Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part 1) Rachel Melton and Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reece Parker and Justin Cherry, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced Air Permitting Seminar 2014.
Advertisements

Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.
Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part II) Reece Parker and Justin Cherry, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
Modeling the New 1-Hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Alan Dresser Research Scientist I October 14, 2011.
Examples of 1-Hour NO 2 and SO 2 Modeling William O’Sullivan Director, Division of Air Quality NJDEP June 14, 2011.
SCAQMD Modeling Parameters for Developing Localized Significance Thresholds March 5, 2003.
Dispersion Modeling Jim McGraw Program Development Supervisor.
Kentucky Division for Air Quality Taimur Shaikh Ph.D.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
The Monte Carlo Method A Case Study for 1-Hour NO2 Modeled Impacts Greg Quina SC DHEC Bureau of Air Quality
TCEQ Air Permits Division Justin Cherry, P.E. Ahmed Omar Stephen F. Austin State University February 28, 2013.
Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part 1) Rachel Melton and Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Environmental Trade Fair 2015.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NO 2 and SO 2 – New Modeling Challenges August 4, 2011 Air & Waste Management Association – Southern Section.
How Ozone is Regulated under the Clean Air Act Darcy J. Anderson AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality.
Missouri Air Quality Issues Stephen Hall Air Quality Analysis Section Air Pollution Control Program Air Quality Applied Sciences Team (AQAST) 9 th Semi-Annual.
VOC and NO x Rules Related to the Oil and Natural Gas Industries Air Quality Division Bob Gifford Air Quality Specialist, Air Quality Division Presented.
David A. Ramirez Area Director for Border and Permian Basin Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Border to Border Transportation Conference November.
IOWA Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Program Development Jim McGraw Environmental Program Supervisor  8 hr Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation.
Earth System Sciences, LLC Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases Doug Blewitt, CCM 1.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC SO 2 Data Requirements Rule – A Proactive Compliance Approach Mark Wenclawiak, CCM |
TAG Progress Report: Landfill Odors Modeling Research C. D. Cooper, CECE Dept., Univ. of Central Fla. December 16, 2008.
Oil and Gas Workgroup Summary October 21-23, 2009 Denver.
Development of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2012 CMAS Conference October 16,
Early Action Compacts Presented by Karen Borel EPA Region 4 March 25, 2003.
A Monte Carlo Approach to Estimating Impacts from Highly Intermittent Sources on Short Term Standards Clint Bowman and Ranil Dhammapala, State of Washington,
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Current Status of Air Quality Laura Boothe North Carolina Division of Air Quality MCIC Workshops March 2012.
Title V Operating Permits: A Compliance and Enforcement Tool Candace Carraway US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
April  Collaborative effort between BLM, EPA, States, other FLMs and the Oil and Gas Industry to better predict 1- hour NO 2 impacts from drill.
Proposed Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models
Samuel Short, Manager Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced Air Permitting Seminar 2015.
1 MAPS. Counties With Monitors Violating Alternate 8-hour Ozone Standards of and parts per million 398 counties violate.075 ppm 135 additional.
Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Evaluation Sarah Fuchs Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Emissions Banking and Trading (EBT) Overview/Update Melissa Ruano Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced Air Permitting.
A&WMA Southern Section Annual Meeting Biloxi, MS September 12, 2012 Carla Brown, P.E. MS Dept. of Environmental Quality
Wingra Engineering, S.C.1 Evaluation of Gas Turbine Air Quality Impacts from a Community Perspective Steven Klafka, PE Wingra Engineering, S.C Electric.
Dispersion Modeling Challenges for Air Permitting Justin Fickas Christine Haman Jake Stewart.
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
Permitting and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Changes Rick Goertz, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced.
Toxicology Update - Implementation of Revised Impacts Review Procedures Mike Coldiron, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Compliance Challenges in Meeting 1-Hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Sube Vel, GHD Co-speaker: James VanAssche, GHD.
1-hour NO2 Modeling Issues NACAA Spring Membership Meeting 2011.
HF Modeling Task Mike Williams November 19, 2013.
Using Measurements and Modeling to Understand Local and Regional Influences on PM 2.5 in Vicinity of the PRGS.
Modeling, Impacts, and Effects Review Dom Ruggeri, P.E., Manager Technical Program Support Section TCEQ, Air Permits Division Austin, Texas September.
Jericho Project Air Quality Assessment. TOPICS METHODOLOGY EMISSION SOURCES RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT MITIGATION AND MONITORING CONCLUSION.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
SO 2 NAAQS Modeling MassCAIR Stakeholder Meeting December 13, 2011.
Stephen F. Austin State University February 27, 2014 Justin Cherry, P.E. Reece Parker TCEQ Air Permits Division.
Presentation to the Air Quality Forum – August 9, 2005 C lark C ounty R egional O zone and P recursors S tudy (CCROPS) Robert A. Baxter, CCM T & B Systems,
N EW Y ORK S TATE D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL C ONSERVATION Short Term Ambient Air Quality Standards and The Effect on Permitting Margaret Valis NESCAUM,
Air Quality Division Emissions Inventories SAW: May 3, 2016 Page 1 Point Source Emissions Inventories Air Quality Division Susan Wampler May 3,
Regulatory background How these standards could impact the permitting process How is compliance with the standards assessed.
PSD/Nonattainment Applicability Arturo J. Garza Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Environmental Trade Fair 2016.
Comparisons of CALPUFF and AERMOD for Vermont Applications Examining differing model performance for a 76 meter and 12 meter (stub) stack with emission.
Air Modeling Updates 2015 Region 4 Grants/Planning Meeting May 19-21, 2015 Atlanta, Georgia 1.
Ozone Redesignation Substitutes for the HGB and DFW Areas
Complying with Periodic Emissions Monitoring Requirements
Department of Environmental Quality
WESTAR Recommendations Exceptional Events EPA response
Draft Modeling Protocol for PM2.5
NACAA Permitting Workshop, Chicago June 14, 2011
EPA’s 2014 Draft RIA EPA’s 2104 Draft RIA continues to rely heavily on PM2.5 co-benefits:
1-hour NO2 Modeling Issues
Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases
Examples of 1-Hour NO2 and SO2 Modeling William O’Sullivan Director, Division of Air Quality NJDEP April 28, 2011.
Exceptional and Natural Events Rulemaking
Sulfur Dioxide 1-Hour NAAQS Implementation
Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM)
Presentation transcript:

Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part 1) Rachel Melton and Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced Air Permitting Seminar 2014

Treatment of Intermittent Emissions Modeling is a challenge for 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS compliance demonstrations. Examples include: – Firewater pump engines – Emergency generator engines – Startup/shutdown operations

Modeling Intermittent Emissions Operate infrequently or on a random operating schedule. Representing these types of sources as operating continuously throughout the year often results in the sources becoming the culpable emission scenario. Modeled with an adjusted hourly emission rate rather than the maximum hourly emission rate.

Adjusted Hourly Emission Rate For a firewater pump tested 52 hours per year: – Modeled emission rate = maximum hourly emission rate * 52/8760 The calculation of the modeled hourly emission rate will be different for intermittent emissions with operational restrictions. 30 TAC Chapter 117 includes operational restrictions for emergency engines in ozone non-attainment areas: – HGB Ozone Nonattainment Area – 30 TAC § (c) – DFW Ozone Nonattainment Area – 30 TAC § (c)

30 TAC Chapter 117 With some exceptions, the operation of any stationary diesel or dual-fired engine for testing or maintenance cannot occur between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 p.m. For a firewater pump tested 52 hours per year in the HGB Ozone Nonattainment Area: – 18 hours/day *365 days/year = 6570 hours/year – Modeled emission rate = maximum hourly emission rate * 52/6570

Intermittent Source Determination There are several factors to determine if a source is intermittent: – How many sources are there? – How often does the source operate per year? – What is the duration of operation once the source is operating? – Does the source operate on a known schedule, or does it operate randomly? – Does the source operate simultaneously with other sources?

Example 1 An applicant has seven firewater pump engines on site: – Each engine tested once per week for 52 hours per year. – Engine testing can occur over multiple days of the week. The engines would not be considered intermittent in this scenario: – The engine emissions could affect up to seven days per week.

Example 2 An applicant has seven firewater pump engines on site: – Each engine tested once per week for 52 hours per year. – All engines are tested on the same day of the week. The engines could be considered intermittent in this scenario: – The engine emissions would only affect one day per week.

Tier 3 Options for NO x -to-NO 2 Conversion Two options available in AERMOD: – Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) – Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) Treated as non-default model options. Must submit protocol documenting modeling approach before submitting modeling with these options.

PVMRM & OLM Accounts for conversion of NO x to NO 2 through the chemical mechanism of ozone titration: NO + O 3 → NO 2 + O 2 Requires several inputs in AERMOD: – In-stack NO 2 /NO x ratios – Background ozone concentrations – Ambient NO 2 /NO x equilibrium ratio

In-stack NO 2 /NO x Ratio Default in-stack ratio is 0.5: – Can enter a single value for all sources or source-specific values. Must provide justification for the use of non-default in-stack ratios: – In-stack ratios are verified by the permit engineer. It is in the applicant’s best interests to use in-stack ratios specific to the modeled sources: – Using the default in-stack ratio may result in predicted concentrations similar to the Tier 2 ambient ratio method.

Background Ozone Concentrations Several ways to input background concentrations: – Single ozone concentration (OZONEVAL) – Temporally-varying ozone concentrations (O3VALUES) – Hour-by-hour ozone concentrations (OZONEFIL)

Background Ozone Concentrations (continued) Must provide justification to show selected ozone monitor is representative. When an hourly ozone concentration file is used, the meteorological data used in the modeling analysis must correspond to the years of the ozone concentration data.

Ambient NO 2 /NO x Equilibrium Ratio Default value is 0.9. The equilibrium ratio is typically reached far beyond the point of maximum predicted ground level concentrations.

PVMRM or OLM? EPA currently does not have a preference for one option over the other. PVMRM performs well for isolated elevated point sources. OLM performs well for low level releases and area sources.

Additional Considerations EPA intermittent guidance should not be applied in conjunction with PVMRM or OLM. AERMOD may not appropriately account for the amount of NO x converted to NO 2 when the emission rate for a source is adjusted per the intermittent guidance.

Recent Guidance Clarification on the Use of AERMOD Dispersion Modeling for Demonstrating Compliance with the NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Default in-stack NO 2 /NO x ratio of 0.2 for “distant nearby” sources. Ambient Ratio Method 2 (ARM2).

Questions?

Contact Information Matthew Kovar – Air Dispersion Modeling Team – (512) – Rachel Melton – Air Dispersion Modeling Team – (512) – Air Permits Division (512) Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division (512) Rachel Melton