View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Single Source Ozone and PM Modeling
Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation
rmorris@environcorp.com
EPA’s 9th Conference on Air Quality ModelingNon-Guideline Applications
October 10, 2008
EPA Guidelines/Guidance for Air Quality Modeling Assessments
AERMOD for near-source (< 50 km) air quality impacts of primary pollutants (EPA, 2005)CALPUFF for far-field (> 50 km) air quality impacts of primary pollutants (EPA, 2003)– CALPUFF adopted for SO2 and primary PM PSD
increments and NAAQSs, not AQRV analysis
Photochemical Grid Models (PGMs) recommended for ozone and secondary components of PM (e.g., SO4 & NO3) (EPA, 2007)– Lagrangian models (e.g., AERMOD and CALPUFF) only
suitable for primary components
New Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
New 0.075 ppm 8-hour and 35 µg/m3 24-hr PM2.5NAAQSs will bring many more areas into nonattainment– PM2.5 NAAQS increases importance of secondary PM2.5
Capability needed to obtain individual contributions to ozone and PM2.5 concentrations, deposition and visibility
Current guideline models have no (AERMOD) or highly simplified (CALPUFF) representation of chemistry
Photochemical Grid Models (PGMs) have capability to correctly treat chemistry – But how can they resolve and correctly simulate near source
plume chemistry and dispersion?
Why PGMs Have Not Been Used to Address “Single Source” Impacts
PGMs can only resolve impacts to the grid resolution– Fine grid size needed near the source to resolve near-
source plume chemistry and dispersionNeed many grid cells to assess downwind impactsHigh computer resource requirements
Must account for all emission sourcesNeeded to correctly simulate chemistry
Databases more costly to developMM5/WRF applicationsSMOKE or other emissions model
More expertise needed in their application
Recent Developments for “Single Source” Modeling using PGMs
Two-way interactive grid nesting– Allows fine grid over sources with coarser grid downwind
when plumes are larger
Flexi-nesting– Can specify fine grid to resolve point source plume chemistry
and dispersion without providing met and emission inputs
Full Chemistry Plume-in-Grid Modules– Treats unique near-source chemistry of point source plumes
PM and Ozone Source Apportionment– Allows individual source(s) assessments
Computational advancesAvailability of PGM Databases and model set ups– RPOs, AIRPACT, SIPs, etc.
Advanced Grid Nesting
Two-way interactive grid nesting– Allows specification of high resolution grid over sources
with coarser grids downwind where plumes are larger
Flexi-Nesting– Interpolate meteorology, emissions and/or other inputs
for nested fine grid from coarse grid data– Allows fine grid treatment of point source plumes
Available within the CAMx model (just specify where fine grid domains are desired in job script)
Have developed tool to generate flexi-nest fine grid inputs for CMAQ (for EPA/OAQPS)
Full Chemistry Plume-in-GridIncremental chemistry approach allows full gas-phase, aqueous-phase and aerosol chemistry within Plume-in-Grid modules– CAMx Incremental Reactions for Organics and NOx
(IRON) Plume-in-Grid (PiG) treatment– CMAQ Advanced Plume Treatment (APT)
• Calculate chemical kinetic reaction rates using total concentrations (PiG + Grid)
• Apply chemical rates to incremental concentrations within puffs (PiG alone)
• When size of plume is commensurate with grid cell size release incremental PiG concentrations to grid model
Full Chemistry Plume-in-Grid
Important to simulate proper chemistry in early evolution of point source plumes
Very little if any ozone and secondary PM2.5formed under Stage 1 and 2 plume chemistry conditions for large NOx sources
Stack
PM and Ozone Source Apportionment
PM and Ozone Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT/PSAT) available in CAMx– Uses reactive tracers that operate in parallel to host
model and tracks ozone and PM formation back to emission source regions and categories
– PSAT has five families of tracers: SO4; NO3/NH4; Primary PM; SOA; and Hg
