Summary of EPA Region 4 Modeling Activities EPA

Summary of EPA Region 4 Modeling Activities EPA REGION 4 SPRING GRANTS/PLANNING MEETING May 21 -23, 2019 1

Stan 2. 0 Region 4 Modeling Team Stan 2. 0 (Virtual Stan) Mike Moeller (Half-time modeling, half-time monitoring) Katie Walther Chris Howard Richard Monteith Rick Gillam Katy Lusky (honorary modeler – senior technical advisor) Todd Rinck (Supervisor) 2

FY 2018/2019 Significant Modeling Activities • PSD Permit Applications and Modeling Protocols • SO 2 Attainment Demonstration and Re-designation SIPs • DRR SO 2 On-Going Verification Annual Reports and Transport i. SIPs • Regional Haze Modeling • Held Region 4 State & Local Modeling Workshop in September 2018 • Attended 2019 EPA Regions, States and Locals Modelers Workshop in Seattle, Washington from May 6 -9, 2019 • Thank You for allowing your modeling staff to attend these beneficial workshops! 3

PSD/NSR Permit Modeling ◦ Reviewed and Commented on 16 PSD Permit Applications and 6 PSD Modeling Protocols in FY 2018 ◦ Reviewed 19 PSD Permit Application Modeling Projects so far in FY 2019 ◦ Reviewed 6 PSD Modeling Protocols reviewed so far in FY 2019 ◦ Outlook is for continued high volume of PSD modeling activity Issues and Questions: ◦ Single-source secondary ozone and PM 2. 5 analyses (MERPs Guidance) ◦ Challenging to apply MERPs for Class I area increment SILs assessment ◦ GA, TN and KY developed state-specific MERPs Guidance documents ◦ Modeling “Nearby Sources” with “typical operations” - Revisions to Table 8. 1 and 8. 2 in Appendix W ◦ Additional guidance on “significant concentration gradient” and determination of sources to explicitly model in cumulative modeling analyses is needed 4

Challenges Applying MERPs for Class I Increment Assessments o. Example: 24 -hr PM 2. 5 Class I SIL = 0. 27 ug/m 3 vs. Class II SIL = 1. 2 ug/m 3 o. If conservative “first-cut” MERPs approach is used, then may exceed the Class I SIL in many cases o. Region 4 Modeling Staff have worked with OAQPS to develop a more refined procedure using the results of the photochemical modeling done to establish the MERPs o. Region 4 Modeling Staff are available to assist and provide the data needed to apply this refined methodology 5

SO 2 Attainment Demonstration and Redesignation SIPs ◦ Round 1 Attainment Demonstration SIPs ◦ Jefferson County, Kentucky ◦ Final approval action nearing completion – May 2019 ◦ Sullivan County, Tennessee (Eastman Chemical Company) ◦ Newly deployed monitors showing exceedances of the NAAQS – Eastman evaluating additional controls ◦ Redesignation SIPs ◦ 2 Round 1 Areas in Florida (Hillsborough and Nassau Counties) ◦ Nassau County Redesignation Approved in April 2019 ◦ Hillsborough County Approval under final review ◦ Round 3 Hillsborough-Polk NAA ◦ Controls will be installed by August 2019 – draft Redesignation FR and TSD in development ◦ Plan to finalize in Sept 2019 after permit limits are effective and controls are in place. 6

DRR SO 2 On-Going Verification and Transport i. SIPs ◦ DRR Ongoing Verification ◦ Annual reports due by July 1, 2019, for areas designation A/U in Round 3 Designations ◦ 33 Areas in Region 4 have reports due ◦ Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida have submitted draft reports ◦ EPA Region 4 reviewed submittals and provided comments ◦ Georgia requested termination of reporting requirement for 2 areas ◦ Provided modeling for both areas showing max modeled values below 50% of the NAAQS using recent emissions ◦ Region 4 reviewed modeling and has approved termination for both areas ◦ Approval consists of a letter signed by the RA accompanied by a brief TSD ◦ Florida and South Carolina also interested terminating annual reporting requirement for 1 area in each state ◦ SO 2 Transport i. SIPs ◦ Assisting SIP Regulatory staff when submittals involve modeling ◦ NC performed additional modeling for a Round 4 source located within 50 km of border ◦ TN performed additional modeling for similar sources 7

Regional Haze Modeling ◦ Working with Mississippi to re-evaluate BART Modeling (sources that originally relied on “CAIR/CSAPR better than BART” ◦ 2 nd Round of Regional Haze SIPs ◦ Reviewed and approved VISTAS Modeling QAPP ◦ Reviewed and provided comments on Modeling Protocol (CAMx) ◦ Available to work with VISTAS to review modeling results and assist states as they prepare their Round 2 Regional Haze SIPs 8

Questions? Contact: Rick Gillam Air Data and Analysis Section EPA Region 4 404. 562. 9049 gillam. rick@epa. gov