WRAP Regional Modeling Center - Simulation Specifications

Scenario Name: 2002 Planning Simulation version D

RMC Code: “Plan02d”

Date Specifications Prepared: 10/26/2007, Last revised 10/27/2008.

Time Window for Modeling/Analysis:

 Emissions modeling comp leted October 17, 2007

 Air quality modeling November 2007

 Analysis results January 2008

 All Plan02d emissions files de livered to TSS October 22, 2007

Description : The Plan02d case was the fourth and final it eration in the 2002 Pla nning Case typical-year emissions scenario. The Plan02d case includes major updates and corrections to the Plan02c emissions, as described in detail in th e emission summary below.

. Purpose/Objective : The objective of this model simulation is to compare modeled visibility with the PRP18a case and other future control strategies or sensitivity s cenarios to evaluate the Unif orm Rate of Progress (URP) at WRAP Class I Areas.

Expected Analysis Methods: Specific analysis methods will generally be determined based on the nature of the simulation and the stated purpose and objectives. These typically involve a number of standard postprocessing products used to elucidate relevant modeli ng results and analyses a nd aid in summarizing and interpreting the simulation results. Fo r the present simulation these include:

 Standard displays of spatial distribution of mode l predicted concentrations of relevant pollutants (Sulfate, Nitrate, PM, OC, EC, etc..) for various temporal periods (daily, monthly, seasonal and annual totals).

 Spatial plots of differences betw een 2002 and 2018 PRP18a predictions .

 Output files of SMOKE emissions and CMAQ air quality results to TSS.

 SMOKE reports processed and uploaded to TSS.

Input Data:

Edit this text -- The Plan02d emissions data included data from the Plan 2002 ve rsion C (Plan02c) emissions and earlier emissions data that are described in pages 7-14 of the RM C 2006 annual report available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/reports /final/2006/WRAP-RMC_2006_report_ FINAL.pdf

The emissions data for Plan02c are available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/ aqm/308/qa _plan02c36.shtml

Emissions – emission data and QA found at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/qa_plan02d36.shtml2 The following emissions did not chan ge from previous Plan02 simulations.

 From Base02a

o BEIS3 biogenic emissions (includes soil NO)

o Windblown fugitive PM dust emissions – all components from WRAP WB Dust model

o WRAP NH 3 from WRAP NH 3 model

o Ontario, Canada point fires

o Mexico road dust

o CENRAP on-road mobile

o Gulf of Mexico offshore point

 From Plan02a

o Eastern Pacific commercial shipping lanes

o WRAP baseline wildfires

o WRAP baseline wildland fire use

 From Plan02c

o WRAP baseline prescribed fire s (natural and anthropogenic)

o WRAP baseline agricultural fires

o WRAP baseline non-feder al rangeland fires

 From PRP18a

o Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic commercial shipping lanes.

The following emissions sources were updated in the Plan02d simulation :

 Stationary Area

o WRAP: 2002 inventory vers ion September 14, 2007

o CENRAP: included the area fire emissions in the st ationary area sector (elim inated the area fire sector), using fire inventory data from the stationary area inventory, not the area fire inventory; updates to temporal and griddi ng data for fire sources; 2002 i nventory version August 17, 2005;

o VISTAS: included the area fire emissions in the st ationary area sector (eliminated the area fire sector); 2002 version G inventory

o MWRPO: 2002 versi on K inventory

o MANE-VU: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o Mexico: Phase III inventory a nd updates to gridding data

o Canada: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

 Non-road Mobile

o WRAP: New CA 2002 inventory on ly, see Plan02a for other WRAP states (annual and monthly)

o CENRAP: new 2002 inventories (annual and monthly)

o VISTAS: 2002 version G inventory (annual)

o MWRPO: 2002 version K marine inve ntory update (annual and monthly)

o MANE-VU: no inventory updates (see Plan02a)

o Mexico: Phase III inventory and upd ates to gridding data (annual)

o Canada: no inventory updates (see Plan02a)

 On-road Mobile

o WRAP: New CA 2002 inventory only; changes to th e other WRAP states include the correction to the PEC and POA double counting error

o CENRAP: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o VISTAS: new 2002 activities and M6 scenario inputs3 o MWRPO: new 2002 activities and M6 scenario inputs

o MANE-VU: new 2002 activities and M6 scenario inputs

o Mexico: Phase III inventory a nd updates to gridding data

o Canada: no inventory updates (see Plan02a)

