1

The Maryland State Implementation PlanBy

Russell Dickerson, Tim Canty, Dan Goldberg, Xinrong Ren, Tim Vinciguerra

et al.,The University of Maryland

1145 am Tuesday 2 June 2015

AQAST #9

2

Aburn et al., Environ. Manag. 2015

3

We need a SIP Bull’s eyeThings Change

• Forecast emissions (of course)• Base year: 2007 to 2011• Target year: 2018 to 2017• Platform CMAQ 5.0.1 to 5.0.2

SOAs and j’s• Method to determine Design Values• CB05 or CB6r2Attainment status!

Maryland is in.Connecticut is out.

4

SIP How has Science informed Policy?Problems:• CMAQ CB4/CB05 underestimates benefits of NOx

reductions– Blackout study– EPA modeling of NOx SIP call.

• CMAQ Ozone Production Efficiency (OPE = DO3/DNOz) lower than observed. – RO2 underestimated, but NO & NOy overestimated.

• CMAQ indicates smog is a local problem.• Bay Breeze absent in 12 km runs. • Interstate transport (vertical mixing) underrepresented.

5

SIP How has Science informed Policy?Solutions:• Better representation of alkyl nitrates

– CB6r2 is an improvement over CB05– NOy better simulated

• Reduced NOx emissions from mobile sources.• Change from BEIS to MEGANv2.10

– Increases isoprene and ozone.– RO2 better simulated.

• 1.3 km runs and on line chemistry (Dale Allen) to improve PBL venting.• Greater Ozone response to NOx reductions.

Anderson et al., 2015; Brent et al., 2013, He et al., 2013; 2014; Canty et al. ACPD. 2015; Hembeck et

al. in prep 2015; Arkinson et al. in prep 2015. Goldberg talk, Ren Poster.

6

CMAQ Modeling:Analysis

A matrix of emissions and models

7

Model 2007 platform (August):

7, 7b, 7c, 7opt, 8, 2b, 2c, 3A (ATT-1), 3B, 3C, 3D, A2, A3 (ATT-4)

Updated chemistry “Beta” runs:

2007, 7c, 7opt, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, A2, A3

Model 2011 platform (July):

2011, 2018, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, A3

“Beta” runs:2011, 2018, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, A3

Blue=Full O3 Season

CMAQ Model Scenarios

8

Scenarios• 3A (ATT-1)

– Using IPM results, reduce SCR/SNCR units to there lowest rates as seen in CAMD data (2005 -2012).

• 3B– Using IPM results, increase SCR/SNCR units to there worst rates as seen in

CAMD data (2005 – 2012).• 3C

– Increase NOX at coal fired SCR/SNCR units to emissions as seen in 2011 CAMD data.

• 3D– Uncontrolled units modeled as if they were controlled by an SCR.

• ATT-4– Same as 3A (ATT-1) and Maryland EGU’s have a NOx emissions cap of 0.07

lbs/mmBTU. OTR reductions are NOT included due to using EPA inventory.

9

Beta runs with model improvements

• Reduction in NTR lifetime: mimics proper speciation ofalkyl nitrates

• 50% reduction in mobile NOx (see Anderson et al., 2014)

• Modification of biogenic emissions• 2007: MEGANv2.4 → MEGANv2.10

Overall decrease in isoprene• 2011: BEISv3.14 → MEGANv2.10

Overall increase in isoprene

10

CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011)

“Best Case”- All Scrubbers Running “Worse Case”- No Scrubbers Running

11

CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011)

“Best Case”- All Scrubbers Running “Real Case”- Some Scrubbers Running

12

CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011)

“Best Case”- All Scrubbers Running “Better Case”- More Scrubbers Running

13

CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011)

Scenario 3b – Scenario 3a

Worst minus best case

14

CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011)

Scenario 3c – Scenario 3a

Real emissionsminus best case

15

CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011)

