Summary of LADCOs

1
Summary of LADCOs 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) prohibitingany
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., EPAs 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)