## STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM VOLUME 2: STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SECTION 4.50 Portland-VancouverAir Quality Maintenance Area (Oregon Portion) And Salem-KeizerArea Transportation Study (SKATS) Ozone Maintenance Plan

Adopted by the**Environmen~al** 

### Quality Commission February 22, 2007 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division StateofOregon Departmentof 

### 811 SW6th 

### Avenue Environmental 

### Portland, Oregon 97204 Quality

# · Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (Oregon Portion) and Salem-Keizer Area Ozone Maintenance Plan

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sixth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204 Adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission February 22, 2007

Adopted 

### by the EQC 02122107 1

## Oregon State Implementation Plan Section 4.50 Portland-Vancouver AQMA (Oregon portion) And Salem-KeizerArea 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

Table of Contents

Section Subsection Section Heading Page

i I Executive Summary 5 4.50.1 Background 6 4.50.1.1 

# • Portland-Vancouver AQMA (Oregon**~ortiol"l)** I 71 4.50.1.2 

# • Salem SKATS 8 i 4.50.2 Ozone Trends and**Com~liance** with Standards 10 4.50.3 I I Attainment Inventory (2002) 12 4.50.4

. Control Strategies 14

I 14 4.50.4.1 

# • Portland-Vancouver AQMA (Oregon**~ortionl** 4.50.4.2 

# • Salem SKATS I 19 4.50.5 Maintenance Demonstration 20
i 4.50.5.1 

# • Ozone Modeling Stud}" 

# jQJ I 4.50.5.2 

# • Growth projections

.. .. _ I 21 i I 4.50.5.3 

# • Forecast and Maintenance Inventory (2015) 22 26 ! 4.50.5.4 1 

# • Maintenance Demonstration (2015) Air Quality Monitoring n.50.6 27 i Contingency Plan 28 4.50.7 4.50.7.1 28 Request to Remove 1-hour Contingency Plan 

# • I I 4.50.7.2 28 

# • Portland-Vancouver AQMA 4.50.7.3 

# • Salem SKATS 30

. I 4.50.8 I Verification of Continued Attainment 

## I 31 i



### For more information
Ifyou have questions or would like more information, including a copy ofthe proposed rule revisions or appendices, please contact Marianne Fitzgerald at DEQ's Air Quality Division in Portland at (503) 229-5946, orfitzgerald.marianne@deq.state.or.us. 

# -

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 2List ofTables

! 

### Subject Page 1 i 

### 8-hour Ozone, Maximum Values (1998, 2003-2005) Table No. 11 2 8-hour Ozone, Fourth High Design Values (1998,2003-2005) 12 3 Portland and Salem 2002 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 13 4 Portland Area 2002 Attainment Inventories (lb/day) 13 5 Salem Area 2002 Attainment Inventories (Ib/day) 14 21

. Portland and Salem Area Population Projections 7 6 Portland-Area 2015 Maintenance Demonstration (Ib/day, tons/year) 24 8 Portland Area VOC and NOx Emissions (Ib/day), 

### % Change 24 9 Salem-Area 2015 Maintenance Demonstration (Ib/day) 25 i 

### Salem Area VOC and NOx Emissions 

### (lb/day), % Change 25 11 10 27 i 

### 12 2015 Maintenance Demonstration (ozone values) Portland Area VOC and NOx 

### and CO Emissions (tons/year) 40 i 

### 13 Salem Area VOC and NOx

### and CO Emissions (tons/year) 40 14 47 I 

### 15 2002 Emissions Inventory Grouped by Source Category Codes 2015 Emissions Inventory Grouped by Source Category Codes 48 i 

### L"

IS

### t 0

### fF Igures 

### Figure No. Subject Page 1 Portland-Vancouver AQMA (map) 8 2 Salem SKATS Air Quality Area (map) 9 3 Portland-Vancouver and Salem 8-Hour Ozone Values 11 4 Portland Area VOC and NOx 

### Emissions (Ib/day) and 2015 Maintenance Demonstration 23
5 Salem Area VOC and NOx 

### Emissions (Ib/day) and 2015 Maintenance Demonstration 23
6 Portland Vancouver and Salem Ozone Maintenance Demonstration 26

1 

### 7 Top Ten Sources, Portland 

### 41 8 Top Ten Sources, Salem 42 ! i



### Subject No. Page D10-1 Ozone Monitoring Network (Portland-Vancouver and Salem) 33 D10-2 1992 to 2005 Meteorological Factors Conducive to Ozone 37 Formation in the Portland-Vancouver Area (ODEQ, April 2006) I 

### D10-3 Emission Inventory 38 

# • Annual Emissions Inventory 

# • Typical Summer Day Emission Inventory 

# • Summary of Portland AQMA Emissions 

# • Summary ofSalem-KeizerArea Emissions D10-4 Historical and Future Ozone Simulations Using the 49 MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ System in the Portland-Vancouver Area

. (WSU, December 31, 2005) D10-5 Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional 50 Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area (Metro's

i 

### Data Resource Center, December 2002 final draft) i i 

### D10-6

. Modeled Attainment Test 51



### A**~ppen** 

### d" Ices

Adopted by the EOC 02122107 3

### 4.50.0 Acknowledgement and Summary


# - 4.50.0.1 Acknowledgements Without the efforts of numerous individuals in state and local governments who are dedicated to healthy air, this maintenance plan would not have been possible. Special appreciation goes to: Principal Authors: 

### Marianne Fitzgerald and David Collier, DEQ Air Quality Planning Principal Contributors: 

### Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Andy Ginsburg Division Administrator, Air Quality Dick Pedersen' Division Administrator, Northwest Region David Collier Manager, Air Quality Planning Cory Ann Wind Acting Manager, Northwest Region Air Quality Cheryll Hutchens Manager, Western Region Air Quality Gerry Preston Manager, Air Quality Technical Services Jeffrey Stocum Acting Manager, Air Quality Technical Services Wes Risher Air Quality Technical Services Svetlana Lazarev Air Quality Technical Services Chris Swab Air Quality Technical Services Phil Allen Air Quality Technical Services Susan Drake Northwest Region Air Quality Karen White-Fallon Western Region Air Quality Southwest Clean Air Agency Bob Elliott Executive Director Paul Mairose Chief Engineer Wade Strange Air Quality Engineer (former) Laurie Hulse-Moyer Air Quality Scientist Washington Department of Ecology Doug Schneider Air Quality Program, SIP Coordination Clint Bowman Air Quality Program, Meteorology Sally Otterson Air Quality Program, Emission Inventories Cristiana Figueroa-Kaminsky Air Quality Program (former) Metro Mark Turpel Pam Peck Andy Cotugno Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Mike Jaffe



# -

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 4

### 4.50.0.2 Executive Summary The Portland area has violated federal clean air standards for ground level ozone (commonly known as smog) as recently as 1998. In 1996, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCM) developed Ozone Maintenance Plans for the Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) that included several strategies to reduce air pollutants and ensure compliance with the one-hour ozone standard. These strategies were successful in reducing smog forming emissions and no violations ofthe ozone standard have occurred in the Portland-Vancouver area since 1998. In 1997, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the national ambient air quality standard (NMQS)for ozone from a one-hour average of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to an 8-hour average of 0.08 ppm, and in 2005 EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard. This 2006 ozone maintenance plan is a revision to the 1996 maintenance plan for the PortlandVancouver area, and ensures continued compliance with the new 8-hour ozone standard through at least 2015. The plan also includes an ozone maintenance plan for the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) air quality area. Both the Portland-Vancouver and Salem areas are included in the ozone modeling and maintenance analysis. An ozone maintenance plan update for the Vancouver portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA is being prepared by the Southwest Clean Air Agency in Vancouver, Washington. These plans are required by the federal Clean Air Act, federal regulations and EPAguidance. This 2006 maintenance plan continues the same strategies adopted for the Portland-Vancouver AQMA in 1996 to reduce and manage volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

### emissions. Air quality data and projections show that ozone levels can still occasionally approach or exceed the 8-hour ozone standard in the Portland-Vancouver area, but that with the existing strategies in place, both the Portland and Salem areas will maintain compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. The suite ofstrategies described below work together to protect air quality as growth and population pressures increase overthe next ten years. Implementing this suite ofstrategies will also reduce emissions ofairtoxics and greenhouse gases that are important emerging issues of concern. Thefollowing strategies will remain in the Portland.;.Vancouver Ozone Maintenance Plan as they currently apply to sources in the Portland area: • Motor Vehicle Inspection Program; • Emission Standards for Industrial Sources of VOC; • New Source Review Program for new and expanding major industrial facilities; • Voluntary Parking Ratio Rules; • Barge Loading Rules that control VOCs from gasoline delivery operations; • Aerosol Paint Rules that lower VOC content from spray paints sold in the Portland area; • Motor Vehicle Refinishing Rules that require low-emitting painting methods at autobody repair shops; and • Public education and outreach that encourages people to voluntarily reduce emissions, such as not mowing lawns and driving less on Clean Air Action Days (now called Air Pollution Advisories). Strategies that have reduced VOC emissions in the Salem SKATS air quality area will also remain in place, including emission standards for existing industrial sources ofVOC. 

# - The 2006 maintenance plan includes updates to several programs:

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 5• Revised rules for Employee Commute Options in the Portland Area to reduce administrative burdens while maintaining alternative commute programs at larger 

# - employers; • Updated rules for Industrial Emission Management in the Portland area, to reestablish the growth allowance for new and expanding major industrial sources and ensure that the ozone standard will not be violated even under conservative industrial growth assumptions; • Designated Salem/SKATS as an ozone maintenance area under state rules; • Revised rules for new and expanding major industrial sources in the Salem area, to remove the most stringent industrial emission control equipment requirements for sources in nonattainment areas, known as Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, and replace them with emission control requirements known as Best Achievable Control Technology that are consistent with what is required in Portland and continue to provide a high level ofemission control; and • Amended DEQ rules to reflect the newfederal ozone air quality standard, from the old one-hour standard (which EPA has revoked) to the current federal 8-hour standard of 0.08 ppm, three year rolling average. DEQ is tracking legal issues which may result in a need to amend the maintenance plan in the future. This maintenance plan was prepared under the guidance of EPA's 2004 Final Rule to Implementthe 8-Hour Ozone NMQS-Phase 1 (69 FR 23951, 40 CFR 51.900). On December 22,2006 the U.S. Court ofAppeals released a decision to "vacate the 2004 rule and remand the matterto EPA" (South CoastAir QualityManagement District v. EPA). In particular, the court ruled that certain requirements adopted for the 1-hourozone standard, such as conformity and contingency plans, must be retained to prevent backsliding. Depending on how EPA interprets the court's decision in new guidance and rules, this maintenance plan may need to be amended. In the interim, the existing 1-hourozone maintenance plan requirements will remain federally enforceable until EPA approves this 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. 

### 4.50.1 Background Ground level ozone, also known as smog, is an air pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a chemical reaction ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). This reaction is most intense on hot summer days with poorventilation. Ozone is a strong respiratory system irritant that aggravates respiratory illnesses, impairs athletic performance, and can cause permanent respiratory system damage. Ozone can be especially harmful to older people and children, and can damage crops and other materials. In the past, motor vehicles and industrial operations have been the major sources ofozone precursors. Now, other sources such as household products, paints, construction equipment, watercraft and lawnmowers are major contributors to ozone formation. Historically, the Portland-Vancouver and Salem-Keizer areas violated the national ambient air quality standard (NMQS)for ground level ozone 1• The Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) and the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) areas were deSignated nonattainmentfor ozone on March 3, 1978 under the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. Plans were subsequently developed to reduce ozone precursor emissions of 

## vac and NOx, and bring the areas into compliance (attainment) with standards. Underthe 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments, the Portland-Vancouver AQMA was deSignated a "marginal" 

# -



# - 1 Ozone monitoring sites were established in Oregon beginning in the early 1970s (see Appendix 010-1).

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 

### 6

### ozone nonattainment area, and Salem-KeizerTransportation Area Studywas designated "nonattainmentJinsufficient data". 4.50.1.1 Portland-Vancouver AQMA Over several decades, efforts to reduce smog forming emissions in the Portland area have included a combination offederal, state, and local emission control strategies. The first State Implementation Plan was adopted in 1972; the first Portland-VancouverAQMA Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted on July 16, 1982 and approved by EPA on October 7, 1982. Some ofthe control strategies in the 1982 ozone attainment plan included a vehicle inspection and maintenance program for Portland-area motorvehicles (1975), motorvehicle trip reduction and traffic flow improvements and measures; and industrial VOC controls (1978). Area source controls on gasoline station vapors were added in 1991. The original ozone maintenance plans for Portland-Vancouverwere adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on July 12, 1996 and the Board of Directors ofthe SouthwestAir Pollution Control Authority on March 19, 1996. The Portland and Vancouver Interstate AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plans were approved by EPA on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27204). A violation ofthe one-hour ozone standard did occur in July 1998 atthe Carus monitoring site (see Appendix D1 0-1). The violation occurred during a time when the one-hour ozone standard was temporarily revoked so it did not trigger the one-hour ozone contingency plan. DEQ's analysis demonstrated that this violation occurred before all emission reduction measures had been fully implemented so no additional measures were needed. Since 1998, there have been no violations ofthe one-hour ozone standard, and no violations ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. In 1997, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the ozone standard from a one-hour average of0.12 parts per million (ppm) to an 8-hour average of0.08 ppm. After a lengthy legal challenge, the courts upheld the 8-hour ozone standard in 2002. EPA adopted rules to implementthe 8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004, and revoked the one-hour standard effective June.15, 2005. EPA designated the State ofOregon "Unclassifiable/Attainment" with the 8-hour ozone standard, effective June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004). EPA rules to implement the 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004) require DEQ to prepare this 2006 maintenance plan update forthe Portland-Vancouver area to ensure continued compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. In accordance with the same EPA rules, Oregon also requests that EPA remove the obligation to prepare a second one-hour ozone maintenance plan. Meteorological and population growth factors overthe past ten years indicate that the numberof days with elevated ozone levels should have risen, but instead has remained relatively stable (see Appendix D10-2). Ozone levels have been going down slightly while the population and vehicle miles traveled continued to grow. An analysis that compared episodes with the highest ozone values in 1998 with episodes with similar meteorology in 2003 showed that maximum ozone values were lower in 2003 than 1998 despite similartemperatures, wind speeds and solar radiation levels. This stable ozone trend indicates that the ozone strategies that reduced emissions are working.

