Regional Modeling Center Project Update

TAF Meeting, Boise, ID, May 2007

Regional Modeling Center Project Update

May 22, 2007

Gail Tonnesen, University of California, Riverside

Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Corporation Int., Novato, CA

Zac Adelman, University of North Carolina

WRAP Technical Analysis Forum Meeting, Boise, Idaho


Topics

• Review of RMC 2007 Work plan

• Progress on PRP 2018 Case

• Data Archiving Plan

• BART Modeling Status

• Possible Future Work


2006 Tasks Deferred• Several emissions and visibility modeling tasks from

2006 were deferred, funds carried over:– emissions processing: $28,500 remaining– visibility modeling: $43,000 remaining– Alaska BART Modeling: $5,000 remaining

• Cost overruns on several tasks including: – BART CALPUFF Modeling (Substantial)– Fire emissions sensitivity studies– Tech Support and Data Transfer– Project administration, conference calls, travel

• Carry over from 2006 was $43,424.


2007 Work Plan

• Emissions processing with SMOKE:– 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP):

$14,672 for emisions.– Two emissions sensitivity cases: approx $6,400 each

(cost will depend on type of sensitivity)

• Visibility modeling using CMAQ:– budget of $6,000 per run, includes techinal memo

with analysis of results: $18,000.

• BART modeling: $8,000 is mostly spent.


2007 Work Plan (continued)

• Data transfer/support: $12,2410

• Data archiving: $13,141

• Computer & website and hard disks: $9,100

• Project administration, conf calls, travel: $49,000

• Total proposed budget for 2007: $132,630


New RMC Contract in 2007• Closed out old RMC contract as of 3/31/07

– 6 year, $3.6 million contract: UCR, ENVIRON, UNC– simplifies accounting and project management.

• Processing new contract, backdated to April 1.– Significantly reduced budget and scope of work.– UC aggreed to waive overhead on sub-contracts.– Expect to receive contract from WGA this week.– After processing contract, UCR will issue sub-contracts

to ENVIRON and UCR (in mid June?)


Preliminary Reasonable Progress 2018

• Emissions processing in progress:– version PRP18a– includes updates in point, area, selected mobile

categories, and oil & gas.– model ready emissions should be complete by end

of May.– QA of PRP18a emissions in early June.

• CMAQ modeling to be completed in mid June


PRP18a Emissions• Built off simulation Base2018b• Over the past 3-4 months the RMC collected updated emissions data for

2018 and made corrections to existing data• Changes in several sectors to correct mistakes and include new inventories:

• WRAP, MRPO, VISTAS, MANE- VU on-road mobile

• All US non-road mobile

• CENRAP/MRPO ammonia

• All US stationary area

• All US road dust

• All US Fugitive dust

• Gulf of Mexico offshore area

• Gulf of Mexico/Atlantic commercial shipping

• WRAP oil and gas

• CENRAP, VISTAS point fires

• All US stationary point

• All Canadian and Mexican sources


PRP18a EmissionsWRAP On-road mobile corrections

• WRAP on-road mobile inventories contain pre-speciated PM (i.e. SO4, EC, OC, PMC) as both pollutant totals and as pollutants by mobile emissions process (i.e. PEC from exhaust, POA from evaporative, etc.)

• Including both the total PM and process-based values led to errors in these emissions for WRAP on-road mobile sources.

WRAP Total On-road Mobile PM EmissionsBase2018 and PRP2018

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

PMC PEC POA PNO3 PSO4 PMFINE

ton

s/yr

Base18a

PRP18a



Differences between annual PRP18a and Base2018b WRAP on-road mobile emissions



State

PMC

PEC

POA

PSO4 PMFINE

AZ 0% -40% -17% 0% -100%

CA 0% -49% -45% 0% -100%

CO 0% -40% -18% 0% -100%

ID 0% -40% -19% 0% -100%

MT 0% -41% -18% 0% -100%

NV 0% -37% -21% 0% -100%

NM 0% -40% -17% 0% -100%

ND 0% -40% -18% 0% -100%

OR 0% -41% -19% 0% -100%

SD 0% -40% -17% 0% -100%

UT 0% -39% -18% 0% -100%

WA 0% -40% -18% 0% -100%

WY 0% -41% -16% 0% -100%

On-road mobile annual PM2.5 % differences Base2018b vs. PRP18a

Base2018b PM2.5 Annual Emissions by Source


PRP18a Emissionsnon-WRAP On-road mobile corrections

• VISTAS, MANE-VU, and MRPO inventory updates

• Canada 2020 inventory and Mexico Phase III 1999 inventory

Differences between annual PRP18a and Base2018b non-WRAP on-road mobile emissions


PRP18a EmissionsNon-road mobile changes

• Updates to all inventories outside of the WRAP region

Differences between annual PRP18a and Base2018b non-road mobile emissions


PRP18a EmissionsRoad dust changes and corrections

• During the application of revised PM10/PM2.5 splits, erroneously dropped the PM2.5 fields for road dust

