**adem.alabama.gov**AERMOD Experiencesduring the BirminghamArea Particle Study (BAPS)EPA 9thModeling ConferenceOctober 9, 2008**adem.alabama.gov**Background**• EPA designated Jefferson, Shelby, and a small portion of Walker counties as** **nonattainment for the annual standard effective April 5, 2005.** **• Current PM2.5 Design Values – 2005-2007: – North Bham – 18.9 ug/m** **3 (** 18.7**) – Wylam - 17.7 ug/m** **3 (** 17.5**) • NAAQS = 15 ug/m** **3 adem.alabama.gov** State ImplementationPlan**• Contracted with ENVAIR to help identify causes of high PM2.5.** **• Based on the conclusions of the ENVAIR study, the SIP focuses on reduction of emissions of fine** **particles in the area surrounding the North Birmingham and Wylam monitors.** **• The plan also relies on reductions from national programs such as CAIR, and cleaner cars, diesels** **and fuels. • Base Case 2002/2009/2012 modeling to help** **develop attainment plan is being completed using a CMAQ/AERMOD integrated approach in accordance** **with EPA implementation guidance. adem.alabama.gov** **Measurement Sites 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040** **-760 -740** **-720 -700** **-680 -660** **-640 -620** **-600 -580** **Ashland Gadsden** **Birmingham North route 8 Mcadory** **1801 Bruce Shaw Rd Wylam** **Hoover Pinson** **Warrior Tuscaloosa** **Jasper Childersburg** **Birmingham North 1801 Bruce Shaw Rd** **CTR Birmingham PM2.5 Observation Sites** **FRM STN** **SEARCH adem.alabama.gov** **Birmingham Area Design Values** 15.9215.60Leeds13.7513.4613.0712.3012.6314.08Providence14.5914.5214.2213.5313.8714.95Corner14.6014.4514.1813.5713.7214.72Pinson15.6015.4915.0114.5914.7315.65McAdory15.1215.1414.7614.3314.7316.18Hoover17.4517.2816.4916.0516.7418.43Wylam18.6718.5618.2417.531819.63North Bham2005-20072004-20062003-20052002-20042001-20032000-2002Site3 Year Avg.**adem.alabama.gov**Annual PM2.5 Design Values 2005-2007**14.6 15.1** **15.9 15.6** **14.6 13.7** **18.7 17.5** 0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.018.020.0Corner Hoover Leeds McAdory Pinson Providence NBHM WylamSite