Adopted 

### by the EQC 02/22/07 7Figure 1: Portland-Vancouver Interstate Air Quality Maintenance Area



# -

Ltogeud {j Ololl,lioui,o,,:**l.Z,3,~ V'II.~U,·tr**  :\Q)\L\ Portblld.\QlL-I. -Hi:hwaYl -Roadt



# -

4.50.1.2 Salem-KeizerArea Transportation Study (SKATS) Air Quality Area The Salem area marginally violated the federal air quality standard for ozone in the 1970s and was designated an ozone nonattainment area on March 3, 1978 underthe 1977 Clean AirAct Amendments. The Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments recommended the nonattainment area asthe area within the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study boundary (SKATS) (see Figure 2). This includes portions of Marion and Polk County, including the cities ofSalem and Keizer. Salem's ozone concentrations are influenced by emissions of ozone precursors in the Portland area. In 1979 the Salem area was defined under EPA guidelines as a "rural" ozone nonattainment area, and an Attainment Plan was adopted by the EQC in September, 1980 and approved by EPA on April 12, 1982. Salem's attainment plan underthe rural ozone policy consists ofthree elements: 1) controls on major existing sources ofvolatile organiC compounds under Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules, 2) controls on major new

## vac sources under Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) rules, and 3) an approved plan for the Portland-Vancouver AQMA, which is the major urban area upwind of Salem. All ofthese program elements remain in place.


# -

Adopted 

### by the EQC 02/22/07 8

# -- Figure 2: Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Air Quality Area



# -

DEQ had developed a maintenance plan and requested redesignation ofthe Salem SKA TS to attainment in 1987, but EPA returned the plan because EPA did not believe it contained sufficient emission inventory data and forecasts. Due to low ambient ozone levels and agency budget cuts, DEQ discontinued the Salem ozone monitorfrom 1987through 1994 and was not able to complete the necessary planning work for redesignation. Underthe 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments, SKATS was designated a nonattainment area with incomplete data. In 1995, DEQ reinstated the ozone monitorto support development ofa maintenance plan for Salem, but was unable to secure staffing resources to complete the plan. No violations ofthe federal one-hour standard have been recorded atthe SalemfTurner ozone monitoring site since 1996, and no violations ofthe 8-hour ozone standard have ever been recorded (see Figure 3 and Tables 1 and 2). Salem SKATS was designated in attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858, April 30,2004).

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 9

### 4.50.2 Ozone Trends and Compliance with Standards



# - Figure 3 shows the ozone trends measured at monitoring sites for the Portland, Vancouver, and Salem areas for the period 1997 through 2005. Table 1 shows the highest maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured for 19982

, 2003, 2004, and 2005. While these peak values are important in assessing public health risk, they are not used to determine official compliance with the federal ozone standard. Compliance with the standard is based on a statistical method that looks at the three year average ofthe 4th highest (maximum 8-hr average) ozone value each year. Ifthe three-year average ofthe 4th highest value at any monitoring site exceeds the standard, the area is in violation. Table 2 shows the rolling threeyear average of4th high values for 1998, 2003, 2004, and 2005. It is these "design values" that are compared to the 0.08 ppm ozone standard to determine compliance. Under EPA's calculation convention, a value of0.084 ppm would round down to 0.08 ppm (i.e. in compliance), while a value of 0.085 ppm or higher would be a violation. Key ozone monitoring sites include the "Carus" site in Portland, "Mountain View" site in Vancouver, and the "Turner" site in Salem (see Appendix 010-1). The values illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, togetherwith the 2015 Maintenance Demonstration described in Section 4.50.5.4 show that ozone levels can still occasionally approach or exceed the 8-hour ozone standard in the Portland-Vancouver area, but that with the existing strategies in place, the region 

### will maintain compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. DEQ's analysis in Section 4.50.5.4 suggests that there is not currently a need to add new ozone strategies for the Portland and Salem areas, but that existing emission reduction and growth management strategies should be continued with revisions described in Section 4.50.4.



# -

2 1998 is included in the table because that year had the most recent violation ofthe 1-hour ozone standard in Portland and the July 1998 episode was used in the modeling analysis.

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22107 10

### .­ Figure 3: Portland-Vancouver and Salem 8-Hour Ozone Values
8-hour Ozone Air Quality (1997-2005) 3 year averages ofthe 4th highest daily ozone value

0.100 -r--------------------------,



# =

0.090

### ~**1r;1.?:-~o-ne-A-:-:Q:-:S::-:-ta-nd-:-a--,rd:-:09-;;:-·08:-::5""'p-pm"'-'·**I

.................., ..................................................................................................... 1**~** '0 0.080

.. ' '**~** • Ozone Monitoring Sites



### . )(, '\ I! " " (11)1(''' 

### /e iii 0.070 ". '.."." '" ' ' , , '" , •... , '

.. ' , "" , ,.,**,~"..** ..**~** Portland arus 

# f &

# ~~",."**:~'~, ~~**  

# """.'**:~~** 

# .......**~**

# 1-**~. :::::~:;~:~;~~:and**  ! 0.060 -'**--'\:-",-~-~** ---**-~;':J"** ....**~~~**

..... ", .'

.**~.** "" . , .... , ..**~** , ,SalemlTurner 

# I ia.. , . ''::'

### ,~- -'-,'

..... :- ..... • --*-Vancouver/MtnView
-; 0.050 c

### ~**~** 0.040

0.030 +-----,------,- .--..,..,--.--r---.--,----,.----,--.--,--.--i 

# - 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 i

Year



### Table 1: 8-Hour Ozone Maximum Values 8-hour ozone standard

# = 0.08 ppm Exceedance**~** 

### 0.085 ppm maximum daily 8-hour average Monitoring Site

Portland/Carus Portland/Milwaukie ! 

### Portland/Sauvie

, Island 1998 8-hour Maximum

0.116 0.100 0.077 2003 8-hour Maximum

0.084 0.068 0.073 2004 8-hour Maximum

0.084 0.077 0.061 2005 8-hour Maximum

0.079 0.063 0.065 I I

I 

### Vancouver/ I 

### Mountain View 0.078 0.077 0.066 0.076

SalemlTurner 0.098 0.080 0.068 0.080

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 11

# - Table 2: a-Hour Ozone 4th 

### High, Design Values Design Value 

### = 4th highest 8-hour average, averaged over three years 8-hour ozone standard 

### = 0.08 ppm Violation;:: 0.085 ppm design value
2005 ! 

# I Monitoring Site 1998 Design 

# ! 2003 2004 

# I Value Design i Design Design Value3 Value Value
i Portland/Carus 0.080 

## I 0.070 

## I 0.068 0.068
i Portland/Milwaukie • 0.066 0.060 I 0.059 0.055
! Portland/Sauvie 0.065 0.060 0.062 0.060 I I i i Island i Vancouverl 0.065 0.063 0.061 i 0.060 I i i Mountain View 

# i I 

## I SalemlTurner I 0.076 

## I 0.060 

# l 0.065 0.065 I


### 4.50.3 Attainment Inventory DEQ developed an attainment emission inventory for the year 2002. The emission inventory reflects detailed estimates ofemissions from all sources, grouped into four major categories: • Industrial Point Sources (sources with a DEQ air quality permit), • On-Road Mobile Sources (e.g. motorvehicles and trucks), • Non-Road Mobile Sources (e.g. lawnmowers, construction equipment and other engines), and • Area Sources (e.g. household products, print shops, degreasing and surface coating operations, pesticide application, open burning and wildfires). The 2002 Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) emissions data submitted by DEQ and SWCAA to EPA's National Emission Inventory (NEI) were used as the basis for the 2002 attainmentyear inventory. This 2002 county-by-county annual inventory was developed following the currently accepted methodologies for the National Emission Inventory. Appendix D10-3 and Appendix D10-4 describe the emissions inventory calculations in more detail. Table 3 contains the annual countywide estimates for the Portland-Vancouver AQMA, Oregon portion (Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties) and Salem SKATS (Marion and Polk Counties) in 

### tons/year. Tables 4 and 5 contain the countywide estimates, seasonally adjusted for a typical summer day. Tables 4 and 5 are considered the "attainment inventory" for the Portland-VancouverAQMA and Salem-Keizer area Ozone Maintenance Plan.
EPA guidance requires an emission inventory for three pollutants: VOC, NOx and carbon monoxide (CO). VOC and NOx are the most critical precursor emissions that contribute to ozone formation, so these pollutants are highlighted in the emission inventory tables throughout this maintenance plan. 

# -

3 2003 Design Value was used to determine the attainment designation for Portland-Vancouver AQMA 

# - (January 22, 2004 letter from DEQ to EPA). Design value is calculated using the 4th highest ozone value at each monitoring site, averaged over 3 years.

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 12

### Table 3: Portland and Salem 2002 Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Portland Area 2002 Attainment Inventory Salem-Area 2002 Attainment Inventory Annual Emissions (tons/year) Annual Emissions (tons/year) Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counti Marion, Polk Counties
2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Source Type VOC NOx CO Source TYPE VOC NOx CO AREA 92,946 5,808 104,621 AREA 20,297 1,646 34,547 NON·ROAD 13,247 17,344 153,204 NONROAD 2,401 3,159 27,025 ON-ROAD 23,683 36,786 288,435 ON-ROAD 9,331 11,276 116,116 POINT 3,056 2,522 2,214 POINT 218 302 30 Total 132,931 62,461 548,474 Total 32,247 16,383 177,719


### Area source emissions were calculated following EPA guidanceforthe 2002 NEI. Area sources are the largest category ofemission sources. Some ofthe significant area sources of

## voe emissions in both Portland and Salem include surface coating and household consumer products. Graphic arts and degreasing operations are also significant area sources of

## voe emissions in the Portland area, and agricultural open burning and gasoline storage and transportation are significant sources of

## voe emissions in the Salem area, on a typical summer day. Non..:road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's draft NONROAD2002 model and other methodsfollowing EPA guidanceforthe NEI. Significant sources of non-road

## voe emissions include 2-stroke and 4-stroke gasoline engines such as lawn and garden and

.

# - construction equipment, as well as diesel engines, boats and personal watercraft

. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using Mobile 6.2 emissions and traffic data from the Oregon Department ofTransportation. Gasoline vehicles are a major source of

## voe and NOx 

### emissions, as well as diesel powered vehicles. 

### Table 4: Portland Area 2002 Attainment Inventories (Ib/day)
Portland Area 2002 Attainment Inventory Typical Summer Day, Ib/day Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties
2002 2002 2002 Source Type VOC NOx CO AREA 253,871 5,529 26,644 BIOGENIC 437,910 3,890 NON-ROAD 110,188 136,713 1,202,805 ON-ROAD 139,542 216,750 1,699,493 POINT 17,020 14,913 12,202 Total 958,531 377,794 2,941,144

Portland Area 2002 VOC Attainment Inventory

f'l:)N.ROAO ;. ";.

