Appendix 1

Florida Sulfur Dioxide ( SO 2 ) Monitoring Data

There are currently 19 SO

2 monitoring sites in the Florida network. Of these, three are currently (based

on 2008

- 2010 data) in violation of the 1

- hour ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion ( ppb )

. Compliance with this standard is based on the three

- year average of the 99 th percentile maximum daily

1

- hour average SO

2 concentration. This metric is referred to as the design value. The following map

shows the current design value for a ll the SO

2 monitoring sites in the state.

The three monitors with design values greater than 75 ppb are located in Hillsborough, Nassau, and

Escambia counties. Each of these monitors is located in close proximity to a large SO

2 source. The

Hillsborough County violating monitor (Gibsonton) is next to the Mosaic Riverview phosphate processing

plant, the Nassau County monitor (Fernandina Beach) is next to the Rayonier Performance Fibers mill

, and the Escambia County monitor (Ellyson) is located near the Gu lf Power Crist power plant. The table

below also provides the statewide data with the site name and county location.Site Name County 2008

- 2010 1

- hr SO

2

Design Value (ppb)

Fay Park Brevard 14

Lincoln Park Elem. Broward 41

Kooker Park Duval 15

Minerva Street Duval 17

Cedar Bay STP Duval 26

Fort Caroline Road Duval 18

Ellyson Escambia 79

White Springs Hamilton 23

Simmons Park Hillsborough 23

Gibsonton Hillsborough 110

Davis Island Hillsborough 47

Sydney Hillsborough 17

DOT Miami Miami

- Dade 2

Fern a ndina Beach Nassau 129

Winter Park Orange 8

Riviera Beach Palm Beach 6

Derby Lane Pinellas 45

Oakwood Pinellas 34

Palatka Barge Port Putnam 39

More detailed information on each monitor can be obtained from the department

.

## Appendix 2

Sulfur Dioxide ( SO 2 ) Nonattainment Boundary Five

- Factor Analysis for the Gibsonton Monitoring Site

(Hillsborough County )

Recommendation

The recommended area of SO 2 nonattainment near the Gibsonton monitoring site in Hillsborough

County is described by a polygon encompassing the predicted area having a design value greater than

the 1

- hour ambient SO

2 standard of 75 parts per billion ( ppb ) . This area includes the loca tion of the

violating monitor (AQS monitor ID 0570109). The vertices of the polygon are as follows, using Universal

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 17 with datum NAD83:

Vertices UTM Easting (m) UTM Northing (m)

1 358581 3076066

2 355673 3079275

3 360300 3086380

4 366850 3086692

5 368364 3083760

6 365708 3079121

The determination of this area was based on the five factors outlined in the EPA guidance

memorandum, “Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (March 24, 2010),” and on air dispersion modeling that was completed following the

general guidance in the same document. Analysis of the five factors to be considered, as outlined in the

guidance, and the modeling follows.

Five

- Factor Analysis

1. Air Quality Data

There are six SO 2 monitors in the Tampa Bay area. The monitor located near Gibsonton, Florida

, is

currently in violation of the new 1

- hour SO2 standard. A violation occurs when the three

- year average

of the 99 th percentile maximum daily 1

- hour average concentration is greater than 75 ppb. All other

monitors in the area are well below the standard. A summary of the monitoring data is below.Site:L0570081

- E.G. Simmons Park

- #113 County:Hillsboroug h AQS Monitor ID:12

- 057

- 0081

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2008 35 (03/01) 29 (09/15) 26 (09/15:09) 17 (02/09:09) 7 (02/09) 6 (09/15) 1.7 25 25

2009 24 (12/29) 23 (09/15) 16 (12/29:00) 15 (09/15:09) 6 (12/27) 6 (01/21) 1.5 18 18

2010 32 (01/11) 32 (01/07) 26 (01/11:18) 23 (01/11:15) 9 (01/11) 6 (01/10) 1.6 25 25 23

Site:L0570109

- South of Tampa, Replaced 0108 County:Hillsborough AQS Monitor ID:12

- 057

- 0109

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2008 189 (01/01) 169 (09/05) 137 (01/01:18) 135 (01/01:15) 48 (01/01) 30 (03/24) 3.2 123 123

