gaymont rexton class i modeling report...eng2 natural-gas fired engine #2 913.778 683.452 260.21...

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.

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html


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).


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


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


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.


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




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.


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:


∆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


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.


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


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.


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

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/relat/mmif/MMIF_Guidance.pdf


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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






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






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





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


NZ Number of vertical layers in meteorological grid


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


JBCOMP Y index of lower left corner of the computational grids







IECOMP X index of upper right corner of the computational grid


JECOMP Y index of upper right corner of the computational grid


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






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


Alpha star 1 1

Reactivity 8 8


5 5

Henry’s Law coef. 3.5 3.5

HNO3


Alpha star 1 1

Reactivity 18 18


0 0






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






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






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


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


ISIGMAV Is σV read for lateral turbulence data?

1 1 Yes

IMIXCTDM Predicted mixing heights are used


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






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






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






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.)






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


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


Table A-2b. Summary of POSTUTIL Inputs for Seney NWR (Deposition)


Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or FLAG for

POSTUTIL

Value for Graymont




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


Table A-3. Summary of CALPOST Inputs for Seney NWR


Value Included in IWAQM Phase 2 or CALPOST

Value for Graymont



METRUN Option to run limited met period

0 1 All periods


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




Value for Graymont


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




Value for Graymont


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


EESO4 bext for ammonium sulfate


EENO3 bext for ammonium nitrate


EEOC bext for organic carbon





Value for Graymont


EESOIL bext for soil


EEEC bext for elemental carbon


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


12*0.23 Verified against Table 6 in FLAG 2010

BKNO3 Background nitrate concentration



BKPMC Background coarse part. concentration



BKOC Background organic carbon concentration



BKSOIL Background soil concentration



BKEC Background elemental carbon concentration



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




Value for Graymont


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


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


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




Value for Graymont


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


-1 -1


-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


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 ([email protected] 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

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/appendix_w/2016/MMIF-WebinarPresentation.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/relat/mmif/MMIFv3.4.1_Users_Manual.pdf


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).

gaymont rexton class i modeling report...eng2 natural-gas fired engine #2 913.778 683.452 260.21...

Documents