11%

# ~ I

# ~ ••SIOGeIC ,,"",,"ROAD '"QN.ROAO. "'NTI Portland Area NOxAttainment Inventory

## ";:. A:!".

## ~

."'-,.---**~~AO** ON-ROA

..% 

# I**~rtland** Area 2002 CO AttainmentInventory FONT**A~ ~** 

!. .':"

## ~~""" 0%**~'"** - -," M:)N.RQAO QN.ROA v, 41%

5.%

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 13BIOOENIC 61% 65% 

# - Table 5: Salem Area 2002 Attainment Inventories (Ib/day)
Salem-Area 2002 Attainment Inventory Typical Summer Day, Ib/day Marion, Polk Counties
2002 2002 2002 Source Type VOC NOx CO AREA 66,252 6,227 148,513 BIOGENIC 296,719 3,803 NONROAD 20,462 28,793 219,294 ON-ROAD 54,980 66,442 684,169 POINT 1,198 1,701 188

Point source emissions for the 2002 Attainment Inventory are based on data submitted by permitted facilities and reflect actual 2002 emissions reported in annual permit reports to OEQ. Within the Portland-VancouverAQMA, industrial point sources that emit more than 10 tons/year ofVOC, 40 tons/year of NOx, or 100tons/year of CO were inventoried. Outside ofthe PortlandVancouverAQMA (including Salem), point sources that emit more than 40 tons/year of NOx or 100 tons/year ofVOC or CO were inventoried. Stack parameters, activity, and exact location were collected to provide the most comprehensive accounting possible and to support the ozone dispersion model used in the maintenance demonstration. Point source emissions are a relatively small percentage ofthe 2002 attainment inventory. Biogenic emissions are produced by life substances (e.g. terpenes from pine trees) as opposed to anthropogenic emissions that are produced by human activities. Biogenic emissions data was provided by WSU for the modeling study (Appendix 010-4) and calculated by county for this emissions inventory.



### 4.50.4 Portland and Salem Control Strategies
4.50.4.1 Portland-VancouverAQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan The Portland-VancouverAQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan (Oregon portion) includes federal, state and local emission control programs. All four major source categories of ozone precursor emissions are affected by rules that reduce emissions from these sources. Several ofthe strategies provide benefits beyond VOC and NOx emission reductions, such as airtoxics and -. Total

SalemArea 2002VOC Altalnment Inventory WROAD P()lNf AREA.

13% 0% 15%**~~AD_** 439,610 106,967

SalemArea 2002 NO. Altainment inventory FONT ARtA B10GfNC 

# 'J$t.""/ .% --:-___**~D** ON-RCA- 27% 1,052,164

SalemArea 2002 CO Altainmenllnventory POINT AREA fOClGEN.C 0% 14% 0% f

### ~~O**ON-ROA~** 21%

Adopted by the EQC 02122/07 14greenhouse gas emission reductions, traffic congestion reduction, energy savings, and overall cost-savings for the transportation systems. The existing Portland-Vancouver AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan strategies will remain in place and work together to protect air quality as the population increases over the next ten years. These strategies have successfully reduced VOC and NOx emissions and also reduce emissions ofair toxics and greenhouse gases that are emerging issues of concern.
. The following strategies will remain in the Portland Ozone Maintenance Plan as they currently apply to sources in the Portland area:

• MotorVehicle Inspection Program (OAR 340-256-0300 through 0470); • Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources (Reasonably Available Control Technology) for existing major industrial facilities (OAR 340-232-0010 through 0230); • New Source Review Program for new and expanding major industrial facilities (OAR 340­ 224-0010 through 0100 and 340-225-0010 through 0090); • Voluntary Parking Ratio Rules (OAR 340-242-0300 through 0390); • Barge Loading Rules and Stage I vapor recovery systems that control VOCs from gasoline delivery operations (included within OAR 340-232); • Aerosol Paint Rules that lower VOC content from spray paints sold in the Portland area (OAR 340-242-0700 through 0750); • Motor Vehicle Refinishing Rules that require low-emitting painting methods at autobody shops (OAR 340-242-0600 through 0630); and • Public education and outreach that encourages people to voluntarily reduce emissions, .'-' such as not mowing lawns and driving less on Clean AirAction Days (now called Air Pollution Advisories). The following strategies in the Portland-Vancouver Ozone Maintenance Plan (Oregon portion) have been modified:

• Employee Commute Options Program (OAR 340-242-0010 through 0290): Program requirements now focus on larger employers (100 or more employees) and reduce the survey requirements from annual to every two years (see detail below), and • Industrial Emission Management Program (OAR 340-242-0400 through 0440): Reestablish the industrial growth allowance for new and modified major industrial sources to ensure that the ozone standard will not be violated even under conservative growth assumptions (see detail below).
In June, 2005, the Environmental Quality Commission amended the MotorVehicle Inspection Program rules to replace the "enhanced" vehicle inspection test with the "basic" vehicle inspection test for vehicle model years 1981-1995. This change is reflected in the modeling projections and maintenance demonstration ofthis plan. Stage 

### \I vapor recovery system requirements for gas stations will remain in effect until the motorvehicle fleet reflects widespread use of on-board canister systems. The Stage II rules will be revised at that time (priorto 2015). The eventual shift from Stage II vapor recovery to on-board canisters is reflected in the 2015 modeling prOjections and maintenance demonstration ofthis plan.

Adopted by the EQC 02122/07 

### 15Transportation control measures are no longer enforceable under conformity rules (40 CFR 51.900) so these measures are removed from the Portland AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan. However, the Employee Commute Options program will remain in the maintenance plan, and DEQ and Metro will implement a voluntary program to monitor growth in motorvehicle emissions ofVOC and NOx in the Portland area as described in Section 4.50.4.1.3. 4.50.4.1.1 Changes to the Employee Commute Options Rule The Employee Commute Options Program rules adopted in 1996 (OAR 340-242-0010 through 0290) require Portland-area employers with more than 50 employees to implement programs that would reduce single-occupancy commute travel by 10%. Affected employers must provide incentives for employee use of alternative commute options. The incentives must have the potential to reduce commute trips to the work site by 10% within three years ofcompleting an initial employee survey. Annual surveys measure progress toward this goal. Annual survey data indicates that larger employers are more likely to comply with ECO and provide meaningful transportation options to their employees. Larger employers represent most ofthe employees in the region. For example,

• Employers with more than 100 employees generate 92% ofthe total trip reduction. • Employers with more than 100 employees make up 86% ofthe total ECO affected employees. • Employers with more than 100 employees make up 53% ofthe total ECO affected employers. Key program statistics*: 

# - ECO Compliance Status· • Number of employer work sites >50 employees: 1212 29% Trip 30% Mleting Increases Target ----r--=;;,""=

___ • Estimated number ofemployees affected: 250,000

• Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled reduced: 35.4 million

6% NoChange 13% 1-3%Trip Reduction

*based on survey data from worksites with>50 employees as ofAugust 2005. Not all employers are required to survey. Smaller companies make up the majority ofemployers who are behind with ECO compliance. DEQ has modified the ECO program to more effectively focus on larger employers that produce the most significant amount ofemission reduction benefit, and to streamline reporting requirements. Program changes include:

• Changing the threshold for rule applicability from "more than 50" employees to "more than 100" employees; • Changing survey requirements from annual to every two years; • Requiring all employers with more than 100 employees that have not developed a plan to submit an approved plan, or demonstrate that they participate in an equivalent commute trip reduction program, such as EPA's Best Workplaces for Commuters


# - program or TriMet's Passport program;

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 16

### • Modifying survey requirements to allow an employer to submit follow-up survey results with less than 75% response rate. DEQ will assign single occupancy vehicle trips tothe percentage ofemployees who did not respond up to the 75% rate; • Eliminating the 2006 sunset date since the ozone maintenance plan does not sunset; and • Requiring employers that qualify for exemptions (e.g. through restricted parking ratios) to certify every two years that they continue to qualify for the exemption. The Employee Commute Option Program has been effective in reducing the amount ofvehicle miles traveled by single-occupancy-vehicles in the Portland area, thereby reducing air pollution and traffic congestion in the region. The ECO program has resulted in an estimated annual reduction ofover 100 tons ofVOCs and over 85 tons of NOx. 

### In addition to the benefits to ozone air quality, DEQ estimates that the ECO program is also effective in reducing over 22,000 tons peryear of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), as well as associated air toxics emissions (most notably benzene). DEQ's proposed rule changes would streamline the program and

. make it more effective in encouraging alternative commute trips among larger employers while

providing reliefto smaller employers. The program is one of many efforts in the Portland area to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and DEQ will continue to partner with regional alternative transportation programs in these efforts. DEQ will continue to focus on larger employers (those with over 100 employees) who account for over 90% ofthe trip and emission reduction achieved by the ECO program. Therefore, DEQ believes there will be no significant loss in emission reduction benefit from ECO by focusing the program on larger employers.



# - 4.50.4.1.2 Industrial Emission Management Rules The 1996 Portland-Vancouver Ozone Maintenance Plan included an industrial emissions growth allowance that could be used by new and expanding major industry in lieu ofobtaining emission offsets. This 2006 maintenance plan update continues this approach to managing industrial emissions growth. The growth allowance program is described below. Underthe existing Industrial Emission Management Rules adopted in 1996 (OAR 340-242-0400 through 0440), new or expanding major industrial sources located within 100 km ofthe PortlandVancouver AQMA must "offset" emission increases of more than 40 tons/year ofVOC and NOx 

### by obtaining an equivalent decrease from anotherfacility. However, the offset requirement can be satisfied by obtaining an allocation from an emissions growth allowance set aside for this purpose. This 2006 maintenance plan update reestablishes the growth allowance for new and expanding majorVOC and NOx 

### industrial sources, creates an administrative and public process for releasing the growth allowance in increments, and retains the emission offset requirement as a safeguard. The growth allowance has been included in the modeled 2015 ozone maintenance demonstration. Growth Allowance Program Procedures This plan reestablishes the industrial growth allowance at 5,000 tons forVOC and 5,000 tons for NOx 4• 

### The owner or operator of a proposed major source or major modification may applyto DEQ for an allocation ofthe growth allowance in lieu of providing an emission offset. As

4 The 2006 growth allowance balance is approximately 750 tons for VOC and 200 tons for NOx. This balance would be replaced with the reestablished growth allowance.
Adopted by the EQC 02122/07 

### 17required in the existing rules, the growth allowance will be allocated on a first come first served basis, with one exception. Sources that previously reduced their allowable emissions through

­ the voluntary Plant Site Emission Limit (PSEL) donation program will receive priority access to the growth allowance. Consumption of the growth allowance will continue to be monitored and tracked by DEQ. DEQ will establish the 5,000 ton limit as a maximum cap. As a safeguard, however, DEQ will only authorize the initial use of up to 1,000 tons ofVOC and 1000 tons of NOx, and hold the balance in reserve. Ifatsome pOint in the future 750 tons or more ofthis initial increment is used for either or both pollutants, DEQ will conduct an analysis ofozone levels and expected trends to determine if conditions support the release of another 1,000 ton increment. DEQ will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the results ofthe analysis and DEQ's recommendation whether to release the next 1,000 ton increment prior to making its decision. DEQ will not authorize anyfurther allocation of the growth increment if it thought such action could jeopardize compliance with the ozone standard. If conditions show no risk to the health standard, DEQ will authorize allocation ofanother 1,000 ton increment. If any single source applies to the Environmental Quality Commission to receive more than 1,000 tons ofVOC or NOx, DEQ will conduct the analysis to determine whether an additional 1,000 tons can be released withoutjeopardizing ozone airquality prior to making a recommendation to the EQC regarding the source application. This process will be repeated until the final 1,000 ton increment, orwhen approximately 4,000 tons ofthe growth allowance ofeither pollutant is consumed. The growth allowance cap of 5,000 tons could only be increased through a SIP revision that is approved by EPA. The increase could utilize newfederally enforceable emission reductions and shutdown credits that

_ were not relied on in the maintenance demonstration. Any such increase to the growth allowance above the 5,000 ton cap for either VOC or NOx will be subject to public comment and approval by EPA. Federally enforceable emission reductions include requirements adopted by EPA, requirements adopted by the EQC and approved by EPA as a revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan, and requirements established by a federally enforceable permit condition. Ifthe growth allowance is consumed, and cannot be reestablished, emission offsets for VOC and NOxwill be required for new and expanding major industry. This administrative process of incremental allocation will help DEQ better manage future industrial emission increases and respond to any unforeseen changes in future conditions, such as significant increases in summertime temperatures orfuture changes to the federal ozone standard. DEQ may temporarily reduce the amount ofgrowth allowance that may be allocated to new or modified major industrial sources if monitored ozone concentrations exceed the "risk of violation" or "actual violation" thresholds described in the contingency plan (Section 4.50.7.2.1). DEQ will provide reasonable advance notice to affected industries ifthere is a possibility that the growth allowance could be reduced or ifcontingency plan requirements ofOAR 340-224­ 0060(5) do not allow an allocation from the growth allowance to be used to meet offset requirements. The emissions growth allowance approach described above works together with several other elements in the maintenance plan, including the tracking ofemission growth, ambient ozone monitoring, the emission offset backstop requirement, and the early warning and action elements in the contingency plan, to meetair quality management goals and protect compliance