2009 136 (03/02) 134 (02/20) 117 (03/02:00) 109 (03/02:03) 40 (03/02) 27 (04/07) 3.2 104 104

2010 119 (12/27) 117 (12/26) 102 (12/27:00) 96 (12/27:03) 34 (12/27) 28 (12/01) 3.0 104 104 110†

Site:L0571035

- Coast Guard Station

- Davis Island County:Hillsborough AQS Monitor ID:12

- 057

- 1035

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2008 71 (08/27) 70 (07/12) 38 (07/12:00) 38 (10/30:06) 11 (08/24) 10 (10/30) 2.7 49 49

2009 39 (03/22) 38 (02/25) 27 (07/29:03) 24 (02/25:21) 8 (07/29) 7 (12/22) 2.0 35 35

2010 67 (09/19) 66 (11/20) 40 (11/20:00) 39 (09/19:06) 10 (11/19) 8 (09/19) 1.9 57 57 47

Site:L0573002

- Sydney County:Hillsborough AQS Monitor ID:12

- 057

- 3002

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2008 55 (02/21) 28 (01/31) 20 (02/21:03) 15 (01/31:09) 4 (02/21) 3 (11/22) 1.4 19 19

2009 18 (09/25) 17 (04/19) 10 (01/24:09) 10 (04/09:18) 4 (01/23) 2 (01/24) 1.2 16 16

2010 27 (03/01) 17 (10/31) 19 (03/01:18) 12 (06/15:18) 3 (03/01) 3 (01/05) 1.2 15 15 17Site:L1030023

- Derby Lane County:Pinellas AQS Monitor ID:12

- 103

- 0023

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2008 119 (06/07) 94 (07/04) 63 (07/04:09) 57 (06/07:09) 22 (10/23) 18 (06/07) 2.4 62 62

2009 101 (02/13) 100 (02/06) 46 (03/13:12) 46 (02/06:12) 10 (03/24) 9 (02/06) 1.5 58 58

2010 40 (01/11) 19 (01/09) 32 (01/11:12) 27 (01/11:15) 9 (01/11) 6 (01/09) 1.2 15 15 45

Site:L1035003

- Oakwood County:Pinellas AQS Monitor ID:12

- 103

- 5003

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2008 85 (08/06) 50 (02/25) 36 (08/06:12) 19 (08/06:15) 7 (08/06) 6 (03/05) 1.2 37 37

2009 55 (05/10) 38 (08/24) 38 (05/10:15) 21 (01/23:15) 5 (05/10) 5 (12/29) 1.2 32 32

2010 72 (01/06) 55 (07/14) 39 (01/06:15) 29 (02/26:15) 6 (07/14) 5 (01/06) 1.1 34 34 34

The violating monitor (L0570109) near Gibsonton is located approximately 1 kilometer ( km ) to the

southeast of the Mosaic Riverview phosphate fertilizer plant, a major source of SO

2 emissions. The

primary emissions units at this facility are three sulfuric acid plants.

2. Emissions

- Related Data

The following map provides the location of large (100 TPY or greater) SO

2 emitting sources in the greater

Tampa Bay area in relation to the monitors. A few other smaller sources are also included.The emissions represented are actual values in 2009. The facility with the greatest SO

2 emissions is the

T ampa Electric Company (T ECO ) Big Bend power plant. Emissions in 2009 were 8,988 tons. The Mosaic

Riverview phosphate processing plant, located next to the violating monitor

, emitted 2,992 tons.Map

ID Site Name SO 2 2009 (tpy)

