Analysis of Data from West-wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) Excerpt from Alpine Geophysics Review dated September 8, 2015

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Analysis of Data from West-wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) Excerpt from Alpine Geophysics Review dated September 8, 2015"

Asher Mason
5 years ago
Views:

1 Analysis of Data from West-wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) Excerpt from Alpine Geophysics Review dated September 8, 2015 Background Alpine Geophysics was part of a modeling team that performed the West-wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) managed by the Western Governors Association (WGA) for the WRAP. A primary objective of the WestJumpAQMS was to initiate the next generation of regional technical analysis and support for Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM) transport and attainment demonstrations across the West and to provide a modeling platform to begin addressing the next generation of air quality issues related to Ozone, PM (PM2.5 and PM10), visibility and nitrogen and sulfur (acid) deposition. As part of this study, WGA and WRAP established a goal that a comprehensive source apportionment analysis be developed to evaluate local, regional, international, and natural source impacts on elevated ozone concentrations (both rural and urban) across the West. A Detailed Source Apportionment Domains (DSAD) 4-km domain was defined so that fully linked 36/12/4 km ozone source apportionment modeling was performed to examine the upwind transport of pollutants from throughout the 36/12/4 km CONUS region into the 4-km DSAD domain, as well as downwind transport of emissions from the DSAD and other regions on downwind Ozone concentrations. Figure 1 represents the DSAD which was defined to include all of the major oil and gas development areas in the region. The CAMx Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA) version of the Ozone Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT) tool was applied to estimate the contributions of states and major source categories to ozone concentrations in the western U.S. under 2008 base case conditions. APCA assigns a source to the anthropogenic category even if the anthropogenic source emissions react with biogenic emissions. Source category specific ozone source apportionment modeling assessed the contributions of the following major source categories to ozone in the western states: Natural emissions (biogenic, lightning, sea salt, and windblown dust); Anthropogenic emissions; Fires (wild, prescribed burns, and agricultural burning); and Boundary Conditions (BCs, i.e., contributions from international transport and stratospheric ozone that come into the 36km CONUS domain through the day-specific BCs obtained from the MOZART GCM). The following data and analyses utilize products developed during the WestJumpAQMS in achieving this goal within the DSAD. 1

2 Detailed Source Apportionment Domain (DSAD) Monitor-Level Design Value Results For each monitor reviewed in the DSAD, the Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) was used to obtain the relative contributions of each noted source category, Canada/Mexico, and Boundary Conditions to the 2008 design value (DVC). From these results, the following figures show, by each of the four specific source region states; Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, absolute and relative contributions from emissions to ozone concentrations at studied monitors. Tables 1 and 2 present the 2008 MATS generated 8-hr ozone design value and relative source contributions (ppb) and calculated relative percent contribution to total ozone design values, respectively. Figures 2, 3, and 4 present the DVC-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations for the above noted states. Each stacked bar demonstrates the modeled source category contribution to each monitor. Figure 5, 6, and 7 present the relative contribution (in percent) of each of these source categories, as they apply to the 2008 design value at each monitor. As can be seen in these Figures and in Tables 1 and 2, for monitors analyzed in the DSAD, 2008 design values range from 62 ppb (San Juan, NM 0009) to 82 ppb (Jefferson, CO 0006), with BC contributions ranging from 49.6% (Denver, CO 0014) to 83.3% (San Juan, NM 0101) of the total contributed ozone, natural source contributions ranging from 2.9% (La Plata, CO 1004) to 6.3% (San Juan, NM 0009), and fire emissions contributing from 0.1% (Box Elder, UT 7001) to 1.6% (Salt Lake, UT 3006) of the total ozone concentrations modeled at these monitors. Figure 8 presents a graphical view of the relative contribution, in percent of total 2008 baseline design value concentration, for monitors in the DSAD. It can be seen that the majority of the monitors with highest calculated boundary condition contributions (70% and higher; warmer colors) are located in the western edge of the DSAD or at high elevation locations. This is consistent with findings from other studies of boundary condition impact on ozone concentrations. 2

