PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

15
www.all4inc.com Kimberton, PA | 610.933.5246 Columbus, GA | 706.221.7688 PM 2.5 Modeling for PSD Dan Dix | [email protected] | 610.933.5246 x118 May 7, 2013 Presented to Workshop on PM 2.5 Measurement and Modeling for Compliance Demonstrations by All4 Inc.

description

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.

Transcript of PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

Page 1: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

www.all4inc.comKimberton, PA | 610.933.5246Columbus, GA | 706.221.7688

PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

Dan Dix | [email protected] | 610.933.5246 x118May 7, 2013

Presented to Workshop on PM2.5 Measurement and Modeling for Compliance Demonstrations by All4 Inc.

Page 2: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

2 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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.

Agenda

Page 3: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

3 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

December 14, 2012 – U.S. EPA announced revised annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) reduced from 15 mg/m3 to 12 mg/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.

PM2.5 Modeling Updates

Page 4: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

4 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

12 mg/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 mg/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.

PM2.5 Modeling Updates

Page 5: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

5 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

What does recent DC Court Decision mean for PSD modeling? PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SILs) (0.3 mg/m3 & 1.2 mg/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 mg/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.

PM2.5 Modeling Updates

Page 6: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

6 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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.

PM2.5 Modeling Updates

Page 7: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

7 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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

PM2.5 Case Study

Page 8: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

8 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

Emission Unit Peak 98th Percentile of Modeled 24-Hour Concentrations (mg/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) 115.80

PM2.5 Case Study

Page 9: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

9 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

PM2.5 Case StudyEmission Unit Peak Annual Modeled

Concentrations (mg/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 2.85

Chip Piles (Fugitive) 0.23

Paper Machine Dryers 0.07

Pulp Dryers 6.74

Emergency Generators 0.82

Roadways (Fugitive) 16.90

Page 10: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

10 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

PM2.5 Case Study Facility wide peak 98th percentile modeled 24-Hour and annual

Concentration 129 mg/m3 and 20.9 mg/m3, respectively. WI DNR Regional Background Level for rural areas is 25.6 mg/m3

for 24-hour PM2.5 and 8.7 mg/m3 for annual PM2.5. 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 35 mg/m3 & annual PM2.5 NAAQS 12

mg/m3. Not much room for facility contribution.

Page 11: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

11 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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.

PM2.5 Case Study

Page 12: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

12 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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.

PM2.5 Case Study

Page 13: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

13 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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 options.

PM2.5 Modeling Recommendations

Page 14: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

14 Your environmental compliance is clearly our business.

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.

Final Comments on PM2.5 Modeling

Page 15: PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

www.all4inc.comKimberton, PA | 610.933.5246Columbus, GA | 706.221.7688

PM2.5 Modeling for PSD

Dan Dix| [email protected] | 610.933.52.46 x118