1. Presented by: Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 11, 2005 Status Report to the Stationary Sources Joint Forum: Task 1.A: 2002 WRAP Inventory Review and Task 1.C: Emissions Projections to 2018

2. 2 Overview Scope and Schedule for Task 1.A  Progress to Date  Next Steps Scope and Schedule for Task 1.C  Progress to Date  Next Steps

3. 3 Scope: Task 1.A Improve 2002 WRAP point and area source inventories using all available data Assess completeness of geographic, facility, source category, and pollutant coverage Collect comprehensive control technology information Provide data for other tasks—projections, control technology analyses

4. 4 Progress: Task 1.A Compiled point and area source master inventory databases  2002 WRAP EDMS files Posted for ERG by the EDMS DBA Most files date stamped May-December 2004  2002 NEI February 1, 2005 version  2002 CAMD data (NO x and SO 2 ) for utilities  1999 NEI  1996 WRAP inventory Used in the §309 TSD

5. 5 Progress: Task 1.A (cont.) Additional Activities:  Common facility identifiers assigned  Control device information compiled  Contacted several state and local agencies to resolve questions, obtain missing data files  Can “select” or “deselect” records at the pollutant level for any base year in gap filling process

6. 6 Master Database Used to Verify/correct EPA’s assignment of common facility identifiers Compare reported emissions values to ID outliers Gap fill and apply surrogate data  Facility names, locations  Facilities, source categories, pollutants  Control device codes  Control device efficiencies  Stack parameters  SCC and SIC/NAICS codes

7. 7 Examples of Questions Resolved Mobile asphalt records with county code 777  CO: OK to delete records  MT: Allocate as area sources using road construction as surrogate Possible area source duplicated records  Clark County, NV  Washoe County, NV  OR Obtained Pinal County, AZ database and converted to NIF Incorporated Clark County, NV point and area source resubmitted files Corrected data transposed for a WA facility Corrected NM Intel emissions Still outstanding  MT CAMD – Local site ID mapping  WY VOC estimates (two facilities)

8. 8 Next Steps: Task 1.A Contact state/local/tribal agencies for point versus area source reporting cutoffs  To make sure gap filling of point sources is conducted correctly  To identify area source categories that should be adjusted for point source reported data Incorporate tribal databases  Make adjustments for any possible double counting Incorporate oil and gas databases  Make adjustments for any possible double counting

9. 9 Point vs. Area Source Reporting Verify thresholds identified for oil and gas sources  AK, CO, MT, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WY ID – 100 tpy actual Maricopa County, AZ – Varies by pollutant

10. 10 Resolve any conflicts in EGU controls QA stack parameters in point source inventory  U.S. EPA QA’d the parameters for the draft NEI  Several agencies agreed with U.S. EPA defaults  Others provided comments to U.S. EPA  U.S. EPA’s stack parameter QA procedure resulted in the application of many defaults  For WRAP, the QA/QC range need not be as tight as U.S. EPA’s Assign BART flags in point source Emission Unit field Prepare NIF files for upload into EDMS Next Steps: Task 1.A (continued)

11. 11 Other Possible Additional Activities Related to 2002 EI Review (Task 1.A) Incorporate state/local/tribal revisions provided via EDMS since December 2004 Incorporate state/local/tribal revisions provided via NEI review process Prepare NIF files and allow state/local/tribal agencies to review and comment

12. 12 EDMS and NEI Revisions to Date State/local/tribal revisions provided via EDMS  Version 1.1 has corrections to area source records for Clark and Washoe Counties, NV  Others? State/local/tribal revisions provided via NEI review process AZ Maricopa County  CA- Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians- Area sources  CO- Area sources  ID- Area and Point sources  MT- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation- Point sources  NM Albuquerque- Area and Point sources  OR- Area sources  UT- Area and Point sources  WA- Point sources

13. THANK YOU! Any questions related to Task 1.A?

14. 14 Scope: Task 1.C (Projections) A.Review previous projections, models B.Update retirement rates for existing sources C.Identify new (expected) sources, location, fuel D.Develop projection variables E.Write memo with findings from A-D F.Identify/quantify impacts from laws/regulations not in full effect by 2002  EACs, agreements/enforcement actions, NEAPs, MACTs  Write memo G.Other issues  Handling CA projections H.Develop baseline projections  Critical path = complete 2002 EI revision (Task 1.A) I.Input to EDMS (June 1) J.Draft report (July 1) K.Final report (September 30)

