© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Air Quality Impacts Analysis Presented to: American Public...

© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation

Air Quality Impacts AnalysisPresented to:

American Public Power Association

APPA New Generation Meeting: Anticipating new permitting issues, IGCC Technology Options, Atmospheric Modeling,

and Anticipating the Public’s Reaction

Presented by:

William B. JonesProject Manager

Zephyr Environmental Corporation

June 28, 2006


•What is modeling and why do it?•Types of models•Typical modelinganalyses

•Recent modeling activity

Outline of PresentationOutline of PresentationOutline of PresentationOutline of Presentation


•Running computer programs to predict air pollutant levels

•Dates back to 1930’s, looked at smoke from chimneys

•Different applications–Complex terrain–Long-range transport–Photochemical

What is Modeling?What is Modeling?What is Modeling?What is Modeling?


•Relative to monitoring, it is–Cheaper–Faster–More extensive

•Useful regulatory tool–Developing control strategies–Permitting of new/modified

industrial facilities

Why do Modeling?Why do Modeling?Why do Modeling?Why do Modeling?


•Screening–SCREEN3–AERSCREEN (any day now)

•Refined–ISC3–AERMOD–CALPUFF

Types of ModelsTypes of ModelsTypes of ModelsTypes of Models


•Quick and dirty•Required inputs are limited

–Meteorological data–Source data–Terrain data

•Cursory structure downwash analysis

•Conservative (high) results

Features of Screening ModelsFeatures of Screening ModelsFeatures of Screening ModelsFeatures of Screening Models


•Required inputs can be substantial

–Preprocessed meteorological data

–Preprocessed terrain data

•Detailed structure downwash analysis

Features of Refined ModelsFeatures of Refined ModelsFeatures of Refined ModelsFeatures of Refined Models


•Will become EPA’s official preferred model for most near-field industrial applications on December 9, 2006

• Improvements over ISC3–Dispersion within Planetary Boundary

Layer–Characterization of meteorological

conditions–Terrain depiction

AERMODAERMODAERMODAERMOD


•Straight line trajectory for plume

•Spatially constant meteorological conditions

•No “memory” of previous hour’s emissions

AERMOD is a steady-state modelAERMOD is a steady-state modelAERMOD is a steady-state modelAERMOD is a steady-state model


•Most industrial applications

•When your situation involves–Pollutant concentrations within tens of km of source

–Flat or complex terrain (but maybe not “complicated” terrain)

•Most NAAQS/PSD Increment analyses

When should you use AERMOD?When should you use AERMOD?When should you use AERMOD?When should you use AERMOD?


•The input/output files may look the same as ISC…

•But it is much more labor-intensive than ISC

–AERMET–AERMAP

•Computer runtimescan measure in days

Issues with AERMODIssues with AERMODIssues with AERMODIssues with AERMOD


•Non-Steady-State model (Puff model)

CALPUFFCALPUFFCALPUFFCALPUFF


ISC vs. CALPUFF animation here



•Non-Steady-State model (Puff model)

•Source input requirements are more detailed than AERMOD

•Terrain input requirements are more detailed than AERMOD

•Meteorological data input requirements are quite substantial

–MM5 can be run for anywhere in the world



•Most long-range transport applications (i.e., greater than 50 km)

•Class I impact/visibility assessments

•Nearfield analyses involving significant terrain variations

When should you use CALPUFF?When should you use CALPUFF?When should you use CALPUFF?When should you use CALPUFF?


•Class II–Significance–NAAQS–PSD Increment

•Class I

Typical Modeling AnalysesTypical Modeling AnalysesTypical Modeling AnalysesTypical Modeling Analyses


•Consider only project in question (emissions increases and decreases)

•Compare against U.S. EPA significance levels

–If below, analysis is finished–If above, proceed with more comprehensive NAAQS/PSD Increment analysis

Class II Analyses:Class II Analyses:Significance ModelingSignificance Modeling

Class II Analyses:Class II Analyses:Significance ModelingSignificance Modeling


•Comprehensive assessment of overall air quality

•Include all sources at your facility

•Include offsite sources

•Include representative ambient background pollutant concentrations

Class II Analyses:Class II Analyses:NAAQS ModelingNAAQS ModelingClass II Analyses:Class II Analyses:NAAQS ModelingNAAQS Modeling


