1 / 25

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region. Marco Rodriguez 1 , Michael Barna 2 , Tom Moore 3 1 CIRA, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 2 National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO 3 Western Regional Air Partnership, Western Governors’ Association, Fort Collins, CO

hxiong
Download Presentation

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region Marco Rodriguez1, Michael Barna2, Tom Moore3 1 CIRA, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 2 National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO 3 Western Regional Air Partnership, Western Governors’ Association, Fort Collins, CO Workshop on Regional Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Studies July 2008 Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

  2. Motivation • Ozone in the Western U.S is becoming an increasing problem in remote areas • Many Class I areas will be confronted with ozone concentrations that are trending towards the EPA's acceptable limits • The growing development of oil and gas extraction operations throughout the West is essential to understand the potentially negative impact on air quality in some of the nation's protected areas

  3. Methodology • CAMx simulations at NPS-CIRA 2002 annual simulations (36 km) • Emissions, meteorology from WRAP-RMC • Model performance Evaluation • Evaluate oil & gas impacts

  4. Methodology • Significant increases in NOx and VOC for oil and gas development in WRAP region • largest emission increases in NM, CO, UT, WY • To evaluate contribution to regional air pollution (e.g., ozone and fine nitrate PM) from O&G, consider two CAMx simulations • base emissions • base emissions minus O&G • run SMOKE’s MRGGRID to combine all base02 emission categories except O&G

  5. Methodology • The difference between these two runs represents the impact of O&G emissions • Results reflect an ‘emissions sensitivity test’, not a true source apportionment (CAMx’s OSAT better suited for that analysis)

  6. Emissions from oil and gas in WRAP region NOx VOC Oil and gas emissions within WRAP: NOx: 125,000 tons/yr (3% of total) VOC: 363,000 tons/yr (2% of total)

  7. CAMx Simulation

  8. Model Performance Evaluation • Evaluation relies on Mean Fractional Bias (MFB) and Mean Fractional Error (MFE) estimates • MFB and MFE “Bugle Plots” • MFB and MFE Spatial distributions

  9. Ozone error and bias for all WRAP fractional error fractional bias

  10. Ozone performance stats for all WRAP

  11. NO3 error and bias for all WRAP fractional error fractional bias

  12. Annual Spatial Distribution SO4 Fractional Bias SO4 Fractional Error

  13. Annual Spatial Distribution NO3Fractional Bias NO3Fractional Error

  14. Annual Spatial Distribution NH4Fractional Bias NH4Fractional Error

  15. Example summertime ozone6 August 2002 Mesa Verde NP: 65 ppb max hourly concentration

  16. Ozone at Mesa Verde fractional error fractional bias

  17. Example ozone increase from O&G emissions, 6 August 2002

  18. Ozone enhancements at Mesa Verde from O&G July – August 2002 August 6

  19. Ozone max. 8hr average in 2002 Concentrations Base case Concentrations O&G impacts

  20. Ozone max. 8hr average O&G impacts Concentrations O&G impacts Concentrations Base case

  21. Ozone enhancements - Time Series O&G enhancement Base Case

  22. Summary • Acceptable ozone performance in WRAP • 47 ppb (observed) vs. 44 ppb (predicted) • fractional error: 0.23, fractional bias -0.06 • biases • overpredict: fall through spring • underpredict: summer • low concentrations are overestimated

  23. Summary (cont’d) • Nitrate performance not as good, but falls within bugle plot limits • wintertime overpredictions, summertime underpredictions • Largest impacts from O&G emissions on regional ozone occur in Four Corners • at Mesa Verde NP on 6 August 2002 • 8 ppb ozone enhancement • peak ozone concentrations of 65 ppb

  24. Summary (cont’d) Limitations of this work: • O&G emissions inventory has undergone several updates from the one used here • No effects in CO because O&G emissions in phase I were accounted in the area emissions not O&G emissions • Study does not provide information about the contributing sources (need for OSAT simulations)

  25. Acknowledgments Western Regional Air Partnership • Tom Moore • Mohammad Omary UNC-Chapel Hill, Carolina Environmental Program • Zac Adelman ENVIRON International Corporation • Ralph Morris • Chris Emery

More Related