1 / 14

MANE-VU Policy & Science Meeting: A Summary Baltimore, MD November 9-10, 2005

MANE-VU Policy & Science Meeting: A Summary Baltimore, MD November 9-10, 2005. Presented at the Fall 2005 Southeastern Air Directors’ Meeting Charleston, SC November 15, 2005 by Fred Durham, Assistant Director WV DEP, Division of Air Quality.

salena
Télécharger la présentation

MANE-VU Policy & Science Meeting: A Summary Baltimore, MD November 9-10, 2005

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MANE-VUPolicy & Science Meeting: A Summary Baltimore, MD November 9-10, 2005 Presented at the Fall 2005 Southeastern Air Directors’ Meeting Charleston, SC November 15, 2005 by Fred Durham, Assistant Director WV DEP, Division of Air Quality

  2. MANE-VU Science & Policy MeetingBaltimore MD, November 2005 • Meeting Objectives • To share and discuss available modeling and data analysis results pertaining to Regional Haze and related SIPs • To facilitate completion of technical elements of SIPs and provide support for the consultation process. • Discuss and identify next steps in MANE-VUs science projects, support for SIPs, and consultation process

  3. MANE-VU Agenda-1 • Welcome & Introductions • (Anna Garcia, OTC and Susan Wierman, MARAMA) -Why we are here, overarching goals and overview of agenda • What’s required? • SIP elements (Susan Wierman, MARAMA) • Consultation process (Anna Garcia, OTC) • What do we know so far? • Reasonable Progress Goals (Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM) • A Regional Look at the MANE-VU Emissions Inventories, Trends, and Projections (Serpil Kayin, MARAMA) • A Regional Look at the MANE-VU Modeling Results • CMAQ Results (Shan He, NESCAUM) • REMSAD Results (Jung-Hun Woo, NESCAUM) • CALPUFF Results (Paul Wishinski, VT) • Preliminary Work Using CEM Data (Alper Unal, NJ)

  4. MANE-VU Agenda-2 • A Regional Look at the MANE-VU Data Analysis Results • Trajectory Clustering Results (NESCAUM) • Emissions/Distance Results and Other Techniques (NESCAUM) • Source Apportionment Results (Rich Poirot, VT) • Rain Results (John Graham, NESCAUM) • What else is needed to complete the SIP process? • Weight of Evidence Approach for SIPs—Methods for combining results in a meaningful way (John Graham, NESCAUM) • Discussion of the Weight-of-Evidence Approach for SIPs—EPA guidance and MANE-VU’s preliminary analysis (Gary Kleiman) • VISTAS Headlines (Pat Brewer, VISTAS)>> Fred Durham • Elements of the Long Term Strategy (Ray Papalski, NJ) • BART & CAIR • Open discussion and contributed presentations • Addressing Regional Haze Pollutants from Industrial Boilers II (Glynn Rountree, American Forest & Paper Association) • Emission Trading (Bob Paine, ENSR Corporation)

  5. Synopsis-1 • MANE-VU has focused on contribution assessment so far • They have applied a wide diversity of technical approaches, including but not limited to: • CMAQ, CMAQ+DDM, REMSAD, CALGRID, CALPUFF, Trajectory Analysis,T-probability, Incremental Prob.,Cluster Weighted Prob., Rotated Coordinate Prob., Residence Time, RAIN monitor data, etc. • Typical examples focus on 4 Class 1 areas: Acadia, Brigantine, Lye Brook and Shenandoah • About the only technique they aren’t using is CAMx • The technical quality of the work appears to be good to excellent • Most of the work has used 2002 and prior emissions inventory data

  6. Synopsis-2 • CMAQ • v4.4 on LINUX Clusters • 36Km U.S. >> 12Km • Boundary Conditions from Geos-Chem • MM5 v3.6.1 & SMOKE • Sulfates look good at monthly average; over-predict in August • Nitrates have poor daily performance; better when averaged monthly; still poor in winter • Ammonium over-predict • OC good except for fire event; EC too high • Overall good extinction best/worst days at Acadia & Brigantine • Good Haze Index at four Class 1 areas • Surprise… visibility most affected by sulfates!

  7. Synopsis-3 • REMSAD • Simpler chemistry runs faster • Can tag Sulfur, Nitrogen, Cadmium, & Mercury • Used in Draft MANE-VU Contribution Assessment • Early runs used EPA Clear Skies inputs • New runs use recent E.I.; track elevated & low sulfur from 32 eastern states • 3 Runs; VISTAS states in Run 2 • Will look at 4 Class I areas inc. Shen. & Brig. using August 6-16 episode • Draft estimates 70% impact at Brigantine comes from non MANE-VU states • Estimate 15% MANE-VU impact at Shen. (SO4)

  8. Synopsis-4 • CALPUFF for BART & other things- 36 Km CALMET using NWS Obs; review 2002 data compared to IMPROVE SO4 - ranked 869 EGU vs. impact on 22 Class I sites- annual avg. is good; the consensus seems to be that BART is a “non-issue” because of EPA’s CAIR decision; Not pursuing exemption modeling • EGU temporal allocation – adjust default profile with CEM data- main difference is monthly variation • Trajectory Clustering & Probabilities – are aggregating by state (maps) & compared 500m trajectories to REMSAD • Q/d; applied regression to get 4 wind sectors; e.g. Shen. most impact from S SW winds; OH & PA most impact; uses CALPUFF chemistry • Percent Time Upwind; e.g. Sulfur - lay back trajectories over residence time emissions and sum by state; use ARC-View and is only qualitative; has some bias

  9. Synopsis-5 • IMPROVE Equation:recognize flaws; seem much less inclined than us to make changes; New IMPROVE sodium is very bad • Source Apportionment: Combined Aerosol Trajectory Tool (CATT) + ATAD vs. HYSPLIT Trajectory + Fast Aerosol Sensing Tools for Natural Event Tracking (FASTNET) + Rural Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN) data >> DATAFED.NET • RAIN is highly time resolved, continuous PM, SO2, & O3 at high elevation sites (to track transport, etc.) • W.O.E. & SIP Development: • Application of several models/data analyses to provide mutually reinforcing results • Consider relative performance of all techniques and underlying data sources • Methods of combining results in a meaningful way is key to results

  10. Contribution Assessment • Analytical Technique Approach • Emissions Inventory Analysis Data Based • Emissions/Distance Empirical • Incremental Probability “Receptor” based trajectory technique • Upwind Residence Time Empirical/trajectory hybrid • Source Apportionment Receptor model/ trajectory hybrid • REMSAD tagged species “Source” based grid model • CALPUFF + MM5 Dispersion Model • CALPUFF w/ Obs met Dispersion Model

  11. Where MANE-VU is Headed-1 • Many ways of sulfate apportionment are being developed, refined & analyzed • Many of these methods can & will be applied to other species • REMSAD results will come soon & will be used as the principle apportionment tool (just one modeled year) • Other tools will be used to support • Final Contribution Assessment Report – draft December 2005

  12. Where MANE-VU is Headed-2 • Develop normalized ranking plots for all receptor sites • Design qualitative “likely-impact” groupings • Devise weighting scheme for techniques to establish final contribution/ranking from each state to each Class 1 area • Evaluate each state’s contribution to all Class 1 areas • Determine necessary relative and absolute emission reductions to achieve Reasonable Progress, using 2018 glide path as guide

  13. Discussion • RUSTY the Rain-Dog

More Related