Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007 Presented by Sharon Douglas and Jay Haney PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007 Presented by Sharon Douglas and Jay Haney

1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007 Presented by Sharon Douglas and Jay Haney

68 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007 Presented by Sharon Douglas and Jay Haney

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview and Status of the Emissions Data Analysis and Modeling Portions of the Virginia Mercury Study 1st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007 Presented by Sharon Douglas and Jay Haney ICF International, San Rafael, CA

  2. Presentation Topics • Study objectives • Emissions data analysis • Project overview & work plan • Mercury emissions review • Mercury deposition modeling • Project overview & work plan • Conceptual model of mercury deposition for Virginia • Upcoming tasks/schedule

  3. Study Objectives • Review the Virginia mercury point source inventory and update as needed • Prepare “conceptual description” of mercury deposition characteristics for Virginia • Conduct air quality modeling to simulate and quantify the contribution of regional and local emissions, and to provide information for TMDL assessments • Evaluate the effectiveness of future national and state control measures to meet water quality goals

  4. Section A: Emissions Data Analysis • Task 1: Point source inventory review* • Task 2: Mercury inventory summary* • Task 3: Literature search* • Task 4: Emissions report • Task 5: Data archive/transfer • Task 6: Quality assurance plan* • Task 7: Project management *More details to follow

  5. Overview of Work Plan for Task 1: Point Source Inventory Review • Obtain 2002 and 2005 Virginia point source inventory • Review for accuracy and completeness • Update and fill in missing information needed for modeling

  6. Overview of Work Plan for Task 2: Mercury Inventory Summary • Obtain latest (2002) national mercury inventory from EPA • Review and compare emissions for Virginia & neighboring states • Prepare future-year estimates for 2010, 2015, and 2018 for Virginia sources for modeling

  7. Overview of Work Plan for Task 3: Literature Search • Conduct literature search related to: • Mercury emissions and controls • Mercury concentration and deposition measurement studies • Mercury deposition modeling techniques • Incorporate findings from literature search into technical approach for modeling tasks

  8. Overview of Work Plan for Task 6: Quality Assurance Plan • Develop detailed quality assurance plan to address: • Data acquisition • Data quality assurance and processing procedures • Model application procedures • Internal and external review procedures • Communication and resolution of issues Combined QAP for emissions data analysis & modeling

  9. Status of Tasks to Date: Section A – Emissions Data Analysis (Study commenced 12 February 2007) • Task 1: Point source inventory review (completed) • Task 2: Mercury inventory summary (ongoing) • Task 3: Literature search (ongoing) • Task 4: Emissions report (not started) • Task 5: Data archive/transfer (not started) • Task 6: Quality assurance plan (completed) • Task 7: Project management (ongoing)

  10. Summary of Emissions Review & Data Analysis Tasks • Obtained, reviewed & provided comments on Virginia point source inventory (updates received) • Obtained latest 2002 EPA NEI (Version 3) national mercury inventory • Compared NEI data with updated EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and latest Virginia inventory • Requested latest 2002 national criteria modeling emission inventory from EPA

  11. Virginia Speciated Mercury Point Source Emissions

  12. Virginia Speciated Mercury Point Source Emissions

  13. Regional Mercury Emissions

  14. Regional Speciated Mercury Emissions

  15. Summary of Literature Review • Initial document search conducted by VA DEQ • Supplemental search focusing on recent (2000-2007) work covering: • General/state-specific studies • Mercury emissions and controls • Mercury concentration & deposition measurement studies • Mercury deposition modeling techniques • > 85 reports, presentations, etc. included • Review of literature ongoing

  16. Section B: Deposition Modeling • Task 1: Conceptual model* • Task 2: Modeling protocol • Task 3: Sensitivity analysis* • Task 4: Performance evaluation • Task 5: Modeling simulations* • Task 6: Mercury deposition modeling report • Task 7: Data archive/transfer • Task 8: Quality assurance plan • Task 9: Project management *More details to follow

  17. Task 1: Conceptual Model • Obtain local and regional mercury deposition & meteorological data for the period 2000-2005 • Examine spatial & temporal variations in deposition and relationships with meteorology • Conduct statistical analysis using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) software to develop and evaluate relationships • Develop basis for processing & estimating data for model evaluation

  18. Mercury Deposition Modeling Approach: Baseline Modeling 2001 Meteorological Inputs 2002 Criteria Pollutant & Mercury Emissions Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model, Version 4.6 AERMOD Gaussian Model AERMOD Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ Sensitivity Analysis Identification of Sources with Significant Local Contributions CMAQ Performance Evaluation Assessment of Global, National, Regional, and Source-Specific Contributions CMAQ Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM)

  19. Mercury Deposition Modeling Approach: Future-Year Modeling Future-Year Criteria Pollutant & Mercury Emissions 2010, 2015 & 2018 2001 Meteorological Inputs AERMOD CMAQ, Version 4.6 w/PPTM Expected Future Changes in Local Contributions Future-Year Projections Future-Year Mercury Contribution Analysis Assessment of Future Control Measure Effectiveness Information for Water Quality Modeling, TMDL…

