Air Quality Modeling for VISTAS
James W. Boylan, Ph.D.Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(VISTAS Technical Lead for Air Quality Modeling)
2005 EPA Region 4 Modelers WorkshopAtlanta, GA
March 10, 2005
Outline
• Background• VISTAS Phase I Modeling
– CMAQ Sensitivity Tests– Emissions Sensitivity Analysis
• VISTAS Phase II Modeling– Annual Simulations
• PM2.5 and Ozone Modeling• VISTAS Web Links
Background
RPOs: created by EPA to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze at federally mandated Class I areas.
VISTAS Organization• John Hornback (SESARM) – Executive
Director• Coordinating Committee
– VISTAS State Air Directors
• Workgroups– Data, Planning, and Technical Analysis Workgroups
• Workgroup Participants– VISTAS State Governments
• AL, GA, MS, FL, NC, SC, TN, KY, VA, WV– Tribal Governments
• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians– Federal Agencies
•EPA and FLMs– Industry
• Regional haze is the impairment of visibility caused by the presence of particulate matter in the atmosphere that scatter and absorb light
• Visibility is a measure of the clearness of the atmosphere– Light Extinction (bext)
• bext (Mm-1) = 3*f(RH)*[SO4] + 3*f(RH)*[NO3] + 4*[ORG] + 10*[EC] + 1*[Soils] + 0.6*[PMC]
+ brayleigh
• brayleigh= 10 Mm-1
– Deciview• dV=10*ln(bext/brayleigh)
Regional Haze
Regional Haze Rule
• Objectives of Regional Haze Rule– Achieve natural (no man-made
impairment) visibility conditions at federal mandated Class I areas by 2064 for worst 20% visibility days
– No worsening in visibility at Class I areas for best 20% visibility days
• First progress SIP due April 5, 2008 demonstrating progress toward natural conditions between 2000-2004 and 2018
Evaluation of Reasonable Progress
• Reasonable Progress must be demonstrated every 10 years
Natural Background
20% Haziest Days
2000 2018 Year 2064
dV
20% Cleanest Days
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/
bext on 20% Haziest Days (2002)
VISTAS Class I Areas
CM
Soil
Organics
EC
NH4NO3
(NH4)2SO4
Rayleigh
0
50
100
150
200
250
Coh
utta
, GA
Sain
t Mar
ks, F
L
Extin
ctio
n (M
m-1
)
Dol
ly S
ods,
WV
Shen
ando
ah, V
A
Jam
es R
vier
Fac
e, V
A
Mam
mot
h C
ave,
KY
Sips
ey, A
L
Gre
at S
mok
y M
tns,
TN
Linv
ille
Gor
ge, N
C
Swan
quar
ter,
NC
Cap
e R
omai
n, S
C
Oke
feno
kee,
GA
Cha
ssah
owitz
ka, F
L
Ever
glad
es, F
L
Shin
ing
Roc
k, N
C
bext on 20% Haziest Days (2000-2002)
Mountain Sites Coastal Sites
VISTAS Modeling Approach• Modeling Systems used by VISTAS
– MM5 for meteorological modeling– SMOKE for emissions modeling– CMAQ for air quality modeling
• Phase I Modeling– Evaluate models for 3 episodes to identify
optimal model configuration for annual modeling
– Preliminary evaluation of emission sensitivities to help develop control strategies
• Phase II Modeling– Perform annual modeling for 2002 and 2018
for use in Regional Haze SIPs
Future year emissions (e.g., 2018)
Compare to Air Quality Goals
Emissions control strategyModeling Complete
Pollutant distributions and sensitivities
Future year (e.g., 2018) emissions with controls
NO YES
Reasonable progress and future year modeling
Air Quality Model Both modeling runs use the same meteorological & air quality inputs
Note:Air Quality Model
Pollutant distribution
