pairing monitored background and modeled data “paired sums” · 1 pairing monitored background...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Pairing Monitored Background and Modeled Data “Paired Sums”
(24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Modeling)
EPA Regional/State/Local Modelers WorkshopPortland, Oregon
May 2010
Dennis BeckerMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
2
Recent National Attention (Background, Paired Sums)
9th Conference on Air Quality ModelingPresentation by Robert (Bob) Paine, ENSR
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/9thmodconfpres.htm
AWMA 3/12/2010 letter to Tyler Fox, EPA• Schewe, Catizone, Paine, and others
EPA-NACAA workgroup (background PM2.5)Minnesota Priority (esp. 24-hour PM2.5) Rural Test Case: Granite Falls Energy (ethanol plant)
Minnesota PM2.5 Monitor Types & Locations (2005)
Federal Reference Method (FRM)
Beta Attenuation Monitors (BAMS)
IMPROVESpeciation Trends
Network (STN)
3
24-Hr PM2.5 FRM Design Values (MN)
4
5
“Paired Sums” Approach (MN)
Pairing in time prevents combining monitored and modeled values occurring on different days.Modeled maximum = January 1Monitored maximum = July 1
Pairing in space (regional approximations) Representative or conservative background sites
– CAMx provides simple qualitative regional insight for PM2.5
» See rural test case
6
“Paired Sums” Approach (MN)
Extra requirementsApproved protocol
• Traditional information plus special information…– site selections, data period, missing data, etc.
Post-processing• 5 years concurrent meteorology and monitored data
7
“Paired Sums” Approach (MN)
Model “ALL” sources. Then add daily background via MPCA post-processorFacility Sources +Significant Nearby Sources +Concurrent Background
• Use monitor sites with expected similar or higher concentrations:
– Rural projects use rural, suburban, or urban sites– Urban projects use urban sites
8
“Paired Sums” – PM2.5 DetailsSite Types (period of record must match met data)
Beta-Attenuation Method (BAM)• continuous data daily averages
Federal Reference Method (FRM)• 1-in-3 or 1-in-6 day (too sparse in time)
Site HierarchyPrimary Site
• Most representative to facility location– reasonably conservative site is also acceptable
Backup Sites & Backup Values• Fill in missing data at primary site
MPCA “Paired-Sums”PM2.5 Post-Processor
Fortran program InputAERMOD POSTFILE (SRCGROUP “ALL”)
• Other SRCGROUPs are optional (culp. info.)Monitored data (date, daily values by site)
Output (3 text files) [*.txt, *.plt, *.bkg]Simple QA: post-processor reproduces
AERMOD output if background is zero
9
10
PM2.5 Post-Processor Output MPCA PAIRED SUMS TECHNIQUE (PST) [24HOUR PM2.5] Dennis Becker, MPCA (07APR 2010) [24HOUR PM2.5] 80 DAY&HR(YYMMDDHH): 04070324 05022324 06071224 07121524 08022524 80 BKGRND(BAM_DATA): 29.63 20.96 15.67 21.05 34.50 24.36200 80 AERMOD(ALL ): 7.62 9.90 10.73 16.29 0.07 8.92232 80 (GFEFS2_A): 0.11 0.34 0.06 0.57 0.00 0.21513 80 (GFEFS2_B): 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.08305 80 (GFEFS2_C): 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.10408 80 (GFEFS2_D): 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.00 0.09379 80 (GFEFS2_E): 0.02 0.10 0.07 1.06 0.00 0.25086 80 (GFEFS003): 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01085 80 (GFESV004): 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.06025 80 (GFESV001): 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01664 80 (GFESV006): 1.32 1.20 1.68 0.83 0.00 1.00467 80 (GFESV013): 0.04 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05302 80 (GFESV011): 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02842 80 (GFSV002A): 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01981 80 (GFSV002B): 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.02219 80 (GFESV003): 0.67 0.61 1.03 0.65 0.01 0.59355 80 (GFESV005): 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 80 (GFESV007): 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00543 80 (GFESV008): 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00102 80 (GFESV010): 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00775 80 (GFESV012): 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00945 80 (GFEU013A): 0.38 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.17750 80 (GFEU013B): 0.41 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.18633 80 (GFEU013C): 0.44 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.19553 80 (GFEU013D): 0.47 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.20336 80 (GFEU013E): 0.49 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.20677 80 (GFEROADS): 1.42 4.03 1.81 5.64 0.04 2.58751 80 PAIRED(**SUMS**): 37.25 30.86 26.40 37.34 34.57 33.28432 MPCA PAIRSUMS MAXIMUM = 33.2843246 at RCP# 80 [PM2.5 Standard=35ug/m3]