• Resulted in assigning all dust to coarse PM and missing the PMFINE component of the dust emissions

WRAP Total Road Dust PM Emissions Base2018 and PRP2018

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

PMC PEC POA PNO3 PSO4 PMFINE

tons

/yr

Base18aPRP18a

Annual Road Dust PM Emissions by WRAP StateBase2018b and PRP18a

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

AZCACOID

MTNVNMNDORSDUTW

WY

tons/yr

PMC b18bPMC prp18aPMFINE b18bPMFINE prp18a



Base 2018b with road dust error

PM2.5 Annual Emissions by Source

Base 2018b with corrected road dust



• Road dust removed from the Phase III Mexican inventories

• New 2020 Canadian inventories

Differences between annual PRP18a and Base2018b road dust emissions


PRP18a EmissionsOffshore Commercial Shipping

• Adding shipping lane emissions in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic

Annual PRP18a commercial shipping emissions


PRP18a EmissionsGulf of Mexico offshore area sources

• Removed shipping lane emissions to avoid double counting with the gridded commercial shipping inventory

Differences between annual PRP18a and Base2018b Gulf of Mexico offshore area emissions


PRP18a EmissionsCanada and Mexico Updates

• Moved from 2000 to 2020 Canadian inventories for all emissions source categories in PRP18a

• Phase III Mexico inventory for stationary area, nonroad, onroad, and point sources– Updates to the emissions in the six

Northern Mexican states

– Includes all of Mexico

• Updates to the spatial allocation information for allocating the Mexican emissions to modeling grids


Characteristics of the MNEI, 1999

• Coverage– States (32)– Municipal (2,443)

• Sources (#SCC’s)– Point (28)– Area (46)– On road mobile (7)– Nonroad (2)– Natural sources (2)

• Pollutants– CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5, VOC

and NH3

• 20 spatial surrogates– Improvement over the 5 surrogates

previously used

Emissions by type of anthropogenic source MNEI-1999

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NOX

SOX

COV

CO

PM10

Po

llu

tan

t

Porcentaje de contribuciónPoint sources Area sources

Onroad sources Nonroad sources


PRP18a Emissions• Currently working on modeling the PRP2018 WRAP point, area,

and oil & gas inventories received last week.

• The fugitive and road dust inventories require the application of revised PM10/PM2.5 splits and transport factors before these data can be modeled.

• As these emissions are modeled through SMOKE, QA/QC plots will be posted on the RMC website.

• QC of the emissions focuses on picking out expected trends in the results based on known changes and looking for unexpected trends that may reveal errors in the data/processing.

• Expect to merge all sources to create the final PRP18a CMAQ-ready emissions by the week of May 28.


Data Archiving Plan

• Complete copy of all key input data and scripts will be stored at two sites.

• Data archive planning document describes data to be archive.

• Hard disks will be use to store and distribute data – some data available now, other disks will be prepared when current modeling is complete.


WRAP RMC BART Modeling

• 7 WRAP States Requested RMC BART CALPUFF Modeling Assistance– AK, AZ, MT, NM, NV, SD and UT

• Set up Webpage where Data and Information can be obtained:– www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart.shtml

• WRAP RMC Modeling Protocol– Numerous revisions starting February 2006– Final version dated August 15, 2006– www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/

WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf


WRAP BART CALPUFF Modeling Status – May 2007

• All inputs posted – Major CALPUFF rerun in April.

• AZ: 6 revisions to date,14 sources -- Just received new emissions for one source.

• MT: 2 revisions, provided to EPA Region 8.

• NM: 5 revisions, 11 sources – completed/posted.

• NV: 7 revisions, 6 sources – completed and posted.

• SD: 4 revisions, 2 sources – currently EPA Reg 7 running one source using CAMx due to long distances.

• UT: 6 revisions, 2 sources – pre- and post-control runs done, not posted.


MM5 Windowed Processing Domains


-1900 -1800 -1700 -1600 -1500 -1400 -1300 -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800-900

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

agti

anad

arch

band

blca

bosq

brca

cany

care

chir

cuca

dola

gali

g ila

grca

jom u

jotr

kaiskica

laga

m abe

m aza

m eve

m oba

peco

pefo

pim o

saga

sago

sagu

saja

sape

sequ

sian

supe

syca

weel

wem i

whm o

yose

zion

-1300 -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600-900

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

arch

band

blca

bosq

brca

canycare

cave

chir

gali

g ila

grca

grsa

gum o

laga

m abe

m aza

m eve

m oba

peco

pefo

pim o

sacr

sagu

sape

sian

supe

syca

w eel

w em i

w hm o

w hpe

-1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Hunter 1 & 2

Huntington 3 & 4arch

brca

brid

canycare

crmo

eane

fitz

fito

grca

grte

jarb

laga

mabe

maza

meve

mozi

noab

pefopimo

redr

sape

sawt

syca

tetowash

weel

wemi

yell

zion

blca

Example CALMET/CALPUFF Modeling Domains: Arizona,

New Mexico and Utah showing sources (red dots) and Class I

area receptors (green)