Model Performance Evaluation
Base year emissions (e.g., 2002)
Base case modeling
MM5
Meteorological Observations 3-d model predictions Land use, surface elevation, etc
3-D Meteorological Fields (temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, etc)
CMAQ SMOKE
Initial and boundary conditions
Photolysis rates NRM
MOBILE6
TP+
Measured EIEGAS
3-D Pollutant Distributions and 3-D Sensitivities
VISTAS Modeling System
CMAQ is a Grid-Based Model
Si Si
Riui ui
ui
Ki Ki
Ki
iiiii SRcKcut
c
Modeled Mobile NO Emissions
Modeled Wind Vectors
Modeled PM2.5
Phase I CMAQ Sensitivities
Phase I Modeling Overview
• Literature Review• Emissions Modeling for 3 episodes – SMOKE• Air Quality Modeling for 3 episodes – CMAQ
– Perform Model Configuration Sensitivity Tests– Recommend Optimal Model Configuration
• Protocol for Phase II Modeling• Technical Web Site
– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/
Phase I Modeling Details• Air Quality Modeling Team
– Environ International Corporation– University of California – Riverside– Alpine Geophysics, LLC
• Modeling Episodes– January 1 ‑ 20, 2002 (20 episode days + ramp‑up
days)– July 13 ‑ 21, 1999 (9 episode days + ramp‑up days) – July 13 ‑ 27, 2001 (15 episode days + ramp‑up
days)
• Modeling Domain– 36 km grid resolution (149 x 113)– 12 km grid resolution (169 x 178)– 19 vertical layers (collapsed from 34 MM5 layers)
VISTAS 36 km Grid
VISTAS 12 km Grid
Model Performance Evaluation
• Evaluate for each major component of PM– Sulfate (SO4) Nitrate (NO3)– Elemental Carbon (EC) Organic Carbon (OC)– Soil (Other PM2.5) Coarse Mass (CM)
• Evaluate separately across each network– IMPROVE (24-hr speciated PM and PM mass)– CASTNet (Weekly speciated PM, some gas)– STN (24-hr speciated PM)– SEARCH (24-hr and hourly speciated PM/gas)– AQS (Hourly gaseous species: O3, NO2, SO2, CO)– NADP (Weekly wet deposition: SO4, NO3, NH4)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
- 1 6 0 0
- 1 4 0 0
- 1 2 0 0
- 1 0 0 0
- 8 0 0
- 6 0 0
- 4 0 0
- 2 0 0
0
2 0 0
4 0 0
IMPROVE
CASTNET
SEARCH
STN
NADP
AQS
Monitoring Networks
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 Overestimation• Emissions (Magnitude and Speciation)? • Mixing (PBL Heights)? Others?
• July 1999 and July 2001 Episodes– Sulfate, Elemental Carbon, Organic Carbon, and
Coarse Mass in the “Ball Park”– Nitrate Underestimation– Soil Overestimation
1) Fugitive Dust Transport Factor• FDTF=1.0 vs. FDTF=0.25 vs. FDTF=0.05
2) Number of Vertical Layers• NLAYS=34 vs. NLAYS=19
3) Vertical Diffusivity - Minimum Kz • Kz_min=1.0 vs. Kz_min=0.1
4) Ammonia Emissions (Winter Episode)• 0% Reduction vs. 50% Reduction• Standard Diurnal Pattern vs. Revised Diurnal Pattern
5) Mexican/Canadian Emissions • MX/CAN Emissions vs. No MX/CAN Emissions
6) Boundary Conditions• EPA Default vs. GEOS-CHEM
7) Boundary Layer Heights – Minimum PBLs• Standard PBL Code vs. Revised PBL Code
CMAQ Sensitivity Tests
8. Alternative MM5 Configuration• Pleim-Xiu vs. NOAH-ETA-MY
9. Aerosol Mass Conservation• No Patch vs. GT Patch
10.Alternative Chemical Mechanisms• CB-IV vs CB4-2002 vs. SAPRC-99
11.Alternative Aerosol Module• AE3/ISORROPIA vs. CMAQ–AIM
12.Grid Resolution• 36 km vs. 12 km
13. Alternative Air Quality Model• CMAQ vs. CAMx
CMAQ Sensitivity Tests (cont.)