15. 15 Progress Since Last Update (February): Task 1.C Work group calls on March 15, April 7, April 29 Regulatory research complete (potential post-2002 impacts from regulations, EACs, agreements/ enforcements, NEAPs obtained on-line, MACTs)  Follow-up questions and data requests being made to state/local agencies  Results compiled in spreadsheet Projections “roadmap” (2 drafts) developed Initial review of CAMD data as a basis to identify facilities with 2002 “atypical” operations Investigation of capacity factor Projections database format (draft) developed

16. 16 Initial Results of Interviews with S/L Agencies (example)

17. 2018 Emissions Oil and Gas Emissions CA Emissions 2002 Point Sources 2002 Area Sources All Others RefineriesSmeltersEGUs OtherRefineriesSmeltersEGUs All OthersPopulation- based Livestock Sources Energy- based OtherPopulation- based Livestock Sources Energy- based CAMD/ E-GRID Industry InformationEGAS Agreements, Enforcements, New Rules, Regulations, NEAPs, EACs, etc. DOEPop. Proj. USDAEGAS Revised 2002 Point and Area Source Inventory (excluding fire and windblown dust) 2002 Emissions CA Emissions CENRAP Emissions Oil and Gas Emissions 2018 Baseline Emissions Known Retired Point Sources 2018 Point Sources Known New Point Sources 2002 Atypical to Typical Operation (Shutdowns, Repairs, High/Low Levels, etc.) QA Checks: * Compare to SO 2 Annex and plant-wide permit limits * Others TBD Atypical Adjustment Control Factors Growth Factors Road Map for Projection Task 1.C

18. 18 Adjusting for “Atypical” Operation Atypical hours of operation resulting from decreased production, unexpected/prolonged outages, etc. Adjustments are needed to bring baseline emissions to typical rate as a basis for accurate projections U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) data for EGUs  2002 hours of operation were calculated as a percentage of 8,760 hours for 1995 through 2004  Percentages were highlighted in quartiles ( 75%)  Limited value in examining annual trends

19. 19 Adjusting for “Atypical” Operation (cont.) VISTAS analysis for modeling inventory focused on development of hourly profiles for EGUs (Stella)  Adjustments made in modeling files to account for hourly operations  Conversations underway with Stella to devise WRAP method If typical, then replace annual emissions with hourly emissions (CAMD CEM) If atypical, then adjust with monthly profiles

20. 20 Investigating Capacity Factor Previous WRAP projections methodology:  Electricity sector growth applied to existing EGUs  After 85% capacity is achieved, new units are built  Need to understand basis for 85% capacity factor, and assess if change is warranted U.S. EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)  Tracks large number of data fields  493 EGU records; capacity only for 157 records (1996- 2000)  86 (55%) operated between 50-85% capacity (1999)  12 (8%) operated >85% capacity (1999)

21. 21 Investigating Capacity Factor (cont.) Interviews with DOE/EIA and EPRI staff  DOE/EIA staff (Martin) provided “fixed reserve margins” for regions  EPRI staff (Miller, Booras) said 85% factor sounded reasonable Additional research may needed in order to reach agreement

22. 22 Projections Database Objectives Provides transparent methodology Easily output to spreadsheets for S/L/T review Easily updated and used for “what if” analyses Comprehensive set of growth and control factors in one place

23. 23 Spreadsheet Layout A = 2002 Revised B = Baseline Planning C = Initial 2018 D = Final 2018

24. 24 Next Steps: Task 1.C Work Plan Element F:  Complete interviews with agencies  Calculate emissions impacts based on priority SCCs  Submit memo Work Plan Elements A-E:  Continue to review previous models, data  Update retirement rates for existing sources  Develop projection variables  Submit memo

25. 25 Next Steps: Task 1.C (continued) Calculate baseline projections for 2018 Receive comments, make changes Upload baseline projections to EDMS Draft and final reports

26. THANK YOU! Any questions related to Task 1.C?