 Road Dust (extracted from stationary area inventories)

o PM2.5/PM10 ratio adjustments and county-leve l (US)/state-level (Mexico)/provincelevel(Canada) vegetative cover transpor t factors applied to all dust sources

o WRAP: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o CENRAP: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o VISTAS: 2002 versi on G inventory

o MWRPO: 2002 versi on K inventory

o MANE-VU: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o Mexico: no change (See Base02a)

o Canada: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

 Fugitive Dust

o PM2.5/PM10 ratio adjustments and county-leve l (US)/state-level (Mexico)/provincelevel(Canada) vegetative cover transpor t factors applied to all dust sources

o WRAP: new inventory version September 14, 2007

o CENRAP: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o VISTAS: 2002 versi on G inventory

o MWRPO: 2002 versi on K inventory

o MANE-VU: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

o Mexico: Phase III inventory a nd updates to gridding data

o Canada: no inventory updates (see Base02b)

 Offshore Area, Gulf of Mexico

o Removed shipping lane portion of the inventory to keep from double counting with the gridding shipping inventory

o new non-shipping inventory from MMS

 Gridded Offshore Shipping

o Eastern Pacific: no change (see Plan02a)

o Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic: Corbet/ENVIRON inventory

 Point Fire s

o CENRAP: inventories same as Base02a , corrections to speciation profiles

o VISTAS: 2002 version Base G2 inventory

 WRAP Oil & Gas

o Update 2002 inventory

 Stationary Point

o WRAP: updated inventory version September 14, 2007

o CENRAP: updated invent ory version March 30, 2007

o VISTAS: 2002 vers ion G inventory

o MWRPO: 2002 versi on K inventory

o MANE-VU: no inventory updates (see Plan02b)

o Mexico: Phase III inventory

o Canada: no inventory updates (see Plan02b)

 Documentation on input data, mode l settings, and modeling/QA pro cedures provided through standard reporting products: Plan02d_Inventory_summary_v{mmddyy}.xls

o Simulation schedule and input files

o Summary of inventory inputs to th e simulation with descriptions of the changes to each input4  Error tracking and resolutions stored in the UNC Bugzilla database: http://bugz.unc.edu/show_bug.cgi?id=2433

Other Inputs and Model Settings

 Initial and Boundary Conditions base d on natural GEOS-CHEM simulation

 Model version, settings and configur ation same as for 2002 Planning B

 Time period simulated – annual, typical year, meteorology for 2002 used

Results:

Summary tables and maps

Table 1. Plan02d annual emissions summary by regions (tons/yr)

Region CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2

_ 5 PMC
US 118445985 23059537 69635932 17091938 14791429 15616820 5102817 10553999 Total WRAP 29547611 4928961 22596168 1724327 1298993 4709074 1663673 3084295 CENRAP 24661511 5670875 15446765 4521535 2679746 7248711 1737440 3665279 VISTAS 30982474 5525732 20243047 4915103 4818926 2158333 968458 1123020 MWRPO 15957483 3573701 5438921 3726750 3426658 551425 252148 180237 MANE-VU 17127599 2583689 5789762 2204116 2314962 881871 414730 448859 Canada 13981086 2917715 21298330 638601 2553365 2793906 748695 2045254 Mexico 9838427 1737630 14441852 1438928 3143259 1175074 654952 520332 Pacific Shipping 40868 524797 367468 149 280561 36352 35220 1132 Atlantic/Gulf Shipping 30158 571769 12587 108 229651 63726 62756 971
Total 260613201 51094407 175270831 36261554 35537551 35235292 11640887 21623377

Table 2. Plan02d WRAP total annual emissions by sector (tons/yr)
Sector CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2

_ 5 PMC
Fires 8928013 202217 436714 45263 53856 726518 627618 119796 Area 1268874 259990 1331075 24519 85117 213825 190665 23197 Point 533870 897910 260247 780738 780738 147818 60424 105346 Non Road 3917820 1005930 535025 734 67286 74322 69424 4898 Onroad 12186508 1632549 1028968 55668 30253 50453 38902 11551 Biogenic 2624814 286996 18197340 0 0 0 0 0 WOG 46846 118573 439330 0 1182 0 0 0 Road Dust 0 0 0 0 0 581980 63358 518630 Fugitive Dust 0 0 0 0 0 915642 146387 769256 Wind-Blown Dust 0 0 0 0 0 1962165 431676 1530489 Offshore Platforms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offshore Shipping 40868 524797 367468 149 280561 36352 35220 1132 Ag Ammonia 0 0 0 817256 0 0 0 0
Total **29547611 4928961**  **22596168 1724327**  **1298993 4709074**  **1663673 3084295** 5 Emissions Summary

