DOCSLIB.ORG

Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines for Arizona Air Quality Permits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines for Arizona Air Quality Permits Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines for Arizona Air Quality Permits PREPARED BY: AIR QUALITY PERMIT SECTION AIR QUALITY DIVISION ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY September 23, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Regulatory Modeling ........................................................................... 2 1.2 Purpose of an Air Quality Modeling Analysis .......................................................... 2 1.3 Authority for Modeling ............................................................................................. 3 1.4 Acceptable Models.................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Overview of Modeling Protocols and Checklists ..................................................... 4 1.6 Overview of Modeling Reports ................................................................................ 5 2 LEVELS OF MODELING ANALYSIS SOPHISTICATION .................................. 5 2.1 Screening Modeling .................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Refined Modeling ..................................................................................................... 7 3 MODELING ANALYSIS FEATURES ..................................................................... 10 3.1 Modeling Worst-Case Scenarios............................................................................. 10 3.1.1 Emissions Profiles ............................................................................................ 10 3.1.2 Load Analyses .................................................................................................. 11 3.1.3 Emission Caps .................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Modeling Emissions Inventory ............................................................................... 12 3.3 Types of Sources ..................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Point Sources ................................................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Volume Sources ............................................................................................... 14 3.3.3 Area Sources .................................................................................................... 15 3.3.4 Line Sources ..................................................................................................... 16 3.3.5 Road Emission Sources .................................................................................... 16 3.3.6 Flares ................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.7 Open Pit Sources .............................................................................................. 19 3.3.8 Pseudo Point / Non-Standard Point Source ..................................................... 19 3.3.9 Emission Point Collocation .............................................................................. 20 3.4 Ambient Air Boundary ........................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Definition of General Public ............................................................................ 21 3.4.2 Public Access ................................................................................................... 21 3.4.3 Property without an Effective Fence or Other Physical Barriers ..................... 22 3.4.4 Leased Property ............................................................................................... 22 3.5 Modeling Coordinate Systems ................................................................................ 22 3.6 Receptor Networks.................................................................................................. 23 3.7 Rural/Urban Classification ...................................................................................... 24 3.8 Meteorological Data................................................................................................ 26 3.8.1 Meteorological Data Description and Rationale .............................................. 28 3.8.2 Meteorological Data Processing ...................................................................... 29 3.9 Building Downwash and GEP Stack Height .......................................................... 30 3.10 Background Concentrations .................................................................................. 31 3.11 Modeled Design Concentrations ........................................................................... 34 4 ADEQ PERMITTING JURISDICTION AND CLASSIFICATIONS ................... 36 4.1 Air Quality Permitting Jurisdiction in Arizona ....................................................... 36 4.2 Main ADEQ Permit Classifications ........................................................................ 37 5 MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PSD SOURCES ............................... 40 i 6 MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR PSD SOURCES ......................................... 40 6.1 NAAQS Analyses for Pollutants That Do Not Trigger PSD .................................. 40 6.2 Overview of PSD Modeling Procedures ................................................................. 41 6.2.1 NAAQS Modeling Inventory ........................................................................... 42 6.2.2 Increment Modeling Inventory ........................................................................ 43 6.2.3 Additional Impact Analyses ............................................................................. 46 6.2.4 Class I Area Impact Analyses .......................................................................... 