Concentration (ug/m3)**adem.alabama.gov Modeling predicts that EPA’s adopted regulations** **for mobile sources and electric utilities will redu ce** **regional and general urban PM by about 1**μ**g m –3** **. Additional modeling suggests this may be higher,** **i.e. 1 – 1.5**μ**g m –3** **This reduction will help, but is not likely to brin g** **Wylam and North Birmingham into attainment by 2010** **Are reductions of local PM possible? Need to understand what local PM is and where it comes** **from. VISTAS/CAIR Modeling** **adem.alabama.gov**Major Findings ofENVAIR Study**• Nonattainment due to N. Birmingham & Wylam • Local and urban PM contributions are** **superimposed on regional component – Regional - ~12-14** μ**g/m 3** **– General urban - ~2**μ**g/m 3** **– Local - ~3-4**μ**g/m 3** **• Multiple lines of evidence link local excess PM at Wylam and North Birmingham to several** **geographical source complexes • Evidence includes wind directions, carbon** **compounds, elements (metals), day-of-week variations, fence-line samples, & PM spikes** **adem.alabama.gov • With moderate decreases projected in regional PM,** **local emission reductions will likely be needed to attain** **the standard • Since Wylam and N. BHM drive nonattainment, first** **attention to source complexes surrounding those sit es** **• Many sources are intermittent or semi-continuous processes in open buildings** **• Very high infrequent PM concentrations • Transportation – rail and trucking – contribute** **• What to do now? Model and see....**Major Findings ofENVAIR Study**adem.alabama.gov PM** **2.5 (** μ**g m -3** **)**0102030**adem.alabama.gov PM** **2.5 (** μ**g m -3** **)**0102030**adem.alabama.gov ENVAIR to ENVIRON/AG** **• Taking the findings from the monitoring study, JCDH and ADEM contracted with** **ENVIRON/Alpine Geophysics to conduct a model attainment demonstration** **– Contract awarded in Fall 2006 – Using the CMAQ platform with MM5/SMOKE** **to model the regional and urban signals – Using the AERMOD model to evaluate local** **source impacts – Integration of modeling platform results** **adem.alabama.gov**What doesn’t kill you....**• This has been a learning process • Many different stakeholders** **• New territory for modeling • Uncertainty in emissions inventories** **• Uncertainty in modeling integration • Highly variable emissions from many types** **of sources, many of whom have never been involved in a modeling study of this** **magnitude • Sheer number of sources** **adem.alabama.gov Emissions Inventory** **Development • Multiple 2002, 2009, and 2012 CMAQ and** **AERMOD inventories have been developed to identify direct, inert PMfine emissions** **– Much bigger challenge than expected – Many sources never modeled with this much detail** **and scrutiny – Emissions factors for PM2.5 poorly defined, if e** **ven available** **– Needed to weigh a perfect inventory against time a nd** **resource constraints – Known errors in emissions are being corrected in t** **he final runs** **– Small sources may have significant impacts adem.alabama.gov** **Emissions Inventory Issues • Mistakes were made by both the regulatory agencies** **as well as the facilities. This is due in large part, to t** **he lack of understanding of what is needed to model at this le** **vel – For transparency, we insisted on active involvemen** **t of facilities. – If we had known how difficult it would be, we migh** **t have contracted for the inventory development.** **• This led to**multiple**revisions of the 2002, 2009 and 2012 SMOKE runs** **• SMOKE outputs were run through CAMx to produce consistent hourly emissions profiles to be input in** **to AERMOD adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Modeling • Our studies showed a clear “local sources”** **signature, especially for primary PM2.5. • CMAQ, even with 4 km grid spacing, was not** **considered adequate to resolve impacts due to local emission controls.** **• AERMOD selected as the best way to model the significant industrial contributors.** **• Which local sources should be modeled? adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Modeling Local Source Criteria** **• No established criteria- all new territory. • Based on the results of the ENVAIR study, it was a** **ssumed that every source identified by the study would be** **included. • Any source within 5 km of either monitor with PM** **2.5 emissions greater than 1 tpy (~1/4 lb/hr) was includ** **ed. • Between 5 – 10 km of either monitor, any source wit** **h PM 2.5** **emissions greater than 4 tpy (~1 lb/hr) was included .** **• A Q/d and Q/d 2** **analyses supported the above criteria fairly well.** **• Total of 46 facilities identified; roughly 1200 in dividual** **emitting sources. Included point, area, volume and buoyant** **lines. adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Modeling Grid** **• Initial discussions with EPA and among the study participants led to a 1 km X 1 km AERMOD** **receptor grid with 100 meter spacing • Plant property issues** **• Additional discussion led to agreement on a 300 m X 300 m Cartesian grid with 100 meter spacing.** **• For the attainment demonstration, concentrations w ill** **be averaged across all receptors • For culpability and RACT, concentrations at the** **monitor were used adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Met Data • Used 2002 met data – same as base case emission** **data year. • Options** **– Conventional NWS ASOS data at Birmingham airport (BHM) – 7 – 18 km from key monitors.** **– SEARCH site wind data at North Bham monitor. – Hourly-averaged ASOS data at BHM.** **• Choice – hybrid of hourly ASOS data augmented by conventional ASOS data as necessary. SEARCH** **data had too many holes and quality questions. OAQPS invaluable in developing the hybrid data set.** **adem.alabama.gov AERMOD Met Data** NBHM PM2.5 - AERMOD PREDICTIONS VS. OBSERVED - LIGHTWINDS IMPACT STUDY (Q1 2002)**0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **BHM_1-min BHM_ISHD** **NBHM PM2.5 SEARCH(1.0)** **SEARCH(.28) adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Overview AERMOD run for local significant** **facilities – ADEM assessed “significance” and** **determined facility list for AERMOD – Only primary PM2.5 was simulated** **– Wind inputs generated using draft EPA 1-minute ASOS data methodology** **– For 2002 MPE, 24-hr concentrations saved at WYLM and NBHM monitor** **coordinates adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Overview Thus, we expect AERMOD to predict lower** **concentrations than daily FRM observations – Observation-based analyses (ENVAIR Study)** **suggest annual local industrial contribution is • ~3 ug/m3 at NBHM** **• ~2 ug/m3 at WYLM But we recognize AERMOD is considered a** **“conservative” (high) model adem.alabama.gov** **AERMOD Results**5.316.47Annual4.936.094th5.176.483rd5.737.022nd5.46.271stWYLM19.6733.49Annual21.3335.874th22.1837.663rd20.1634.692nd15.0225.741stNBHM2009 Quarterly PM2.5Concentration2002 Quarterly PM2.5ConcentrationQuarterMonitor**adem.alabama.gov**2002 by Quarter at Wylam**Sequenced 24 hour PM2.5 1st Quarter, WYLM Monitor** **0 10** **20 30** **40 50**  **2010124 2010424**  **2010724 2011024**  **2011324 2011624**  **2011924 2012224**  **2012524 2012824**  **2013124 2020324**  **2020624 2020924**  **2021224 2021524**  **2021824 2022124**  **2022424 2022724**  **2030224 2030524**  **2030824 2031124**  **2031424 2031724**  **2032024 2032324**  **2032624 2032924** **Date**

