GA EPD Permit & SIP Modeling Update James W. Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch Manager, Data and Modeling Unit AWMA Regulatory Update Conference.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SEMAP Modeling Plans and Status James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch SEMAP Air Quality Modeling Lead 2012 Spring Grants/Planning Meeting.
Advertisements

Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.
Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part II) Reece Parker and Justin Cherry, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
Update: National Ambient Air Quality Standards Association of California Airports September 15, 2010 Phil DeVita.
TCEQ Air Permits Division Justin Cherry, P.E. Ahmed Omar Stephen F. Austin State University February 28, 2013.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Atlanta PM2.5 Attainment Modeling with AERMOD Yan Huang, James Boylan, Peter Courtney, and Michelle Bergin (Georgia.
Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.
Talat Odman and Yongtao Hu, Georgia Tech Zac Adelman, Mohammad Omary and Uma Shankar, UNC James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim, Georgia DNR.
Spatial Variability of Seasonal PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2014.
DEP’s Air Regulatory Update
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NO 2 and SO 2 – New Modeling Challenges August 4, 2011 Air & Waste Management Association – Southern Section.
Environmental Protection Division 1 AWMA Georgia Air Update August 10, 2007 Heather Abrams, Branch Chief.
1 An Update on EPA Attainment Modeling Guidance for the 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS/EMAD/AQMG November 16, 2005.
Air Quality Beyond Ozone and PM2.5 Sheila Holman North Carolina Division of Air Quality 6 th Annual Unifour Air Quality Conference June 15, 2012.
Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States Prepared by the WESTAR Planning Committee for the Fall Business Meeting, Tempe, AZ October 31, 2011.
A&WMA Georgia Regulatory Update Conference Current State of the Air in GA Jac Capp, GA EPD, Branch Chief, Air Protection Branch April 16, 2013.
Minnesota Air Quality and Attainment Status Frank Kohlasch Kari Palmer Statewide Travel Demand Coordinating Committee Meeting October 14, 2010.
EPA Update- Bob Judge Maine Air Quality Monitoring Committee April 18, ) NAAQS schedule 2) Budget 3) Technical Systems Audit.
IOWA Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Program Development Jim McGraw Environmental Program Supervisor  8 hr Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation.
AWMA – Georgia Chapter Air Permitting Update April 16, 2013 Eric Cornwell Stationary Source Permitting Program.
2018 CO 2 Emission Projections for the SESARM States Prepared by: Byeong-Uk Kim, Jim Boylan, and Keith Bentley GA EPD – Air Protection Branch October 22,
GA EPD Air Protection Branch AWMA Southern Section August 2015.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC SO 2 Data Requirements Rule – A Proactive Compliance Approach Mark Wenclawiak, CCM |
Development of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2012 CMAS Conference October 16,
Environmental Protection Division Air Quality Update Georgia EPD Jimmy Johnston Georgia Environmental Protection Division August 5, 2010.
Air Quality Policy Division D P A Q PM 2.5 Final NSR Implementation Rule Nat’l Tribal Air Assoc. July 16, 2008.
EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS.
Proposed Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, and Proposed FY2007 Air Monitoring Guidance WESTAR Spring Business Meeting March 28, 2006.
Early Action Compacts Presented by Karen Borel EPA Region 4 March 25, 2003.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Links Between Air Pollution in Georgia and Cindy Crawford: Shortness of breath, increased heart rates, and what.
Forty-five Years of the Clean Air Act Ron Gore ADEM August,2015.
1 Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results April 27, 2009 MWAQC TAC June 15, 2009.
Preparation of Control Strategies October 18, 2007 NAAQS RIA Workshop Darryl Weatherhead, Kevin Culligan, Serpil Kayin, David Misenheimer, Larry Sorrels.
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
INCORPORATING UNCERTAINTY INTO AIR QUALITY MODELING & PLANNING – A CASE STUDY FOR GEORGIA 7 th Annual CMAS Conference 6-8 th October, 2008 Antara Digar,
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Current Status of Air Quality Laura Boothe North Carolina Division of Air Quality MCIC Workshops March 2012.
VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.
1 Mississippi Air Quality Update Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality Air Division August 5, 2011.
Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation WESTAR Conference on BART Guidelines and Trading September 1, 2005 Tom Moore -
Proposed Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models
A&WMA Southern Section Annual Meeting Biloxi, MS September 12, 2012 Carla Brown, P.E. MS Dept. of Environmental Quality
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
Permitting and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Changes Rick Goertz, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced.
Resource Management Planning Air Quality Brock LeBaron Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE Briefing for OTC Committees and Stakeholder Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, DC Julie McDill & Susan Wierman 1.
OAQPS Update WESTAR April 3,  On March 12, 2008, EPA significantly strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level.
Stephen F. Austin State University February 27, 2014 Justin Cherry, P.E. Reece Parker TCEQ Air Permits Division.
N EW Y ORK S TATE D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL C ONSERVATION Short Term Ambient Air Quality Standards and The Effect on Permitting Margaret Valis NESCAUM,
NAAQS Status in GA & PSD Inventory Update James W. Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch Manager, Planning & Support Program AWMA Regulatory Update.
Regulatory background How these standards could impact the permitting process How is compliance with the standards assessed.
Jerry Beasley, Ph.D., P.E. Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality MMA Environmental & Safety Conference and Expo October 16, 2015.
New Ozone NAAQS Impacts: What Happens Next with a Lower O3 Standard? Nonattainment Designation and Industry’s Opportunity to Participate New Ozone NAAQS.
VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling
Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.
SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia.
GA EPD Air Protection Branch Update
Byeong-Uk Kim and Jim Boylan Planning and Support Program
Draft Modeling Protocol for PM2.5
2017 Projections and Interstate Transport of Ozone in Southeastern US Talat Odman & Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia EPD 16th Annual.
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs
CAIR Replacement Rule and Regional Haze
Proposed Ozone Monitoring Revisions Ozone Season and Methods
Impact of NOx Emissions in Georgia on Annual PM2.5
Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States
PM2.5 NSR and Designations
Air Update, Georgia EPD Karen Hays Chief, Air Protection Branch
EPA Region 4 Spring Grants/Planning Meeting
Presentation transcript:

