gaymont rexton class i modeling report...eng2 natural-gas fired engine #2 913.778 683.452 260.21...
Post on 27-May-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental solutions delivered uncommonly well
CLASS I MODELING REPORT Graymont (MI) LLC > Rexton Facility
Lime Manufacturing Plant
Prepared By:
TRINITY CONSULTANTS 1801 South Meyers Road
Suite 350 Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181
(630) 495-1470
January 2020
Project 191401.0014
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1. Organization of Modeling Report ............................................................................................. 1-2
2. FACILITY AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1. Facility Location.............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2. Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.1. Process Description ................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2. Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3. Modeled Emissions Sources and Speciation ......................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1. Speciation and Size Fractions Modeled .......................................................................................... 2-4
3. CLASS I AREA AIR QUALITY ANALYSES 3-1 3.1. Q/D Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Class I AQRV Analyses ................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1. Deposition.................................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2. Visibility...................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3. Class I PSD Increment Analyses ................................................................................................ 3-4
4. CLASS I AREA MODELING METHODS 4-1 4.1. Modeling Domains ......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2. CALPUFF Meteorological Processing ...................................................................................... 4-2 4.3. CALPUFF Model Processing ........................................................................................................ 4-2
4.3.1. Ozone ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.2. Ammonia .................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.3. CALPUFF Processing Control ............................................................................................................. 4-4
4.4. POSTUTIL Processing ................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.5. CALPOST Postprocessing Analysis ........................................................................................... 4-4
5. CLASS I MODELING RESULTS 5-1 5.1. Visibility Results ............................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2. Acidic Deposition Results ............................................................................................................ 5-2 5.3. PSD Increment Results ................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.4. Results Summary ............................................................................................................................ 5-3
APPENDIX A – CALPUFF AND CALPOST SWITCH SETTINGS
APPENDIX B – WRF-MMIF CALPUFF MET DATA PROCESSING
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
Graymont (MI) LLC (Graymont) is proposing to construct a greenfield lime manufacturing facility to be located in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan near Rexton, Michigan (Rexton Facility). The proposed project consists of the proposed lime manufacturing facility and adjacent, recently permitted surface quarry. The Rexton Facility will be located primarily in Mackinac County, Michigan. Error! Reference source not found. presents a facility site map centered on the Rexton Facility to graphically depict the location of the facility with respect to the surrounding topography. The map depicts Graymont’s property line with respect to predominant geographic features. Figure 2-1 presents a facility site map centered on the proposed Rexton Facility. The Rexton Facility is to be located in Mackinac County, Michigan. Mackinac County is currently designated as an attainment or unclassified area for all criteria pollutants.1 As demonstrated in Section Error! Reference source not found. of the PSD permit application, the Rexton Facility will be a major source with respect to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Federal Operating Permit (Title V) programs. Graymont considered the applicability of the PSD regulations by comparing the potential emissions from the proposed project to the Significant Emission Rate (SER) and subject to regulation (STR) thresholds. The predicted net emissions increase resulting from the proposed project are presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Net Emissions Increase from the Proposed Project
Pollutant Net Emissions
Increase (tpy) a PSD SER/STR b
PSD Review Required?
NOX 1,151.3 40 Yes
CO 1,363.4 100 Yes
VOC 313.5 40 Yes
SO2 602.7 40 Yes
Total PM 152.8 25 Yes
Total PM10 110.5 15 Yes
Total PM2.5 78.8 10 Yes
Lead 0.02 0.6 No
H2SO4 6.56 7 No
H2S -- 10 No
TRS -- 10 No
Fluorides -- 3 No
GHG (CO2e) 685,142 75,000 ᶜ Yes a All emissions, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are in short tons per year (tpy).
b SERs defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Section (§) 52.21(b)(23)(i).
c The 75,000 tpy is a STR threshold [defined in 40 CFR §52.21(b)(49)(iv)], not a PSD SER; the Tailoring Rule did not change the definition of “significant” to include a GHG SER threshold.
1 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Green Book. Source: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html, accessed September 2019.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 1-2
Given the emission levels and proximity to Class I Areas, this Class I modeling analysis was performed for submission to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This report describes the methodology and data resources that were used in the Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) modeling analysis for the Seney National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Seney is the only Class I area within 300 kilometers (km) of the proposed project site. The modeling methods used in these analyses were consistent with the following key documents that are referenced throughout this report:
Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report (referenced herein as IWAQM Phase 2),2
Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report • Revised (referenced herein as FLAG 2010),3 • Original (referenced herein as FLAG2000),4
The U.S. EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (referenced herein as Guideline), 5
1.1. ORGANIZATION OF MODELING REPORT
The remainder of this modeling report is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief description of the facility and the proposed project. Section 3 describes the procedural and technical guidance for conducting Class I area analyses. Finally, Section 4 describes the approach for CALPUFF modeling system, which is the model currently sanctioned for assessment of long-range pollutant transport, including the data resources and technical modeling options used in the CALPUFF, POSTUTIL, and CALPOST analyses.
2 U.S. EPA, IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range Transport Impacts, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-95-006, 1995. 3 U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I report – Revised (2010). National Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR-2010/232. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. November 2010. 4 U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I report, December 2000. 5 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W (Revised, November 9, 2005).
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 2-1
2. FACILITY AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the relevant facility and emission source details for the proposed project that affect the dispersion modeling analysis required under PSD review.
2.1. FACILITY LOCATION
The Rexton Facility will be located primarily in Mackinac County, Michigan. Error! Reference source not found. presents a facility site map centered on the Rexton Facility to graphically depict the location of the facility with respect to the surrounding topography. The map depicts Graymont’s property line with respect to predominant geographic features.
Figure 2-1. Facility Site Map
Figure 2-2 shows the location of the proposed facility in relation the Seney NWR.
Chippewa County Mackinac County
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 2-2
Figure 2-2. Overview of Class I Modeling Area
2.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a general description of the lime manufacturing process at the Rexton Facility and describes the proposed equipment at the facility. Facility plot plans and process flow diagrams are provided in Appendix B.
2.2.1. Process Description
The lime manufacturing process begins with limestone as a raw material. The limestone is processed by one or more crushers to reduce the size and provide a consistently sized raw material for the process. The processed stone is transported by conveyor belt to the lime kiln. The limestone is fed into the pre-heater where it is heated by direct contact with kiln exhaust gases
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 2-3
that enter the pre-heater. The limestone is fed into the kiln and the limestone and hot gases pass counter-currently through the kiln. The fuel is burned at the discharge end of the kiln to provide the heat required for the calcination process. An expected reaction in the lime kiln to produce dolomitic quicklime (CaO·MgO) is shown below:6
CaCO3·MgCO3 + heat → 2CO2 + CaO·MgO
An expected reaction in the lime kiln to produce hi-calcium quicklime (CaO) is shown below:
CaCO3 + heat → 2CO2 + CaO
The lime product exits the calcining zone and is cooled by direct contact with cooling air in the cooler. Then the lime is conveyed to various storage silos where it is screened to size and shipped to the end user.
2.2.2. Proposed Project
Graymont proposes to install a rotary kiln at the Rexton Facility, which is able to achieve a high production rate and maintain low carbon and sulfur content in the product. In addition to the rotary kiln, the following equipment and processes will be installed at the Rexton Facility:
Nuisance dust collectors, Paved and unpaved roads, Stockpiles, Storage tanks, Reciprocating natural gas-fired engines, Water bath heater, Emergency generators, Conveyors, Screens, and Truck/Rail loading.
2.3. MODELED EMISSIONS SOURCES AND SPECIATION
As shown above, the project triggers PSD review for several pollutants which are also considered visibility-affecting pollutants (VAP), increment-affecting pollutants and/or acidic-deposition species. Since Class I modeling analyses involve the use of long range transport models (LRT), the modeled sources are limited to those sources with buoyant emissions that operate in a semi-continuous manner. In the case of the Rexton facility, those sources are the main kiln stack and the three (3) reciprocating, natural-gas fired engines. Table 2-1 shows the modeled sources and their stack parameters.