47 7 SPECIAL MODELING ISSUES ................................................................................ 49 7.1 Modeling for 1-hour NO2........................................................................................ 49 7.1.1 Emission Rate .................................................................................................. 50 7.1.2 Significant Impact Level .................................................................................. 50 7.1.3 Three-tiered Approach for 1-hour NO2 Modeling ........................................... 51 7.1.4 Determining Background Concentrations ........................................................ 51 7.1.5 In-Stack NO2/NOX Ratio .................................................................................. 54 7.1.6 Treatment of Intermittent Sources ................................................................... 54 7.1.7 Modeling Demonstration with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS ................................. 55 7.2 Modeling for 1-hour SO2 ........................................................................................ 57 7.2.1 Emission Rate .................................................................................................. 57 7.2.2 Significant Impact Level .................................................................................. 58 7.2.3 Determining Background Concentrations ........................................................ 58 7.2.4 Treatment of Intermittent Sources ................................................................... 59 7.2.5 Modeling Demonstration with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS ................................. 59 7.3 Modeling for PM2.5 ................................................................................................. 60 7.3.1 Significant Monitoring Concentration and Significant Impact Levels ............ 61 7.3.2 Modeling Primary PM2.5 and Secondarily Formed PM2.5 ................................ 62 7.3.3 Emission Inventories ........................................................................................ 64 7.3.4 Background Concentration .............................................................................. 65 7.3.5 Comparison to the SIL ..................................................................................... 66 7.3.6 Modeling Demonstration with the PM2.5 NAAQS .......................................... 66 7.3.7 Modeling demonstration with the PM2.5 Increments ....................................... 67 7.4 Additional Considerations for Modeling Particulate Matter (PM) ......................... 68 7.4.1 Paired-Sums Approach .................................................................................... 68 7.4.2 Particle Deposition ........................................................................................... 69 7.5 Modeling for Lead (Pb) .......................................................................................... 69 7.6 Modeling for Open Burning/Open Detonation Sources ......................................... 70 7.6.1 Modeling OB/OD Operations with OBODM .................................................. 70 7.6.2 Modeling OB/OD Operations with AERMOD ................................................ 70 7.7 Modeling for Buoyant Line Sources ....................................................................... 71 7.8 Modeling for HAPS Sources - Learning Site Policy .............................................. 71 8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 72 APPENDIX A: MODELING PROTOCOL ELEMENTS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part II: Practical Uses of Air Modeling in Litigation And
    Air Modeling as a Tool in Environmental Law and Policy: A Guide for Communities and Environmental Groups Part II: Practical Uses of Air Modeling in Litigation and Regulatory Contexts Clean Air Council 135 South 19th Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 567-4004 www.cleanair.org September 16, 2016 Authors and Purpose The authors are attorneys at the Clean Air Council at its headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The attorneys working on this White Paper were: Augusta Wilson, Esq., Aaron Jacobs-Smith, Esq., Benjamin Hartung, Esq., Christopher D. Ahlers, Esq., and Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., Executive Director and Chief Counsel. Clean Air Council is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation with headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Acknowledgments The Clean Air Council thanks the Colcom Foundation. This paper would not have been possible without its generous funding and support. The authors would also like to thank Jini Chatterjee, Tessa Roberts and Paul Townsend, students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Environmental Law Project, who conducted invaluable research for this paper, and Sonya Shea, who supervised their work at the Environmental Law Project. Disclaimer This paper is intended as a general introduction to the law and policy of air modeling under the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this paper is intended, nor shall it be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship or providing legal advice. © 2016 Clean Air Council 135 S. 19th Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 1. Use of Air Modeling to Support Tort Claims .....................................................................2 a. Challenges to the Use of Particular Modeling Software or to Underlying Assumptions .............................................................................................................2 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Examples of Point Source Air Pollution
