1 / 36

Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp

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.

maddy
Download Presentation

Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) rmorris@environcorp

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Mapping of IMPROVE Data to Class I Areas Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  20. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 2018 §309 All Control Strategy Scenarios#1&#2 • 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

  24. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  25. (BSM-OSM) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  26. 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

  27. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  28. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  29. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  30. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  31. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  32. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  33. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  34. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  35. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  36. 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

More Related