slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Colorado and New Mexico Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis Ralph Morris and Gerard Mansell ENVIRON International Cor PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Colorado and New Mexico Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis Ralph Morris and Gerard Mansell ENVIRON International Cor

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 64

Colorado and New Mexico Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis Ralph Morris and Gerard Mansell ENVIRON International Cor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 109 Views
  • Uploaded on

Colorado and New Mexico Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis Ralph Morris and Gerard Mansell ENVIRON International Corporation and Dennis McNally and T.W. Tesche Alpine Geophysics, LLC. WESTAR Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States March 9-11, 2004 Salt Lake City, Utah.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Colorado and New Mexico Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis Ralph Morris and Gerard Mansell ENVIRON International Cor' - nellis


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Colorado and New Mexico Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis

Ralph Morris and Gerard Mansell

ENVIRON International Corporation

and

Dennis McNally and T.W. Tesche

Alpine Geophysics, LLC

WESTAR

Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States

March 9-11, 2004

Salt Lake City, Utah

Presents:/slides/

some key participants
Denver EAC

Ralph Morris, ENVIRON

Project Manage

Denver RAQC

Ken Lloyd

Gerald Dilley

Colorado DPHE

Kevin Briggs

Barbara McRae

Sheila Burns

Mike Silverstein

New Mexico EAC

T.W. Tesche, Alpine

Project Manager

New Mexico ED

Mary Uhl

Dave Dubois

Andy Berger

Gail Cooke

Four Corners Ozone Task Force

Julia Barnes

Some Key Participants

Presents:/slides/

today s talk content
Today’s Talk Content
  • Commonalities in Denver and New Mexico EAC Modeling Analysis
  • Denver EAC Modeling Analysis
  • New Mexico EAC Modeling Analysis
  • Sensitivity Modeling of Potential Missing Oil and Gas Production HC Emissions
    • Performed as Part of the Oklahoma EAC Modeling

Presents:/slides/

denver new mexico eac common science team
Alpine Geophysics

T.W. Tesche)

Project Manager – New Mexico

Co-PI

Dennis McNally

Cyndi Loomis

ENVIRON

Ralph Morris

Project Manager – Denver

Co-PI

Gerard Mansell

Edward Tai

Denver/New Mexico EACCommon Science Team

Presents:/slides/

denver new mexico eac common modeling tools
Denver/New Mexico EACCommon Modeling Tools
  • MM5 Meteorological Model
    • Common 36/12 km grid
    • Separate local 4/1.33 km (Denver) and 4 km (New Mexico) grids
  • EPS2x Emissions Model
    • NEI 1999 base inventory
    • Colorado emissions provided by CDPHE
    • Local Oil and Gas Emissions (COGA, NMOGA)
  • CAMx Photochemical Grid Model

Presents:/slides/

denver new mexico eac common episode and regional 36 12 km grid
Denver/New Mexico EAC -- Common Episode and Regional 36/12 km Grid
  • June – July 2002 Regional Episode
  • Embedded High 8-hr Ozone Episodes

Denver (4/1.33 km)

June 8 - 12, 2002

June 25 – July 1, 2002

July 18 – 21, 2002

New Mexico (4 km)

June 4 –8, 2002

June 16 - 19, 2002

June 30 – July 2, 2002

July 17 - 18, 2002

Presents:/slides/

slide7

Denver 36/12/4/1.33 km Modeling Domain

(1.33 km grid not used)

Presents:/slides/

differences in denver and new mexico eacs
Differences in Denver and New Mexico EACs
  • Both regions were attaining the 8-hour ozone standard at the initiation of the studies in early 2003
  • During 2003, ozone remained relatively low in the Four Corners region; maximum 8-hour ozone Design Value during 2001-2003 is 74 ppb (attainment < 85 ppb)
  • During 2003, Denver had the worse summer for ozone in many years; three monitors now violate the 8-hour ozone standard based on 2001-2003 data:
    • 87 ppb @ Rocky Flats North
    • 85 ppb @ Chatfield
    • 85 ppb @ South Boulder

Presents:/slides/

denver eac modeling timeline
Denver EAC Modeling  Timeline

May 2003: Modeling Protocol (includes episode selection)

