deposition Scheme –P-X vs. Wesley Alternative MM5 –P-X vs. NOAH-ETA-MY Emissions were NOT reprocessed

37. Dry Deposition Scheme P-X vs. Wesley IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

38. MM5 Meteorology P-X vs. NOAH-ETA-MY IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

39. MM5 Meteorology P-X vs. NOAH-ETA-MY IMPROVE OC IMPROVE EC

40. MM5 Meteorology P-X vs. NOAH-ETA-MY IMPROVE Soils IMPROVE CM

41. Additional Sensitivities Aerosol Mass Conservation –Sulfate, Oxidized Nitrogen, Reduced Nitrogen –Georgia Tech “patch” SAPRC-99 Chemistry Reprocess Emissions CB4-2002 Chemistry Reprocess Emissions CMAQ - AIM Sectional Approach Reprocess PM emissions CAMx Sensitivity Using same IC/BCs, emissions, and a model configuration as close as possible to the optimal CMAQ configuration

42. Current Status of Sensitivity Schedule (January 2002 Episode) Name Run Stat Grid (km) Num Vert Lays Kz Min (m2/s) Fug Trans Fract NH3 Emis Red NH3 Profile Mex Can Emis Min PBL BCs Global Model Wesl Dry Dep MM5 ETA MY Aero Mass Cons TF=1.00 C36190.11.00-------- 34 Lays C36340.11.00-------- TF=0.25 C36190.10.25-------- Kz=1.0 C36191.00.25-------- NH3=50 C36190.10.2550%------- 12 km C12190.10.2550%------- NH3 Prof C36190.10.2550%Yes------ MX/CA C36190.10.2550%-Yes----- PBL C36190.10.2550%-Yes ---- GEOS C36190.10.2550%-Yes- --- Wesley C36190.10.2550%-Yes- -- ETA-MYC36190.10.2550%-Yes- - AERO P36190.10.2550%-Yes- -- Sens 12 P36190.10.2550%NoYesY/NYesY/N * Additional testing to follow: 12 km grid, SAPRC-99, CB-2002, CMAQ-AIM, CAMx

43. Fractional Bias (%) - IMPROVE (January 2002 Episode) NamePM 2.5SO4NO3NH4OCECSoilsCMbext TF=1.00 93.45.0118.469.529.429.9184.4129.247.4 34 Lays 91.41.8118.367.327.428.4183.9127.946.2 TF=0.25 79.03.7115.566.311.120.2174.51.517.5 Kz=1.0 68.8-1.4111.963.7-17.0-6.7168.3-4.70.1 NH3=50 62.6-5.375.132.611.420.6174.61.517.7 12 km --------- NH3 Prof 61.6-4.767.929.311.420.6174.6-13.717.7 MX/CA 58.3-6.464.626.28.318.2174.1-7.329.6 PBL 44.1-11.659.521.0-19.3-8.9167.8-7.321.3 GEOS 49.9-27.853.29.86.118.1174.1-7.318.1 Wesley 67.8-6.095.747.76.817.8174.0-7.343.3 ETA-MY 55.845.641.025.9-9.83.5168.5-14.232.1 AERO --------- Sens 12 ---------

44. Fractional Error (%) - IMPROVE (January 2002 Episode) NamePM 2.5SO4NO3NH4OCECSoilsCMbext TF=1.00 993713985515718414053 34 Lays 983614084515718413952 TF=0.25 86371378346541756029 Kz=1.0 78371368141441685821 NH3=50 71391126146541756029 12 km --------- NH3 Prof 70391135946541756029 MX/CA 67381105845531746041 PBL 56391095542431685936 GEOS 60471025444531746036 Wesley 76431227044531746052 ETA-MY 6659846143531696144 AERO --------- Sens 12 ---------

45. Aug 2003: Emissions Inventory Base 2002 Dec 2003: Revised Em Inv Base 2002 Dec 2003: Modeling Protocol Mar 2004: Draft Em Inv 2018 July 2004: Revised State Em Inv Base 2002 Sept 2004: Annual Base Year Model Runs Dec 2004: Annual Run 2018 Apr 2004: DDM in CMAQ Oct 2004: Sensitivity Runs 2018 3 episodes Nov 2003: Met, Em, AQ model testing 3 episodes Sept 2004: Revised Em Inv 2018 Oct-Dec 2004: Control Strategy Inventories Jan 2005: Sensitivity Runs 2018 episodes Jan-Jun 2005: Control Strategy Runs 2018 Mar 2004: Select sensitivity episodes July-Dec 2005: Observations Conclusions Recommendations After Jun 2005 Model Runs: e.g. Power Plant Turnover Before Jun 2005 Other Inventory: e.g. Power Plant Turnover VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Deliverables State Regulatory Activities Jan-Mar 2004 Define BART sources Optional June 2004 Identify BART controls Draft 08/18/03

46. Phase II Modeling Plans Annual (12 month) simulations to support regional haze SIP development –Will be modeling entire year of 2002 plus specific episodes in 2003 Emissions and Air Quality Modeling –AQ Modeling with Actual Baseyear Emissions (delivery Sept. 2004) Model Performance Evaluation –AQ Modeling with “Typical” Baseyear Emissions (delivery Sept. 2004) Same assumptions for Seasonal Distributions as Projected Future Year Emissions (Point Sources, Fires, etc.)  RRF –AQ Modeling with Future Year (2018) Emissions (delivery Dec. 2004) –AQ Modeling with Future Year (2018) Control Strategies (delivery June 2005) Final Report (delivery date December 2005)

47. Aug 2003: Emissions Inventory Base 2002 Dec 2003: Revised Em Inv Base 2002 Dec 2003: Modeling Protocol Mar 2004: Draft Em Inv 2018 July 2004: Revised State Em Inv Base 2002 Sept 2004: Annual Base Year Model Runs Dec 2004: Annual Run 2018 Apr 2004: DDM in CMAQ Oct 2004: Sensitivity Runs 2018 3 episodes Nov 2003: Met, Em, AQ model testing 3 episodes Sept 2004: Revised Em Inv 2018 Oct-Dec 2004: Control Strategy Inventories Jan 2005: Sensitivity Runs 2018 episodes Jan-Jun 2005: Control Strategy Runs 2018 Mar 2004: Select sensitivity episodes July-Dec 2005: Observations Conclusions Recommendations After Jun 2005 Model Runs: e.g. Power Plant Turnover Before Jun 2005 Other Inventory: e.g. Power Plant Turnover VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Deliverables State Regulatory Activities Jan-Mar 2004 Define BART sources Optional June 2004 Identify BART controls Draft 08/18/03