Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Laura Boothe, NCDAQ George Bridgers, NCDAQ May 31, 2005

1. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling for 8-hour OzonePreliminary 2002 ResultsFor Triangle and Rocky Mount Stakeholders Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Laura Boothe, NCDAQ George Bridgers, NCDAQ May 31, 2005

2. Outline • Ozone overview • SIP Modeling overview • Meteorological modeling • Emissions modeling • Air Quality modeling • Future year emissions summary • Menu of possible control options • Next steps

3. Ozone and SIP Modeling Overview Laura Boothe, NCDAQ Attainment Planning Branch Chief

5. Ozone – Public Health Risks • When inhaled, even at low levels, ozone can: • Cause inflammation of lung tissue • Cause acute or chronic respiratory problems • Aggravate, possibly trigger asthma • Decrease lung capacity • Repeated exposure in children may lead to reduced lung function as adults

6. Background • 8-hour ozone standard • If a monitored design value is > 0.08 ppm (84 ppb), that monitor is violating the standard • The design value is defined as: • 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average

7. 2001-2003 Ozone Design Values(Highest Value Per County)

8. Violating Ozone Monitors Based on 01-03 data Green dots = attaining monitors Red dots = violating monitors

9. NC 8-hr Ozone Nonattainment Areas

10. Triangle 8-hr Ozone Design Values Monitor Millbrook Butner Duke St Franklinton Bushy Fork Tower W Johnston Fuquay-Varina Pittsboro County Wake Granville Durham Franklin Person Wake Johnston Wake Chatham 01-03 92 94 89 90 91 85 85 88 82 02-04 88 89 86 88 85 86 83 87 79 2005* 90 83 96 90 99 91 100 88 111 # ** 4 of 5 1 of 5 4 of 5 4 of 5 4 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 of 5 5 of 5 * 4th highest 8-hr max in 2005 can be no higher than this value in order to attain by the end of the 2005 ozone season. ** Number of times the 4th highest has been this value or lower in the last 5years.

11. Rocky Mount 8-hr Ozone Design Values Monitor Leggett County Edgecombe 01-03 89 02-04 85 2005* 94 # ** 4 of 5 * 4th highest 8-hr max in 2005 can be no higher than this value in order to attain by the end of the 2005 ozone season. ** Number of times the 4th highest has been this value or lower in the last 5years.

12. Ozone Nonattainment Timeline • Immediate (June 15, 2004) • New source review • One year • Transportation conformity • Three years • State Implementation Plan (SIP) – attainment demonstration • Five years (or as expeditiously as practicable) • Basic areas attain standard (Triangle, RMT, GSMNP) • Six years (or as expeditiously as practicable) • Moderate areas attain standard (Metrolina)

13. Ozone Nonattainment TimelineDefinitions for Triangle and RMT Areas June 15, 2004 June 15, 2005 June 15, 2007 June 15, 2009* 2006-2008 2008 2005 or 2006 TBD Effective date = Transportation conformity date = SIP submittal date = Attainment date = Data used to determine attainment = (Modeling) Attainment year = Redesignation base years = Maintenance years = * Or as early as possible

14. State Implementation Plan (SIP) • Need a “SIP submittal” to EPA within three years • Attainment Demonstration that details the State’s plan to bring the area into attainment of the Federal standard • Triangle and RMT areas…must include: • VOC & NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) • Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) • Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

15. State Implementation Plan (SIP) • RACM/RACT Requirements • Applies to all source sectors (point, area, highway mobile & off-road mobile sources) • Only what is necessary to attain NAAQS • NC has already adopted some RACM/RACT type rules • Open burning ban during ozone events • Expanded I/M program • RACT rules for Wake and Durham Counties as contingency measures for 1-hr ozone maintenance • RFP Requirements • Must show reductions in future year emissions

16. State Implementation Plan (SIP) • Need a “SIP submittal” to EPA within three years • Attainment Demonstration that details the State’s plan to bring the area into attainment of the Federal standard • Most significant emission controls are already underway • Clean Smokestacks Act • Vehicle emissions testing • Ultra-Low sulfur fuels • Cleaner engines

17. VISTAS • Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast • Regional Planning Organization established under the 1999 Regional Haze Rule • Collaborative effort of States and Tribes to support management of regional haze and related air quality issues in the Southeastern US • No independent regulatory authority and no authority to direct or establish State or Tribal law or policy.