Adopted bythe EQC 

### 02/22/07 18

# - with standards. The Industrial Emissions Management Rules provide both flexibility forfuture economic opportunity and protection of public health through compliance with the ozone air quality standard. 4.50.4.1.3 Transportation Conformity and Transportation Control Measures Under EPA's 2004 ozone implementation rules (40 CFR 51.900), neither general conformity nor transportation conformity is required for areasattaining the 8-hour ozone standard. This means that new transportation project plans will no longer need to demonstrate thatthey conform to the ozone maintenance plans in the Portland-Vancouver AQMA. Although transportation control measures can no longer be enforced through the conformity process, DEQ and Metro (the Portland-area metropolitan planning organization) have agreed to informally track VOC, NOx, air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions when Metro assesses conformity for the purposes ofthe Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan as a voluntary program to assess impacts of transportation emissions on air quality over time. In addition, when Metro assesses VMT/Capita for purposes ofthe Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Contingency Plan, the information will also be used for the Portland-Vancouver AQMA Ozone Contingency Plan (see Section 4.50.7.2.2). This approach is consistent with the EPA ozone implementation rule preamble that recommends states develop voluntary programs to address motor vehicle emissions growth (69 FR 23987-88). The Metro Council adopted Resolution 06-3695, For the Purpose of Recommending Approval by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission ofthe Draft 2006 Portland-Vancouver AQMA (Oregon Portion) and Salem Keizer Area Ozone Maintenance Plan, on May 25, 2006.
4.50.4.2 Salem SKATS Ozone Maintenance Plan

DEQ will retain existing strategies in the Salem-KeizerArea Transportation Study (SKA TS) Air Quality Area Attainment Plan that was adopted in 1980 and revised in 1982, including Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources (OAR 340-232-0010 through 0230) and continued reliance on the control strategies in the Portland-Vancouver AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan, with some updates:

• Designate Salem/SKATS as an ozone maintenance area under state rules;

• Modify control technology requirements for new and expanding major industrial sources from "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate" (LAER) to "BestAvailable Control Technology" (BACT), while retaining all other new source review requirements; and

• Adopt a contingency plan that includes a commitment to adopt measures to reduce emissions ifthe Salem area is at risk ofviolating or violates the ozone standard in the future. Salem was designated an ozone "nonattainment" area under state rules, and major new and modified industrial sources that emit 40 tons/year or more ofVOC or NOx were required to install the most stringent level of emission control technology known as "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate"(LAER). Once deSignated a "maintenance" area under state rules, the same universe ofsources (40 tons/year or more ofVOC or NOx ) will be required to install "Best Achievable Control Technology" (BACT) that is the same as is required in Portland. LAER and BACT are determined by DEQ on a case-by-case basis to prevent air pollution and require installation of pollution control equipment through the facility's air permit. LAER reflects
Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 19the most stringent level ofemission control achievable atthe time of permitting. LAER is typically required in areas violating or at risk ofviolating air quality standards and must be installed regardless ofcost. BACT is established by OEQ using an analysis that starts with a review of EPA's control technology clearinghouse and LAER technologies that are required for similar facilities within the U.S. Ifthe permit applicant demonstrates that the cost to install LAER would be much greaterat this facility than itwas at otherfacilities where it has been installed, the applicant mayjustify a lower control level as BACT. BACT is typically used in maintenance and attainment areas that are in compliance with air quality standards, and can provide an equivalent orvery high level ofcontrol that will not interfere with maintenance ofthe ozone standard.
Underthe Clean Air Act, Salem is designated as a federal ozone attainment area. Underthis federal deSignation, emission control technology (BACT) would only be required for Federal Major Sources (those sources in 28 categories emitting 100 tons/year or more ofVOC or NOx, or other sources emitting 250 tons/year or more). However, as an Oregon ozone maintenance area, BACT controls will continue to be required for sources emitting 40 tons/year ofVOC or NOx• Keeping the current 40tons/year threshold for triggering BACT and other New Source Review requirements will better protect future compliance with the ozone standard in the Salem area. All other requirements for New Source Review in Salem remain the same, including the current exemption from the need to provide emission offsets or use a growth allowance for sources locating within SKATS because much of Salem's emissions transportfrom the Portland area. New or expanding major industrial sources within 100 km ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA (which includes part ofthe Salem area) will continue to be required to evaluate their impact on ozone levels in Portland. 

### 4.50.5 Maintenance Demonstration (Portland-Vancouver and Salem) 

# ­ 4.50.5.1 Ozone Modeling Study OEQ and SWCAAteamed with Washington State University (WSU), the Washington Department of Ecology and EPAto study ozone formation using a computer dispersion model (see Appendix 010-4, "Historical and Future Ozone Simulations using the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ System in the PortlandNancouverArea", WSU, 12/31/05 final report). The purpose ofthe study was to develop a predictive tool to forecast future ozone concentrations based on emission projections and summer meteorology in which ozone formation occurs. The modeling study simulated two historical high ozone episodes that occurred during the summer of 1997 and 1998. The study compared actual ozone levels measured (monitored) during the 1997 and 1998 events to model predicted ozone levels for the same period in order to test and validate model performance. The model performed within EPA guidelines for both episodes. The model performance testing verifies that the CMAQ model can predictfuture ozone concentrations for the region (see Appendix 010-4for more information on model performance testing). The modeling team selected the July 26-28, 1998 episode as the basis for future year projections because ozone levels were much higher in 1998 than in 1997, and meteorology reflected worst case conditions that contribute to ozone formation in the Portland area (high temperatures and lowwind speeds, with predominant winds from the north). Methodologyfor developing the modeling emissions data is detailed in the WSU modeling report (Appendix 010­ 4).

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 20

# -- 

# -

.

# ­ 4.50.5.2 Growth Projections The 2015 emissions forecast used in the modeling study reflects 2002 emissions, increased by expected growth in various sectors. The 2002 emission inventory reflects the 2002 Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) emissions data submitted by DEQ and SWCAAto the National Emission Inventory (NEI) and documented in Appendix D10-3 and 4. Growth factors for various source sectors were derived from the 2002 "Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver, Metropolitan Area" (see Appendix D10-5). For the 2015 Maintenance Demonstration, the following growth assumptions were included in the forecast: Area sources: Area source emissions were calculated following EPA guidance for the 2002 NEI. The 2015 emissions inventory assumes a linear, non-compounding population growth rate of 1.8% peryear, and household growth rate of2.0% peryear (see Appendix D10-5). Table 6 describes population trends in the Portland and Salem areas, although the Metro data was used in the growth projections. 

### Table 6= Portland and Salem Area Population Projections


## I 2000 Estimate 2003 I 

### Estimate 2005 Forecast 2010 Forecast 2015 Forecast • Oregon 3,436,750 3,541,500 3,618,200 3,843,900 4,095,708

Portland Area* (Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties) 

### 1,451,650 1,503,900 1,540,055 1,646,124 1,759,470
Portland Area** (Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington and Clark Counties) 

### 1,789,460 i
I 

### 1,956,300 2,134,300

i 

### 2,287,000

Salem Area* (Marion and Polk Counties) 

### 349,000 359,900 I 

### 368,347 395,973 427,781

• Prepared by the Oregon Office of Economic AnalYSIS, Apnl 2004 ··"Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2002-2030 Regional Forecast," page 4 

### Non-road mobile sources: EPA's draft NONROAD2004 model was used to estimate non-road mobile source emissions for 2015. This model incorporates the latest assumptions and rules, including EPA's Tier 4 non-road diesel engine standards and non-road diesel fuel sulfur standards associated with the Tier 4 rule. Railroads, marine vessels and airports were estimated independently ofthe NONROAD model (see Appendix D10-4). Aircraft emissions for the four airports with the Portland AQMA were calculated using Port of Portland data (Aviation Demand Forecast Update for Portland International Airport, Port of Portland, November 4, 1999, and associated spreadsheets), which was also used in the 2002 NEI submittal. On-road mobile sources: 2015 emissions estimates used in the modeling analysis are based on travel demand forecast models run by Metro and the Southwest Regional Transportation Council for the Portland-Vancouver AQMA, and Department ofTransportation data and projections for the modeling domain outside ofthe AQMA. This includes full implementation of federal motor vehicle emission control programs and the DEQ Vehicle Inspection Program rule revisions adopted in June 2005

.

Adopted by the EQC 02122/07 

### 21Point sources: DEQ developed two different growth scenarios for major industrial (point)



# - sources, and their purpose is discussed in more detail below in Section 4.50.5.3. The two scenarios include:
}> 2015 Projection: reflecting actual 2002 emissions from existing industry, increased by expected employment projections in the "Economic Report to Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area".
}> 2015 Maintenance Demonstration: reflecting a conservative estimate of maximum permitted levels for existing industry and the reestablished industrial growth allowance.
4.50.5.3 Forecast and Maintenance Inventory As noted above, DEQ developed two different growth scenarios for major industrial (point) sources, and they are used for different purposes. The first growth scenario (called "2015 Projection" as seen in Figures 4 and 5) reflects the 2002 estimate of actual industrial emissions, increased by Metro's regional employment projections for that sector. This projection represents a baseline estimate ofactual future year emissions, given expected growth, and is described in the WSU modeling report as the managed growth simulation projection (Appendix D10-4). The second growth scenario (called "2015 Maintenance Demonstration" as seen in Figures 4 and 5) represents a very conservative estimate of possible future year emissions. The 2015 Maintenance Demonstration reflects maximum "legally allowable" emission levels currently permitted for existing industry, plus the emissions growth allowance reestablished for new industry growth. This 2015 Maintenance Demonstration represents the most conservative estimate of possible future industrial emissions for purposes of the maintenance plan. Table 7 and 8 and Figures 4 and 5 below show the 2002 estimate ofactual emissions and the conservative growth scenario "2015 Maintenance Demonstration" described above. Figures 4 and 5 also showthe intermediate 2015 Growth Projection described in the WSU report. Some sources, such as on-road vehicles, are projected to emit less VOC and NOx in 2015 than in 2002. Overall, the total emissions ofVOC and NOx will be lower in 2015 than in 2002, even though the projections are based on very conservative assumptions. Both VOC and NOx emissions are involved in the formation ofozone and the relative amounts of each (VOC/NOx ratio) can influence the level ofozone formation. DEQ's modeling analysis shows that ofthe two pollutants, VOC is the primary driver of ozone formation in the urban Portland and Salem areas. Both VOC and NOx emission reduction strategies continue to be important to reducing ozone formation. 

# -

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 22500,000,-"-,---,,,,--,-,,,,,-,

I Maintenance 

# ' Figure 4: Portland Area

## voe and NOx Emissions (Ib/day) and 2015 Maintenance Demonstration

i;' 

### .., Ii



## ... 

# .. '"

.... .---_.



### __.

# __..

# __..

# __.._-_._---._--, Portland AreaVOC Emissions PortlandArea NOX emissions
1,200,000

900,000 

### f 600,000 

## !. 200,000**~** 300,000 100,000

0 o Projection 17,020 18,304 119,943 139,542 f)4,521 54,521 101,699 2015 Grov.f/l Projection ,Demonstratio,; .-PO-J-N-T-+--1-4,-91-3--+--16El783­ 86,78'0
fJ ON-ROAD 216,750 68,910 68,910 II NONROAD 136,713 95,638 95,638 2002Actual

3,890 3,890' 3,890 5,529



### Figure 5: 

### SalemArea 

## voe and NOx Emissions (Ib/day) and 2015 Maintenance Demonstration

Salem Area VOC emissions

--! --1-,65-7-­ 4(J(),000
300,000
200,000 100,000 j

o

..

# ~ IIPOINT 1,198 !:lON-ROAD 54,980 II NONROAD 20,462 296,719 CI SJOGENIC 66,252 Projection Demonstration

### j 6,021 16,004 16,004 17,901 17,901 

# r

296,719 68,416 Salem Area NOXEmisslons
120,000 ..,--"--_

..­

80,000

40,000

# I~~~c-I o 2OO2AHcual 2015 Grov,th 

# I"**Mai~:~nce** ProjectIon Demons/ration

## ~POINi - 

# n,7;Ol 3,168 4,701 !:l ON-ROAD 66,442 20,582 20,582 II NONROAD 28,793 16,618 16,618 P BIOGENIC I 3,803 3,803 6,400

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 23 

# I

# - Table 7

Portland Area 2015 Maintenance Demonstration Portland Area 2015 Maintenance Demonstration Typical Summer DaY,lb/day Annual Emissions (tons/year) Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Source Type VOC NO. CO Source Type VOC NO. CO AREA 291,098 6,157 29,373 AREA 108,109 5,822 139,992 BIOGENIC 437,910 3,890 NON-ROAD 13,308 17,223 330,324 NON-ROAD 101,899 95,638 2,280,810 ON-ROAD 8,538 10,339 127,923 ON-ROAD 54,521 88,910 580,955

. POINT 21,721 15,191 19,768 POINT 119,943 88,780 108,526 Total 151,675 48,574 618,007 Total 1,005,171 261,375 2,959,884

Portland Nea Portland Nea Portland Nea 

# I

2015 VOC Maintenance Demonstration 2015 NO, Maintenance Demonstration 2015 CO Maintenance Demonstration POINT BIOGENIC F'QII(i' AREA ON-ROAD 12%

### OON-RQAD~, A:: 5?

## ~%**,,"~~DJ' ~:AD~** **10"'-~ ~D**  I**~:D** 

# .... , "'"**L_~~~~~~~~~~_~J** I**l~._ Irjf-A_-i-BOOB<lO-~-ONO-N-ROA-DQ-ON-RoA-D-.-""'"-~**  I 

## """""'"

Table 8
Portland Area VOC and NOx Emissions, (Ib/day), % Change 2002-2015 

# ­ (Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties)

--- VOC, Ibs per day

-­ --- NOX, Ibs per day

--­ 

### 2015 2015 Source 

### 2002 Maintenance 

### % Source 

### 2002 Maintenance 

### % Type Actual Demonstration Change Type Actual Demonstration Change AREA 253,871 291,098 14.7% AREA 5,529 6,157 11.4% BIOGENIC 437,910 437,910 BIOGENIC 3,890 3,890 NONROAD 110,188 101,899 -7,7% NONROAD 138,713 95,838 -30.0% ON-ROAD 139,542 54,521 -80.9% ON-ROAD 216,750 68,910 -68.2% POINT 17,020 119,943 604,7% POINT 14,913 86,780 481.9%



## --------­ -_

....----""

...