3 Figure 1. WestJumpAQMS 4-km DSAD domain nested in 12km WESTUS and 36km CONUS modeling domains. 3

4 Table MATS 8-hr ozone design value and relative source contributions (ppb) Ozone Concentration (ppb) County/Monitor/ID Baseline DV BCs Natural Fires Oil+Gas Point Sources Mobile Area Can+Mex Background COLORADO CO_Adams CO_Boulder CO_Denver CO_Douglas CO_El Paso CO_El Paso CO_Jefferson CO_Jefferson CO_Jefferson CO_Jefferson CO_La Plata CO_La Plata CO_La Plata CO_Larimer CO_Larimer CO_Larimer CO_Montezuma CO_Weld NEW MEXICO NM_San Juan NM_San Juan UTAH UT_Box Elder UT_Box Elder UT_Cache UT_Davis UT_Salt Lake

5 2008 Ozone Concentration (ppb) County/Monitor/ID Baseline DV BCs Natural Fires Oil+Gas Point Sources Mobile Area Can+Mex Background UT_Salt Lake UT_San Juan UT_Utah UT_Utah UT_Utah UT_Weber WYOMING WY_Sublette WY_Sublette WY_Sweetwater WY_Uinta Data Source: Appendix H; WestJumpAQMS Final Report. 5

6 Table MATS 8-hr ozone design value (ppb) and relative source contributions (% of total). Baseline Relative Contribution to Baseline DV (% of Total) County/Monitor/ID DV (ppb) BCs Natural Fires Oil+Gas Point Sources Mobile Area Can+Mex Background COLORADO CO_Adams % 5.0% 1.0% 3.6% 8.7% 24.6% 2.8% 1.4% 1.5% CO_Boulder % 4.4% 1.0% 4.1% 7.8% 23.9% 2.7% 1.4% 1.8% CO_Denver % 5.3% 0.9% 3.7% 8.4% 25.7% 3.4% 1.7% 1.3% CO_Douglas % 5.5% 0.6% 3.3% 8.2% 25.3% 3.2% 1.7% 1.1% CO_El Paso % 4.1% 0.6% 2.2% 5.9% 14.3% 1.5% 1.3% 2.2% CO_El Paso % 4.6% 0.6% 1.7% 5.3% 12.7% 1.3% 1.4% 3.1% CO_Jefferson % 5.1% 0.8% 3.7% 8.1% 25.2% 3.1% 1.5% 1.6% CO_Jefferson % 5.0% 0.7% 2.7% 7.3% 22.9% 3.1% 1.6% 2.0% CO_Jefferson % 4.5% 1.0% 4.0% 8.0% 25.1% 2.8% 1.5% 2.0% CO_Jefferson % 4.7% 0.9% 3.4% 7.5% 25.0% 3.1% 1.4% 0.9% CO_La Plata % 2.9% 0.1% 1.6% 2.4% 4.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.3% CO_La Plata % 3.0% 0.3% 2.7% 3.2% 5.2% 0.6% 1.4% 3.9% CO_La Plata % 4.2% 0.3% 3.6% 4.5% 7.0% 0.7% 1.8% 4.9% CO_Larimer % 4.3% 0.5% 3.2% 6.9% 18.7% 2.4% 1.5% 2.2% CO_Larimer % 4.0% 0.3% 4.1% 5.3% 13.7% 1.9% 1.5% 2.3% CO_Larimer % 3.7% 0.3% 4.0% 5.2% 13.5% 1.9% 1.5% 1.6% CO_Montezuma % 4.5% 0.6% 1.4% 6.6% 6.5% 0.4% 1.3% 7.1% CO_Weld % 4.7% 0.6% 5.2% 6.9% 17.6% 1.9% 1.4% 1.0% NEW MEXICO NM_San Juan % 6.3% 0.5% 6.0% 11.0% 11.3% 1.0% 1.9% 3.4% NM_San Juan % 3.9% 0.9% 3.1% 9.7% 8.4% 0.6% 1.2% 3.6% UTAH UT_Box Elder % 4.7% 0.4% 0.6% 4.9% 13.3% 1.5% 2.8% 0.7% UT_Box Elder % 4.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.6% 7.7% 1.5% 3.4% 0.4% UT_Cache % 4.9% 0.4% 0.6% 4.6% 14.7% 1.5% 2.8% 0.7% UT_Davis % 4.0% 1.4% 0.8% 5.7% 17.0% 2.1% 1.2% 0.8% UT_Salt Lake % 3.7% 1.5% 0.6% 5.4% 17.6% 2.2% 1.0% 1.7% 6

