WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling

Document Sample
WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Powered By Docstoc
					Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




                    WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling:
        Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


          Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung Chien, Yingqun Wang
                                           University of California, Riverside

                                                      Zac Adelman
                                                University of North Carolina

                                                  Ralph Morris et al.
                                           ENVIRON Corporation Int., Novato, CA
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




                                               Goals
    Key RMC visibility modeling work elements include the following:

    •           Evaluation of the visibility model for a historical episode
            –        for calendar year 2002.
            –        Output from the model simulation is compared with ambient air quality data
                     for the historical episode as part of a model performance evaluation (MPE).
    •           Development of visibility planning scenarios
            –        for the regional haze baseline period of 2000-04 and
            –        for the initial regional haze future projection period, calendar year 2018.
    •           Modeling a variety of
            –        emissions sensitivity, emissions source apportionment, and emissions
                     control strategies
            –        to assess whether planned future regional emissions reductions will be
                     sufficient to demonstrate reasonable progress toward achieving visibility
                     goals.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




                   Modeling Activities during 2005
    •     CMAQ v44beta vs. v44 final release
    •     Preliminary 2002 Fire Sensitivity Scenarios
    •     2002 Preliminary Version D
    •     2002 Fugitive Dust Comparison
    •     CAMx versus CMAQ 4.4 Preliminary Version D Comparison

    •     CMAQ v4.4 36km 2002 Base Case A Model Performance Evaluation
    •     CMAQ v.4.4 versus v.4.5 comparison: 2002 36km Base Case A
    •     CMAQ v.4.5 12km vs 36km comparisons using 2002 Base Case A
    •     Preliminary testing and benchmarks for CAMx PSAT using 2002 Base A
    •     CAMx v.4.3 & CMAQ v.4.5 36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A
    •     Small Fire BaseA 2002 Sensitivity Scenarios (12-km CMAQ results)

    •     2018 vs. 2002 Planning cases comparisons (CMAQ Base18a vs. Plan02a)
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities



                                      Modeling Domain




   WRAP 36-km CMAQ/CAMx Domain                    WRAP CMAQ domain:
   within MM5 36-km domain                        red: 36-km blue: 12-km
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




    CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation in the
      WRAP States for Calendar Year 2002
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


     CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation in the
       WRAP States for Calendar Year 2002




            Monthly average sulfate
            MFB for CMAQ version 4.5
            36-km results compared to
            the CASTNet, IMPROVE,
            and STN networks.
                                           Monthly average sulfate
                                           for CMAQ v.4.5 36-km
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


     CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation in the
       WRAP States for Calendar Year 2002
    • Sulfate:
            – meets the performance goals for both the CASTNet and IMPROVE data
            – CMAQ 4.5 had
                    • large under prediction for summer and
                    • small positive bias for winter.
    • Nitrate:
            – meets the performance goals for both the CASTNet and IMPROVE data,
            – but fails to meet
                    • both the performance goals and
                    • the less stringent performance criteria for most months for the STN data.
    • OC:
            – For IMPROVE, the model met the performance goals for MFB for all months,
              and it met the performance goals for MFE for all but two months.
            – In contrast, the model failed to meet
                    • the performance goals for OC at the STN sites for all 12 months, and
                    • it failed to meet the less stringent performance criteria for most months.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


     CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation in the
       WRAP States for Calendar Year 2002
    • EC:
            – The model met the performance goals for EC for both the IMPROVE and STN
              data.
            – Interestingly, the model had opposite trends in performance for the two
              networks.
    • Soil:
            – The model met the performance goals for soil for most months, and when it
              failed to meet the performance goals it did meet the performance criteria.
    • CM:
            – The model failed to meet both the performance goals and the performance
              criteria for CM for most months.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




           CMAQ version 4.4 versus 4.5 comparison
                 2002 36km Base Case A
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


           CMAQ version 4.4 versus 4.5 comparison
                 2002 36km Base Case A
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


           CMAQ version 4.4 versus 4.5 comparison
                 2002 36km Base Case A
    •     sulfate & nitrate:
            – CMAQ v4.5 had improved performance (i.e., lower positive bias) in the winter months
              and
            – poorer performance (i.e., increased negative bias) in the summer months.
    •     OC:
            – CMAQ v4.5 had significantly improved performance
    •     EC:
            – CMAQ v4.5 predicted lower EC concentrations than did CMAQ v4.4;
            – larger negative bias during the winter months, but improved performance during the
              summer months
    •     Soil:
            – CMAQ v4.5 predicted lower soil concentrations than did CMAQ v4.4;
            – larger negative bias during the winter months, but improved performance during the
              summer months.
    •     CM:
            – CMAQ v4.4 underpredicted CM during most months, and the underpredictions became
              worse with CMAQ v4.5.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
    • Performed a CMAQ model sensitivity simulation using a 12-km horizontal
      resolution grid for the WRAP nested subdomain