The objective of emissions simulation Plan02d was to incorporate new emissions data and corrections to errors discovered during the QA/QC of previous WRAP-RMC em issions simulations to cr eate a new planning year, annual 36-km grid resolution emissions dataset for air quality modeling. As summari zed in the Input Data Emissions section of this specifica tion sheet, we received 2002 Planning/ Typical year inventories for the WRAP states and collected updated 2002 inventories for the rest of the U.S. We also obtained new 1999 national inventories for Mexico. We combined these upda ted inventory data with bo th corrected and existing emissions data to develop the Plan02d emissions. Simulation Plan02d builds off of the previous simulation in the Planning 2002 series, simulation Plan02c. We w ill summarize simulation Plan02d by RPO, Canada, and Mexico in terms of new inventories, emissions data and modeling corrections, and emissions that we reused from previous simulations. This section will conclude w ith a discussion of the overall impacts of these changes on the emissions modeling results.

The RMC received new data for the WR AP states and tribes that incl uded 2002 planning inventories for the stationary area, stationary point, mo bile, and oil and gas sectors. The st ationary area and stationary point inventories included updates and corr ections to several inventory record s throughout the WRAP region. As with the rest of the WRAP emissions simu lations, we did not include any Tribal area source inventories in simulation Plan02d, only Tribal point source inventor ies. The tribal area source emissions are not in the State inventories, they were developed with explicit FIPS codes for different reservations. The reason we have not included these data was because they are fairly small magnitude a nd would require a complete overhaul of the spatial surrogates that we have been using to allocate the emissions to the model grids. In addition to creating surrogates for the reservations included in the inventories, we would also need to exclude the tribal areas from the counties that they overlap. The mobile source inventory updates in cluded new inventories for California on-road and non-road mobile sources only; the only changes to the non-Califor nia WRAP mobile sources included a correction to the on-road mobile processing (described below). We extracted fugitive dust PM emissions sources from the stationa ry area inventory using the list of sources cons istent with simulation PRP18a. We expanded the list of sources in the stationary area inve ntory that we categor ize as fugitive dust between the Plan02b/c series and Base18b simulations. Th e reason for categorizing th ese emissions as fugitive dust rather than leaving them as stati onary area sources is to apply revised PM 10 /PM 2.5 ratios and vegetative scavenging reduction factors to the PM emissions from dust sources. The resu lt of using the expanded list of fugitive dust emissions sources was an increase in the PM emissions in the fugitive dust sector and a decrease in the PM emissions in the stationary area sector in simulation Plan02d rela tive to simulation Plan02c. The net result of the expanded dust list is an overall reduction of PM 2.5 emissions through the application of scavenging factors to a larger number of sources. As with previous simulations the updated oil an d gas inventories consisted of both area and point sources. The exp licit WRAP oil and gas emissions sect or contains only the area source oil and gas inventories. The point oil and gas sources are contained in the stationary point inventory.

The rest of the changes to the WRAP emissions in simulation Plan02d resulted from corrections to modeling and data errors discovered since th e completion of simulation Plan02c. We corrected errors in the WRAP onroad mobile and domain-wide road dust sectors that we discovered during the QA of simulation Base18b. We found that we were double counting primary elemental and organic carbon emissions from brake wear, tire wear, and resting-exhaust on-road mobile emissions processes. The net resu lt of this correction was to decrease the PM 2.5 emissions, specifically in the form of elemental and organic carbon, from the WRAP on-road mobile sources in simulation Plan02d relativ e to Plan02c. During the QA process for simulation Plan02d we discovered and corrected an incorrect setting in the SMOKE configur ation for road dust sources. In previous simulations we assumed that the road dust inventories were devel oped as average weekday rather than as average day inventories (i.e. assuming a 5-day ve rsus a 7-day week). SMOKE uses this information to normalize the6 inventories to be in terms of an average day before cal culating hourly emissions. By correcting this setting in simulation Plan02d we decreased the road dust emissions relative to simulation Base02b. The rest of the inventory sectors in the WRAP regi on remained unchanged in simulation Pl an02d relative to Plan02c. We also made several updates and corrections to the emissions data for the other RPOs, Canada, and Mexico in simulation Plan02d.