6 Calcium Carbonate is CaCO3, Magnesium Carbonate is MgCO3, Carbon Dioxide is CO2, Calcium Oxide is CaO, and Magnesium Oxide is MgO.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 2-4
Table 2-1. Modeled Source Parameters
2.3.1. Speciation and Size Fractions Modeled
Because different types and sizes of emissions affect visibility to varying extents, modeling of visibility impairment for the Class I area modeling analysis requires that the emissions in an exhaust stream be speciated. The amount by which a mass of a certain species scatters or absorbs light is termed the extinction efficiency or coefficient, and the value of that coefficient varies for different particle types and sizes.
Graymont used the speciation workbook for coal-fired rotary lime kilns with fabric filter controls which is provided on the NPS website, to properly allocate the kiln emissions through the individual components for the kiln. The engine speciation was performed using the uncontrolled PM10 speciation factors in Table 3-2.2 of AP-42. The emission speciation workbooks are included with the electronic modeling file submittal.
Stack Stack Exit Stack
Model LCC-X LCC-Y Elevation Height Temperature Velocity Diameter
ID Description (km) (km) (m) (m) (K) (m/s) (m)
KILN Main Kiln Stack 913.554 683.606 260.51 36.88 513.71 15.47 2.79
ENG1 Natural-gas fired engine #1 913.775 683.457 260.25 13.72 605.93 39.27 0.61
ENG2 Natural-gas fired engine #2 913.778 683.452 260.21 13.72 605.93 39.27 0.61
ENG3 Natural-gas fired engine #3 913.782 683.446 260.15 13.72 605.93 39.27 0.61
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 3-1
3. CLASS I AREA AIR QUALITY ANALYSES
This section of the report describes the procedural requirements followed in assessing the impacts of the proposed Rexton facility on the Seney NWR, as that area is within 70 km of the facility.
3.1. Q/D ANALYSIS
A Q/D screening analysis was performed in a manner consistent with the proposed method outlined in FLAG 2010. This method compares the ratio of visibility-affecting pollutants (VAP, which includes NOX, SO2, PM10, and sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4)) associated with the project to the distance from the Class I area. For the FLAG 2010 approach, “Q” is calculated as the sum of the worst-case 24-hour emissions due to the “project” converted to an annual basis. The “D”’ term in the ratio is defined as the distance, in kilometers (km), from Rexton to the closest receptor in the corresponding Class I area. A Q/D screening threshold of ten (10) is provided in the FLAG 2010 guidance document. When considering the proposed emissions in Table 1-1, the total “Q” is roughly 1,870 tons per year (tpy). Since Seney is roughly 70 km from the facility, the Q/D ratio for the project is approximately 26.7, which is above the AQRV exemption threshold of 10.
3.2. CLASS I AQRV ANALYSES
The FLMs for Class I areas have the responsibility to protect air quality related values and to consider in consultation with the permitting authority whether a proposed major emitting facility will have an adverse impact on such values. FLAG 2010 defines the following:
Air Quality Related Value - A resource, as identified by the FLM for one or more Federal areas that may be adversely impacted by a change in air quality. The resource may include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource identified by the FLM for a particular area. Adverse Impact on Air Quality Related Values - An unacceptable effect, as identified by an FLM, that results from current, or would result from predicted, deterioration of air quality in a Federal Class I or Class II area. A determination of unacceptable effect shall be made on a case-by-case basis for each area taking into account existing air quality conditions. It should be based on a demonstration that the current or predicted deterioration of air quality will cause or contribute to a diminishment of the area's national significance, impairment of the structure and functioning of the area's ecosystem, or impairment of the quality of the visitor experience in the area.
Graymont evaluated impacts to visibility as well as nitrogen and sulfur deposition in order to address AQRVs at Seney NWR. The following sections provide further details on the AQRVs that were addressed for this project.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 3-2
3.2.1. Deposition
In the deposition analysis, the project’s contribution to the deposition of chemical species at Seney NWR were evaluated against the deposition analysis thresholds (DAT) for nitrate and sulfate, which set by the FLM. As the entire Class I area is located more than 50km from Rexton, MI, Graymont used CALPUFF to model deposition. As stated in FLAG 2010 the DAT represents “the additional amount of nitrogen or sulfur deposition within a Class I area, below which estimated impacts from a proposed new or modified source are considered negligible.” Moreover, according to FLAG 2010 “if the new or modified source has a predicted nitrogen or sulfur deposition impact below the respective DAT, the NPS and FWS will consider that impact to be negligible, and no further analysis would be required of that pollutant.” The recommended DAT is not necessarily an adverse impact threshold, rather it used as a screening level value. This guidance document suggests that deposition impacts should be evaluated against appropriate sulfur and nitrogen DAT of 0.01 kg/ha/yr (each) for Class I areas in the Eastern United States. Consistent with IWAQM Phase 2, particulate-phase dry and wet deposition was modeled for SO4. For sulfur deposition, the sum of wet and dry deposition fluxes for SO42- will be normalized by the molecular weight of sulfur and expressed as total S. The contribution of the project to the deposition of sulfur and nitrogen species at Seney NWR was estimated and assessed against the DAT in the results section of this modeling report.
3.2.2. Visibility
Visibility can be affected by plume impairment (heterogeneous) or regional haze (homogeneous). Plume impairment results when there is a contrast or color difference between the plume and a viewed background (the sky or a terrain feature). Plume impairment is generally only of concern when the Class I area is near the proposed source (i.e., less than 50 km). Since the distance between the Rexton facility and Seney is greater than 50 km, only regional haze was considered.
3.2.2.1. Regional Haze
Regional haze occurs at distances where the plume has become evenly dispersed into the atmosphere such that there is no definable plume. The primary causes of regional haze are sulfates (SO4) and nitrates (NO3) (primarily as ammonium salts). Particulate emissions also contribute to regional haze but to a lesser extent since sulfates and nitrates are hygroscopic species that increasingly reduce visibility with increased relative humidity.
Regional haze is measured using the light extinction coefficient (bext). The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) workgroup proposed a method informally known as “Method 8” to compute visibility impairments, which has been incorporated as the default method in FLAG 2010. This algorithm is used to calculate the daily light extinction attributable to a project and light extinction attributable to a natural background.
To determine a change in regional haze, the percentage change of the light extinction coefficient (bext) was evaluated using Equation 1:
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 3-3
∆𝑏𝑒𝑥𝑡 = (𝑏𝑒𝑥𝑡(𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒+𝑛𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑) − 𝑏𝑒𝑥𝑡(𝑛𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑))/𝑏𝑒𝑥𝑡(𝑛𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑) (Equation 1)
The background extinction coefficient bext,(nat cond) is affected by various chemical species and the Rayleigh scattering phenomenon and can be calculated as shown in Equation 2:
bext = 2.2 × fS(RH) × [Small Sulfate] + 4.8 × fL(RH) × [Large Sulfate] + 2.4 × fS(RH) ×
[Small Nitrate] + 5.1 × fL(RH) × [Large Nitrate] + 2.8 × [Small Organic Mass] +
6.1 × [Large Organic Mass] + 10 × [Elemental Carbon] + 1 × [Fine Soil] +
0.6 × [Coarse Mass] + 1.7 × fSS(RH) × [Sea Salt] + Rayleigh Scattering (Site Specific) +
0.33 × [NO2 (ppb)] {or as: 0.1755 × [NO2 (μg
m3)]}
(Equation 2) Where: [ ] indicates concentrations in μg/m3
fS(RH) = Relative humidity adjustment factor for small sulfate and nitrate fL(RH) = Relative humidity adjustment factor for large sulfate and nitrate fSS(RH) = Relative humidity adjustment factor for sea salt For Total Sulfate < 20 μg/m3: [Large Sulfate] = ([Total Sulfate] / 20 μg/m3) x [Total Sulfate] For Total Sulfate ≥ 20 μg/m3: [Large Sulfate] = [Total Sulfate] And: [Large Sulfate] = [Total Sulfate]-[Large Sulfate]
The natural background concentrations and Rayleigh scattering value at the Class I area considered in this analysis are provided on an annual average basis in FLAG 2010. The values are shown in Table 3-3 and are representative of the Seney NWR Class I area. The monthly f(RH) values for Seney NWR were also obtained from FLAG 2010 and are shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-3. Annual Average Natural Conditions – Seney NWR
Ann. Avg.