•Include PSD Increment consuming and expanding sources at your facility

•Include PSD Increment consuming and expanding offsite sources

•No ambient background pollutant concentrations are included

Class II Analyses:Class II Analyses:PSD Increment ModelingPSD Increment Modeling

Class II Analyses:Class II Analyses:PSD Increment ModelingPSD Increment Modeling


Class I AreasClass I AreasClass I AreasClass I Areas


Areas within 300 km of Class I AreaAreas within 300 km of Class I AreaAreas within 300 km of Class I AreaAreas within 300 km of Class I Area


•Class I PSD Increments

•Air Quality Related Values (AQRV’s)–Visibility–Acid deposition (sulfate and nitrate)

Class I AnalysisClass I AnalysisClass I AnalysisClass I Analysis


•1993: Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) formed, recommended CALPUFF

•2000: Federal Land Manager’s Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) was written to develop a more consistent approach for the FLMs to evaluate air pollution effects on their resources

History of Class I AnalysesHistory of Class I AnalysesHistory of Class I AnalysesHistory of Class I Analyses


•History has shown it’s easier to define what is not a problem vs. what is a problem

•Each case is different—for each facility, and each FLM

History of Class I AnalysesHistory of Class I AnalysesHistory of Class I AnalysesHistory of Class I Analyses


•Run CALPUFF with 3 years of met data

•Calculate 24-hr bext (visibility index)•Compare bext against natural conditions

–If < 5%, FLM doesn’t object–If between 5% and 10%, FLM may object

–If > 10%, FLM likely to object

Current (typical) approach to Current (typical) approach to assessment of visibility impairmentassessment of visibility impairment

Current (typical) approach to Current (typical) approach to assessment of visibility impairmentassessment of visibility impairment


•John Vimont (NPS) spoke at Guideline on Air Quality Models Conference in Denver this past April

•Outlined proposed changes to visibility analysis methodology

–Different way of accounting for relative humidity

–Different way of comparing bext (98th percentile, or 8th high per year)

But FLAG guidanceBut FLAG guidancemay be changing!may be changing!

But FLAG guidanceBut FLAG guidancemay be changing!may be changing!


•Plum Point Energy Station: Osceola, Arkansas

•Comanche Generating Station: Pueblo, Colorado

•Duke Energy: Cliffside, NC

•Sandy Creek: McClennan County, TX

•City Public Service: San Antonio, TX

Examples of analyses required ofExamples of analyses required ofrecent coal-fired facilitiesrecent coal-fired facilities

Examples of analyses required ofExamples of analyses required ofrecent coal-fired facilitiesrecent coal-fired facilities


Plum Point Energy Station, Osceola, ARPlum Point Energy Station, Osceola, ARPermit issued August 20, 2003Permit issued August 20, 2003

Plum Point Energy Station, Osceola, ARPlum Point Energy Station, Osceola, ARPermit issued August 20, 2003Permit issued August 20, 2003


•Ran CALPUFF, initially found light extinctions > 5%

•Developed water content adjustment to modify natural light extinction calculation

Plum Point Energy Station, Osceola, ARPlum Point Energy Station, Osceola, AR Class I Visibility AnalysisClass I Visibility Analysis

Plum Point Energy Station, Osceola, ARPlum Point Energy Station, Osceola, AR Class I Visibility AnalysisClass I Visibility Analysis

•Re-ran CALPUFF, did not find light extinctions > 5%


Comanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COComanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COPermit issued July 5, 2005Permit issued July 5, 2005

Comanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COComanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COPermit issued July 5, 2005Permit issued July 5, 2005


IntermissionIntermissionIntermissionIntermission

Quick Class I Area TourQuick Class I Area Tour


Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999


Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999(Continental Divide)(Continental Divide)

Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999(Continental Divide)(Continental Divide)


Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999(Neighbor near campsite)(Neighbor near campsite)

Weminuche Wilderness, 1999Weminuche Wilderness, 1999(Neighbor near campsite)(Neighbor near campsite)