## ­ --_

### ..

## -----­ --------­ Totals 958,531 1,005,171 Totals 377,794 261,375

The Portland area on-road emissions are expected to decrease significantly: 61% less

## voe emissions and 68% less NOx emissions. This is primarily due to implementation offederal motorvehicle emission and fuel standards and continuing implementation ofthe vehicle inspection program. Non-road emissions also show a 30% decrease in NOx emissions due to the phase-in offederal emission and fuel standards. Area source emissions are expected to increase due to increases in population that affect categories such as architectural surface coating and consumer solvent use. Point source "actual" emissions are not expected to change significantly (see Figure 4), although Table 8 describes the difference between "actual" 

# -

Adopted by the EaC 02/22/07 24

# .­ emissions in the 2002 attainment inventory and the "allowable" emissions and growth allowance in the 2015 Maintenance Demonstration5

.

Salem Area 2015 Maintenance Demonstration Typical Summer Day,lb/day Marlon, Polk Counties Table 9 Salem-Area 2015 Maintenance Demonstration Annual Emissions (tons/year)

Marion, Polk Counties

Source Type AREA BIOGENIC NONROAD ON-ROAD POINT Total 2015 VOC 68.416 296,719

17,901 16,004 6,021 405,062 2015 NO. 6,400 3,803 16,618 20,582

4,701 52,103 2015 CO 150,443 386,600 167,507

4,435 708,985 Source Type AREA NONROAD ON·ROAD POINT Total 2015 VOC 22,594

2,334 2,724 1,079 28,731 2015 NO. 1,581 3,062 3,326

846 8,815 2015 CO 42,428 55,138 42,445 767 140,779

SalemAnla 2015 IIOC Matntenance Demonstration Of'4.ROAD POM ARfA**N:)NROAO~** 

# 4%_7%

!roGENC SaiemAnla 2015 CO Maintenance Demonstration

Table 10 Salem Area VOC and NOx Emissions, (Ib/day), % Change 2002-2015 (Marion & Polk Counties)

--- VOC, Ibs per day

--- --- NOX, Ibs per day --_. 2015 2015 Source 2002 Maintenance' 

### % Source 2002 Maintenance 

### % Type Actual Oemonstration**Chan~e** Tyee Actual Demonstration Chanfle AREA 66,252 68,416 3.3% AREA 6,227 6,400 2.8% BIOGENIC 296,719 296,719 BIOGENIC 3,803 3,803 NONROAD 20,462 17,901 -12.5% NONROAD 28,793 16,618

. -42.3% ON-ROAD 54,980 16,004 ·70.9% ON-ROAD 66,442 20,582 -69.0% POINT 1,198 6,021 ! 402.8% POINT 1,701 4,701. 176.4%



## ------
...

## _-- ------........

### - 

## ---------- ---------­ ' 439,610 405,062 106,967 52,103 Salem area on-road emissions are also expected to decrease significantly: 71 

### % less

## voe emissions and 69% less NOx emissions, This is primarily due to implementation offederal motor vehicle emission and fuel standards. Non-road emissions also show a 42% decrease in NOxemissions due to the phase-in offederal emission and fuel standards. Point source "actual" emissions are not expected to change significantly (see Figure 5), although Table 10 describes the difference between "actual" emissions in the 2002 attainment inventory and the "allowable" emissions and growth allowance in the 2015 Maintenance

5 The projected point source increase in the 2015 Maintenance Demonstration is based on the most conservative assumptions for industrial sources, and includes maximum allowable (permitted) emissions from existing sources plus the growth allowance.
Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 25Demonstration. The 2015 Maintenance Demonstration also includes one proposed energy facility that has since withdrawn its permit application. Area sources in the Salem area are projected to increase slightly due to increases in population. The Salem area will also benefit from the phase in of on-board canister systems in motor vehicles that control gasoline vapors while refueling. This change is not as noticeable in the Portland area due to existing Stage II gasoline vapor controls.
4.50.5.4 Maintenance Demonstration DEO used the "2015 Maintenance Demonstration" emission forecast and worst-case meteorology from the 1998 high ozone event in the CMAO model to estimate future ozone concentrations for the Portland and Salem areas in 2015. Compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAOS is demonstrated when the fourth highest daily maximum 8.,.hour average ozone concentration, averaged over three consecutive years (Le. Design Value), is equal to or less than 0.08 ppm6

. 

### Figure 6: Portland-Vancouver and Salem Ozone Maintenance Demonstration
Portland-Vancouver and Salem 8-hour Ozone Trend (1997-2005) and 2015 projection 3 year averages ofthe 4th highestdaily ozone value

1;) 0.090 ! til 

# - :E .r. :; 0.080 '0 Ozone Monitoring Sites 8. !!**....L.-=-!'.'---~-** ..---..**~---** ..__.c___--..**--~~__c:_** .•.**~Jf.ic:-~.~-:I** -= • = Port1and/Carus

0.100 .,----- ..**--.~----~--.----------''''':__-___,**



## ! 0.070 +-----
. 

### .!f

- ... Portland/Milwaukie 

### '2

.,.**~** Portland/Sauvie Island

.. . SalemITurner**~.-** Vancouver/MtnView -; 0.050 +---.--
..---..**~-.----.-----.--.--.----** ..----­ 

## :s d



### ... .c '" 0.040**.I.---~-·--·-----·----------~-···--··-7** 

## i

1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2015 Year Figure 6 shows the ozone compliance trend forthe Portland-Vancouver and Salem areas, including the 2015 maintenance demonstration forecast. Figure 6 and Table 11 show that the Portland-Vancouver and Salem-Keizer areas will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. Table 11 also shows that peak ozone concentrations can exceed the standard,

6 Under EPA's calculation convention, a value of0.084 ppm would round down to 0.08 ppm (Le. in compliance), while a value of0.085 ppm or higherwould be a violation.

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 26

### illustrating the need to continue the suite ofemission reduction strategies that limit ozone formation in the Portland and Salem areas, and for actively managing emissions growth from new industry. Table 11 shows the maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations predicted for the key Portland, Vancouver, and Salem monitoring sites. Table 11 also shows the 2015 predicted "Design Value", which is used to compare to the ozone standard for purposes of determining compliance. WSU's modeling analysis also confirms that the existing monitoring network is capturing the areas of highest ozone concentrations. For more information on the modeled attainment test calculation ofdesign values, see Appendix 010-6.



### Table 11: 2015 Maintenance Demonstration 8-hour ozone standard

# =0.08 ppm Exceedance**~** 

### 0.085 ppm maximum Violation**~0.085** 

### ppm predicted design value 

## I Monitoring Site 1998 Predicted Maximum 2015 Predicted Maximum 2015 Predicted Design Value*

i 

### Portland/Carus 0.098 0.094 0.072

Portland/Milwaukie 0.092 0.096 0.062 Portland/Sauvie Island 0.082 0.076 0.054 Vancouver/ ! 

### 0.083

, Mountain View I 

### 0.081 0.061

i 

### SalemlTurner 0.088 i 

### 0.075 0.060



### .. *Predlcted Design Value IS calculated uSing the EPA statistical procedure called the Relative Reduction Factor described in Appendix 010-5 and EPA 8-hour ozone modeling guidance. Predicted design value is compared to the 8-hour ozone standard to determine compliance.


### Again, Figure 6 and Table 11 illustrate that the Portland-Vancouver AOMA and Salem SKATS will maintain compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard through 2015, with concentrations ranging from 14% to 29% below the standard. The Carus monitoring site, downwind of Portland, has traditionally been the site with the highest ozone readings in the region. The model predicted that the Milwaukie site would produce a Slightly higher maximum value under meteorological conditions similar to the 1998 episode, and the maximum values at both Milwaukie and Carus would exceed the standard. However, the model also confirmed that the Carus site is expected to remain the highest and most important site for determining compliance with the ozone standard. The 4th high predicted design values at Carus and all other sites demonstrate continued compliance with the ozone NMOS. 

### 4.50.6 Air Quality Monitoring (Portland and Salem) DEO will continue to operate an ozone air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR 58 to verify maintenance ofthe 8-hour ozone standard in Portland and Salem (see Appendix 010-1). Any modification to the ambient air monitoring network, such as removal of duplicative or unnecessary monitors, will be accomplished through close consultation with EPA Region 10. Proposed network modifications would be accompanied bytechnical and statistical analysis sufficient to document a given monitor may be removed because it is unnecessary or

Adopted bythe EQC 

### 02/22/07 

### 27duplicative in the case of network reductions, orto justify the value of investing in monitoring network enhancements. In accordance with 40 CFR 58, the final network design will be subject

­ to the approval ofthe EPA Regional Administrator. 

### 4.50. 7 Contingency Plan
The maintenance plan must include a process to quickly prevent or correct any measured violation ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. This process of investigation and (if needed) corrective action is called the "contingency plan". Contingency plans typically have several stages of action depending on the severity of monitored ozone levels. Ambient ozone thresholds are established in the contingency plan as early-warning action levels. If monitored ozone levels exceed these action levels, the contingency provisions are triggered.
4.50.7.1 Request To Replace the Portland-Vancouver AQMA 1-Hour Contingency Plan With an 8-Hour Contingency Plan EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard, effective June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). In accordance with EPA rules implementing the 8-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 51.900), DEQ requests that the one-hour ozone contingency plan be removed from the Portland-Vancouver AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan, and replaced with a contingency plan that addresses the 8-hourozone standard as described below.
4.50.7.2 Portland-Vancouver AQMA 8-hour Ozone Contingency Plan This contingency plan includes two sets of contingency measures. The provisions specified under Part A ofthe Contingency Plan for the Portland-Vancouver AQMA are linked to ambient

_ concentrations ofozone and would be triggered if measured ozone levels at any ofthe ozone monitoring sites (Mountain View, Sauvie Island, Milwaukie, or Carus) exceed the early-warning thresholds below, or ifa violation ofthe 8-hour ozone standards occurs. The provisions specified under Part B ofthe Contingency Plan are linked to increases in the average amount of vehicle use per person in the Portland metropolitan area, and would only affect the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA. 4.50.7.2.1 Part A, Contingency Plan Based On Ambient Concentrations in Portland or Vancouver PHASE 1: ELEVATED OZONE LEVELS Ifthe air quality index (AQI) is forecast to be within the "orange" range for ozone air quality (unhealthy for sensitive populations), or 8-hour daily maximum ozone values approach 0.100 ppm or greater, and meteorological conditions conducive to ozone formation are expected to persist, DEQ and SWCAA will issue an advisory to inform the public ofair quality levels and voluntary actions they can take to limit exposure to unhealthy air pollution levels and reduce emissions. PHASE 2: RISK OF VIOLATION If monitored 8-hour ozone levels at any site within the Portland-Vancouver area registers an annual fourth high monitored value of0.085 ppm or greaterwithin a single ozone season or 0.080 ppm orgreater averaged over two years, DEQ and SWCAAwill assess the likely emissions and meteorological events contributing to elevated ozone levels. DEQ mayform a planning group to assist DEQ in its review. The DEQ could recommend that no action be taken 

# ­ if it is determined that: (a) elevated ozone levels were caused by an event that is unlikely to

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 28**~-** 

### occur again, or (b) high ozone levels were caused by an uncontrollable event, such as a severe wildfire, or (c) federal regulations that will reduce ozone precursor emissions are scheduled to be implemented within two years. If it is determined that the event did not meet the criteria above, DEQ will evaluate options for appropriate action, including the option for additional emission reduction strategies to prevent future exceedances or a violation ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. PHASE 3: ACTUAL VIOLATION If a violation ofthe 8-hour ozone standard occurs, DEQ and SWCAAwill determine the emissions and meteorological events contributing to the violation. Ifthe violation is not due to an uncontrollable event or other criteria in Phase 2, DEQ will identify new strategies necessary to ensure compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard within 18 months ofthe conclusion ofthe ozone season that prompted the contingency plan, and revise the maintenance plan as needed to correct the violation. A revised maintenance plan would be submitted to EPA for approval. Measures that would be considered for implementation include the following: • Reinstatement ofapplicable measures as defined in 40 CFR 51.900, which includes the Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance Test forcertain model year vehicles7; 