July 2003: MM5 Meteorological Modeling Report

 During Summer 2003 8-hr ozone standard violated

Sep 2003: 2002 Emissions Inventory Report and Addendum

Oct 10, 2003: Modeling Review Panel (MRP) Meeting

Nov 19, 2003: 2002 Base Case/Evaluation Report

Dec 10, 2003: Modeling Review Panel (MRP) Meeting

Dec 2003: Preliminary 2007 Modeling

Jan-Feb 2004: Revised 2007 Base Case and Control Strategy Modeling

Feb 4, 2004: Report on 2007 Emission Reduction Sensitivity Modeling

Feb 27, 2004: Report on 2007 Control Strategy Modeling

Feb 27, 2004: Draft EAC Ozone Action Plan

Mar 2004: Preliminary Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling

Presents:/slides/

camx base case evaluation
CAMx Base Case Evaluation
  • Follow EPA Draft 8-Hour Ozone Modeling Guidance Evaluation Procedures
    • Big Picture Graphical Performance
      • Spatial Maps of Predictions and Observations
      • Scatter and Q-Q Plots
      • Time Series Plots
    • Ozone Metrics
      • New 8-Hour Ozone Performance Metrics
      • Performance Goals
  • Initial Evaluation for Ozone Only

Presents:/slides/

2002 base case 8 hour ozone on july 1 2002
2002 Base Case 8-Hour Ozone on July 1, 2002
  • Modeled ozone near monitor matches observations
  • Spatial displacement of modeled ozone away from DMA
  • DMA ozone suppression overstated

Presents:/slides/

epa 8 hour ozone performance metrics
EPA 8-Hour Ozone Performance Metrics
  • “bias pred/obs mean 8-hr (& 1-hr) daily maxima near each monitor” (EPA, 1999)
  • “~20% most monitors (8-hr comparisons only)” (EPA, 1999)
    • How to define “near”? – Use same NX by NY array of grid cells centered on monitor with 15 km radius as used in the attainment test (e.g., 9 by 9 for 4 km grid)
    • What predicted ozone to select for comparison with observed maxima? – several approaches, including:
      • Maximum ozone near monitor (same as used in the attainment test)
      • Nearest ozone near monitor (closest to observation)

Presents:/slides/

max predicted 8 hr ozone near monitor june 2002 episode and 2002 base case 4 km
Max Predicted 8-Hr Ozone Near Monitor – June 2002 Episode and 2002 Base Case – 4 km
  • EPA Performance Goal of within ±20% at “most monitors”
  • ~96% of Max Pred near monitor <±20% of observed value
  • 3 pred/obs pairs do not meet <±20% goal (Weld Cnty 6/26; CO Springs 6/28; and Boulder on 7/1)

Presents:/slides/

slide17

Nearest Predicted 8-Hr Ozone Near Monitor – June 2002 Episode and 2002 Base Case – 4 km

  • EPA Goal <±20%
  • ~98% of pred/obs pairs meet <±20% goal
  • Weld Cnty 6/26 pred/obs of 57/81 ppb
  • CO Springs 6/28 pred/obs of 57/74 ppb
  • Meets goal with underprediction tendency

Presents:/slides/

summary of 2002 base case ozone performance for denver june 2002 episode
Summary of 2002 Base Case Ozone Performance for Denver June 2002 Episode
  • Meets EPA performance goals
    • > 95% of monitor/days meet EPA’s performance goal < ±20%
    • EPA Bias and Gross Error performance goals (15% & 35%) met using maximum and nearest predicted 8-hr ozone near the monitor
    • Underestimation bias sometimes exceeds <15% performance goal but gross error always meets <35% performance goal using spatially paired pred/obs 8-hr ozone at the monitor
  • Some ozone spatial alignment issues
  • Underestimation bias (but within performance goals)
    • Understated ozone transport?
    • Understated emissions?
  • Model performance for July 2002 episode was not as good so dropped for initial control strategy evaluations

Presents:/slides/

2007 emission reduction sensitivity analysis
2007 Emission Reduction Sensitivity Analysis
  • Across-the-Board 10% reduction in anthropogenic emissions in DMA + Weld County (plus on-road and off-road reductions).
  • Key Findings:
    • Modeled ozone stiff response to local emission reductions (i.e., ozone not very responsive to local emission controls)
    • VOC control in DMA is more effective than NOx control in DMA
      • 10% VOC control in DMA results in 0.3-0.4 ppb ozone reduction at Rocky Flats North monitor
      • 10% NOx control in DMA results in 0.4 ppb ozone increase at Rocky Flats North monitor

Presents:/slides/

2007 emission scenarios
2007 Emission Scenarios
  • 2007 Base Case – CO Data Provided by CDPHE
    • 9 psi RVP gasoline w/ 25% Ethanol penetration
  • 2007 Control Package w/ 8.1 RVP
  • 2007 Control Package w/ 7.8 RVP
  • Control Measures Modeled (DMA + Weld County)
    • 37.5% control on Flash VOC emissions
    • Control of RICE natural gas units and Dehydrators
    • 8.1 or 7.8 psi RVP gasoline on-road mobile sources in DMA with 25% Ethanol market penetration

Presents:/slides/

2007 emissions scenarios dma weld voc emissions tons per day
2007 Emissions Scenarios DMA+WeldVOC Emissions (tons per day)

DMA+Weld = Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson and Weld Counties.

