Implications of the New NAAQS
description
Transcript of Implications of the New NAAQS
Implications of the New NAAQSImplications of the New NAAQS
All4 Inc. Air Quality Training Seminar
Montgomery, AL
December 7, 2010
Colin T. McCallAll4 Inc.
2
Agenda NAAQS Background Current NAAQS Revisions NAAQS Implications and PSD
Considerations NAAQS Implementation Process Example AERMOD Modeling Planning Ahead Conclusions
NAAQS Background
4
CAA-§109 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
109(b) – the NAAQS• Primary standards: attainment and
maintenance protect public health with adequate margin of safety
• Secondary standards: protect public welfare
109(d)(1) – timing• Every 5 years, “thorough” review of NAAQS• Revise as necessary• May also be done more frequently
5
CAA-§109 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
109(d)(2) – Clean Air Scientist Advisory Committee (CASAC)• Appointed by U.S. EPA• 7 members: at least one physician, one
member of the National Academy of Sciences, one representative of state air pollution control agencies
• Review and recommend new NAAQS to EPA
6
NAAQS Background “Backdrop” of the Clean Air Act. States design their SIPs and enforce
and implement their regulations to meet the NAAQS.
Air quality construction permit programs are designed around NAAQS compliance:• PSD: Maintaining NAAQS attainment• NNSR: Getting into NAAQS attainment
Current NAAQS Revisions
8
Current NAAQS Revisions Lead PM2.5
CO Ozone NO2 (Primary and Secondary) SO2 (Primary and Secondary)
9
NAAQS SummaryPollutant Averaging Period
Historic NAAQS (µg/m3)
Revised NAAQS (µg/m3)
CO1-Hour 10,000 10,000
8-Hour 40,000 40,000
Ozone 8-Hour 75 ppb60 – 70 ppb (proposed)
Pb 3-Month Rolling 1.5 0.15
PM10 24-Hour 150 150
PM2.5
24-Hour 65 35
Annual 15 15
NO2
1-Hour N/A 188
Annual 100 100
SO2
1-Hour N/A 196
3-Hour 1,300 1,300
24-hour 365 N/A
Annual 80 N/A
10
PollutantNAAQS
Promulgation Date
Designations
Effective(approximate date)
110(a) SIPs Due
(3 yrs after NAAQS promulgation)
Attainment Demonstration
Due
Attainment Date
PM2.5 (2006) Sept 2006 Dec 2009 Sept 2009 Nov 2012Nov
2014/2019
Pb Oct 2008Nov 2010/2011
(extra time for new monitors)
Oct 2011June
2012/2013Nov
2015/2016
NO2 (primary)
Jan 2010 Feb 2012 Jan 2013 Aug 2013 Feb 2017
SO2 (primary)
June 2010 July 2012 June 2013 Jan 2014 July 2017
Ozone Aug 2010 Aug 2011(based on 2008-10 data)
Aug 2013 Dec 2013(to be proposed)
Dec 2017 (Moderate)
CO May 2011 June 2013 May 2014 Dec 2014 May 2018
PM2.5 (2011)
Oct 2011 Dec 2013 Oct 2014 Dec 2016Dec
2018/2023
NO2/SO2 Secondary
March 2012 April 2014 March 2015 Oct 2015 N/A
Anticipated NAAQS Implementation Milestones
11
New NAAQS Considerations Historic NAAQS levels often not viewed
as impacting day-to-day permitting. New 1-Hour NAAQS levels are very
stringent (example for SO2):• SO2 3-Hour to Annual Ratio: 16.25
• SO2 1-Hour to Annual Ratio: 2.45
It may be difficult to directly demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS.
NAAQS Implications and PSD
Considerations
13
NAAQS Implications NAAQS attainment status dictates air
quality permitting requirements (PSD and BACT versus NNSR and LAER).
Traditionally, a direct NAAQS compliance demonstration has only been required as part of a PSD permitting project.
PSD NAAQS modeling is a two step process: (1) SIL Evaluation; (2) full NAAQS assessment.
14
PSD Permitting Considerations Step 1 of a PSD NAAQS assessment is a
significant impact level (SIL) analysis. U.S. EPA has established interim SILs:
• 24-Hour PM2.5 SIL: 0.3 µg/m3
• 1-Hour NO2 SIL: 7.5 µg/m3
• 1-Hour SO2 SIL: 7.9 µg/m3
Exceedance of the SILs will trigger a facility-wide NAAQS evaluation.