Similar approaches in CMAQ (TSSA and PPTM)Allows for identification of the ozone and PM impacts from several individual sources or groups of sources in single run
Example “Single Source” PGM Applications
Texas “Group BART” application– CAMx 36/12 km with PiG and PSAT
Estimation of individual contributions of 31 point sources to annual PM2.5 in the eastern U.S.– Individual point source contributions to 2009 annual
PM2.5 concentrations– Visibility Improvements for States and Tribal Association
of the Southeast (VISTAS) and Association for Integrated Planning of the Southeast (ASIP)
Annual PM2.5 SIP modeling for St. Louis– Effects of local sources on PM2.5 nonattainment
Texas Group BART AnalysisCENRAP 2002 36 km modeling CAMx database– Add 12 km flexi-nest grid covering Texas and nearby Class I areas– Use IRON PiG for Texas BART Source– Use PSAT to obtain PM2.5 contributions of groups of Texas BART
sources for comparison with 0.5 deciview threshold
-2736 -1872 -1008 -144 720 1584 2448-2088
-1656
-1224
-792
-360
72
504
936
1368
1800
km
km
-936 -816 -696 -576 -456 -336 -216 -96 24 144 264 384
-1620
-1500
-1380
-1260
-1140
-1020
-900
-780
-660
-540
-420
km
km
VISTAS/ASIP 36/12 km Domains
2002 Annual Runs– 4 Quarters w/ ~15 day spin up– MPI w/ 6 CPUs
36 km: 148 x 112 (4 days)12 km: 168 x 177 (10 days)19 Vertical Layers CMAQ V4.51 w/ SOAmods– M3Dry– CBM-IV/AE4/SORGAM– SOAmods: In 2005 VISTAS
enhanced CMAQ to include SOA from sesquiterpenes and isoprene (Morris et al., 2006)
ASIP PM2.5 Point Source ContributionsSome ASIP/VISTAS states wanted to know individual contributions of several point sources to 2009 PM2.5 levels– 31 individual point sources in 6 states identified– Contributions due to SO2 and primary PM emissions requested
CALPUFF considered for assessment– Not consistent with CMAQ full-science chemistry– Provide inconsistent source contributions with 2009 PM2.5 SIP projections
ASIP 36/12 km database inappropriate for individual point sourcemodeling– 12 km grid cell size too coarse to treat chemistry and dispersion of point
source plumes– Use of high enough resolution to resolve point source plume would be
computationally prohibitive– Would need to perform base case and 31 zero-out runs to get individual
source contributionsElected to develop a new CAMx 2002 database:– 12/4 km domain with two-way nested grids– Plume-in-Grid to address near-source chemistry and dispersion– PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) to obtain individual source
contributions
CAMx 12/4 km domain nested within ASIP 12 km CMAQ domain (one-way nesting)CAMx 12/4 modeling using two-way interactive grid nesting2002 base case using standard model2009 base case with PSAT PM2.5 source apportionment for 31 point sources
120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 1920 2040
-1560
-1440
-1320
-1200
-1080
-960
-840
-720
-600
-480
-360
-240
-120
0
120
240
360
480
VISTAS CMAQ 12 km: 168 x 177 (108, -1620) to (2124, 504)CAMx 12km: 54 x 71 (828, -612) to (1476, 240)
VISTAS CMAQ 12km
CAMx 12km
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
CAMx 12km: 54 x 71 (828, -612) to (1476, 240)
CAMx 04km (includes buffer cells):Steubenville/Wierton 26 x 35 (1316, 80) to (1420, 220)Charleston 50 x 38 (1172, -148) to (1372, 4)Louisville 17 x 26 ( 944, -184) to (1012, -80)Chattanooga/Knoxville 47 x 44 (1028, -496) to (1216, -320)
CAMx 12km
4km Chat
4 km Char
4 km Steu
4 km Loui
CAMx 12/4 DomainsFour 4 km domains:– Charleston-Huntington,
KY/OH/WV– Wheeling-Weirton,
OH/PA/WV– Louisville, IN/KY– Knoxville-Chattanooga,
GA/KY/NC
PSAT to obtain individual PM2.5 contributions from 31 point sourcesPlume-in-Grid for 31 plus other large point sources
Huntington-Ashland and Charleston 4 km Domain Map with FRM sites & Source Locations
1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 1360
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Marathon Ashland Pet LLC
Ak Steel CorpE I Dupont Inc
Kentucky Power Co Big Sandy Plant
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. Kyger CreekGavin Power Plant
Swva, Inc.
