Scottish Urban Air Quality Steering Group Modeling and Monitoring Workshop - Joost Wesseling Presentation - Models and Monitoring NSL

1. MODELS AND MONITORING NSL
1 SEPA | December 2014

2. Contents
●
Air Quality models in the Netherlands
●
Monitoring of the NSL
●
Monitoring Tool
●
Exceedances
●
Uncertainties
●
Air Quality presently in the NL
2 SEPA | December 2014

3. AIR QUALITY MODELS
3 SEPA | December 2014

4. Standard Calculation Models Air Quality (SRM)
●
Dutch law provides 3 Standard Calculation Models Air Quality (SRM)
–
SRM-1 for streets / street canyons in an urban environment
–
SRM-2 along highways and larger other roads
–
SRM-3 near industrial facilities
●
These models are described in detail in several documents.
●
Other models are allowed if they are comparable to the SRM’s or if they can be applied to other situations than the SRM’s.
●
Wind tunnel experiments are also allowed, provided a specific protocol is followed.
●
The RIVM advises the minister of Infrastructure and the Environment on model approval.
4 SEPA | December 2014

5. Netherlands: traffic and livestock important
●
For traffic the local authorities must provide
–
The exact location and height of the main roads
–
Numbers of light, medium-heavy, heavy vehicles and busses
–
Average speed and appropriate emission class
–
Average congestion and appropriate emission class
–
Location and shape of sound barriers
●
For livestock the local authorities must provide
–
numbers of animals
–
Type of housing
–
Exact location
●
For traffic and livestock the emission factors are provided by the Dutch government.
5 SEPA | December 2014

6. Model system
Background (double counting)
+ Local streets SRM1
+ Highways  SRM2
+ Industry / livestock  SRM3
6 SEPA | December 2014

7. Large-scale backgrounds NO2
•
RIVM prepares maps on a 1x1 km2 resolution.
•
Recent years are calibrated using measurements.
•
Predictions based on
•
Economy
•
Technology
•
NL / EU
7 SEPA | December 2014

8. Large-scale backgrounds PM10
8 SEPA | December 2014

9. Model system
Simple empirical model, derived from wind tunnel, calibrated using field measurements
Background (double counting)
+ Local streets SRM1
+ Highways  SRM2
+ Industry / livestock  SRM3
9 SEPA | December 2014

10. Model system
Gaussian dispersion model, yearly average values only. Calibrated using field measurements.
Background (double counting)
+ Local streets SRM1
+ Highways  SRM2
+ Industry / livestock  SRM3
10 SEPA | December 2014

11. Model system
Gaussian dispersion model, hourly and yearly average values.
Background (double counting)
+ Local streets SRM1
+ Highways  SRM2
+ Industry / livestock  SRM3
11 SEPA | December 2014

12. NO2, data 2010 - 2013
Extensive model validation, mainly for NO2, some NOx, PM10
12 SEPA | December 2014

13. NL versus UK, 2010, NO2
13 SEPA | December 2014

14. MONITORING NSL
14 SEPA | December 2014

15. 15
Monitoring NSL
●
All emissions, background calculations, local model results, corrections etc are combined in the yearly Monitoring report of the NSL.
●
The report is send to the Dutch parliament around December of each year.
●
There is a lot of public interest.
●
RIVM tries to provide the inputs and results in a transparant way.
●
Some of the input is checked and commented.
SEPA | December 2014

16. 16
Monitoring NSL: data and responsibilities
Monitoring report (RIVM et al.)
Monitoring database
www.nsl-monitoring.nl - Update data (restricted) - View data (public)
Monitoringtool - Urban roads(SRM-1) - Rural roads, highways (SRM-2)
- Agriculture (SRM-3)
Generic input I.e. Emission factors, meteo, backgrounds concentrations (ministry IenM)
Local roads Roads and traffic data, effects of measures (local municipalities, natl. roads: rijkswaterstaat)
Schiphol Agriculture (ministry IenM)
SEPA | December 2014

