Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results
description
Transcript of Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results
1
Summary of LADCO’sRegional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.:Preliminary Results
April 27, 2009MWAQC TAC June 15, 2009
2
Background
3
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to…
“… contain adequate provisions – (i) prohibiting…any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will –
(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in,or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any (NAAQS)…, or
(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deteriorationof air quality or to protect visibility…”
Note: EGU measures alone are not expected to eliminate significant contribution
4
Air Quality Modeling
36 km
Model: CAMx
Domain/Grid: Eastern U.S. (36 km-PM2.5,
12 km-O3)
Base Year: 2005
Meteorology: 2005 (and 2002)
Future Years: 2009,2012,2018 (existing control programs)
12 km
5
Scenario C-Years 2009, 2012, and 2018 Emissions
• Base: 2007 CEM emissions data, not IPM
• Growth: Growth factors based on EIA data by NERC region and by fuel type
• Control: All legally enforceable controls identified by states plus other controls expected for compliance with CAIR (i.e., EPA’s NEEDS list)
6
Model Results
7
PM2.5 AnnualConcentrations
2009
2012 2018
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
8
PM2.5 DailyConcentrations
2009
2012 2018
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
9
Ozone 8-HourConcentrations
2009
2012 2018
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
10
EGU Control Strategies Scenario E Scenario F
(2012) (2018)
NOx 0.125 lb/MMBTU 0.07
SO2 0.25 0.10
Reference: “Options for EGU Controls in the Eastern U.S.: White Paper”, October 3, 2008, State Collaborative Technical Workgroup
NOx SO2
2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C 2012-E 2018-F
2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C 2012-E 2018-F
Eastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (TPY)
11Average Improvement: PM2.5 Annual = 1.0 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. F)
Scenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)
PM2.5 Annual: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
12Average Improvement: PM2.5 Daily = 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.3 ug/m3 (Scen. F)
PM2.5 Daily: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
Scenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)
13Average Improvement: Ozone = 1.6 ppb (Scen. E); 2.4 ppb (Scen. F)
Ozone: Air Quality Improvement(relative to Scenario C)
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
Scenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)
14
Model ResultsSource Apportionment
15
Ozone Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors (2005 base)
Holland, MI Atlanta, GA
New York, NY
Key Finding: Contributions dominatedby mobile sources (at least 60%)
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
16
Ozone Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2005 base)
Holland, MI Atlanta, GA
New York, NY
Key Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring states
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
55%
17
PM2.5 Annual Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors(2012 Scenario C)
New York, NY
Key Findings:• All source categories are important contributors• Relative amount of contribution varies by area
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
Detroit MI Atlanta, GA
18
PM2.5 Daily Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors(2012 Scenario C)
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
Detroit MI Atlanta, GA
New York, NY
Key Findings:• All source categories are important contributors• Relative amount of contribution varies by area
19
PM2.5 Annual Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions(2012 Scenario C)
Detroit MI Atlanta, GA
New York, NY
Key Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring states
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
54%
12%
55%
13%
45%
20
PM2.5 Daily Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions(2012 Scenario C)
Detroit MI Atlanta, GA
New York, NY
Key Finding: Contributions dominatedby “home” state and neighboring states
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Based on 2005 meteorology
50%
14%
49%
18%
38%
21
Example DC Results
DRAFT
22
Example DC Results
DRAFT
23
Example DC Results
DRAFT
24
Example DC Results
DRAFT
25
Key Findings• Model Performance
– PM2.5: Generally reasonable, although organic carbon substantially underestimated, (summer) sulfate underestimated, and (winter) nitrate slightly overestimated
– Ozone: Generally reasonable (mostly within +15%)
• Attainment– Only a few areas not meeting PM2.5 and 85 ppb ozone standards; lots of areas not
meeting for 75 ppb ozone standard– Additional EGU emission reductions effective in lowering PM2.5 and ozone
• Source Apportionment– Source Regions: “Home” state generally has the largest impact; neighbor states
generally have next largest impact (i.e., impacts decrease with distance)– Source Sectors: Mobile sources dominate for ozone, point/mobile/area all important
for PM2.5– Similar "linkages" with either a relative or absolute metric, and a lower significance
threshold brings in more states
• Other:– Despite differences in meteorology, 2002 and 2005 meteorology produce similar
results (with higher concentrations for 2002)