i11>1/? -isLfj •/
EPA 230-R-96-012
CBP/TRS 155/96
ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN DEPOSITION
LOADINGS TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
AN INITIAL ANALYSIS OF
THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
CONTROL OPTIONS
November 1996
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN DEPOSITION LOADINGS
TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
AN INITIAL ANALYSIS OF THE
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL OPTIONS
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Multi-Media and Strategic Analysis Division
Washington, DC
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, Maryland
November 1996
EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0035
Work Assignment No. 11-76
-------
FOREWORD
This report, the first in a series, examines the cost effectiveness of control options which reduce nitrate
deposition to the Chesapeake watershed and to the tidal Bay. The report analyzes current estimates of the
reductions expected to be brought about by implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and
additional reductions expected in the ozone transport region. Two regional models, the Regional Acid
Deposition Model (RADM) of the airshed and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (CBWM), track nitrate
and its precursors from emission to deposition, and from deposition in the watershed to the tidal Bay.
The ultimate object of this analysis is to determine the sources of atmospheric nitrate deposited to the Bay,
the loads from each major source, the load reduction amount brought about by controls, and the cost of these
reductions. Seen in context, this initial analysis is set against a backdrop of rapidly improving monitoring,
science, and modeling of the fate and transport of atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Nitrate monitoring over
open tidal waters has improved over the past two years. Likewise, recent research in the area of cross-media
nitrogen transfers has been particularly active. Refinements to the CBWM, to be completed in November,
1996, will further improve watershed modeling tools for the analysis of cross-media nitrogen transfer across
the Chesapeake Bay's watershed and airshed.
The initial analysis of control option cost effectiveness reported here contributes to the establishment of a
first-order estimate of control cost and is useful in distinguishing control options of relatively greater, or
lesser, cost effectiveness. Methodologies of cost analysis applied in this report will be improved with the
consideration of atmospheric deposition to other estuaries and by an expanded consideration of cross-media
benefits in subsequent reports scheduled for publication in 1997.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FORWARD i
TABLES AND FIGURES v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
CHAPTERI - INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II - BACKGROUND 3
A. AREA DEFINITIONS 3
B. ERCAM 7
C. RADM 9
D. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED MODEL 11
CHAPTER III-NOX CONTROL PROGRAMS EVALUATED 15
A. OTC LOW EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAM 15
B. STATIONARY SOURCE NOX INITIATIVE 15
CHAPTER IV - ANALYSIS METHODS 19
A. LOAD TO DEPOSITION RATIOS 19
B. DEPOSITION-TO-EMISSION RATIOS 26
CHAPTER V - NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS 29
A. NOX EMISSION LEVELS 29
B. • CAA CONTROL COST ESTIMATES 29
C. SCENARIO C2 AND SCENARIO E CONTROL COST ESTIMATES 29
CHAPTER VI - RESULTS 39
A. AIRPOLLUTION CONTROLS 39
B. VERIFICATION OF METHODOLOGY 41
C. NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS 42
CHAPTER VII - CAVEATS AND UNCERTAINTIES 45
CHAPTER VIII - CONCLUSIONS 47
REFERENCES 49
APPENDIX A - REGIONAL ACID DEPOSITION MODEL SUMMARY OUTPUT A-l
MI
-------
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Page
ES-1 Cost Comparison of Air Pollution Controls by Scenario: Chesapeake Bay
Assessment States versus Airshed 2 States xi
II-l Basic Elements of Control Strategy Data Base 7
II-2 Distribution of Land Uses in the Chesapeake Basin Watershed Model 13
FV-1 Nitrate Deposition in Reference Case, Clean Air Act, and OTC Scenarios 22
FV-2 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Data - Phase III Scenario Runs:
Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads 23
IV-3 Total Nitrogen Load by Chesapeake Bay Basin from Atmospheric Deposition 24
IV-4 Basin Relations between the RADM and Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Segmentation Schemes 25
IV-5 Percentage Reduction of Nitrogen Load versus Atmospheric Deposition 27
IV-6 Chesapeake Bay Basin Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition-to-NOx Emission
Ratios 28
V-l NOX Reference Emission Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States by
Source Category 30
V-2 NOX Emission Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States by Scenario 31
V-3 CAA NOx-Related Control Costs in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States 32
V-4 Cost Summary for OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States: Cost Increase
from Base Case CAA to Scenario C2 34
V-5 Cost Summary for Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States: Cost
Increase from Base Case CAA to Scenario E 34
V-6 Cost of Motor Vehicle NOX Reductions: OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2
States 35
V-7 Cost of Motor Vehicle NOX Reductions: Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay
Airshed 2 States 35
V-8 Cost of Non-Utility Point Source NOX Reductions: OTR Chesapeake Bay
Airshed 2 States 36
V-9 Cost of Non-Utility Point Source NOX Reductions: Non-OTR Chesapeake
Bay Airshed 2 States 36
V-10 Cost of Utility NOX Reductions: OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States 37
V-l 1 Cost of Utility NOX Reductions: Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States 37
V-l2 Cost per Ton of NOX Emission Reductions by State and Source Type:
OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States 38
V-13 Cost per Ton of NOX Emission Reductions by State and Source Type:
Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States 38
VI-1 Cost Comparison of Air Pollution Controls by Scenario: Chesapeake Bay
States versus Airshed 2 States 40
VI-2 Nitrogen Load Reductions and Costs by State: Utilities and Mobile Sources 40
VI-3 Variation in Cost of Nitrogen Load Reduced by Geographic Location 41
VI-4 Comparison of Scenario C2 Nitrogen Load Reductions by State 42
VI-5 Cost Analysis Summary by Management Practice for Agreement States:
Non-Point Source - Level of Technology N 43
-------
TABLES AND FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
II-l Chesapeake Bay Watershed 4
II-2 Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 5
II-3 States Included in Chesapeake Bay Cost and Emissions Modeling 6
II-4 RADM Domain and Chesapeake Airshed 2 Boundaries 10
H-5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Segmentation 12
III-l Northern, Inner, and Outer Zone Boundaries of the OTR 17
IV-1 Calculation of Cost of Reduction in Nitrogen Load 20
VI
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFL
AREAL
ASCs
BFL
CAA
CAAA
CARB
CBPO
CBWM
CMSA
EPA
ERCAM
ETSD
Evs
GDP
HDTs
I/M
kg
km
Ibs
LDGV
LDTs
LDVs
LEV
MD
MMBtu
MOU
mph
MSA
NAPAP
NMOG
NOX
NSR
O&M
OAQPS
OPPE
OTAG
OTC
OTR
RACT
RADM
ROM
SCCs
SCR
above fall line
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Lab
area source categories
below fall line
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Amendments
California Air Resources Board
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
consolidated metropolitan statistical area
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Reduction and Cost Analysis Model
Energy and Transportation Sectors Division
electric vehicles
gross domestic product
heavy-duty trucks
inspection and maintenance
kilograms
kilometers
pounds
light-duty gasoline vehicle
light-duty trucks
light-duty vehicles
low-emission vehicle
Maryland
million British thermal unit
memorandum of understanding
miles per hour
metropolitan statistical area
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
non-methane organic gases
oxides of nitrogen
New Source Review
operating and maintenance
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Ozone Transport Assessment Group
Ozone Transport Commission
Ozone Transport Region
reasonably available control technology
Regional Acid Deposition Model
Regional Oxidant Model
.source classification codes
selective catalytic reduction
VII
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
SIP State Implementation Plan
TLEV transitional low emission vehicle
tpy tons per year
ULEV ultra-low emission vehicle
VA Virginia
VMT vehicle miles traveled
ZEV zero-emission vehicle
VIII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To address the problems of excess nutrients in the Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Program jurisdictions have
committed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution reaching the Bay by 40 percent from 1985 levels by
the year 2000. Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay originate from point sources (e.g., municipal and industrial
wastewater), non-point sources (e.g., cropland, animal wastes, urban and suburban runoff), and airborne
contaminants. Atmospheric nitrogen is largely produced from burning fossil fuels; its two largest sources are
automobiles and fossil fuel electric generating plants. Atmospheric deposition accounts for 27 percent of the
Bay's total nitrogen load. Thus, control of atmospheric sources could have significant potential to help the
Bay watershed jurisdictions reach and maintain their 40 percent target reductions in a cost effective manner.
The nutrient reduction called for in the Bay Agreement is 40% of controllable loads. Controllable loads
are defined as loads from point sources and nonpoint source loads from agriculture and urban land uses.
Nonpoint source loads from forest and loads from air deposition are considered to be uncontrollable. As
information from monitoring, research, and modeling analyses of atmospheric deposition loads increases, air
deposition loads more become an important component of the Bay Agreement.
The purpose of this project was to examine whether programs to control regional airborne oxides of
nitrogen (NOJ are cost-effective ways to reduce nitrogen loads to the Bay compared with other management
scenarios. Regional control programs considered in this analysis include: the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)
program of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), and a 0.15 pounds (Ibs) per million British thermal
unit (MMBtu) NOX emission limit applied to large fuel combustors in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) States. The effect of extending the OTR programs to wider areas of the country - whose emissions
also influence the Bay - was also examined.
The above can be described as three primary scenarios, as listed below:
1. Clean Air Act (CAA) Scenario: The expected 2005 baseline under the CAA, with mandatory
programs applied.
2. Scenario C2: The 2005 CAA Scenario with the OTC-LEV program, plus a 0.15 Ibs/MMBtu NOX
emission limit applied to large fuel combustors in the Northeast OTR (OTC Scenario).
3. Scenario E: Scenario C2 controls applied to the entire airshed. This airshed includes the NOX
source areas outside the Northeast OTR States that contribute the most to nitrogen deposition
within the Bay watershed.
Information from three modeling efforts were used to perform this analysis. The Emission Reduction
and Cost Analysis Model (ERCAM) for NOX was used to project 2005 emission levels and control costs for
the three scenarios listed above. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Atmospheric Research
and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL) used the Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) to
estimate airborne nitrogen deposition within the modeling domain for each of the three control scenarios.
Lastly, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office's (CBPO) Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model was used to
estimate how differences in atmospheric nitrogen loadings to the Bay waters would affect associated nitrogen
loadings to the tidal waters of the Bay.
IX
-------
Table ES-1 summarizes the study results for the primary air pollution control scenarios, sectors, and
geographic divisions included in the study. Results are expressed in terms of the estimated reduction in
nitrogen load and cost per pound of nitrogen reduced for applying controls in the Chesapeake Bay Program
States (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) as well as for the entire airshed
affecting the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Table ES-1 shows that by adopting and implementing the OTC-
LEV and Stationary Source NOX Initiatives, the Bay States can reduce nitrogen loads to the tidal waters of the
Chesapeake Bay at a cost of $75 per pound of nitrogen load. This is cost competitive with the higher cost
non-point source control measures such as forest and urban management practices, even without allocating
any of the costs to other likely benefits of these programs, such as reducing ozone levels in the Northeast
OTR, or reducing nitrogen deposition to the Great Lakes and other east coast estuaries besides the
Chesapeake Bay.
NOX control costs almost double as controls are extended from the Bay States to the entire Chesapeake
Bay Airshed 2 States. Further controls of NOX emissions from steam-electric utility plants are the most cost
effective control measures, even when applied throughout the entire Bay airshed. Requiring cars and light
trucks to meet LEV standards outside the OTR is expected to be more cost effective in reducing nitrogen
loads than further industrial source controls in these States.
If OTC programs to reduce NOX emissions are to be extended outside the Northeast OTR, the State with
the most cost effective emission reductions (cost per pound of nitrogen load reduced) is West Virginia.
Controls in other non-OTC States are likely to be less cost effective than higher cost non-point source control
management practices.
This analysis represents an important step in determining cost-effective strategies for reducing
atmospheric nitrogen deposition to the Chesapeake Bay. Further refinement of the cost estimates would
involve separating out those costs directly attributable to reducing nitrate loadings from those costs
associated with other programs (reducing ambient ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate concentrations)
that, while intended for other environmental purposes, also reduce nitrate loadings.
In modeling a situation, like this one, where long-range transport of air pollutants is so important, it is
difficult to make a fair comparison of costs and benefits. This difficulty occurs because the geographic area
where the costs are incurred is frequently not the same area where the benefits are observed, hi expressing
the costs of the OTC-LEV petition and the Stationary Source NOX Initiative, the costs observed in New
England States outside the Bay Airshed 2 States have been omitted from the program costs presented in this
report, because the benefits of NOX controls applied in these States are not observed within the airshed. It
should also be noted that benefits likely to be observed in watersheds other than the Chesapeake Bay (the
Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, and Massachusetts Bay, for instance) have not been used to discount the
costs presented here, either.