Species Value Units
Ammonium Sulfate (NH42SO4) 0.23 mg/m3
Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3) 0.10 mg/m3
Organic Mass (SOA) 1.74 mg/m3
Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.02 mg/m3
Soil (SOIL) 0.26 mg/m3
Coarse Mass (PMC) 1.95 mg/m3
Sea Salt 0.02 mg/m3
Rayleigh 12.00 Mm-1
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 3-4
The extinction coefficient bext(source) due to emissions from the proposed project were calculated. Pollutants that have the potential to affect visibility (particulate species) will be emitted from the proposed project. The extinction coefficient bext(source) due to emissions of visibility affecting pollutants from a single project were calculated using an air quality model (i.e., CALPUFF). The extinction due to the project was calculated as shown in Equation 2 above and compared with natural conditions using Equation 1.
Table 3-4. Monthly Site-Specific f(RH) Values
Month Sea Salt
f(RH)
Large Sulfates
and Nitrates
f(RH)
Small Sulfates
and Nitrates
f(RH) Jan 4.05 2.75 3.69 Feb 3.60 2.42 3.10 Mar 3.60 2.49 3.30 Apr 3.30 2.35 3.10 May 3.20 2.30 3.03 Jun 3.58 2.55 3.45 Jul 3.91 2.75 3.80
Aug 4.28 3.01 4.27 Sep 4.30 3.03 4.31 Oct 4.00 2.78 3.82 Nov 4.19 2.88 3.97 Dec 4.16 2.85 3.87
3.3. CLASS I PSD INCREMENT ANALYSES
In general, all PSD permit applications are required to demonstrate through air quality modeling that the emissions from the proposed project will not cause or contribute to any violations of allowable increments within affected Class I areas, which are protected to a greater degree (i.e., the allowable increments are lower) than Class II areas. A significant contribution to Class I Increment consumption is defined as a modeled concentration in excess of the significant impact levels summarized in Table 3-5. These significant impact levels, which were originally developed as part of the 1996 NSR reform rulemaking, have been accepted by decision makers as an indication of whether a project is likely to cause or contribute to a Class I increment violation.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 3-5
Table 3-5. Class I PSD Increments and Modeling Significance Levels
Because the proposed Rexton facility will have potential emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 in excess of the PSD Significant Emission Rates, a Class I PSD Increment analysis was completed for each of those species at Seney.
Averaging SIL Increment
Pollutant Period (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
NO2 Annual 0.10 2.5
SO2 3-Hour 1.00 25
24-Hour 0.20 5
Annual 0.10 2
PM10 24-Hour 0.30 8
Annual 0.20 4
PM2.5 24-Hour 0.27 2
Annual 0.05 1
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 4-1
4. CLASS I AREA MODELING METHODS
The preferred model for analyzing long-range pollutant transport (i.e., distances greater than 50 km) by the U.S. EPA within the Guideline is the CALPUFF modeling system. Trinity used the EPA-approved version [Version 5.8.5 of CALPUFF (level 151214) and 6.221 of CALPOST (level 082724] of the CALPUFF modeling suite to determine the possible impacts of the proposed Rexton facility on Class I AQRV at Seney NWR. CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model, which can simulate the effects of time- and space-varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation, and removal. For this refined analysis, meteorological fields generated by CALMET were used as inputs to the CALPUFF model to ensure that the effects of terrain and spatially varying surface characteristics on meteorology are considered. In addition to meteorological data, the CALPUFF model uses several other input files to specify source and receptor parameters. The selection and control of CALPUFF options are determined by user-specific inputs contained in the control file. This file contains all of the necessary information to define a model run (e.g., starting date, run length, grid specifications, technical options, output options). The air quality modeling was performed using CALPUFF default options unless otherwise noted, as specified in the federal Guideline and IWAQM documents. The following sections describe the modeling domain, meteorological data, background concentrations, and model implementation that were used for the analysis of the Rexton facility.
4.1. MODELING DOMAINS
The location, terrain, and land use within the meteorological CALMET and computational CALPUFF domains were all based on the previously-developed BART datasets. The CALPUFF computational domain was set to encompass the entire CALMET domain (VISTAS Subdomain 4) and will use the same grid spacing (4 km). The horizontal domain is comprised of grid cells, each containing a central grid point at which meteorological and computational parameters are calculated at each time step. Vertical grid structure is defined by the cell face height. The cell face height of each cell indicates its vertical extent. The vertical domain was composed of terrain-following grid cells, the number and size of which are chosen so as to constrain the boundary layer where dispersion and chemical transformations take place. The highest cell face was 4,000 meters to constrain the default maximum mixing height of 3,000 meters. CALMET and CALPUFF used the same cell face heights. Table 4-1 summarizes the vertical grid structure selected for both analyses.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 4-2
Table 4-1. Vertical Grid Structure
Vertical Grid Cell Cell Face Height
(meters)
1 20 2 40 3 80 4 160 5 320 6 640 7 1,000 8 2,000 9 3,000
10 4,000
Ambient impacts are predicted at receptors specified by the FLMs to represent Seney NWR.7 Note that the coordinates used in this modeling simulation were Lambert Conformal Coordinates (LCC) based on the design of the CALMET meteorological domain. These coordinates have an origin of 40.574°N and 97°W with standard parallels of 33°N and 45°N. Receptor locations for Seney NWR were converted to LCC using the Class I conversion tool provided by the NPS.
4.2. CALPUFF METEOROLOGICAL PROCESSING
Three years of CALPUFF-ready meteorological data were extracted using the Mesoscale Model Interface (MMIF) tool provided by U.S. EPA. Appendix B includes a detailed discussion of how the 2013-2015 Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model output were extracted for use in the CALPUFF analysis. The data were processed using the regulatory default settings in the MMIF guidance document.8
4.3. CALPUFF MODEL PROCESSING
Using the data provided by CALMET, CALPUFF simulates the dispersion, deposition, and chemical transformation of discrete puffs of mass from emission sources. Each puff contains emissions of each modeled species and is advected throughout the domain while deposition and chemical transformation processes take place. CALPUFF is a Lagrangian puff model, the principle advantages of which are that pollutant plumes can evolve dynamically and chemically over time and can respond to complex winds caused by terrain effects, stagnation, or recirculation. Emissions data for the Rexton facility were entered into CALPUFF as previously described in this report. Due to the distance from the source to the Class I areas, building downwash was not enabled. This analysis was performed with the deposition and chemical transformation algorithms enabled. A full resistance model is provided in CALPUFF for the computation of dry deposition rates of gases and particulate matter as a function of geophysical parameters, meteorological
7 http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/receptors/index.cfm 8 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/relat/mmif/MMIF_Guidance.pdf
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 4-3
conditions, and pollutant species. An empirical scavenging coefficient approach using default options was enabled in CALPUFF to compute the depletion and wet deposition fluxes due to precipitation scavenging. The CALPUFF model is capable of simulating linear chemical transformation effects by using pseudo-first-order chemical reaction mechanisms for the conversions of SO2 to SO4 and NOX, which consists of NO and NO2, to NO3 and HNO3. There are two user-selected input parameters that affect the MESOPUFF II chemical transformation, ammonia concentrations and ozone concentrations. The selection of each parameter is discussed separately.