Dupont - Belle
Bayer Cropscience
Appalachian Power - Mountaineer Plant
Flexsys - Nitro PlantAppalachian Power - John E Amos Plant
KY-Boyd-0017
KY-Carter-0500
OH-Lawrence-0010
OH-Scioto-0013
WV-Cabell-0006WV-Kanawha-0010WV-Kanawha-1005
Appalachian Power - Kanawha River Plant
Appalachian Power - Philip Sporn Plant
Huntington AlloysFmc Corporation - Steam PlantUnion Carbide (Dow) So. Charleston PlantClearon Corp.
Huntington-Ashland-Charleston: 4 km Grid; All Sources and SO4+Prim-PM
ASIP 2009 Q1 Projected SO4+EC+POC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
KY-Boyd
-0017
KY-Cart
er-0500
OH-Lawren
ce-00
10
OH-Scio
to-001
3
WV-Cab
ell-000
6WV-K
anawha
-0010
WV-Kan
awha-10
05
Sources
SO4+
EC+P
OC
ug/
m3
BCICOthers
Appalachian Pow er Co.-John E AFlexsys - Nitro PlantAppalachian Pow er Co.-MountainAppalachian Pow er Co.-Philip S
Ohio Pow er - Kammer PlantOhio Pow er - Mitchell PlantPpg Industries, Inc.Clearon Corp.
Bayer CropscienceAppalachian Pow er - Kanaw ha RiUnion Carbide (Dow ) So. CharleFmc Corporation - Steam Plant
Dupont - BelleIsg WeirtonSw va, Inc.Huntington Alloys - A Special
Bow ater New sprint & DirectoryE.U.Du Pont De Nemours And ComPa Pow er Co/Bruce Mansfield PlW.H. Sammis Plant
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel CorpCardinal Pow er Plant (CardinalGavin Pow er PlantOhio Valley Electric Corp Kyge
R.E. Burger PlantKentucky Pow er Co Big Sandy PE I Dupont IncAk Steel Corp
Marathon Ashland Pet LlcPsi Energy - Gallagher
ASIP 2009 Annual Projected SO4+EC+POC
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
KY-Boyd
-0017
KY-Cart
er-0500
OH-Lawren
ce-00
10
OH-Scio
to-001
3
WV-Cab
ell-000
6WV-K
anawha
-0010
WV-Kan
awha-10
05
Sources
SO
4+E
C+P
OC
ug/m
3
Appalachian Pow er Co.-John E A
Flexsys - Nitro Plant
Appalachian Pow er Co.-Mountain
Appalachian Pow er Co.-Philip S
Ohio Pow er - Kammer Plant
Ohio Pow er - Mitchell Plant
Ppg Industries, Inc.
Clearon Corp.
Bayer Cropscience
Appalachian Pow er - Kanaw ha Ri
Union Carbide (Dow ) So. Charle
Fmc Corporation - Steam Plant
Dupont - Belle
Isg Weirton
Sw va, Inc.