-------
Table ES-1
Cost Comparison of Air Pollution Controls by Scenario:
Chesapeake Bay Assessment States versus Airshed 2 States1
Bay States2
Scenario
CAA Scenario3
Scenario C2
Scenario E
Sector
Highway Vehicle (LEV)4
Utility (0.1 5 Ibs/MMBtu)4
Non-Utility (0.15 Ibs/MMBtu)4
Load Reduced
(thousand Ibs)
5330
6,480
7,760
970
5,330
180
Cost per Pound
$75
$75
$77
$132
$54
$396
Airshed 2
Load Reduced
(thousand Ibs)
11,570
-
17,010
1,700
14,610
1,190
Cost per Pound
(S/lb)
$123
-
$147
$329
$95
$466
NOTES: 'The Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States include all or part of the following States: Delaware, the District of Columbia, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
2Bay States represent Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
'Reductions and costs for the CAA Scenario are with respect to 1990 loads and, therefore, incorporate growth, as well as controls.
Eliminating the effect of growth would result in higher load reductions and lower costs.
'Controls were applied only in the OTR for the Bay States analysis.
XI
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the Chesapeake Bay, two problems impair the growth of aquatic life. Low oxygen conditions and
overgrowth of algae both contribute to the Bay's poor water quality and aquatic habitat loss. Land use
changes and population growth have contributed to higher amounts of nutrients entering the Bay's tidal
waters, which in turn lead to low oxygen levels and increased algae growth. Nitrogen and phosphorus are two
nutrients that are contributing to poor water quality in the Bay. Excess nitrogen is responsible for
eutrophication (low dissolved oxygen), which is the most significant water quality problem facing the Bay.
Eutrophic conditions arise when excess nitrogen (a nutrient) feeds algal blooms which, in turn, consume
oxygen as they decay. In order to address the problems of excess nutrients on the Bay, the Chesapeake Bay
Program jurisdictions have committed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution reaching the Bay by 40
percent from 1985 levels by the year 2000.
Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay originate from point sources (e.g., municipal and industrial
wastewater), non-point sources (e.g., cropland, animal wastes, urban and suburban runoff), and airborne
contaminants. Atmospheric nitrogen is largely produced from burning fossil fuels; its two largest sources are
automobiles and fossil fuel electric generating plants throughout the Chesapeake Bay airshed, which extends
well beyond the watershed. Computer models indicate that about 10 percent of the Bay's nitrogen load is
from airborne nitrogen deposited directly on the Bay surface and the tidal portion of its tributaries (EPA,
1994). Atmospheric nitrogen deposited throughout the 64,000 square mile watershed eventually runs into the
tidal Bay. Air pollution accounts for 27 percent of the Bay's total nitrogen load.
To date, efforts to reduce nitrogen in the Bay have focused exclusively on point and non-point sources in
the watershed. As the limit of nitrogen loading reductions from these sources is approached, the cost
effectiveness of additional measures declines. Control of atmospheric sources has significant potential to
help the Bay watershed jurisdictions reach and maintain their 40 percent target reduction in nitrogen loadings
in a cost effective manner. For the above fall line basins, mobile sources contribute 30 to 40 percent of the
inorganic nitrogen deposition from airborne sources. Utility and non-utility point sources contribute 30 to 50
percent of the inorganic airborne nitrogen deposition to the Bay (Dennis, in press).
The States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay
Commission; and the Federal Government represented by EPA, are partners in the Chesapeake Bay Program
to reduce controllable phosphorus and nitrogen to the Bay by 40 percent by the year 2000 (Chesapeake
Executive Council, 1987). The purpose of this analysis is to examine whether programs to control regional
airborne NOX are cost-effective ways to reduce nitrogen loads to the Bay compared with other management
scenarios. Regional control programs considered in this analysis include: the LEV program of the OTC, and
a 0.15 Ibs per MMBtu NOX emission limit applied to large fuel combustors in the Northeast OTR States.
These two programs are referred to throughout this report as the OTC-LEV petition, and the OTC Stationary
Source NOX Control Initiative, respectively. The effect of extending the OTR control programs to wider areas
of the country was also examined.
-------
A major component of this analysis was the calculation of emissions reductions by source from control
technologies and policies for which control efficiency and cost data were available. Sources affected by the
airborne NOX control strategies examined in the analysis included steam-electric utility plants, non-utility
point sources, and motor vehicles.
The information flow in the analysis performed can be summarized as follows:
1. Emission data files were prepared for the 1990 base year and for 2005 to estimate ozone precursor
emissions under different control strategies. These files were developed primarily as Regional
Oxidant Model (ROM) inputs.
2. The Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division at EPA's AREAL used the NOX emission estimates
from the ROM input files as input to the RADM. For some model runs, the scenarios were
combined in different ways to apply outside the OTC State controls to the Chesapeake Bay
airshed, as opposed to the entire ROM domain.
3. RADM outputs were provided to EPA's CBPO, where the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
(CBWM) was used to quantify the impacts that airborne nitrogen deposited on the Bay watershed
eventually has on nitrogen levels in the Bay tidal waters.
The NOX emissions data files prepared as inputs to ROM included emission estimates for the following
three scenarios:
• Clean Air Act (CAA) Scenario: CAA Baseline Case for year 2005 Baseline;
• Scenario C2: CAA Baseline controls plus the OTC-LEV petition and the
Stationary Source NOX Control initiative; and
• Scenario E: Scenario C2 controls applied to the entire airshed.
This report is organized in eight chapters, beginning with this introductidn. Chapter II provides some
summary information about the study region, and about the following three models that provided inputs to
this analysis: ERCAM, RADM, and the CBWM. Chapter III describes the NOX emission control scenarios
that were examined in this analysis. Analysis methods for this study are detailed in Chapter IV. Airborne
NOX emissions and cost analyses are described in Chapter V. Results are presented in Chapter VI. Notable
caveats and uncertainties are described in Chapter VII. Chapter VIII presents a summary of the conclusions
of this analysis.
-------
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
In addition to evaluating specific control programs in the OTR, this analysis also evaluated the effects of
expanding the regions in which controls may be applied. This chapter identifies and describes the geographic
areas important to this analysis. Background information on the models used in the overall approach to
evaluate the impact of NOX controls on nitrogen loadings to the Chesapeake Bay is also provided in this
chapter.
A. AREA DEFINITIONS
There are several area definitions which are important to understanding the role of airborne nitrogen
deposition within total nitrogen loads to the Chesapeake Bay. Nitrogen that is deposited within the
watershed, or directly to tidal Bay water surfaces, both contribute to total nitrogen loads to the mainstream
Bay and its tidal tributaries. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is shown in Figure II-l. Nitrogen deposited on
land and along stream edges may enter the water through run-off. Nitrogen entering through run-off, along
with that deposited directly to the streams and rivers, is transported through the waters with losses resulting
from biological, chemical, and physical processes (Linker et al., 1993). A significant fraction of this nitrogen
eventually enters the Bay and, along with the nitrogen deposited directly to Bay water surfaces, adds to total
nitrogen loads to the Chesapeake Bay.
The geographic range of influence of atmospheric pollution sources on nitrogen deposition to the
watershed is referred to as the airshed. RADM was used to determine the range of influence leading to the
definition of Airshed 1 and Airshed 2 (Dennis, in press). Airshed 1 was initially defined as the sphere of
influence. Further modeling indicated that emissions from this region accounted for less than the anticipated
70 to 80 percent. The airshed was further expanded to reflect Airshed 2, which accounts for just over 70
percent of nitrogen deposition across the watershed. The geographic boundaries of Airshed 2 are shown in
Figure II-2. Airshed 2 is still considered to be a conservative estimate of the actual airshed for the
Chesapeake Bay.
Airshed 2 was used as the basis for determining which States should be included in the cost effectiveness
modeling. The New England States, while affected by the OTC-LEV petition and the Stationary Source NOX
Initiative, are outside the range of influence on Chesapeake Bay nitrogen loadings defined by Airshed 2 and
have therefore not been included in this cost effectiveness analysis. Figure H-3 shows the States examined in
the cost analysis, both inside and outside of the OTR. Because Airshed 2 includes a portion of Indiana,
Kentucky, and Tennessee, decisions had to be made about whether to include or exclude these States from the
cost analysis. Kentucky and Tennessee were included, and Indiana was excluded from the cost analysis based
on source contribution information from RADM.
-------
FIGURE II-l
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
as Delineated by RADJ
20 km
-------
FIGURE H-2
Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2
-------
FIGURE II-3
^States Included in Chesapeake Bay Cost and Emissions Modeling
-------
The final important term for this analysis is source-region. A source-region is defined according to both
emission sources and geographic boundaries. The impact of NOX emissions on atmospheric deposition were
examined for several source-regions using RADM (Dennis, 1996). Examples of source-regions include: all
sources in Airshed 2; mobile sources in Maryland; utilities in Pennsylvania; and all sources in the Bay States.
Source-regions are defined to examine the importance and cost-effectiveness of controls in any combination
of regions and source types.
B. ERCAM
ERCAM-NOX is a national model designed to examine the emission reductions and costs associated with
a variety of NOX control measures (Pechan, 1994c). This model projects costs and emissions associated with
NOX control measures, using the Interim 1990 Inventory as input data (EPA, 1993). ERCAM-NOX is divided
into separate modules to address the unique growth and control strategy applications of each of the following
four emission sectors: steam-electric utilities, non-utility point sources, motor vehicles, and non-road
engines/vehicles.
In the ERCAM-NOX development process, the modeling objectives established for model design were to:
• provide quick turnaround analyses to EPA;
• model all sectors of NOX emitters, and to incorporate control measures covering as large a
percentage of the inventory as possible;
• use the Interim 1990 Inventory as input data and design the model so that State Implementation
Plan (SIP) inventories for 1990 can be easily incorporated as they become available;
• examine costs and emission results at the State or regional level;
• provide accurate results at the nonattainment area level, as well as at the national level;
• provide results in a spreadsheet format for EPA use; and
• incorporate multiple control measures for each source category to allow for easy examination of the
costs and benefits of different levels of control.
Control and cost information for the model is organized by cost pod in the control strategy data bases. A
pod is a group of source types, as defined by source classification codes (SCCs) or area source categories
(ASCs), which have similar process and emission characteristics, control techniques, and control costs. A
cost pod may have one or several control options (which consist of the control technique, efficiency, and cost
parameters). The basic structure of the control strategy data bases is shown in Table II-1.
Table H-l
Basic Elements of Control Strategy Data Base
Pod Source category or grouping of SCCs for control purposes
Pod Name Descriptive name of pod
CS Control strategy code
CS Name Control strategy name (e.g., selective catalytic reduction [SCR])
Reduction Percentage reduction associated with the control
Cost Parameters Size-specific cost equation parameters for capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs; cost per
ton estimate for sources where size-specific equations are not applicable
-------
A unique ERCAM-NOX simulation is defined by:
Projection year (1996, 1999,2002,2005, 2007,2010);
Scenario file name;
Whether Title IV (Acid Rain) controls are included;
Point source reasonably available control technology (RACT) size cutoffs; and
Motor vehicle scenario name.
The scenario file designates which control strategies will be applied to each ozone nonattainment
classification, as well as to attainment areas within the Northeast Transport Region. The control strategy
code specifies which control measure will be applied to that combination of ozone nonattainment category
and pod. The complete set of attainment category/pod/control strategy combinations is referred to by a
unique three- character string, such as "CAA" or "MAX." The emission reduction and cost parameters
associated with the control strategy are stored in the control strategy file.
Title IVcontrols represent the emission limits for utility boilers mandated under the CAA. Each
existing unit has been identified as a phase 1 or phase 2 unit, and control strategies have been selected to
bring units into compliance with the expected Title IV NOX standards.
The CAA major source size definitions are chosen as the default RACT source size cutoffs. Other
cutoffs may be specified, with separate cutoffs for each nonattainment classification. Default RACT source
sizes are according to major stationary source definitions, which are 100 tons per year (tpy) in moderate
ozone nonattainment areas and the OTC States, 50 tpy in serious ozone nonattainment areas, 25 tpy in severe
areas, and 10 tpy in extreme areas.
Similar to the stationary source scenario, a motor vehicle scenario is also chosen for a model simulation.
The motor vehicle scenario file specifies which set of MOBILES a emission factors to apply to each county.
Flags included are: type of inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, reformulated gasoline, oxygenated
fuels, CAA tailpipe standards, and California LEV program. This file also drives which cost parameters to
apply to estimate the cost of motor vehicle controls. The motor vehicle cost file contains costs for each of
these options in dollars per registered vehicle, dollars per mile traveled, or dollars per new vehicle.
