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