AERMOD dispersion modeling, ambient monitoring, permit applications,
and agency coordination for new construction, modifications, and existing facilities.
A dispersion modeling result that shows an exceedance late in a project is expensive in a way few other findings are. It can force equipment changes, stack redesign, or site relocation after the capital has been committed.
Modeling early, coordinating with the agency before you submit, and building the application on emissions calculations that hold up under review is how permits get issued on schedule. IES does the modeling and the permitting together, so the analysis is done by the people who know what the application has to survive.
Capabilities
Refined modeling for criteria pollutants and air toxics: receptor grid design, terrain and building downwash, meteorological data selection and processing, and background concentration development.
Modeling is a design tool, not only a permit requirement. For new construction or modifications, running it during design shows which controls, stack heights, or stack locations will meet the standard while those choices are still inexpensive to change.
Submitting a protocol and getting agency concurrence before the refined analysis is the highest-return step in most permitting projects. It converts a subjective review into an agreed set of assumptions.
Potential-to-emit and actual emissions for engines, turbines, heaters, flares, tanks, loading, and fugitives. The calculation basis drives applicability, which drives your whole permit path.
Minor and major source applications, construction permits, general permit registrations, Title V applications and renewals, and modifications, prepared and shepherded through agency review.
Whether a project triggers New Source Review, whether netting applies, whether a modification is major, and whether Title V obligations attach.
Where an application rests on emission factors that do not reflect your equipment, we can measure. Measured inputs are harder for a reviewer to challenge.
Nearby Facilities Affecting Yours
When your site ends up in someone else's model
A site can be running normally, within its permit, and still end up in a modeled exceedance it had no part in starting.
When a new or modified source nearby goes through a PSD analysis, the cumulative modeling can include existing sources in the area. Yours may be one of them. If the combined results show an exceedance, your facility can draw agency attention, data requests, or pressure to reduce emissions, all triggered by another operator's project.
The inventory used to represent your site in that analysis is often the weak point. It may rest on permitted maximums rather than actual operation, outdated stack parameters, or equipment that has since been changed. We review how your facility was represented, correct what is wrong, run an independent analysis where it helps, and handle the response to the agency.
Air permitting for criteria pollutants operates under NAAQS, New Source Review, and Title V, on authority separate from the greenhouse gas programs that have seen the most change.
State permitting programs are likewise independent. The obligations here have been stable, and demand has been growing as new generation and large-load projects come forward.
These are examples, not a limit. If your facility carries a permit obligation, we can model it.
We flag exceedance risk at step two, not step four. That is the difference between a design adjustment and a project delay.
The least expensive time to find a modeling problem is before equipment is ordered. Bring us the project early and we will tell you which permit path you are on.
AERMOD is EPA's preferred steady-state dispersion model for near-field regulatory applications. It predicts ambient concentrations from modeled sources at defined receptors, and results are compared against ambient standards or applicable increments.
It depends on the permit type, the pollutants, and the state. Major source permits generally require it. Many minor source permits require modeling only above certain emission levels or for specific pollutants. Some states require it broadly. We determine this during applicability screening.
Cumulative modeling for a nearby project can include existing sources in the area. If your facility is represented with outdated or overstated inputs, it can appear to contribute to an exceedance that does not reflect how you actually operate.
Yes, and that is often where it pays for itself. Modeling during design shows which controls, stack heights, and stack locations will meet the standard while those choices are still easy to change.
Options include refining inputs, revising stack parameters, changing equipment or controls, adjusting site layout, or accepting operating limits. Where the model is simply too conservative, ambient monitoring can demonstrate compliance with measured data instead.
When a facility cannot show compliance through modeling but may well be meeting the standard in reality. Monitoring requires an agreed protocol, a proper siting study, and sustained operation, so it is a longer commitment than modeling, but it replaces a conservative prediction with an actual measurement.
It varies widely, from weeks for a general permit registration to a year or more for a major source permit with refined modeling and public comment. Agency review time is usually the largest and least controllable component, which is why pre-coordination matters.
Schedule a free consultation and IES will scope the engagement around your facilities, reporting obligations, and timeline.
Whether you're facing a new reporting requirement, planning a field measurement campaign, or navigating a shifting regulatory landscape, the right guidance early on saves time and reduces risk down the road. Schedule a free consultation and let's map out what your next project needs to succeed.
Copyright © 2026 . IES - All Rights Reserved. EnviroDesk is under active development.