20. Emissions Inventories 2002 & 2009 Met, Emissions and AQ Model performance and protocol

21. Modeling Application Process • Select areas or domains of interest • Select representative ozone season/episodes • Prepare and refine meteorological simulations • Prepare and refine emission model inputs • Apply air quality modeling system • Performance evaluation on episodes • Prepare current and future year emissions(Projected and Potential Control Strategies) • Re-apply air quality modeling system • Analyze the effectiveness of control strategies • Apply the attainment test

22. SparseMatrixOperatorKernelEmissions Emissions Processor Meteorological Model SMOKE MM5 Community Multiscale Air Quality System Air Quality Model CMAQ Temporally and Spatially Gridded Air Quality Output predictions Air Quality Modeling System

23. Modeling Domains 12 km 36 km

24. Grid Structure Vertical: MM5 = 34 layers SMOKE & CMAQ = 19 layers ~48,000 ft Horizontal: 36 km & 12 km Layer 1 = 36 m deep Ground

25. Modeling Season / Episode • Full Year of 2002 selected for VISTAS modeling • Regional Haze / Fine Particulate: Full Year • Ozone: Late May – End Of August • The “higher” portion of the 2002 ozone season selected for the Ozone SIP and Attainment Demonstration modeling.

26. Meteorological Modeling Overview George Bridgers, NCDAQ Meteorologist

27. Meteorological Modeling • Penn State / NCAQ MM5 meso-scale meteorological model • Version 3.6.1+ • Widely used in theresearch and regulatorycommunities • VISTAS Contracted WithBarons AdvancedMeteorological Systems(BAMS) • Run at both 36km (Nationwide)and 12km (Southeastern US) resolutions

28. Met Model Performance • Model Performance For Key Variables: • Temperature • Moisture (Mixing Ratio & Relative Humidity) • Winds • Cloud Cover • Precipitation • Comparisons With Other Met Modeling Studies • Summary Of Met Model Performance

29. Model Performance StatisticsMeteorology In North Carolina May, June, July, August, and September (MJJAS)

30. Temperature • Overall diurnal pattern captured very well • Slight cool bias in the daytime • Slight warm bias overnight

31. May June July August

32. Moisture (Mixing Ratio) • Tracks observed trends fairly well • Low bias in the morning through the early afternoon • High bias in the late afternoon and at night

33. May June July August

34. Moisture (Relative Humidity) • High bias in the daytime • Low bias at night RH is linked to temperature and moisture biases

35. Wind Speed • ~1 mph high bias day, ~2 mph high bias at night • Partly due to relative inability of winds in the model to go calm (There is always “some” wind) • Also due to “starting thresholds” of observation network… network can’t measure winds < 3 mph, so winds < 3 mph are reported as “calm”

36. May June July August

37. May June July August

38. Cloud Cover • General overestimation of clouds in the met model • Greatest bias overnight & smallest bias early afternoon • Nighttime cloud observations questionable • Bias ~4% in May, peaks at ~15% in July, and declines to ~3% in September

39. Cloud Cover • General over prediction of clouds (example – July 18 2PM)

40. Precipitation • Mixed precipitation performance… typical of any summertime weather pattern / forecast • Good performing day (Spatially and magnitude):

41. Precipitation • Poorer performing day (Magnitude okay is spots, but significant precip I-95 corridor that is false):

42. Observed Precip MAY Modeled Precip MAY Observed Precip JUNE Modeled Precip JUNE

43. Observed Precip JULY Modeled Precip JULY Observed Precip AUGUST Modeled Precip AUGUST

44. Comparisons With Other Met Modeling Studies • The next series of slides are adapted from Alpine Geophysics documentation for the VISTAS AQ Modeling project. • The bar charts are comparisons of VISTAS Phase I (Sensitivities) MM5 modeling to other national and Southeast regional MM5 simulations • The performance characteristics of VISTAS Phase I MM5 modeling is very similar to VISTAS Phase II (Annual) MM5 Modeling

45. National MM5 Comparisons

46. The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode • The yellow bars: - USEPA’s 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

47. The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode • The yellow bars: - USEPA’s 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

48. The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode • The yellow bars: - USEPA’s 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

49. The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode • The yellow bars: - USEPA’s 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

50. The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode • The yellow bars: - USEPA’s 2001 Annual MM5 simulation