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)

= STN Site

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