4.3.1. Ozone
Ambient ozone concentrations can be input to the model as a background level or using hourly, spatially varying observations. For this analysis, monthly average ozone background values were computed for each modeled year (2013, 2014 and 2015). Table 4-2 lists the monthly average ozone background values that were computed from the CASTNET and AIRS data. The data during ozone season (April through September) were collected from the Seney, MI ambient monitor. Since the Seney monitor does not operate outside of ozone season, ozone background values from the other months were calculated from the Houghton Lake, MI site, which is the closest year-round monitor to the domain.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 4-4
Table 4-2. Monthly-Average Ozone Concentrations (ppb) for the Modeling Domain
Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2013 38.77 41.04 44.32 47.67 43.48 43.03 43.00 38.32 35.25 32.23 29.13 30.70
2014 33.26 40.71 44.03 46.07 44.93 44.20 38.39 33.16 39.59 28.26 30.87 27.63 2015 35.04 37.29 43.97 44.13 45.71 37.90 41.65 33.87 41.38 30.39 33.10 26.15
4.3.2. Ammonia
IWAQM Phase 2 recommends the use of spatially constant background ammonia concentrations to participate in the MESOPUFF-II chemical transformation mechanism. In the absence of an extensive monitoring network for ammonia and due to the limitation of CALPUFF to simulate only a single, domain-average background ammonia level for each month of analysis, a single value was used. The IWAQM guidance recommends the ammonia value be set between 0.5 ppb for forested areas and 10 ppb for grasslands. The areas of the modeling domain are a generally a mix of forested and grasslands; therefore the ammonia background level was set at 1.0 ppb for this analysis.
4.3.3. CALPUFF Processing Control
CALPUFF modeling was conducted using the recommended regulatory default options specified in Appendix B of IWAQM Phase 2. The integrated puff representation was used and puff splitting was conservatively disabled. All deviations from IWAQM Phase 2 are noted in Appendix B of this protocol.
4.4. POSTUTIL PROCESSING
The first postprocessing step involves running POSTUTIL to calculate the concentrations of visibility-affecting and deposited species prior to running CALPOST. Specifically, POSTUTIL was used to combine the appropriate wet and dry fluxes of sulfur-bearing species deposited as particles and gases as described in Section 3.3.1. The other step in the analysis which is performed in POSTUTIL is to repartition the nitrogen mass between nitric acid and nitrate. This processing stage, referred to as the ammonia limiting method (ALM), was accomplished by utilizing the default setting in POSTUTIL of MNITRATE = 1.
4.5. CALPOST POSTPROCESSING ANALYSIS
The CALPOST postprocessor was used to compute the total deposition of nitrogen and sulfur within Seney NWR for assessment against the DAT as well as the 24-hour average visibility impairment. Section 3 generally described the technical approach for computing these values from the modeled concentrations of pollutant emissions.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 4-5
The change in light extinction attributable to a single facility that is generally acceptable to the FLM for a Class I area is 5% on a 24-hour average basis. The FLAG 2010 guidance establishes a metric for assessing whether a single facility causes or contributes to visibility impairment. This guidance establishes a 5% extinction change threshold for contribution and a 10% extinction change threshold for causation of visibility impairment. These thresholds are applied to the 98th percentile model result for an analysis that considers multiple years of meteorological data. In other words, application of the 98th percentile standard formalizes the intensity, duration, and frequency aspects of modeled visibility impairment events by standardizing discretion left to the FLM on a case-by-case basis to exclude visibility impairment events that could be due to meteorological conditions or other naturally occurring phenomena that are not attributable to the emissions source.
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 5-1
5. CLASS I MODELING RESULTS
This section presents the results of the modeling analyses that were conducted for the Seney NWR.
5.1. VISIBILITY RESULTS
Table 5-1 presents the results of the visibility impairment analysis that was conducted in CALPUFF for proposed Graymont Rexton facility. As shown, there are no days above the causation threshold (10% change) and only 2 days above the contribution threshold (5% change). The 98th percentile visibility impacts from the proposed project are well below the contribution threshold of concern (5%) for visibility impairment at Seney NWR.
Table 5-1. CALPUFF Visibility Results – Annual Average Background
The results in Table 5-1 conservatively assume that all emitted H2SO4 takes the form of sulfate in the model. Further, when considering the natural background on only the 20% best days, the 98th percentile impacts remain below the 5% threshold of concern as shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. CALPUFF Visibility Results – 20% Best Days Background
As shown, the proposed project will not cause any visibility impairment at Seney NWR.
Maximum 98th %ile
Impact Impact # Days # Days
Year (%) (%) > 10% > 5%
2013 8.62% 3.00% 0 1
2014 4.25% 1.85% 0 0
2015 8.12% 2.14% 0 1
Maximum 98th %ile
Impact Impact # Days # Days
Year (%) (%) > 10% > 5%
2013 12.94% 4.43% 1 3
2014 6.38% 2.79% 0 1
2015 12.13% 3.20% 1 3
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 5-2
5.2. ACIDIC DEPOSITION RESULTS
Table 5-3 presents the modeled impact of nitrogen and sulfur deposition resulting from the proposed project. As shown, the impacts are well below the established deposition analysis thresholds (DAT) at Seney NWR.
Table 5-3. Acidic Deposition Results
5.3. PSD INCREMENT RESULTS
Table 5-4 presents the results of the PSD increment analysis. As shown impacts for all pollutants and all years are below the PSD Class I SIL thresholds, with the exception of 24-hour SO2 in 2013. There was one day in 2013 with modeled impacts just slightly above the Class I SIL level for that averaging period (0.23 vs. 0.20 mg/m3). That impact is well below the 24-hour SO2 increment threshold of 5 mg/m3 and given the lack of any significant SO2 increment consuming sources in the region, specifically in the transport corridor from the Rexton facility to Seney NWR, no more refined increment modeling was conducted for the project.
Nitrogen DAT Sulfur DAT
Year (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr)
2013 1.92E-03 1.00E-02 2.54E-03 1.00E-02
2014 1.95E-03 1.00E-02 2.68E-03 1.00E-02
2015 1.95E-03 1.00E-02 2.66E-03 1.00E-02
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report 5-3
Table 5-4. PSD Increment Results
5.4. RESULTS SUMMARY
The modeling results presented in this section demonstrate the proposed Graymont Rexton facility will not cause any significant AQRV concerns. The 98th percentile daily visibility impacts are well below the 5% contribution thresholds, and sulfur and nitrogen deposition impacts are well below the DAT of concern. In addition to the AQRV impacts presented, the modeling also demonstrated no concerns with regards to PSD Class I Increment thresholds. The electronic modeling files used to generate the results will be provided via electronic file transfer to EGLE and the FLMs upon request.
Max. Conc. SIL Exceeds SIL?
Pollutant Year Avg. Period (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (Yes/No)
2013 Annual 8.03E-03 0.10 No
2014 Annual 4.42E-03 0.10 No
2015 Annual 5.47E-03 0.10 No
3-Hour 8.26E-01 1.00 No24-Hour 2.33E-01 0.20 YesAnnual 6.78E-03 0.10 No3-Hour 7.49E-01 1.00 No24-Hour 1.95E-01 0.20 NoAnnual 4.38E-03 0.10 No3-Hour 4.67E-01 1.00 No24-Hour 1.83E-01 0.20 NoAnnual 5.38E-03 0.10 No
24-Hr 5.77E-02 0.30 No
Annual 1.60E-03 0.20 No
24-Hr 3.47E-02 0.30 No
Annual 1.11E-03 0.20 No
24-Hr 4.86E-02 0.30 No
Annual 1.39E-03 0.20 No
24-Hr 5.45E-02 0.27 No
Annual 1.53E-03 0.05 No
24-Hr 3.22E-02 0.27 No
Annual 1.07E-03 0.27 No
24-Hr 4.62E-02 0.27 No
Annual 1.32E-03 0.05 No
SO2
2013
2014
2015
2013
2014
2015
PM2.5
NO2
PM10
2013
2014
2015
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-1
APPENDIX A – CALPUFF AND CALPOST SWITCH SETTINGS
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-2
Table A-1. Summary of CALPUFF Inputs
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
Version 5.8 5.8.5 (151214) CALPUFF Model Input Group 1: General Run Control Parameters
METRUN All model periods in met files were run
0 0
IBYR Starting year User Defined 2013, 2014, 215
IBMO Starting month User Defined 1
IBDY Starting day User Defined 1
IBHR Starting hour User Defined 1
XBTZ Base time zone (5 = EST)
User Defined 5
IRLG Length of run 8760 8760
NSPEC Number of chemical species
5 9 User specified
NSE Number of chemical species to be emitted
3 7 User specified
ITEST Program is executed after SETUP phase
2 2
MRESTART Do not read or write a restart file during run
0 0
NRESPD File written only at last period
0 0
METFM CALMET binary file CALMET.MET
1 1 MREG=1
MPRFFM Met Format 1 1
AVET Averaging time in minutes
60 60 MREG=1
PGTIME PG Averaging time in minutes
60 60 MREG=1
CALPUFF Model Input Group 2: Technical Options
MGAUSS Gaussian distribution used in near field
1 1 MREG=1
MCTADJ Partial plume path terrain adjustment
3 3 MREG=1
MCTSG Sub-grid-scale complex terrain modeled?