The control cost equations have been updated several times since the latest ERCAM-NOX documentation
was prepared. Such updates have been included in the cost calculations performed for this analysis. The
most significant of these updates is to the cost equations for advanced technologies (such as SCR) being
applied to steam-electric utility boilers (Acurex, 1995). Updating these cost equations served to lower the
cost per ton of NOX reduced for the stationary source control measures that might be needed to comply with
the Stationary Source NOX Initiative.
The results of applying the OTC-LEV program and the Stationary Source NOX Initiative are measured
from a projection of NOX emissions in 2005 under a CAA baseline. The CAA baseline was developed by
applying growth and control factors to the Interim 1990 Inventory (the base year inventory) (EPA, 1993).
For NOX, the most significant control measures included in the CAA baseline are as follows:
1. RACT-level controls in major stationary sources are applied according to the major stationary
source definition, which varies by ozone nonattainment area classification. Affected areas are the
entire Northeast OTR and ozone nonattainment areas outside the OTR
8
-------
2. Title IV (Acid Rain) NO, emission limits affect certain steam-electric utility units (Phase I and
Phase II boilers).
3. Areas with planned enhanced I/Mprograms achieve NOX benefits. Highway vehicle emissions are
also affected by new Federal emission standards (Tier 1).
4. Certain categories of nonroad engines/vehicles are assumed to be affected by new Federal
emissions standards.
5. New sources in ozone nonattainment areas and the OTR are subject to more stringent New Source
Review (NSR) requirements. Projections assume that SCR is representative of NSR requirements.
C. RADM
EPA's RADM supplied the airborne nitrogen deposition estimates for the different control scenarios
evaluated in this study (Dennis, in press). RADM has been developed over the past ten years under the
auspices of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) to address policy and technical
issues associated with acidic deposition. The model is designed to do the following: to provide a scientific
basis for predicting changes in deposition occurring as a result of changes in precursor emissions; to predict
the influence of sources in one region on acidic deposition in other sensitive receptor regions; and to predict
the levels of acidic deposition in certain sensitive receptor regions.
The RADM is a Eulerian model in which concentrations of gaseous and particulate species are
calculated for specific fixed positions in space (grid cells) as a function of time. The concentration of a
specific pollutant in a grid cell at a specified time is determined by the following variables: the emissions
input rate; the transport of that species by wind into and out of the grid in three dimensions; movement by
turbulent motion of the atmosphere; chemical reactions that either produce or deplete the chemical specie; the
change in concentration due to vertical transport by clouds; aqueous chemical transformation and scavenging;
and removal by dry deposition.
The version of RADM used for these analyses is referred to as RADM2.61, and covers a geographic
domain of 2,800 by 3,040 kilometers (km) that stretches from east of central Texas and south of James Bay,
Canada, to the southern tip of Florida. RADM2.61 uses grid cells of 80 by 80 km and has 15
logarithmically-spaced vertical layers, covering the distance from ground level to 16 km in altitude, the top of
the free troposphere, and the beginning of the stratosphere. The RADM horizontal domain consists of 36 by
38 km horizontal grid cells, which, together with 15 vertical layers, results in a total of 19,950 cells. The
geographic boundaries of RADM domain are illustrated in Figure II-4, with the periphery of the Airshed 2
region also highlighted.
The meteorological fields used to drive the RADM were from the Pennsylvania State University Center
for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM4). The MM4 is a weather model; it is used
to recreate historical meteorology in detail. Because RADM predicts hourly chemistry on a synoptic time
scale of several days (chemical meteorology), an aggregation technique developed during NAPAP is used to
develop annual estimates of acidic deposition (Dennis et al., 1990).
-------
Figure II-4
RADM Domain and Chesapeake Airshed 2 Boundaries
10
-------
Eulerian, or fixed-grid models, are suitable for representing the full, complex non-linearity of the
photochemistry involved in the oxidation of primarily-emitted species to acidic substances. However,
Eulerian models have not been used to study source-receptor relationships.
The range of influence of point source NOX emissions on nitrogen deposition predicted by the RADM is
about 700 to 800 km. This range is consistent with a residence time of 1 to 1.5 days. For all practical
purposes, the range of influence of area sources is the same as for point sources, according to the RADM.
The model rapidly mixes the primary emissions and the secondary oxidation products vertically throughout
the mixed layer during daylight hours. The vertical mixing in the model is evidently thorough enough to
mask any distinction of emissions source height.
D. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED MODEL
The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed models for the Bay drainage basin and the tidal waters of
the Bay. The CBWM, which covers the entire 64,000 square miles of the drainage basin, was initially
developed during the research phase of the program and has been updated periodically (Linker et al., 1993;
Donigian et al., 1991). In 1992, the CBWM helped establish the Chesapeake Bay Agreement nutrient
reduction goals for all the major Chesapeake Bay tributary basins*. Since then, the CBWM has gone through
two major refinements (Phase III and Phase IV) aimed at providing a better tool for tracking progress toward
achieving the year 2000 basinwide 40 percent nutrient reduction goal. Completion of these refinements is
scheduled for November, 1996**. The cost effectiveness analysis results reported here are based on the
initial phase of CBWM refinements, which incorporates finer spatial detail in land use and model
segmentation***. A more comprehensive analysis of the cost effectiveness of air controls, to be completed in
1997, will be based on the Phase IV CBWM which includes daily inputs of wet deposition, a refined spatial
accounting of dry deposition, and improved simulation of atmospheric nutrient inputs on forest, pasture, and
urban lands. Figure II-5 illustrates the segmentation of the Phase III Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
coverage by basin. The Phase III Watershed Model was calibrated for the four-year period from 1984 to
1987 based on monitoring data from the tributaries.
The CBWM simulates nonpoint source nutrient loads from eight land uses, point source nutrient loads,
and atmospheric deposition nutrient loads. Table II-2 lists the distribution of 1985 CBWM land uses for the
basin. The CBWM processes these loads through the river systems and delivers the loads to the Bay for use
in the model. The Watershed Model has been used to evaluate the load reductions for a range of different
management scenarios, to establish the controllable non-point source loads, to forecast the loads from a
projected 2000 land use and population growth scenario, and to define a limit of technology scenario for non-
point source control measures. The output from the CBWM is used to develop the input loads for the
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model.
* Phase II Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
* * Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
*** Phase III Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
11
-------
Figure II-5
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Segmentation
12
-------
Table H-2
Distribution of Land Uses in the Chesapeake Basin Watershed Model
Percentage of
Land Use Total Acreage Total Basin
Cropland 8,237,125 20%
Pasture 3,740,981 9%
Forest 24,457,144 60%
Urban 4,032,669 10%
Water 526,115 1%
Animal Waste 12,650 <1%
SOURCE: EPA, 1995.
13
-------
CHAPTER III
NOX CONTROL PROGRAMS EVALUATED
Two regional NOX control programs were modeled in this analysis. The OTC-LEV petition is designed
to reduce mobile source emissions, and the Stationary Source NO* Initiative is targeted to reduce emissions
from large fuel combustors. Background information on each of the NOX control programs being evaluated in
Scenario C2 and Scenario E is provided in this chapter.
A. OTC LOW EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAM
In September 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved its LEV and Clean Fuels
regulations (CARB, 1990). These regulations establish four new classes of light- and medium-duty vehicles
with increasingly stringent emission levels: transitional low emission vehicle (TLEV), LEV, ultra-low
emission vehicle (ULEV), and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV). The regulations also established a decreasing
fleet average standard for emissions of non-methane organic gases (NMOG). Auto manufacturers can meet
the fleet average NMOG standard using any combination of TLEVs, LEVs, ULEVs, and ZEVs they choose.
However, CARB also included a ZEV requirement as part of the LEV regulations. Starting in 1998,2
percent of the vehicles produced for sale in the State must be ZEVs. This percentage increases to 5 percent in
2001 and to 10 percent in 2003. ZEVs are defined as vehicles with no direct exhaust or evaporative
emissions; only battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs) are expected to meet this standard in the near term.
Since the LEV program was adopted in California, many States in other areas of the country have
considered exercising their authority under Section 177 of the CAA to adopt the California emission
standards. Interest in this program began in the Northeast States. Since then, States in the mid-Atlantic
region have evaluated program adoption. Other States that have considered LEV adoption have included
Texas, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In October 1991, OTC States signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) on the California LEV program (OTC, 1991). In signing this MOU, each of the member States
agreed to propose regulations and/or legislation as necessary to adopt light-duty motor vehicle standards
identical to those in the California LEV program, effective in the OTR as soon as possible and in accordance
with Section 177 of the CAA.
On February 1, 1994, the OTC voted to recommend that EPA mandate the California LEV program in
the Northeast, and shortly thereafter presented a petition to EPA (OTC, 1994). The analyses presented in
this report for the costs and benefits of the OTC-LEV program are from analyses performed by an EPA
contractor in September 1994 (Pechan, 1994a; Pechan, 1994b). Since the time that these analyses were
completed, the Northeast States and the auto manufacturers have discussed the option of a 49-State LEV
program. If a 49-State LEV program is adopted, then the emissions and costs for the modeling region will
change somewhat from the results of the September/December 1994 analyses.
B. STATIONARY SOURCE NOX INITIATIVE
In September 1994, the OTR States signed an MOU on development of a regional strategy for the
control of NOX emissions from stationary sources (OTC, 1994). Through this MOU, the member States
agreed to propose regulations and/or legislation for the control of NOX emissions from boilers and other
15
-------
indirect heat exchangers with a maximum gross heat input rate of at least 250 MMBtu per hour.
Requirements are proposed to be somewhat different for each of the three zones within the Northeast OTR
These three zones are: (1) the OTR's Northern Zone, consisting of the northern portion of the OTR, (2) the
OTR's Inner Zone, consisting of the central eastern portion of the OTR, and (3) the OTR's Outer Zone
consisting of the remainder of the OTR. Figure ffi-1 illustrates the boundaries of the Inner, Outer, and
Northern Zones of the OTR.
The States agreed to require sources in the Inner and Outer Zone to either reduce their rate of NOX
emissions by 75 percent from base year levels by May 1,2003, or to emit NOX at a rate no greater than 0.15
Ibs per MMBtu. In the Northern Zone, States agreed to require subject sources to reduce their rate of NOX
emissions by 55 percent from base year levels by May 1,2003, and to emit NOX at a rate no greater than 0.2
Ibs per MMBtu. Note that this represents phase 3 requirements which may be adjusted based on modeling
and other information on the amount of NOX reductions needed to achieve air quality standards.
As part of this study, the effects of the OTR stationary source NOX initiative were simulated by applying
control measures necessary to reduce each unit's emission to 0.15 Ibs of NOX per MMBtu or less. While this
may overstate the costs and benefits of the initiative in the Northern Zone, the sources in this zone do not
affect the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
16
-------
Figure III-l
Northern, Inner, and Outer Zone Boundaries of the OTR
Northern
Zone
Outer
Zone
17
-------
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS METHODS
The overall approach for estimating the nitrogen load reduction and cost per pound of nitrogen load
reduced is summarized in Figure IV-1. The analysis began with an estimated NOX emission reduction for a
source-region. The reduction in nitrogen atmospheric deposition was then estimated for each basin based on
the ratio of nitrogen atmospheric deposition to NOX emissions. These ratios are based on RADM summaries
that were developed for various source-regions. After the nitrogen atmospheric deposition was estimated, the
nitrogen load reduction attributable to each basin was estimated based on the relationship between nitrogen
load delivered to Bay tidal waters and nitrogen atmospheric deposition developed from CBWM estimated
values. The delivered nitrogen load was summed across all basins to estimate the total reduction in
Chesapeake Bay nitrogen load. The total nitrogen load reduction was then combined with associated annual
costs to estimate the cost per pound of delivered nitrogen load reduced.
Integral to the overall approach for estimating the nitrogen load reduction due to the control of NOX air
pollution sources is the relationship between NOX emissions and nitrogen atmospheric deposition, and the
relationship between nitrogen atmospheric deposition and delivered nitrogen load. The relationship between
emissions and deposition is based on output from RADM. The relationship between deposition and load is
based on output from the CBWM. Adjustments are also made to account for the difference between the
RADM (modeled) deposition and the 1984-1991 average deposition used in the Watershed Model. This
chapter examines the relationships based on RADM and the CBWM output. Throughout this chapter, the
term load refers to nitrogen loads delivered to tidal water. (NOX emission reductions and costs are
summarized in Chapter V.)
