Modeling, Impacts, and Effects Review Dom Ruggeri, P.E., Manager Technical Program Support Section TCEQ, Air Permits Division Austin, Texas September.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Harris County Pollution Control Services Department Enforcement of Bacteria Requirements in Wastewater.
Advertisements

Air Pollutant Watch List (APWL) Darrell D. McCant, B.S. Chief Engineer’s Office - Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Oil and Gas Air Quality Authorizations in Texas
TCEQ Air Permits Division Justin Cherry, P.E. Ahmed Omar Stephen F. Austin State University February 28, 2013.
State Implementation of Risk-Based MACT Exemptions Region 4 Permit Managers Meeting Rhonda B. Thompson, P.E., Director Engineering Services Division SC.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 1001 North Central Ave. Phoenix, Arizona Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting and improving our.
Air and Waste Management Association-Gulf Coast Chapter Meeting October 7, 2014.
Your Water – Your Future Protecting and Preserving Ground Water via the Highlands RMP Ground Water Summit 2008 The Ground Water Protection Committee Presented.
Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part 1) Rachel Melton and Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
Introduction to the State-Level Mitigation 20/20 TM Software for Management of State-Level Hazard Mitigation Planning and Programming A software program.
Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Environmental Trade Fair 2015.
Title V Site Operating Permits (SOPs)
Introduction to the ISC Model Marti Blad NAU College of Engineering.
New Template of Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility Environmental Approvals Branch Presented to Air Practitioners’ Group.
TCEQ/NUATRC Air Toxics Workshop: Session V – Human Health Effects Nathan Pechacek, M.S. Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
How States Count and Review Testing Data Survey Results Gary L. Saunders North Carolina DAQ.
1 WILMINGTON AIR QUALITY STUDY Status Update and Introduction to Modeling Protocol Vlad Isakov Todd Sax August 27, 2003 California Air Resources Board.
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,
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC Boiler MACT Compliance Plans: Failure to Develop Plans Is Planning to Fail Susie Bowden|
Reviewing the Audit Results. Defining a Quality Base Year is Key to Maximizing Project Value n Base year is the mutually agreed upon pre-retrofit annual.
SIP Steering Committee Meeting March 29,  In October 2011, EPA issued draft SIP and modeling guidance related to the 1-hour SO2 standard issued.
1 MOBILE6 -Input and Modeling Guidance -SIP and Conformity Policy North American Vehicle Emission Control Conference Atlanta, April 4, 2001 Gary Dolce.
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
Stationary and Area Source Committee Update OTC Committee Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, D.C. Hall of the States 1.
HAP Rule 372 Guidance Permitting Division Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
Module 6: Alternatives. 2  Module 6 contains three sections: – 6.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives – 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.
Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule - Colorado David R. Ouimette Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
Air Dispersion Modeling City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department Air Quality Program Director: Mary Lou Leonard.
Regulatory Requirements For Modeling. Air Quality Model Estimates Developing Air Pollution Control Plans Assessment of Environmental Impacts Projecting.
Title V Operating Permits: A Compliance and Enforcement Tool Candace Carraway US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
PSD/Nonattainment Review You can do this! Marc Sturdivant Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Environmental Trade Fair 2015.
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.
Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Evaluation Sarah Fuchs Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
A&WMA Southern Section Annual Meeting Biloxi, MS September 12, 2012 Carla Brown, P.E. MS Dept. of Environmental Quality
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.
USA Parkway Project Welcome Public Information Meeting to the
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.
General Operating Permits
1 Overview Community Health Modeling Working Group Meeting Tony Servin, P.E. Modeling Support Section Planning and Technical Support Division May 6, 2003.
HF Modeling Task Mike Williams November 19, 2013.
I RIS E NVIRONMENTAL Independent Review of Documents Pertaining to the Lehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Facility Rob Balas & John McLaughlin February.
PSD Permitting Process Nancy Mayer EPA OAQPS. 2 Topics Find technical resources for permit review Describe how permits are constructed Describe what to.
SO 2 NAAQS Modeling MassCAIR Stakeholder Meeting December 13, 2011.
Nonattainment New Source Review (NA NSR) Program Raj Rao US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ,
Resource Analysis. Objectives of Resource Assessment Discussion The subject of the second part of the analysis is to dig more deeply into some of the.
Stephen F. Austin State University February 27, 2014 Justin Cherry, P.E. Reece Parker TCEQ Air Permits Division.
1 Public Workshop to Discuss Amendments to the AB 2588 “Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation California Air Resources Board.
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,
Presentation of Nominations to the World Heritage Committee by the Advisory Bodies Presentation by ICOMOS Paris, January 2013.
Title V Site Operating Permits (SOPs) Initial, Revision, and Renewal Applications Vasant Chaphekar, P.E. & Carolyn Maus, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas.
 40 CFR § (d)(1)(v) “(W)hen the permitting authority determines, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, toxicity testing.
Lecturer: Lina Vladimirovna Zhornyak, Associate Professor.
Regulatory background How these standards could impact the permitting process How is compliance with the standards assessed.
1 Near-field NO 2 Impacts due to PM Traps for Diesel Engines Tony Servin, P.E. Atmospheric Modeling and Support Section Planning and Technical Support.
Air Modeling Updates 2015 Region 4 Grants/Planning Meeting May 19-21, 2015 Atlanta, Georgia 1.
Proven Management – Proven Gold Districts – Safe Jurisdictions Symbol:PG Exchange:TSX Hardrock Project Environmental.
WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE AN “ALLEGED” VIOLATION Keith W. Turner Watkins & Eager.
New Source Review (NSR) Program Basics
Preparing for Permit Review
Clean Air Act Glossary.
Water Balance Alternative Final Covers
Major New Source Review (NSR) Part 2
Examples of 1-Hour NO2 and SO2 Modeling William O’Sullivan Director, Division of Air Quality NJDEP April 28, 2011.
Enforcing the NAAQS Case Study Sean Taylor
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
EPA’s Current Air Toxics Activities
Presentation transcript:

