Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS)
Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW)
3SAQS Modeling Update
University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)
ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON)
February 25, 2015
Summary
• 3SAQS Base 2011 version A (Base11a) MPE
Recap
• Additions to the Base11a evaluation suite
• GEOS-Chem BC sensitivity
• Platform release
• Status and Next Steps
2
3SAQS Pilot Project Timeline
OCT 2012
Pilot Project
Start
2012
JAN 2013
EI Improvement
Meetings With
CO, UT, WY
AUG 2012
CAMx 2008a
FEB-MAY 2012
2008 EI
Modeling
FEB 2014
3SAQS Monitoring
Network Report
JUL 2014
Final 2008
Emissions
NOV 2014APR 2015
CAMx 2011
Sensitivities
2014
2013
NOV-DEC 2012
CO, UT, WY
2008 EI Analysis
and Evaluation
SEP 2014
SMOKE 2011a
OCT 2013
WRF 2011
Sensitivities
JUN 2012
Emissions VOC
Reactivity
Analysis
AUG 2014
CAMx 2008b,
WRF 2011, 2011
Oil & Gas EI,
2011a Emissions
MAR-JUN 2014
2011 EI
Modeling
OCT 2014
CAMx 2011a
MPE
3
3SAQS Pilot Project Timeline
OCT 2012
Pilot Project
Start
2012
JAN 2013
EI Improvement
Meetings With
CO, UT, WY
AUG 2012
CAMx 2008a
FEB-MAY 2012
2008 EI
Modeling
FEB 2014
3SAQS Monitoring
Network Report
JUL 2014
Final 2008
Emissions
NOV 2014APR 2015
CAMx 2011
Sensitivities
2014
2013
NOV-DEC 2012
CO, UT, WY
2008 EI Analysis
and Evaluation
SEP 2014
SMOKE 2011a
OCT 2013
WRF 2011
Sensitivities
JUN 2012
Emissions VOC
Reactivity
Analysis
AUG 2014 Dec 2015 –
CAMx 2008b, Mar 2015
WRF 2011, 2011
Additional
Oil & Gas EI, MPE for
2011a Emissions
Simulation
MAR-JUN 2014
OCTBase11a
2014
2011 EI
CAMx 2011a
Modeling
MPE
4
3SAQS Base 2011a MPE
• Draft 1 of the 2011a MPE report released November 2014
• Comments received through mid-December
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Style and grammar comments
QC of observational data
Include additional observational networks
Include analyses of VOCs, CH4, NH3, dry deposition, visibility,
and meteorology inputs
Time-series at all monitors
Hourly spatial plots
Summary of “next steps” or “to be investigated” items
Stand-alone diagnostic modeling protocol
Stand-alone emission report
5
3SAQS Base 2011a MPE
• Draft 1 of the 2011a MPE report released November 2014
• Comments received through mid-December
 Style and grammar comments
– QC of observational data
 Include additional observational networks
 Include analyses of VOCs, CH4, NH3, dry deposition, visibility,
and meteorology inputs
 Time-series at all monitors
 Hourly spatial plots
 Summary of “next steps” or “to be investigated” items
– Stand-alone diagnostic modeling protocol
 Stand-alone emission report
6
3SAQS Base 2011a MPE
•
•
•
•
2-slide summary of 2011a MPE
Summer O3 OK
Too little winter O3
All AQS and CASTNet sites 4-km domain
Too much NO2
Myton, UT MDA8
Colorado AQS NO2
7
3SAQS Base 2011a MPE
• High seasonal PM2.5 bias
• PM performance issues
with all species
• Wet deposition too low
IMPROVE Total PM2.5
CSN Total PM2.5
8
3SAQS Base 2011a MPE
• December – February Progress
– January call for additional observational data
• 3SAQS Monitoring Wiki (link)
–
–
–
–
–
GEOS-Chem boundary condition sensitivity
VOC evaluation
Ammonia evaluation against AMoN
Additional PM evaluation metrics
Evaluation with O&G production monitors
• UGWOS, Uintah Basin, Garfield County
– Emissions modeling report
9
GEOS-Chem (GC) BC Sensitivity
• Moderate impacts on ozone performance
– In general, GC < MOZART (MZ) for most species
All AQS and CASTNet sites 4-km domain
10
GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity
GC BCs have major impact on PM performance at rural monitors
