SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia EPD Presented to: SESARM Air Directors September 28, 2016

Modeling Objectives Replicate EPA proposed Transport Rule modeling CAMx Update 2017 EGU emissions based on feedback from SESARM states Calculate DVFs with updated 2017 EGU emissions CAMx and CMAQ Calculate upwind state contributions to downwind state nonattainment and maintenance areas CAMx (APCA) and CMAQ (brute force) Compare significant contribution linkages (>0.76 ppb) EPA proposed 2017 CSAPR modeling (CAMx with APCA) EPA final 2017 CSAPR modeling (CAMx with APCA)

Modeling Overview Used the EPA 2011 modeling platform WRF 3.4 meteorology (PX, ACM2, KF, Morrison, RRTGM) 2011 NEI and projected 2017 emissions (eh) SEMAP states revised point EGU emissions Conducted 2011 and 2017 annual modeling with CMAQ v5.02 and CAMx v6.11 (EPA-revised) on 12US2 and LADCO12 grids 12US2 outputs for LADCO12 IC/BCs Conducted 2017 ozone season (Apr-Oct) sensitivity modeling (brute-force) with CMAQ and source-apportionment modeling with CAMx-APCA on LADCO12 Baseline + 20 sensitivity runs with CMAQ 34 source tags with CAMx-APCA We modified CMAQ v5.02 for online emissions reductions

LADCO 12-km Modeling Domain 269×242 grid cells 25 layers to 50 mb

Benchmarking and Performance Evaluation Benchmarked CAMx Against EPA results for 2 short periods Tracking deviation from EPA configuration step by step Difference due to photolysis Difference due to meteorology processor Difference due to code change Compared CMAQ to CAMx CB05 vs. CB6 chemistry Conducted performance evaluations Tables of statistics Bubble plots of MNB and MNE (with 60 ppb cutoff)

EPA vs. SEMAP Platform EPA SEMAP TUV TUV4.8 (May 6, 2013 version)*   EPA SEMAP TUV TUV4.8 (May 6, 2013 version)* TUV4.8 (February 25, 2015 version) WRFCAMx WRFCAMx 4.0 beta WRFCAMx 4.3 CAMx CAMx v6.11 with modification for super-stepping routine for HMAX. CAMx 6.11 *Ramboll-Environ confirmed that there was an error in NO3_NO2.PHF file in the May 6, 2013 version.

Ozone Benchmark – March 30

EC Benchmark – March 30

Performance Statistics CAMx no cutoff CAMx 60 ppb cutoff mean MDA8 # of Pairs MB (ppb) ME (ppb) MNB (%) MNE (%) Coastal SEMAP 45.1 42751 8.34 9.66 23.78 26.31 65.86 5869 3.48 6.97 5.46 10.6 Interior SEMAP 47.4 13385 5.78 8.13 15.27 19.81 65.9 2178 1.85 6.99 3.06 10.65 Non- SEMAP 44.9 134407 3.22 7.75 11.5 20.58 67.3 19613 -2.31 7.91 -3.23 11.75 CMAQ no cutoff CMAQ 60 ppb cutoff MB ME MNB MNE 8.33 18.41 23.62 -2.52 6.8 -3.64 10.21 1.19 6.44 6.12 15.89 -4.88 7.67 -7.22 11.53 2.84 7.38 11.76 20.26 -4.65 8.17 -6.68 12.02

July 2011 MNBs CAMx CMAQ

EGU Emission Revisions by State

EGU Emission Revisions by Facility

Calculation of DVF Ran MATS 2.6.1 with 2011 as “baseline” and 2017 base-case as “forecast” to get RRFs RRF = (2017base/2011) DVF = DVC  RRF Options: Use of Model Data Monitor cell (1 x 1) Design Values Current (DVC) 5-year (2009-2013) weighted average Relative Response Factor (RRF) Minimum 5 days with maximum 8-hr ozone ≥ 76 ppb, or Minimum 5 days above 60 ppb

2011 DVCs: 11 RRF & 2009-2013 DVC

2017 DVFs: 11 RRF & 2009-2013 DVC (with CMAQ)

2017 DVFs: 11 RRF & 2009-2013 DVC (with CAMx)

Difference of 2017 DVFs: CAMx - CMAQ

2017 Ozone “Nonattainment” DVF > 76 ppb based on 2009-2013 DVC and 1x1 cell EPA proposed, EPA final, SEMAP CAMx and SEMAP CMAQ STATE AIRS ID EPA Proposed (16) Final (10) SEMAP CAMx (25) SEMAP CMAQ CO 080013001 72.7 73.1 76.3 75.8 080050002 74.4 73.4 76 75.4 080350004 75.5 80.2 79.2 080590006 75.7 76.6 75 080590011 74.9 78.2 76.9 CT 090010017 74.1 78.7 84 090013007 77.1 77 77.3 090019003 78 76.5 090099002 77.2 76.2 KY 211110067 75.6 211850004 73.7 71.5 75.3 77.6 MD 240251001 81.3 78.8 80.1 78.3 NY 360850067 361030002 76.8 78.6 79.6 361030009 72.9 STATE AIRS ID EPA Proposed (16) Final (10) SEMAP CAMx (25) SEMAP CMAQ OH 390610006 76.3 74.6 77.3 75.1 PA 420031008 N/A 74.7 75.2 76 TX 480391004 81.4 79.9 81.1 80.5 481130075 75.8 73.5 76.1 73.7 481211032 73.2 74.4 481210034 76.9 75 77.2 76.5 482010024 75.9 75.4 77 482010029 74.9 74.1 482011034 76.8 75.7 76.6 482011039 78.2 76.4 484391002 72.7 73.9 484392003 79.6 81.2 78.8 484393009 78.6 79.3 77.8 WI 551170006 76.2 77.6

