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.
• NO2 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 SO2 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
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
• R4 staff are working with states to address issues identified in our comments
• Modeling reports/results are due by January 13, 2017
Monitoring for the SO2 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 25th
• 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 details
• Compliance is expected by the end of October 2017
• Updates include:
-
VOCs – subambient vs pressurized
Siting criteria
Method Detection Limits (MDLs)
AQS guidance for reporting
-
Analyte identification guidance
Quality systems guidance & reqmts
Equipment calibration
Validation tables
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 year
• Include information in the plan:
– Probe height
– Distance to nearest obstructions
– Corrective 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 PM2.5 monitors
Community Air Sensor 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-sensortoolbox/air-sensor-toolbox-resources-and-funding#RTF
CAIRSENSE Correlation matrix (Pearson correlation) of 12hr average PM between sensors and co-located FEM
Moderate to high correlation
between most identical units
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 PM2.5
SAFT- MetOne 3
SAFT- MetOne 1
SAFT- MetOne 2
WSN-N4 Shinyei
Variable correlation with
reference (r = -0.06 to 0.68)
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 PM2.5
SAFT- MetOne 3
SAFT- MetOne 1
SAFT- MetOne 2
WSN-N4 Shinyei
CAIRSENSE Correlation Matrix of Hourly Average O3 between
Sensors and Co-located FEM
Strong correlation between
identical units
SAFT-Aeroqual 2
SAFT-Aeroqual 1
FEM O3
WSN N4-Aeroqual
WSN N4CairClip (-FEM NO2)
SAFT-AQMesh 2
SAFT-AQMesh 1
Variable correlation with
reference (r = 0.15 to 0.95)
SAFT_CairClip 1
(-FEM NO2)
SAFT-Aeroqual 2
SAFT-Aeroqual 1
FEM O3
WSN N4-Aeroqual
WSN N4-CairClip
(-FEM NO2)
SAFT-AQMesh 2
SAFT-AQMesh 1
SAFT_CairClip 1
(-FEM NO2)
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 techniques
– For 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
Significant Impact Level (SIL) Guidance
2.5 and Ozone
• Recommends
PM and Ozone SILs and provides a stronger technical
2.5
•
•
•
•
•
basis for SILs
Draft ozone and PM2.5 SIL guidance posted online on August 1, 2016,
updated on August 8, 2016
Guidance and Supporting documents (including the technical basis
document) were made available for informal review and comment
through September 30, 2016
EPA plans to issue final guidance by the end on 2016
Additional 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 919-5412580 or [email protected]
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 SO2 for PM2.5)
– Used as a tier 1 “screening tool” to determine if modeling is required
– Intertwined with SILs
• EPA has switched to near-term guidance for quicker response instead of a
rulemaking as originally planned
• Note: 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