1 HARDEE POWER STATION 6

2 MIDULLA GENERATING STATION 38

3 CF INDUSTRIES

- PLANT CITY PHOSP COMPLEX 3,086

4 MOSAIC FERTILIZER

- RIVERVIEW FACILITY 2,992

5 BIG BEND STATION 8,988

6 H. L. CULBREATH BAYSIDE POWER STATION 18

7 ENVIROFOCUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 782

8 MCKAY BAY REFUSE

- TO

- ENERGY FACILITY 11

9 MANATEE POWER PLANT 5,997

10 BARTOW PLANT 1,831

11 HIGGINS PLANT 5

12 BAYBORO POWER PLANT 140

13 PINELLAS CO. RESOURCE RECOVERY

FACILITY 145

14 CHARLES LARSEN MEMORIAL POWER PLANT 294

15 MOSAIC FERTILIZER

- BARTOW FACILITY 3,711

16 MOSAIC FERTILIZER

- GREEN BAY FACILITY 1,021

17 MOSAIC FERTILIZER

- SOUTH PIERCE FACILIT 315

18 MOSAIC FERTILIZER

- NEW WALES FACILITY 7,726

19 POLK POWER STATION 1,208

3. Meteorology

A review of the monitoring data in relation to the wind direction at the time of maximum concentration s

revealed that all occurrences of SO

2 above the level of the standard (75 ppb) were associated with winds

coming from the Mosaic Riverview facility. The following aerial photo sho ws the direction of the Mosaic

Riverview facility from the SO

2 monitor. The distance from the primary SO

2 sources ( three sulfuric acid

plants) to the monitor is 1 kilometer, with the direction of the entire facility ranging from 295 o to 350 o

.

The follo wing tables list each of the hours in which a concentration was greater than the ambient SO 2

standard (75 ppb) along with its associated wind direction. The wind direction data come from the wind

instrument located at the monitoring site (wind data from t he nearby Simmons Park monitor ing site are

substituted when data at the Gibsonton site are missing) . The tables show that for some hours of high

SO 2 concentration the wind appears to be coming from a direction of about 56 o . There are no SO

2

sources from that direction, so the department reviewed the wind direction data f or regional

consistency. A review of these data shows that winds measured at other wind instruments in the area

during these hours are consistent with a wind flow from the M osaic Riverview facility. The wind

direction data from the nearby Simmons Park site, located to the south of the Gibsonton monitor

, are

shown as a truer representation of the winds during these hours. We have not identified the reason

why the Gibsonton w ind instrument displays this behavior ; however, it appears to be confined to theperiod from November 19 , 2009, through February 17, 2010. Both before and after this period, SO

2

concentrations remain near zero when the winds are out of this direction.

SO 2 Concentration and Associated Wind Direction (2008)

(for hours greater than 75 ppb)

Date Time SO 2 (ppb) WD Simmons

WD *

20080101 14:00 96

- 347

20080101 15:00 189

- 345

20080101 16:00 122

- 344

20080101 17:00 94

- 342

20080101 18:00 100

- 342

20080101 19:00 142

- 340

20080101 20:00 170

- 344

20080101 21:00 115

- 351

20080102 12:00 76

- 350

20080102 14:00 80

- 345

20080120 0:00 76 310

20080227 15:00 86 297

20080308 22:00 103 303

20080324 15:00 75 302

20080324 16:00 85 304

20080324 17:00 90 306

20080324 19:00 123 307

20080324 20:00 129 300

20080413 5:00 123 297

20080414 18:00 104 294

20080414 19:00 84 295

20080414 20:00 102 295

20080429 19:00 77 293

20080812 18:00 99 317

20080905 7:00 169 306

20080905 8:00 128 306

20080905 10:00 113 294

20080914 16:00 76 308

20081027 21:00 82 308

*Substitute wind direction data from the Simmons Park (0570081) site.SO 2 Concentration and Associated Wind Direction (2009)

(for hours greater than 75 ppb)

Date Time SO 2 (ppb) WD Simmons

WD *

20090220 2:00 134 306

20090301 23:00 92 295

20090302 0:00 99 299

20090302 1:00 127 302

20090302 2:00 126 303

20090302 3:00 136 299

20090302 4:00 112 302

20090302 5:00 80 311

20090302 20:00 89 298

20090407 2:00 107 301

20090407 7:00 87 298

20090408 0:00 83 294

20090408 1:00 104 297

20090408 2:00 85 298

20090511 20:00 80 291

20091017 13:00 81 305

20091017 16:00 76 308

20091017 17:00 83 307

20091024 21:00 97 305

20091126 15:00 87 56 339

20091126 16:00 83 55 337

20091126 19:00 96 55 335

20091205 14:00 86 57 345

20091219 3:00 84 56 328

20091219 5:00 79 56 329

20091219 6:00 98 57 336

20091219 7:00 85 56 331

20091219 8:00 87 57 329

20091220 1:00 85 56 333

20091220 2:00 98 56 334

20091220 3:00 94 59 343

20091228 21:00 75 59 346

*Substitute wind direction data from the Simmons Park (0570081) site.SO 2 Concentration and Associated Wind Direction (2010)

