1 / 19

Use of PM Source Apportionment to Assess the Contributions of Sources in the Eastern U.S. to PM 2.5 Concentrations

Use of PM Source Apportionment to Assess the Contributions of Sources in the Eastern U.S. to PM 2.5 Concentrations. Ralph Morris, Tanarit Sakulyanontvittaya and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International Corporation rmorris@environcorp.com Dennis McNally, Cyndi Loomis and Gregory Stella

tiger
Download Presentation

Use of PM Source Apportionment to Assess the Contributions of Sources in the Eastern U.S. to PM 2.5 Concentrations

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. Use of PM Source Apportionment to Assess the Contributions of Sources in the Eastern U.S. to PM2.5 Concentrations Ralph Morris, Tanarit Sakulyanontvittaya and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International Corporation rmorris@environcorp.com Dennis McNally, Cyndi Loomis and Gregory Stella Alpine Geophysics, LLC October 8, 2008

  2. This work was funded by the Association for Southeast Integrated Planning (ASIP) and Visibility States and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) Acknowledge the assistance and guidance provided by the VISTAS/ASIP Technical Workgroup: Patricia Brewer, SESARM, Technical Coordinator Jim Boylan, Georgia Department of Natural Resources George Bridgers, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Acknowledgements

  3. VISTAS and ASIP Modeling • VISTAS and ASIP have been modeling the 2002 annual period using a 36/12 km CMAQ modeling database for several years to assess ozone, PM2.5 and visibility in the Southeastern U.S. • VISTAS is modeling the 2002 current and 2018 future years to make 2018 visibility projections for the Southeastern States Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that were due December 2007 • ASIP is modeling the 2002 current and 2009 and 2012 future years to make 2009 and 2012 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 projections for the Southeastern States 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 SIPs due June 2007 and April 2008, respectively.

  4. 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) VISTAS/ASIP 36/12 km Domains

  5. ASIP PM2.5 Point Source Contributions • Projected 2009 PM2.5 concentrations are near the standard at several monitoring sites • Some 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 • ASIP 36/12 km database inappropriate for individual point source modeling • 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 contributions • Elected 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

  6. Full Chemistry Plume-in-Grid • Incremental chemistry approach allows full gas-phase aqueous-phase and aerosol chemistry within Plume-in-Grid modules (SCICHEM) • CAMx Incremental Reactions for Organics and NOx (IRON) Plume-in-Grid (PiG) treatment • Diffusive growth • Shares SCICHEM concepts for second-order turbulence closure • Assumes horizontal growth is isotropic (Kx = Ky) • Accounts for turbulence and horizontal shear • All diffusive growth in Ky  y • Vertical growth (Kz) • Turbulence only (thermal instability and mechanical mixing)

  7. Full Chemistry Plume-in-Grid • Important to simulate proper chemistry in early evolution of point source plumes • Very little if any ozone and secondary PM2.5 formed under Stage 1 and 2 plume chemistry conditions for large NOx sources (Source: Karamchandani et al., 2002)

  8. 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 • SO4 and Primary PM families selected for ASIP point source PM2.5 contribution modeling • 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

  9. CAMx 12/4 km domain nested within ASIP 12 km CMAQ domain (one-way nesting) CAMx 12/4 modeling using two-way interactive grid nesting 2002 base case using standard model 2009 base case with PSAT PM2.5 source apportionment for 31 point sources, plus: Bus All other sources

  10. CAMx 12/4 Domains Four 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 sources Plume-in-Grid for 31 plus other large point sources

  11. Huntington-Ashland and Charleston 4 km Domain Map with FRM sites & Source Locations

  12. Huntington-Ashland-Charleston: 4 km Grid; All Sources and SO4+Prim-PM

  13. Huntington-Ashland and Charleston:4 km Grid; 31 Facilities (13.7)  Ak Steel Corp (14.5) (12.9) (15.0) (13.3) (10.3)  Swva Inc. (15.0) (CAMx 4 km 2009 PM2.5 DVs)

  14. Huntington- Ashland and Charleston: 31 Facilities; SO4 (left) and Primary PM (right) SO4 Primary PM

  15. Wheeling 4 km Domain Map with FRM sites and Source Locations

  16. Wheeling and Steubenville-Weirton: 4 km Grid; 31 Facilities and SO4+Prim-PM (13.6) Isg Weirton W.H. Sammis Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel (12.5) (13.3) (13.5) (12.8)

  17. Wheeling-Weirton: 31 Facilities; SO4 (left) and Primary PM (right) Primary PM SO4

  18. Summary of ASIP Nearby Sources Analysis • High resolution (4 km) PSAT source apportionment modeling was performed for four areas to assess the contributions of 31 facilities to projected 2009 PM2.5 Design Values • Largest contributions from all the other sources in the CAMx 12 km domain and Boundary Conditions • The largest single facility contribution to any 2009 PM2.5 Design Value was 2.1 µg/m3 by Ak Steel Corp at the Lawrence County, Ohio FRM site (2009 PM 2.5 DV of 13.7 µg/m3) in the Huntington 4 km domain • Source extremely close to monitor so use of finer grid than 4 km or local-scale model may be needed to properly address impacts

  19. Conclusions • Photochemical Grid Models (PGMs) now have the capability of simulating the contributions of individual sources to ozone and PM2.5 concentrations accounting for full-science chemistry: • Two-way grid nesting and flexi-nesting • Full chemistry Plume-in-Grid • Ozone and PM source apportionment • New PGM developments further extend such “single source” contribution applications • Addition of receptor sampling grid allows for calculation of near-source (fence line) impacts due to Plume-in-Grid point sources • Use of these modeling tools are becoming routine • ASIP point source assessment, NEPA assessments, Texas BART modeling, multi-pollutant offset modeling, PM2.5 SIP modeling, etc.

More Related