The Maryland State Implementation Plan By Russell Dickerson, Tim Canty, Dan Goldberg, Xinrong Ren, Tim Vinciguerra et al., The University of Maryland 1145 am Tuesday 2 June 2015 AQAST #9 1

Aburn et al., Environ. Manag

We need a SIP Bull’s eye 3 Things Change Forecast emissions (of course) Base year: 2007 to 2011 Target year: 2018 to 2017 Platform CMAQ to SOAs and j’s Method to determine Design Values CB05 or CB6r2 Attainment status! Maryland is in. Connecticut is out.

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 =  O 3 /  NOz) lower than observed. – RO 2 underestimated, but NO & NOy overestimated. CMAQ indicates smog is a local problem. Bay Breeze absent in 12 km runs. Interstate transport (vertical mixing) underrepresented. 4

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. – RO 2 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 Goldberg talk, Ren Poster. 5

CMAQ Modeling: Analysis 6 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 O 3 Season CMAQ Model Scenarios

Scenarios 3A (ATT-1) – Using IPM results, reduce SCR/SNCR units to there lowest rates as seen in CAMD data ( ). 3B – Using IPM results, increase SCR/SNCR units to there worst rates as seen in CAMD data (2005 – 2012). 3C – Increase NO X 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. 8

Beta runs with model improvements 9 Reduction in NTR lifetime: mimics proper speciation of alkyl nitrates 50% reduction in mobile NO x (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 emissions minus best case

15 CMAQ Model Beta Scenarios (2011) Scenario 3d – Scenario 3a Better (practical) emissions minus best case

16 CountySite DV 2011 DV A (ATT-1) 3B3C3DATT-4 Anne ArundelDavidsonville BaltimorePadonia BaltimoreEssex Calvert CarrollSouth Carroll CecilFair Hill CalvertS.Maryland CambridgeBlackwater FrederickFrederick Airport GarrettPiney Run HarfordEdgewood HarfordAldino KentMillington MontgomeryRockville PGHU-Beltsville PGPG Equest PGBeltsville WashingtonHagerstown Baltimore CityFurley All model results for July only (2011 Platform): Beta

Summary 1. 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. 17

The Guilty Parties  CAMx Talk Tomorrow Poster  18

Slides for backup 19

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. 20

Initial Results: Scenario Observations Modeling ozone season: April to October % Reductions By 2018 OTC SectorNOxVOC Powerplant6152 Mobile5549 Off road4344 Marine3113 Area147

Observations2018 CMAQ Prediction Avg. max. 8 hr O 3 (ppb); all figures 2018 CMAQ Prediction % Reductions By 2018 OTC SectorNOxVOC Powerplant6152 Mobile5549 Off road4344 Marine3113 Area obs [O 3 ] ppb

23 Average Max. 8 hr ozone (ppb) City Fairfield, CT DeKalb, GA Fulton, GA Lake, IN Lake, IN Harford, MD Harford, MD Cecil, MD 8975 Wayne, MI Camden, NJ NY, NY 7675 Suffolk, NY Suffolk, NY 8875 Westchester, NY Bucks, PA Philadelphia, PA 8877 Significant reductions in predicted future ozone though some monitoring sites still in non-attainment. Most monitors attain 75 ppb ozone standard. Further reductions in O 3 precursors needed for sites in NE corridor. Unregulated peaking units and irregular use of NOx scrubbers possible culprits. O