0 0 No grid modeled
MSLUG Near-field puffs modeled as elongated slugs?
0 0 Slug-approach not modeled
MTRANS Transitional plume rise modeled?
1 1 MREG=1
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-3
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
MTIP Stack tip downwash used?
1 1 MREG=1
MBDW Downwash Method 1 ISC or 2 Prime
1 1 No downwash modeled since > 50 km from Class I area
MSHEAR Vertical wind shear modeled?
0 0 Not modeled
MSPLIT Puff splitting enabled?
0 0 No puff splitting
MCHEM Chemical parameterization scheme
1 1 MREG=1 MESOPUFF II
MAQCHEM Aqueous phase transformation flag?
NA 0 Not modeled
MWET Wet removal modeled?
1 1 MREG=1
MDRY Dry deposition modeled?
1 1 MREG=1
MTILT Plume Tilting? NA 0 Not modeled
MDISP Dispersion coefficients
3 3 MREG=1 PG dispersion coefficients for RURAL areas
MTURBVW Sigma-v/sigma-theta, sigma-w measurements used?
3 3 Use both sigma-(v/theta) and sigma-w from PROFILE.DAT to compute sigma-y and sigma-z
MDISP2 Back-up dispersion coefficients for missing data
3 3 PG dispersion coefficients for RURAL areas
MTAULY Method used for Lagrangian timescale for σy
NA 0 Draxler default timescale
MTAUADV Method used for Advective-Decay timescale for Turbulence
NA 0 No turbulence advection
MCTURB Method used to compute turbulence sigma-v & sigma-w using micromet. Variables
NA 1 Standard CALPUFF subroutines
MROUGH PG σy and σz adjusted for roughness?
0 0 MREG=1 No adjustments
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-4
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
MPARTL Partial plume penetration of elevated inversion?
1 1 MREG=1 Use partial plume penetration
MTINV Strength of temperature inversion computed from default gradients or measured data?
0 0 Computed from default gradients
MPDF PDF used for dispersion under convective conditions?
0 0 MREG=1 Not used
MSGTIBL Sub-grid TIBL module used for shoreline?
0 0 TIBL module not used
MBCON Boundary conc. conditions modeled?
NA 0 Not modeled
MSOURCE Individual source contributions saved?
0 0 Not saved
MFOG Configure for FOG model output?
NA 0 Not configured
MREG Test options for USEPA Long Range Transport (LRT) guidance
1 1 METFM=1 or 2 AVET=60. (min) PGTIME=60. (min) MGAUSS=1 MCTADJ=3 MTRANS=1 MTIP=1 MCHEM=1 MWET=1 MDRY=1 MDISP=3 MPDF=0 MROUGH=0 MPARTL=1 SYTDEP=550. (m) MHFTSZ=0 SVMIN=0.5 (m/s)
CALPUFF Model Input Group 3: Species List-Chemistry Options
CSPEC
IWAQM Graymont
Input Group
Species Modeled Emitte
d Dry
Deposition
Input Group
Species Modeled Emitted Dry
Deposition
SO2 1 1 1 SO2 1 1 1
SO4 1 1 2 SO4 1 1 2
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-5
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes NOX 1 1 1 NOX 1 1 1 HNO3 1 0 1 HNO3 1 0 1
NO3 1 0 2 NO3 1 0 2
PMC 1 1 2
SOIL 1 1 2
EC 1 1 2
SOA 1 1 2
Model Input Group 4: Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters
PMAP Map Projection
User Defined LCC
FFEAST False East 0 0
FNORTH False North 0 0
IUTMZN UTM zone User Defined 0 NA
UTMHEM Hemi for UTM N N
RLAT0 Projection Origin User Defined 40.574N Extracted using MMIF
RLON0 Projection Origin User Defined 97W Extracted using MMIF
XLAT1 Matching Parallel User Defined 33N Extracted using MMIF
XLAT2 Matching Parallel User Defined 45N Extracted using MMIF
DATUM Datum for output coordinates
User Defined NWS-84 Extracted using MMIF
NX Number of X grid cells in meteorological grid
User Defined 15 Extracted using MMIF
NY Number of Y grid cells in meteorological grid
User Defined 20 Extracted using MMIF
NZ Number of vertical layers in meteorological grid
User Defined 10 Extracted using MMIF
DGRIDKM Grid spacing (km) User Defined 12 Extracted using MMIF
ZFACE Cell face heights in meteorological grid (m)
User Defined 0, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320,640,1000,2000, 3000, 4000
Extracted using MMIF
XORIGKM Reference X coordinate for SW corner of grid cell of met. grid (km)
User Defined 780.000 Extracted using MMIF
YORIGKM Reference Y coord. for SW corner of grid cell of met. grid (km)
User Defined 558.000 Extracted using MMIF
IBCOMP X index of lower left corner of the computational grid
User Defined 1 Extracted using MMIF
JBCOMP Y index of lower left corner of the computational grids
User Defined 1 Extracted using MMIF
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-6
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
IECOMP X index of upper right corner of the computational grid
User Defined 15 Extracted using MMIF
JECOMP Y index of upper right corner of the computational grid
User Defined 20 Extracted using MMIF
LSAMP Sampling grid F F Sampling grid not used (Related CALPUFF variables are not shown here.)
CALPUFF Model Input Group 5: Output Options
ICON Output file CONC.DAT containing concentrations?
1 1 Created for estimating concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2
IDRY Output file DFLX.DAT containing dry fluxes?
1 1 Created for N and S deposition calculations
IWET Output file WFLX.DAT containing wet fluxes?
1 1 Created for N and S deposition calculations
IT2D Output file containing 2D temperature?
0 0 Not created
IRHO Output file containing 2d density?
0 0 Not created
IVIS Output file containing relative humidity data?
1 1 Created for Method 8 calculations
LCOMPRS Perform data compression in output file?
T T Yes
IQAPLOT Create standard series of output?
1 0 No
IMFLX Calculate mass fluxes across specific boundaries
0 0 Not calculated
IMBAL Mass balances for each species reported hourly?
0 0 Not calculated
ICPRT Print concentration fields to output list file?
0 0 Not printed
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-7
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
IDPRT Print dry flux fields to output list file?
0 0 Not printed
IWPRT Print wet flux fields to output list file?
0 0 Not printed
ICFRQ Concentration fields printed to output list file every hour?
1 1 Printed
IDFRQ Dry flux fields printed to output list file every 1 hour?
1 1 Printed
IWFRQ Wet flux fields printed to output list file every 1 hour?
1 1 Printed
IPTRU Units for line printer output?
3 3 Units are in μg/m3 for concentration and μg/m2/s for deposition
IMESG Messages tracking the progress of run written to screen?
2 2 Yes
LDEBUG Logical value for debug output
F F Debug option not used (Related CALPUFF variables are not shown here.)