### • Contingency Plan Requirements described in OAR 340-224-0060(5) that reinstate the LAER and offset requirements and eliminate the growth allowance until a revised maintenance plan is adopted by the EQC and approved by EPA; • Other measures as appropriate.**~-** 

### 4.50.7.2.2 Part B. Contingency Plan Based on Significant Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled in the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23987-88, April 30, 2004) notes that although states cannot implement conformity for attainment areas as a matter offederal law, they could still work with their metropolitan planning organizations to develop a voluntary program to address motorvehicle emissions growth. Metro has agreed to informally track motorvehicle VOC and NOx

### emissions at the same time as they are demonstrating conformity with the Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan emissions budget. In addition, Metro has agreed to the following contingency measures for the Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan that are also appropriate as voluntary measures for addressing ozone precursor emissions within the Portland metropolitan area. Although transportation control measures cannot be enforced and are removed from the Portland AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan, other measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) such as the Employee Commute Option program and public education and outreach remain in the ozone maintenance plan. In addition, DEQ participates in Metro's Regional Transportation Options program which includes many efforts in the Portland area designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. PHASE 1: 5% VMT INCREASE· Metro will review and verify the local average vehicle miles traveled per capita (VMT/capita)for the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area derived from the

7 Although EPA requires all former applicable measures such as the Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance test be included in the contingency plan, DEQ believes that reinstating e.nhanced testing would not be feasible or cost effective, and would evaluate other more effective measures if the contingency plan is triggered.
Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 29

# -- most recent estimates of population and daily vehicle miles traveled from federal and state 

# - sources. Ifdaily VMT/capita exceeds a 5 % increase above the 2002 rate for two successive years, the Standing Committee 

### [TPAC, as defined at OAR 340-252-0060(2)(b)(A)(iii)] shall be convened to: a) determine whether there is a data problem with the trigger; b) ifthere is not a data problem with the trigger, identify and analyze the effectiveness of those local actions that could reduce air pollutant emissions; and, c) determine whether a recommendation should be made to JPACT to initiate local action to reduce VMT/capita until the 2002 level is once again attained. PHASE 2: 10% VMT INCREASE Metro will review and verify local VMT/capita values derived from the most recent estimates of population and dailyvehicle miles traveled from federal and state sources. If average daily VMTlcapita exceeds a 10 percent increase above the 2002 rate for the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area for two successive years, the following measures will become required Transportation Control Measures for the region (as determined by the programming offunds for specified projects) underthe Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan: a) Washington County Commuter Rail within six years after exceeding the 10% increase above the 2002 VMTIcapita rate, b) Interstate 205 Light Rail Transit (1-205 LRT) within six years after exceeding the 10% increase above the 2002 VMT/capita rate; c) An increase ofefforts for the Regional Travel Options Program sufficient to increase the number ofemployers reached by the program by at least 5 % per year the number of employers currently subject to the DEQ Employee Commute Options program. Alternatively, specific projects from the Regional Transportation Options program could be substituted. d) An increase offunding ofat least 5% peryear greaterthan current funding for Transit Oriented Development projects. e) Other programs or projects consistent with state and federal law as may be determined by the Metro Council after consultation with the Joint Policy AdviSOry Committee on Transportation. 4.50.7.3 Salem SKATS 8-Hour Ozone ContingencY Plan PHASE 1: ELEVATED OZONE LEVELS Ifthe airquality index (AQI) is forecast to be within the "orange" range for ozone air quality (unhealthy for sensitive populations), or 8-hour daily maximum ozone values reach 0.100 ppm ­ or greater, and meteorological conditions conducive to ozone formation are expected to persist,

Adopted by the EQC 02/22107 

### 30

### ,- DEQ will issue an advisory to inform the public ofairquality levels and actions they can take to limit exposure to unhealthy air pollution levels and reduce emissions. PHASE 2: RISK OF VIOLATION If monitored 8-hour ozone levels at any site within the Salemrrurner area registers an annual fourth high monitored value of0.085 ppm or greaterwithin a single ozone season, or 0.080 ppm orgreateraveraged overtwo years, DEQ will assess the likely emissions and meteorological events contributing to elevated ozone levels. DEQ may form a planning group to assist DEQ in its review. The DEQ could recommend that no action be taken if it is determined that: (a) elevated ozone levels were caused by an event that is unlikely to occur again, or (b) high ozone levels were caused by an uncontrollable event, such as a severe wildfire, or (c) federal regulations that will reduce ozone precursor emissions are scheduled to be implemented within two years. If it is determined that the event did not meet the criteria above, DEQ will evaluate options for appropriate action, including the option for additional emission reduction strategies to prevent future exceedances ora violation ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. PHASE 3: ACTUAL VIOLATION Ifa violation ofthe 8-hour ozone standard occurs, DEQ will determine the probable emissions and meteorological events contributing to the violation. Ifthe violation is not due to an uncontrollable event orother criteria in Phase 2, DEQ will identify new strategies necessary to ensure compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard within 18 months ofthe conclusion ofthe ozone season that prompted the contingency plan, and revise the maintenance plan as needed to correct the violation. Contingency plan requirements described in OAR 340-224-0060(5) that reinstate the LAER requirement would also apply until a revised maintenance plan is adopted by

__ the EQC and approved by EPA. 

### 4.50.8 Verification ofContinued Attainment (Portland-Vancouverand Salem) DEQ will continue to monitor ambient air quality ozone levels as described in the Contingency Plan. The Contingency Plan triggers that are based on ambient concentrations are intended to prevent violations ofthe 8-hour standard in the Portland-Vancouver and Salem areas. DEQ will update countywide emission inventories every three years as required by the Consolidated Emission and Reporting Rule (CERR) update ofthe National Emissions Inventory. If ambient ozone levels increase, DEQ will compare CERR updates with the 2002 and 2015 emissions inventories and evaluate the assumptions used in the 2015 emissions projections to determine whether emissions are increasing at a rate not anticipated in the maintenance plan. 

### Appendices 1. Ozone Monitoring Network (Vancouver-Portland-Salem regional area map and site description) 2. 1992 to 2005 Meteorological Factors Conducive to Ozone Formation in the PortlandVancouver Area (ODEQ, April 2006) 3. Emission Inventory a. Annual Emissions Inventory b. Typical Summer Day Emissions Inventory c. Summary of Portland Area Emissions d. Summary ofSalem Area Emissions 4. Historical and Future Ozone Simulations Using the MM5/SMOKEICMAQ System in the Portland-VancouverArea (WSU, December 31, 2005) 5. Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the PortlandVancouver Metropolitan Area (Metro's Data Resource Center, December 2002 final draft)

Adopted bythe EQC 02122/07 

### 316. Modeled Attainment Test 

# - References • "Maintenance Plan Guidance Documentfor Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act" (memo dated May 20,2005 from Lydia Wegman, EPA). The May 20,2005 guidance applies to areas designated in attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard and preparing maintenance plans under Section 11

### O(a)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.905(c) and (d). • "Demonstrating Noninterference Under Section 110(1) ofthe Clean AirActWhen Revising a State Implementation Plan" (draft EPA Guidance, 

### 6/8/05) • "1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plans Containing Basic 11M Programs (memo dated May 12,2004from Tom Helms, EPA) • April 30, 2004 Federal Register (69 FR 23951), Final Rule to Implementthe 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS-Phase 1 • July 8, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR 39413), Notice of Final Rulemaking regarding Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation under 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS • "Guidance on the Use of Models and OtherAnalyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS" (EPA-450/R-05-002, October, 2005) • "Emission Inventory Guidancefor Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze" (EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated November 2005) • "2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM 2.5 and Regional Haze Programs" (memo dated November 18,2002from Lydia Wegman, EPA) • "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" (memo dated September 4, 1992 from John Calcagni, EPA) 

# -

-

Adopted by the EQC 02/22107 

### 32

# -- 

# - Appendix D10-1 Portland-VancouverAQMA and Salem SKATS Ozone Monitoring Network



### Legend 

# 4t

..Ozone Monitors DSKATSAQ Bounaary

..**~SKATS** TMA

-Highways -Roads

Lldes.
Monitoring Sites (north to south): 1. Sauvie Island (Portland, OR) (background site) 2. Mountain View (Vancouver, WA) 3. Milwaukie (Portland, OR) 4. Carus (Portland, OR) (traditionally highest ozone values) 5. Turner (Salem, OR) DEQand SWCAA Continuous Air Monitoring Method for Ozone: Ultraviolet Photometry The air sample enters a chamberwith an ultraviolet lamp at one end and detectoratthe other. The ozone in the sample stream absorbs the ultraviolet light at a specific wavelength. The amount absorbed is proportional to the amount of ozone in the air stream. The detectorthen sends an amplified signal to the recorder. This is an EPA Federal Reference Method.

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 338-hour Ozone Air Quality DataiDEQ Air**Quali~** Annual Report, 

### 2004) #OF 4TH #OF 3 YEAR SUMMER 1-HOUR DAYS 8-HOUR HIGHEST DAYS AVG STATION LOCATION AVE RAG MAXIMUM >0.125 AVERAGE 8-HOUR >0.085 OF 4TH AND NUMBER Year E (date) ppm MAXIMUM AVERAGE ppm HIGH
Portland Area 1994 Carus (SPR) 1995 13575 Spangler Road 1996 Canby 1997 DEQ# 10093 1998 EPA# 410050004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Milwaukie High Sch 1994 (MHS) 11300 SE 23rd 1995 DEQ# 10095 1996 EPA# 410052001 1997 1998 1999 Milwaukie (MSJ) 2000 St. Johns Church 2001 DEQ#23306 2002 EPA# 410052002 2003 2004 2005 0.029 0.027 0.029 0.025 0.026 0.028 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.029 0.025 0.025
0.018 0.018 0.019 0.016 0.018 0.015 0.D18 0.018 0.020 0.021 0.017 0.016 0.117 0 0.084 (07121) (07/21 ) 0.099 0 0.084 (09/01 ) (06/30) 0.149 1 0.112 (07/26) (07/26) 0.085 0.074 (07/04) (07/04) Ot 0.137 0.116 (07/26) (07/28) 3t 0.102 0.080 (07/09) (07/10) Ot 0.086 0.071 (06/03) (06/28) Ot 0.099 0.080 (08/09) (08/09) Ot 0.101 0.085 (07/10) (07/22) Ot 0.097 0.084 (09/03) (07/29) Ot 0.105 0.084 (07/24) (07/24) Ot 0.093 0.079 Ot 0.103 0.087 (07/20) (07/20) 0 0.110 0 0.092 (07/18) (07/18) 0.145 2 0.120 (07/14) (07/14) 0.101 0 0.082 (07/04) (07/20) 0.124 0.100 (07/26) (07/26) Ot 0.080 0.054 (07/09) Ot 0.078 2 0.079t (07/27) 0.073 1 0.072t (09/14) 0.099 7 0.083t (07/27) 0.062 0 0.078 (05/13) 0.081 3 0.080 (09/01) 0.072 0 0.071 (07/28) 0.065 0 0.072 (07/30) 0.069 0 0.068 (06/20) 0.063 1 0.065 (07/21 ) 0.075 0 0.069 (07/28) 0.067 0 0.068 (08/11 ) 0.064 0 .068 (08/04) (08/04) (07/271 0.057 1 0.060t (07/21) 0.067 1 0.059t (05/29) 0.085 4 0.069t (07/13) 0.054 0 0.068t (07/19) 0.061 1 0.066t (08/31 ) 0.051 0 0.055t 106/14) (05/23)

0.085 0.068 (06/04) (06/04) Ot 0.082 0.066 (08/10) (08/10) Ot 0.116 0.082 (07/22) (07/22) Ot 0.091 0.068 (06/06) (06/07) Ot 0.094 0.077 (07/24) (07/24) Ot 0.083 0.063 (05/27) Ot 0.056 0 0.056 (08/23) 0.059 0 0.055 (08/12) 0.063 0 0.059 (08/13) 0.061 0 0.061 (07/28) 0.054 0 0.059 (08/15) 0.050 0 0.055 