(for hours greater than 75 ppb)

Date Time SO 2 (ppb) WD Simmons

WD

20100105 11:00 85 57 350

20100106 11:00 76 57 347

20100131 1:00 87 55 343

20100212 20:00 78 54 342

20100212 21:00 104 53 343

20100216 4:00 104 54 346

20101015 14:00 76 313

20101105 15:00 79 307

20101201 4:00 89 309

20101201 9:00 111 309

20101201 10:00 76 315

20101201 11:00 93 308

20101201 12:00 86 306

20101226 20:00 117 302

20101226 21:00 107 307

20101227 0:00 95 312

20101227 1:00 113 305

20101227 2:00 100 308

20101227 3:00 119 306

20101227 4:00 95 303

20101227 5:00 75 308

*Substitute wind direction data from the Simmons Park (0570081) site.4. G eography/Topography

There are no significant topographical features in the Gibsonton area. Elevation changes are minimal.

The primary geographic feature is Tampa Bay, aside which the Mosaic Riverview facility is located. Wind

variations can occur along the bay due to land/water temperature differences resulting in a

juxtaposition of bay and gulf breezes in the afternoon. The wind data from both the monitoring site and

the Tampa airport reflect this mesoscale wind flow.

5. Jurisdictional Boundaries

The violating monitor is located within Hillsborough County, roughly in the center of the county. The

violating area associated with the primary source of SO

2 at this monitor is well within the county

boundary. The recommended nonattainment boundary encompasses this violating area as informed by

air dispersion modeling.

Air Dispersion Modeling

The department used air dispersion modeling to help delineate the boundary of the rec ommended

nonattainment area. In completing this modeling, the department generally followed the guidanceprovided in the March 24, 2011, EPA memorandum, “Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary

Sulfur Dioxide Nationa l Ambient Air Quality Standards. ”

a) Model Selection

– The department used the AERMOD modeling system.

a. AERMOD ver11 103

b. AERMAP ver 11103

c. AERMET ver 06341

d. AERSURFACE ver 08009

b) Modeling Domain

– The focus of the nonattainment designation is on the monitor having the

violation. As noted above, wind data at the monitoring site indicate that all of the high

concentrations (greater than the standard of 75 ppb) occur within a small w ind direction sector

that implicates the nearby Mosaic Riverview phosphate processing facility. Modeling of this

source alone indicates that the predicated concentrations at the location of the monitor are

almost completely explained by this single source . As a result, the modeling domain is centered

on the Mosaic Riverview facility

, which is located only 1000 meters from the monitoring

location

, and the domain extends to a 15 by 15 kilometer area around this facility.

c) Determining the Sources to Model

– Because the Mosaic Riverside facility is the overwhelming

source of the violation, it is the only source that is modeled for the purpose of informing the

extent of the nonattainment area. The department recognizes that other SO

2 sources in the

multi

- coun ty area could interact with the Mosaic facility for certain wind directions. However,

for the purpose of simply determining the area of nonattainment encompassing the violating

monitor, we believe it is sufficient to focus on the Mosaic Riverside facility . Other sources in the

area will be evaluated individually and collectively through the infrastructure SIP modeling that

will be completed in the next two years.

d) Receptor Grid

– The receptor grid follows the EPA guidance : a nested grid with 50 meter spa cing

within one kilometer of the source, 100 meter spacing from one to two kilometers, 250 meters

from two to ten kilometers, and 500 kilometers outside of ten kilometers.

e) Source Inputs

– Maximum allowable short

- term limits on SO

2 emissions or potential

- to

- emit

levels were used for all sources. Stack and emission information were obtained from the

department’s Air Resource Management System, Title V operating permits, and previous air

construction permit applications. These data were reviewed by Mosaic

, r esulting in changes in

refinement of the inputs related to geographic location of buildings and stacks

. Where stack

heights are less than GEP, building downwash effects are included. No stacks at this facility

exceed GEP limits. The ground surface chara cteristic of the area is rural as determined through

land

- use data consistent with the guidance.