On-road mobile includes extra areas in link based network and should be ~65% for DMA+Weld counties

Presents:/slides/

slide22

2007 Emissions Scenarios DMA+WeldNOx Emissions (tons per day)

DMA+Weld = Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson and Weld Counties.

On-road mobile includes extra areas in link based network and should be ~65% for DMA+Weld counties

Presents:/slides/

slide23

Daily Max 8-Hour Ozone on July 1, 2002

2007 Base 2007 Cntl Pkg

w/ 8.1 RVP - Base

Presents:/slides/

slide24

How Are Modeling Results Used to Demonstrate Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

  • EPA Draft Guidance uses model in a relative sense to scale current-year observed 8-hour ozone Design Values (DVC) to the future-year (DVF)
  • This is done using monitor specific Relative Reduction Factor (RRFi) that is the ratio of the future-year to current-year 8-hour ozone model estimates near the monitor
      • DVFi = RRFi x DVCi

Presents:/slides/

slide25

How Are Modeling Results Used to Demonstrate Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

  • The RRFi for monitor i is the ratio of the average daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations near the monitor for the future-year (O3F) to the current-year (O3C) scenario for all episode days when the current-year ozone is greater than 70 ppb (O3Cij > 70 ppb)

Presents:/slides/

slide26

How Are Modeling Results Used to Demonstrate Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

  • Selecting maximum estimated ozone “near” the monitor
    • Near defined by NX x NY array of cells centered on monitor that encompasses 15 km radius
    • 5 km 7 x 7; 4 km 9 x 9; etc.
  • Exclude days in which 2002 Base Case estimated 8-hr ozone near monitor is < 70 ppb
    • Eliminates low ozone (background) days with low emissions contributions

Presents:/slides/

slide27

2007 Projected 8-Hour Ozone Design Values

Attainment Demonstrated when DVF < 85.0 ppb

Presents:/slides/

denver eac modeled attainment test
Denver EAC – Modeled Attainment Test
  • Projected 2007 8-hour ozone Design Value at Rocky Flats is 86.5 ppb for 2007 Base Case and 86.0 ppb for 2007 Control Strategies
  • All other monitors demonstrate attainment (< 85 ppb)
  • Why is modeled ozone so stiff?
    • Contributions of ozone transport
    • 2002 episode not as adverse as conditions that produced observed Design Values that includes summer 2003
    • Model underestimation bias

Presents:/slides/

ozone source apportionment 10 source regions in 36 km west us grid
Ozone Source Apportionment10 Source Regions in 36 km West US Grid
  • DMA
  • Weld
  • Elbert
  • Morgan
  • Larimer
  • El Paso
  • North CO
  • South CO
  • Central US
  • Western US

Presents:/slides/

denver ozone source apportionment
Denver Ozone Source Apportionment
  • Source Apportionment results currently under review by State and Denver RAQC, report not yet available
  • Preliminary results suggest the following:
    • A majority (~75% to 85%) of the peak 8-hour ozone concentrations at the Rocky Flats monitor come from outside of the Denver Metropolitan Area (DMA)
    • For sources in the DMA, on-road mobile sources are most important followed by non-road mobile sources
  • Helps explain why modeling results are so stiff in response to local controls

Presents:/slides/

weight of evidence woe attainment demonstration modeling component
Weight of Evidence (WOE) Attainment Demonstration – Modeling Component
  • EPA Draft 8-hr Ozone Guidance (EPA, 1999)
    • Modeled maximum 8-hr ozone Design Value must be less than 90 ppb
      • Denver EAC 2007 Control Strategy maximum projected 8-hour ozone Design Value = 86 ppb
    • Air Quality Modeling Analysis
      • Change in grid-hours with ozone > 84 ppb
      • Change in Number grid cells > 84 ppb
      • Change in ppb-hr with ozone > 84 ppb
    • Also other data analysis (meteorology, emissions, trends, etc.)