GA EPD Permit & SIP Modeling Update James W. Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch Manager, Data and Modeling Unit AWMA Regulatory Update Conference May 1, 2014 – Atlanta, GA

2 Data & Modeling Unit Keith Bentley Air Protection Branch Jimmy Johnston, P.E. Planning & Support Program Jim Boylan, Ph.D. Data & Modeling Unit Permit Modeling Team Yan Huang, Ph.D. Henian Zhang, Ph.D. Yunhee Kim, Ph.D. SIP Modeling Team Byeong Kim, Ph.D. Tao Zeng, Ph.D. Di Tian, Ph.D.

Permit Modeling Update

Permit Modeling Steady-State Gaussian plume dispersion models: AERMOD and ISC

6 Permit Modeling Guidance Georgia EPD PSD Permit Application Guidance Document (09/18/12) – guidance_document.htm Guideline for Ambient Impact Assessment of Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions, 1998 – erforms/infodocs/toxguide.pdf Guideline for Modeling PM10 Ambient Concentration in Areas Impacted by Quarry Operation Producing Crushed Stone - August 7, 2012 – p/modeling/quarryguideline_august2012.pdf

7 Meteorological Data GA EPD has develop 5-years of AERMET meteorological data for each ASOS surface and upper air pairing –Pairing based on distance, climatological zone, and data completeness criteria – data, except KAMG/KJAX is –Last updated on April 4, 2013 All data sets are available on-line – ling/aermetdata.htm

8 Surface Roughness Update Previously, EPD provided data sets with three different surface roughness values (0.05, 0.5, 1.0) and the applicant ran AERSURFACE at the project site to find the most representative value. Now, meteorological data is processed using the surface roughness at the airport –12 different sectors Applicant will provide a justification for representativeness in modeling protocol

9 Surface/Upper Station Pairings

10 Background Concentrations GA EPD has develop background concentrations for each county based on the design values –PM10, PM2.5, SO 2, NO 2, CO, Pb Will update to design values by the end of May All data sets are available on-line – deling.htm

11 Off-Site Emissions Inventory GA EPD will create a statewide emission inventory for the PSD air impact analysis –NAAQS & Increment –PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO 2, and CO –Follow 40 CFR 51 Appendix W –Contractor support from AMEC GA EPD will maintain future updates to the emission inventory through the permit application process. All emissions will be available on-line

12 Secondary Impacts In 2012, EPA granted the Sierra Club’s Petition to engage in rule making to evaluate updates to Appendix W and, as appropriate, incorporate new analytical techniques or models for ozone and secondary PM2.5. –AERMOD does not have the ability to model ozone and secondary PM2.5 impacts EPA’s Timeline –11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling (2014)

13 Options to Consider… SCI-CHEM and CALPUFF –Lagrangian dispersion models with full chemistry PM2.5 Off-Set Trading Ratios –EPA’s default 40:1 for SO2:PM2.5 and 200:1 for NOx:PM2.5 were withdrawn by EPA –Need to perform region specific fine grid photochemical modeling to develop new ratios Ozone Emission Sensitivities –ppb ozone/ton NOx, ppb ozone/ton VOC Full blown photochemical modeling? –Resource intensive (computer and personnel)