f) Meteorological Data

– Five years (2005

- 2009) of meteorological data from the National Weather

Service site at Tampa International Airport were used in this ana lysis. These data were

processed through AERMET version 06341. The Tampa airport is located approximately 20 km

from the Mosaic facility

, also along Tampa Bay. These data are deemed representative of the

area in which Mosaic Riverview is located.

g) Backgr ound C oncentration

– The background concentration at the Gibsonton monitor was

determined based on the 99 th percentile maximum daily 1

- hour value on hours that were notimpacted by the Mosaic Riverview facility. A 90

- degree sector of wind directions cente red on

the Mosaic facility was excluded from the calculation to avoid double counting. The 99 th

percentile of the remaining concentrations associated with winds not from the direction of the

Mosaic facility was calculated for each year and averaged. Base d on this calculation, the

background concentration is 25.8 ppb.

Modeling Results

The AERMOD model results were used to determine the areal extent with which this facility would be

potentially violating the standard. The recommend ed nonattainment area encompasses the receptors

having modeled violation s of the ambient standard associated with the Mosaic Riverview facility. A

review of the modeled impact at the location of the monitor provides an indication of the general

performance of the model in describing the SO

2 concentrations. The table below compares the model

results with those at the monitor.

Y ear Modeled

Maximum at

Monitor Location

(ppb) Actual 1 st High

Maximum 1 hour

value at Monitor

(ppb) Modeled 4 th High

at Monitor

Location (ppb) Actual 4 th High

(99 th Percentile)

at Monitor (ppb)

2005 163.0 151 133.5 135

2006 166.7 130 130.5 96

2007 163.3 143 137.6 126

2008 187.3 189 140.1 123

2009 153.7 136 130.1 104

These results indicate that the model is performing very well in replicating the SO

2 concentration at the

monitoring location, and that the Mosaic Riverview facility explains virtually all of the elevated

concentrations that occur at this monitor. The design value concentrations in the area due to the

Mosaic Riverview facility show that there are potentially higher concentrations in other locations. The

maximum modeled design values associated with the Mosaic facility for 2005

- 2009 are as follows.

Year Date (MMDDHH) 4 th High Concentration (ppb)

2005 010411 506.7

2006 031211 494.8

2007 120811 486.7

2008 090110 462.6

2009 022617 442.1

5

- Year Average 478.5

It should be noted that the location of the design value concentration is on the Mosaic plant property.Because the model performance is very good, the department has used the model results in an exacting

manner to describe the recommended nonattainment boundaries . The nonattainment area is defined

as the area where the model predicts that the SO

2 concentra tion (using the five

- year average of the 4 th

high value as the metric) is greater than the ambient SO

2 standard. A polygon with six vertices is used to

define the areal extent of the nonattainment area. The following aerial photo below shows the bounds

o f the area having modeled concentrations greater than the ambient air quality standard. The

annotated polygon (white line) outlines the area recommended for nonattainment classification. The

red shaded area outlines the modeled area greater than the ambi ent standard. The whited

- out area

describes the property boundary of the Mosaic Riverview facility , with buildings and structures in blue

.

Modeling input and output files will be provided on CD/DVD.

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Letter

Below is a letter received from t he Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC)

concurring with the department’s recommendation to limit the size of the SO

2 nonattainment area to

the immediate area of the Gibsonton monitoring site.COMMISSION Roger P. Stewart Center

Kevin Beckner

- Chairman 3629 Queen Palm Dr. Tampa, FL 33619

Lesley "Les" Miller

- Vice Chairman Ph: (813) 627-2600

Victor Crist

Ken Hagan Fax Numbers (813);

Admin 627·2620 Waste 627

- 2640 AI Higginbotham legal 627·2602 Wetlands 627-2630 Sandy Murman Water 627·2670 A i r 627-2660 Mark Sharpe lab 635-8061

Executive Director

Richard D. Garrity, Ph.D.