2017 Ozone “Maintenance” DVF < 76 ppb & Max DVF > 76 ppb (2009-2013 DVC) STATE AIRS ID EPA Proposed (24) Final (12) SEMAP CAMx (33) SEMAP CMAQ (17) CO 080013001 72.7 73.1 78.9 78.4 080050002 76.6 75.6 78.3 77.7 080350004 78.1 77.6 82.5 81.5 080590005 74.2 73.7 77.8 76.5 080590006 78.8 78.2 79.2 77.5 080590011 78 80.1 CT 090010017 81.3 86.9 090013007 81.4 79.7 81.7 090019003 81.1 79.5 79.6 77.3 090099002 80.2 80 78.6 090110124 74.8 74.1 76 76.3 DC 110010043 72.3 69.7 76.8 IN 180910005 74.7 76.1 KY 211110067 76.9 211850004 75 MD 240030014 75.1 72.4 74.4 240053001 76.2 74 240150003 74.9 73.8 240338003 71.9 MI 260050003 78.5 261630019 76.7 NJ 340071001 75.3 340150002 77.4 75.4 340230011 73.9 340250005 75.8 73 STATE AIRS ID EPA Proposed (24) Final (12) SEMAP CAMx (33) SEMAP CMAQ (17) NJ 340290006 76.6 73.8 77.1 75.9 NY 360810124 77.6 75.7 77.5 75.3 360850067 77.8 77.4 76.5 74.6 361030009 75.6 74.1 77 OH 390610006 79.1 80.1 77.9 390610040 74.3 72.3 74.8 PA 420030008 73.2 76.3 76.1 420031008 N/A 76.4 77.2 420170012 75 72.7 74.5 421010024 78.4 76.9 TX 480850005 76 76.8 75.5 481130069 78 75.4 78.7 481130075 76.7 74.4 481211032 481210034 79.4 79.7 78.9 482010024 78.5 79.6 482010026 75.2 75.8 482010055 482011034 482011050 76.2 74.9 484390075 74 484393011 VA 510130020 73 510590030 73.7 70.4 77.3 WI 550790085 73.1 72.8

Contributions to Ozone with CAMx-APCA 7 months (Apr-Oct) on LADCO12 grid Contributions of 34 sources (NOx & VOCs): Point EGU CSAPR (10 SEMAP states) Point EGU CAIR but not CSAPR (AL, NC, SC, WV) Point non-IPM CAIR but not CSAPR (AL, KY, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) Other anthropogenic (10 states) Biogenic and dust Fires Other states, Canada & Mexico, and offshore Contributions of IC/BCs ∑contributions = ozone

Sensitivities of Ozone to NOx Zero-outs with CMAQ 7 months (Apr-Oct) on LADCO12 grid 2017 baseline run 20 Sensitivity runs Statewide 100% emission reductions All anthropogenic NOx EGU NOx 10 SEMAP states 20 model runs (2 sources × 10 states) Sensitivity = Baseline ̶ Zero-out

CMAQ Sensitivity vs. CAMx Contribution

Calculation of DDVF Ran MATS 2.6.1 RRF = (2017sens/2017base) 2017 base case as “baseline” and 2017 sensitivity as “forecast” 5-year weighted average DVC and monitor (1  1) cell model data For each site in the state with at least 5 days with maximum 8-hr ozone ≥ 76 ppb or 5 days above 60 ppb in 2017 RRF = (2017sens/2017base) DDVF = DVF – (DVF*RRF) = DVF*(1-RRF)

Proposed CSAPR Contributions

Final CSAPR Contributions

SEMAP CAMx Contributions

SEMAP CAMx NOx Contribs.

SEMAP CMAQ NOx Contributions

SEMAP CMAQ EGU NOx Contribs.

SEMAP CAMx EGU NOx Contribs.

SEMAP NBTP Orphans Contribs.

Summary CAMx DVF are generally larger than CMAQ DVFs (about 1.0 ppb on average) RRFs are generally larger with CAMx CAMx sensitivities (contributions to ozone) are larger than CMAQ sensitivities (responses to zero-outs) Recall CAMx ozone was larger than CMAQ ozone CAMx contributions span broader areas and are less detailed than CMAQ sensitivities CAMx contribution is always positive while CMAQ response can be negative and even turn from positive to negative along plume trajectory. The home state typically has the largest impact on its own monitors. Neighboring states have the next largest impact. A significant impact according to CAMx may be insignificant according to CMAQ