Phase I Emission Sensitivities
Approach• Georgia Tech performed emission sensitivities
using CMAQ on the VISTAS 12 km modeling domain
• Model simulations for two episodes– July 13-27, 2001 and January 1-20, 2002– 2018 OTB and 2018 OTW (next slide)
• Brute-force sensitivities performed by reducing specific emissions by 30%
• Modeling results used in a relative fashion rather than absolute fashion
• Goal is to perform a PRELIMINARY evaluation of the reasonable progress goals at each Class I area and evaluate the relative importance of various emission reductions
Emission Projection Scenarios• On-the-Books (OTB) - Promulgated as of July 1, 2004
– Atlanta / Northern Kentucky / Birmingham 1-hr SIPs– Combustion Turbine MACT– Gulf Power SCR application– Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard– Industrial Boiler/Process Heater/RICE MACT– Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle Rule– Nonroad Diesel Rule– North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act– NOx RACT in 1-hr NAA SIPs– NOx SIP Call (Phase I)– Petroleum Refinery Initiative – RFP 3% Plans where in place for one hour plans– TECO & VEPCO Consent Agreements– Tier 2 Tailpipe– Title IV for Phase I and II EGUs– VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards
• On-the-Way (OTW) – OTB Assumptions plus:– Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) – NOx SIP Call (Phase II) – 8-hr attainment plans (e.g., NOx RACT)
Mammoth Cave
0
10
20
30
40
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
Dec
ivie
ws
MACA Reasonable Progress Goal
30.3 dV = 206.97 Mm-1
25.44 dV = 127.28 Mm-1
MACA Required Reductions
bext2002 – bext2018 = 206.97 Mm-1 – 127.28 Mm-1
= 79.69 Mm-1
On the Books Regulations reduces extinction by 18.47 Mm-1
Need an additional reduction of: 79.69 Mm-1 - 18.47 Mm-1 = 61.23
Mm-1
Level 1 Sensitivity Acronyms
• OTB-TYP 2018 OTB – 2002 Typical• OTW-OTB 2018 OTW – 2018 OTB• ASO2 30% reduction in all SO2 domain-wide
• ANOX 30% reduction in all NOX domain-wide • ANH3 30% reduction in all NH3 domain-wide
• ASO2NOXNH3 30% reduction in all SO2/NOX/NH3 domain-wide
• AMVOC 30% reduction in all Anthropogenic VOCs domain-wide
• ABVOC 30% reduction in all Biogenic VOCs domain-wide • APRIC 30% reduction in all Primary Carbon domain-wide
Mammoth Cave (KY)Weighted Bext Response at Site to Reductions in
OTB Emissions: Worst 20%
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
OTB-TYP
OTW-O
TBASO2
ANOXANH3
ASO2NOXNH3
AMVOC
ABVOC
APRIC
B
ext (
m-1
)
CM
SOIL
EC
OC
NO3
NH4*
SO4
Red line indicates the additional reductions in light extinction beyond 2018 OTB required to reach the Reasonable Progress Goals (Goal – OTB)
Required reductions from 2002 79.7 Mm-1
Level 2&3 Sensitivity Acronyms
• GSO2ALL 30% reduction in all ground SO2 domain-wide
• ESO2ALL 30% reduction in all point SO2 domain-wide
• ESO2VCPP (CPP) 30% reduction in all VISTAS point coal-fired power plant SO2
• ESO2VNPP (NPP) 30% reduction in all VISTAS point non power plant SO2
• ESO2VOPP (OPP) 30% reduction in all VISTAS point non coal-fired power plant SO2
• ESO2nonV 30% reduction in all non VISTAS point SO2
• BCSO2 30% reduction in all SO2 boundary conditions
• BCSO4 30% reduction in all SO4 boundary conditions
Mammoth Cave (KY)Weighted Bext Response at Site to Reductions in
OTB Emissions: Worst 20%
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
OTB-TYP
OTW-O
TBASO2
GSO2ALL
ESO2ALL
ESO2VCPP
ESO2VNPP
ESO2VOPP
ESO2nonV
BCSO2
BCSO4
B
ext (
m-1
)
CM
SOIL
EC
OC
NO3
NH4*
SO4
Red line indicates the additional reductions in light extinction beyond 2018 OTB required to reach the Reasonable Progress Goals (Goal – OTB)
Required reductions from 2002 79.7 Mm-1
Reasonable Progress for 2018 OTW?