PM2.5 Offset Ratios - Annual

SO 2 and NOx offset ratios vary by season of the year and distance from the source: DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km80:135:120:140:1 1 – 4 km40:120:110:125:1 4 – 10 km25:110:17:118:1 > 10 km15:17:15:110:1 DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km250:150:1 120:1 1 – 4 km160:135:1 120:1 4 – 10 km80:120:1 N/A > 10 km40:120:1 N/A SO 2 Ratios NOx Ratios PM2.5 Offset Ratios - Seasonal

Tier 1 Approach DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km80:135:120:140:1 1 – 4 km40:120:110:125:1 4 – 10 km25:110:17:118:1 > 10 km15:17:15:110:1 DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km250:150:1 120:1 1 – 4 km160:135:1 120:1 4 – 10 km80:120:1 N/A > 10 km40:120:1 N/A SO 2 Ratios NOx Ratios Tier 1 “equivalent” direct PM2.5 emissions from SO 2 and NOx can be accounted for by scaling the standard AERMOD output files.

Tier 2 Approach DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km80:135:120:140:1 1 – 4 km40:120:110:125:1 4 – 10 km25:110:17:118:1 > 10 km15:17:15:110:1 DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km250:150:1 120:1 1 – 4 km160:135:1 120:1 4 – 10 km80:120:1 N/A > 10 km40:120:1 N/A SO 2 Ratios NOx Ratios Tier 2 “equivalent” direct PM2.5 emissions from SO 2 and NOx can be accounted for by scaling the standard AERMOD output files.

Tier 3 Approach DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km80:135:120:140:1 1 – 4 km40:120:110:125:1 4 – 10 km25:110:17:118:1 > 10 km15:17:15:110:1 DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km250:150:1 120:1 1 – 4 km160:135:1 120:1 4 – 10 km80:120:1 N/A > 10 km40:120:1 N/A SO 2 Ratios NOx Ratios Tier 3 “equivalent” direct PM2.5 emissions from SO 2 and NOx should be added to the actual direct PM2.5 emissions prior to running AERMOD.

Tier 4 Approach DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km80:135:120:140:1 1 – 4 km40:120:110:125:1 4 – 10 km25:110:17:118:1 > 10 km15:17:15:110:1 DistanceQ1Q2Q3Q4 < 1 km250:150:1 120:1 1 – 4 km160:135:1 120:1 4 – 10 km80:120:1 N/A > 10 km40:120:1 N/A SO 2 Ratios NOx Ratios Tier 4 “equivalent” direct PM2.5 emissions from SO 2 and NOx will require scaling quarterly AERMOD outputs followed by recalculation of annual and daily PM2.5 impacts.

Example PSD Application Direct PM2.5 emissions = TYP SO 2 emissions = TPY NOx emissions = TPY PM2.5 Scaling Factor = (SO2 TPY/SO2 Ratio) + (NOx TPY/NOx Ratio) + PM2.5 TPY PM2.5 TPY Distance Q3 SO2 Ratio Q3 NOx Ratio Scaling Factor < 1 km km km > 10 km

Annual PM2.5 – No Secondary

Annual PM2.5 – Tier 1

Annual PM2.5 vs. SIL

Daily PM2.5 – No Secondary

Daily PM2.5 – Tier 1

Daily PM2.5 – Tier 2

Daily PM2.5 vs. SIL

Can I Use These Offset Ratios? GA EPD will not require applicants to account for secondary PM2.5 formation until the final EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance is released. –DO NOT USE THE OFFSET RATIOS IN THIS PRESENTATION WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM GA EPD. Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches involve directly scaling the standard AERMOD output files. Tier 3 approach involves scaling actual direct PM2.5 emissions prior to running AERMOD. Tier 4 approach will require scaling quarterly AERMOD outputs followed by recalculation of annual and daily PM2.5 impacts.

SIP Modeling Update

30 Attainment SIP Updates Georgia is meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS (85 ppb) and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (15  g/m 3 ) –Ozone maintenance plan for Atlanta was approved –PM2.5 maintenance plans for Atlanta, Macon, Floyd County, and Chattanooga are pending Atlanta was designed nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (75 ppb) –15 counties –“Marginal” ozone areas do not require modeling Georgia did not recommend any areas non- attainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (12  g/m 3 ) –Waiting for EPA official designations

31 SEMAP Project SouthEastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning (SEMAP) Project –Managed through SESARM –Same group of states that were involved with SAMI, VISTAS, and ASIP AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV 2007 and 2018 annual modeling with CMAQv5.01 –36 km (CONUS) and 12 km grids –Ozone, PM2.5, Regional Haze

CMAQ is a Grid-Based Model SiSi SiSi RiRi uiui uiui uiui KiKi KiKi KiKi

33 SEMAP 12-km Modeling Domain

34 Air Quality Modeling System Meteorology (WRF) Air Quality (CMAQ) Emissions (SMOKE) Emissions Inventory (NIF) MOVES Rates