# -

(05/27) (08/14)**~~-'---~** 

# -

Adopted by the EQC 02122/07 34. Sauvie Island (SIS) 1994 0.023 0.102 0 0.086 (07/20) 0.062 1 0.066t (07/20) (07/21 ) Social Security Beach 1995 0.022 0.103 0 0.089 (07/18) 0.061 1 0.063t (07/18) (07/17) DEQ# 14152 1996 0.026 0.096 0 0.084 (07/13) 0.076 0 0.066t EPA# 410090004 (08/10) (07/26) 1997 0.022 0.081 Ot 0.064 (07/04) 0.053 0 0.063 (07/04) (05/11 ) 1998 0.023 0.093 Ot 0.077 (07/27) 0.066 0 0.065 (07/26) (08/28) 1999 0.021 0.070 Ot 0.056 (07/09) 0.049 0 0.056 (07/09) (09/22) 2000 0.022 0.080 Ot 0.066 (06/27) 0.054 0 0.056 (06/04) (06/03) 2001 0.025 0.089 Ot 0.068 (08/10) 0.056 0 0.053 (08/10) (05/10) 2002 0.025 0.084 Ot 0.067 (08/13) 0.061 0 0.057 (07/10) (06/12) 2003 0.025 0.088 Ot 0.073 (09/03) 0.069 0 0.062 (09/03) (07/28) 2004 0.023 0.074 Ot 0.061 (07/23) 0.058 0 0.062 (07/24) (07/22) 2005 0.023 0.080 Ot 0.065 0.055 0 0.060 (08/04) (08/04) (08/14)
Salem Area 1995
1996 0.022
0.028 0.105 (06/30) 0.130 0
1 0.072 (09/01)
0.104 (07/26) 0.064 (07/16) 0.092 0
10 

### -

- Cascade Jr High (CJH) (07/26) (08/10) 10226 Marion Rd. SE 1997 0.024 0,082 Ot 0.067 (07/04) 0.061 0 0.072 (07/04) (08/12) Turner 1998 0.024 0.121 ot 0.098 (07/27) 0.077 1 0.076 (07/27) (08/28) DEQ# 10130 1999 0.023 0.083 Ot 0.074 (07/09) 0.065 0 0.067 EPA#410470004 (09/21) (07/10) 2000 0.020 0.075 Ot 0.064 (07/30) 0.059 0 0.067 (07/30) (06/26) 2001 0.021 0.087 Ot 0.068 (07/03) 0.057 0 0.060 (08/09) (08/12) 2002 0.023 0.097 Ot 0.072 (07/12) 0.063 0 0.059 (07/10) (08/13) 2003 0.028 0.096 Ot 0.080 (09/03) 0.072 0 0.064 (09/04) (07/30) 2004 0.021 0,086 0 0.068 (08/11 ) 0.062 0 0.065 (08/11 ) (07/24) 2005 0.023 0.100 Ot 0.080 0,063 0 0.065 (08/04) (08/04) (05/27)
"'Parts per million t The 8hour ozone standard became effective in 1998; 1-hour values are no longer evaluated for attainment purposes. The 8 hr standard is the 3-year average ofthe 4th highestvalue.

Adopted by the EQC 02122/07 35

# - STATION LOCATION AND NUMBER Year SUMMER AVERAG E 1-HOUR MAXIMUM (date) #OF DAYS >0.125

ppm 8-HOUR AVERAGE MAXIMUM 4TH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE #OF DAYS >0.085

ppm 3 YEAR AVG OF 4TH

HIGH

Vancouver Area 1995 0.021 0.117 (7/19) 0 

### n/a n/a 0 

### n/a

Mt. View High School 1500 SE Blairmont Dr Vancouver 1996 0.022 0.112 (07/19) 0 

### n/a n/a 0 

### n/a

AIRS #530110011 1997 0.02 0.077 (07/04) 0 

### n/a n/a 0 

### n/a

1998 0.021 0.102 (07/28) 0 0.078 (07/27) 0.07 (08/28) 0 

### n/a

1999 0.021 0.080 (09/22) 0 0.061 (07/09) 0.057 (08/23) 0 

### n/a

2000 0.021 0.104 (06/04) 0 0.07306/04) 0.059 (06/27) 0 0.062

2001 0.022 0.089 (05/22) 0 0.071 (08/10) 0.063 (06/20) 0 0.06

2002 0.023 0.086 (07/10) 0 0.073 (7/22) 0.056 (06/25) 0 0.059

2003 0.026 0.098 (09/03) 0 0.077 (09/03) 0.069 (06/07) 0 0.063

2004 0.021 0.083 (08/09) 0 0.066 (07/24) 0.056 (06/21 ) 0 0.06

2005 0.023 0.090 (05/27) 0 0.076· (005/27) 0.057 (08119) 0 0.060 

# -

-

. Adopted bythe EQC 02122/07 36Appendix 010-2



# 1992 to 2005 Meteorological Factors Conducive to Ozone Formation in the Portland-Vancouver Area (ODEQ, April 2006)

Please contact DEQ for a copy of this appendix

Marianne Fitzgerald Air Quality Division

(503) 229-5946 fitzgerald.marianne@deq.state.or.us Or Anthony Barnack Air Quality Division Report Author (503) 229-5713 barnack.anthony@deq.state.or.us

Adopted bythe EQC 02/22/07 37

# -



# -

## 1992 to 2005 Meteorological Factors Conducive to Ozone Formation in the Portland-Vancouver Area (ODEQ, April 2006)

Anthony Barnack Air Quality Division Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (503) 229-5713

### Abstract Elevated ground level ozone concentrations in the PortlandNancouver airshed have 

# ­ slightly decreased in the period between 1992 and 2005. In the same period, ozone precursorVOCs and NOx levels wentdown slightly while maximum summer time temperatures rose. PopUlation and vehicle miles traveled also increased. When comparing similar temperature episodes between years the ozone levels declined slightly. Temperature episodes are defined as three or more days with maximum temperatures above 90o

### F, average wind speeds less than 10 mph, and solar radiation above 1.0 langley/hr.
Introduction: Ozone is a secondarypollutant producedbya mixture ofNitrogen dioxide and Oxygen under strongultravioletradiation (hv). 

### This reactionis drivenbythe creation ofmore Nitrogen dioxide from thereaction ofvolatile organic carbons underultravioletradiation and free radicals (See ozone chemistryfollowing this report). Thehighest ozone levels occur duringthe summermonths, during clear, hotdays withpoorventilation Meteorological parameters which affect ozone formation: Temperature: InPortlandNancouverthe ozonelevels startto approach Air Quality Index levels of "UnhealthyFor Sensitive Groups" and theNational AmbientAirQuality Standards (NAAQS) when temperatures are near orabove 90°F for three consecutive days ormore withpoorventilation.
Ventilation: Ventilationrefers to the amount ofvertical mixinginthe atmosphere. With good ventilation the dirty ground level air is transportedup and replaced with cleaner air. In short, goodventilationreduces the ground level volatile organic carbon levels and the resulting ozone. Therule ofthumb is for good ventilation to occurthe average horizontal wind speed shouldbe greaterthan 10 mph.
Solarradiation (ultravioletradiation): Thetime ofyear is importantbecause the angle ofthe sun and duration ofthe day determine the ultravioletradiation intensity and duration.
Portland and Vancouverhavemanyprograms designedto lower the emissions ofthe ozoneprecursorpollutants ofVolatile Organic Carbon andNitrogen dioxide. Onewayto determine the efficacy oftheseprograms is byanalyzingthe ozone trends while considering the trends for ozone precursors, vehiclemiles traveled, and population growth. This analysis would notbecomplete, however, without accountingfor variations in meteorological conditions such as temperature and ventilation. These parameters must be considered to place ozonelevels incontext. Oncethemeteorological conditions are identified abetter comparisonofozonetrends canbemade using ozone episodes with similarweather conditions. 

# -

### Results 

### 1. Ozone TheNAAQS for ozone is calculatedby averaging three consecutive years ofthe fourth highest daily eighthour average ozone. This level mustbebelow 0.8 ppm oritis a violation. Theeighthour ozone standardreplaced the onehour standardin 1997 and sincethattimethePortlandIVancouverAirQualityMaintenanceAreahas remained in compliance. However, thePortlandlVancouver areahas had four exceedances (any eight hourdailymax above 0.08 ppm)1. Figure 1illustrates the exceedancesbothbefore and afterthe 1997 standardtookeffect.
8 8hr Ozone Standand Begins 7

6

---.--­

2

# I

_.­ - -

l-

I-­ - -.­ 

# I

+­ o j I

i

! 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

### Figure 1. PortlandIVancouvernumber ofexceedances ofeighthour standard I. 

### InFigure 2, thethree year average ofthe fourth highestmaximum daily eighthour averagetrends down slightlywith a slope of-0.00 1. 0,10

0.09
0,08
0,07 

# I 0,06 

## S0,05

0,04
0,03

0.02

0.00 BhrOzone Standand Begins


# ..

\.. Ozone NAAQS > O,OB 

### A**~'''' ~** 

### ~-**.~**

### ~~**-~~** - ­


# ... 

# ... ... i y = -0.001>< +



### I

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

### Figure 2. PortlandJVancouverthree year average offourth highest dailymaximum eight houraverage. Eighthour standardbegins in 1997.

### 2. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Population



# - In Figure 3 the PortlandNancouverVMT2 

### and Population3

### have slopes of+0.08 and +0.04 respectively. Thethree year average ofthe fourth highest eighthour average Ozonevaluehas a trend with a slope of-0.002 which is relatively flat.



### E CI. 

## .e G) c 1:1 0



# -. 5.0,----------------------------r 0.10

4.5 f--··--A­ ..--.---.--.---+ 0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.5**1-~.-** ..---..**---.--.--.~** ..**--.-.-.---.--.-~___j** - Linear 0.01

0.00 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

### Figure 3. 3yr average of4thhighest 8hr average PortlandNancouver 1979-2004 2,3 

### 3. Precursors: ThePortlandNancouver areaozoneprecursors areNitrogen dioxide and volatile organic carbons (VOCs). PortlandNancouveris VOC limited which means thatreduction of VOCs reduces ozone levels more effectivelythan areductioninNOx. TheVOCs that contributemostreadilyto ozone formation are aldehydes, alkanes, alkenes, and to a lesserextent aromatics. ODEQ hasbeenmeasuringthese compounds inPortland on a consistentbasis from 2000 to 2005 (the time ofthis papert. Figures 4 and 5 contain the Maythrough September average concentrations measuredbyODEQ inNorth Portland for Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Propionaldehyde, and Acetone (some ofthemore common aldehydes). In all cases thereis a negative slope as concentrations trend down overthe six yearperiod. Formaldehydelevels spiked in2003 which also hadthree multiday**~** 

### 90°F episodes. Acetone levels dropped at a much steeper rate. Maximum Nitrogen dioxide, Nitric oxide, and Nitrogen oxides concentrations have also beendeclining as shown in Figure 6. Seasonal average Nitrogendioxide, Nitric oxide, and Nitrogen oxides concentrations havebeen stable since 1995 with relatively flat slopes (Figure 7). 

# - 2. HorowitzD., 001]ortland-National-DMVT.xls,PortlandMetro 3. PopulationResearch Center, College ofUrban andPublic Affairs, Portland State University. 4 ODEQ measuredVOCs at N. Roselawn, Portland andNOx measured at SELafayette, Portland.5

1**6~==============~----------** 

# ....**~--** 

# ..**~~---~---~-~-------------~-~** May

- September Averages

4**,-------~-------.---~_r---------~~~-~~-------~-** y = -0.09>< oj. 3.6

y = -0.02x oj. 0.5**O~------~-~----··~-----------_---~_--~~~** 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

### Figure 4. Maythrough September 2000to 2005 average Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde, and Propionaldehyde concentrations inNorth Portland4• 6**!-.-------------------~--~---~~--~-~.-~--~** Acetone May

- SeptemberAverage**5r-----------~------------------·--~--~---------i**

4j-----------------------------------------­

y= -o.ax'" 3.9**2~~----~--------------~~··~-------------------'**

.. ---..**-~--** .. ----**---------~** ...**-----'~·····-----··-----~+------···-~-I O~----_-----_····----~-----~·-~~-------~**  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

### Figure 5. Maythrough September2000 to 2005 average Acetone concentrations inNorth Portland4•

4 ODEQmeasuredVOCs atN. Roselawn, Portland andmeasuredNOx at SE Lafayette, Portland.**0.4.---------------------------------------------·--------~----------~** -+-Max 1hr N02 

# -

Figure 6. SE Portland, Maythrough September 1992 to 2005 maximum onehour average concentrations ofNitrogen dioxide, Nitric oxide, and Nitrogen oxides4•
0.04

0.035 

# - -)lE-Aver 1hr NOx 0.03

0,025 

# i 0,02

0,015

0.01

0.005

a y = -0.0009x + 0.03 __ Max 1hrNO
Max 1hr NOx

0.15 +------------
..------...-------------..-------.-----..**------------------"'~=_----'~""**



## j**~ ~** Figure 7. SE Portland, Maythrough September 1992 to 2005 Seasonal average concentrations ofNitrogen dioxide, Nitric oxide, and Nitrogen oxides4•

4 ODEQ measuredVOCs atN. Roselawn, Portland andmeasuredNOx at SELafayette, Portland.

### 4. Temperature The PortlandNancouvertemperatures havebeentrendingup from at least 1992 to 2005 as measuredby ODEQ at SE Lafayette. Thenumber ofdays::::: 90°F have goneupinthe last 14 years as showninFigure 8. There also havebeennumerous multi-day episodes of maximumtemperatures> 90°F. Theyears 1993-1996, 1998,2000, and 2003-2005 all had threeplus consecutive dayepisodes 

### 2: 90°F. Ofthese, 1996 and 2003-2005 had the greatest number ofconsecutivehotdays.

18

16

14

12

... 