    • 12-km simulation of the MM5 model and emissions processing at the 12-
      km resolution were performed

    • Primary adventages of running a 12-km model
            – Better resolved and possibly more accurate meteorology and emissions input
              data.
            – Less numerical dispersion, resulting from reduced artificial dilution compared
              to point sources being averaged over the coarse 36-km grid.
            – Less numerical dispersion in the advection algorithms.
            – Improved accuracy resulting from higher topographical resolution.
            – More accurate treatment of nonlinear photochemical reactions.
            – More precise location of the ambient monitoring sites relative to topographical
              features and emissions sources.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
    • Primary disadvantages of running a 12-km model
            – the additional cost of modeling the much larger number of grid cells
              required to represent the nested subregion, and
            – the additional cost of having to perform a coarse-grid model simulation
              as well as the 12-km simulation, because the 36-km simulation is
              needed for developing boundary conditions for the 12-km grid.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A




                                  36 km    12 km
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
                                                                                       IMPROVE                                                                             CASTNET sulfate
                                                                                         sulfate
                                                     20.0                                                                                                10

                                                     10.0                                                                                                  0
             Fractional Gross Error




                                                                                                                                 Fraction Gross Error
                                                      0.0                                                                                                -10
                                                                                                                                                         -20
                                                     -10.0                                                               12km                                                                                     12km
                                                                                                                                                         -30
                                                     -20.0                                                               36km                                                                                     36km
                                                                                                                                                         -40
                                                     -30.0
                                                                                                                                                         -50
                                                     -40.0                                                                                               -60
                                                     -50.0                                                                                               -70
                                                                 January    February      June      July     November                                          January   February     June     July    November
                                                     12km         -0.4        -5.4        -40.8     -33.3      3.2                                      12km    -20.5     -21.7       -56.8    -35.2     -2.2
                                                     36km          1.0        -0.8        -38.1     -23.1      10.8                                     36km    -24.6     -19.4       -61.1    -35.1     2.3



                                                                                     NADP sulfate                                                                                STN sulfate

                                                         40                                                                                               5
                                                         30                                                                                               0
                              Fraction Gross Error




                                                                                                                                Fraction Gross Error
                                                                                                                                                          -5
                                                         20
                                                                                                                                                         -10
                                                         10
                                                                                                                                                         -15
                                                                                                                         12km                                                                                     12km
                                                             0                                                                                           -20
                                                                                                                         36km                                                                                     36km
                                                        -10                                                                                              -25
                                                                                                                                                         -30
                                                        -20
                                                                                                                                                         -35
                                                        -30
                                                                                                                                                         -40
                                                        -40                                                                                              -45
                                                                  January    February      June      July     November                                         January   February     June     July    November
                                                      12km          27.8       4.6          -4.1     -14.5      17.7                                    12km      0        1.9        -25.2    -37.8     -2.4
                                                      36km           -8        -14.9       -15.3      -34       6.9                                     36km    -32.7     -29.3       -42.7    -39.5     -23.5
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
    • Spatial resolution differences:
            – The spatial features or plumes in the concentrations are more detailed
              in the 12-km plot than in the 36-km plot, and
            – the peak model value in the domain is usually considerably greater in
              the 12-km model than in the 36-km model.
            – the increased spatial detail and increased peak concentration do not
              significantly change the general appearance of the plots nor do they
              change the regions that experience high or low PM concentrations.
            – there appears to be no significant benefit in using the finer-resolution
              grid for modeling the lower concentrations of PM that typically occur
              at Class I areas.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
    • Model Performance Evaluation:
            – although there are small differences between the MFBs calculated for
              the 12-km and the 36-km models, their performance is quite similar.
            – there would be no advantage in terms of our MPE to running the more
              resource-intensive 12-km model instead of the 36-km model.
    • 12-km vs 36-km responses to emissions control:
            – In a separate study using the VISTAS 12-km and 36-km model
              scenarios, we found that the model grid resolution had only small
              effects on the model response to emissions reductions.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