Presents:/slides/

woe attainment demonstration issues
WOE Attainment Demonstration Issues
  • Model is Stiff in Response to Local Controls
    • Model meets EPA performance goals (within 20%) but has underprediction bias
      • Using some days with ozone estimates of 70-75 ppb to scale 87 ppb Design Value at Rocky Flats
    • June 2002 episode not as adverse as observed 2001-2003 8-hr ozone Design Values that include the Summer of 2003
      • Local emissions not contributing as much to the ozone maximums in the model as likely occurred in the observed ozone Design Values

Presents:/slides/

modeled woe attainment demonstration tests
Modeled WOE Attainment Demonstration Tests
  • Project 2007 8-hour ozone Design Values (DVs) using modeled ozone > 80 ppb
    • Modeled ozone more representative of ozone DVs
    • 2007 Projected 8-hour ozone at Rocky Flats is
      • = 85.4 Control Pkg. w/ 8.1 RVP
      • = 85.2 Control Pkg. w/ 7.8 RVP
  • Project 2007 DVs using observed 2000-2002 DVs
    • Conditions more consistent with June 2002 episode

Presents:/slides/

modeled woe attainment demonstration tests1
Modeled WOE Attainment Demonstration Tests
  • EPA Guidance WOE Metrics
    • # Grid-Hours > 84 ppb
      • Integrated exposure metric of modeled exceedances over time and area
    • # Grid-Cells > 84 ppb
      • Integrated exposure metrics over area
    • Relative Reduction (RD) – Measure of amount of time and area ozone > 84 ppb (ppb-hr)
      • Integrated dosage metric
  • EPA Guidance States that “large” reductions in these metrics are desirable
    • EPA defines “large” as >= 80%

Presents:/slides/

denver eac woe attainment tests
Denver EAC WOE Attainment Tests
  • Anomalous Meteorological Conditions of 2003 produced unusually high ozone
    • Unusually high temperatures during Summer 2003
      • July 2003 4rth highest mean temperature on record
    • Unusually low mixing depths trapped local pollutants causing high ozone
      • Much higher contribution of local emissions to ozone than in 2002 episodes

Presents:/slides/

denver eac woe attainment tests1
Denver EAC WOE Attainment Tests
  • Zurbenko-Rao filter applied to ozone at Rocky Flats to decompose ozone trends into long-term and short-term components accounting for temperature
    • Over 1993-2003 downward trend in 4rth highest 8-hr ozone of –1.2% per year

Presents:/slides/

denver eac woe attainment tests2
Denver EAC WOE Attainment Tests
  • Downward trend in emissions in the DMA
    • From 2002, VOC emissions are projected to be reduced by –10% (2007) and –13% (2012)
    • From 2002, NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by –15% (2007) and –19% (2012)
  • Model Uncertainty and Representativeness
    • Model underestimation bias
      • Use of days > 80 ppb reduces DV from 86 ppb to 85 ppb
    • Contributions of local emissions understated
      • 2003 observed DV of 87 has higher local contribution than 2002 episodes

Presents:/slides/

san juan new mexico eac study
San Juan New Mexico EAC Study
  • Conceptual Model and Episode Selection
  • 8-hr Ozone Modeling Protocol
  • Meteorological Data Bases & Modeling Report
  • Base Year (2002) Emissions Inventory Report
  • Future Year (2007) Emissions Inventory Report
  • Base Year Model Performance Evaluation Report
  • Future Year (2007) Baseline Modeling Report
  • Year 2007 Maintenance for Growth Modeling Report
  • Year 2007 Strategy Modeling Report

Presents:/slides/

daily max 8 hour ozone
Daily Max 8-Hour Ozone

2001-2003 DV=74.7 ppb

Presents:/slides/

summary 1 hour ozone performance
Summary 1-Hour Ozone Performance
  • CAMx model produced 1-hr ozone model performance:
    • Well within EPA performance goals in all but a few cases;
    • Better than normal in a ‘first time application’ of a photochemical modeling system to a new region; and
    • Consistent with known opportunities for data base improvements (e.g., area source emissions, on-road motor vehicle emissions) in the local area (Four Corners) and surrounding region (western U.S.).

Main concern with the four (4) San Juan base cases is the systematic tendency to underestimate ozone concentrations at some monitoring locations. This feature has been seen in other independent, corroborative modeling (CMAQ) employing similar emissions and meteorological modeling foundations.