A. LOAD TO DEPOSITION RATIOS
Nitrogen load values for several scenarios were provided from CBWM output. As discussed in Chapter
II, the CBWM is divided into model segments representing various land uses and geographic locations. The
model segments are aggregated into major basins, both above the fall line (AFL) and below the fall line
(BFL).
Scenarios for which nitrogen load summaries (based on output from the CBWM) were provided include:
Reference Scenario: This Scenario was based on the existing watershed conditions of hydrology, land
use, point source, and atmospheric loads for the period from 1984 to 1987. The Reference Scenario accounts
for all point source, non-point source and atmospheric loads to the basin. The Phase HI Reference Scenario
loads were reported as the average for the period from 1984 to 1987, which defines the Chesapeake Bay
Program average non-point source nutrient load. The average loads for the entire calibration period from
1984 to 1987 were also calculated for all major fall lines.
19
-------
Figure IV-1
Calculation of Cost of Reduction in Nitrogen Load
Deposition Reductions
in Other Nearby
Watersheds
Annual Cost
NOx Emission
Reduction
for Source-Region
Direct Deposition to the
Bay from Airborne N
Apply deposition-to-emissions ratio
Deposition Reduction
by Basin
Due to
Source-Region Control
I
Reduction in Direct
Deposition to the Bay
from Airborne N
Apply load-to-deposition ratios
Nitrogen Load Reduction
by Basin
(AFL/BFL)
Due to
Source-Region Control
I
Nitrogen Load Reduction
Attributable to
Direct Deposition
[Sum nitrogen loadings across basins
Nitrogen Load Reduction
in the Bay
Due to
Source-Region Control
i
Cost Per Pound
of Nitrogen Load
Reduced
20
-------
CAA Scenario: This Scenario was based on the conditions of implementation of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 applied to the Phase III Reference conditions of hydrology, land use and point
source loads. Reductions of nitrate atmospheric deposition were calculated by the RADM model for the
conditions of the CAAA implemented throughout the RADM domain of eastern North America. The
emissions data used by RADM for the CAA scenario are documented in the report Regional Oxidant
Modeling of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments: Default Projection and Control Data (Pechan, 1994d).
Emission controls from Title I, Title II, and Title IV of the CAAA are included in this scenario. BFL loads
are reported as 1984-1991 averages, and AFL loads are reported as 1984-1987 averages.
OTC Scenario: This scenario corresponds to Scenario C2, and is based on emissions reflecting
implementation of the OTC-LEV petition and the Stationary Source NOX Initiative. The OTC scenario is
applied to the base case conditions of hydrology, land use, and point source loads. Reductions of nitrate
atmospheric deposition were calculated by the RADM model. BFL loads are reported as 1984-1991
averages, and AFL loads are reported as 1984-1987 averages.
No Air Scenario: This scenario is based on base case conditions for hydrology, land use, and point
source loads, with the complete elimination of atmospheric inorganic (nitrate and ammonia) nitrogen
deposition.
Table IV-1 shows the atmospheric nitrate deposition estimates by watershed basin for the reference case
(1984 to 1991 averages). This table shows that the recent historical nitrate deposition in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed ranges from a high of 9.4 kg/hectare/year in the Susquehanna basin to a low of 6.6 kg/hectare/year
in the southernmost portions of the Bay watershed. In addition to reference case values, Table IV-1 also
indicates how the atmospheric nitrate deposition would be expected to change by basin with the NOX
emission reductions that might occur with expected CAA controls by 2005, and the OTC control initiatives in
that year.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model - Phase III scenario run results are presented in Table FV-2. The
delivered nitrogen load values take into account all transport losses and represent total load to the Bay for
each basin. This table shows the importance of the Potomac and the Susquehanna basins in delivering
nitrogen to the Bay. The AFL Susquehanna nitrogen loads in the Reference Scenario are 35 percent of the
Bay Total. The AFL and BFL Potomac combined contributes over 20 percent to the total nitrogen loading to
the Bay.
The total nitrogen load from atmospheric deposition (in thousands of Ibs) is shown by Chesapeake Bay
Basin in Table FV-3. The No Air Scenario was subtracted from the Reference Scenario to determine the load
due to atmospheric deposition. The resultant nitrogen load value is assumed to represent the atmospheric
inorganic nitrogen occurring as a result of deposition. The percentage of the total nitrogen that is attributable
to atmospheric deposition is shown for each basin.
hi order to examine the relationship between load and deposition, a few of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model basins were combined to match the basin definitions used in RADM. The AFL Mattaponi
and AFL Pamunkey basins were combined to form the AFL York basin. The BFL Eastern Shore of
Maryland was assumed to be equivalent to the BFL Upper Eastern. The BFL Eastern Shore of Virginia was
assumed to be equivalent to the BFL Lower Eastern. The BFL York, Western Shore Maryland, and Western
Shore Virginia were combined to form the BFL West Chesapeake. This information is summarized in Table
FV-4.
21
-------
Table IV-1
Nitrate Deposition in Reference Case, Clean Air Act, and OTC Scenarios (kg/hectare/year)
Reference CAA
Chesapeake Bay Basin 1984-1991 Average Deposition
Wet Plus Dry Nitrate
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
AFL York
BFL James
BFL Lower Eastern
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL Upper Eastern
BFL West Chesapeake
BFL York
6.67
7.28
7.53
7.38
7.56
9.40
7.01
6.58
6.55
6.72
6.87
6.79
7.13
7.00
6.63
6.13
6.57
6.51
6.35
6.61
7.90
6.27
6.12
6.01
5.88
6.02
6.07
6.26
6.20
6.08
CAA
% Reduction
from Reference
8.1%
9.8%
13.5%
14.0%
12.6%
16.0%
10.6%
7.0%
8.2%
12.5%
12.4%
10.6%
12.2%
11.4%
9.0%
OTC
Deposition
5.81
6.27
5.81
5.89
6.13
7.01
5.77
5.82
5.61
5.23
5.41
5.51
5.63
5.63
5.68
OTC
% Reduction
from Reference
12.9%
13.9%
. 22.8%
20.2%
18.9%
25.4%
17.7%
11.6%
14.4%
22.2%
21.3%
18.9%
21.0%
19.6%
14.3%
SOURCE: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, August 1996.
22
-------
Table IV-2
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model - Phase EQ Scenario Runs:
Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (1984-1987 Average)1
Total Nitrogen Loads
Chesapeake Bay Basin
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Mattaponi
AFL Pamunkey
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
BFL Eastern Shore MD
BFL Eastern Shore VA
BFL James
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL Western Shore MD
BFL Western Shore VA
BFL York
Total Watershed Load
Reference
Scenario
1,920
13,289
650
1,186
2,010
31,636
3,616
113,578
26,595
1,964
28,592
2,592
33,644
3,421
25,350
8,154
3,670
301,867
CAA
Scenario
1,892
13,187
633
1,172
1,970
27,477
3,586
107,546
26,253
1,947
28,499
2,555
33,509
3,380
25,223
8,143
3,636
290,608
by Scenario (1,000 Ibs):
OTC
Scenario
1,873
13,144
620
1,162
1,875
26,766
3,473
104,199
25,998
1,936
28,442
2,528
33,415
3,346
25,144
8,134
3,612
285,667
No Air
Scenario
1,533
12,168
477
1,027
1,737
16,410
2,769
64,876
23,201
1,629
24,725
1,993
30,331
2,782
23,916
6,762
3,295
219,631
NOTES: 'AFL load estimates are from Table B (Annual Average Fall Line Nutrient Loads); October 2, 1995. BFL load estimates are from
Table A (Average Annual Edge of Stream Loads by Land Use/Load Source and Model Segment); February 19,1996 provided by
EPA CBPO.
23
-------
Table IV-3
Total Nitrogen Load by Chesapeake Bay Basin from Atmospheric Deposition
Percentage of
Reference Scenario1 Nitrogen Load Due to Total Basin Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen Load Atmospheric Deposition1 Load Delivered to
Chesapeake Bay Basin (1000 Ibs) (1000 Ibs) Chesapeake Bay
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Mattaponi
AFL Pamunkey
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
BFL Eastern Shore MD
BFL Eastern Shore VA
BFL James
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL Western Shore MD
BFL Western Shore VA
BFL York
Total Load3
1,920
13,289
650
1,186
2,010
31,636
3,616
113,578
26,595
1,964
28,592
2,592
33,644
3,421
25,350
8,154
3,670
324,352
387
1,121
173
158
273
15,225
847
48,701
3,394
334
3,867
599
3,313
639
1,434
1,392
374
104,721
20%
8%
27%
13%
14%
48%
23%
43%
13%
17%
14%
23%
10%
19%
6%
17%
10%
27%
NOTES: 'Source: AFL load estimates are from Table B (Annual Average Fall Line Nutrient Loads); October 2,1995. BFL load estimates are
from Table A (Average Annual Edge of Stream Loads by Land Use/Load Source and Model Segment); February 19, 1996 provided
byEPACBPO.
'Values represent the difference between the Reference Scenario and the No Air Scenario.
Total percentage load due to atmospheric deposition does not include Bay Surface values.
24
-------
Table IV-4
Basin Relations between the RADM and Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Segmentation
Schemes
RADM Basin Portions
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
AFL York
BFL James
BFL Lower Eastern
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL Upper Eastern
BFL West Chesapeake
Bay Tidal Waters Surface
CBWM Basins
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
AFL Mattaponi and AFL Pamunkey1
BFL James
BFL Eastern Shore of VA
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL Eastern Shore of MD
BFL York, BFL Western Shore of MD, and
BFL Western Shore of VA
-
Area (thousand hectares)
350.2
1,764.0
90.1
2,994.0
415.7
7,034.8
431.3
474.9
83.1
143.6
680.0
253.4
1,165.8
837.7
1,040.0
NOTES: 'The correspondence between RADM Basin portion and CBWM Basin is based on the location of the fall line and the
definition of CBWM Basin boundaries.
25
-------
The percentage reduction in both nitrogen load and nitrogen deposition from the reference data to the
CAA Scenario and to the OTC Scenario is represented in Table FV-5. The nitrogen load data represents the
load due to atmospheric deposition only. Reductions are calculated from the reference (or 1990) values.
Differences in the proportional reductions between deposition and delivered load are largely due to other
loads or processes not accounted for in this analysis. For example, in basins with large water point source
loads (e.g., BFL Potomac, BFL James, and BFL West Chesapeake), the delivered load reductions are less
than the atmospheric deposition reductions. This is because water point source discharges are not affected by
the CAA and OTC reductions. On the other hand, basins with a high portion of forest land use (e.g., AFL
Susquehanna and AFL Potomac) have relatively higher delivered CAA and OTC loads. This is because
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is the only nutrient input in forest lands.
B. DEPOSITION-TO-EMISSION RATIOS
Deposition-to-emission ratios were calculated for each of the source-regions provided in the RADM
summary data. (The RADM summary data is provided in Appendix A.) The deposition rates were converted
to annual values using the estimated area in each basin (or for the Bay surface). Sample values are provided
in Table IV-6 for various geographic regions. As shown in this table, sources closest to the watershed have
larger ratios and, thus, have a higher impact on deposition and, ultimately, on nitrogen load. The BFL James
and AFL Susquehanna basins have the highest load-to-deposition ratios as illustrated in Table FV-6. Thus,
NOX emission controls in geographic areas which have a greater impact on deposition in these basins, as well
as areas which have the greatest impact on direct deposition to the tidal Bay itself, will have the greatest
effect on reducing nitrogen loads due to atmospheric deposition.
26
-------
Table IV-5
Percentage Reduction of Nitrogen Load versus Atmospheric Deposition
CAA Nitrogen CAA Nitrogen
Atmospheric Deposition Load
Basin Reduction1 Reduction2
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
AFL York
BFL James
BFL Lower Eastern
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL York
BFL Upper Eastern
BFL West Chesapeake
8.0%
10.0%
14.0%
14.0%
13.0%
16.0%
11.0%
7.0%
8.0%
13.0%
12.0%
11.0%
9.0%
12.0%
11.0%
1.4%
0.7%
2.6%
13.1%
0.8%
5.3%
1.7%
0.3%
0.8%
1.4%
0.4%
1.2%
0.9%
1.3%
0.4%
OTC Nitrogen
Atmospheric
Deposition
Reduction1
13.0%
14.0%
23.0%
20.0%
19.0%
25.0%
18.0%
12.0%
14.0%
22.0%
21.0%
19.0%
14.0%
21.0%
20.0%
OTC
Nitrogen
Load
Reduction2
2.4%
1.1%
6.7%
15.4%
4.0%
8.3%
2.9%
0.5%
1.4%
2.5%
0.7%
2.2%
1.6%
2.2%
0.7%
NOTES: 'Deposition reductions are based on RADM data as summarized in Table IV-1.