**ug/m3 Sequenced** **Observations adem.alabama.gov** **Sequenced 24 hour PM2.5 2nd Quarter, WYLM Monitor** **0 10** **20 30** **40 50**  **2010124 2010424**  **2010724 2011024**  **2011324 2011624**  **2011924 2012224**  **2012524 2012824**  **2013124 2020324**  **2020624 2020924**  **2021224 2021524**  **2021824 2022124**  **2022424 2022724**  **2030224 2030524**  **2030824 2031124**  **2031424 2031724**  **2032024 2032324**  **2032624 2032924** **Date**

**ug/m3 Sequenced** **Observations**2002 by Quarter at Wylam**adem.alabama.gov**2002 by Quarter at Wylam**Ranked 24 hour PM2.5 1st Quarter, WYLM Monitor** **0 10** **20 30** **40 50** **1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88** **Rank**

**ug/m3 Ranked** **Observations adem.alabama.gov** **Ranked 24 hour PM2.5 3rd Quarter, WYLM Monitor** **0 10** **20 30** **40 50** **1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91** **Rank**

**ug/m3 Ranked** **Observations**2002 by Quarter at Wylam**adem.alabama.gov**2002 Wylam FrequencyDistributionAnnual Frequency DistributionW YLM**0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **120 140** **160 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 >50** ug/m3

Frequency**Obs AERMOD** **adem.alabama.gov WYLM Results** **Agrees with expected patterns (good) – Always lower than daily FRM total obs** **• Expected local industry contributions are ~2 ug/m3** **• AERMOD annual mean is ~ 6.5 ug/m3 – AERMOD is rarely >10x the assumed** **local component (4 days) • >5x local component 20% of the year** **– Annual frequency distribution is heavy in the 0-10 ug/m3 range** **adem.alabama.gov**2002 by Quarter at NBHM**Sequenced 24 hour PM2.5 2nd Quarter, NBHM Monitor** **0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **120 140** **160 2040124**  **20 4**  **0 4**  **2 4**  **2040724 20**  **4 1**  **0 2**  **4 204132**  **4 2**  **0 4**  **1 6**  **2 4**  **204192 4**  **2 0**  **4 2**  **2 2**  **4 204252**  **4 2**  **0 4**  **2 8**  **2 4**  **205012 4**  **2 0**  **5 0**  **424 205072**  **4 2**  **0 5**  **1 024**  **205132 4**  **2 0**  **5 1**  **624 20**  **5 1**  **9 2**  **4 2**  **0 5**  **2 224**  **20 5**  **2 5**  **2 4**  **2 0**  **5 2**  **824 20**  **5 3**  **1 2**  **4 2**  **0 6**  **0 324**  **20 6**  **0 6**  **2 4**  **2 0**  **6 0**  **924 20**  **6 1**  **2 2**  **4 2061524**  **20 6**  **1 8**  **2 4**  **2062124 20**  **6 2**  **4 2**  **4 2062724** **Date**

