1 / 25

Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results

Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results. April 27, 2009 MWAQC TAC June 15, 2009. Background. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to… “… contain adequate provisions – (i) prohibiting…any source or other type of emissions activity within the State

sook
Download Presentation

Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results April 27, 2009 MWAQC 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 deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility…” Note: EGU measures alone are not expected to eliminate significant contribution

  4. Air Quality Modeling 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 36 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. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Annual Concentrations 2009 2012 2018 Based on 2005 meteorology

  8. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Daily Concentrations 2009 2012 2018 Based on 2005 meteorology

  9. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ozone 8-Hour Concentrations 2009 2012 2018 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 Eastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (TPY) NOx SO2 • 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C • 2012-E 2018-F • 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C • 2012-E 2018-F Reference: “Options for EGU Controls in the Eastern U.S.: White Paper”, October 3, 2008, State Collaborative Technical Workgroup

  11. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Annual: Air Quality Improvement (relative to Scenario C) Scenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018) Average Improvement: PM2.5 Annual = 1.0 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. F) Based on 2005 meteorology

  12. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Daily: Air Quality Improvement (relative to Scenario C) Scenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018) Average Improvement: PM2.5 Daily = 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.3 ug/m3 (Scen. F) Based on 2005 meteorology

  13. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ozone: Air Quality Improvement (relative to Scenario C) Scenario E (2012) Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018) Average Improvement: Ozone = 1.6 ppb (Scen. E); 2.4 ppb (Scen. F) Based on 2005 meteorology

  14. Model Results Source Apportionment

  15. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ozone Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors (2005 base) New York, NY Key Finding: Contributions dominated by mobile sources (at least 60%) Holland, MI Atlanta, GA

  16. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ozone Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2005 base) New York, NY Key Finding: Contributions dominated by “home” state and neighboring states Holland, MI Atlanta, GA 55% Based on 2005 meteorology

  17. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 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 Detroit MI Atlanta, GA Based on 2005 meteorology

  18. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Daily 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 Detroit MI Atlanta, GA Based on 2005 meteorology

  19. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Annual Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2012 Scenario C) New York, NY 12% Key Finding: Contributions dominated by “home” state and neighboring states 55% Detroit MI Atlanta, GA 13% 45% 54% Based on 2005 meteorology

  20. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PM2.5 Daily Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2012 Scenario C) New York, NY 14% Key Finding: Contributions dominated by “home” state and neighboring states 49% Detroit MI Atlanta, GA 18% 38% 50% Based on 2005 meteorology

  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)

More Related