7 Baseline Relative Contribution to Baseline DV (% of Total) County/Monitor/ID DV (ppb) BCs Natural Fires Oil+Gas Point Sources Mobile Area Can+Mex Background UT_Salt Lake % 3.8% 1.6% 0.6% 5.5% 16.9% 2.5% 1.2% 1.3% UT_San Juan % 3.3% 0.3% 0.4% 2.7% 5.3% 0.7% 1.6% 2.4% UT_Utah % 2.9% 0.6% 0.4% 4.6% 13.3% 2.6% 1.3% 0.8% UT_Utah % 3.9% 1.2% 0.4% 4.3% 14.7% 2.1% 1.2% 1.2% UT_Utah % 2.9% 0.6% 0.4% 4.6% 13.3% 2.6% 1.4% 0.6% UT_Weber % 4.2% 0.4% 0.5% 4.6% 11.8% 1.5% 2.5% 1.3% WYOMING WY_Sublette % 5.3% 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 5.3% 0.9% 4.3% 0.5% WY_Sublette % 4.6% 0.3% 0.4% 1.6% 5.4% 0.9% 3.4% 1.9% WY_Sweetwater % 6.1% 1.3% 1.4% 8.8% 10.8% 1.1% 2.7% 0.2% WY_Uinta % 3.9% 0.9% 0.3% 3.6% 9.6% 1.1% 2.8% 1.4% Data Source: Appendix H; WestJumpAQMS Final Report. 7

8 Ozone Design Value (ppb) 90 Colorado Monitors in DSAD hr Ozone Design Value-Scaled Souce Category Contribution Boundary Backgrnd Nat Sources Fire Mobile Sources Point Nonpoint Oil + Gas Can+Mex Figure 2. Baseline design value-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations Colorado monitors. 8

9 Ozone Design Value (ppb) 90 New Mexico and Wyoming Monitors in DSAD hr Ozone Design Value-Scaled Souce Category Contribution NM_San Juan0009 NM_San Juan1005 WY_Sublette0099 WY_Sublette0100 WY_Sweetwater0200 WY_Uinta0101 Boundary Backgrnd Nat Sources Fire Mobile Sources Point Nonpoint Oil + Gas Can+Mex Figure 3. Baseline design value-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations New Mexico and Wyoming monitors. 9

10 Ozone Design Value (ppb) 90 Utah Monitors in DSAD hr Ozone Design Value-Scaled Souce Category Contribution Boundary Backgrnd Nat Sources Fire Mobile Sources Point Nonpoint Oil + Gas Can+Mex Figure 4. Baseline design value-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations Utah monitors. 10

11 Relative Contribution (%) Colorado Monitors in DSAD hr Ozone Design Value-Scaled Souce Category Contribution 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Boundary Backgrnd Nat Sources Fire Mobile Sources Point Nonpoint Oil + Gas Can+Mex Figure 5. Relative contribution of baseline design value-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations Colorado monitors. 11

12 Relative Contribution (%) New Mexico and Wyoming Monitors in DSAD hr Ozone Design Value-Scaled Souce Category Contribution 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NM_San Juan0009 NM_San Juan1005 WY_Sublette0099 WY_Sublette0100 WY_Sweetwater0200 WY_Uinta0101 Boundary Backgrnd Nat Sources Fire Mobile Sources Point Nonpoint Oil + Gas Can+Mex Figure 6. Relative contribution of baseline design value-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations New Mexico and Wyoming monitors. 12

13 Relative Contribution (%) Utah Monitors in DSAD hr Ozone Design Value-Scaled Souce Category Contribution 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Boundary Backgrnd Nat Sources Fire Mobile Sources Point Nonpoint Oil + Gas Can+Mex Figure 7. Relative contribution of baseline design value-scaled MATS results from the source apportionment simulations Utah monitors. 13

14 Figure 8. Relative contribution of boundary conditions on 2008 ozone design value (% of total). 14

Future Year 2017 Source Apportionment Modeling Plan Denver Ozone SIP Modeling using 2011 Modeling Platform Draft#2, March 21, 2016

Future Year 2017 Source Apportionment Modeling Plan Denver Ozone SIP Modeling using 2011 Modeling Platform Draft#2, March 21, 2016 INTRODUCTION The Denver Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) and Colorado