Scenario 3d – Scenario 3a

Better (practical) emissionsminus best case

16

County Site DV 2011

DV 2018

3A (ATT-1) 3B 3C 3D ATT-4

Anne Arundel Davidsonville 83 70.5 69.2 71.6 70.7 68.9 68.7

Baltimore Padonia 79 69.4 67.8 70.6 69.7 67.4 67.5

Baltimore Essex 80.7 70.4 69.1 71.2 70.4 68.9 68.9

Calvert Calvert 79.7 71.1 69.5 72.8 71.2 69.2 68.3

Carroll South Carroll 76.3 68.0 66.0 70.5 69.0 65.3 65.6

Cecil Fair Hill 83 71.4 69.3 73.1 71.7 68.8 69.1

Calvert S.Maryland 79 68.2 66.9 70.6 68.4 66.6 65.0

Cambridge Blackwater 75 66.3 65.3 67.3 66.4 64.9 65.1

Frederick Frederick Airport 76.3 68.0 66.1 70.4 68.9 65.4 65.3

Garrett Piney Run 72 62.7 60.0 64.9 63.4 57.4 60.0

Harford Edgewood 90 77.4 75.4 78.6 77.5 75.1 75.0

Harford Aldino 79.3 67.3 65.6 68.6 67.5 65.2 65.3

Kent Millington 78.7 66.5 64.7 68.3 67.0 64.2 64.4

Montgomery Rockville 75.7 64.8 63.6 66.1 65.2 63.2 62.7

PG HU-Beltsville 79 66.6 65.7 67.7 66.9 65.4 65.2

PG PG Equest. 82.3 69.1 68.0 70.3 69.4 67.6 67.3

PG Beltsville 80 68.2 66.5 69.3 68.4 66.1 66.1

Washington Hagerstown 72.7 65.1 63.5 67.4 66.4 62.7 63.4

Baltimore City Furley 73.7 64.3 63.2 65.1 64.4 62.9 62.9

All model results for July only (2011 Platform): Beta

17

Summary1. Attainment of the NAAQS for Maryland is a moving target.

2. Have to balance the needs of many runs for policy (screening) with the need to make the best run.

3. We have to look for further reductions. Small victory: Power Plants must run NOx controls on hot days even if below total annual emissions cap.

4. NASA observations (OMI, DISCOVER-AQ) led to improvements in modeling isoprene, HOx and NOx chemistry, emissions from vehicles, and PBL venting make Maryland better able to predict the response of the atmosphere to control policies and will go into WoE.

18

The Guilty Parties CAMx Talk Tomorrow Poster

19

Slides for backup

20

Summary of MDE needs

1. What tools do researchers have that can be used to determine a State’s culpability when it comes to pollutant transport?

2. Issue of EGUs not running controls during the summer ozone season; it’s cheaper to buy allowances. (Scenario 7 assumes that they are running).

3. Issue of distributed generation needs to be investigated.

4. How to get at how much ozone is in the aloft reservoir at night.

21

Initial Results: Scenario 7

2007 ObservationsModeling ozone season: April to October

% ReductionsBy 2018

OTC Sector NOx VOC

Powerplant 61 52

Mobile 55 49

Off road 43 44

Marine 31 13

Area 14 7

22

2007 Observations 2018 CMAQ Prediction

Avg. max. 8 hr O3(ppb); all figures

2018

CM

AQ P

redi

ction% Reductions

By 2018

OTC Sector NOx VOC

Powerplant 61 52

Mobile 55 49

Off road 43 44

Marine 31 13

Area 14 7 2007 obs [O3] ppb

23

Average Max. 8 hr ozone (ppb)

City 2007 2018

Fairfield, CT 86.3 76DeKalb, GA 90.7 77Fulton, GA 90.3 76Lake, IN 77.5 75Lake, IN 77.3 75Harford, MD 90.7 77

Harford, MD 87.3 76

Cecil, MD 89 75Wayne, MI 81.7 75Camden, NJ 87.5 78NY, NY 76 75Suffolk, NY 85.3 76Suffolk, NY 88 75Westchester, NY 86.3 77

Bucks, PA 90.7 79Philadelphia, PA 88 77

Significant reductions in predicted future ozone though some monitoring sites still in non-attainment.

• Most monitors attain 75 ppb ozone standard.

• Further reductions in O3 precursors needed for sites in NE corridor.

• Unregulated peaking units and irregular use of NOx scrubbers possible culprits.

O