    Examples Of Point Source Air Pollution Unmunitioned Istvan spectates some corregidor after unpolite Pierce inaugurated incompletely. Is Garcia storiated or flannelly when asphyxiate some porterhouse squibbing transitionally? Allometric Bradford spancelling prevalently while Everard always letting his clearwings besmears distally, he marver so edgily. Although no effective in. Each other funding opportunities for change in point source examples of pollution changes that p that the moa does escape to search of? It also discusses options for preventing and controlling pollution. These two ph change to birth to close this approach to read the environment can be higher than the relevant or diffuse water? Radiobiology for the Radiologist. NYC DEP participates in form number during State activities relating to NPS pollution, including the New York State Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. Choose properly sized woodstoves, certified to meet EPA emission standards; make wine that doors on all woodstoves fit tightly. Cities to source examples of? These effects of each year can be no competing interests of calves from acute effects for pollution examples of point source air pollution is absorbed by the toxics released during the particular illness. Pollution examples of organic chemicals are based on farm. Animals at pollution source pollutants on air pollutants in point source pollution does not be quite harmful effects on protecting healthy people breathe, central space heater. While capture one farm adds much pollution to the hawk, the cumulative amount of diffuse pollution has significant impacts on eye quality. Work on the examples of? Because it typically found in. Blue drain and yellow fish symbol used by the UK Environment Agency to raise awareness of the ecological impacts of contaminating surface drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines
    Air Quality Modeling Guidelines for Arizona Air Quality Permits PREPARED BY: FACILITIES EMISSIONS CONTROL SECTION AIR QUALITY DIVISION ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY November 1, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Regulatory Modeling ........................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of an Air Quality Modeling Analysis .......................................................... 2 1.3 Authority for Modeling ............................................................................................. 3 1.4 Acceptable Models.................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Overview of Modeling Protocols and Checklists ..................................................... 4 1.6 Overview of Modeling Reports ................................................................................ 5 2 LEVELS OF MODELING ANALYSIS SOPHISTICATION .................................. 5 2.1 Screening Models or Screening Techniques ............................................................. 6 2.1.1 Screening Models for Near-Field Assessments ................................................. 6 2.1.2 Screening Techniques for Long-Range Transport Assessments ....................... 7 2.2 Refined Modeling ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 AERMOD .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 10.5 Development of a Wrf-Aermod Tool for Use in Regulatory Applications
    10.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A WRF-AERMOD TOOL FOR USE IN REGULATORY APPLICATIONS Toree Myers-Cook*, Jon Mallard, and Qi Mao Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ABSTRACT available. For rural sources, the closest representative NWS station may be greater than 50- The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has developed 100 kilometers away. Furthermore, NWS data a WRF-AERMOD tool which transforms the Weather limitations - instrumentation limits, missing data, and Research and Forecasting (WRF) model output into lack of surface parameters required by AERMET - the meteorological input needed by AERMOD have motivated the EPA to explore the use of (AERMAP/AERMET/AERMOD), the EPA- prognostic meteorological models, specifically MM5 recommended model for short-range dispersion (Brode 2008), which can provide a timely and spatially modeling. The tool was used to model 2002 comprehensive meteorological dataset for input to emissions from TVA’s Allen Fossil (ALF) Plant in AERMOD. The EPA has been testing an in-house Memphis, Tennessee. Modeling using NWS data MM5-AERMOD tool for possible use in future was also performed and results were compared. regulatory applications. However, since MM5 is no Analyses of modeling results showed several longer supported by its developers and the WRF differences between the two approaches, with much (Weather Research Forecasting) model is now of the inconsistencies attributed to four main findings. considered the state-of-the-art meteorological model First, the NWS-AERMOD approach tended to stay to replace it, TVA developed a WRF-AERMOD tool more unstable in the summer and stable in the winter that takes WRF three-dimensional meteorological with unrealistically high mechanical boundary layer output (surface and upper air) and transforms it into (MBL) heights.
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Deposition of Pcbs in the Spokane River Watershed