We incorporated updated 2002 inventories and some corr ections for the non-WRAP, US sources in simulation Plan02d. We updated the stationary area, stationary point, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile inventories for several non-WRAP RPO’s. As the fugitive dust and road dust inventories are derived from the stationary area inventory, the updates to the stationary area inventories also impacted thes e emissions sectors. As with the WRAP inventories, we treated the fugitive and road dust inventories explicitly in order to apply revised PM 10 /PM 2.5 ratios and vegetative scavenging reduction factors. We select ed the fugitive dust sources from the stationary area inventory usi ng the expanded list of sources that we applied for the WRAP states. The SMOKE configuration correction for treating the road dust inventories as average day rather than average weekday emissions applies also to the non-WR AP sources, including Mexico and Ca nada. We also eliminated the nonWRAP area-source fire sector, which included CENRAP and VISTAS fires th at are inventorie d at the countylevel and get modeled as area sources. We folded this category into the stationary area sector for simulation Plan02d; this change is consistent wi th the approach that we used for simulation PRP18a. For the point fire category we updated the VISTAS data to a new 2002 inve ntory and corrected errors in the application of speciation profiles to the fires in the CENRAP region. We also incorpor ated new anthropogenic and natural ammonia inventories for CENRAP in simulation Pla n02d. In addition to these updates and corrections to sources in the continental U.S., we also updated the offshore, Canadian, and Mexican emissions in simulation Plan02d.

We added a new source in commercial shipping lane emissi ons in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean and updated the Mexico and Canadian inventories in simulation Plan02d. We received a new gridded commercial shipping inventory that contained emissions for the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic. We discarded the Pacific shippi ng lane emissions in this new inventory and combined the Pacific shipping lane emissions that we used in simulation PRP18a with the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic emissions from the new inventory. With the addition of the sh ipping lane inventory for the Gulf of Mexico, we modified the offshore area source inventory for this region by removing the shipping sources to keep from double counting these emissions. The area source Gulf of Mexico offshore s hopping inventory is an update d version of these data from the Minerals Management Servi ce; the Gulf of Mexico point source inventories remained unchanged. We also removed some shipping sources from the Canadian inventory to keep from double counting the offshore shipping emissions in the Pacific and Atlantic. Finally we used updated Phas e III 1999 Mexican inventories that covered the entire country for all em issions sectors. Along with the updated inventories we used revised spatial surrogates developed from Shapefiles provided by Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Ecología. We prepared the fugitive dust inventories for Canada and Mexico through the application of revised PM 10 /PM 2.5 ratios and vegetative scavenging reduction factors in a manner consistent with the U. S. inventories. As the Phase III Mexican inventory did not contain road dust estimates, we used the same Mexican road dust inventory that we used in all previous modeling runs. The rest of the s ources for Mexico and Canada, as well as the domain-wide biogenic emissions did not ch ange in simulation Plan02a.

A complete record of the quality assurance process fo r simulation Plan02d and a desc ription of the differences in the results of Plan02d relative to Plan02c and PRP18a are documented in http://bugz.unc.edu/show_bug.cgi?id=2433

.

Overall the WRAP emissions on an annual basis (annual totals for all WRAP states) decreased for PM 10 , PM 2.5 , PMC, SO 2 , and VOC and increased for NO x , NH 3 , and CO for simulation Pl an02d relative to simulation Plan02c. The most significant change in the PM emissions was a shift in the size di stribution of point source emissions from the course to the fine mode, with a 17,752 ton/yr reduction in PMC being offset by a 14,4587 ton/yr increase in PM 2.5 . The decreases in area source PM emissions were offset by the increase in fugitive dust PM emissions, the result of the expanded list of fugitive dust sources. The NO x emissions increases in simulation Plan02d relative to Plan02c were driven by si zeable emissions increases in the California on-road and non-road mobile inventories. The stationary area, point, and oil and gas sector s exhibited offsetting NO x decreases in comparing the Plan02d and Plan02c simulations, but the combined decreases were smaller than the increases in California mobile NO x emissions. The SO 2 reductions in simulation Plan02d relative to Plan02c were driven by combined reductions in the stationary area, point, non-road mobile, and oil and gas sectors. An 8.3% increase in NH 3 emissions from on-road mobile sources in Ca lifornia was offset by smaller decreases in the stationary area, point, and non-road mobile sectors. The stationary area sector contributed the largest VOC reductions, while the oil and gas sector experienced the largest VOC increases. The combined changes in VOC emissions amounted to less than a 0.1% in the overall WRAP VOC emissions. A large relative CO increase in the oil and gas sector (275%) relative to simulation Plan02c was still quite small compared to the an increase in CO emissions from on-road mobile sources in California. Overall the CO emissions for simulation Plan02d increased only 0.1% relativ e to simulation Plan02c.