Modeling, Impacts, and Effects Review Dom Ruggeri, P.E., Manager Technical Program Support Section TCEQ, Air Permits Division Austin, Texas September 27, 2006

Introduction Introduction Discuss general approach to modeling, impacts, and effects review Discuss general approach to modeling, impacts, and effects review Prepare to evaluate impacts of MSS emissions Prepare to evaluate impacts of MSS emissions

Applicant Submits Application Identifies all emissions from production and planned MSS Identifies all emissions from production and planned MSS Provides scenarios, emission factors, control technologies, representations Provides scenarios, emission factors, control technologies, representations Provides all supporting documentation Provides all supporting documentation Addresses known concerns Addresses known concerns

Table 1 (a) Includes all normal operation scenarios Provides separate scenarios for short- term, long-term operations Includes all facilities and related activities and frequency Includes hours of production and MSS and the number of startups and shutdowns

Permit Reviewer Duties Agrees to BACT or BMP Agrees to BACT or BMP Agrees with proposed emission rates and stack parameters Agrees with proposed emission rates and stack parameters Conducts preliminary impacts evaluation Conducts preliminary impacts evaluation Requests modeling as needed Requests modeling as needed

Impacts Evaluation Look at all contaminants, project emissions Look at all contaminants, project emissions Include MSS not previously evaluated Include MSS not previously evaluated Include PBRs and standard permits Include PBRs and standard permits Compare to de minimis, SIL, 10% ESL Compare to de minimis, SIL, 10% ESL Conduct applicable modeling Conduct applicable modeling Modeling sitewide? Include everything! Modeling sitewide? Include everything!