'Load reductions represent reductions in load due to atmospheric deposition only and are based on Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
data as summarized in Table IV-2. Reductions are taken from the reference scenario.
27
-------
Table IV-6
Chesapeake Bay Basin Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition-to-NO,
Emission Ratios
Deposition-to-Emission Ratio by Source-Region (Ibs-N/tpy-NOJ:
Chesapeake Bay Basin
AFL Appomattox
AFL James
AFL Patuxent
AFL Potomac
AFL Rappahannock
AFL Susquehanna
AFL York
BFL James
BFL Lower Eastern
BFL Patuxent
BFL Potomac
BFL Rappahannock
BFL Upper Eastern
BFL West Chesapeake
Bay Surface
Airshed 1
1.09
5.49
0.50
11.07
1.24
22.39
1.59
1.74
0.18
0.58
2.88
0.88
4.00
4.22
3.01
Airshed 2
0.97
4.99
0.42
9.69
1.08
20.10
1.39
1.50
0.16
0.49
2.45
0.76
3.40
3.53
2,58
Eastern U.S.1
& Canada
0.37
1.98
0.15
3.72
0.40
8.14
0.52
0.57
0.07
0.19
0.89
0.29
1.30
1.22
1.04
Bay Watershed
States2
1.89
8.17
1.07
14.81
1.94
34.18
2.99
3.39
0.26
1.17
5.80
1.70
7.62
8.79
5.51
Maryland
1.69
5.82
3.38
20.65
1.80
29.92
3.06
2.84
0.39
2.89
9.26
2.21
21.28
20.30
10.89
NOTES: 'Eastern U.S. includes Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
2Bay Watershed States include New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
28
-------
CHAPTER V
NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS
This chapter summarizes the emissions and costs associated with implementation of the CAA Base
Case, Scenario C2, and Scenario E for States within the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2. Total State values are
provided; some States are only partially included in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2. The annual costs and
emission reductions summarized in this chapter were used with the deposition-to-emission ratios and the
load-to-deposition ratios (summarized in the previous chapter) to determine the total reduction in nitrogen
load and corresponding cost per pound of delivered nitrogen load reduced.
A. NOX EMISSION LEVELS
NOX reference (1990) emission levels are summarized by State and source type in Table V-l. Within the
States in the OTR, emissions are dominated by motor vehicles (41 percent). Utilities are the second highest
emitter, accounting for 29 percent of NOX emissions in the OTR. Outside the OTR, utilities are the largest
emitter at 42 percent, followed by motor vehicles at 31 percent (EPA, 1993).
NOX emissions by State and by scenario are summarized in Table V-2. CAA baseline emissions show
an expected decrease of 1.05 million tons from 1990 (reference) levels for States within the Chesapeake Bay
airshed. This represents an overall decrease of 15 percent. The emission decrease within the OTR is slightly
higher at 18.6 percent, compared to 12.7 percent for Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States outside of the OTR.
Scenario C2 shows a 22 percent decrease within the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 OTR States relative to the
CAA baseline. Outside of the OTR, Scenario E shows a 28 percent decrease in NOX emissions for the 2005
CAA baseline. The overall NOX reduction for Scenario E (both inside and outside the OTR) is 1.6 million
tons, which represents a 26 percent decrease from the 2005 CAA baseline estimate.
B. CAA CONTROL COST ESTIMATES
Total costs on a State-level for the implementation of N0x-related provisions of the CAA are shown in
Table V-3 for the Airshed 2 States. These costs (estimated using ERCAM-NOJ include RACT provisions in
ozone nonattainment areas, Title IV utility NOX controls, new source review for utilities, Tier 1 tailpipe
standards, motor vehicle I/M (one-half of the cost is attributed to NOX for this analysis), and Federal non-road
engine standards for compression ignition engines.
C. SCENARIO C2 AND SCENARIO E CONTROL COST ESTIMATES
Control costs were estimated for utility and non-utility point sources for Scenario C2 and Scenario E
using the ERCAM-NOX model (Pechan, 1994c). Because emission files for 2005 for each scenario were
already available, the focus of this analysis was on estimating the annual control cost for each scenario. The
costing procedure for stationary sources is detailed following Table V-3.
29
-------
Table V-l
NO, Reference (1990) Emission Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
by Source Category
NO, Emissions (thousand
State
OTR:
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia (Northern VA)
OTR States:
Outside OTR:
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Outside OTR States:
Bay Airshed 2 States:
Utility
24
1
96
55
186
372
12
746
331
162
523
192
59
307
1,574
2,320
Non-Utility Point
11
1
26
56
71
83
1
248
29
47
90
105
61
56
387
635
Area
8
8
63
100
167
173
22
540
132
104
162
84
89
42
612
1,152
tpy)
Motor Vehicle
23
10
140
188
366
313
37
1,077
127
230
330
170
180
61
1,098
2,175
Total
66
20
325
399
789
940
72
2,611
618
542
1,105
552
389
466
3,673
6,284
SOURCE: EPA, 1993.
30
-------
Table V-2
NO, Emission Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States by Scenario
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy);
2005 Scenario C2
State
OTR:
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia (Northern VA)
OTR States:
Outside OTR:
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Outside OTR States:
Bay Airshed 2 States:
1990
66
20
325
399
789
940
72
2,611
618
542
1,105
552
389
466
3,673
6,284
2005 CAA
55
18
280
334
627
747
64
2,125
523
512
894
520
403
366
3,217
5,342
and 2005 Scenario E1
41
16
217
279
516
539
53
1,661
350
398
617
383
347
200
2,296
3,957
NOTE: 'Scenario C2 and Scenario E are listed in one column. Scenario C2 applies the OTC-LEV petition and the Stationary Source NO,
Initiative only to States within the OTR. Thus, total reductions in the airshed for Scenario C2 are represented by the OTR subtotal
(emissions for non-OTR States would remain at CAA levels). Scenario E applies be .1 of these control programs to States located
both inside and outside of the OTR.
31
-------
Table V-3
CAA NOx-ReIated Control Costs in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
State
OTR:
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia (Northern VA)
OTR States:
Outside OTR:
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Outside OTR States:
Bay Airshed 2 States:
Cost (million S)
34.1
5.9
112.7
122.5
224.2
205.0
19.4
723.8
135.7
91.8
225.5
85.3
63.1
95.5
696.9
1,420.7
32
-------
Using the ROM emission projection files, a percentage reduction was calculated for the emission
changes reflected in the Base Case CAA, Scenario C2, and Scenario E (Pechan, 1994d). Using ERCAM-
NOX, a control strategy was then assigned to each source, based on the percentage control required to reach
the RACT in the Base Case or 0.15 Ibs/MMBtu level in Scenario C2 and Scenario E. If none of the control
options provided the level of control necessary to match the calculated percentage reduction, the most
stringent control available was chosen for costing purposes. ERCAM-NOX was then used to estimate capital,
O&M, and annual costs in 1990 dollars for the chosen control level. Control costs are only assigned to the
primary fuel (the fuel with the highest emissions) at a boiler or point. This prevents double counting of
controls on a single unit. Cost calculations do not allow for emission trading.
Table V-4 presents a cost summary by Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States within the OTR by source
category. The cost estimates shown in the table represent the incremental cost between the Base Case CAA
and Scenario C2. Table V-5 presents the same information for the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States outside
the OTR Motor vehicle costs assume a LEV cost of $100 per vehicle and a ULEV cost of $205 per vehicle
(Pechan, 1994b). New light-duty gasoline vehicle (LDGV) sales in 2005 were assumed to be 63 percent
LEVs and 37 percent ULEVs. No ZEVs were assumed in this analysis. Year 2005 annual costs of the OTC-
LEV program are estimated based on projected vehicle sales in 2005. Both cars and light-duty trucks (LDTs)
Ite included in the program. The cost estimates in this analysis for the OTC-LEV program include the total
cost of the multi-pollutant LEV standards. However, only the benefit of the NOX emission standards is
included in the emission projections. This likely overstates the costs attributable to NOX, because the 0.2
gram- per-mile NOX emission standard is the same for both LEVs and ULEVs. If NOX control were the only
objective of the OTC-LEV program, there would be no reason to require vehicles to meet the ULEV
standards (ULEV standards for NMOG and CO are lower than the corresponding LEV standards).
Compared with other EPA-sponsored analyses of the Stationary Source NOX Initiative, this analysis
tends to show higher costs. Potential reasons for higher cost estimates relative to estimates in other studies
include the following:
1. All stationary sources within the OTC States, regardless of ownership, have been considered as
candidates for control in this analysis (utility and industrial), whereas other EPA-sponsored
analyses only considered utilities.
2. Opportunities for cost savings through an emission trading program have not been evaluated here.
3. Some fuel combustors within the OTC states are responding to CAA requirements and market
factors by repowering, or installing more control than required during the early to mid-1990s. This
analysis assesses the cost of complying with a 0.15 Ibs/MMBtu limit from a generic RACT-level
baseline (the CAA scenario). Thus, a SCR-type control technology cost is being attributed to some
units that may not be installing such controls.
33
-------
Table V-4
Cost Summary for OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States:
Cost Increase from Base Case CAA to Scenario C2 (2005)
(LEV plus 0.15 Ibs/MMBtu NO, Emission Limit)
State1
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Northern Virginia
Total
Cost Increase by Source Type (in millions):
Utility Point Non-Utility Point
Sources Sources Motor Vehicle1
$20.8 $8.8 $6.4
$0.3 $0.4 $3.4
$62.7 $18.8 $39.0
$53.1 $4.4 $55.5
$124.1 $70.0 $94.3
$214.0 $51.3 $76.4
$13.8 $0.0 $11.9
$489 $152 $287
Total
$36.0
$4.1
$120.5
$113.0
$288.4
$341.7
$25.7
$930
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
'Motor vehicle costs assume LEV cost of $100 per vehicle and ULEV cost of $205 per vehicle, with 63 percent of LDGV and
LDGT1 new sales in 2005 LEVs and 37 percent of LDGV and LDGT1 new sales in 2005 ULEVs.
Table V-5
Cost Summary for Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States:
Cost Increase from Base Case CAA to Scenario E (2005)
(LEV plus 0.15 Ibs/MMBtu NOX Emission Limit)
State1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Cost Increase by Source Type (in millions):
Utility Point Non-Utility
Sources Point Sources Motor Vehicle1
$192.3 $1.8 $29.7
$103.9 $76.5 $58.1
$293.2 $109.1 $80.7
$110.9 $131.1 $43.9
Virginia (w/o Northern VA) $44.1 $22.6 $46.5
West Virginia
Total
$157.5 $58.8 $12.9
$902 $400 $314
Total
$223.8
$238.5
$483.0
$285.9
$113.2
$229.2
$1,574
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
'Motor vehicle costs assume LEV cost of $100 per vehicle and ULEV cost of $205 per vehicle, with 63 percent of LDGV and
LDGT1 new sales in 2005 LEVs and 37 percent of LDGV and LDGT1 new sales in 2005 ULEVs.
34
-------
Tables V-6 through V-13 present the cost of NOX reductions for each of the following source types:
motor vehicles, non-utility point source, and utility point source. Tables V-6 and V-7 show reductions for
motor vehicles; the first table presents information for each Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 State within the OTR,
and the second covers the Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States outside of the OTR. Tables V-8 and V-9 present
reductions for non-utility point sources, and Tables V-10 and V-l 1 show reductions for utility point sources.
Tables V-l2 and V-13 summarize the per-ton cost of NOX reductions by State and source type for Scenario
C2 and Scenario E, respectively.
Table V-6
Cost of Motor Vehicle NO, Reductions:
OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy):!
State1
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Northern Virginia
Total
CAA Scenario
18.6
8.0
108.8
141.7
263.7
230.3
29.5
800.6
Total Annual Cost of
NO, Emission Reductions
Scenario C2 (in millions)
16.6
6.8
95.2
121.1
227.1
206.2
25.1
698.1
$6.4
$3.4
$39.0
$55.5
$94.3
$76.5
$11.9
S287.0
Cost per Ton of NO,
Emission Reductions
$3,200
$2,800
$2,900
$2,700
$2,600
$3,200
$2,700
$2,800
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
2CAA Scenario and Scenario C2 NO, emissions are 2005 estimates.
