On March 10, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule requiring transportation conformity analysis of project-level particulate matter (PM) in nonattainment and maintenance areas for projects of air quality concern. Since then the agency has released a public draft on transportation conformity guidance for quantitative hot spot analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas in which MOVES and EMFAC in California are designated as the official mobile emission models. The official air quality models are AERMOD and CAL3QHCR. The public draft requires detailed handling of emission and air quality data, which is a new requirement for state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations. The use of MOVES and AERMOD for transportation conformity analysis is showcased with priority given to the setup and running of the models with their respective data inputs in accordance with the transportation conformity guidance. Details of the input data preparation for MOVES and AERMOD, MOVES emission factor generation, sensitivity test results from MOVES, and the importance of interagency consultation process are presented. This showcase is an extended effort toward better understanding of the conformity process and setup of the models. Results from a real-world case study are presented as examples of the conformity process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EnglertN.Fine Particles and Human Health—A Review of Epidemiological Studies. Toxicology Letters, Vol. 149, 2004, pp. 235–242.
2.
PopeC. A.III, BurnettR. T., ThunM. J., CalleE. E., KrewskiD., ItoK., and ThurstonG. D.Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 287, No. 9, 2002, pp. 1132–1141.
3.
KrewskiD., BurnettR. T., GoldbergM. S., HooverK., SiemiatyckiJ., AbrahamowiczM., and WhiteW. H.Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Special Report.Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, Mass., 2000.
KapposA. D., BruckmannP., EikmannT., EnglertN., HeinrichU., HoppeP., KochE., KrauseG. H. M., KreylingW. G., RauchfussK., RomboutP., Schulz-KlempV., ThielW. R., and WichmannH. E.Health Effects of Particles in Ambient Air. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Vol. 207, No. 4, 2004, pp. 399–407.
6.
Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 29 of ORNL-5198. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 2010.
7.
Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. Report EPA-420-B-10-040. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 2010.
8.
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator: MOVES 2010 User Guide. Report EPA-420-B-09-041. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 2009.
9.
TurnerD. B.Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates: An Introduction to Dispersion Modeling, 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla., 1994.
10.
AERMOD: Description of Model Formulation. Report EPA-454/ R-03-004. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 2004.
SonntagD. B., and GaoH. O.The MOVES from MOBILE: Preliminary Comparisons of EPA's Current and Future Mobile Emissions Models. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
13.
BeardsleyM., DresserC., HillsonS., KoupalJ., and WarilaJ.Update on EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator. Presented at CRC On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop, Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, Ga., 2010.
14.
BaiS., EisingerD. S., and NiemeierD.MOVES Versus EMFAC: Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using Los Angeles County. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
15.
VallamsundarS., and LinJ.MOVES Versus MOBILE: Comparison of Greenhouse Gas and Criterion Pollutant Emissions. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2233, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 27–35.
16.
ZouB., ZengY., LiuH., ZhangH., QiuY., and ZhanB.Sensitivity Analysis of AERMOD in Modeling Local Air Quality Under Different Model Options. In Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, 4th International Conference, IEEE, New York, 2010 (ISBN 978-1-4244-4712-1), 2010, pp. 1–4.
17.
FaulknerW. B., ShawB. W., and GroschT.Sensitivity of Two Dispersion Models (AERMOD and ISCST3) to Input Parameters for a Rural Ground-Level Area Sources. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 58, No. 10, 2008, pp. 1288–1296.
18.
LongE. L., CordovaF. J., and TanrikuluS.An Analysis of AERMOD Sensitivity to Input Parameters in the San Francisco Bay Area. Presented at 13th Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with the Air and Waste Management Association, American Meteorological Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004.
19.
GroschT. G., and LeeR. F.Sensitivity of the AERMOD Air Quality Model to the Selection of Land Use Parameters. Proc., Air and Waste Management Association's Annual Conference and Exhibition, A&WMA, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Paper 167), 2004.
20.
SchroederA. J., and ScheweG.Sensitivity of AERMOD to Meteorological Data Sets Based on Varying Surface Roughness. Presented at Annual Conference of the Air and Water Management Association (Paper 2009-A-168-AWMA), 2009.
21.
LongD. J.Comparison of the Performance of AERMOD and ISC on Elevated Point Sources. Proc., Air and Waste Management Association's Annual Conference and Exhibition, A&WMA, Pittsburgh, Pa., 2004, pp. 597–613.
22.
SilvermanK. C., TellJ. G., SargentE. V., and QiuZ.Comparison of the Industrial Source Complex and AERMOD Dispersion Models: Case Study for Human Health Risk Assessment. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 57, No. 12, 2007, pp. 1439–1446.
23.
ChenH., BaiS., EisingerD. S., NiemeierD., and ClaggettM.Predicting Near-Road PM2.5 Concentrations: Comparative Assessment of CALINE4, CAL3QHC, and AERMOD. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2123, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 26–37.
24.
DonaldsonI., HarrisonD., and HillJ.Performance of AERMOD vs. CALPUFF on Fugitive Emission Sources in the Nearfield. Paper 816. Trinity Consultants, Dallas, Tex., 2008.
25.
User's Guide for AERMOD. Report EPA-454-B-03-001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 2004.
26.
User's Guide for the ISC3 Dispersion Models. Report EPA-454-B-95-003a. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1995.
27.
ScheweG. J., and SmithP. J.Sensitivity of AERMOD in Modeling Fugitive Dust Emission Sources. Paper 31. Trinity Consultants, Dallas, Tex., 2009.
28.
Modeling Fugitive Dust Impact from Surface Coal Mining Operations–Phase III. Report EPA-454-R-96-002. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 1995.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.http://www.weather.gov. Accessed Feb. 3, 2011.
31.
Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications. Report EPA-454-R-99-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 2000.