### May 17,2011

Mr. Mike Halpin, Director

Division of Air Resource Management

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS#551 0

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Re: Recommendation for the S02 Designation and Nonattainment Area in Hillsborough

County

Dear Mr. Halpin,

It is our understanding that the implementation of the recently revised primary national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S02) requires states to submit

designation recommendations to the US EPA Administrator by June 3, 2011. Since one S02

monitor in Hillsborough County is currently exceeding the revised air quality standard for S02, I

offer the following comments and enclosed information in support of Secretary Vinyard's

recommendation to the EPA.

The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC) maintains and

operates four (4) continuous air monitors to measure S02 and determine compliance with the

S(h NAAQS. These four monitors were individually located to measure areas of maximum

popUlation exposure, large sources of S02 emissions, or background concentrations on an urban

scale. The violating monitor is East Bay (12-057-0109) located about 0.6 miles southeast of

Mosaic's Riverview facility and its three (3) sulfuric acid manufacturing plants. The facility is a

Title V source and is major for S02. For your convenience, I have enclosed an aerial photograph

of the East Bay monitor and surrounding communities

. The monitor was placed there in 1997 as

a source-oriented special purpose monitor (SPM). Under previous ownership, the facility had

been the subject of citizen complaints and EPC responded by setting up a morutor.

For the past six years, East Bay has been the only S02 monitor with a design value above

the new I-hr standard. Currently the design value for all other S02 monitors in the County are

less than 65% of the standard, thus we believe that the population exposed to the unacceptable

levels of S02 is limited to the area surrounding the East Bay site. Enclosed is a table showing all

the southern Hillsborough County site design values for the new I-hour S02 standard applied

retroactively.

An agency with values of environmental stewardship, integrity, honesty

, and a culture of fairness and cooperation.

www.epchc.org

E-Mail: epcinfo@epchc.org

### In addition, the historical record of the meteorological measurements and observed S02

concentrations clearly indicate that fertilizer manufacturing facility is the single source

contributing to the S02 violations at the monitoring site. S02 pollution roses were generated for

the days in 2010 when the maximum 1-hr average concentration was above 75 ppb

. They

indicate the predominant wind direction was from the northwest ordinal quadrant at 5 to 10 mph.

During these periods, the acid plants were operating in compliance, but were directly upwind of

East Bay. As the wind speed and direction gradually shifted from these values, the levels

returned to typical background. A pollution rose and meteorological data chart representative of

a typical high value day are attached.

As stated in the US EPA Memorandum, "Area Designations for the 2010 Revised

Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards", dated March 24, 2011, direct

emissions of sulfur dioxide will result in the highest concentrations close to the source. When

combined with a short I-hour averaging time for comparison to the standard, it is expected that

concentrations will diminish significantly with time and distance. In light of the fact that none of

our other S02 monitors are recording ambient levels near the NAAQS, and the current East Bay

monitor is only impacted during certain localized metrological conditions, we recommend a

limited non-attainment boundary of 1.5 

### km.

Be advised as time and resources warrant, EPC will look into doing some additional S02

monitoring in the Riverview area with our mobile monitoring equipment. Any data collected

prior to the EPA having to make a final determination in June of 2012, will be shared with the

State. We feel this will be helpful in setting any non-attainment boundary whether it be 1.5 

### km

or otherwise.

Limiting the non-attainment area will allow the State to minimize any unnecessary or

unintended economic impact to other facilities and at the same time to work expediently to assist

the surrounding community. We will continue to work closely with Mosaic and the State to

address this issue. The facility has been cooperative and appears committed to remedying the

situation.

Thank you for your consideration. If you need any additional information, please let me

know

.

# J:**c~** Jerry Campbell, P.E.

Air Management Division Director

cc: Stephen R. David, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

Larry George, Administrator, FDEP OPAPM

Encs.