YesNoMaybeUndetermined
Preliminary Results
Phase II Annual CMAQ Modeling
Phase II Modeling Approach• Annual (12 month) CMAQ simulations to support
regional haze SIP development– Will be modeling entire year of 2002
• Emissions and Air Quality Modeling– Initial (completed) and Final (May 2005) AQ Modeling with
“Actual” Baseyear Emissions • Model Performance Evaluation
– AQ Modeling with “Typical” Baseyear Emissions (April 2005)• Same assumptions for Seasonal Distributions as Projected Future Year
Emissions (Point Sources, Fires, etc.) RRFs for SIP– AQ Modeling with Future Year (2018) Emissions (April 2005)
• On-the-Books (OTB) and On-the-Way (OTW)– AQ Modeling with Future Year (2018) Control Strategies (July
2005)– AQ Modeling with Future Year (2009) Emissions (May 2005)– AQ Modeling with Future Year (2009) Control Strategies (Aug.
2005)
• Final Report (delivery date December 2005)
Annual CMAQ Simulations• Need to solve the Atmospheric Diffusion
Equation for each species in each grid cell for each time step– (200 * 100 horizontal grid cells) x (19 vertical
layers) x (100 species) x (4 time step/hour) x (24 hours/day) x (365 days/year)
• IN AN ANNUAL SIMULATION, NEED TO SOLVE OVER 1,330,000,000,000 PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS!!!!– Unix or Linux workstations (3.2 GHz )– CPU time ~ 4 months/simulation– CMAQ Inputs 3.0 TB– CMAQ Outputs 1.2 TB/simulation
Sulfate: 12 Months (2002)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Average Concentration (g/m3)
Me
an
Fra
cti
on
al
Bia
s
IMPROVE
STN
SEARCH
CASTNET
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
Modeled Sulfate Bias
Nitrate: 12 Months (2002)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Average Concentration (g/m3)
Me
an
Fra
cti
on
al
Bia
s
IMPROVE
STN
SEARCH
CASTNET
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
Modeled Nitrate Bias
Organics: 12 Months (2002)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Average Concentration (g/m3)
Me
an
Fra
cti
on
al
Bia
s
IMPROVE
STN
SEARCH
CASTNET
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
Modeled Organics Bias
Elem. Carbon: 12 Months (2002)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Average Concentration (g/m3)
Me
an
Fra
cti
on
al
Bia
s
IMPROVE
STN
SEARCH
CASTNET
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
Modeled Elemental Carbon Bias
Soils: 12 Months (2002)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Average Concentration (g/m3)
Me
an
Fra
cti
on
al
Bia
s
IMPROVE
STN
SEARCH
CASTNET
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
Modeled Soils Bias
Coarse Mass: 12 Months (2002)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Average Concentration (g/m3)
Me
an
Fra
cti
on
al
Bia
s
IMPROVE
STN
SEARCH
CASTNET
(+) Goal
(-) Goal
(+) Criteria
(-) Criteria
Modeled Coarse Mass Bias
Performance Summary• Sulfate and Elemental Carbon
– Very good performance for all months
• Nitrate– Large over-predictions in winter– Updated ammonia monthly emission profiles (CMU
model)• Resulted in lower NH3 emissions in winter (~60%) and
much better nitrate performance
• Organics– Large under-predictions in summer– Updated CMAQ to include secondary organic aerosol
(SOA) formation due to sesquiterpenes and polymerization (neither process currently accounted for in model)
• Resulted in much better organics performance
• Soils and Coarse Mass– Small contribution to light extinction due to small
extinction coefficients
PM2.5 and Ozone
PM2.5 Modeling
• PM2.5 NAAQS– 15 g/m3 (annual average over 3 years)– 65 g/m3 (24-hour average)
• Most states will use VISTAS modeling as starting point for PM2.5 modeling– Annual modeling for 2002, 2009, and 2014 (?)
