White Paper on Updates for NO2Modeling

R. Chris OwenOAQPS/AQMG

9/25/2017

1

New Tier 3 Model Development

• API working with CERC to implement a version of the ADMS NO2 scheme into AERMOD

• Similar to PVMRM in that it accounts for plume volume and considers entrainment of ozone– Adds “postchemistry” (equilibrium calculation), i.e.,

conversion of NO2 back to NO– Computation incorporates background NOx

concentrations2

New Tier 3 Model Development

• Draft version delivered to EPA in June, 2015• Carruthers et. al., 2017 peer reviewed journal

article– Provides scientific review of methodology– Includes model performance evaluation

• Potentially available in the EPA version of AERMOD in late 2018, depending on delivery of most recent version to EPA

3

Evaluation database development and analysis

• Stationary sources– Kuparuk, Alaska Drill Rig– Denver-Julesburg Basin, Colorado Drill Rig– Oklahoma Compressor Station

• Near-road – Las Vegas, Nevada– Detroit, Michigan

4

Drill Rig 1-hour NO2 Monitoring StudiesNorth Slope, Alaska

DS2N Well Pad

5

Denver-Julesburg Basin, COPad 1, Pad 2

Barrow

Collaborative Effort• American Petroleum Institute (API)*

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)*

• Conoco-Phillips Alaska*

• Anadarko (Colorado)*

• US EPA

• ERM

• AECOM

6

7

North Slope, AlaskaBarrow

Monitoring Period

8

• August 21 – December 31, 2014

• 5 Different Well Heads on DS2N

• 5 Discrete Monitoring Periods for Evaluation

Well Name Rig On Rig Off

303 08/21/2014, 06:00 9/15/2014, 18:00

350 09/16/2014, 06:00 10/24/2014, 09:00

319 10/24/2014, 21:00 11/26/2014, 18:00

337 11/28/2014, 18:00 12/27/2014, 06:00

336 12/28/2014, 12:00 01/01/2015, 00:00

North Slope, Alaska

9

DS2N Well Pad

DS1F Winds

Upwind Monitor

10

Startup of large truck very close to monitor

Plume visible from unknown transient source located next to rig. Blocked by large vehicle.

Heavy snow and outage of 1-min monitor data

Downwash and building complexity

• Test 1: Raised top deck height from 7.7 m to 9 m.– Model impacts ??? as

height was increased.• Attempted to account

for various solid objects located on the top deck that were about 1-2 meters high.

Top Deck

Current Alaska Workgroup Members

• AECOM - Christopher Warren, Bob Paine• BLM - Tom Coulter• US EPA OAQPS - Chris Owen, Clint Tillerson• US EPA Region 1 - Leiran Biton• US EPA Region 5 - Gilberto Alvarez, Jennifer

Liljegren• US EPA Region 8 - Rebecca Matichuk• US EPA Region 10 – Jay McAlpine

12

13

Denver-Julesburg Basin, Colorado

Monitoring Period

14

• October 10 – November 16, 2014 • Adjacent Well Pads (Pad 1, Pad 2)• 12 Ambient AQ Monitors • 3 Discrete Monitoring Configurations for

Evaluation– Pad 1:October 10, 2014 - October 26, 2014– Pad 2a:November 3, 2014 - November 8, 2014– Pad 2b:November 10, 2014 - November 16,

2014

15

A

B

16

17

Current Colorado Workgroup Members• AECOM - Bob Paine, Christopher Warren • ERM - Mark Garrison • US EPA OAQPS - Chris Owen, Clint Tillerson• US EPA Region 1 - Leiran Biton• US EPA Region 5 - Gilberto Alvarez, Jennifer

Liljegren • US EPA Region 7 - Lance Avey, Andy Hawkins• US EPA Region 8 - Rebecca Matichuk• City of Denver - Mohamed Eltarkawe, Michael

Ogletree, Gregg Thomas 18

Compressor Station Field Study• PRCI CPS-11-5: Ambient NO2

Modeling for 1 Hour Standard• Four monitor locations

– 3 “impact” and 1 “background”

• Meteorology – 2, 10, and 30 meter• Emissions data from engines using

PEMS• Monitoring commenced Dec 1,

2015– Completed Dec, 2016

• Contact Gary Choquetteat gchoquette@prci.org

19

Las Vegas field study• Field measurements conducted from Dec 2008 – Jan 2010• Continuous measurements of CO, NOx, BC, PM10, PM2.5, winds, RH• Monitoring 100 m west of the roadway and at 20, 100, and 300 m east

of the roadway.• On-site traffic monitoring, vehicle counts in each lane

20

Detroit field study• Field measurements conducted from Sept. 2010 – June 2011• Continuous measurements of CO, NOx, BC, PM10, PM2.5, winds, RH• Monitoring 100 m west of the roadway and at 20, 100, and 300 m east

of the roadway.• On-site traffic monitoring, vehicle counts in each lane

21

Las Vegas and Detroit study considerations

• Emissions based on vehicle counts and MOVES emissions modeling– i.e., greater uncertainty in emissions than studies based

on tracer data or on CEMS data• For NO2 evaluations, no on-site ozone monitoring• Up-wind/down-wind configuration allows for clear

delineation of background

22