    Atmospheric Deposition of PCBs in the Spokane River Watershed March 2019 Publication No. 19-03-003 Publication Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1903003.html. Data for this project are available at Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM) website: www.ecology.wa.gov/eim/index.htm, search Study ID BERA0013. The Activity Tracker Code for this study is 16-032. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) numbers for the study area: WRIAs HUC numbers 56 – Hangman 17010305 57 – Middle Spokane 17010306 Contact Information Publications Coordinator Environmental Assessment Program P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: (360) 407–6764 Washington State Department of Ecology – www.ecology.wa.gov. Headquarters, Olympia (360) 407-6000 Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue (425) 649-7000 Southwest Regional Office, Olympia (360) 407-6300 Central Regional Office, Union Gap (509) 575-2490 Eastern Regional Office, Spokane (509) 329-3400 Cover photo: Atmospheric deposition samplers on the roof of the Spokane Clean Air Agency Building. Photo by Brandee Era-Miller. Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology. Accommodation Requests: To request ADA accommodation, including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6764, or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/ accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Learning Approaches for Outdoor Air Quality Modelling: a Systematic Review
    applied sciences Review Machine Learning Approaches for Outdoor Air Quality Modelling: A Systematic Review Yves Rybarczyk 1,2 and Rasa Zalakeviciute 1,* 1 Intelligent & Interactive Systems Lab (SI2 Lab), Universidad de Las Américas, 170125 Quito, Ecuador; [email protected] 2 Department of Electrical Engineering, CTS/UNINOVA, Nova University of Lisbon, 2829-516 Monte de Caparica, Portugal * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +351-593-23-981-000 Received: 15 November 2018; Accepted: 8 December 2018; Published: 11 December 2018 Abstract: Current studies show that traditional deterministic models tend to struggle to capture the non-linear relationship between the concentration of air pollutants and their sources of emission and dispersion. To tackle such a limitation, the most promising approach is to use statistical models based on machine learning techniques. Nevertheless, it is puzzling why a certain algorithm is chosen over another for a given task. This systematic review intends to clarify this question by providing the reader with a comprehensive description of the principles underlying these algorithms and how they are applied to enhance prediction accuracy. A rigorous search that conforms to the PRISMA guideline is performed and results in the selection of the 46 most relevant journal papers in the area. Through a factorial analysis method these studies are synthetized and linked to each other. The main findings of this literature review show that: (i) machine learning is mainly applied in Eurasian and North American continents and (ii) estimation problems tend to implement Ensemble Learning and Regressions, whereas forecasting make use of Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study: Modelling Environmental Concentrations of Chemicals from Emission Data
    EEA Technical report No 8/2007 Feasibility study: modelling environmental concentrations of chemicals from emission data ISSN 1725-2237 EEA Technical report No 8/2007 Feasibility study: modelling environmental concentrations of chemicals from emission data Cover design: EEA Layout: Diadeis and EEA Legal notice The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Communities. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the copyright holder. For translation or reproduction rights please contact EEA (address information below). Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007 ISBN 978-92-9167-925-6 ISSN 1725-2237 © EEA, Copenhagen, 2007 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Fax: +45 33 36 71 99 Web: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries Contents Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dispersion V3.23
    Volume 2 Airviro User’s Reference Working with the Dispersion Module How to simulate the dispersion of pollutants Working with the Dispersion Module How to simulate the dispersion of pollutants Amendments Version Date changed Cause of change Signature 3.11 Ago2007 Upgrade GS 3.12 January2009 Upgrade GS 3.13 January2009 Upgrade GS 3.20 May 2010 Upgrade GS 3.21 Dec 2010 Upgrade GS 3.21 June 2012 Review GS 3.22 April 2013 Release GS 3.23 Jan 2014 Upgrade GS 3.23 January 2014 Review GS 3.23 June 2015 Review GS Contents 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Why You Need to Use Dispersion Models.........................................................7 2.1.1.1 What’s the Use of Dispersion Simulations.....................................................7 2.1.1.2 How Can Airviro Help?......................................................................................7 2.1.2 Model Assumptions..............................................................................................8 2.1.3 Brief description of the available models..........................................................9 2.1.4 How does Dispersion Module client work?.....................................................18 2.1.5 Guidance for the beginner:................................................................................18 2.1.6 Overview of the Dispersion Module Main Window.........................................19 2.1.6.1 Changing Weather Conditions – Model settings.........................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of ISC3, AERMOD, and ADMS Dispersion Models with Observations from Five Field Sites