17. 17
Quality of the monitoring
●
Critical review (Wesseling en Beijk, 2010): system with great potential but also some issues:
–
Quality of input data and effects of measures: limited quality control and documentation (in 2010).
–
Actualization process: focus on limit values, quite a number of errors.
–
Large uncertainties: focus on limit values, without a margin for uncertainties leads to a predictable number of ‘hidden’ exceedances.
–
Completeness: only the larger projects are included in the NSL monitoring.
–
Health: there was not enough focus on health effects (in 2010).
SEPA | December 2014

18. MONITORING TOOL
https://www.nsl-monitoring.nl
18 SEPA | December 2014

19. 19 SEPA | December 2014

20. 20 SEPA | December 2014
Show locations Show roads Show transfers Measures Corrections All roads Topography
Select monitor
Monitoring round
Year to view
Jurisdiction

21. 21 SEPA | December 2014

22. 22 SEPA | December 2014
Amsterdam

23. 23 SEPA | December 2014
Amsterdam

24. 24 SEPA | December 2014
Concentrations, NO2, 2013

25. 25 SEPA | December 2014
Intensities traffic, 2013

26. 26 SEPA | December 2014
Road types, 2013

27. 27 SEPA | December 2014
Speed type, 2013

28. 28 SEPA | December 2014
Congestion, 2013

29. 29 SEPA | December 2014
Calculation transfer, 2013

30. 30 SEPA | December 2014
Detail concentration

31. 31 SEPA | December 2014
Detail traffic

32. 32 SEPA | December 2014
Detail transfer

33. 33 SEPA | December 2014
Areas with measures

34. 34 SEPA | December 2014
Areas with measures

35. 35 SEPA | December 2014
Areas with measures

36. EXCEEDANCES 2015 
36 SEPA | December 2014

37. 37 SEPA | December 2014
Amsterdam, NO2, 2013

38. 38 SEPA | December 2014
Amsterdam, NO2, 2015

39. 39 SEPA | December 2014
Rotterdam, NO2, 2013

40. 40 SEPA | December 2014
Rotterdam, NO2, 2015

41. 41 SEPA | December 2014
Rotterdam, NO2, 2020

42. Exceedances 2013, calculated NSL
42 SEPA | December 2014
Near livestock
NO2, all PM10 daily limit PM10 near livestock

43. Exceedances 2015, calculated NSL
43 SEPA | December 2014
NO2, all PM10 daily limit

44. UNCERTAINTIES
44 SEPA | December 2014

45. The effects of uncertainties
●
All calculations and measurements are uncertain.
●
The results of calculations for the NSL are subject to different types of uncertainties.
–
Systematic: are the general basis assumptions regarding back grounds and emission factors correct?
–
Random: every concentration is calculated using many assumption. On average the assumptions will be correct but for a specific individual location the assumption may not be correct.
45 SEPA | December 2014

46. Effect systematic uncertainties NSL
•
Predictions for the future have an uncertainty of 20- 30%
•
In the Netherlands many concentrations are just below limit values.
•
Small changes in de predictions can have a significant effect of the number of exceedances.
Variation emission factors
Variation backgrounds
Expected NO2 exceedances in 2015 
Expected NO2 exceedances in 2015 
46 SEPA | December 2014

47. Effect random uncertainties NSL
Highest concentrations, sorted
Expected NO2 in 2015
Limit value (40.5)
NO2 concentration [ug/m3] 
47 SEPA | December 2014

48. Effect random uncertainties NSL
Expected NO2 in 2015
Limit value (40.5)
NO2 concentration [ug/m3] 
48 SEPA | December 2014

49. Effect random uncertainties NSL
Expected NO2 in 2015
Limit value (40.5)
NO2 concentration [ug/m3] 
Was exceedance Not any more
Turns out to be an exceedance
49 SEPA | December 2014

50. AIR QUALITY NOW
50 SEPA | December 2014

51. 51 SEPA | December 2014
National network NO2, trend
Rural urban street

52. 52 SEPA | December 2014
Rural urban street
National network
PM10, trend

53. 53 SEPA | December 2014
National network PM2.5, trend
Rural urban street

54. 2013
54 SEPA | December 2014

55. 2013
55 SEPA | December 2014

56. 56
SEPA | December 2014