11
Rural Test Case(Granite Falls Energy, MN)
Natural Gas-Fired Ethanol PlantBoiler, RTO, dryers, grain dryer, flares,
hammermills, cooling towers, etc. (“24/7”)Emergency firewater pump (horiz. rel. now)
• Typically: 15 minute test just once a month• Modeled: PTE weekdays 8am-4pm; w/up elbow
Fugitive emissions (grain, ddgs, wetcake)Haul trucks and miscellaneous vehicles
– Road Dust (AP42 + Corn Refiners Assoc. data)– SCAQMD EMISFAC 2007 v2.3 (HDDV, tailpipe)
Rural Test Case
12
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software X:\Agency_Files\Outcomes\Risk_Eval_Air_Mod\Air_Modeling\VIEWINPS\GFE_PMFP\GFE_PMFP.isc
SCALE:
0 100 km
1:4,330,662
PROJECT TITLE:
GFE 24HR PMFP [6AM_10PM: FS2A&E CE=90%; FSetc CE=80%; SLbyMHRdow]FIREPUMP test ~0.25hrs/month [assume PTE weekdays 8AM-4PM; HRDOW7]
COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
5/3/2010
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
322
RECEPTORS:
87
200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000UTM East [m]
4900
000
5000
000
5100
000
5200
000
5300
000
5400
000
UTM
Nor
th [m
]
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software X:\Agency_Files\Outcomes\Risk_Eval_Air_Mod\Air_Modeling\VIEWINPS\GFE_PMFP\GFE_PMFP.isc
SCALE:
0 0.2 km
1:6,221
PROJECT TITLE:
GFE 24HR PMFP [6AM_10PM: FS2A&E CE=90%; FSetc CE=80%; SLbyMHRdow]FIREPUMP test ~0.25hrs/month [assume PTE weekdays 8AM-4PM; HRDOW7]
COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
5/3/2010
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
322
RECEPTORS:
87
303000 303100 303200 303300 303400 303500 303600 303700 303800UTM East [m]
4963
300
4963
400
4963
500
4963
600
4963
700
4963
800
4963
900
4964
000
4964
100
UTM
Nor
th [m
]
13
Rural Test Case
14
Rural Test CaseWind Rose (Redwood Falls, MN)
Rural Test CasePhotochemical Model Considerations
Qualitative OnlyPM2.5
Year 2005CAMx, 12kmSimple map to aid
BAM site selection• Higher PM2.5 to the
east and southeast
Granite Falls Energy
15
Rural Test CasePM2.5 Monitor Selection Priority 2004-2008 PM2.5 BAM Saint Cloud (STC)
1721 days (94.2%) Apple Valley (APV)
99 days (5.4%) Rochester (RST)
7 days (0.4%)Maximum of all sites
0 days (0.0%)16
!(
STC
RST
APVGraniteFalls
Energy
17
Rural Test Case Results(24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS=35)
GFE PM2.5 Sources OnlyTraditional Approach (Unpaired)AERMOD 98percentile = 16 µg/m3
BAM data 98percentile = 25 µg/m3
Total = 41 µg/m3
MPCA Paired Sums TechniqueAERMOD + BAM (STC, APV, RST) = 33 µg/m3
18
Rural Test Case Results(24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS=35)
GFE PM2.5 and Regional PM10 SourcesTraditional Approach (Unpaired)AERMOD 98percentile = 21 µg/m3
BAM data 98percentile = 25 µg/m3
Total = 46 µg/m3
MPCA Paired Sums Technique• AERMOD + BAM (STC, APV, RST) = 35.0 µg/m3
• AERMOD + BAM (APV, STC, RST) = 37.5 µg/m3
19
MPCA Short-Term Schedule(Paired Sums Technique)
April 2010MPCA request for EPA Region 5 approvalEPA Environmental Science Connector
• “New NAAQS Modeling”
May 2010EPA R/S/L Modelers Workshop NowEPA Region 5 Review
June 2010 – EPA Region 5 Response
MPCA Long-Term Roadmap
Current Approach (Paired Sums)PM2.5, NO2, SO2 using monitor data only
Future explorationPM2.5 fusing of photochemical model output
with monitor data• Extended Voronoi Neighbor Averaging (eVNA)
used in EPA MATS attainment software• Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling
NO2 and SO2 ???
20
21
Summary & Needs Goal: reasonable & protective NAAQS modeling results
PM2.5, NO2, SO2
How: paired sums concurrent in time; representative or conservative in space
Needs: approvals & guidance (MPCA priorities) Early 2010 Needs (Very Urgent: Paired Sums approval ASAP)
• EPA approval (June 2010) for PSD projects with modeling protocol• MPCA approval for small (non-PSD) projects w/ modeling protocol
More 2010 Needs (Also Urgent)• NO2: SILs; NO2/NOX ratios; DEFAULT vs. OLM vs. PVMRM• PM2.5: SILs• POINTCAP, POINTHOR
Post 2010 Needs (Less Urgent)• PM2.5: BAM vs. FRM adjustments• Emission distributions (Monte Carlo simulations) [AWMA comment]
22
Questions?
Paired Sums (AERMOD) Modeling: Dennis Becker, 651-757-2217
Photochemical Modeling: Margaret McCourtney, 651-757-2558