Great Sand Dunes NP, 2002Great Sand Dunes NP, 2002“The Summit”“The Summit”

Great Sand Dunes NP, 2002Great Sand Dunes NP, 2002“The Summit”“The Summit”


Black Canyon of the Gunnison River NPBlack Canyon of the Gunnison River NP(2002)(2002)

Black Canyon of the Gunnison River NPBlack Canyon of the Gunnison River NP(2002)(2002)


•Visibility–Found change in light extinction to be less

than 5% at all Class I areas, so acceptable

•Acid Deposition–Sulfur deposition less than 0.005 kg/ha/yr

(Deposition Analysis Threshold, or DAT) (western US value), so acceptable

•Class I PSD Increment–PM10 impacts less than Class I significance

level of 0.3 ug/m3

Comanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COComanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COClass I Analyses PerformedClass I Analyses Performed

Comanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COComanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COClass I Analyses PerformedClass I Analyses Performed


•U.S. Forest Service has established threshold of concern for acid deposition in Class I areas

•Considered three high altitude lakes in Class II areas

•Change in ANC resulting from PM10 and H2SO4 emissions evaluated

•Percent change found to be below threshold of 10%

Comanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COComanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COAdditional Analysis: Acid Neutralizing ChangeAdditional Analysis: Acid Neutralizing Change

Comanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COComanche Generating Station, Pueblo, COAdditional Analysis: Acid Neutralizing ChangeAdditional Analysis: Acid Neutralizing Change


Duke Energy, Cliffside, NCDuke Energy, Cliffside, NCPermit Application submitted December 16, 2005Permit Application submitted December 16, 2005



•Visibility–NPS required speciation of PM10 emissions

by light scattering properties (soils, elemental carbon, and organic aerosols)

•Acid Deposition–Used DAT of 0.01 kg/ha/yr (eastern US

value)

•Class I PSD Increment–PM10 and NOx impacts less than Class I

Significance Levels




•Closest Class I area is Wichita Mountains Wilderness (Oklahoma), ~ 370 km away

•Did not have to examine any impacts on Class I areas

Sandy Creek, McClennan County, TXSandy Creek, McClennan County, TXUpdated application submitted March 10, 2005Updated application submitted March 10, 2005

Sandy Creek, McClennan County, TXSandy Creek, McClennan County, TXUpdated application submitted March 10, 2005Updated application submitted March 10, 2005


•Closest Class I area is Big Bend National Park (Texas), ~ 440 km away

•TCEQ did not require any Class I analysis•CPS assessed visibility and acid deposition at Big Bend and six other Class I areas (out to 870 km)

•Results–Light extinction found to be < 5% at all Class

I areas–Sulfur and Nitrogen deposition found to be <

DAT at all Class I areas

City Public Service, San Antonio, TXCity Public Service, San Antonio, TXPermit issued January 2006Permit issued January 2006

City Public Service, San Antonio, TXCity Public Service, San Antonio, TXPermit issued January 2006Permit issued January 2006


•Model selected based on–Type of analysis being conducted–Characteristics of region being modeled

•Class II (NAAQS and PSD Increment) analyses will typically use AERMOD

–More complicated than ISC was

•Class I analyses will typically use CALPUFF

–Reach of FLM is increasing–Requirements of analysis are very fluid

SummarySummarySummarySummary


•EPA’s SCRAM Website: www.epa.gov/scram001

• IWAQM: www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf

•FLAG: www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/index.cfm

•CALPUFF:src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm

•PM2.5:www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pm25.pdf (John Seitz (OAQPS) 10/23/97 memo on using PM10 as surrogate for PM2.5 in PSD analyses)

Useful Modeling LinksUseful Modeling LinksUseful Modeling LinksUseful Modeling Links


Hopefully you’ve found this a Hopefully you’ve found this a “model” presentation“model” presentation

Hopefully you’ve found this a Hopefully you’ve found this a “model” presentation“model” presentation

Bill Jones

410.312.7910

[email protected]

Date post:	11-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	darcy-jackson
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Air Quality Impacts Analysis Presented to: American Public...

Documents