***
WebMet has anemometer hight information, but it's not always current.
This NRCS site includes a spreadsheet with anemometer height for weather stations throughout the country. I don't know how frequently it's updated, however. The author of the NRCS wind rose site pointed me here for weather station data collections. The NWS station history files (zipped and unzipped) seem to be the appropriate sources for anemometer height histories, but the links don't work. This is the ftp site where the files are supposed to reside, but they don't. Some of the other posted files may have relevent information, but I've not found the right one or ones yet.
I was looking specifically for the current anemometer height at the Great Falls Airport. I ended up calling the NWS office in Great Falls. They said it's an ASOS station and all of them (or most all?) use 10 m towers. The person I talked to was unaware of any published information with current NWS station anemometer heights.
____
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Modeling Inputs & Procedures Spreadsheet
______
Please use this spreadsheet to capture all pertinent information regarding a model's inputs, file names, data sources, assumptions, etc. The spreadsheet is intended to act as a checklist of items to consider while conducting the analysis and a record to facilitate second-party review and report preparation. It also includes some template tables for reporting results in a format that can be pasted into a report. As you're using the spreadsheet, and as we receive responses to submitted models from regulatory agencies, please consider how we might improve on it or develp a more effective and/or efficient tool to accomplish the same objectives.
_____
Please use this spreadsheet to capture all pertinent information regarding a model's inputs, file names, data sources, assumptions, etc. The spreadsheet is intended to act as a checklist of items to consider while conducting the analysis and a record to facilitate second-party review and report preparation. It also includes some template tables for reporting results in a format that can be pasted into a report. As you're using the spreadsheet, and as we receive responses to submitted models from regulatory agencies, please consider how we might improve on it or develp a more effective and/or efficient tool to accomplish the same objectives.
_____
Friday, May 13, 2011
Health Risk Assessments
**
Here's a spreadsheet with a partial listing of screening threshold values from Montana's incinerator rule at ARM 17.8.770(1)(c). (Please replace it if you create or come across a more complete accounting.)
This is a description of a screening level human health risk assessment conducted by Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for a lime plant permit for Synergy Management (CRC205638). This write-up (along with a table of results not included here) was presented in Appendix A of the draft Technical Support Document accompanying a draft permit (T181-26877-00050) for public review. It's relatively straightforward and addresses calculation of and thresholds for chronic cancer and non-cancer risks. This is the spreadsheet that corresponds to this particular analysis.
This EPA web site includes a document, "Table 1," that lists chronic exposure thresholds for individual HAPs. I presume the IDEM analyses above uses these values, but I've only confirmed that for two HAPs; they may have relied on other sources for some thresholds. The web site also includes accute exposure thresholds in "Table 2," but I haven't seen those used. This site describes the sources of the threshold exposure values.
For a different approach to evaluating health risk from exposure to air pollutants, see Minnesota's Air Emissions Risk Analysis web site. They have a very well-developed process, including a downloadable spreadsheet that calculates pollutant concentrations without modeling and calculates risk factors. For an example of a Minnesota risk analysis, see Steve Ackerlund's Human Health Risk chapter in the Essar Steel SEIS on this Minnesota DNR web site.
EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP, links here) appears to be at least one of the foundational guidelines for conducting these analyses. Minnesota's AERA guideline document includes it as a reference. Chapter 7 of the HHRAP describes how to calculate cancer risk from Unit Risk Factors and non-cancer "hazard quotients" from Reference Concentrations (RfC). Chapter 7 also teases that it might provide target values, but it just says target values are "set by the permitting authority."
**
Here's a spreadsheet with a partial listing of screening threshold values from Montana's incinerator rule at ARM 17.8.770(1)(c). (Please replace it if you create or come across a more complete accounting.)
This is a description of a screening level human health risk assessment conducted by Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for a lime plant permit for Synergy Management (CRC205638). This write-up (along with a table of results not included here) was presented in Appendix A of the draft Technical Support Document accompanying a draft permit (T181-26877-00050) for public review. It's relatively straightforward and addresses calculation of and thresholds for chronic cancer and non-cancer risks. This is the spreadsheet that corresponds to this particular analysis.
This EPA web site includes a document, "Table 1," that lists chronic exposure thresholds for individual HAPs. I presume the IDEM analyses above uses these values, but I've only confirmed that for two HAPs; they may have relied on other sources for some thresholds. The web site also includes accute exposure thresholds in "Table 2," but I haven't seen those used. This site describes the sources of the threshold exposure values.
For a different approach to evaluating health risk from exposure to air pollutants, see Minnesota's Air Emissions Risk Analysis web site. They have a very well-developed process, including a downloadable spreadsheet that calculates pollutant concentrations without modeling and calculates risk factors. For an example of a Minnesota risk analysis, see Steve Ackerlund's Human Health Risk chapter in the Essar Steel SEIS on this Minnesota DNR web site.
EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP, links here) appears to be at least one of the foundational guidelines for conducting these analyses. Minnesota's AERA guideline document includes it as a reference. Chapter 7 of the HHRAP describes how to calculate cancer risk from Unit Risk Factors and non-cancer "hazard quotients" from Reference Concentrations (RfC). Chapter 7 also teases that it might provide target values, but it just says target values are "set by the permitting authority."
**
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Proposed Utility MACT
The proposal was published yesterday in the federal register. This EPA site contains a link to the FR proposal.
Here's an article critical of the proposal. It points out that EPA formerly found that only mercury emissions posed a risk that warranted review under Section 112, but the proposal addresses several other toxics. It also talks about the cumulative effect of several proposed rules set to hit coal-fired utilities around 2015.
This article includes a good concise history and explanation of Section 112 of the CAA in general and of the Utility MACT in specific.
This site contains two presumably less biased evaluations of the proposal from the bipartisan policy center.
While this article is not directly related to the proposed MACT, it does provide some very interesting perspective about the prospects of renewable energy sources filling the void as we drive conventional sources out of business. The main thesis is that we don't just need to replace coal/nuclear/natural gas, we need to replace them with sources that are able "to provide just the right amount of controllable power at any specified time to match demand at all times." It also talks about the falicy of being able to regulate ourselves into prosperity ( Henry Hazlitt’s Broken Window fallacy) and about the problem of just using more energy as we improve efficiency (Jevon’s Paradox).
Here's an article critical of the proposal. It points out that EPA formerly found that only mercury emissions posed a risk that warranted review under Section 112, but the proposal addresses several other toxics. It also talks about the cumulative effect of several proposed rules set to hit coal-fired utilities around 2015.
This article includes a good concise history and explanation of Section 112 of the CAA in general and of the Utility MACT in specific.
This site contains two presumably less biased evaluations of the proposal from the bipartisan policy center.
While this article is not directly related to the proposed MACT, it does provide some very interesting perspective about the prospects of renewable energy sources filling the void as we drive conventional sources out of business. The main thesis is that we don't just need to replace coal/nuclear/natural gas, we need to replace them with sources that are able "to provide just the right amount of controllable power at any specified time to match demand at all times." It also talks about the falicy of being able to regulate ourselves into prosperity ( Henry Hazlitt’s Broken Window fallacy) and about the problem of just using more energy as we improve efficiency (Jevon’s Paradox).
NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ (RICE) Applicability Tool
Click on this blog title to open EPA's tool for determining applicability and applicable requirements for a specific engine. The Regulation Navigation (Reg Nav) tool is a TurboTax-like software program that guides the user through a set of questions and provides a web link to regulatory text that applies to a particular engine. The information entered into the tool is not saved and cannot be accessed by EPA.
____
____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