Basic Questions Do I have to evaluate all emissions from normal operations? Do I have to evaluate all emissions from normal operations? –Yes Can I evaluate planned MSS separately from production? Can I evaluate planned MSS separately from production? –Maybe Is there a de minimis for MSS? Is there a de minimis for MSS? –Yes and no

If Modeling is Requested Which Model? Which Model? –Staff prefer SCREEN3 and AERMOD When do we switch from ISCST3? When do we switch from ISCST3? –Federally required December 2006 Could we use ISCST3 instead of AERMOD? Could we use ISCST3 instead of AERMOD? –Maybe

Modeling Process Try Conservative, Worst-Case Approach First Modeling Process Try Conservative, Worst-Case Approach First Continuous emissions; max hourly rate Continuous emissions; max hourly rate Simultaneous PMSS Simultaneous PMSS Set model for overall max and individual source concentrations Set model for overall max and individual source concentrations Pass: site meets standards and/or ESLs Pass: site meets standards and/or ESLs

Modeling Process Failed? Are Impacts “Possible” or “Probable”? Identify likely worst-case scenario (s) Identify likely worst-case scenario (s) Emissions at max hourly rate for short- term, average hourly rate for long-term Emissions at max hourly rate for short- term, average hourly rate for long-term Use emission rate scaling factors Use emission rate scaling factors Set model for overall max and individual source concentrations Set model for overall max and individual source concentrations Pass: site meets standards and/or ESLs Pass: site meets standards and/or ESLs

Modeling Process Modeling Process Still failed? Are Impacts Possible? Apply appropriate post-modeling techniques For example: – –Consider buildings, obstructions – –Particle size – –Stability class and wind speed

Modeling Process Modeling Process Impacts Possible But Not Probable Are the emissions continuous? Rate based on spikes or steady state? If steady state, then meteorology not an adjustment factor for single source If noncontinuous, probability approach may be appropriate

Modeling Process Impacts Possible, Analyze Operations Identify the issues Identify the issues What are the culpable sources? What are the culpable sources? How are the culpable sources authorized? How are the culpable sources authorized? What are the applicable scenarios, hours of operation, emission rates? What are the applicable scenarios, hours of operation, emission rates? Are the emissions from production or MSS? Are the emissions from production or MSS?

Modeling Process Options to Reduce Impacts  Modify stack parameters  Reduce emissions with proposed BACT  Propose new BACT  Limit normal operations Limit use of standard permits and PBRs Limit use of standard permits and PBRs

Show Air Quality Benefit Still Can’t Demonstrate Compliance? Can we show an air quality benefit? Assumes: Standards met; issue related to ESLs Standards met; issue related to ESLs All refined modeling, control, emission and scenario options fully explored All refined modeling, control, emission and scenario options fully explored No backsliding No backsliding No significant air quality impact No significant air quality impact

Air Benefit Analysis Basic Questions What is the ESL issue? What is the ESL issue? –Acute or chronic health –Nuisance –APWL or mobile monitoring What are the BACT issues? What are the BACT issues? –Technical reasonableness –Economic feasibility –Timing –Timing

Air Benefit Analysis More Basic Questions Does the source of emissions exist? Does the source of emissions exist? What are the operational issues? What are the operational issues? –Production or MSS? –Existing PBRs and/or standard permits? Should we limit future PBRs, standard permits? Should we limit future PBRs, standard permits?

Air Benefit Analysis Still More Basic Questions What is the compliance history? What is the compliance history? What is the region’s input? What is the region’s input? What is toxicology’s input? What is toxicology’s input? What is the public’s input? What is the public’s input? Is there a net air quality improvement from the project? Is there a net air quality improvement from the project?

Summary Applicants provide technical information Applicants provide technical information Permit reviewers evaluate Permit reviewers evaluate –BACT –Compliance with rules/regulations –Protectiveness Models are tools Models are tools Engineering judgment can be used to weigh air quality benefits Engineering judgment can be used to weigh air quality benefits

Questions