Modeling & Monitoring Update - PowerPoint Presentation

Modeling & Monitoring Update Todd Rinck EPA Region 4, APTMD Fall 2016 Region 4 Air Directors’ Meeting St. Petersburg, Florida November 9, 2016

Alternative Model Approvals Alternative model approval requirements are contained in EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR Part 51, Appx. W, Section 3.2.2) EPA Regions approve alternative models, including AERMOD beta options. Approvals must be done in consultation and concurrence with the Model Clearinghouse, which allows for national consistency in approvals and transparency with stakeholders. NO 2 Tier 3 proposals require RO approval, no Model Clearinghouse concurrence Dec. 10, 2015 EPA memo clarified recommended/preferred model “beta options” If a beta option in a EPA preferred model is used, then preferred model status is changed to alternative model and is subject to Appendix W, Section 3.2.2 requirements.

Modeling for SO 2 DRR Sources Round 3 Designations required by December 2017 All R4 states provided required Modeling Protocols and Monitor Siting information by the July 1, 2016, due date. Thank You!R4 staff have reviewed, provided comments on Modeling Protocols for 50 DRR facilities R4 staff are working with states to address issues identified in our comments Modeling reports/results are due by January 13, 2017 Alabama – 8 facilities Georgia – 5 facilities Florida – 11 facilities Kentucky – 10 facilities Mississippi – 3 facilities (1 shutting down) North Carolina – 5 facilities South Carolina – 5 facilities Tennessee – 3 facilities

Monitoring for the SO 2 DRR Sources Round 4 Designations required to be complete by December 2020 R4 approved/expects to approve monitors in 7 areas where states are choosing ambient monitoring to characterize impacts by 2020 (Round 4 designations) 1 area in AL, 1 area in GA, 1 area in KY (2 sources-1 monitor), 4 areas in NC (maybe 5)R4 reviewed modeling used to site SO2 DRR monitors. Siting followed the SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document R4 monitoring and modeling staff worked closely with state staff to identify appropriate monitoring locations R4 monitoring staff visited each proposed monitoring site with states staff

NATTS Updates Final NATTS TAD was sent to agencies on October 25 th EPA received 1,200 comments on revision 2 of the TAD A workgroup including SLT stakeholders addressed the comments Plan is to disseminate comment resolution detailsCompliance is expected by the end of October 2017Updates include: Analyte identification guidance Quality systems guidance & reqmts Equipment calibration Validation tables VOCs – subambient vs pressurized Siting criteria Method Detection Limits (MDLs) AQS guidance for reporting

Network Plan Technical Requirements 40 CFR§58.10(a)(1) -- The plan shall include a statement of whether the operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, B, C, D, and E of this part, where applicable. A recent Region 6 EPA IG report found: “The annual plans did not provide evidence that each monitoring site met regulatory siting criteria.” EPA “could improve its review process to better ensure that annual plans are more complete and accurate, to provide reasonable assurance that monitors are located in representative areas and are operated in accordance with EPA requirements.”

Network Plan Public Inspection and Comment The recent Monitoring Rule Revision modified the network plan public inspection and comment requirements (40 CFR §58.10(a)(1)) The annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection and comment for at least 30 days prior to submission to the EPA and The submitted plan shall include and address, as appropriate, any received comments.

Evidence of Meeting QA Requirements in Network Plans Region 4 asks agencies to include a list of their QA documents and the approval dates in their annual network plans

Evidence of Meeting Siting Criteria in Network Plans In the past, agencies have stated in their plans that all of their sites meet siting criteria. Recent TSAs have found siting issues. Region 4 is now requiring that agencies provide a minimal amount of information to verify that sites meet these criteria. *This tape measure is not NIST certified...probably.

Evidence of Meeting Siting Criteria in Network Plans Photos: N, S, E, W At a minimum, photos should be updated for each 5yr assessment. Ideally photos should be updated each year Date of last site evaluation Ideally agencies should evaluate sites once a yearInclude information in the plan:Probe heightDistance to nearest obstructionsCorrective actions planned or taken to correct deficiencies

Questions? 11

CitySpace Air Sensor Research Project in Memphis, Tennessee Participants and Collaborators: EPA Regions 4, 6, and 7; EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD); Memphis and Shelby County Health Department; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality; Memphis Area Transit Authority; University of Memphis Objectives: Field-test new, lower-cost PM sensors in the Memphis area. Understand how this emerging technology can add valuable information about air pollution patterns in neighborhoods. Fact Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/air-research/cityspace-air-sensor-network-project-conducted-test-new-monitoring-capabilities

CitySpace Air Sensor Research Project in Memphis, Tennessee Sensor pods were installed at 16 sites in October 2016, and will continue monitoring until February 2017 Two additional sites to be installed in November Each sensor pod continuously measures: PM in various size increments Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and humidity Monitoring locations were selected with input from the local community, and by using mapping tools developed by EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities research program Several monitors are co-located with regulatory PM 2.5 monitors

