modeling challenges case study n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Modeling Challenges Case Study

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
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


Download Now 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
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

glassjp@dhec.sc.gov

ad