360 likes | 380 Views
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results. Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp.com Presented at: Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting San Francisco, California June 3, 2003.
E N D
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC)Preliminary Fire Modeling Results Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) rmorris@environcorp.com Presented at: Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting San Francisco, California June 3, 2003 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) • University of California at Riverside (UCR) • Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Jung Chien, etc. • Host RMC, CMAQ Modeling, Analysis • ENVIRON International Corporation • Ralph Morris, Gerry Mansell, Steve Lau, etc. • Interpretation of Results, MM5 & REMSAD Modeling • UNC Carolina Environmental Program (MCNC) • SMOKE Emissions Modeling • WRAP Modeling Forum Co-Chairs • John Vimont (NPS), Mary Uhl (NM), Kevin Briggs (CO) • WRAP Technical Coordinators • Tom Moore and Lee Alter Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Content of Today’s Talk • Overview of WRAP Objectives • Overview of Visibility Calculations • WRAP §309 SIP/TIP Modeling Approach • CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation • Use of Modeling Results to Project Future-Year Visibility • Fire Management Practice Modeling • Glide Path Slopes toward Natural Visibility Conditions • Estimated 2018 Visibility Progress for §309 Scenarios • Scenario #1: P2 + Annex + BSM • Scenario #2: P2 + Annex + OSM Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP Visibility Objectives • §309 SIP/TIP due 2003 • 9 “Grand Canyon” states may opt-in (AZ, CA, CO, ID, NV, NM. OR, UT, and WY). • Focus on 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau • §308 SIP/TIP due 2008 • 2000-2004 visibility baseline • 2018 end of first planning period • Show progress toward natural visibility conditions by 2064 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Section 309 SIP/TIP Modeling Requirements • Demonstrate that SO2 Annex Milestone control strategy is better than BART with Uncertainty • Analyze “significance” of Mobile Source and Road Dust at 16 Class I Areas • Estimate visibility improvements in 2018 due to §309 All Control Strategy • Evaluate PM/NOx point source controls • Evaluate alternative fire management practices Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP §309 Modeling Approach • 1996 Baseline Modeling Period • 36-km Grid Covering Western US • SMOKE emissions modeling system using emissions provided by WRAP and EPA • Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system • REMSAD model dropped from §309 modeling due to time/resource constraints Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Components of Light Extinction • Light scattering and absorption • SO4 sulfate, ammonium sulfate SO4(NH4)2 • NO3 nitrate, ammonium nitrate NO3NH4 • OC organic compound/organic matter OC, OM, SOA • EC elemental carbon Soot • PMF other fine particulates (<2.5) Soil • PMC coarse PM (2.5 - 10) PM2.5-10 • NO2 absorption considered a plume blight issue and not typically accounted for in regional haze assessments Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Components of Light Extinction (continued) • Associated with each species is an “extinction coefficient” that converts concentration (g/m3) to light extinction (Mm-1) • Total visibility impairment is obtained as the sum of extinction due to each species: Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP Visibility Modeling (continued) • CMAQ 1996 Annual Runs • ~ 110 Gb of emission inputs • ~ 130 GB of other inputs • ~ 365 Gb of output • Initially annual simulations required 2 weeks • Multiprocessing allows runs to be completed in as little as 3 days • Challenge is processing 365 Gb of output into regulatory relevant results Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP Visibility Modeling (continued) • SMOKE emissions modeling becomes bottleneck • SMOKE QA/QC did not catch all errors in processing • Errors in treating holidays as weekdays • Many 2018 scenarios errors in allocating elevated sources dropped emissions • OSM vs BSM errors not caught • Interpretation of results requires matching runs in a consistent fashion (i.e., with common errors) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
WRAP CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation • ~30 IMPROVE sites in western US • Issues in matching monitored species with modeled species • Reconstructed Mass Equations • Actual Species • How to display results to convey performance • WRAP RMC website has 100s of scatterplots and time series plots by site, by day, by month: • http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/rmc/models/index.shtml Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