C ommunity Air Sens or Network (CAIRSENSE) Project Overview Participants: EPA Regions 4, 1, 5, 7, and 8; EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD); EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS); and Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment; Jacobs Technology (ORD contract support). Objectives: 1. Evaluate in situ the long-term comparability of several lower cost sensors of interest against regulatory monitors. 2. Determine the capabilities and limitations of a long-term multi-node wireless sensor network applied for community air monitoring, in terms of operational stability (communications, power) and long-term data quality under ambient conditions . Research findings available: https://www.epa.gov/air-sensor-toolbox/air-sensor-toolbox-resources-and-funding#RTF

CAIRSENSE Correlation matrix (Pearson correlation) of 12-hr average PM between sensors and co-located FEM SAFT-Egg 3 Dust SAFT-Egg 1 Dust SAFT-Egg 2 Dust SAFT-Shinyei 2 SAFT-Shinyei 1 SAFT- Dylos 1 S SAFT- Airbeam 3 SAFT- Airbeam 2 SAFT- Airbeam 1 SAFT- Dylos 3 S SAFT- Dylos 2 S FEM PM 2.5 SAFT- MetOne 3 SAFT- MetOne 1 SAFT- MetOne 2 WSN-N4 Shinyei SAFT-Egg 3 Dust SAFT-Egg 1 Dust SAFT-Egg 2 Dust SAFT-Shinyei 2 SAFT-Shinyei 1 SAFT- Dylos 1 S SAFT- Airbeam 3 SAFT- Airbeam 2 SAFT- Airbeam 1 SAFT- Dylos 3 S SAFT- Dylos 2 S FEM PM 2.5 SAFT- MetOne 3 SAFT- MetOne 1 SAFT- MetOne 2 WSN-N4 Shinyei Moderate to high correlation between most identical units Variable correlation with reference (r = -0.06 to 0.68)

CAIRSENSE Correlation Matrix of Hourly Average O 3 between Sensors and Co-located FEM FEM O 3 WSN N4-Aeroqual SAFT-Aeroqual 1 SAFT-Aeroqual 2 SAFT-AQMesh 1 SAFT-AQMesh 2 SAFT_CairClip 1 (-FEM NO 2 ) WSN N4- CairClip (-FEM NO 2 ) FEM O 3 WSN N4-Aeroqual SAFT-Aeroqual 1 SAFT-Aeroqual 2 SAFT-AQMesh 1 SAFT-AQMesh 2 SAFT_CairClip 1 (-FEM NO 2 ) WSN N4-CairClip (-FEM NO 2 ) Variable correlation with reference (r = 0.15 to 0.95) Strong correlation between identical units

The following slides are topics that I expect Chet to cover, but in case he doesn’t address all of them we can include these slides. Otherwise, we can leave them out.

Proposed Revisions to Appendix W Guidelines EPA Proposed Revisions to Appendix W on July 14, 2015 Public Hearing held and Comment Period closed October 27, 2015 Final revisions expected November 2016 – Currently in OMB review process EPA’s OAQPS and Model Clearinghouse are responsible for the development and proposal of all preferred models or techniques per Appendix W, Section 3.1. Major Proposed changes include: Codifying the process of the Regional Offices consulting and coordinating with the Model Clearinghouse on all approvals of alternative models and techniquesFor long-range air quality assessments, the EPA is proposing to remove CALPUFF as a preferred model Incorporate current modeling techniques to address the secondary chemical formation of fine particle and ozone pollution from direct, single source emissions To provide more flexibility and improve the meteorological inputs used for regulatory modeling

PM 2.5 and Ozone Significant Impact Level (SIL) Guidance Recommends PM 2.5 and Ozone SILs and provides a stronger technical basis for SILsDraft ozone and PM2.5 SIL guidance posted online on August 1, 2016, updated on August 8, 2016Guidance and Supporting documents (including the technical basis document) were made available for informal review and comment through September 30, 2016EPA plans to issue final guidance by the end on 2016Additional information available at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/nsr/webinar-draft-sils-guidance-august-24-2016 Please contact Jennifer Shaltanis at OAQPS with any questions at 919-541-2580 or shaltanis.jennifer@epa.gov

Model Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) Guidance SILs guidance will be complemented by the development of MERPs guidance (NOx and VOC for ozone) and (NOx and SO 2 for PM 2.5) Used as a tier 1 “screening tool” to determine if modeling is requiredIntertwined with SILsEPA has switched to near-term guidance for quicker response instead of a rulemaking as originally plannedNote: There will not be a single national number for MERPs Guidance will provide recommended procedure for developing regional, state-specific MERPs Draft MERPs guidance expected soon (review and comment) Final MERPs guidance expected shortly after SIL guidance