It’s been awhile since I’ve written but I’m still here. Over the last few months, I’ve been learning air dispersion modeling. For those of you unfamiliar with modeling, since that was the boat I was in before starting at Trinity, here’s a quick overview. EPA has standards for the maximum allowable concentration of certain air pollutants in ambient air, referred to as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). For projects which will result in an increase of a pollutant above a specified level, air dispersion modeling must be done to show that the project will not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS. The model used for this is AERMOD. You make a digital 3D model of your facility in AERMOD, including all buildings and emission points. Then you import terrain data for the surrounding area and five years worth of historical meteorological data. AERMOD uses advanced algorithms to calculate the resultant pollutant concentrations at a wide variety of receptor points. The facility must show that all of these resultant concentrations are below the NAAQS in order to move forward with construction.
Modeling is a career path that consultants have the option of choosing and most Trinity offices have at least one consultant that is capable of doing modeling. Modelers often have a background in meteorology but it isn’t a requirement, as shown by my mechanical engineering degree. The modeler in my office is moving to Trinity’s new Pittsburgh office, leaving a hole to fill. I had done one basic modeling analysis and enjoyed it, so I volunteered. I have been working with our current modeler to learn the ins and outs of modeling. I am enjoying it thus far. I wouldn’t want to model full-time but it is such a great change of pace from the other work we do.
The first step in my modeling training was an internal, introductory course of air dispersion modeling in Kansas City. About 30 consultants from Trinity offices across the country, who had been at Trinity for as little as a week to a couple of years, went to the Kansas City office to learn the basics over three days. It was a great opportunity to learn the basic principles and steps to a modeling analysis and to meet other consultants.
After coming back to the office, I’ve worked on several modeling projects. I did a modeling analysis from scratch for a manufacturing facility to show compliance with Maryland’s toxic air pollutant regulations. I’ve also worked on updating an existing model to determine if an existing facility is in compliance with new, more stringent NAAQS. I have also done screening analyses using AERSCREEN. AERSCREEN is a less rigorous but more conservative modeling technique. If a facility is expected to pass modeling, a screening test can be conducted prior to a full AERMOD analysis. Since AERSCREEN is much more conservative than AERMOD, if the model passes in AERSCREEN, there is no need to run the full AERMOD analysis. There are some limitations to AERSCREEN though, such as only being able to model one emission point at a time, that make its applicability somewhat limited.
In March, I also went to EPA’s 10th Modeling Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. A dozen Trinity employees went to the conference to hear about recent model updates and possible updates in the future. Attendees from Trinity ranged from people who do almost entirely modeling to me with only a few projects under my belt. It was a great experience for meeting established modelers within Trinity and seeing the other side of modeling - the actual development of regulations and models.
Learning and working on air dispersion modeling has been a great experience. It can be frustrating at times with the need to do multiple iterations or waiting several hours only to get failing results or realize there was error but it is great change from the other types of work we do.