      CMAQ v4.5 12km versus 36km comparisons
             using 2002 Base Case A
    • In summary:
            – because of the substantial increase in the time and compute resource
              costs of performing high-resolution modeling,
            – we do not recommend the routine application of additional 12-km
              modeling as part of the WRAP planning effort.
            – However, this conclusion applies only to the clean conditions
              experienced at Class I areas.
            – It is likely that the finer-resolution model would provide some benefit
              for modeling higher ozone and PM2.5 concentrations relevant to
              health-based air quality standards in urban or suburban areas.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




             Preliminary testing and benchmarks for
                 CAMx PSAT using 2002 Base A
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


             Preliminary testing and benchmarks for
                 CAMx PSAT using 2002 Base A
                  1800
                  1584
                  1368
                                                                          18

                  1152
                    936                        12
                             14
                    720                                           5                 8        15
                                           9
                    504                             4                         10
                    288                                           13

                     72                        6                                                                           16
                                                        11            3
                   -144               2
                                                                                                          16
                                                                                        15
                   -360
                   -576                             1             7
                   -792
                 -1008                                                              15

                 -1224
                 -1440                                       17

                 -1656                                                                                   16
                 -1872
                 -2088
                    -2736 -2304 -1872 -1440 -1008                      -576        -144      288   720    1152   1584   2016    2448
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


             Preliminary testing and benchmarks for
                 CAMx PSAT using 2002 Base A
    • Six source categories:
            – Point (including stationary off-shore and anthropogenic fire)
            – anthropogenic fires (prescribed fire, agricultural fire, non-federal range
              fires)
            – Total mobile (on-road, off-road, including planes, trains, ships in/near
              port, off-shore shipping)
            – natural fires (natural fire, biogenics)
            – non-wrap fires
            – Area sources (each WRAP state, Pacific Off-shore Marine Shipping
              Region, the group of CENRAP states touching WRAP, remaining
              contiguous US East, including Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, Canada)
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


             Preliminary testing and benchmarks for
                 CAMx PSAT using 2002 Base A

            Species                Number of   RAM      Disk          Run Time      Run Time
                                   Tracers     Memory   Storage per   with 1 CPU    with 2 CPU
                                                        day           no OMP        OMP
            SO4                    2           1.6 GB   1.1 GB        4.7 hr/day    4 hr/day
            NO3                    7           1.7 GB   2.6 GB        13.2 hr/day   Not tested
            SO4 & NO3
                                   9           1.9 GB   3.3 GB        16.8 hr/day   Not tested
            combined
            SOA                    14          3.8 GB   Not tested    Not tested    Not tested
            Primary PM
                                               1.5 GB   3.0 GB        10.8 hr/day   Not tested
            species




          Benchmarks for PSAT computational costs for each PM species.
          Run time is for one day (01/02/2002) of the WRAP 36-km domain.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




             CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
        36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


             CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
        36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A
    • MPE:
            – performed an annual CAMx simulation on the same 36-km
              grid that was used for the CMAQ modeling.
            – Emissions data were consistent with the CMAQ data
                    • either processed using SMOKE with the same emissions input data
                    • or converted from CMAQ binary files to CAMx binary files using
                      custom software
            – same horizontal (36 km) and vertical (19 layers) grid
              structure was used
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


                                   CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
                              36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A

                                               CAMx SO4
                                           CASTNET   IMPROVE    STN
                        100
                        80
   Fractional Bias(%)




                        60
                        40
                        20
                          0
                        -20
                        -40
                        -60
                        -80
                              Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun   Jul   Aug Sep Oct   Nov Dec



                          Sulfate monthly MFB for
                          CAMx compared to ambient
                          data at the CASTNet,
                          IMPROVE, and STN sites.
                                                                                      monthly average sulfate
                                                                                      MFB (top) and MFE (bottom)
                                                                                      for CAMx 36-km results
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


                                  CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
                             36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A
                                                 IMPROVE SO4                                                                                     IMPROVE NO3

                       100                                                                                             150
                       80
                                                                                                                       100
                       60
  Fractional Bias(%)




                                                                                                 Fractional Bias(%)
                                                                                                                        50
                       40
                       20                                                             CAMx                               0                                                          CAMx
                        0                                                             CMAQ V45                          -50                                                         CMAQ v45
                       -20
                                                                                                                       -100
                       -40
                       -60                                                                                             -150
                       -80                                                                                             -200
                             Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun   Jul   Aug Sep Oct   Nov Dec                                             Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul    Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec



                                                IMPROVE OC                                                                                         IMPROVE EC

                        30                                                                                              40
                        20                                                                                              30
                        10                                                                                              20
                                                                                                  Fractional Bias(%)
  Fractional Bias(%)