CALPUFF Model Input Group 6: Sub-Grid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs
NHILL Number of terrain features
0 0 Not used
CALPUFF Model Input Group 7: Dry Deposition Parameters for Gases
SO2
Diffusivity 0.1509 0.1509
Alpha star 1000 1000 Reactivity 8 8
Mesophyll resistance
0 0
Henry’s Law coef. 0.04 0.04
NOX
Diffusivity 0.1656 0.1656
Alpha star 1 1
Reactivity 8 8
Mesophyll resistance
5 5
Henry’s Law coef. 3.5 3.5
HNO3
Diffusivity 0.1628 0.1628
Alpha star 1 1
Reactivity 18 18
Mesophyll resistance
0 0
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-8
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
Henry’s Law coef. 8.e-8 8.e-8 CALPUFF Model Input Group 8: Dry Deposition Parameters for Particles
Dry Deposition
Species Name Geometric Mass Mean
Diameter (mm) Geometric Standard Deviation
(mm)
SO4 0.48 0.5
NO3 0.48 0.5
PMC 6.25 0
SOIL 0.48 0 EC 0.48 0
SOA 0.48 0
CALPUFF Model Input Group 9: Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters
RCUTR Reference cuticle resistance (s/cm)
30 30
RGR Reference ground resistance (s/cm)
10 10
REACTR Reference pollutant reactivity
8 8
NINT Number of particle size intervals for effective particle deposition velocity
9 9
IVEG Vegetation in non-irrigated areas is active and unstressed
1 1
CALPUFF Model Input Group 10: Wet Deposition Parameters
Wet Deposition
Species Name Liquid Precipitation
Scavenging Coeff. (s- ) Frozen Precipitation
Scavenging Coeff. (s- )
SO2 3.0E-05 0
SO4 1.0E-04 3.0E-05
NOX 0 0 HN03 6.0E-05 0
NO3 1.0E-04 3.0E-05
PMC 1.0E-04 3.0E-05
PMF 1.0E-04 3.0E-05
EC 1.0E-04 3.0E-05
SOA 1.0E-04 3.0E-05
CALPUFF Model Input Group 11: Chemistry Parameters
MOZ Read ozone background concentrations from ozone.dat file?
1 0 Provided average monthly values
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-9
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
BCKO3 Background ozone concentration (ppb) by month
Area Dependent Vary by year based on monthly average
BCKNH3 Background ammonia concentration (ppb) by month
Area Dependent 12*1.0 For mix of grassland and forested areas
RNITE1 Nighttime SO2 loss rate is %/hour
0.2 0.2
RNITE2 Nighttime NOX loss
rate is %/hour
2.0 2.0
RNITE3 Nighttime HNO3 loss rate is %/hour
2.0 2.0
MH2O2 Background H2O2 concentrations
1 1
BCKH2O2 Background monthly H2O2 concentrations
12*1.0 12*1.0
BCKPMF Fine particulate concentration for SOA option (mg/m3)
12*1.0 12*1.0 Not used, since
MCHEM = 1
OFRAC Organic fraction of fine particulate for SOA option
0.2 0.2 Not used, since
MCHEM = 1
VCNX VOC/NOX ratio for
SOA option
12*50.0 12*50.0 Not used, since
MCHEM = 1
CALPUFF Model Input Group 12: Miscellaneous Dispersion and Computation Parameters
SYTDEP Horizontal size of a puff in meters beyond which the time dependent dispersion equation of Heffter is used
550 550 MREG=1
MHFTSZ Use Heffter formulas for σz?
0 0 MREG=1 Not used
JSUP Stability class used to determine dispersion rates for puffs above boundary layer
5 5
CONK1 Vertical dispersion constant for stable conditions
0.01 0.01
CONK2 Vertical dispersion constant for
0.1 0.1
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-10
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
neutral/stable conditions
TBD Use ISC transition point for determining the transition point between the Schulman-Scire to Huber-Snyder Building Downwash scheme
0.5 0.5
IURB1 Lower range of LU categories for which urban dispersion is assumed
10 10
IURB2 Upper range of LU categories for which urban dispersion is assumed
19 19
ILANDUIN Land use category for MD
20 20 Not used since METFM=1
ZOIN Roughness length in meters for MD
0.25 0.25 Not used since METFM=1
XLAIIN Leaf area index for MD
3.0 3.0 Not used since METFM=1
ELEVIN Elevation above MSL
0 0 Not used since METFM=1
XLATIN North latitude of station in °
User Defined -999 Not used since METFM=1
XLONIN South latitude of station in °
User Defined -999 Not used since METFM=1
ANEMHT Anemometer height in meters
10 10 Not used since METFM=1
ISIGMAV Is σV read for lateral turbulence data?
1 1 Yes
IMIXCTDM Predicted mixing heights are used
0 0 Not used since METFM=1
XMXLEN Maximum length of emitted slug in met. grid units
1 1
XSAMLEN Maximum travel distance of slug or puff in met. grid units during one sampling unit
1 1
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-11
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
MXNEW Maximum number of puffs or slugs released from one source during one time step
99 99
MXSAM Maximum number of sampling steps during one time step for a puff or slug
99 99
NCOUNT Number of iterations used when computing the transport wind for a sampling step that includes transitional plume rise
2 2
SYMIN Minimum sigma y in meters for a new puff or slug
1.0 1.0
SZMIN Minimum sigma z in meters for a new puff or slug
1.0 1.0
SVMIN Minimum lateral turbulence velocities (m/s)
12*0.5 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5
MREG=1
SWMIN Minimum vertical turbulence velocities (m/s)
0.200, 0.120, 0.080, 0.060, 0.030, 0.016, 0.200, 0.120, 0.080, 0.060, 0.030, 0.016
0.200, 0.120, 0.080, 0.060, 0.030, 0.016, 0.200, 0.120, 0.080, 0.060, 0.030, 0.016
CDIV Divergence criterion for dw/dz (1/s)
0.0, 0.0 0.0, 0.0
WSCALM Minimum non-calm wind speeds (m/s)
0.5 0.5
XMAXZI Maximum mixing height (m)
3000 3000
XMINZI Minimum mixing height (m)
50 50
WSCAT Upper bounds of 1st 5 wind speed classes
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80
PLXO Wind speed power-law exponents
0.07, 0.07, 0.10, 0.15, 0.35, 0.55
0.07, 0.07, 0.10, 0.15, 0.35, 0.55
ISC Rural
PTGO Potential temp gradients PG E & F (deg/km)
0.020, 0.035 0.020, 0.035
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-12
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
PPC Plume path coefficients (only if MCTADJ = 3)
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.35, 0.35
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.35, 0.35
SL2PF Slug-to-puff transition factor
10 10 Not used
NSPLIT Number of puffs when split
3 3
IRESPLIT Hours when puff is eligible to split
Hour 17 Hour 17
ZISPLIT Previous hours minimum mixing height, meters
100 100
ROLDMAX Previous max mixing height/current height ratio, must be less than this value to allow puff to split
0.25 0.25
NSPLITH Number of puffs resulting from a split
5 5
SYSPLITH Minimum sigma-y of puff before it may split
1.0 1.0
SHSPLITH Minimum puff elongation rate from wind shear before puff may split
2.0 2.0
CNSPLITH Minimum species concentration before a puff may split
1.0E-07 1.0E-07
EPSSLUG Criterion for SLUG sampling
1.0E-04 1.0E-04
EPSAREA Criterion for area source integration
1.0E-06 1.0E-06
DSRISE Trajectory step length for numerical site algorithm
1.0 1.0
HTMINBC Minimum height (m) to which Boundary Condition (BC) puffs are mixed as they are emitted
500.0 500.0 Not used, since no BC
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-13
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
RSAMPBC Search radius (km) about a receptor for sampling nearest BC puff.
10.0 10.0 Not used, since no BC
MDEPBC Near-Surface depletion adjustment to concentration profile used when sampling BC puffs
1 1 Not used, since no BC
CALPUFF Model Input Group 13: Point Source Parameters
NPT1 Number of point sources with constant stack parameters or variable emission rate scale factors
Varies by scenario 4 KILN, ENG1-3
IPTU Units 1 3 Units for point source emission rates are lb/hr
NSPT1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions scaling factors
0 0 None modeled
NPT2 Number of point sources with variable emission parameters provided in external file
No Default 0 None modeled
MISC Other point source inputs include stack height, diameter, temp., exit velocity, downwash flag and emissions by species
User Defined Study Defined All data in metric units (except emission rates) entered for each source as specified by CALPUFF input formats
CALPUFF Model Input Group 14: Area Source Parameters
NAR1 Number of polygon area sources
User Defined 0 Area sources not modeled (Related CALPUFF variables are not shown here.)