    EVALUATION OF THE ADMS, AERMOD, AND ISC3 DISPERSION MODELS WITH THE OPTEX, DUKE FOREST, KINCAID, INDIANAPOLIS, AND LOVETT FIELD DATA SETS Steven R. Hanna*, Bruce A. Egan**, John Purdum***, and Jen Wagler**** *CSI MS 5C3, George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 USA **Egan Environmental, 75 Lothrop St., Beverly, MA 01915 USA ***17 Peters Way, North Attleboro, MA 02760 USA ****URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde, 38 Chauncy St., Boston, MA 02111 USA ABSTRACT The model evaluation exercise addresses the question whether the new models, ADMS and AERMOD, produce improvements over ISC3 when compared with a range of field observations. ADMS and AERMOD have similar state-of-the-art scientific components, whereas ISC3 contains 1960s technology. The five sets of field observations used in the statistical evaluation represent a cross-section of typical scenarios encountered by modelers. The OPTEX data base concerns non-buoyant tracer releases within an oil refinery complex, and the Duke Forest data base involves non-buoyant tracer releases from area and volume sources in an open field. The Kincaid, Indianapolis, and Lovett data bases all deal with buoyant plumes from tall stacks at power plants. However, the settings are quite different, since the Kincaid plant is surrounded by flat farmland, the Indianapolis plant is located in an urban environment, and the Lovett plant is sited in a valley surrounded by complex terrain with monitors at elevations higher than the stack. Analysis of the model performance measures suggest that ISC3 typically overpredicts, has a scatter of about a factor of three, and has about 33% of its predictions within a factor of two of observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Pollution Report: 2000 Air Emissions and Water Discharges
    Annual Pollution Report 2000 Air Emissions and Water Discharges Minnesota Pollution Control Agency April 2002 Tom Clark, Patricia Engelking and Kari Palmer of the Monitoring and Reporting Section of the Environmental Outcomes Division prepared this report, with assistance from other staff in the Majors and Remediation, Outcomes, and Policy and Planning divisions. A total of 349 staff hours was spent preparing this report. The cost of report preparation was $350. Table of Contents Summary..................................................................................................................1 Air Pollutant Emissions Overview...........................................................................4 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................................5 Carbon Monoxide ..................................................................................6 Nitrogen Oxides.....................................................................................8 Volatile Organic Compounds ..............................................................10 Sulfur Dioxide......................................................................................12 Ammonia..............................................................................................14 Particulate Matter.................................................................................16 Ozone ...................................................................................................20 Lead .....................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 4-A Part 1 Air Modeling Protocol
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cricket Valley Energy Project – Dover, NY Appendix 4-A: Modeling Protocol and Agency Correspondence Appendix 4-A Modeling Protocol and Agency Correspondence List of Contents Protocol Document Cricket Valley Energy Dispersion Modeling Protocol, September 2009 Agency Correspondence NYSDEC protocol review letter, November 19, 2009 USEPA protocol review letter, December 15, 2009 USEPA additional protocol comment letter, January 26, 2010 Revisions to Cricket Valley Energy Dispersion Modeling Protocol, January 27, 2010 Request for Preconstruction Monitoring Waiver, February 25, 2010 USEPA Preconstruction Monitoring Waiver Response, March 24, 2010 Request for Applicability of Class I Modeling Analysis Federal Land Manager response letter, November 12, 2009 Modeling inventory request letter – New York, January 19, 2010 Modeling inventory request letter – Massachusetts, January 19, 2010 Modeling inventory request letter – Connecticut, January 19, 2010 Request for USFWS review, June 2, 2009 USFWS response letter, July 20, 2009 Follow-up correspondence with USFWS, August 17, 2010 USFWS response letter, September 21, 2009 NOx Inventory Request Letter to NYSDEC, November 10, 2010 NOx Inventory Request Letter to MADEP, November 10, 2010 NOx Inventory Request Letter to CTDEP, November 10, 2010 MADEP Response to Inventory Request, November 16, 2010 CTDEP Response to Inventory Request, November 19, 2010 NO2 Modeling Procedures with PVMRM, November 30, 2010 Imagine the result Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC Cricket
    [Show full text]
  • Final Source Water Assessment Program Plan
    NEW YORK STATE SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM PLAN FINAL Prepared by: New York State Department of Health Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection 547 River Street Flanigan Square, Room 400 Troy, New York 12180-2216 November 1999 Acknowledgments The New York State Department of Health is greatly indebted to the many individuals and organizations who contributed their time, expertise, and resources during the development of this plan. Their tireless efforts will greatly benefit future protection of New York State's public drinking water supplies for years to come. The Department of Health would like to thank all of the members of Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee, the Committee’s technical and advisory working group members, and local health department representatives for sharing their wide array of experience and technical skills. The Department of Health greatly appreciates the time and efforts of all of the water suppliers and private citizens who have also contributed to this plan and would also like to acknowledge the many organizations that have assisted with efforts related to development of New York’s Source Water Assessment Program by sharing their personnel, data, meeting locations, and many other resources. These organizations include: Association of Towns of the State of New York Citizens Campaign for the Environment Citizens Environmental Coalition Cornell Cooperative Extension Cornell University County Health Departments County Soil and Water Conservation Districts County Water Quality Coordinating Committees
    [Show full text]