1996 CMAQ Model Performance Issues • Nitrate overprediction bias especially in Winter and Spring/Fall • Ammonia emissions overstated under cold conditions • 2003 project to improve ammonia emissions • Deposition of ammonia and nitrate underestimated • June 2002 CMAQ release new heterogeneous nitrate formation • Exacerbated nitrate overprediction bias Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
1996 CMAQ Model Performance Issues • Some skill in sulfate estimates • EC, OC, and especially Soil highly scattered • Coarse Matter (CM) greatly underestimated • Missing local (subgrid-scale) impacts • Missing wind blown fugitive dust • 2003 project to develop wind blown dust inventory • Relatively better model performance is exhibited at sites on the Colorado Plateau and in the summer months when the Worst 20% days occur Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Projecting Future-Year Visibility • Follow EPA draft guidance for projecting future-year visibility (EPA, 2001a,b,c) • Use model in a relative fashion to scale the current (1996) observed visibility for the Best 20% and Worst 20% days based on the ratio of the 2018 to 1996 modeling results • Relative Reductions Factors (RRFs) • Class I Area specific • Specific for each component of light extinction (SO4, NO3, EC, OC, Soil, and CM) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Projecting Future-Year Visibility • Accounting for missing fugitive dust emissions • No wind blown fugitive dust in inventory • Major component of observed Soil and CM • Model estimated RRFs for Soil and CM are in error • Set RRFs for Soil and CM to unity • RRF(Soil) = RRF(CM) = 1.0 • Assumes 2018 Soil and CM concentrations are the same as 1996 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Glide Path Slope Values to Natural Visibility Conditions (NVC) • 2000-2004 Observed Baseline Visibility Conditions (Anchors Glide Path Slope) • Worst 20% Days: Progress toward Natural Visibility Conditions in 2064 with Planning Periods ending at 2018, 2028, 2038, 2048, 2058, and 2064 • Best 20% Days: No Degradation in Visibility • Glide Path Slope Values assumes linear progress to Natural Visibility Conditions in 2064 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Preliminary Glide Path Slope Values to NVC • Use most current five-years of observed visibility to anchor Glide Path 2004 starting point for Worst 20% average visibility • 1995-1999 used in preliminary analysis • Soon to be updated with 1997-2001 data • Map Observed Visibility Conditions from Class I Areas with IMPROVE Monitoring to Nearby Similar Unmonitored Class I Areas • Use current EPA draft guidance for natural visibility conditions (NVC) for worst days (EPA, 2001) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Mapping of IMPROVE Data to Class I Areas Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Preliminary Glide Path Estimates • Using Preliminary 1995-1999 Observed Data • Will soon update to 1997-2001 observations • Based on Current EPA Draft Guidance for Natural Visibility Conditions and f(RH) Values (EPA, 2001) • Revised Draft EPA Guidance expected soon • New f(RH) values are generally slightly lower • Have updated Glide Path Slope Value plots with new (2001) information Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
Projecting 2018 Visibility Improvements • Use relative changes in modeling results between 1996 and 2018 for average of Worst 20% (Best 20%) days to scale visibility baseline (1995-1999 observed visibility) • Effects of changes in Soil and CM not accounted for [RRF(Soil) = RRF(CM) = 1.0] • 2018 Projections for 2018 §309 All Control Strategies Scenario Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
2018 §309 All Control Strategy Scenarios#1 • Area, Road Dust, Off-Road, On-Road Emissions • 2018 Base Case Conditions • Biogenic Emissions • 1996 Base Case Conditions • “Typical year” Wildfires Base Case • Point Sources • SO2 Annex Milestones + Pollution Prevention) • Agricultural and Forest/Range Prescribed Fires • Scenario#1: Base Smoke Management (BSM) • Scenario#2: Optimal Smoke Management (OSM) • Example Emission Difference Plots for EC • Scenario#1 – Scenario#2 (BSM-OSM) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
(BSM-OSM) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
2018 Reasonable Progress Plots • 2018 Reasonable Progress Target Based on Preliminary Information • 1994-1999 Observed Visibility • Preliminary f(RH) and Natural Conditions • Straight Line Projection from 2004 to 2064 • BSM Versus OSM Scenarios • Potential error in OSM scenario with daily emissions sometimes higher than BSM Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt
BSM Versus OSM Results • OSM Emissions Sometimes Higher Than BSM • Results in worsening in visibility if occurs during a day from the Worst 20% days • Need to Develop New OSM Emissions Inventory? • UNC/CEP emissions development delayed by lack of 2003 contract • Additional Fire Management Scenarios to be Modeled? Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt