Use of Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling and the St. Louis Super Site Data to Model PM 2.5 Concentrations...
-
Upload
muriel-gibson -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Use of Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling and the St. Louis Super Site Data to Model PM 2.5 Concentrations...
Use of Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling and the St. Louis Super
Site Data to Model PM2.5 Concentrations in the St. Louis
AreaRalph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Jeremiah, Johnson
and Greg YarwoodENVIRON International Corporation
Jay Turner and Jennifer GarlockWashington University
St. Louis 2003-2005 Annual PM2.5 Design Values – Two Sites Violate the NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m3: Granite City (17.0 μg/m3) and East St. Louis (15.5 μg/m3)
St. Louis Regional PM2.5 Modeling
• 36/12 km Modeling Grid• MM5 Meteorological Model• SMOKE Emissions Model• CMAQ & CAMx photochemical grid models• Model Performance Evaluation
– Initially with Routine STN and FRM Networks– More Detailed with St. Louis Super Site
• PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT)• 2009 PM2.5 Design Value Projections
-500 0 500 1000 1500
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
D om ain 1 (68x68)
D om ain 2 (128x149)
D om ain 3 (92x113)
St. Louis Regional 36/12
km grid
CMAQ V4.5 SOAmods
Boundary Conditions (BCs) for 36 km Domain
from VISTAS Continental U.S. 36
km CMAQ Simulations (Whose
BCs in turn were from a 2002 GEOS-
CHEM global chemistry model
simulation)
CMAQ 2002 Annual PM2.5 Constituents
0
5
10
15
20
25
Obs Model Obs Model Obs Model Obs Model Obs Model
EC
OA
NH4
NO3
SO4
PM2.5
Alton Arnold Blair CAP StL SS
CMAQ
PM
2.5
[g
/m3 ]
Overestimation of “Other” PM2.5 – traced to overstated fugitive dust sources
SO4, NO3, NH4 and EC performance good. OA performance poor
CAMx: FB=2.80%, FE=33.42%; CMAQ: FB=-21.33%, FE=41.47%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
CAMx: FB=-3.39%, FE=36.83%; CMAQ: FB=-19.71%, FE=38.00%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
CAMx: FB=3.35%, FE=33.68%; CMAQ: FB=-15.86%, FE=35.84%
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
02468
101214161820
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
CAMx: FB=5.96%, FE=28.11%; CMAQ: FB=-16.42%, FE=32.48%
02468
101214161820
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
CAMx: FB=2.51%, FE=35.78%; CMAQ: FB=-12.65%, FE=34.31%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
Alton Arnold
Blair CAP
StL SS SO4: Good AgreementBoth CMAQ (FB = -12% to -21%) and
CAMx (FB = +3% to +6%). Some localized spikes not captured (note:
spike on day 185 @ StL SS is due to July 4 fireworks not in inventory)
CAMx: FB=-55.43%, FE=82.92%; CMAQ: FB=-67.65%, FE=93.93%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
CAMx: FB=-69.24%, FE=72.47%; CMAQ: FB=-68.08%, FE=69.67%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
CAMx: FB=-79.31%, FE=81.45%; CMAQ: FB=-83.69%, FE=84.64%
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
CAMx: FB=-66.04%, FE=67.76%; CMAQ: FB=-74.99%, FE=75.21%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
J ulian Date
CAMx: FB=-88.36%, FE=89.98%; CMAQ: FB=-89.46%, FE=90.81%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
J ulian Date
Obs
CAMx
CMAQ
Alton Arnold
Blair CAP
StL SS OMC: Mostly Under-EstimatedCMAQ (FB = -68% to -89%) and CAMx (FB = -55% to -88%) both
systematic under-prediction
MDNR STL 2002 Design Value (Left) and2009 CAMx Base4 12k projected DVF (Middle Left) and
2009 CMAQ Base4 12k projected DVF (Middle Right) and2009 CMAQ BaseG2 12k projected DVF (Right)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Granit
e City
Alton
Woo
d Rive
r
Tilden
City
East S
t. Lo
uis
Swanse
a
Arnold
Wes
t Alto
n
Sunse
t Hills
Clayto
n
Fergu
son
S. Bro
adway
Blair S
t.
Mar
gare
tta
2nd
& Mou
nd
STL
ug
/m3
PBW
NH4
Crustal
EC
OC
NO3
SO4
2009 Projected PM2.5 Design Values
PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) -- Granite City 2009 PM2.5: Source Categories by Species
Overstated fugitive dust emissions
PSAT Modeled 2009 PM2.5 Concentration at Site IL_Granite_City [Total=14.09]
0.000E+00
5.000E-01
1.000E+00
1.500E+00
2.000E+00
2.500E+00
3.000E+00
3.500E+00
4.000E+00
4.500E+00
5.000E+00
SO4 NO3 POA EC SOIL SOAA SOAB
Species
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Biogenic On-Road Mobile Non-Road Mobile Area EGU Point
Non-EGU Point SOAA SOAB Initial Concentration Boundary Condition
Granite City 2009 PSAT: Species by Source Categories
PSAT Modeled 2009 PM2.5 Concentration at Site IL_Granite_City [Total=14.09]
0.000E+00
1.000E+00
2.000E+00
3.000E+00
4.000E+00
5.000E+00
6.000E+00
Source Region
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Biogenic On-Road Mobile Non-Road Mobile Area EGU Point
Non-EGU Point SOAA SOAB Initial Concentration Boundary Condition
Granite City 2009 PSAT: Source Regions by Categories
0 1 2
PM
2.5 m
ass
, ug
/m3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Secondary Sulfate - 5.92 (33.2%)
Secondary Nitrate - 3.02 (16.9%)
"Carbon + Sulfate" - 1.64 (9.2%)
Mobile (+ other Curban?) - 1.85 (10.4%)
Steel production - 1.28 (7.2%)
Soil I - 0.48 (2.7%)
Soil II / Resuspended Road Dust - 1.02 (5.7%)
Lead smelting - 0.32 (1.8%)
Copper processing - 0.23 (1.3%)
Zinc smelting - 0.28 (1.6%)
Wood Smoke / Biomass Burn - 1.79 (10.0%)
PMF Source Apportionment Modeling using StL-SS data.
Combined PMF Factor Analysis for Industrial Source#1 Factor with Wind Direction at StL-SS Shows Large Contribution from Granite
City Steel Works Direction
Wind Analysis of Local vs. Regional PM2.5 Concentrations at Granite City Monitor (B) Identifies GCW Steel Mill & Coke Ovens as Local Contributor
St. Louis PM2.5: Regional and Local Problem
• CMAQ/CAMx 36/12 km Modeling Insufficient to Capture Local Contributions – Need Enhanced Approach:
1. Use hybrid Plume/Grid modeling approach with AERMOD/ISC Local and CMAQ/CAMx: Problems with mixing modeling results as CMAQ/CAMx designed to be accurate, AERMOD/ISC designed to be conservative.
2. Use Grid Model with Plume-in-Grid (PiG) for local-scale sources: 12 km grid still very course for sources not treated with PiG.
3. Use CMAQ/CAMx with finer grids: For example 36/12/4/1.33 km, however even 1.33 km may be insufficient to model local source impacts at Granite City
4. Use combined CMAQ/CAMx finer grids with PiG for local sources: Combines best features of (2) and (3) without problems of (1).
Decision to proceed with high resolution grid with PiG model (Option 4).
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Sun C oke 12km dom ainSW corner (264km , -432km )N X, N Y (48, 48)LC P pro jection (33, 45, -97, 40)
Sun C oke 4km dom ainSW corner (476km , -208km )N X, N Y (44, 32)LC P pro jection (33, 45, -97, 40)
Sun C oke 1km dom ainSW corner (575km , -133km )N X, N Y (38, 26)LC P pro jection (33, 45, -97, 40)
Preliminary 36/12/4/1 km CAMx modeling
Even 1 km grid insufficient to capture separation between Granite City sources and monitoring sites (shown are CAMx annual average 1 km model estimates)
St. Louis Hybrid Multi-Scale PM Modeling Approach
• Global-Scale: GEOS-CHEM provided BCs to Inter RPO USA Domain
• Continental-Scale: VISTAS 36 km CMAQ simulations
• Regional-Scale: 36/12 km CMAQ/CAMx modeling of StL regional-scale domain
• Urban-Scale: CAMx 12/4/1.33 km two-way nesting
• Local-Scale: 1.33 km and finer? plus Plume-in-Grid with CAMx two-way 12/4/1.33/0.444 km grids
CAMx V4.5 Plume-in-Grid Module
• Secondary Order Closure (SOC) horizontal and vertical diffusion*
• Full ozone and PM chemistry using Incremental Chemistry approach*
• Subgrid-scale sampling receptors
• Releases to grid model when size permits* Adapted from SCICHEM model
Stack
St. Louis PM2.5 SIP Modeling – Next Steps
• Testing of Urban- and Local-Scale 12/4/1.33 km CAMx modeling– Feasibility of finer (444 m) grids– Use of PiG subgrid-scale puff model
• Updated 2002 and 2012 emissions and modeling for Regional-scale CMAQ/CAMx 36/12 km and Local-Scale 12/4/1 km CAMx modeling
• Comprehensive model performance evaluation using St. Louis Super Site, STN and FRM data
• 2012 PM2.5 Design Value projections• Control strategy development and modeling• Final documentation for PM2.5 SIP due April 2008