PM2.5 Modeling for PSD
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

  • 938 views
Uploaded on

Dan Dix from ALL4 Inc., presented the following workshop on PM2.5 Measurement and Modeling for Compliance Demonstrations at the NCASI 2013 Northern Regional Meeting. The presentation includes: a ...

Dan Dix from ALL4 Inc., presented the following workshop on PM2.5 Measurement and Modeling for Compliance Demonstrations at the NCASI 2013 Northern Regional Meeting. The presentation includes: a review of PM2.5 modeling updates from the last 6 months, a case study of PM2.5 NAAQS modeling analysis from a pulp and paper mill, findings and recommendations from the case study, and general recommendations for PM2.5 modeling.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
938
On Slideshare
686
From Embeds
252
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 252

http://www.all4inc.com 252

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Problem EPA Recognized.
  • Quarry/Sawmill

Transcript

  • 1. PM2.5 Modeling for PSD Presented to Workshop on PM2.5 Measurement and Modeling for Compliance Demonstrations by All4 Inc. Dan Dix | ddix@all4inc.com | 610.933.5246 x118 May 7, 2013 www.all4inc.com Kimberton, PA | 610.933.5246 Columbus, GA | 706.221.7688
  • 2. Agenda     2 Review of PM2.5 modeling updates from the last 6 months. Case study of PM2.5 NAAQS modeling analysis from a pulp and paper mill. Findings & recommendations from case study. General recommendations for PM2.5 modeling. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 3. PM2.5 Modeling Updates     3 December 14, 2012 – U.S. EPA announced revised annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) reduced from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3. December 17, 2012 – U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) releases regulatory modeling update to AERMET and AERMOD (AKA Version 12345). January 22, 2013 – DC Circuit Court vacated and remanded PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMCs) and Significant Impact Levels (SILs). March 4, 2013 – U.S. EPA OAQPS issues draft PM2.5 modeling guidance for regulatory applications that addresses secondary formed PM2.5. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 4. PM2.5 Modeling Updates    4 12 g/m3 Annual PM2.5NAAQS leaves very little room when included background concentrations of PM2.5 from State run ambient monitors for NAAQS modeling demonstrations. 35 g/m3 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS determined during review to be adequate. New Version of AERMOD/AERMET released December 17, 2013. • New beta options for evaluating low wind speed events. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 5. PM2.5 Modeling Updates     5 What does recent DC Court Decision mean for PSD modeling? PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SILs) (0.3 g/m3 & 1.2 g/m3) Vacated & Remanded. • Permit Applicants should not rely alone on PM2.5 SILs. • Need to also demonstrate that an increase below the SILs will not lead to a NAAQS violation. PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) (4 g/m3) Vacated. • Must rely upon representative State ambient monitoring data. • Much more scrutiny will be placed on whether the monitor is representative of the site. Although court decision addressed PM2.5 other pollutants will also be under same scrutiny for their respective SILs & SMCs. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 6. PM2.5 Modeling Updates    6 PSD permits must now address secondary formed PM2.5 emission from precursors pollutants (i.e., NO2 & SO2) in NAAQS & PSD Increment air quality modeling demonstrations. Four (4) tiered approach for addressing secondary formed PM2.5 emissions laid out in guidance document based on which pollutants are greater than significant emission increase levels. Still time to comment since the comment period has been extended 45 days from May 31, 2013 to July 15, 2013. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 7. PM2.5 Case Study          7 Pulp & Paper Mill AERMOD Fugitive Emissions Included • Roadways • Chip Piles • Chip Drops Emergency Generators Included NWS Meteorological Data (w/AERMINUTE) 24-Hour and annual PM2.5 concentrations evaluated Large property boundary (No onsite receptors included) Building Downwash Included Rolling Terrain Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 8. PM2.5 Case Study Emission Unit Peak 98th Percentile of Modeled 24Hour Concentrations ( g/m3) Natural Gas Fired Power Boiler 1.63 Recovery Furnace 1.69 Smelt Dissolving Tank 7.98 Lime Kiln 15.93 Slaker 1.16 Combination Boiler 1.70 Chip Drops (Fugitive) Negligible Starch Silos 16.90 Chip Piles (Fugitive) 1.92 Paper Machine Dryers 0.29 Pulp Dryers 42.15 Emergency Generators 7.72 Roadways (Fugitive) 8 115.80 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 9. PM2.5 Case Study Emission Unit Peak Annual Modeled Concentrations ( g/m3) Natural Gas Fired Power Boiler 0.31 Recovery Furnace 0.31 Smelt Dissolving Tank 1.59 Lime Kiln 2.77 Slaker 0.16 Combination Boiler 0.31 Chip Drops (Fugitive) Negligible Starch Silos Chip Piles (Fugitive) 0.23 Paper Machine Dryers 0.07 Pulp Dryers 6.74 Emergency Generators 0.82 Roadways (Fugitive) 9 2.85 16.90 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 10. PM2.5 Case Study     10 Facility wide peak 98th percentile modeled 24-Hour and annual Concentration 129 g/m3 and 20.9 g/m3, respectively. WI DNR Regional Background Level for rural areas is 25.6 g/m3 for 24-hour PM2.5 and 8.7 g/m3 for annual PM2.5. 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 35 g/m3 & annual PM2.5 NAAQS 12 g/m3. Not much room for facility contribution. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 11. PM2.5 Case Study    11 Peak facility wide concentration being driven by roadway & low stack height sources (Lime Kiln-90ft/Pulp Dryers-46ft). Elevated concentrations from emergency generators due to horizontal release (no vertical dispersion accounted for in AERMOD from horizontal or rain capped sources). PM2.5 concentration driven by dispersion characteristics more than emission rates. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 12. PM2.5 Case Study  12 So what’s the facility doing to refine the PM2.5 NAAQS modeling analysis? • Conducting surface/bulk dust loading sampling to develop site specific silt loading for roadway fugitive emission calculations (currently using default AP-42 silt loading levels). • Turning emergency generators stacks from horizontal to vertical. • Undertaking a meteorological monitoring program to develop a site specific dataset. Includes collecting data not collected by NWS (i.e., vertical winds speed/solar radiation) to enable AERMOD to more accurately predict PM2.5 concentrations. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 13. PM2.5 Modeling Recommendations  13 What other things can facilities do to demonstrate compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS? • Avoid tripping PSD PM2.5 significant emission increase (i.e., 10 TPY) through over-control or emission reductions. • PAL • Evaluate your PM2.5 emission limits. Determine if a lower limit can be taken. NAAQS modeling demonstrations based on potential-to-emit (PTE) emission rates. • PM2.5 ambient monitoring could be beneficial because representative site-specific background levels can be developed and not double-counted. • Variability in how fugitive (especially roadway) emissions are characterized in AERMOD from state to state. Refer the “Haul Road Workgroup Final Report to EPA-OAQPS” for different Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 14. Final Comments on PM2.5 Modeling     14 Even though the results aren’t always favorable it’s always good to know where your facility stands with regard to all the NAAQS to help in long range planning at your facility. Allows your facility to identify issues that aren’t always obvious (e.g., smaller fugitive sources). Allows your facility to plan for activities that could substantially affect timing of projects (i.e., ambient pollutant or meteorological monitoring require a year of data). Consider input from counsel before undertaking air quality modeling/monitoring evaluations. Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.
  • 15. PM2.5 Modeling for PSD Dan Dix| ddix@all4inc.com | 610.933.52.46 x118 www.all4inc.com Kimberton, PA | 610.933.5246 Columbus, GA | 706.221.7688