Huntington Alloys - A Special
Bow ater New sprint & Directory
E.U.Du Pont De Nemours And Com
Pa Pow er Co/Bruce Mansfield Pl
W.H. Sammis Plant
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp
Cardinal Pow er Plant (Cardinal
Gavin Pow er Plant
Ohio Valley Electric Corp Kyge
R.E. Burger Plant
Kentucky Pow er Co Big Sandy P
E I Dupont Inc
Ak Steel Corp
Marathon Ashland Pet Llc
Psi Energy - Gallagher
Huntington-Ashland and Charleston:4 km Grid; 31 Facilities
Ak Steel Corp
Swva Inc.
(12.9)
(10.3)
(13.7)
(15.0)
(14.5)
(13.3) (15.0)
(CAMx 4 km 2009 PM2.5 DVs)
ASIP 2009 Annual Projected PSO4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
KY-Boy
d-0017
KY-Cart
er-05
00
OH-Lawren
ce-001
0
OH-Scio
to-0013
WV-Cab
ell-00
06
WV-Kan
awha-0
010
WV-Kan
awha
-1005
Sources
PSO
4 ug
/m3
Huntington- Ashland and Charleston: 31 Facilities; SO4 (left) and Primary PM (right)
ASIP 2009 Annual Projected PEC+POA
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
KY-Boyd
-0017
KY-Carte
r-050
0
OH-Lawrenc
e-0010
OH-Scio
to-00
13
WV-C
abell
-0006
WV-Kan
awha
-0010
WV-Kan
awha
-1005
Sources
PEC
+PO
A u
g/m
3
SO4 Primary PM
Wheeling 4 km Domain Map with FRM sites and Source Locations
1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 142080
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
R.E. Burger Plant
Cardinal Power Plant (Cardinal Operating
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp
W.H. Sammis Plant
Pa Power Co/Bruce Mansfield Plt
Isg Weirton
Ppg Industries, Inc.
Ohio Power - Mitchell PlantOhio Power - Kammer Plant
WV-Brooke-0005
WV-Hancock-0011WV-Hancock-1004
WV-Marshall-1002
WV-Ohio-0010
CAMx 04km (includes buffer cells):Steubenville/Wierton 26 x 35 (1316, 80) to (1420, 220)
ASIP 2009 Annual Projected SO4+EC+POC
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
WV-Brook
e-0005
WV-Han
cock
-0011
WV-Han
cock
-1004
WV-Mars
hall-1
002
WV-Ohio-
0010
Sources
SO4+
EC+P
OC
ug/
m3
Appalachian Pow er Co.-John E A
Flexsys - Nitro Plant
Appalachian Pow er Co.-Mountain
Appalachian Pow er Co.-Philip S
Ohio Pow er - Kammer Plant
Ohio Pow er - Mitchell Plant
Ppg Industries, Inc.
Clearon Corp.
Bayer Cropscience
Appalachian Pow er - Kanaw ha Ri
Union Carbide (Dow ) So. Charle
Fmc Corporation - Steam Plant
Dupont - Belle
Isg Weirton
Sw va, Inc.
Huntington Alloys - A Special
Bow ater New sprint & Directory
E.U.Du Pont De Nemours And Com
Pa Pow er Co/Bruce Mansfield Pl
W.H. Sammis Plant
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp
Cardinal Pow er Plant (Cardinal
Gavin Pow er Plant
Ohio Valley Electric Corp Kyge
R.E. Burger Plant
Kentucky Pow er Co Big Sandy P
E I Dupont Inc
Ak Steel Corp
Marathon Ashland Pet Llc
Psi Energy - Gallagher
Wheeling and Steubenville-Weirton: 4 km Grid; 31 Facilities and SO4+Prim-PM
(13.3)
(12.5)
(13.6)
(13.5) (12.8)
Isg Weirton
W.H. Sammis
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-Weirton: 31 Facilities; SO4 (left) and Primary PM (right)
ASIP 2009 Annual Projected PSO4
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
WV-Brook
e-0005
WV-Hanc
ock-00
11
WV-Hanc
ock-10
04
WV-Mars
hall-1
002
WV-Ohio
-0010
Sources
PSO
4 ug
/m3 ASIP 2009 Annual Projected PEC+POA
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.20
1.50
WV-Broo
ke-00
05
WV-Han
cock-
0011
WV-Han
cock-
1004
WV-Mars
hall-1
002
WV-Ohio
-0010
Sources
PEC
+PO
A u
g/m
3
SO4
Primary PM
St. Louis 2003-2005 Annual PM2.5Design Values
-500 0 500 1000 1500
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
Domain 1 (68x68)
Domain 2 (128x149)
Domain 3 (92x113)
St. Louis Regional 36/12
km gridCMAQ V4.5 SOAmods
Projected 2009 and 2012 PM2.5 Design Values at Granite City and East St.