April 2007 Modeling Revision

• Error found in CALPUFF reading emission inputs (limited to 132 characters – card reader), potential incorrect primary PM emission inputs

• Took opportunity to update two other aspects of CALMET/CALPUFF modeling– Increase maximum mixing height from EPA-default 3,000 m

AGL to 4,500 m AGL as in Protocol

– Post-processing CALPUFF output with POSTUTIL prior to calculating visibility impacts using CALPOST

• Corrects potential “double counting” of background ammonia

• Note that CALPUFF assumption of spatially and temporally invariant constant background highly suspect


New Mexico Example

• 11 potential BART-eligible sources

• Preliminary modeling indicated 10 did not contribute significantly to visibility impairment (change in dv < 0.5 dv)

• One source (PNM San Juan w/ 36,000 TPY SO2 and 39,000 TPY NOx) did contribute significantly


Preliminary (pre-April revision) NM SRC02 PNM SJ 6 highest visibility impacts at Class I areas within

300 km of source.

Max 3-Yr Avg 98th percentile del-dv = 8 dv

Revised Max 3-Yr Avg 98th del-dv = 5 dv

Differences mainly due to use of POSTUTIL; other sources exhibit very small changes

NM SRC02 Unit # 350450902, PNM SJ #1-4: SO2 = 35,735 TPY; NOx = 38,763 TPY; PM = 3,884 TPY Annual Average Natural Conditions Class I Area with at least 1 receptor within 300 km of source

Minimum Distance 98th Percentile for Each Year 98th

Class I Area (km) 2001 2002 2003 3 year AVG

Mesa Verde NP 40 7.527 9.458 7.67 8.218 Weminuche Wilderness 98 2.449 3.248 2.589 2.762 San Pedro Parks Wilderness 155 3.393 4.71 3.974 4.026 La Garita Wilderness 169 1.556 1.876 1.866 1.766 Canyonlands NP 170 8.227 4.795 5.125 6.049 Black Canyon Gunnison NM 203 2.336 2.519 2.709 2.521 Bandelier NM 210 2.259 3.64 3.313 3.071 Petrified Forest NP 213 1.549 1.259 1.001 1.27 West Elk Wilderness 216 1.999 2.208 2.228 2.145 Arches NP 222 5.227 4.42 4.685 4.777 Capitol Reef NP 232 4.333 1.975 2.515 2.941 Pecos Wilderness 248 2.074 2.717 2.682 2.491 Wheeler Peak Wilderness 258 1.959 1.719 1.812 1.83 Great Sand Dunes NM 269 1.435 1.56 1.67 1.555 Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA 271 1.145 1.257 1.024 1.142 Grand Canyon NP 285 2.149 1.586 1.126 1.62


WRAP RMC BART Webpage

• Modeling Protocol

• CALMM5 Input Data.

• CALMET Inputs.

• CALPUFF Inputs.

• CALPOST Inputs.

• Summary Results for AK, NM and NV.

• Results for other states forthcoming.

• CALMET/CALPUFF downloaded by several contractors:– BART and PSD/NSR

modeling.

– Numerous requests for help in running CALPUFF.

– WRAP RMC BART resources more than expended.


Next Steps: WRAP BART CALPUFF

• Rerun final AZ sources with revised SO2 emissions for SRC02.

• MT being reviewed by EPA Region 8 (preliminary results posted).

• SD eastern BART source being evaluated by CAMx due to long source-receptor distances (waiting for results from EPA Region 7).

• AK, MT, NM and NV results posted.

• Waiting for permission from other states to post results.

• All WRAP RMC CALPUFF BART modeling completed in May 2007.


EPA Final Modeling Guidance

• Summarized in PPT file from April 17, 2007.• Includes guidance on NAAQS for:

– 8 hour average ozone– Annual and 24 hour average PM2.5– Regional haze– unmonitored area and local area/hot spot guidance.

• Supplemental analyses/weight of evidence.• Mid course review and future modeling.• Required documentation.


Possible Future Work

• RMC team can readily build on existing modeling activities to address other topics:– distribution and fate of mercury.– acid and nitrogen deposition.– 8 hour average ozone, and 24 hr and annual PM2.5.– urban scale modeling with <= 12 km resolution.– regional & global background contributions to

ozone and PM2.5 non-attainment in urban areas.– visibility modeling for other years, e.g., 2005, 2008.

Regional Modeling Center Project Update

Documents

Transcript of Regional Modeling Center Project Update