Table V-7
Cost of Motor Vehicle NO, Reductions:
Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy):J
State1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Total
CAA Scenario
109.3
208.3
286.5
157.2
167.5
50.0
978.8
Total Annual Cost of
NO, Emission Reductions
Scenario E (In minions)
105.4
200.7
275.6
151.4
161.5
48.3
942.9
$29.7
$58.1
$80.7
$43.8
$46.5
$12.9
$271.7
Cost per Ton of NO,
Emission Reductions
$7,600
$7,600
$7,400
$7,600
$7,800
$7,600
$7,600
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
2CAA Scenario and Scenario E NO, emissions are 2005 estimates.
35
-------
Table V-8
Cost of Non-Utility Point Source NOj Reductions:
OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
State*
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Northern Virginia
Total
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy):1
CAA Scenario Scenario C2
6.0 5.1
0.9 0.8
20.5 18.2
39.5 33.3
52.0 41.6
64.4 59.0
0.3 0.3
183.6 1583
Total Annual Cost of
NO, Emission Reductions
(In millions)
$8.8
$0.4
$18.8
$4.4
$70.0
$51.3
$0.0
$153.7
Cost per Ton of NO,
Emission Reductions
$9,800
$3,100
$8,200
$710
$6,700
$9,500
».
$6,100
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
2CAA Scenario and Scenario C2 NO, emissions are 2005 estimates.
Table V-9
Cost of Non-Utility Point Source NOr Reductions:
Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
State*
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Total
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy):1
CAA Scenario Scenario E
28.6 28.3
56.5 43.2
87.2 69.4
124.8 98.0
71.4 67.5
52.3 42.9
420.8 349.3
Total Annual Cost of
NO, Emission Reductions
(in millions)
$1.8
$76.5
$109.1
$131.1
$22.6
$58.8
$399.9
Cost per Ton of NO,
Emission Redactions
$6,500
$5,700
$6,100
$4,900
$5,800
$6,300
$5,600
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
2CAA Scenario and Scenario E NO, emissions in 2005 estimates.
36
-------
Table V-10
Cost of Utility NOX Reductions:
OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
State1
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Northern Virginia
Total
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy):1
Total Annual Cost of
NO, Emission Reductions
CAA Scenario Scenario C2 (In millions)
22.8 11.4
0.7 0.5
86.4 39.4
49.9 21.2
139.8 76.1
273.1 94.9
11.7 4.8
584.4 208.9
$20.8
$0.3
$62.7
$53.1
$124.1
$214.0
$13.8
$488.8
Cost per Ton of NO,
Emission Reductions
$1,800
$2,100
$1,300
$1,900
$1,900
$1,200
$2,000
$1^00
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
2CAA Scenario and Scenario C2 NO, emissions are 2005 estimates.
Table V-ll
Cost of Utility NOT Reductions:
State1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Total
Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay
NO, Emissions (thousand tpy):1
CAA Scenario Scenario E
244.6 75.5
135.2 42.8
353.5 105.5
150.9 47.1
71.0 25.1
222.3 66.8
1,177.4 362.8
Airshed 2 States
Total Annual Cost of
NO, Emission Reductions
(hi mulions)
$192.3
$103.9
$293.2
$110.9
$44.1
$157.5
$901.9
Cost per Ton of NO,
Emission Reductions
$1,100
$1,100
$1,200
$1,100
$1,000
$1,000
$1,100
NOTES: 'Total State values are provided.
2CAA Scenario and Scenario E NO, emissions are 2005 estimates.
37
-------
Table V-12
Cost per Ton ($/ton) of NO, Emission Reductions by State and Source Type:
OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
Cost per Ton by Source Type:1
State
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Northern Virginia
Utility
$1,800
$2,100
$1,300
$1,900
$1,900
$1,200
$2,000
Non-Utility
Point Source
' $9,800
$3,100
$8,200
$710
$6,700
$9,500
..
Motor Vehicle
$3,200
$2,800
$2,900
$2,700
$2,600
$3,200
$2,700
NOTE: 'Cost per ton for Scenario C2.
Table V-13
Cost per Ton of NO, Emission Reductions by State and Source Type:
Non-OTR Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States
Cost per Ton by Source Type:1
State
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia (w/o Northern VA)
West Virginia
Utility
$1,100
$1,100
$1,200
$1,100
$1,000
$1,000
Non-Utility
Point Source
$6,500
$5,700
$6,100
$4,900
$5,800
$6,300
Motor Vehicle
$7,600
$7,600
$7,400
$7,800
$7,600
$7,500
NOTE: 'Cost per ton for Scenario E.
38
-------
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS
This chapter examines the nitrogen load and cost per pound of nitrogen reduced for air pollution controls
based on the three scenarios examined (CAA Scenario, Scenario C2, and Scenario E). For comparison
purposes, costs for nonpoint source controls are provided in the last section of this chapter.
A. AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS
Using the approach discussed in Chapter IV, along with the emission reduction and cost values
presented in Chapter V, the cost effectiveness of air pollution controls was estimated for various source-
regions (combinations of geographic areas and emission sources). Table VI-1 summarizes the estimated
reduction in nitrogen load and cost per pound of nitrogen reduced for applying controls in the three Bay
States (Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia) as well as for the entire Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2. Scenario
C2 was not examined using Airshed 2 deposition-to-emission ratios; since controls are concentrated in the
Northeast, the effects would be underestimated using average airshed deposition-to-emission ratios. Bay
State controls, in the form of OTC initiatives, are about twice as cost effective in reducing nitrogen loads to
the Bay tidal waters than non-Bay State controls within the OTC, or controls applied in non-OTC States. For
the Bay States, the cost of motor vehicle and major stationary source controls are about equally cost effective
in reducing nitrogen loads. Outside the Bay States, utility controls are the most cost-effective, even when
applied throughout the entire airshed.
A summary of the nitrogen load reduction and cost for utility and mobile source controls in several
States is shown in Table VI-2. The cost per ton of NOX reduced for utilities is fairly consistent across the
States examined. The cost per pound of nitrogen load delivered to the Bay is dependent on geographic
location. The Susquehanna and Potomac basins provide the largest atmospheric nitrogen influences to the
Bay. The geographic location effect is also observed for mobile sources. The cost effectiveness for applying
LEV to the entire Commonwealth of Virginia is significantly higher than the other areas shown, because
minimum LEV credits are assumed in areas without enhanced I/M programs. (Appropriate in-use compliance
programs are important in ensuring that control technologies continue to meet emission standards throughout
a vehicle's lifetime.) Thus, emission reductions are significantly lower (at the same per vehicle cost).
A comparison of the cost per pound of nitrogen reduced, assuming a constant cost for air pollution
controls, is shown by source region in Table VI-3. Controls in Maryland are most effective, followed by
Virginia and then Pennsylvania. Controls in Eastern Pennsylvania are slightly more effective than those that
might be applied in Western Pennsylvania. Outside of these three States, the cost effectiveness decreases by
a factor of 2 or more.
39
-------
Table VI-1
Cost Comparison of Air Pollution Controls by Scenario:
Chesapeake Bay States versus Airshed 2 States
Bay States'
Scenario
CAA Scenario2
Scenario C2
Scenario E
Sector
Highway Vehicle (LEV)3
Utility (0.1 5 Ibs/MMBtu)3
Non-Utility (0.1 5 Ibs/MMBtu)3
Load Reduced
(thousand Ibs)
5330
6,480
7,760
970
5^30
180
Cost per Pound
(S/lb)
$75
$75
$77
$132
$54
$396
Airshed 2
Load Reduced
(thousand Ibs)
11,570
-
17,010
1,700
14,610
1,190
Cost per Pound
(S/lb)
$123
-
$147
$329
$95
$466
NOTES: 'Bay States represent Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
'Reductions and costs for the CAA Scenario are with respect to 1990 loads and, therefore, incorporate growth, as well as controls.
Eliminating the effect of growth would result in higher load reductions and lower costs.
'Controls were applied only in the OTR for the Bay States analysis.
Table VI-2
Nitrogen Load Reductions and Costs by State:
Utilities and Mobile Sources
Scenario/State
NO, Reduction
(thousand tons)
Nitrogen
Load Reduction
(thousand Its)
Total
Annual Cost
(In millions)
Cost Effectiveness
(S/ton)'
Ratio of
S/ton to S/lb
Utility (0.15 Ibs/MMBtu)
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Kentucky
47.0
178.2
52.8
155.5
169.1
1,610
3,510
1,990
2,240
760
$62.7
$214.0
$57.9
$157.5
$192.3
$1,300
$1,200
$1,100
$1,000
$1,100
$39
$61
$59
$70
$254
0.33
0.20
0.19
0.14
0.04
Mobile Sources (LEV)
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Northern Virginia
Virginia (entire State)
13.6
24.1
4.4
10.4
410
470
90
220
$39.0
$76.5
$11.9
$58.4
$2,900
$3,200
$2,700
$5,600
$95
$164
$1303
$2701
0.30
0.20
0.21
0.21
NOTES: 'Cost per ton of NO, emissions reduced.
'Cost per pound of nitrogen load to the Bay reduced.
'LEV associated $/lb estimates are higher in areas of Virginia outside Northern Virginia because expected in-use compliance
programs are less stringent
40
-------
Table VI-3
Variation in Cost of Nitrogen Load Reduced by Geographic Location
Cost per Pound of Nitrogen Load Reduced'
Source Region
Airshed 2
Bay States2
Maryland
Pennsylvania
East Pennsylvania
West Pennsylvania
Virginia
Kentucky/Tennessee Portion in Airshed 2
North Carolina Portion in Airshed 2
New Jersey/Connecticut/New York City/Long Island
Ohio Portion in Airshed 1
S2,000/tonNO,
$163
$87
$62
$106
$96
$113
$86
$354
$263
$417
$248
$l,000/tonNOT
$81
$44
$31
$53
$48
$57
$43
$177
$131
$208
$124
NOTES: 'The cost per pound of nitrogen load reduced was estimated for each source-region assuming a constant cost per ton of NO, emissions
reduced. The cost per pound of $l,000/ton NO, controls is one-half of the cost per pound of $2,000/ton NO, controls. Cost per
pound of nitrogen reduced can be estimated similarly for other NO, control costs.
'Bay States represent Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.
B. VERIFICATION OF METHODOLOGY
Because of the extensive resources needed to complete full RADM and CBWM simulations necessary to
fully examine the impact of air pollution controls in alternative geographic areas and for different source
types, a simplified approach, or screening method, was needed. The methodology developed for this analysis
attempts to develop simplified relationships between emissions, nitrogen deposition, and nitrogen load in
order to easily compare the impact of NOX reductions for various geographic areas and source types.
In essence, source-receptor relationships have been derived from RADM (by EPA) for use in this
analysis. There is a certain amount of error introduced in using these relationships. The relationships are
also sometimes applied to slightly different geographic areas for the purposes of this analysis, hi addition, it
was shown in Chapter FV that the load-to-deposition relationships are not linear, and as a result, there will
also be some error introduced in using the 1990 load-to-deposition ratios for this analysis.
In order to determine the potential error introduced in applying this technique, an assessment of the
impact of Scenario C2 was compared with the load reduction estimated using RADM and CBWM. Table VI-
4 shows the expected nitrogen load reduction by State and indicates the source-region for which the
deposition-to-emission ratios are based. Using this approach, the estimated nitrogen load reduction is 7,320
thousand pounds. This load reduction is approximately 13 percent higher than the estimated reduction in
load based on CBWM results. (The load reduction for the western part of New York may be overestimated).
41
-------
Using the full airshed source-region, the total reduction in load estimated for the CAA scenario is 11,570
thousand pounds (refer to Table VI-1). CBWM results indicate a reduction of 13,384 thousand pounds, hi
this case, the nitrogen load reduction is underestimated by almost 15 percent. In this case, the
underestimation most likely occurs because emission reductions from sources outside of the airshed are not
being incorporated in the simplified analysis.
Table VI-4
Comparison of Scenario C2 Nitrogen Load Reductions by State
Maryland
Virginia
Pennsylvania
State
New York
District of Columbia
Delaware
Total
Maryland
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Source-Region
NJ/CT/NY-City/Long Island
Virginia
Pennsylvania
NO, Reduction
(1000 tpy)
63
11
208
55
111
2
14
464
Load Reduction Estimated from Watershed Model Results
Load Reduction
(1000 Ibs)
2,045
255
3,915
264
532
46
263
7,320
6,544
C. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Table VI-5 provides nonpoint source control strategy cost estimates by management practice in dollars
per pound of nitrogen removed. The values shown in this table are in units comparable to the airborne
nitrogen reduction scenarios. Note, however, that the full costs of airborne NOX control measures have been
included in the air pollution analysis, without counting the full benefits to other program areas like ozone,
visibility, and acid precipitation, or to other geographic areas like the Great Lakes and adjacent East Coast
estuaries. The least costly of the Table VI-5 measures are nutrient management, followed by animal waste
control. The combination of these two practices removes about 66 percent of the total nitrogen load at about
10 percent of the total cost. The most costly management practice category is the urban category, which
removes about 11 percent of the total nitrogen load at about 70 percent of the total cost.