# --

--

c



# o**~**



# «

>-

ro

CO



# ......,

Vl



# ro

UJHIl..I.SIIOROUGH OOLWTY**~** DIOXlDE (PPB)

YEAR DMIIS ISI.AMJ

....... PARK EAST BAY CAUSEllAY lDGBEtm GIMTS FISH CNIP

1

.... High Design 1

.......... Design 1Hr

.... DI!sip 1

.........**~** 1

... "" 

### IlesiiIPI 1 JlrHigh DesigII

1!JI& Z3I



# - 291



# - 370



### -**~** 171



## - 240



# - 650



# -

1Wi 190 DD 30D 2IDi 320 2M

lS7 1&1 1D 254 

# ,. 2!JO 25C

1!111 37 1M 216 

# - 258 Di

HM 224 JJII 252 'Ill .325 81

l!8D 2.1.2 I7l 375 JII5 n5 

### m

1!111**~95** 155 282 

# - 1& 157

H!:Z 224 l!II 345



### - 327 21& 109 

# - 211



## -

H93 119 155 199



### - 2IiG 2B 132 15 Z2&



### -

uti 320 UIi 255 21M ll2 2U 203 UJ 236 IR

1!B5 310 

# - 2

. 10 

## ue 327 

# - 286 

# -II 7Z1 DI**~** 171 

# - 11& J55 81 

# - 323

19J1 209 UZ 151 1M 167



# - 203 J:. 219 

# -**~** 2U5 IB 120 

### m J.a&



### - 2M 

# - 278 US

ut!I 153 DD 195 lB 277 l45 210 Ja 176 UZ

2IDI 11& 111 21J 

# .. 144 UI 3Q5 JI5

2IDl 130 

# ., 313 UI 203 IB 250 115

2m2 192 

# - 172 

# ., 164 

### B1 1-" JB

21m 101 

# - 135 

# • 167 

# ... 131 

# ..

211M 79 !3 76 

### at IB7 SI 31 

# •

2IID5 91 14 92 68 151 IB 98 70

2IJII5 161 

## n 143 

### e 130 IU 40 44

"., 124 11 13 47 143 IU 39 44**~** 71 62 35 :17 1119 US

21M 39 !!iO 24 29 136 

### ua

2IDJI 67**~** 32 23 119 U8



### 5/5/2011Site : C7 EAST BAY SITE 2

Pa ramei8r: 02 S02

Un ite : PPB

02502

• <35

• <55

• <75

< 100

< 150

• <200



# . <500

,. 500

Period : 121112010-121112010 N

8

. 33%

S

4

. 17'10::!iE

Q.. 

## East Bay Monitor

December 1, 2010

400 12

350

10

300

8

250

Q.. 

### \ I

# ~s; 

# k 1

6

# ~ __ 'BWD } 200 

# ' :;I 

# 1 V



# , J

...., EBPPM

..... EBWS

4

100 \

. 

# L 

# A Jl 

# J"?\ 

# \ V \**2**

50



### o I ••• 

### r;= --;-- 

# ' -'. i •.•

, •.•

,. l o

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HoursAppendix 3

Sulfur Dioxide ( SO 2 ) Unclassifiable Area Justification for the Ellyson Monitor ing Site (Es cambia County )

Recommendation

For the reasons outlined in this appendix, t he department’s recommend ation that most of the state, as

a whole, be designated “unclassifiable” or “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 75 parts per billion (ppb)

1

- hour SO

2 standard is intended to include the area surrounding the Ellyson monitor ing site in Escambia

Count y . While the most recent data for 2008

- 2010 show a violation, the SO

2 emissions s ource (Gulf

Power Crist power plant) having the overwhelming influence at the monitor added a flue gas

desulfurization (FGD) system in December 2009. The result, as seen in the charts below, indicate that

this monitor will show complian ce with the standard at the end of the 2009

- 2011 three

- year period.

The design value should continue to decrease the following year when the higher concentration data

(pre

- scrubber) in 2009 are dropped from the average.

Air Quality Data

The table below sh ows the recent history of SO

2 concentrations at the Ellyson monitor. The strip charts,

also below, pictorially show the change in SO

2 measurement s before and after the scrubber at Crist.