**ug/m3 Sequenced** **Observations adem.alabama.gov** **Sequenced 24 hour PM2.5 3rd Quarter, NBHM Monitor** **0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **120 140** **160 20**  **7 0124**  **20 7**  **0424 20**  **70724 20**  **7 1024**  **20 7**  **1324 2071624**  **20 7**  **1924 20**  **7 2224**  **20 7**  **2524 20**  **7 2824**  **20 731**  **24 20**  **8 0324**  **20 8**  **0624 20**  **80924 20**  **8 1224**  **20 8**  **1524 20**  **81824 20**  **8 2124**  **20 8**  **2424 2082724**  **20 8**  **3024 20**  **9 0224**  **20 9**  **0524 20**  **9 0824**  **20 911**  **24 20**  **9 1424**  **20 9**  **1724 20**  **92024 20**  **9 2324**  **20 9**  **2624 Date** 

**ug/m3 Sequenced** **Observations**2002 by Quarter at NBHM**adem.alabama.gov**2002 by Quarter at NBHM**Ranked 24 hour PM2.5 3rd Quarter, NBHM Monitor** **0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **120 140** **160 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79** **82 85 88 91 Rank** 

**ug/m3 Ranked** **Observations adem.alabama.gov** 2002 by Quarter at NBHM**Ranked 24 hour PM2.5 4th Quarter, NBHM Monitor** **0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **120 140** **160 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79** **82 85 88 91 Rank** 

**ug/m3 Ranked** **Observations adem.alabama.gov** 2002 NBHM FrequencyDistributionAnnual Frequency DistributionNBHM**0 10** **20 30** **40 50** **60 70** **80 90** **100 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 >50** ug/m3

Frequency**Obs AERMOD** **adem.alabama.gov NBHM Results** **Dramatic over predictions (bad) – Usually higher than daily FRM total obs** **• Expected local industry contributions are ~3 ug/m3** **• AERMOD annual mean is ~ 5x higher – AERMOD is >10x the assumed local** **component ~1/2 of year • >5x local component 2/3 of the year** **– Annual frequency distribution is heavy in the >30 ug/m3 range** **adem.alabama.gov Quantile-Quantile** **Comparison**Q-Q PlotRanked Modeled vs. Observed**y = 0.58x - 2.93 R** **2 = 0.97** **y = 3.08x - 21.41 R** **2 = 0.99** **0 20** **40 60** **80 100** **120 140** **160 0 20 40 60** Observations (ug/m3)

AERMOD (ug/m3)**WYLM NBHM** **Linear (WYLM) Linear (NBHM)** **adem.alabama.gov Conclusions** **• Q-Q plot shows a marked difference in the character of AERMOD prediction** **between NBHM and WYLM – NBHM shown to be dominated by facilities** **in very close proximity – Are sources characterized adequately?** **– Should we expect AERMOD to perform poorly for certain source configurations?** **– What are our expectations from AERMOD? adem.alabama.gov** **Conclusions, cont. • Additional revisions to source characterizations** **have been made, and emission rates have been revised** **• Will these changes affect AERMOD performance? • Unknown** **• Hope to show compliance with CMAQ alone • Think that future modeling exercises like this sho** **uld focus on refining photochemical models to handle** **at very small grid scales – Don’t feel this is the best use of these models** **adem.alabama.gov • AERMOD was run for selected local sources for the** **2002 and 2009 bases to simulate the dispersion of primar** **y inert PM2.5.** **• CMAQ was run to simulate the dispersion of urban a nd** **regional scale primary as well as secondary emissio ns of** **PM. – Secondary and gaseous PM from all facilities** **• CMAQ was run twice for the 2002 and 2009 bases – Each base year was run once with all sources and o** **nce without the AERMOD sources** **– Additional runs, including alternate future years, are being** **considered • The results of the combination of CMAQ and AERMOD** **were used to obtain the future year projections of PM** **2.5 .** **CMAQ - AERMOD Integration** **adem.alabama.gov • Followed EPA’s modeling guidance** **• EPA’s involvement has been invaluable – Met data** **– Modeling assistance – Discussion on issues such as source** **characterization, policy implications and model performance** **• Even with this involvement, it is still difficult to determine whether this is an appropriate** **application of the model for this situation. CMAQ - AERMOD** **Integration adem.alabama.gov** **2009 DV Projections Circa Spring 2008** **• CMAQ “all-source” runs – 1x1 and 3x3 grid cell averaging around** **NBHM and WYLM • CMAQ + AERMOD runs** **adem.alabama.gov**CMAQ "All Source" 2009 DV Projection (3x3 cell average)**0.00 5.00** **10.00 15.00** **20.00 2002 NBHM 2009 NBHM 2002 WYLM 2009 WYLM** 

