Koray Önder, P.Eng., Senior Air Quality EngineerGreg Unrau, M.Sc., Associate, Senior Air Quality MeteorologistRekha Nambia...
Outline   Background   Methodology   Results and Discussions       Sensitivity Analysis 1 : Individual Source Types   ...
Background   New Alberta Environment (AENV) Modelling    Guideline (May 2009) stipulates EPA default    CALPUFF switches...
Background   EPA recommends CALPUFF only for long range modelling   Alberta allows CALPUFF for near field applications ...
Modelling Methodology   CALPUFF version 6.263, level 080827   MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer)    b...
Modelling Methodology - CALPUFF Switches               6
Sensitivity Analysis 1   5 different source types with 1 g/s emission rate:          Steam Generator (30 m)          Sm...
Sensitivity Analysis 1 ResultsJune 28, 2012               8
Sensitivity Analysis 2 Regional cumulative contributions from multiple sources    2006 emissions – existing sources in t...
Sensitivity Analysis 2 Results                10
Model Performance Evaluation   Regional cumulative emissions predictions compared with    Wood Buffalo Environmental Asso...
Locations   Emission Sources    272 Point Sources     39 Area Sources   Modelling Domain    392 km by 564 km            ...
Fractional Bias Values - SO2            13
Fractional Bias Values - NO2June 28, 2012               14
NRMSE Values – SO2          15
NRMSE Values - NO2          16
Conclusions   US EPA Default switches (Case 1) results lower – except    area sources       Should not be generalized! ...
Questions        Thank You!Koray Önder      konder@golder.comGreg Unrau    gunrau@golder.comRekha Nambiar rnambiar@golder....
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A&WMA Conference 2010 - Calgary - CALPUFF Switch Sensitivity

542 views
436 views

Published on

This presentation compares the results of the CALPUFF model run with different model switches for regulatory permit application purposes.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
542
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A&WMA Conference 2010 - Calgary - CALPUFF Switch Sensitivity

  1. 1. Koray Önder, P.Eng., Senior Air Quality EngineerGreg Unrau, M.Sc., Associate, Senior Air Quality MeteorologistRekha Nambiar, M.Eng., Air Quality EITPaper #869CALPUFF Model Sensitivity AnalysisModel Switch Comparison
  2. 2. Outline Background Methodology Results and Discussions  Sensitivity Analysis 1 : Individual Source Types  Sensitivity Analysis 2 : Regional Cumulative Predictions  Model Performance Evaluation Conclusion Questions 2
  3. 3. Background New Alberta Environment (AENV) Modelling Guideline (May 2009) stipulates EPA default CALPUFF switches Any non-default switches have to be justified Previously:  Most advanced switches turned “on” to use the increased capability of the model  Some switches were problematic (e.g., MSHEAR) 3
  4. 4. Background EPA recommends CALPUFF only for long range modelling Alberta allows CALPUFF for near field applications British Columbia and Ontario modelling guidelines allow CALPUFF for near field applications  Non-default ‘MDISP’ AND ‘MPDF’ switches are recommended for near field applications Alberta Oil Sands Region: modelling efforts involve both near field and long range (i.e., regional scale where distances > 50km) Inconsistency in model switches for near field vs. long range applications – Challenge! 4
  5. 5. Modelling Methodology CALPUFF version 6.263, level 080827 MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) based geophysical data One year (2006) of meteorological data using local surface and mesoscale model version 5 (MM5) output data 5
  6. 6. Modelling Methodology - CALPUFF Switches 6
  7. 7. Sensitivity Analysis 1 5 different source types with 1 g/s emission rate:  Steam Generator (30 m)  Small Heater (9 m)  Incinerator (100 m)  Flare (90 m)  Area source (e.g., Mine) Considered 5 CALPUFF switch combinations (MSPLIT, MSHEAR, MDISP, MPDF, MCTURB) 7
  8. 8. Sensitivity Analysis 1 ResultsJune 28, 2012 8
  9. 9. Sensitivity Analysis 2 Regional cumulative contributions from multiple sources  2006 emissions – existing sources in the Oil Sands region (monthly production/operational variance included) Three Cases Considered Based on Previous Results  Case 1 – U.S. EPA Defaults  Case 2 – Historic Oil Sands Switches  Case 3 – Alternate Switches (no Puff Split) Modelling performed for two basic compounds:  Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)  Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 9
  10. 10. Sensitivity Analysis 2 Results 10
  11. 11. Model Performance Evaluation Regional cumulative emissions predictions compared with Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) monitoring station network data Two model switch combinations  Case 1 – U.S. EPA Defaults  Case 2 – Historical Switches  Case 3 – Alternate Switches (no Puff Split) Two Statistical Comparison methods  Fractional Bias  Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE) 11
  12. 12. Locations Emission Sources 272 Point Sources 39 Area Sources Modelling Domain 392 km by 564 km 12
  13. 13. Fractional Bias Values - SO2 13
  14. 14. Fractional Bias Values - NO2June 28, 2012 14
  15. 15. NRMSE Values – SO2 15
  16. 16. NRMSE Values - NO2 16
  17. 17. Conclusions US EPA Default switches (Case 1) results lower – except area sources  Should not be generalized! Historic Switches (Case 2) – considerably higher predictions Alternate Switches (Case 3 - BC and ON guidelines) – in between Model Performance Evaluation: No clear winner  Results does not warrant recommending an alternate; however… Regulatory Compliance Modelling – Oil Sands Region:  Using different switches not practical  Both Near Field / Long Range – primary focus: near field  BC and Ontario recommend alternate switches for near field  Alternate Switches – conservative and newer science 17
  18. 18. Questions Thank You!Koray Önder konder@golder.comGreg Unrau gunrau@golder.comRekha Nambiar rnambiar@golder.com 18

×