  20. Proposed CMAQ Domain 36-km Grid 12-km Grid

  21. Task 3: Sensitivity Analysis • Determine modeling system configuration for regional (CMAQ) and point source (AERMOD) models • Conduct CMAQ baseline and sensitivity simulations to examine the response of the modeling system to changes in the inputs (e.g., met inputs, emissions) • Conduct screening AERMOD runs to identify possible local source contributions

  22. Task 4: Model Performance Evaluation • Focus on national, regional, and local scales • Examine wet deposition for mercury using all measured data and “estimated” data for VA sites

  23. Task 5: Modeling Simulations • Conduct baseline modeling and use mercury “tagging” capabilities of CMAQ to quantify contributions from: • Virginia sources • Neighboring states • All other states • Canada/Mexico • Global • EGUs and non-EGUs

  24. Task 5: Modeling Simulations (Continued) • Prepare future-year modeling inventories for 2010, 2015, and 2018 • Conduct future-year modeling with CMAQ and AERMOD to assess expected changes in mercury deposition, including effects of future controls

  25. Status of Tasks: Section B – Deposition Modeling • Task 1: Conceptual model (ongoing) • Task 2: Modeling protocol (completed) • Task 3: Sensitivity analysis (not started) • Task 4: Performance evaluation ( ’’ ) • Task 5: Modeling simulations ( ’’ ) • Task 6: Mercury modeling report ( ’’ ) • Task 7: Data archive/transfer ( ’’ ) • Task 8: Quality assurance plan (completed) • Task 9: Project management (ongoing)

  26. Summary of Data Analysis/ Conceptual Model Task • Obtained and processed Hg deposition & met data for Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) sites in VA and several surrounding states • Analysis has focused on three VA sites and several additional sites in NC, PA, and TN with longer periods of record • Analyses completed to date • Annual & quarterly variations in deposition • Wind roses • CART analyses (for 3 VA, 3 NC, 2 PA & 1 TN sites) • Met correlations & met adjusted trends • Conceptual model write-up in progress

  27. MDN Analysis Sites VA Sites Neighboring sites with similar characteristics & longer periods of record

  28. Data Availability for MDN Analysis Sites

  29. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA Sites

  30. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for NC Sites NC42: Similar location & characteristics to Harcum

  31. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA98 & NC42 Sites

  32. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for PA Sites PA00: Similar characteristics to VA08; PA13: Similar characteristics to VA28

  33. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA08 & PA00 Sites

  34. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA28 & PA13 Sites

  35. Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for TN Site

  36. Correlation of Hg Wet Deposition w/Selected Met Parameters: VA VA08 VA28

  37. Correlation of Hg Wet Deposition w/Selected Met Parameters: LP PA13 NC42

  38. Comparison of Annual Hg Wet Deposition & Rainfall Amount PA13 NC42

  39. CLASSIFICATION AND REGRESSION TREE (CART) • Statistical tool used to separate and group measurement periods into classification “bins” • Bins are associated with a certain range of a classification variable (e.g., deposition amount) • Classification is based on the value of other independent (e.g., meteorological) parameters • Provides information about the conditions that are associated with different ranges of Hg deposition, as well as the frequency of occurrence of different types of conditions

  40. SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF A CART “TREE” CART results take the form of an up-side-down classification “tree” - branches/splits andindependent variables (data) determine the binning N = 52 N = 20 N = 32 TMAX  20 TMAX > 20 WS  2 m/s WS > 2 m/s RAIN 0.65 RAIN > 0.65 BIN #1 CLASS = 2 Low/Moderate N=12 BIN #2 CLASS = 1 Low N=8 BIN #3 CLASS = 3 Moderate N = 20 BIN #4 CLASS = 4 High N = 12

  41. CART APPLICATION FOR MERCURY WET DEPOSITION • Time unit = MDN measurement period (typically one week) • Classification variable is daily average mercury deposition (wet) • 5 classification categories defined by 0, 0-20, 20-50, 50-80 and >80 percentile values of measured deposition for each site • 8 MDN sites within and just outside of VA • Met parameters include temperature, pressure, humidity, stability, wind, and rainfall (amount & # of days) for surface & upper levels

  42. Categorical Comparisons for Hg Deposition for Culpeper, VA Selected CART Input Parameters for 5 Hg Deposition Categories

  43. Categorical Comparisons for Hg Deposition for Shenandoah NP, VA Selected CART Input Parameters for 5 Hg Deposition Categories

  44. Categorical Comparisons for Hg Deposition for Harcum, VA Selected CART Input Parameters for 5 Hg Deposition Categories

  45. CART RESULTS FORCULPEPER, VA CART Obs 81% of “weekly” periods correctly classified 90% of high deposition (Category 5) periods correctly classified

  46. CART RESULTS FORSHENANDOAH NP, VA CART Obs 79% of “weekly” periods correctly classified 81% of high deposition (Category 5) periods correctly classified

  47. CART RESULTS FORHARCUM, VA CART Obs 80% of “weekly” periods correctly classified 93% of high deposition (Category 5) periods correctly classified

  48. Cart Parameter Importance for Hg Deposition: Culpeper, VA Scale represents relative importance

  49. Cart Parameter Importance for Hg Deposition: Shenandoah NP, VA Scale represents relative importance