• PM2.5 modeling collaboration between VISTAS states (e.g., AL and GA)
VISTAS 12 km
ALGA 12 km
8-Hour Ozone Modeling• 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
– Each monitor in an area must show the three year average of the fourth highest daily 8-hour ozone concentration to be 0.08 ppm or below
– Average of three Design Values (2001, 2002, 2003)
• Some states will use VISTAS modeling as starting point for 8-hr ozone modeling
• Atlanta 8-hour ozone modeling – Will use ALGA 12 km modeling as starting point– Created new 4 km modeling domain – Modeling entire ozone season (05/20/02 –
09/20/02)– Modeling 2009 for attainment demonstration
VISTAS 12 km
ALGA 12 km
GA 4 km
GA Regional Sensitivities• Sensitivity of ozone (ppb/tpd) and PM2.5 (g/m3/tpd)
• 1 Winter and 1 Summer Episode ( 1 week)– Prefer 4 seasonal episodes with high summer ozone
• 10% Emission Reductions– NOx, VOCs, SO2, NH3, and primary PM2.5
• ALGA 12-km domain– 4-km for summertime VOCs (?)
• Emission Regions– Atlanta, Macon, Columbus, Chattanooga, Floyd
County
• 5 species * 4 episodes * 7 days/episode * 5 regions 700 modeled days
GA Point Source Sensitivities
• Sensitivity of ozone (ppb/tpd) and PM2.5 (g/m3/tpd)
• 1 Winter and 1 Summer Episode ( 1 week)– Prefer 4 seasonal episodes with high ozone summer
• SCR (NOx) and Scrubber (SO2) Reductions
– Discrete amounts (> 80%)
• ALGA 12-km domain– 4-km preferred to capture plume structure
• Emission Locations– Bowen (SO2), Scherer (NOx,SO2), Branch (NOx, SO2), Yates
(NOx, SO2), Wansley (SO2), McDonough (NOx,SO2), others (?)
• 10 scenarios * 4 episodes * 7 days/episode 280 modeled days
VISTAS Web Links• UCR's website containing presentations, documents,
and protocol associated with VISTAS Phase I emissions and air quality modeling (episodic simulations):– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/docs.shtml
• UCR's website containing modeling results associated with VISTAS Phase I emissions and air quality modeling (episodic simulations):– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/results.shtml
• UCR's website containing presentations, documents, and workplan associated with VISTAS Phase II emissions and air quality modeling (annual simulations):– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/vistas2/docs.shtml
• UCR's website containing modeling results associated with VISTAS Phase II emissions and air quality modeling (annual simulations):– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/vistas2/results.shtml
VISTAS Web Links (cont.)• VISTAS website containing presentations and
documents associated with VISTAS Workgroups (Data, Planning, and Technical Analysis):– http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/documents/index.asp
• BAMS website containing presentations and documents associated with episodic and annual MM5 meteorological modeling:– http://www.baronams.com/projects/VISTAS/
• Georgia Tech's website containing presentations and documents associated with VISTAS emission sensitivities:– http://www.ce.gatech.edu/research/vistas/
documents.htm
• Georgia Tech's website containing model results associated with VISTAS emission sensitivities:– http://www.ce.gatech.edu/research/vistas/products.htm
Jim BoylanGeorgia Dept. of Natural
Resources4244 International Parkway,
Suite 120Atlanta, GA 30354
[email protected] 404-362-4851
Contact Information
Questions?
Top Related