Consider short-term emissions increases.
15
Interacting with the NAAQS Situations that call for facility-specific
NAAQS evaluations:• Attainment/Nonattainment Designations
(under the current U.S. EPA administration).• Major air permitting projects (PSD vs. NNSR).• Discretionary requests by a state agency.
More stringent NAAQS levels will result in more stringent state developed emission limits, monitoring, etc.
NAAQS Implementation
Process
17
Attainment/Nonattainment Designations
U.S. EPA philosophy on the SO2 NAAQS implementation process:• Proposed NAAQS rule - designations
based on ambient monitoring data• Final NAAQS rule - designations based
primarily on air quality modeling data Shift to reliance on air quality
modeling will become a critical issue for individual facilities.
18
SO2 NAAQS Monitoring Data
19
SO2 NAAQS Implementation
NAAQS Implementation Schedule: • June 2011: Initial state nonattainment
recommendations to U.S. EPA (most counties will be “unclassifiable”)
• June 2013: State SIP submittals to achieve compliance with the NAAQS (including air quality modeling for individual facilities)
• 2017: Full NAAQS compliance in all areas
20
SO2 NAAQS SIP Submittals
U.S. EPA: Revising PSD/NNSR programs to include new NAAQS is not sufficient. Five components are required:• “Attainment Emissions Inventory”• Maintenance Demonstration• Control Strategy• Contingency Plan• Verification of Continued Attainment
21
SO2 NAAQS Implementation
State SIPS will be based on AERMOD dispersion modeling for the following individual facilities (by order of priority):• SO2 Actual Emissions > 100 tpy
• SO2 PTE > 100 tpy
• Smaller facilities “with a potential to cause or contribute” to a NAAQS violation
Minor facilities may still have trouble.
22
Facility Specific NAAQS Evaluation
Modeling is based on potential-to-emit emission rates (not actual emissions).
Modeling must account for operating scenarios/loads that result in worst-case plume dispersion.
Must use representative meteorological data.
Ambient background data must be added to modeled concentrations.
23
Stringency of the NAAQS Many facilities with any combination of
the following may have difficulty modeling NAAQS compliance:• Elevated emission rates (fuel oil
combustion, process SO2, etc.)
• Low stack heights• Building downwash to any extent• Complex terrain
Example AERMOD Modeling
25
NAAQS Modeling Strategy
Start with an evaluation of each individual emission source.
Each source will have different factors that drive resulting ambient concentrations.
The cumulative ambient concentration from all sources (plus background) will be evaluated against the NAAQS.
Evaluate each source against the NAAQS as a first step.
26
NAAQS Modeling Strategy
Big picture factors that will drive ambient concentrations for individual sources:•Elevated emission rates•Stack velocity (orientation of release
and flowrate)•Stack temperature (plume buoyancy)•Stack height versus surrounding terrain•Surrounding buildings and structures
(i.e., building downwash)
27
Hypothetical Modeling Example
Modeling of a hypothetical facility with the following SO2 emission sources:
•Process SO2 source
•Fuel oil combustion SO2 source
•Backup engine source NAAQS modeling evaluation is based
on SO2 potential to emit.
28
“Process” SO2 Source
SO2 Emission Rate: 240 lb/hr (CEMs) Stack Height: 290 feet Stack Diameter: 16.5 feet Exhaust Temp: 350 °F Exhaust Flow: 230,000 acfm Elevated emission rate, buoyant
source, tall stack (taller than the tallest buildings at the facility)
29
Process SO2 Source Impacts
Highest impacts are in complex terrain far from the facility.
Wind speed doesn’t match location of elevated concentrations.
Impacts occur during periods of atmospheric stability and low mixing heights. Typically early morning, low wind speed conditions.
High concentrations due partially to the limitations of the AERMOD dispersion model.
30
Combustion SO2 Source
SO2 Emission Rate: 20 lb/hr (AP-42) Stack Height: 60 feet Stack Diameter: 2 feet Exhaust Temp: 225 °F Exhaust Flow: 16,000 acfm Buoyant source, short stack (shorter
than the tallest buildings at the facility)
31
Combustion SO2 Source Impacts
Elevated concentrations are closer to the facility.
