WRAP Modeling

WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach

Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON

RMC UCR/ENVIRON

Modeling Approach 1996 MM5 – EPA 1996 NEI modified by WRAP

Mobile 6 look-alike SMOKE (modified to do REMSAD) REMSAD CMAQ (Not Models 3)

CB-IV w/ fast solver

BoundaryConditions

Schematic of Grid Model

Emissions

BoundaryConditions

Chemistry, Transport, Dispersion, Removal

Transport and Dispersion

How is the different from IAS Different model year (1996 versus 1992) Similar platform (grid model) GCVTC used reduced chemistry CMAQ uses full chemistry IAS – transfer coefficients

Assumes linear changes CMAQ run for scenario

Visibility Components bext = bSO4+bNO3+bOC+bEC+bSoil+bCoarse+bRay

bSO4 = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] bNO3 = 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] bOC = 4 [OC] bEC = 10 [EC] bSoil = 1 [Soil] bCoarse = 0.6 [PM10-PM2.5] bRay = 10

Grand Canyon SO4 and OCGRCA SO4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Modeled Concentration

Am

bie

nt

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n

SO4

GRCA OC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Observed

Model

GRCA SO4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Observed

Model

GRCA OC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Modeled Concentration

Am

bie

nt

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n

OC

Performance Ramifications Soil / Coarse inert – important to vis

Won’t affect other species Inventory model

NO3 smaller component of west visibility NO3 / SO4 tradeoff

HNO3 + NH3 NH4NO3

Dependent on available ammonia NO3 and mobile

Relative Reduction Factors Requires monitoring data at site of concern Allows for model uncertainty

Issues / Challenges SMOKE QA 2 map projections with different models Boundary Conditions Fugitive Dust & Fire 2 projections through SMOKE time

consuming (No further REMSAD)

“Better than BART” Not too much worse than BART? Class I area by area? Average over state? All model days? Only observed days?

Glide Path

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

bex

t 1/

MM Milestones

BART w unc

Linear (Glide Path)

Good News / Bad News RMC completed all SO2 strategy runs

Boundary states not treated consistently Wyoming sources May have adverse impacts in Iceland Enhancing QA on inputs before used

Starting with list of past problems

Summary Modeling technology improved since

GCVTC Still need improvements in science and

inventories, particularly primary emissions One tool in the decision process Based on analysis to date, analysis will

provide useful information

Further Information http://www.cert.ucr.edu/rmc jcv@den.nps.gov (303) 969-2808