Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
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

675 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×