Presents:/slides/

slide45

EPA Draft 8-Hour Ozone Guidance Performance Goals (EPA, 1999)

Performance Goal

Performance Metric

Presents:/slides/

slide46

8-Hour Ozone Modeling Relative to EPA Goals

Model Skill

Performance Metric

Presents:/slides/

trends in 8 hour ozone design values
Trends in 8-Hour Ozone Design Values

2001-2003 Design Values:

Substation = 74.7 ppb

Bloomfield = 74.3 ppb

Presents:/slides/

projected 8 hr ozone design values for 2007 base case emissions
Projected 8-Hr Ozone Design Values for 2007 Base Case Emissions

All projected 8-hour ozone Design Values in 2007 are < 85 ppb, so attainment has been demonstrated in San Juan, New Mexico

Presents:/slides/

additional corroborative analysis
Additional Corroborative Analysis
  • Model July 13-21, 1999 episode using alternative model
    • EPA’s Models-3 CMAQ model
    • MM5 Meteorology
    • NEI99 Emissions
  • Also exhibits underestimation bias suggesting emissions may be understated in the western U.S. and possibly Four Corners region

Presents:/slides/

additional san juan nm analysis
Additional San Juan, NM Analysis
  • Five 2007 Emission Scenarios
    • Addition of two more Power Plants
    • Accelerated Oil and Gas Field Development
    • Revised On-Road Mobile Sources
    • Area Source Emissions Uncertainty
    • Biogenic Emissions Uncertainty
  • 2012 Base Case Modeling
    • Attainment Still Maintained
  • Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling
    • Largest contribution from background ozone

Presents:/slides/

national academy of sciences nas report
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report
  • “Extensive Regional Atmosphere Hydrocarbon Pollution in the Southwestern US”
    • Aaron Katzenstein, Lambert Doezema, Isobel Simpson, Donald Blake and F. Sherwood Rowland, University of California at Irvine (UCI) (October 14, 2003)
  • Collected many hydrocarbon samples in OK/KS/TX
  • Found elevated alkane (HC) concentrations
  • Attributed to Oil and Gas production in region
  • Estimated regional-wide emission rates

Presents:/slides/

uci o g emissions sensitivity test approach to integrate uci emissions with photochemical model
UCI O&G Emissions Sensitivity Test-- Approach to Integrate UCI Emissions with Photochemical Model
  • Contacted UCI who (Lambert Doezema) provided a low and high estimate region-wide hydrocarbon emission estimates from their measurement grid
    • Methane, ethane, propane, n&i butane, n&i pentane
  • Determine county equivalent to UCI measurement grid
  • Allocate UCI O&G hydrocarbon emissions to counties based on average Oil&Gas production
  • Methane considered non-reactive VOC so is dropped

Presents:/slides/

uci measurement grid
UCI Measurement Grid

Presents:/slides/

comparison of oil gas production to nei99 oil gas voc emissions
Comparison of Oil+Gas Production to NEI99 Oil+Gas VOC Emissions

Average Oil and Gas Production

1999 NEI Oil&Gas VOC Emissions

Presents:/slides/

uci o g emissions sensitivity test
UCI O&G Emissions Sensitivity Test
  • Replace existing county-level Oil&Gas VOC emissions from NEI99 with UCI estimates allocated to OK/KS/TX/CO counties based on Oil&Gas production
  • Process with EPS2x emissions to speciate, grid and temporally allocate emissions for CAMx modeling
  • Run CAMx model for high and low estimates of UCI Oil&Gas HC emissions
  • Compare ozone estimates

Presents:/slides/

ozone results using uci o g hc emissions
Ozone Results using UCI O&G HC Emissions
  • Very small increases in ozone concentrations, primarily downwind of NOx sources and near high Oil&Gas production
    • Maximum increase in 8-hour ozone concentrations are 0.5-1.0 ppb
    • Small increases elsewhere
  • No effect on model performance
    • Normalized bias of –10.1% reduced to –10.0%
    • Does not solve underprediction tendency

Presents:/slides/

difference in 8 hour ozone concentrations ppb from uci oil gas hc emissions
Difference in 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations (ppb) from UCI Oil&Gas HC Emissions

Presents:/slides/

uci oil gas hc emissions conclusions
UCI Oil&Gas HC Emissions Conclusions
  • Preliminary results still being examined
  • Use of UCI O&G VOC estimates results in small increases in ozone (always < 1 ppb)
  • Just included potentially missing VOC emissions, results may be different if potentially missing NOx emissions included
  • Does not explain western U.S. ozone underprediction tendency seen in Denver, San Juan and Oklahoma EACs and with multiple models (CAMx and CMAQ)

Presents:/slides/

overall conclusions western us o3 modeling
Overall Conclusions Western US O3 Modeling
  • Ozone downwind of smaller “urban” areas in western U.S. tends to be underestimated
    • Seen in recent EACs (CAMx) and Regional Visibility modeling (CMAQ)
    • Regional buildup of ozone understated
  • Contributing factors:
    • Missing emissions
      • UCI Oil&Gas, many small unpermitted sources
      • Missing biogenic emissions/understated reactivity
      • Mobile Source fleet type different from national average
    • Meteorological Modeling More Challenging

Presents:/slides/