42
-------
Table VI-5
Cost Analysis Summary by Management Practice for Agreement States:
Nonpoint Source - Level of Technology N
Management Practice
Urban
Forest
Farm Plan
HEL1
Pasture
Low Till
Animal Waste
Nutrient Management
Total
"LOT" Cost
(in thousands)
$643,172
$10,370
$66,169
$68,758
$9,015
$33,285
$84,563
$9,812
$925,144
Nitrogen Load
Reduced
(1000 Ibs)
4,509
150
1,462
2,991
910
4,476
11,801
16,096
42,395
Percent of
Total
10.64
0.35
3.44
7.05
2.15
10.56
27.84
37.97
100.00
Cost of Nitrogen
Load
Reduced ($/lb)
$142.64
$69.13
$45.27
$22.99
$9.90
$7.44
$7.17
$0.61
NOTE: 'HEL = highly credible land.
SOURCE: Shuyler, 1995.
43
-------
CHAPTER VII
CAVEATS AND UNCERTAINTIES
This chapter describes the significant caveats and uncertainties associated with this cost-effectiveness
analysis.
1. LEV program cost effectiveness would be much improved with more stringent motor vehicle emission
inspection programs outside the OTR. Enhanced I/M programs are expected in many areas inside the
OTR, which makes the LEV program more cost effective there. EPA amended the November 1992 I/M
rule recently, which appears to be resulting in some changes in program plans - away from enhanced
I/M. No information has been released by EPA about how emission credits for LEV programs might
change with new I/M classifications, such as low enhanced, and OTR low-enhanced programs.
2. NOX benefits have been included for Phase II Federal reformulated gasoline. MOBILESa does not
include these benefits directly. These benefits were simulated by an EPA contractor in a way that
produces about an 8 percent reduction in highway vehicle emissions in 2000 and beyond in areas that are
participating in this program.
3. Some of the areas outside the OTR where the 0.15 Ibs/MMBtu NOX control strategy have been
simulated have received NOX waivers from EPA. This suggests that further NOX controls in these areas
may be counterproductive in reducing ambient ozone levels. If it were assumed that no further NOX
controls would be applied in these areas, then emission redactions and costs would be lower in some of
the non-OTR States.
4. In modeling a situation where long-range transport of air pollutants is so important, it is difficult to
make a fair comparison of costs and benefits. One of the reasons why this problem occurs is because the
geographic area where the costs are incurred is not always the same area where the benefits are observed.
In expressing the costs of the OTC-LEV petition and the Stationary Source NOX Initiative, the costs
observed in New England States outside the Bay Airshed 2 States have been omitted from the program
costs presented iii this report, because the benefits of NOX controls applied in these States are not
observed within the airshed. It should also be noted that benefits likely to be observed in watersheds
other than the Chesapeake Bay (the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, and Massachusetts Bay, for
instance) have not been used to discount the costs presented here, either.
5. This report includes total program costs of the OTC-LEV petition and the Stationary Source NOX
Initiative in each area (State) in which it would be applied. It is probably appropriate to only report a
portion of these costs as attributable to Bay nitrogen reductions, especially those areas where the
programs have been initiated as an ozone precursor control measure. Other benefits to the region of
reducing airborne NOX emissions include lower acid deposition rates and reduced secondary particulate
formation.
6. The recently completed Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) 1990 emission inventory contains
significantly higher estimates of NOX emissions than the estimates in the Interim 1990 Inventory.
Because the Reference scenario nitrogen loads are based on measurements, the higher NOX emissions in
the base year may not affect total nitrogen loads. If emission estimates by the States are higher because
45
-------
emission rates were found to be higher in 1990, and emission rate limits are to be met in the future, then
scenarios may provide greater reductions in atmospheric nitrogen than have been estimated in this study.
However, increasing 1990 emissions may not automatically result in greater reductions in deposition and
load via controls, because load-to-deposition ratios will change as well.
7. The CAA baseline NOX emission forecast was completed in 1994. The forecast may change with
imperfect implementation. Since the time of the analysis, several areas have opted-out of reformulated
gasoline, and enhanced I/M performance standards have been amended to include low enhanced I/M.
8. This analysis assumes constant ratios between emissions and deposition and between deposition and
load. Data were aggregated on a larger geographic basis in order to create a simplified approach for
comparing the effects of alternative controls. The degree to which this aggregation effects the estimated
reduction in nitrogen load for given NOX reductions depends on how well these ratios correspond to the
geographic location and source type controlled, and on the non-linearity associated with changes in NOX
emissions versus deposition and deposition versus load. Observed (monitoring) data show nitrogen
deposition in the northern portion of the watershed to be twice as large as it is in the southern portion.
RADM results indicate more evenly-distributed deposition over the watershed.
46
-------
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSIONS
Reducing nitrogen loads to the Bay via air pollution controls is cost competitive with the higher cost
nonpoint source control measures such as forest and urban management practices, even without allocating
any of the costs to other likely benefits of these programs, such as reducing ozone levels in the Northeast
OTR, or reducing nitrogen deposition to the Great Lakes and other east coast estuaries besides the
Chesapeake Bay.
As a general rule, NOX control costs almost double as controls are extended from the Bay States to the
entire Chesapeake Bay Airshed 2 States. Further controls of steam-electric utility plants are the most cost
effective control measures, even when applied throughout the entire airshed. Requiring cars and light trucks
to meet LEV standards outside the OTR is expected to be more cost effective in reducing nitrogen loads than
further industrial source controls.
If OTC programs to reduce NOX emissions are to be extended outside the Northeast OTR, the State with
the most cost effective emission reductions (cost per pound of nitrogen load reduced) is West Virginia.
Controls in other non-OTC States are likely to be less cost effective than improved nonpoint source control
management practices.
47
-------
REFERENCES
Acurex, 1995: Acurex Environmental Corporation, "Phase IINOX Controls for NESCAUM and MARAMA
Region," Draft, Mountain View, CA (prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC) May 10,1995.
CARB, 1990: California Air Resources Board, "Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean
Fuels," Staff Report, Sacramento, CA, August 13,1990.
Chesapeake Executive Council, 1987: Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Annapolis, MD, 1987.
Dennis, et al., 1990: Dennis, R.L., W.R. Barchet, T.L. Clark, and S.K. Seilkop, Evaluation of Regional Acid
Deposition Models (Part 1), NAPAP SOS/T Report 5 In: Acidic Deposition: State of Science and
Technology, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, September 1990.
Dennis, 1996: Dennis, R.L., "Absolute Nitrogen Deposition from Source Regions," computer file provided to
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
March 12,1996.
Dennis, in press: Dennis, R.L., "Using the Regional Acid Deposition Model to Determine the Nitrogen
Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," to be published in Joel Baker, editor,
Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters, Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL (in press).
Donigian et al., 1991: Donigian, A.S., Jr., B.R. Bicknell, A.S. Patwardhan, L.C. Linker, D.Y. Alegre, C.H.
Chang, and R. Reynolds, "Watershed Model Application to Calculate Bay Nutrient Loads: Phase II
Findings and Recommendations," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis, MD, 1991.
EPA, 1993: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Regional
Interim Emission Inventories (1987-1991), Volume I: Development Methodologies," EPA-450/R-93-
02la, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1993.
EPA, 1994: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters - First
Report to Congress," EPA-453/R-93-055, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1994.
EPA, 1995: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Phase III Reference Scenario - Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model - Phase III Calibration," Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August
1995.
Linker et al., 1993: Linker, L.C., R.L. Dennis, and D.Y. Alegre, 1993. "Impact of the Clean Air Act on
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality," International Conference on the Environmental Management of
Enclosed Coastal Seas (EMECS, 1993). In: Our Coastal Seas: What is Their Future? (1996), Eds. A.
Brooks, W. Bell, and J. Greer, Maryland Sea Grant College.
49
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
Linker et al., 1996: Linker, L.C., G.E. Stigall, C.H. Chang, and A.S. Donigian, "Aquatic Accounting:
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Quantifies Nutrient Loads," Water Environment and Technology.
8:1, p. 48-52,1996.
OTC, 1991: Ozone Transport Commission, October 29,1991.
OTC, 1994: Ozone Transport Commission, "Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone
Transport Commission on Development of a Regional Strategy Concerning the Control of Stationary
Source Nitrogen Oxide Emissions," September 27,1994.
Pechan, 1994a: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., "Regional Oxidant Modeling: Development of the OTC
Emission Control Strategies," Springfield, VA (prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Source-Receptor Analysis Branch, Research Triangle Park, NC), September, 1994.
Pechan, 1994b: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., "Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Feasibility Regarding
Implementation of OTC Petition on California Low Emission Vehicles," Springfield, VA (prepared for
Manufacturers Operating Division, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC), December 5,1994.
Pechan, 1994c: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., "The Emission Reduction and Cost Analysis Model for NOX
(ERCAM-NOJ," Springfield, VA, prepared for Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1994.
Pechan, 1994d: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., "Regional Oxidant Modeling of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments: Default Projection and Control Data," Springfield, VA, prepared for Source-Receptor
Analysis Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1994.
Shulyer, 1995: Shulyer, L.R., "Cost Analysis for Nonpoint Source Control Strategies in the Chesapeake
Basin," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD, May 1995.
Small, 1992: Small, K.A., "Urban Transportation Economics," Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur,
Switzerland, 1992.
Wood, 1996: Wood, D., telephone conversation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Washington, DC, July 29,1996.
50
-------
APPENDIX A
REGIONAL ACID DEPOSITION MODEL SUMMARY OUTPUT
A-1
-------
CO
7
WORKING SUBOIVISIOI
$
< « CM co tn
5 € £ $ ig
Si™
a:
o — « 2 r:
5 IS™"
. o i " S S
c K 6, - .-
= 29*
" !_««>..
I Sis- 5
| z § 2 S "> «
litS1
S p 2 -
S «
5 < ^ (M n r-.
c ijj a c*> eft o
!| ffS-
si £
S j
s|52H
*~ en *-
a en co in
^ 5 w *~ N
g^- co oi •-
>** '
Z
2C "3" ^ at in
UJ £ m — eo
^ sl~ • °
O to
Z
< V CM en o
T ? «3 r- m
« 2 ^ t^ CO O)
C CL Z «0 P- CO
5 k I
0 IT
« O — «o •- «
£ 1 I 5 1 £
5 0 2 CD 0> .-
1 2*
S t ,- co en w
t: Z « m m co
Q uj ^ of i, ^ ^ 2
"« ^ x
2 w'
D C 5 v l/> (M »-
— £ O ^ o> g n
s » sj y ~. ™. <*.
s s « § t S K
S? o ^ i °. aj P m to o
a: o> x o CM
o ^ O t.
^2 O CO
CM r*. rs
8S-
CM O
o» CM en
§ cS S
r-. m n
CO 0 CO
ID O CD
to co m
CO •- CO
•v co m
•~ ^
Watershed
Day States { ) Watershe<
Airshed 1 {-) Watershed
tO CT>
3 |
CM O
Up CM
n °
26127
04615
25623
06006
-- CD
tn co
CO CO
~ S
ID CM
CO *-
CM O
to *-
r~~ CD
m r-
^ CO
CM 0
tn to
W O
f- CO
en •w
S, v
m !?
— CM
£ £1
0)
£
3
(D
-C
O
0)
c
i Below the Fal
m Portlor
CO
m
«
1j
~ta
LL
C
s
1
1
o
CL
_c
CO
0 Interim
en
Ol
*~
0)
O
Z
-»»SUBDIVISIONSOF
CD <
jr
O
H
LU
LLJ
0.
i
;TCHES^
CC UJ
H 5
UPPER EAS1
JOCK
z
1
I
o
5
O
t 0
TERN
PATUXENT/MI
5
a:
LU
g
—i
to
UJ
en
5
UJ
si
y =>
O tn
1
o
5
g
£
g
1
<
0.