CALPUFF Model Input Group 15: Line Source Parameters
NLN2 Number of buoyant line sources with variable location
- 0 Line sources not modeled (Related CALPUFF variables are not shown here.)
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-14
CALPUFF Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2
Value for Graymont Rexton
Class I Analysis Notes
and emission parameters
CALPUFF Model Input Group 16: Volume Source Parameters
NVL1 Number of volume sources
- 0 Volume sources not modeled (Related CALPUFF variables are not shown here.)
CALPUFF Model Input Group 17: Discrete Receptor Information
NREC Number of non-gridded receptors
- 173 Seney NWR receptors
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-15
Table A-2a. Summary of POSTUTIL Inputs for Seney NWR (Visibility)
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or FLAG for
POSTUTIL
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
CALPOST Model Input Group 1: General Run Control Parameters
ISYR Starting year No Default 2013, 2014, 2015
ISMO Starting month No Default 1
ISDY Starting day No Default 1
ISHR Starting hour No Default 1
NPER Number of periods to process
No Default 8760
NSPECINP Number of species to process from CALPUFF runs
No Default 9 9 modeled species affecting visibility
NSPECOUT Number of species to write to output file
No Default 9 9 modeled species affecting visibility
NSPECCMP Number of species to compute from those modeled
No Default 0 No combined species
MDUPLCT Stop run if duplicate species names
0 0 Sums duplicate species
NSCALED Number of CALPUFF data files that will be scaled
0 0 No scaling done in POSTUTIL
MNITRATE Recompute the HNO3/NO3 partition for concentrations
0 1 Yes, for all sources combined
NH3TYPE Input source of ammonia
No Default 3 NH3 monthly average background
BCKNH3 Monthly background ammonia concentration (ppb)
-999 12*1 Constant value of 1 ppb used for forest/agricultural mix
ASPECI Species to process No Default SO2, SO4, NOX, HNO3, NO3, SOA, PMC, SOIL, EC
Same as CALPUFF modeled species
ASPECO Species to output No Default SO2, SO4, NOX, HNO3, NO3, SOA, PMC, SOIL, EC
Same as CALPUFF modeled species just with HNO3/NO3 adjustment
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-16
Table A-2b. Summary of POSTUTIL Inputs for Seney NWR (Deposition)
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or FLAG for
POSTUTIL
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
CALPOST Model Input Group 1: General Run Control Parameters
ISYR Starting year No Default 2013, 2014, 2015
ISMO Starting month No Default 1 ISDY Starting day No Default 1
ISHR Starting hour No Default 1
NPER Number of periods to process
No Default 8760
NSPECINP Number of species to process from CALPUFF runs
No Default 9 9 modeled species in CALPUFF
NSPECOUT Number of species to write to output file
No Default 11 Added N and S for deposition
NSPECCMP Number of species to compute from those modeled
No Default 2 Total N and S deposition computed
MDUPLCT Stop run if duplicate species names
0 0 Sums duplicate species
NSCALED Number of CALPUFF data files that will be scaled
0 0 No scaling done in POSTUTIL
MNITRATE Recompute the HNO3/NO3 partition for concentrations
0 0 Not used for deposition
NH3TYPE Input source of ammonia
No Default 3 Not used for deposition
BCKNH3 Monthly background ammonia concentration (ppb)
-999 12*1 Not used for deposition
ASPECI Species to process No Default SO2, SO4, NOX, HNO3, NO3, SOA, PMC, SOIL, EC
Same as CALPUFF modeled species
ASPECO Species to output No Default SO2, SO4, NOX, HNO3, NO3, SOA, PMC, SOIL, EC, N, S
Added N and S computed species
CSPECCMP - N Computed Species No Default SO2 = 0.000000 SO4 = 0.291667 HNO3 = 0.222222 NO3 = 0.451613 NOX = 0.304348
Scaling factors for individual components of combined species
CSPECCMP - S Computed Species No Default SO2 = 0.500000 SO4 = 0.333333 HNO3 = 0.000000 NO3 = 0.000000 NOX = 0.000000
Scaling factors for individual components of combined species
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-17
Table A-3. Summary of CALPOST Inputs for Seney NWR
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
CALPOST Model Input Group 1: General Run Control Parameters
METRUN Option to run limited met period
0 1 All periods
ISYR Starting year No Default 2013, 2014, 2015
Not used
ISMO Starting month No Default 1 Not used
ISDY Starting day No Default 1 Not used
ISHR Starting hour No Default 0 Not used
ISMIN Starting minute No Default 0 Not used
ISSEC Starting second No Default 0 Not used
IEYR Ending year No Default 2013, 2014, 2015
Not used
IEMO Ending month No Default 12 Not used IEDY Ending day No Default 31 Not used
IEHR Ending hour No Default 23 Not used
IEMIN Ending minute No Default 0 Not used
IESEC Ending second No Default 0 Not used
BTZONE Base time zone No Default 5.0
NREP Process every hour of data?
1 1 Yes
ASPEC Species to process No Default VISIB for Visibility Analysis; S for Sulfur Deposition; N for Nitrogen Deposition
Separate CALPOST runs for each ASPEC
ILAYER Layer/deposition code; 1 for CALPUFF concentrations
1 1 CALPUFF concentrations
A Scaling factor, slope 0 0
B Scaling factor, intercept
0 0
LBACK Add hourly background concentrations of fluxes?
F F Not used
NO2CALC Fraction of NOX treated as NO2
1 1 MVISCHECK=1
RNO2NOX Single NO2/NOX ratio for treating NOX as NO2
1.0 1.0 MVISCHECK=1
CNOX NOX concentration No Default 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0,
Not used, since NO2CALC=1
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-18
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
9.0, 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0
TNO2NOX NO2/NOX ratio for each NOX concentration
No Default 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0
Not used, since NO2CALC=1
MSOURCE Process source contributions?
0 0 Process total contributions
MCALMPRO Apply CALM processing procedures to multiple-hour avg?
0 0 Not used
MET1FMT Format of Single-point Met File
1 1 Not used
LG Process gridded receptors?
F F Not used
LD Process discrete receptors?
T T Only used discrete receptors
LCT Process complex terrain receptors?
F F Not used
LDRING Report receptor ring results?
F F Not used
NDRECP Select all discrete receptors (-1)
-1 -1 Process all receptors
IBGRID X index of LL corner of receptor grid
-1 -1 Not used
JBGRID Y index of LL corner of receptor grid
-1 -1 Not used
IEGRID X index of UR corner of receptor grid
-1 -1 Not used
JEGRID Y index of UR corner of receptor grid
-1 -1 Not used
NGONOFF Number of gridded receptor rows
0 0 Not used
CALPOST Model Input Group 1a: Specific Gridded Receptors
NGXRECP Exclude specific gridded receptors
1 Not used
Method 8 CALPOST Model Input Group 2: Visibility Parameters (if ASPEC=VISIB)
MVISBK Method for calculating background light extinction
2 8 Applies to this section of Table C-2 only MVISCHECK=1
MVISCHECK Test visibility options to see if they
1 1 For Method 8 only
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-19
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
confirm to FLAG 2010 config.?
AREANAME Name of Class I Area User Defined USER Only one area modeled, so not defined
MFRH Particle Growth Curve 1, 2, 3
4 4 Used with Method 8 for IMPROVE
RHMAX Maximum RH% used in particle growth curve
98 95 Not used with Method 8
LVSO4 Compute light extinction for sulfate?
T T
LVNO3 Compute light extinction for nitrate?
T T
LVOC Compute light extinction for organic carbon?
T T
LVPMC Compute light extinction for coarse particles?
T T
LVPMF Compute light extinction for fine particles?
T T
LVEC Compute light extinction for elemental carbon?
T T
LVNO2 Compute light extinction for NO2?
F T MVISCHECK=1
LVBK Include background in extinction calculation?