Louis still exceed the annual PM2.5
NAAQS
Evidence that local sources contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at Granite City Monitor (B) and Washington St. Monitor (A)
Hybrid CAMx 2002 12/4/1 km Modeling with PiG for Local Sources
BCs for from CMAQ 36/12 km regional modeling
12/4/1 km two-way interactive grid nesting– Allows for recirculation of
pollutants within domains
Plume-in-Grid and PSAT used for local sources– Subgrid-scale sampling grid
use to sample puffs before released to grid
– Ability for near-source “fence line” impacts 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Preliminary Results for Total PM2.5
PSAT_PIG - P25
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
AN
N
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
AN
N
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
AN
N Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
AN
N Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
ANN Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
AN
N
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
AN
N
Washington Ave. Granite City East St. Louis Ferguson Blair St. Margaretta 2nd & Mound
Con
cent
ratio
n BC
IC
Surface sources
Other PointSources
Source#1
Source#2
Live Puff
Local Sources contributing ~7 and ~3.4 µg/m3 to annual average PM2.5 at Washington Street and Granite City monitoring sites
St. Louis Conceptual ModelTurner and co-workers (2007a,b,c,d) have developed a Conceptual Model for PM2.5exceedances in the St. Louis area– They found that local sources contribute ~3.2
µg/m3 to PM2.5 at the Granite City monitor on average
– The CAMx 12/4/1 km PiG modeling attributes 3.4 µg/m3 to local sources at Granite City
– Turner, J.R. and J.L. Garlock. 2007a. A Conceptual Model for Ambient Fine Particulate Matter over the St. Louis Area. Revision 3.0. Washington University, St. Louis, MO. October.
– Turner, J., J. Garlock, S. Raffuse, J. Rubin, S. Brown, B. Anderson and G. Norris. 2007b. Task#5 Transport Regimes Analysis, Version 1. Technical Memorandum. Washington University, St. Louis, MO. October.
– Turner, J.R., J. Garlock, J. Jaeckels and J. Schauer. 2007c. Task#2 Fine Particulate Matter Carbon Apportionment, Version 1. Washington University, St. Louis, MO. October.
– Turner, J. and J. Garlock. 2007d. Task#4 Urban/Regional Contrast and Intraurban Variability, Version 1. Washington University, St. Louis, MO. October.
Was
hing
ton
Ave.
Gra
nite
City
Eas
t St.
Loui
sFe
rgus
onBl
air S
t.M
arga
retta
2nd
& M
ound
ANN
BC
IC
Surface sources
Other PointSources
Source#1
Source#2
Live Puff0
5
10
15
20
25
Con
cent
ratio
n
ConclusionsRecent advances in PGMs make them more suitable for assessing “single source” contributions to ozone, PM2.5, visibility and deposition– Fine resolution grids, two-way grid nesting, and flexi-nesting– Full chemistry Plume-in-Grid modules– Ozone and PM source apportionment– Full gas-phase and aqueous-phase chemistry and aerosol
thermodynamic modules
The use PGM modeling to assess “single source” air quality, visibility and deposition issues has become more routine: – ASIP point source PM2.5 assessment– Oil and gas AQ and AQRV assessments as part of NEPA– Texas and Arkansas BART assessment– PM2.5 SIP modeling
Recommended