CO
UJ
X ^
CL
CL
<
MISSION
i-NO2/Yr)
UJ ^'
X O
o t
H
SOURCE REGION
n 01
(O (M
0 0
.- in
0 0
IT! CM
CO OJ
o o
in ~
CM ID
0 0
Ol CM
§s
0 0
Sin
CO
T OJ
O O
0 0
t-* a>
0 O
CO (D
£ §
CO V
O 0
to
8 S
-- CM
CO 1^
to *
o o
CD in
° s
0
5 S
O O
en co
CM TT
in «i
o o
r^. CM
0 1^
O CM
•^ CO
0 0
875,615
509.084
T-
Q
"~ UJ
Q I
LU CO
OH PORTION IN AIRSH
KYATN PORTION IN AIR
„
to
0
CM
r--
Ol
CM
O
tO
CO
CO
0
CD
in
CO
0
1
o
XT
O
1
0
en
o
r-.
CO
s
Ol
o
CM
O
CM
tn
o
1
0
§
CO
o
in
0
S
CM
463,914
CM
o
in
NC PORTION IN AIRSHI
*
S
1
(J
0
§
i Below the Fal
In Portlof
CC LU
£ 5
UPPER EAS"
MOCK
RAPPAHANI
0
O
2e
1TERN
PATUXENT/M
ut
s
X.
O
JAMES
CL
2Z
1
§
o
O to
z
CL
CL
O
H
2
LU
X
?
<
CL
to
UJ
2
X —,
0
POMATT
CL
<
MISSION
i-NO2/Yr)
LU c
X O
o t
z
SOURCE REGION
£ §
r- *-
r- CM
0 0
en co
s a
CM O
CO *-
|S
CO CM
0 O
CO Ol
•- m
g 3
0 O
tn CM
CM CO
S °
m co
m en
S °
t*~ CM
I"- OJ
8 EM
O O
*» CO
at co
m co
O o
co r-.
CM •*
e» CM
CM ^
CO CO
5 S
co in
o d
S §
o •-
CO CO
co tn
S 8
O
IO CO
o>
CO CO
0 O
tn in
5 8
•- -
ii
*- to
f CO
CM CM
cs tn
o o
06177
07636
940,038
348.924
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
to a
cv *~
i 1
CO O
CSJ O
CD V)
Ol f-
*~ c
I s
o «n
«- (M
r*- 10
" "
CO CO
8S
CO tf)
CM •*
co r-
CM O
•*
•D
«
a
o
cr
>.
1
c
c
•gl
5
'Z
«
S
led Irom
c
E
LU
£
O
471,366
WEST VIRGINIA'*
«
o
a
c.
U
*
5
i Below the Fa
c
5
CD
*
C
-J
u_
o
s
1
1
I
c
m
D Interim
S
*~
CJ
cr
D
O
CO
»STATE RELATED UT
>.
CD <
c
LLJ
LU
CL
N
ST CUES
CC LU
H 5
UPPER EAS
NOCK
RAPPAHAN
<
O
f_
2Q
STERN
PATUXENT/M
a
cr
o
— '
JAMES
cr
0 <
> z
|
§
o
O to
CL
CL
cc
O
2
O
j—
2
UJ
X
e
5
Q.
to
UJ
Q ""^
POMATT
Q.
**
MISSION
;-NO2/Yr)
UJ £
X O
§H
SOURCE RFGION
~
o
Cj
c
o
s
ts
o
ro
O
CO
O
o
o
04115
0
(^
CO
O
t^
S
o
2
-
o c
co ri
o o
ro i.-
CD «-^
CM ^>
O C
cn d
CO fv
o o
co eo
r^ tc
™ c
0
•- CO
CM •«•
CO •-
0 O
CO CD
O O
c- o
CO —
•- CO
0 S
-------
n n
)05 OTC Conlrols in Alrsh'
>05 Limol Tech(LOT)(Slra
— Q
o a
^ 6
rn -H
o
I 1
•o >§
3
O
o
to
to
•&
CO
en
CO
ro
tn
0
S
ro
to
ro
CO
as
CO
CO
CO
N)
O
ro
U
CO
to
*
i
s
-'
g r\> ro v - vvv w-
LflOOV « | ?^g f
S"*S£ ft ^£= ?
§ = = § ? o m g ? * i
1 SSt § =| ft jr s
S331S- 3 £ 3 2 - -
5 o o 5 e ° 5 f i s
> w M o ^" o » -5 "a
^^r^-l S So 3
f S rn 3! § f J 5 «
S f < o 2 J 2 i
i I " S o
' 5
o"
--•on „ ? S? ff ? ^
S I S 1 1 I 1 £ 1 1 I
SSSSS c |gSf |
^ -^ O P" m S
.S Z, j[? 5" —
_ > 5 §
88 -o 1 •?
- 2 S i o 3
UUIONOo. SJ § 2 9
o> o» -• ^j -• 3" -• • ^ -»
rsj ro Jfc O» J*. ~- tfl — ' ^-t »
- ,^1 I
- ^ ~ *2 m ^
CJ CO (O fO tfl ^ 8 D" ^ ~
*•" O CD CD -«> 3" Cn •» S
CD en — -J. -si — . to*— J
* i 3* '
3> - i 2 => 1
iu-sKsa Si S ? s
to ^j cn to co 3' tn » Z 3 —
CJ-JCDtnco— C» -" H 67 S
* ? ^ 1
£ to £ £ - g. w I ? 3
— Ui CD to u 3" ro»> J
-s) co ro -• oo ~— * to *•"" O *
-n
3) ?.
•^ - to "0 C
. ^ ° 2- 5 S
-to^^-a S5* i
(O U -si O 3" tofc >
— Cn to CO O> — b> ~~" S
w i§
3) 2 O
1 « § g 1 1 ill
5
^? "^ > 0
3) - ^ 3)
-•OJ^OOOD" Mi
Tl M « ^*
ro -* 9 Z m
CDCO-J-'CBQ. tnJW
-M ro to -• -^ • — -* —
7? - ° S
3) to 2 m 3
-* -* CO W U 3~ "^ * F*3
rotoooro^j — eD"" >o"
tn §
-O -i
? ^ f 3 3 f
to — ' ro -• (B _*?^
-•-sjtnforoQ. (j3*m 5
-^ — o "° =
3 ~* i O "
ocn^giSS Xl =
Oroi*fccn-'3" o* ^
_ D
t£)CDOOCB3" <*> • >
CTicnMtn-^— — *~* 2
* -?i^
TI -• • m
^ o» - - - f "I -13
^OO-, O1COr°3" CB^. j,
cz-ro-ch— en ^
- -t
•^ yf m jo
3, u ^ M Z
tooi^rotoQ, Io^^
fOOJOt*)O3~ rjvO^
CO
^
m
X
m
H 0
"° ^r O ^
0 -H _ 2
'- tn _ en 10 Q. Q 3" "* (t
'-" ru to cn to 3" Cn l" *"
— -- -~g CD tP • — to"" 2;
; en en
jbregion 6 Major Points
ubregion 14 Area Source
»»*»* Explanatory Notes <
I don'l quite trust the bre
0 w
|
a
5
£
1 s s
3 o o
i !?
S? £ S
W 0 »
B it
s s a
s § 1
s
a
T)
5
a
o
0>
—
2
S
«
s
5
5
S
5
a
0
09
3
CO tO CO
jbregion 39 Major Points
ubregion 39 Area Source;
jbregion 39 Ma| Pts+Arei
to -» ro
to tn CO
tn CD ^4
0 0
M P g
N> 0 CO
O O O
o o o
S S 8
s a s
0 0
Poo
_. Cn tn
— • to to
to tn tn
0 0
_. O o
p cn to
0 O O
8 S S
OD O> -*
to O) to
poo
§11
O 0 0
CO O S
•-j to to
— 05 LO
O O 0
000
-•00
to --4 St
ro to CD
o o o
_• o o
ro ch CP
ro to CD
o o o
2 | §
to 0) Cn
O O 0
-• o o
tn CD -J
O> CD CO
o o o
— 0 0
— « tn Ln
ro tn 0)
ro to co
000
_i -• O
ro co to
co en
jbregion 7 Area Sources
jbregion 7 Ma| Pls+Area
CD ro
to «.
•si -i
0 O
-• o
--i CO
0 O
~* p
CD CO
5 K
0 O
Cn -.
ro -j
O 0
o o
to CT)
O> tn
0 O
Kfe
CD OD
O O
CD to
O
0 °
-si O
2 S
O O
s s
-4 CO
-• tn
0 o
tn oi
p O
U Cn
0 0
§0
S
ro CD
o o
o p
CO X
w en
O O
0 0
o o
to t*
ro cc
tn co
ubregion 15 Major Points
jbfegion 7 Major Points
— to
-st (D
-~j ro
en CD
CD OS
2
Bed to rerun •
00659
1990eml39
00995
g
o
en
O
ro
CO
O
s
tn
p
s
o
B
S
O
-sj
o
o
o>
o
s
o
3
ro
tn
00454
o
o
<£>
O
f
O
ro
cn
ubregion 22 Major Points
300,532
2
eed to rerun -
co
co
o
1
o"
CO
ubregion 20 Major Points
ro
s
2
eed lo rerun -
(O
CO
o
a
3
o"
CO
c
CT
n
CO
0
u
>
s
»
CO
o
c
(0
w
8
tn
tn
2
8«d to rerun -
CO
CO
o
1
|
CO
ubregion 13 Major Points
267.747
02194
06362
0
tn
1
i
o
u
tn
O
CO
0
cn
o
s
CO
p
i
0
to
ro
S
02912
02129
0
ro
(O
ro
O
CO
o
s
tn
cn v
»>SOURCE REGIONS*
ounce REGION
A
*
^ 1 -
|||
O
j
£
m
??
s =
X T)
it 1
T) >
i I
O «
-n
T) 5"
|
w o
c X
<" 35
D
1
£
> ;5
3)
1
o »
m D
33
irshed2+E SBrd (•) Alrsh)
'J/CT/NY-CITY/LONG 1
astern Seaboard (E SBrd;
a
ro
ro -•
gen "to
•sj to
cn _. _.
S— *-N|
-* tn
tn to CD
to o O
— * '-» CO
o tn a
-• tn tn
fO -» to
ro o o
ro o M
to co tn
cn CD w
0 0 O
o ro to
00 55 V
•si -• to
ro o
S 3 2
ro — ' -s(
en -si tn
ro O
to ro
S o g
tn-.ro
ro o O
Stp tn
Ok U
s 5 a
tn o O
± £ fcJ
SCO fO
ro -4
cn o o
tn to tn
^j CD ro
to to *•
to O O
to tn co
Sco D
-* o>
-g_.ro
•si 0 0
t t 2
s t a
sj o O
8 3 £
to CD -. -"
0 to °
to K cn
p ro *•
X to *•
O) O O
tn tn ^i
ro co to
CD O O
^ " CD
ro to *>.
tn -«j co
C/> O O
to to cn
to co (fl
ro tn ~J
Co v
>»OUTSIDE AIRSHE02
OURCE REGION
^
-n
C
m
z
o
H 0 -
? S s
ssl
? i 3
T)
g
<- x
m
to
?s
c =
x -o
m o
o 1
o »
S -1
> ^
o «
-n
3 ^
"0 C
"° i
1
w O
D
1
z
^ o
3J
S
cn
r- OD
ni 3
'rt ^
"U !^ Q3
^ 3J —
C Z ^
i •
5 o r
|S
>
o
3!
|
8 |
•^ m
31
m
(/>
S rn
m 31
— j
o
X
m
CO
m
j.
T:
m
H O
0 3-
—4 ft)
> CD £
[U
jr
O>
^ <* T>
'ennsyivama Mobile Sees
'irgima Mobtle Sources
Maryland Mobile Sources
O — tn
b> "-- to
--. O CD
to cn cn
-• 0
0 0 ro
(o -si tn
ro cn tn
tn — to
- 0
0 0 ro
ro -. to
_. to tn
ro co tn
to — o
ro Q to
to cn CD
000
to en to
O
-«j ro S
to -» •—
0 0 O
(O to to
CO (O CD
to -• Q>
— O —
LO CD tD
ro i* UD
O O O
CO <£> (71
m v
>STATE RELATED MOB
iOURCE REGION
r—
m
tO
O
3?
O
H § _
O X to
1 if
"""
TJ
m
to
2s
Z) 5"
X T>
m o
5 f
T> >
3 o
O a
S H
> 3"
O ®
-TI
3) ^.
"D C
•Q 3
1 "
(n o
0
c
m
i
•z.
> g
x
1
to
| I
m 3
c s
'll
H 3) —
C Z °
X *
m =
§ •
5 o E
0 «
o
3>
TJ
T)
1
0 <=
S?
m
3)
m
^
CO
—4
S m
m 33
en z
-i
O
X
m
tn
m
m
S s
n n? w
01
X
(B
------- |