Comprehensive Particulate Matter Modeling: A One Atmosphere Approach - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 21
About This Presentation
Title:

Comprehensive Particulate Matter Modeling: A One Atmosphere Approach

Description:

... used in a relative fashion rather than absolute fashion (daily RRFs) ... NOx and Primary Carbon sensitivities show the second largest benefits at most sites ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:59
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: systema219
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Comprehensive Particulate Matter Modeling: A One Atmosphere Approach


1
Episodic Modeling of Reasonable Progress
Jim Boylan Georgia Department of Natural
Resources VISTAS Technical Lead for Air Quality
Modeling VISTAS TAWG and Planning Meeting
Durham, NC April 4, 2005
2
Episodic Modeling
  • Georgia Tech performed episodic 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
  • Episode days are weighted using CART to best
    represent 20 best and worst days
  • Can only use days with measurements (1 of 3)
  • Each site will use 1 5 days to represent each
    metric

3
Modeling Approach
  • Modeled 2002 typical, 2018 OTB and OTW
  • Brute-force sensitivities performed by reducing
    specific emissions by 30
  • Modeling results used in a relative fashion
    rather than absolute fashion (daily RRFs)
  • 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

4
VISTAS 12-km Modeling Domain
5
Modeled PM2.5 (mg/m3) July 18
2002 Base
2002 Typical
6
Modeled PM2.5 (mg/m3) July 18
2018 On the Books
2018 On the Way
7
MACA Reasonable Progress Goal
Need 80 Mm-1 between 2002 and 2018
30.3 dV 206.97 Mm-1
25.44 dV 127.28 Mm-1
8
Mammoth Cave (KY) 4 days
Need 80 Mm-1 between 2002 and 2018
Need 61 Mm-1 from 2018 OTW
Get 19 Mm-1 from 2018 OTB
30 Reduction from 2018 OTB
9
Mammoth Cave (KY) - 4 days
Need 80 Mm-1 between 2002 and 2018
Need 61 Mm-1 from 2018 OTW
Get 19 Mm-1 from 2018 OTB
30 Reduction from 2018 OTB
10
EVER Reasonable Progress Goal
20.9 dV 80.85 Mm-1
18.38 dV 62.83 Mm-1
11
EVER Required Reductions
Bext2002 Bext2018 80.85 Mm-1 62.83 Mm-1
18.02 Mm-1 On the Books
Regulations reduces extinction by 1.63 Mm-1 Need
an additional reduction of 18.02 Mm-1 - 1.63
Mm-1 16.39 Mm-1
12
Everglades (FL) 1 day
Need 16 Mm-1 from 2018 OTW
Need 18 Mm-1 between 2002 and 2018
Get 2 Mm-1 from 2018 OTB
30 Reduction from 2018 OTB
13
UPBU Reasonable Progress Goal
25.3 dV 125.54 Mm-1
21.68 dV 87.42 Mm-1
14
Upper Buffalo (AR) 5 days
Need 38 Mm-1 between 2002 and 2018
Get 20 Mm-1 from 2018 OTB
Need 18 Mm-1 from 2018 OTW
30 Reduction from 2018 OTB
15
Geographic CPP SO2 Emissions
Mountain Coastal
Non-VISTAS
4
( of days in red)
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
5
1
5
4
4
4
3
3
1
2
0
16
Preliminary Observations and Conclusions
17
20 Best Days
  • There is an overall improvement in visibility at
    most sites when the 2018 OTB is compared to the
    2002 Typical
  • GSM, Linville, Breton, Dolly Sods, Mingo,
    Okefenokee, and Wolf Island have slight
    degradation
  • 2018 OTW does not show degradation in visibility
    at any sites

18
20 Worst Days
  • SO2 reductions showed the largest benefits at all
    sites
  • NOx and Primary Carbon sensitivities show the
    second largest benefits at most sites
  • NH3 sensitivities had significantly smaller
    impacts on visibility
  • Manmade and biogenic VOC sensitivities showed
    negligible changes in visibility

19
20 Worst Days
  • Reductions in elevated SO2 point sources were
    significantly more effective than ground level
    SO2 sources
  • Of these elevated SO2 sources, VISTAS coal fired
    power plants (CPP) showed the most benefit
  • VISTAS non-power plant (NPP) SO2 and non-VISTAS
    Elevated Point SO2 each showed about 25 of the
    VISTAS CPP response
  • Can only draw preliminary conclusions for
    geographic influences since not all key
    meteorological conditions were represented

20
2018 OTW Summary
  • Will VISTAS Class I areas meet the reasonable
    progress goals in 2018 with CAIR?
  • YES (gt5 Mm-1 above goal)
  • MACA, GRSM, LIGO, SHRO, JARI, SIPS, COHU, OKEF,
    WOLF, SAMA, UPBU, BRET
  • MAYBE (within 5 Mm-1 of the goal)
  • SHEN, CHAS, HEGL, CACR
  • UNDETERMINED (due to conflicting information)
  • ROMA, SWAN, MING, BRIG (?)
  • NO (gt5 Mm-1 below goal)
  • DOSO (?), EVER (?)
  • These conclusions are based on a limited data set
    (sometimes as few as 1 day) and should be viewed
    as very PRELIMINARY and subject to change once
    the annual 2018 simulation is completed.

21
Reasonable Progress for 2018 OTW?
.
.
.
.
Preliminary Results
Yes No Maybe Undetermined
.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com