IMPROVE Total PM2.5
4-km
CO
UT
WY
11
GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity
GC BCs have a smaller impact at urban monitors
CSN Total PM2.5
4-km
CO
UT
WY
12
GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity
GC BCs also produce less organic aerosol at rural sites
IMPROVE OC
4-km
CO
UT
WY
13
GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity
Persistent urban organic aerosol performance deficits
CSN OC
4-km
CO
UT
WY
14
GEOS-Chem BC Sensitivity
• 3SAQS Base2011a2
– We recommend replacing the 2011 base case
(Base2011a) with the GCBC sensitivity simulation
– Small changes to ozone and NO2
– Improvements to total PM2.5 (other PM)
15
Garfield County, CO VOCs
• 4 Locations in Garfield County with speciated
VOC measurements in 2011 (monitor map)
– Parachute (PACO) – small urban location, close to
O&G development/production; transportation hub
– Rifle (RICO) – urban center, close to O&G
development/production; industrial hub
– Bell-Melton (BRCO) – rural site, near O&G
development locations
– Battlement Mesa (BMCO) – rural site, near large
natural gas development locations
16
Garfield County, CO VOCs
• Weekly 24-hour average speciated VOCs and
carbonyls
• Similar data available for Grand JunctionPitkin in Mesa County, CO
• Preprocess observations for model
comparison
– Convert to CB6 speciation
– Set obs floor at 0.5*Min. Detection Limit
17
Total VOC
Total VOC
18
Total VOC
Total VOC
19
Ethane
Paraffin Group
20
Formaldehyde
Olefin Group
21
Isoprene
Toluene
22
Formaldehyde
23
0
Adams Co
Alamosa Co
Arapahoe Co
Archuleta Co
Baca Co
Bent Co
Boulder Co
Broomfie d Co
Chaffee Co
Cheyenne Co
Clear Creek Co
Conejos Co
Cos lla Co
Crowley Co
Custer Co
Delta Co
Denver Co
Dolores Co
Douglas Co
Eagle Co
El Paso Co
Elbert Co
Fremont Co
Garfield Co
Gilpin Co
Grand Co
Gunnison Co
Hinsdale Co
Huerfano Co
Jackson Co
Jefferson Co
Kiowa Co
Kit Carson Co
La Plata Co
Lake Co
Larimer Co
Las Animas Co
Lincoln Co
Logan Co
Mesa Co
Mineral Co
Moffat Co
Montezuma Co
Montrose Co
Morgan Co
Otero Co
Ouray Co
Park Co
Phillips Co
Pitkin Co
Prowers Co
Pueblo Co
Rio Blanco Co
Rio Grande Co
Rou Co
Saguache Co
San Juan Co
San Miguel Co
Sedgwick Co
Summit Co
Teller Co
Washington Co
Weld Co
Yuma Co
Tons/Year
140000
Formaldehyde
Colorado VOC Emissions
120000
ALM
Fugi ve Dust
100000
Fer lizer
Livestock
80000
Nonpoint
EGU Point
NonEGU Point
60000
RWC
Nonroad
40000
Onroad
Point O&G
20000
Area O&G
Fire
WBD
Biogenic
24
0
Adams Co
Alamosa Co
Arapahoe Co
Archuleta Co
Baca Co
Bent Co
Boulder Co
Broomfie d Co
Chaffee Co
Cheyenne Co
Clear Creek Co
Conejos Co
Cos lla Co
Crowley Co
Custer Co
Delta Co
Denver Co
Dolores Co
Douglas Co
Eagle Co
El Paso Co
Elbert Co
Fremont Co
Garfield Co
Gilpin Co
Grand Co
Gunnison Co
Hinsdale Co
Huerfano Co
Jackson Co
Jefferson Co
Kiowa Co
Kit Carson Co
La Plata Co
Lake Co
Larimer Co
Las Animas Co
Lincoln Co
Logan Co
Mesa Co
Mineral Co
Moffat Co
Montezuma Co
Montrose Co
Morgan Co
Otero Co
Ouray Co
Park Co
Phillips Co
Pitkin Co
Prowers Co
Pueblo Co
Rio Blanco Co
Rio Grande Co
Rou Co
Saguache Co
San Juan Co
San Miguel Co
Sedgwick Co
Summit Co
Teller Co
Washington Co
Weld Co
Yuma Co
Tons/Year
140000
Formaldehyde
Colorado VOC Emissions
120000
ALM
Fugi ve Dust
100000
Fer lizer
Livestock
80000
Nonpoint
EGU Point
NonEGU Point
60000
RWC
Nonroad
40000
Onroad
Point O&G
20000
Area O&G
Fire
WBD
Biogenic
25
Ethane
26
Ethane
27
VOC Evaluation – Next Steps
• Complete analysis with the Grand JunctionPitkin (speciated VOC), UGWOS (total VOC),
WY DEQ (total VOC), and BOA tower
(speciated VOC)
• Include a recommendation for additional