Annual Concentration (ug/m3)**PBW NH4** **NO3 SO4** **OC EC** **Crustal 18.4** **15.5 17.1** **16.7 adem.alabama.gov** CMAQ + AERMOD 2009 DV Projection (3x3 cell average)**0.00 5.00** **10.00 15.00** **20.00 2002 NBHM 2009 NBHM 2002 WYLM 2009 WYLM** 

Annual Concentration (ug/m3)**PBW NH4** **NO3 SO4** **OC EC** **Crustal Local** **18.4 15.0** **17.1 15.7** **adem.alabama.gov**2009 CMAQ“All-Source” Projection3x3 averaging20022009Reduction**N. Bham. 18.4 16.7 -1.7 McAdory 15.0 13.8 -1.2** **Providence 13.0 11.7 -1.3 Wylam 17.1 15.5 -1.6** **Hoover 15.1 13.7 -1.4 Pinson 14.0 12.6 -1.4** **Corner 14.1 12.6 -1.5 adem.alabama.gov** ASIP Modeling Results**•**Updated modeling for 2012 (12km) accomplishedby ASIP in July/August for GA and AL SIPs**•**All states provided updated emissions inventories**•**Alabama rolled in the “to-date” 2002 BAPSinventory**•**CAIR controls assumed**adem.alabama.gov**ASIP Modeling Results**•**The 2012 results are promising**–**It’s important not to look to closely at thenumber per se, but rather the reduction**–**2002/2009 results used different emissionsinventories than the 2012 (VISTAS vs. BAPS)**–**Still, we think the results show that controlsin GA and AL will help bring the area intoattainment**•**The following chart illustrates the 2002 Base,2009 Best and Final, 2012 Initial, 2018 Best andFinal results for Alabama assuming CAIRimplementation.**adem.alabama.gov ASIP RESULTS- AL** Alabama, 2002 Design Value, 2009 base G4a 12km and36km,2012 base G4a 12km and 36km, and 2018 base G4a 12kmand 36km Projected DVF**0 2** **4 6** **8 10** **12 14** **16 18** **20 DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km DVC**  **DVF 09g4 12km DVF 12g4 12km**  **DVF 18g4 12km Baldwin 0010 Clay 0001 Colbert 1002 DeKalb 1003 Escambi** **a 0002 Etowah 0010 Jefferson 0023 Jefferson 1005 Jeffer son 1009 Jefferson 2003** 

μ g/m

3**Salt PWB** **NO3 SO4** **NH4 OC** **EC Crustal** **BLANK State** **Alabama set 1 Name** **dataset Data** **adem.alabama.gov**Determination ofAttainment Year**• ADEM will propose an attainment date that represents attainment as expeditiously as** **practicable based on implementation of existing Federal and State measures and all new** **reasonable local measures. •We believe that 2012 will represent the best futur** **e year for the Birmingham NAA** **•However, we will model both future years and devel op RRF’s** **(2009 and 2012) • In our 2009 basecase, we will account for** **controls already on the books such as CAIR and mobile source controls, as well as local industry** **controls implemented between 2002 and 2009. • Same for 2012** **adem.alabama.gov**Final Attainment Plan**• The process of identifying significant contributors and candidate control** **strategies will continue until an emissions reduction plan is developed that** **demonstrates attainment. • JCDH will modify permits to reflect final** **emission controls.**