1 / 15

CREATING AERMOD-READY MET FILES: AN UPDATE

CREATING AERMOD-READY MET FILES: AN UPDATE. Region 4 Modelers Workshop March 10, 2005. Joe Sims Alabama Department of Environmental Management (334) 279-3079 – jes@adem.state.al.us. Alabama AERMET Project.

summer-kerr
Download Presentation

CREATING AERMOD-READY MET FILES: AN UPDATE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CREATING AERMOD-READY MET FILES: AN UPDATE Region 4 Modelers Workshop March 10, 2005 Joe Sims Alabama Department of Environmental Management (334) 279-3079 – jes@adem.state.al.us

  2. Alabama AERMET Project Purpose – Establish a set of fully reviewed and approved meteorological data and land characteristic files for the NWS weather stations used in Alabama PSD Air Quality Analysis modeling.

  3. Rationale for Project • PSD applicants/consultants will have starting point for their air quality analyses. • Applicable surface (*.SFC) and upper air (*.PFL) files available to consultant. • Subjectivity removed from this part of Air Quality Analysis. • Removes potential for gaming. • Consultant will be responsible for demonstrating that the surface characteristics are representative of the facility under review.

  4. Approach • Divide the State into climatologically & topographically similar domains. • Identify NWS surface station most representative of each domain. • Identify representative NWS upper air station for each domain. • Determine land characteristics for each surface station. • Run AERMET Stage 1 through Stage 3 for each domain and create *.SFC and *.PFL files for input to AERMOD. • Submit results and documentation to Region 4 for review, comment and approval.

  5. Determining Land Characteristics • Divide 3 kilometer circle around weather station into 12 segments. • Divide year into seasons. • Use as many sources as possible to best estimate surface characteristics in each sector, for each season. • Suggested sources: • www.landcover.usgs.gov (national landcover maps based on Landsat thematic mapper data – 30m resolution) • www.edcftp.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/LULC/ (250m resolution landcover/land use data) • USGS Quadrangle maps • www.topozone.com (online Quad maps) • www.globexplorer.com (satellite and aerial photos) • www.terraserver-usa.com (satellite and aerial photos) • www.landvoyage.com (satellite and aerial photos) • personal experience, • Use weighted average of characteristics in each sector, rounded to 2 decimal places (arbitrary – no guidance). • Run AERSURFACE for each weather station for a sanity check.

  6. Birmingham 3km SectorsUSGS Land Use

  7. USGS Land Use – AERMET Conversion

  8. Birmingham Land Use Based on 250m LULC(Processed by CALMET)

  9. Internal Methodology & QA • The nine stations divided among 4 people to estimate characteristics for 2 or 3 stations each. (DONE) • Estimates based primarily on high-resolution USGS Land Use charts. (DONE) • Estimates adjusted as necessary based on USGS Quad charts and aerial photos. (DONE) • Estimates adjusted as necessary based on USGS 250m LULC charts. (DONE for BHM only) • All station characteristics to be reviewed as a committee and final numbers agreed upon. (DONE for BHM only) • Run AERSURFACE as another check (annual only). (DONE)

  10. Birmingham AERMET Surface Characteristics - Compared

  11. Lessons Learned • Difficult to distinguish between coniferous and deciduous forest using the tools we have. • USGS land use maps big help but sometimes appear unrealistic. • When in doubt, tended to use a ratio based on our collective experience with the area. • Difficult to distinguish between cultivated land and grassland using the tools we have. • Is grassland like prairie, like pasture, or like lawn grass? Or does it matter? • Subjectivity involved in comparing land use categories used by USGS and by AERMET.

  12. Issues • What is sufficient justification for using NWS data as representative of the weather and surface characteristics at the facility under review? • Need better guidance (in GAQM?) from EPA. • Will EPA expect a sector-by-sector comparison? • Will EPA expect a parameter-by-parameter comparison? • How will EPA minimize the subjectivity involved?

  13. Issues (Continued) • Will representativeness issue force more site-specific weather towers? • Can ASOS weather station data be used to help relieve some of these problems? • An ASOS station closer to the facility under review might be more representative than a manned station.

  14. Issues (continued) • The consensus seems to be to examine land use within a 3 kilometer circle around the site. If this is to be the standard, EPA should so state. • We arbitrarily chose to round characteristics to 2 decimal places. Should we use 3? One? How sensitive is AERMOD to these factors? EPA guidance would be helpful here. • We arbitrarily chose to divide the 3 kilometer circle into 12 sectors. More EPA guidance would be helpful here.

  15. Conclusion • Modeling protocols will become even more important in the AERMOD era. • We foresee much closer coordination with EPA Regional Offices required in the AERMOD era to resolve modeling issues. • We foresee much longer review and approval times for all Air Permit applications.

More Related