Building downwash effects have a noticeable impact on ambient concentrations.
32
Engine SO2 Source
SO2 Emission Rate: 3 lb/hr (Vendor) Stack Height: 10 feet Stack Diameter: 1.3 feet Exhaust Temp: 935 °F Exhaust Flow: Horizontal Discharge Horizontal discharge, short stack
33
Engine SO2 Source Impacts
Elevated ambient concentrations at the facility fenceline for two reasons:•Low stack height (10 feet)•No plume buoyancy due to
horizontal discharge. Ambient air considerations become
very important (i.e., public access).
34
Modeling Refinements
“Process” SO2 Emission Source:
• Stack height increase is technically and economically infeasible.
• Raw materials are fixed due to product and consumer demand.
• Upgrades to the scrubber could achieve control of ~30% of the current uncontrolled emission rate (240 lb/hr to approximately 160 lb/hr).
35
Modeling Refinements
Combustion SO2 Emission Source:
• Stack height increase is technically and economically infeasible.
• Fuel oil firing is desirable due to cost savings considerations.
• Raw materials to the source bring inherent scrubbing capacity: 50 to 65% based on previous studies.
• 50% inherent scrubbing brings emission rate to 10 lb/hr (justify through testing).
36
Modeling Refinements
Engine SO2 Emission Source:
•Simplest fix is to “turn up” the horizontal stack discharge.
•No changes to the vendor guaranteed emission rate of the engine.
37
Cumulative Concentrations The facility must cumulatively comply
with the NAAQS level. Addressing each individual source helps
as a first cut. This scenario still exceeds the 1-hour
NAAQS level for SO2 when the sources are taken cumulatively.
Haven’t even considered ambient background…..
38
Ambient Background Concentrations
NAAQS evaluation requires background concentrations to be added to modeled concentrations.
Example 1-hour attainment ambient concentrations:• NO2: 30 - 80 µg/m3 (NAAQS: 188)
• SO2: 50 - 100 µg/m3 (NAAQS: 196)
39
Ambient Background Challenges
Availability of representative ambient monitoring data.
Monitor must be representative of the background concentrations at the facility.
Pre-construction monitoring may be required in the absence of representative ambient monitoring data.
Rural versus urban setting is important for availability and good data.
40
Ambient SO2 Monitors
41
Ambient NO2 Monitors
42
Ambient PM2.5 Monitors
43
Ambient Background Challenges
Less room available for your facility to contribute to the NAAQS levels.
U.S. EPA “Tier 1” approach for combining modeled and monitored concentrations:• Combine 99th percentile cumulative
modeling concentration with peak hourly monitored concentration
44
Ambient Background Considerations
188
NO
2 1-h
our C
once
ntra
tion
(g/
m3 )
80
NAAQS Level
Monitored Background Value
108 g/m3 available for modeling
45
Temporal Pairing
New option for combining air quality modeling and ambient monitoring data.
Eliminates conservativeness of combining concentrations that occurred at different times.
U.S. EPA generally approves of the approach in recent guidance.
Specific evaluations need approval on a case-by-case basis (work with the state).
46
Temporal Pairing Example
47
Temporal Pairing Example
48
Temporal Pairing Example
49
Temporal Pairing Example
Planning Ahead
51
Planning Ahead Emissions Strategies:
•Evaluate adequacy of emission limits
•Evaluate emissions control options•Evaluate alternate fuels and fuel
specifications Facility Fence Line Strategies
52
Planning Ahead Stack/Exhaust Strategies:
•Combined source exhausts•Co-located exhaust points to
increase buoyancy•“Turn up” horizontal stacks•Increase stack heights
53
Planning Ahead Air Quality Modeling Strategies:
•Temporal pairing approach•Plume transport time•Surrounding surface characteristics•Wind speed monitor thresholds•Mechanical mixing height
considerations•Alternative models (CALPUFF, etc.)
•Atmospheric chemistry options for NO2
54
Conclusions The new 1-hour NAAQS levels are so
stringent that they will drive project feasibility and project design.
NAAQS will replace BACT as the most critical PSD permitting issue.
NAAQS modeling will be required even in the absence of new projects.
Plan early for new projects and for the SO2 NAAQS implementation process.