analyses and sensitivity modeling to address
the VOC performance in the MPE report
28
AMoN Ammonia
• ~2 week averages at 13 monitors in the 4-km
domain
– 9 of the monitors
have data in 2011
– 4 monitors cover
2011 in its entirety
• Averaged CAMx output across the observation
periods (i.e. 2 week averages)
• To address the scarcity in 2011 observations we
tried averaging all of the data at each monitor
29
AMoN Ammonia – CO Sites
Ft. Collins, CO
RMNP, Longs Peak, CO
RMNP, Loch Vale, CO
30
AMoN Ammonia – UT & WY Sites
Logan, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
Grand Teton NP, WY
31
AMoN Ammonia – ID & NM Sites
Craters of the Moon NM, ID
Navajo Lake, NM
Farmington, NM
32
AMoN Ammonia – Logan, UT
• Logan, UT started reporting measurements in
November 2011
• Plot above shows averaged obs from 2011-2014
• Interesting trend at this site is that the model is
predicting relatively high NH3 concentrations
33
Ammonia Evaluation – Next Steps
• Multi-year averages of the
AMoN observations is not
a good idea
• The averages tend to
be higher than the
2011 data
• Comparing the model
to the averages will
increase the model
bias
• Evaluate against the
Summer 2011 Front
Range NH3 measurements
from Li & Collett
• Look at Logan, UT relative
to the other sites in 3state region
34
PM Evaluation
• 2011a MPE used seasonal, monthly, and urban/rural PM
evaluation metrics
Winter
Spring 2011 PM2.5 Fractional Bias
4-km domain seasonal PM2.5
4-km domain monthly
IMPROVE PM2.5
Utah winter CSN PM2.5
species
35
PM Evaluation
• Requests to see higher temporal (daily timeseries) and spatial
(site-specific) analyses
• Level plots show the monthly
average NMB at each site
• Colorado IMPROVE SO4 plot
shows that White River NF and
Mt. Zirkel Wilderness tend to
have the highest biases
36
PM Evaluation
• Mount Zirkel timeseries shows
model over estimates SO4 in
winter months
• Model captures some of the
observed trends but misses
magnitudes
37
PM Evaluation – Next Steps
• Analyze level and timeseries plots for monitors
in the three states to investigate PM
performance issues
– Source of large positive biases in winter OC at urban sites
– Negative summer NO3 biases
• Provide recommendations for sensitivity
modeling to diagnose PM performance issues
– Investigate partitioning coefficients and vapor pressure for
organic PM
– Source apportionment modeling
38
O&G Monitoring Sites
• Observations
– Uintah Basin: O3 and NO2
– Upper Green River Basin: O3, NO2, HONO, VOCs
– Garfield and Mesa County: O3, NO2, VOCs
• Timeseries
• Indicator Ratios: O3/NOx, O3/VOC, NOx/VOC,
ethane/VOC, PAR/VOC, OLE/VOC, etc.
Myton, UT Hourly O3
39
Emissions Modeling Report
• Detailed description of 3SAQS 2008 and 2011
emissions modeling platforms
– Data sources
– Data preparation
– Modeling
• Summaries by state (and county for 2011)
• Inventory comparisons
– 2008 vs 2011
– Base vs future
• Analysis of the inventory changes from 2008 to 2011
• Available on the Data Warehouse
40
Next Steps
• Complete 2011 MPE report
– Dry deposition evaluation
– Ammonia
– VOC
– PM site-specific analysis
• Post all 2011 MPE products to data warehouse
• Release Base2011a2
• Start 2020_11 simulation with GC BCs
41
Next Steps
• Complete CMAQ 2011a2 4-km simulation
• Winter O3 sensitivity with 2011 winter
WRF configuration
• Other sensitivity simulations?
42
2011 Platform Recommendation
• 3SAQS Base11a2 Platform Release
– GEOS-Chem BCs to replace MOZART BCs
– Supported by detailed WRF MPE, emissions report,
and CAMx MPE
• Caveats
– Winter ozone, winter urban PM, NH3, wet
deposition
43