35

36

2007 Ozone Design Values 37

Ozone Design Values

39 Ozone Sensitivities Start with 2018 modeling results Perform emission sensitivity runs –Ozone season (5 months) on 12-km grid –Statewide 30% emission reductions NO x and VOCs individually Point, area, mobile, NONROAD, MAR –14 geographic regions Ten individual SEMAP states Maryland MANE-VU (minus MD), LADCO, CENRAP –2 precursors x 14 regions = 28 model runs

40

41

Normalized Sensitivities Divided the relative sensitivity from MATS for the home state by the annual average emissions reduction (ppt/TPD) – (  DVF NOx x 1000)/TPD NOx – (  DVF VOC x 1000)/TPD VOC Created stacked bar charts of normalized NOx and VOC sensitivities for each monitor Calculated state average normalized NOx and VOC sensitivities Calculated ratio of normalized NOx sensitivity to normalized VOC sensitivity for each monitor 42

43 Emission Reductions (30%) NOx (TPD)VOC (TPD) Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia11153

44

45

NOx vs. VOC Ratios 46

Interstate Contributions Examined state-by-state contributions at downwind sites with DVF > 75 ppb in 2018 Divided state-by-state 30% NOx contributions from MATS by 0.3 to obtain 100% NOx contribution from each state –Assumes NOx sensitivities are linear to 100% Removed contributions from non-SEMAP states and from home states Identified SEMAP states that contributed more than various thresholds: –1.0 ppb –0.75 ppb 47

NAA State Contributions 48 STATESiteDV-2007DV-2018 (1x1)ALFLGAKYMSNCSCTNVAWV CT CT GA GA GA GA LA LA LA LA LA LA MI MI MI MO MO MO MO NJ NJ NY NY NY NY TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX WI

49 SEMAP Next Steps Examine SEMAP 2018 projections for PM 2.5 and Regional Haze Replicate EPA 2011 and 2018 modeling –May adjust 2018 EGUs based on ERTAC model –May replace SMOKE-MOVES emissions with inventory mode MOVES –May adjust VOC emissions from fires –May perform NOx emission sensitivities Create 2028 emission inventory and perform 2028 modeling for Regional Haze

SO 2 SIP Modeling Update

51 EPA SO 2 Documents and Rules SO 2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document –December, 2013 SO 2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document –December, 2013 Data Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) –April 17, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions –April 23, 2014

52 SO 2 Designations Round 1 –October 4, 2013: EPA designated 29 areas nonattainment in 16 states based on monitored violations –SIPs are due April 4, 2015 (18 months after effective date) Round 2 –January 15, 2016: States submit list of SO2 sources to EPA and indicate modeling or monitoring approach Also, modeling protocols are due at this time –January 13, 2017: Modeling analyses due to EPA –December, 2017: EPA makes designations based on modeling analysis Round 3 –July 1, 2016: States submit monitoring details to EPA as part of their annual monitoring network plan –January 1, 2017: New monitors operational –2020: EPA makes designations based on monitoring data

53 SO 2 Threshold Options

54 Large SO 2 Sources in Georgia Site NameCounty2010 (TPY)2011 (TPY)2012 (TPY)Option 1Option 2Option 3 Ga Power Company - Plant BowenBartow 7, , ,118.87Yes Ga Power Company - Plant KraftChatham 8, , ,190.13No International Paper - SavannahChatham 5, , ,622.41YesNo Southern States Phosphate & FertilizerChatham 1, ,194.00No Ga Power Company - Plant McDonough/AtkinsonCobb 17, , No Ga Power Company - Plant YatesCoweta 54, , ,788.83Yes Georgia-Pacific Corp Cedar Springs OperationEarly 3, , No Ga Power Co Plt McIntoshEffingham 2, No Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products (Savannah River Mill)Effingham 3, , ,036.25YesNo Ga Power Company - Plant HammondFloyd 2, , No TEMPLE INLAND (International Paper - Rome)Floyd 2, , ,158.63YesNo Ga Power Company - Plant WansleyHeard 2, , ,101.73Yes No SP Newsprint Company, LLCLaurens 1, , ,407.30No Ga Power Company - Plant SchererMonroe 69, , ,347.74Yes Ga Power Company - Plant BranchPutnam 53, , ,984.20Yes Thermal CeramicsRichmond 1, ,698.02No International Paper - Augusta MillRichmond 2, , No * BOLD indicates source is in a CBSA > 1M ** RED HIGHLIGHT indicates source will retire or converting to natural gas by 2016 Based on 2012 SO 2 emissions –Option 1  6 sources –Option 2  3 sources –Option 3  2 sources

SO 2 Emissions X X

Max. SO 2 Emissions X X X

Jim Boylan, Ph.D. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA Contact Information