                         0
                                                                                                                        10
                                                                                                                         0
                       -10                                                           CAMx                                                                                           CAMx
                                                                                                                       -10
                       -20                                                           CMAQ V45                                                                                       CMAQ V45
                                                                                                                       -20
                       -30
                                                                                                                       -30
                       -40                                                                                             -40
                       -50                                                                                             -50
                       -60                                                                                             -60
                             Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun   Jul   Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec                                              Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun   Jul   Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


                               CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
                          36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A


                                                IMPROVE SOIL                                                                             IMPROVE CM

                        120                                                                                       0
                        100                                                                                      -20
                         80
   Fractional Bias(%)




                                                                                           Fractional Bias(%)
                                                                                                                 -40
                         60
                         40                                                                                      -60
                                                                                CAMx                                                                                     CAMx
                         20                                                                                      -80
                                                                                CMAQ V45                                                                                 CMAQ V45
                          0                                                                                     -100
                        -20
                                                                                                                -120
                        -40
                        -60                                                                                     -140
                        -80                                                                                     -160
                              Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec                                          Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


             CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
        36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A
    • Sulfate:
            – very similar performance for the two model
            – CAMx overpredicted sulfate at the IMPROVE and CASTNet sites during the
              winter months, but
            – good agreement with the observed sulfate, with small bias during the summer
              months.
            – CAMx had small negative (underprediction) bias throughout the year at the
              more urban STN sites.
    • Nitrate:
            – CAMx had a large positive bias for nitrate at the IMPROVE and CASTNet
              sites during the winter months and a large negative bias during the summer
              months.
            – CMAQ generally met the performance goals at the IMPROVE and CASTNet
              sites
            – CAMx failed to meet the performance goals and criteria during the winter
              months with higher nitrate concentration
            – Both models failed to meet performance criteria for some months at the STN
              sites
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


             CAMx v.4.3 versus CMAQ v.4.5
        36-km Comparison using 2002 Base Case A
    • OC:
            – CMAQ had generally better performance than CAMx for OC considering
              monthly average over all IMPROVE sites.
            – CMAQ met the performance goals and criteria for IMPROVE while
            – CAMx failed to meet the performance goals and marginally met the criteria.
            – Both models failed to meet performance goals at the STN sites, although
              CMAQ met the performance for some months at the STN sites.
    • EC:
            – CMAQ predicted lower EC concentrations than did CAMx
            – both models met the performance goals
    • Soil:
            – each model failed to meet the performance goals for a few months,
            – with CAMx erring on the side of overprediction and CMAQ erring on the side
              of underprediction.
    • CM:
            – both models fail to meet both the performance goals and criteria.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




       Small Fire BaseA 2002 Sensitivity Scenarios
                 (12-km CMAQ results)
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


       Small Fire BaseA 2002 Sensitivity Scenarios
                 (12-km CMAQ results)
    • removed all small fires
            – less than 100 acres woodland and
            – less than 300 acres grassland
            – to determine whether small fires have significant visibility
              impacts.
    • The small fire removed case is compared CMAQ
      36km BaseA 2002 (Base case minus sensitivity case)
      to show the effect of small fires.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


       Small Fire BaseA 2002 Sensitivity Scenarios
                 (12-km CMAQ results)




                              July, 2002   Nov, 2002
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities


       Small Fire BaseA 2002 Sensitivity Scenarios
                 (12-km CMAQ results)
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




                                           Conclusions
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




                                           Conclusions
        • Model performance does not appear to benefit significantly
          from using the finer-resolution grid for modeling the lower
          concentrations of PM2.5 that typically occur in the Class I
          areas.
        • We do not recommend the routine application of additional
          12-km modeling as part of the WRAP regional haze
          planning effort, due to the substantially higher resources
          and costs associated with performing high-resolution
          modeling.
        • The 2002 model results are significantly improved
          compared to results from the Section 309 modeling that
          was performed for calendar year 1996.
Overview of 2005 RMC Modeling Activities




                                           Conclusions
        • The CMAQ and/or the CAMx 36-km modeling can be
          used, in combination with the RRF approach, to evaluate
          the benefits of emissions reduction strategies for all PM
          species other than CM, in order to project visibility
          changes at Class I areas for regional haze planning
          purposes.
        • Both CMAQ and CAMx are acceptable for visibility
          modeling, and the choice of model should be based in part
          on factors other than model performance, such as computer
          run times, disk storage requirements, and source
          apportionment and/or sensitivity analysis needs.