Site:A0330004

- Ellyson Industrial Park County:Escambia AQS Monitor ID:12

- 033

- 0004

- 42401

- 1

Year Ranked 1

- Hour Averages Ranked 3

- Hour Averages Ranked 24

- Hour Averages

Annual

Average 99th Percentile Values

Design

Value 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd Complete Days Valid

2000 159 (11/11) 147 (08/04) 93 (12/31:12) 76 (06/23:09) 23 (01/24) 21 (06/23) 3.6 140 140

2001 172 (05/12) 152 (09/20) 76 (01/08:06) 76 (05/12:06) 24 (01/08) 21 (03/07) 3.1 100 100

2002 200 (06/02) 91 (02/08) 82 (06/02:06) 80 (02/08:12) 20 (02/08) 19 (11/12) 3.0 84 84 108†

2003 113 (01/07) 102 (12/11) 106 (01/07:12) 76 (01/23:00) 20 (01/23) 18 (01/07) 2.6 76 76 87†

2004 128 (08/15) 95 (05/06) 65 (12/26:12) 62 (09/06:15) 27 (12/26) 17 (08/15) 2.3 85 85 82†

2005 92 (10/08) 83 (08/09) 71 (01/01:09) 68 (10/08:09) 40 (01/01) 18 (10/08) 2.5 69 69 77†

2006 103 (03/24) 85 (11/22) 76 (03/24:00) 68 (11/22:09) 26 (03/24) 24 (11/22) 2.4 79 79 78†

2007 129 (05/12) 85 (11/03) 78 (05/12:09) 63 (06/20:12) 25 (06/20) 16 (11/03) 2.7 81 81 76†

2008 148 (11/17) 133 (12/12) 92 (12/12:09) 77 (11/17:09) 24 (12/12) 22 (10/01) 2.8 119 119 93†

2009 137 (08/31) 85 (08/12) 72 (08/31:12) 68 (08/12:09) 18 (03/02) 14 (04/15) 2.5 74 74 91†

2010 106 (12/14) 56 (04/09) 62 (12/14:12) 45 (01/10:12) 13 (01/10) 12 (12/13) 1.9 45 45 79†

2011 68 (05/06) 22 (05/07) 30 (05/06:06) 25 (05/06:09) 9 (05/06) 3 (01/15) 1.5* 22* 22* 47*0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175110192837465564738291100109118127136145154163172181190199208217226235244253262271280289298307316325334343352361 

# 2008

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175110192837465564738291100109118127136145154163172181190199208217226235244253262271280289298307316325334343352361 

# 2009

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175110192837465564738291100109118127136145154163172181190199208217226235244253262271280289298307316325334343352361 

# 2010

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 1751112131415161718191101111121 

# 2011 Maximum Daily 1

- hour Average SO2 Concentrations in ppb (2008

- 2011)As seen in the table, the 99 th percentile maximum daily value for 2010, the first full year of scrubber

operation, is 45 ppb. There is every expectation that this metric will be well below the level of the

standard for future years. Indeed, the partial year 2011 shows a greatly reduc ed value.

Gulf Power Crist is the Overwhelming Contributor to the Ellyson Monitor

Wind data collected at the Ellyson monitoring site indicate that all hours with high SO

2 concentration

(i.e., greater than 75 ppb) occur with the winds coming from the Gulf Power Crist power plant. The

following picture shows the location of the Ellyson monitor in relation to the Crist power plant.The following tables show the wind direction during times of high SO

2 for the years 2008 to 2010.

Date Time SO 2 (ppb) WD

20080114 12:00 76 344

20080223 11:00 85 342

20080223 12:00 127 350

20080305 10:00 92 320

20080429 8:00 113 347

20080429 9:00 118 335

20080624 10:00 119 334

20080806 7:00 94 328

20080823 8:00 102 335

20080823 9:00 85 336

20080823 10:00 103 324

20080917 9:00 89 329

20081001 6:00 83 330

20081026 10:00 105 330

20081117 9:00 148 346

20081212 10:00 122 332

20081212 11:00 133 344

Date Time SO 2 (ppb) WD Substiute

Data

20090812 9:00 85 350 ASOS

20090812 11:00 84 286 ASOS

20090831 12:00 137 322 ASOS

Date Time SO2(ppb) WD

20101214 12:00 106 345

The implication of these data is that the Gulf Power Crist power plant is clearly the overwhelming

contributor to the historic high SO

2 concentrations at the Ellyson monitor. It is also clear from the data

that the initiation of scrubber operation in December 2009 at the Crist facility has had a marked effect

on the SO

2 concentration data at the Ellyson monitor. It is expected that this monitor will begin having

compliant data with the three

- year period ending in 2011.