T T
SPECPMC Coarse particulate species
PMC PMC
SPECPMF Fine particulate species
PM10 SOIL
EEPMC bext for coarse particulates
0.6 0.6 CALPOST Default
EEPMF bext for fine particles? 1.0 1.0 CALPOST Default
EEPMCBCK bext for coarse part. Background
0.6 0.6 CALPOST Default
EESO4 bext for ammonium sulfate
3.0 3.0 CALPOST Default
EENO3 bext for ammonium nitrate
3.0 3.0 CALPOST Default
EEOC bext for organic carbon
4.0 4.0 CALPOST Default
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-20
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
EESOIL bext for soil
1.0 1.0 CALPOST Default
EEEC bext for elemental carbon
10.0 10.0 CALPOST Default
EENO2 bext for NO2 .1755 .1755 CALPOST Default LAVER Hourly ratio of ext. to
background ext.?
F F
BEXTBK Background light extinction
No Default 0 Not necessary since MVISBK=8
RHFRAC % of particles affected by RH
No Default 0 Not necessary since MVISBK=8
RHFAC Monthly average RH adjustment factors
Depends on Class I Area
3.4, 3.1, 2.9, 2.6, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.9, 3.4, 3.2, 3.5
Not used since M8_MODE=5
BKSO4 Background sulfate concentration
Depends on Class I Area
12*0.23 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
BKNO3 Background nitrate concentration
Depends on Class I Area
12*0.10 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
BKPMC Background coarse part. concentration
Depends on Class I Area
12*1.95 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
BKOC Background organic carbon concentration
Depends on Class I Area
12*1.74 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
BKSOIL Background soil concentration
Depends on Class I Area
12*0.26 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
BKEC Background elemental carbon concentration
Depends on Class I Area
12*0.02 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
M8_MODE 5 5 Used with MVISBK=8 MVISCHECK=1
BKSALT Background sea salt concentration
No Default 12*0.02 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
RHFSML Monthly average RH factors for small ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate particle sizes
No Default 3.69, 3.10, 3.30, 3.10, 3.03, 3.45, 3.80, 4.27, 4.31, 3.82, 3.97, 3.87
Verified against Table 8 in FLAG 2010
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-21
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
RHFLRG Monthly average RH factors for large ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate particle sizes
No Default 2.75, 2.42, 2.49, 2.35, 2.30, 2.55, 2.75, 3.01, 3.03, 2.78, 2.88, 2.85
Verified against Table 7 in FLAG 2010
RHFSEA Monthly average RH factors for sea salt particles
No Default 4.05, 3.60, 3.60, 3.30, 3.20, 3.58, 3.91, 4.28, 4.30, 4.00, 4.19, 4.16
Verified against Table 9 in FLAG 2010
BEXTRAY Extinction due to Rayleigh scattering (1/Mm)
10.0 12 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010
CALPOST Model Input Group 3: Output Options
LDOC Print documentation image?
F F
IPRTU Print output units for concentrations and for deposition
1 1 for S and N Ignored for VISIB
Units preference
L1PD Report 1-period averaging times?
T F
L1HR Report 1 hr averaging times?
F F
L3HR Report 3 hr averaging times
F T for SO2
L24HR Report 24 hr averaging times
T T for VISIB, SO2, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5
LRUNL Report run-length averaging times
F T for SO2, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5
NAVGH User-specified averaging time (hours)
0 0 Not used
NAVGM User-specified averaging time (minutes)
0 0 Not used
NAVGS User-specified averaging time (seconds)
0 0 Not used
LT50 Top 50 table F F
LTOPN Top N table F F Reports high values specified by ITOP below at each receptor
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report A-22
CALPOST Variable Description
Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST
Value for Graymont
Rexton Class I Analysis Notes
NTOP Number of Top-N values at each receptor
4 1
ITOP Ranks of Top-N values at each receptor
1,2,3,4 1
LEXCD Threshold exceedances counts
F F
THRESH1 Averaging time threshold for 1 hr averages
-1 -1
THRESH3 Averaging time threshold for 3 hr averages
-1 -1
THRESH24 Averaging time threshold for 24 hr averages
-1 -1
THRESHN Averaging time threshold for NAVG-hr averages
-1 -1
NDAY Accumulation period, days
0 0
NCOUNT Number of exceedances allowed
1 1
LECHO Echo option F F
LTIME Time series option F F
LPEAK Peak value option F F
IECHO Days selected for output
366*0 366*0
LPLT Generates Top-N plot file as described by NTOP and ITOP
F T for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx and VISIB, F for everything else
LGRD Use grid format instead of DATA format
F F
MDVIS Output file with visibility change
0 1
LDEBUG Output information for debugging?
F F
LVEXTHR Output hourly extinction information (report.hrv) file
F F
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report C-1
APPENDIX B – WRF-MMIF CALPUFF MET DATA PROCESSING
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report C-2
WRF-MMIF CALPUFF-Ready Data Processing The following sections provide a discussion of the CALPUFF-ready meteorological data for years
2013-2015 processed using U.S. EPA generated CONUS WRF data and MMIF.
1. WRF Data Source
U.S. EPA has created 3 years of prognostic meteorological data by running WRF simulations for a
CONUS domain9. These datasets can be obtained from multijurisdictional organizations and state
agencies. The features of the datasets are as follow:
• The data is available for a CONUS domain
• The data is available for years 2013-2015
• A 12 km resolution was used in WRF processing
• A common EPA attainment modeling setup was used
The datasets in this case were distributed by Byeong-Uk Kim (byeong.kim@dnr.ga.gov 404-362-4851)
from Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection
Branch.
2. MMIF PROCESSING The EPA-generated WRF outputs data processed using 12 km resolution for the years of 2013 to 2015 were used as inputs to the Mesoscale Model Interface Program (MMIF) to generate CALPUFF (Version 5.8) ready data. MMIF was executed using U.S. EPA recommended options10.
2.1. Domain
The domain extended at least 50 km beyond both the Seney National Wildlife Refuge receptors and the project site (46.1979 N, 85.1242 W), covering a 200 km by 200 km region. The latitude and longitude of the lower-left and upper-right points of the domain can be found in Table 1. Figure 1 below shows the domain.
Table 1. Coordinates of Domain Corner Points Domain Corner Latitude Longitude
Lower-left (SW) 45.313218 -86.98987
Upper-right (NE) 47.082664 -84.35471
Figure 1. The Domain Used in MMIF
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Use of Prognostic Met Data for NSR Permitting Modeling - Webinar Logistics”, pp. 24-26. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/appendix_w/2016/MMIF-WebinarPresentation.pdf 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. “User’s Manual, The Mesoscale Model Interface Program (MMIF).” Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/relat/mmif/MMIFv3.4.1_Users_Manual.pdf
Graymont Rexton, MI PSD | Class I Modeling Report C-3
2.2. Time Zone
The domain spans two time zones, UTC-5 and UTC-6. Because CALPUFF requires the user to pick a single time zone even if a CALPUFF domain spans several time zones, MMIF assigns a single time zone to the CALPUFF output, which in this case, was time zone UTC-5.
2.3. Output Vertical Layer Structure
A default use of TOP (interpolation using layer top heights) and the specification of heights corresponding to the EPA Model Clearinghouse memorandum from August 31, 2009 were used. These heights are: 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 meters11.
2.4. CALPUFF-Ready data
The following CALPUFF-ready data files were generated through MMIF: • A text file giving values required in a CALPUFF control file (e.g. PMAP, RLAT0, XLAT1,
DATUM, XORIGKM, NX, NY, NZ, ZFACE, etc.).
• A CALMET.met formatted file, for use with CALPUFF v5.8x.
• A Golden Software Surfer ASCII *.GRD file of the WRF terrain, similar to output from other programs in the CALPUFF system.
The map projection for the grid (PMAP) is Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC).
11 USDA Forest Service, Guidance on the Use of the Mesoscale Model Interface Program (MMIF) for Air Quality Related Values Long Range Transport Modeling Assessments (Aug. 2016).
top related