Air Modeling for Non-Modelers:

What’s Up with the New Ambient Standards?

James A. Westbrook
October 12, 2010
Agenda: New Ambient Standards
• Compliance with ambient standards
• New
Ne ambient standards
• Strategies to pass the standards:
– Challenges you may face
– Quick refinement techniques to consider
– More advanced techniques
• Example
p for the 1-hour NO2 standard
• Conclusions
 BlueScape, Inc.
• 20 years experience
• More
M than
th 100 modeling
d li projects
j t
• National Experience with AERMOD,
CALPUFF other
CALPUFF, th modelsd l
• Solve tough air quality modeling issues:
- Avoid
A id modeling
d li requirements
i t
- Develop meteorological data and monitoring data
- Refinement strategies for problem impacts
- Agency negotiations and protocols
What is Air Quality Modeling Used For?
• Compliance with criteria pollutant ambient
standards
– Permits, minor source NSR, PSD major source
– Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
• Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessments
• Accidental chemical spills
• Long-range visibility impacts
• Toxic tort litigation
g
• AERMOD is the regulatory y workhorse
 Typical Air Quality Modeling Study
• Need a Project
• Triggered by exceeding emissions significance
levels
• Modeling against significant impact levels (SILs), or
the full standard
• Hourly meteorological data and terrain data
• Full impact modeling to meet standards
standards, PSD:
- Project impacts +
- Other facility sources +
- Nearby facilities +
- Monitored background concentrations
 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS
NAAQS*
Averaging Value
Pollutant Period (g
(g/m3)**
)
PM10 24-hour 150
PM2.5 24-hour 35
NO2 1 hour
1-hour 188
NO2 Annual 100
SO2 1-hour 196
SO2 24-hour 367
CO 1-hour 10,000
CO 8-hour 40,000
,

* Partial List
** Equiv. units; state agencies may have different standards

See: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf for standards

 New Ambient Standards
• EPA has released three policy memos:*
– New NO2, 1-hour average, 100 ppb or 188 g/m3
– New SO2, 1-hour average, 75 ppb or 196 g/m3
– Justify PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 or model
24 hour average of 35 g/m3
PM2 5 24-hour
PM2.5,
• EPA’s unfinished business
– PSD SILs
SILs, increments
increments, monitoring thresholds
– Background monitoring data availability
– Secondary PM2.5 formation, condensibles
www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwno2.pdf
www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwso2.pdf
http://bit.ly/9NeHnh
p y
 New Air Modeling Challenges
• C
Combustion
b i sources
- Relatively high NO2 emissions
- PM10=PM2.5
• Short engine or vehicle stacks, mean higher
impacts
• Low significance levels require full modeling
• Project
P j t in i nextt 1-2
1 2 years?
?
- Due diligence modeling
- Strategic
St t i design
d i process
- Stay close on EPA / state agency developments
“Quick Fix” Modeling
g Strategies
g to Pass

• Project
j design
g changesg
• Emission limitations
- Limit fuel or material throughput
- Limit hours of operation
- Limit hourly engine testing
testing, engine phasing
- Voluntary control technology installation
• Stack height increases
• Increase gas flow rate and temperature
 Advanced Strategies to Pass
• PVMRM, OLM and ARM for NO2, as limited
by ozone
• Source Test for in-stack NO2/NOx ratios
• Modify the PM2.5 fraction in PM10, if relevant
• Review / adjust meteorological data
• Spatial / temporal modeling
- Show project does not cause or contribute to
significant impacts
- Consider only periods that contribute to high values
• Monitoring at Point of Maximum Impact
• Agency negotiation
 Modeling Example
• Large gas-fired boiler and emergency
g
diesel engine
• Baseline, all NOx = NO2; high max. 1-
hour modeling + max
max. background
• Refinements:
a) H8H of daily maximum 1 1-hour
hour values
b) PVMRM with hourly ozone data, in-stack
NO2/NOx = 0.2
c) Source test for in-stack NO2/NOx ratio
d) Stack height increase, reduce emissions
12
Baseline 1-hour NO2 Run

Impact = 1,132 + 88 = 1,220 g/m3 = FAIL!!

13
 Modeling Refinements

Impact = 78 + 88 = 166 g/m3 = PASS!! 14

 Model Run Summary
Baseline H8H Pull the Stops

Max. 1-Hour Avg.

g 1,132
, g/m3
g 636 g
g/m3 78.3 g
g/m3
NOx Concentration
w/background 1,220 g/m3 724 g/m3 166 g/m3
88 g
g/m3
Form of Result H1H H8H H8H

PVMRM Used? No No Yes

In-Stack NO2 Ratio -- 0.20 0.10

Engine
g Stack Height
g 12 feet 12 feet 25 feet

% of Max Hour 100% 100% 50%

Engine Emission Rate

Advanced refinements were needed to pass ….

15
 Conclusions
• New NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 ambient standards will
cause new challenges
• Expect
E t (but
(b t confirm)
fi ) that
th t complicated
li t d full
f ll iimpactt
modeling may be required
• Conduct modeling due diligence early to troubleshoot
problems
• Hire an expert modeling consultant
- Experience with the latest tools and guidance
- Experience passing the standards using advanced
techniques
- Interact with state agencies, come with a strategy
- Stay on top of developing EPA and state guidance
 Next Webinar
EPA’ GHG R
EPA’s Reporting
ti P Program iin 2011
2011:
Are You Ready?

- What do I need to do to prepare?

- Key reporting timelines
- What are the roles and responsibilities?
- Comparison and overlaps with state requirements
- EPA software preview, reporting needs and data gap-filling
- Alternative calculation methodologies

Tuesday, December 7, 9 AM
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/836647746
p g g g
 Contact with Questions

James A. Westbrook, President

BlueScape, Inc.
858-774-2009 (cell)
jwestbrook@bluescapeinc.com
www.bluescapeinc.com
p

The Webinar ppresentation will be p

posted on
Slideshare and Scribd (search for BlueScape)