Compared to simulation PRP18a, the Pl an02d WRAP emissions decreased for PM 2.5 , PMC, PM 10 , NH 3 , and VOC and increased for and NO x , SO 2 , and CO. The PM reductions were driven by the fugitive and road dust sectors. The NO x emissions increased as a result of the on-road mobile, non-road mobile, and stationary point sectors. These increases were offset slightly by NO x decreases in the stationary area and oil and gas sectors. The SO 2 increases were driven by stationa ry point, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile sectors. A large CO increase in the on-road mobile sector was offset by decreases in the statio nary area, stationary point, non-road mobile, and oil and gas s ectors. Decreases in NH 3 emissions were driven by the on-road mobile and stationary point sectors. Large decreases in VOC emissions from the oil and gas and stationary ar ea sectors were offset by smaller increases in the on-road and non-road mobile sectors.

Visibility Modeling Results

The Plan02d case was the fourth and fi nal iteration in the 2002 Planning Case typical-ye ar emissions scenario. The objective of this model simulation is to compare mode led visibility with the PRP18a case and other future control strategies or sensitivity scenarios to evaluate the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) at WRAP Class I Areas.

Relevant Output Products :

 Relevant model output products include daily, seas onal and annual spatial di stributions of Regional Haze contributing pollutants.

 In this report, the annual averag e model simulated concentrations ar e presented below, along with the changes compared to the Plan02c simulation.

 Results of this simulation will be compared with the PRP18a simulation in the report on the PRP18a results.

 Comparisons with other si mulations as appropriate.

Spatial plots showing the effect of changes in emissions for Plan02d compared to Plan02c are available at the RMC webpage: www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/cmaq.shtml#plan02dvsplan02c . Both yearly average and monthly average are available. Spat ial plots showing the effect of changes in emissions for Plan02d compared to PRP18a are available at: www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/cmaq.shtml#prp18avsplan02d

.8 Summary of Key Findings

The largest changes in SOx emissions in Plan02d comp ared to Plan02c were out side the WRAP region, and Figure 1 (top) shows that these emissions changes ha d small effects on modeled sulfate within the WRAP states, although there were local areas in Wyoming with increase in sulfate. Annual average model concentrations of nitrate and a mmonium increased in California by as much as 0.29 ug/m3 and 0.9 ug/m3, respectively. The Plan02 modeled concentrations of elemental and or ganic carbon and coarse mass mostly decreases compared to Plan02c, especi ally in the Pacific Northwest, al though there were some areas were concentration increased in Plan02.

The key findings for this simulation are the comparis on to the Preliminary Reas onable Progress Version A (PRP18a) model simulation, and these are discussed in detail in the Run Specification Sheet for the PRP18a case available on the RMC webpage.Figure 1. Left panel shows annual average sulfate (top) and nitrate (bottom) CMAQ simulated concentrations for PRP18a. Right panel shows the change in concentration for PRP18a minus Plan02d.

9Figure 2. Left panel shows annual average amm onium (top) and ozone (bottom) CMAQ simulated concentrations for PRP18a. Right panel shows the change in con centration for PRP18a minus Plan02d.

10Figure 3. Left panel shows annual average elementa l carbon (top) and organic carbon (bottom) CMAQ simulated concentrations for PRP18a . Right panel shows the change in concentration for PRP18a minus Plan02d.

11Figure 4. Left panel shows annual average coarse matter (top) and total PM2.5 (bottom) CMAQ simulated concentrations for PRP18a. Right panel shows the change in con centration for PRP18a minus Plan02d.

12