Modeling challenges case study
Download
1 / 23

Modeling Challenges Case Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on

Modeling Challenges Case Study. John Glass SC Bureau of Air Quality. Background Information. New Ceramic Poppant Facility 250 tpy category Project Emissions: PM 10 : 317.3 tpy PM 2.5 : 213.1 SO 2 : 205.5 NO x : 683.7 CO : 1226.1

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Modeling Challenges Case Study' - clare


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Modeling challenges case study

Modeling Challenges Case Study

John Glass

SC Bureau of Air Quality


Background information
Background Information

  • New Ceramic Poppant Facility

    • 250 tpy category

  • Project Emissions:

    • PM10 : 317.3 tpy

    • PM2.5 : 213.1

    • SO2 : 205.5

    • NOx : 683.7

    • CO : 1226.1

    • VOCs : 250.5

    • Fluorides: 0.4


Background cont
Background (cont.)

  • Location: Rural Allendale County, SC

  • Flat Terrain

  • SC/GA state line approximately 18 km

  • Other major facilities close by

    • Lumber Mill:

      • 141 tpy PM10, 82 tpy PM2.5, 257 tpy NOx

      • approx. 2 km SE

    • OSB Mill:

      • 600 tpy PM10/ PM2.5, 247 tpy SO2, 847 tpy NOx

      • approx. 11 km SE


Modeling details
Modeling Details

  • Class I AQRV

    • Screened out using Q/D ≤ 10

  • Class I Significant Impact

    • All but PM2.5 screened out using AERMOD at 50 km


Modeling details1
Modeling Details

  • Class II Significant Impact:

    • PM10: 24-hr - 2.04 km SIA, Annual - 1.5 km SIA

    • PM2.5: 24-hr - 3.8 km SIA, Annual - 2.2 km SIA

    • SO2: 1-hr - 2.2 km SIA

    • NO2: 1-hr - 12.9 km SIA, Annual - 12.9 SIA

  • Above SMC for PM10 and PM2.5

    • Existing state data approved for background concentrations


Modeling details2
Modeling Details

  • Class I Full Impact Inventory

    • Only 1 other PM2.5 increment consuming facility

  • Class II Full Impact Inventory

    • Used 20D to screen background sources

    • Final inventory included:

      • Nearby major facilities (2 and 11 km SE)

      • Coal-fired power plant (5,506 tpy NOx) located approx. 46 km NE

      • Major coal-fired boilers on SRS (19,300 tpy SO2) located approx. 42 km NW


Modeling results
Modeling Results

  • Full Impact Class I passed using 50 km results

  • Full Impact NAAQS

    • Passed NO2 Annual

    • Possible exceedances of several NAAQS

      • 24-hr PM10

      • 24-hr and Annual PM2.5

      • 1-hr SO2

      • 1-hr NO2

  • Full Impact Class II Increments

    • All pollutants passed easily



Exceedance analysis
Exceedance Analysis

  • Facility ran AERMOD Maxi Event Files for exceedances

    • Event files indicated project facility not significant at any exceeding ambient receptor

    • Project facility passes modeling

    • Permit put on public notice

  • SC BAQ initiates investigation of exceedances


Pm 10 24 hr results
PM10 24-Hr Results


Pm 2 5 annual results
PM2.5 Annual Results


Pm 2 5 24 hr results
PM2.5 24-Hr Results


So 2 1 hr results
SO2 1-Hr Results


No 2 1 hr results
NO2 1-Hr Results


No 2 1 hr results1
NO2 1-Hr Results


Exceedance analysis1
Exceedance Analysis

  • SC BAQ performed more detailed investigation of sources causing exceedances

    • PM10 exceedances not in ambient air

    • PM2.5 ambient air exceedances caused by use of PM10 emissions

    • SO2 1-hr exceedances caused by double counting SRS emissions

    • NO2 1-hr ambient air exceedances caused by double counting OSB emissions


Public comments
Public Comments

  • Comments concerning zoning, noise, odor, disposal of dust from baghouse, etc.

  • Comments on BACT

  • Comments on predicted exceedances

  • Comments on omission of sources in GA

    • 8 Georgia sources had screened out

    • 1 proposed facility was erroneously left out of NO2 1-hr modeling

      • Facility submitted revised modeling


Lessons learned
Lessons Learned

  • Long Run Times

  • Glitches in MAX AERMOD

  • Consultants don’t read details of inventories

  • Lack of background data for 1-hr modeling

  • Consultants will leave you holding the bag

  • Check with neighboring states early if state line within screening area

  • Review takes a lot of time and resources


Questions
Questions?

John Glass

803-898-4074

[email protected]


ad