### ¥**~10** 

# .. Oil**~** s 'II l 6

4 

### "

.. 

# ..

2 1 day>900F

1 Day Trendline y O.4x + 5.3

2 Consecutive days >90oF 

# y *' /

.. 1. 2 Day Trendline**~** 

### /1 y=0.13x+1.3 

# ,

'd'**"O".~.~.~** _ _ >OOOF ; 3 Day Trendline o**.\-~** _________**~::""-** __"""""'-,­

__**-""'+'~** _______--JI y=0.09x+ 0.5 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

### Figure 8. Number ofconsecutivedays

### 2: 90°F for one, two, andthree dayepisodes as measured byOregonDEQ at SE Lafayette5• 

### Abreakdown ofthe threeplus day episodes (Figure 9) reveals thenumber ofthree, four, five, and six consecutive day events each year. Ofdays 

### 2: 90°F, 1993, 1994, 1996,2003, and 2004 all had episodes offour days orlonger. 1996was theworstwith the only six day episode and two three day episodes. Morerecently2003 and 2004 had three and four day episodes.
3 03 Days in a Row +90· F .4 Days in a Row +90· F Iii! 5 Days in a Row +90· F**~_Eii!~ays** in "...RO,"",-**+90o..£~**

C..__ ]

# ~

# J J**Jl~** o 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

# - V.at" 

### Figure 9. Three, four, five, and six dayepisodes ofconsecutive days 

### 2: 90°F 5.

5 ODEQ measured temperature at SELafayette, Portland.

### 5. Ventilation



# - The ventilation canberepresented usingtheventilation index whichis calculatedby multiplyingthe wind speed and themixingheight. Themixingheightis the elevation belowwhich all ground level mixing occurs. Thelowerthe ventilation indexthepoorer themixing. Theventilation index for days withthehighestonehour ozonevalues from 1977 to 1996werepresented inthe 1996

### MeteorologicalFactors Conducive to Ozone Formation in the Portland/VancouverArea6• 

### This graph isreproduced in Figure 

### 10 below. 30 --+-Ventilation Index I

I 1i1 -0­ max 1hr 25**#~** 20 

# j**~** 

## ,**~** 0 I 

## , S 15 

### J 

# I I 

## ,
.. iii

_**~ ~**  10 '--_.­

5

0 0,25

0.2

0,15

# i 8 I 0.1 .f

....

0,05

0 

# - § j 

## j**~ ~** 

### ~**~ ~ ~** 

## ~**~**

## ~**~ ~** **~**

## ~**~**

### ~ ~ year 

### Figure 10. Ventilation index onthe maximum onehourozoneday 1979-1996 6• 

### The ventilation indexfor eighthour average ozone from 1998 to 20047 

### is shownin Figure 11. Not surprisingly, the ventilation index is poorforboth onehour and eight hour averagemaximums ozonelevels; Forreference, theWashington Department ofEcologydisplays the ventilation index categories inTable 1 for air stagnation levels on theirweb site. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfoIMM5Instructions.htm

. Jackson County, Oregonuses a ventilation index oflevelof400 to banwoodstoveburninginwinter.



# -
6. Ventilation indices 1977 to 1996providedbyODEQ 1996MeteorologicalFactors Conducive to Ozone FormationinthePortlandlVancouverArea. 7. Ventilationindices 1998 to 2004providedbyOregonDept. ofAg. using Salem soundings.50

45 -I-Ventillation Index -[]o Max8hr

40

35

",30 CD


## ... .: c 

### .8 25 .!!!**~** CD >20 . 

### GJ \ \ \ \ \ 

# ,I!J

.. 

# .. .. .. .. .,[3­
- 

# .. o!J­ 

# - -El-­

15

10

5

0 0.14

0.12

0.1



### ., 

### '" f! 0.08 

# .. > c( CD c


# .. 0 0.06 0 

# .. .s::


## ...

0,04

0.02

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year



# - Figure 11. Ventilation index onthe maximum 8hrozone day 1998-2004 7•



### Table 1. Ventilation Ind t 

### or smok ex ca egonesuse

## d£ e management. Ventilation Index Dispersion 0-50 Very poor 50-2350 Poor 2350-4700 Marginal-Fair >4700 Good

6. Ventilation indices 1977 to 1996provided byODEQ 1996Meteorological Factors Conducive to Ozone Formationinthe PortlandIVancouver Area. 7. Ventilation indices 1998 to 2004provided byOregon Dept. ofAg. using Salem soundings.

### 6. Wind Speed


# - Thehorizontal wind speed impacts the ventilation index as well as the location ofthe ozoneplume. The wind speeds for the maximum eight hour ozone for each year were below six miles perhouras showninFigure 12. A low wind speed is one ofthe elements for poorventilation the otherbeinglow mixingheights.

14 0<14

12 0.12

10 0.1 

# t 8 0<08 

# i 

# 1 I**~** 6 0.06 

## i**~**

4 0.04

2 0<02

0 a 1990 1992 1994 1996 1996 2000 2002 2004 2006 

### Figure 12. Wind speed onthemaximum eighthour average ozone day 1992-20058• 

### 7. High Ozone Episodes A high ozone episode is defined inthis report as a period ofthree ormore consecutive days with maximum temperatures?:: 90°F, dailyaverage wind speeds < 10 mph, and maximum solarradiation> 0.1 Langleys/minutes. Episodes are grouped into weekdayor weekend events. The weekday episodes occurs entirelywithin the week. Theweekend events end on Saturday. Episode IdentifyingMethod To find episodes, themaximum dailytemperatures at ODEQ's SE Lafayette, Portland sitewere identified and plottedfrom Maythrough September. Figure 13 provides an exampleplot done for 1996 maximum temperatures. Afterthesehightemperature days were identified, themaximum dailyeight hourozone levels at all the Portland and VancouverW A sites were retrieved. Thewind speed, wind direction, solarradiation, and days ofthe week were also compiled. The dates with average wind speeds above 10 mph were removed from consideration. Days occurring inmidtolate Septemberwere also not considered because their solarradiation levels wereto low. The resultingthree consecutive day episodes were compiled inTable 2. These days were grouped into weekday episodes and weekend episodes. One three episodeperyearwas used for comparisonbetween years. The episodes were selected based on similarities inthe time ofyear, solarradiation, three daytemperaturetrend, and low average wind speed. 

# -

8. Temperature collectedbyODEQ at SELafayette.1996 pdx max dally Temp

110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 0 60 "'­ 55 E :1. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0**~** 

### '"**~ ~** **~ ~** **~ ~**  m 

# '" ;:;) <0 ;:; '" '" co m Date 

### Figure 13. Maximum dailytemperatures for 1996 inPortland8

.

.

# ­



# -

8. Temperature collectedbyODEQ at SE Lafayette.

### Table 2. Three day ozone episodes withmaximumtemperatures 

### 2:: 90°F, average ws <10 mph, average solarradiation> 1Lan :p'ey/hr MHSI SPR MSJ WA 03 03 03 Av max max SIS 03 max er daily daily max daily Max WS max 8hr 8hr daily 8hr Tem max imp aver WS i Date Day ave I ave 8hr ave ave p i SR 5 SR MPS I 7/28/92 Tuesday 0.051 

# I 0.033 0.036 void 87 1.30 6.2 0.47 i 10.6
i 7/29/92 Wednesday 0.064 i 0.043 0.051 0.048 91 1.30 7.0 

## I 0.46 10.8 ; 7/30192 Thursday 0.082 0.078 0.066 i 0.097 • 100 1.30

. 4.4

. 0.46 8.1 I 8/2/93 Monday 0.057 0.047 0.060 I 0.053 1 93 1.23 8.0 

# I 0.44 13.2 8/3/93 Tuesday 0.047 0.045 0.065 0.041 98 

## I 1.23

. 8.1 i 0.39 13.9 8/4/93 Wednesday 0.074 0.073 ! 0.072 ! 0.078 i 97 1.20 I 3.9 i 0.42 6.6 9/6/93 Monday 0.058 

# I 0.053 0.043 0.043 1 90 

# I 1.03 

# I 5.3 

# I 0.30 9.7 917193 Tuesday 0.057 0.038 0.062 0.051 i 89 1.02

. 4.2 0.32 7.0 ! 9/8/93 Wednesday 0.058 0.051 0.054 0.048 • 90 1.05**~** 4.2 0.33 6.6 6/28/95 Wednesday 0.046 0.046 void 0.050 89 1.28 9.7 0.47 18.7 6/29195 Thursday 0.057 I 0.053 0.051 

# I 0.057 92 1.28 9.7 0.47 17.8 6/30195 Friday 0.083 I 0.063 0.062 0.069. 97 i 1.29 7.1 0.46 12.1 7111/96 Thursday 0.067 \ 0.054 0.059
1 0

. 057 88 1.33 8.2 

# I 0.49 14.3 7/12196 Friday 0.074 i 0.063 0.062 0.067 92 1.35 7.7 ! 0.50 13.2 7/13/96 Saturday 0.106 0.085 0.069 i 0.081 97 1.34 6.6 i 0.49 11.7

817196 Wednesday 0.051 0.038 0.053 

# I 0.048 89 1.27 6.91 0.45 12.1 8/8/96 Thursday 0.073 0.057 0.066

. 0.067 i 92 1.26 6.9 • 0.44 12.3 i 8/9/96 Friday 0.079 0.061 0.069 i 0.066 i 93 1.26 • 6.7 0.44 I 12.1 8/22/96 Thursday 0.048 0.036 0.040 

# I 0.046 1 89 1.21 16.9 0.40 ) 10.3 8/23/96 Friday 0.065 i void 0.059 • 0.056 • 92 1.18

. 7.8 0.39 11.9 8/24/96 Saturday 0.073 0.063 0.065 0.067 i 93 I 1.10 i 6.0 0.35

. 10.3 i 7/26/98 Sunday 0.116 0.100 0.073 0.070 98 1.26 3.9 0.43 

## I 6.2 i 7127/98 Monday 0.088 void 0.077 0.078 97 1.27 4.0 0.38 7.7 i 7/28/98 Tuesday 0.098 0.074 0.062 i 0.075 99 1.25 5.3 I 0.45 11.7

6/26/00 Monday 0.056 0.049 0.054 0.054 91 1 1

.28 I 7.3\ 0.48 11.2 6/27/00 Tuesday 0.061 0.057 0.066 0.058 96 I 1.28 5.2 • 0.47 9.8 0.048 i i ! 6/28/00 Wednesda 0.067 0.040 0.045**~** 92 1.29 5.3 0.48 10.2

8/8/01 Wednesday 0.049 0.040 

# I 0.047 0.046 86 1.24 8.0 0.43 14.4 8/9101 Thursday 0.081 0.067 0.055 •0.063 96 1.25 4.7 0.43 6.4 i i 4.6 8/10/01 Friday 0.077 0.066 0.068 0.071 90 1.21 0.42 7.8 7/22/04 Thursday 0.058 0.054 0.058 0.056 98 1.23 7.0 0.44 12.8 7/23/04 Friday 0.051 0.051 

# i 0.061 0.049 102 1.24 6.51 0.45 9.5 7/24/04 Saturday 0.084 0.077 0.058 .0.065 100 1.22 6.1 0.44 11.9



# - 9. Ozone measured byODEQ and SouthwestWashingtonClean AirAgency, Meteorological data measured at SELafayette, Portland.

### TheeDayEpisode Results Figure 14 shows weekday ozone episodes from 1992 to 2005. Figure 15 displays weekend ozone episodes from 1996 and 2004. Ozone ontheweekday episodes. exhibit a slight negative trend with a slope of-0.004. Themaximumtemperatures for these episodes dropped more significantly -0.01. This temperature drop onlyrefers to the episodes selected and is notreflective ofthe temperature trends inPortlandNancouver. The maximumtemperatures inthe episodes selected were lowertoward the end ofthe 14 yearperiod and could explain inpart why the ozonelevels inthis graphwere also lower. The weekend episode data shown in Figure 15 closelytrackthemeteorological parameters.

1.4**,.-----------------~----------____r** 0,14

1.3

1.2 0.12

0 1.1 :!:; II) 3:

- - - - - -- . -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -. ... - - - - - - -.-.. ­**~ ~ ~** 0,10 ..: 1,0 G> >
-**.~ Tr~(lnl'1.e**  'f'"**~.~1x** + 1.0 

### « <5 0.9

### ~ 0 

### E

.... Q. :::.. E: !:!::. 0.8 0.08 G> Q. c: 

# .,. "', ,11; 0 E NIG> 0 >; 0.7
G> til c: 0.6 0.06 Trendline..1.

### =**0.004~+ O~**  d. 

## '" IX: 0.5 II)

0.4 0.04

0.3 

### --+-Aver WS/1 0 

# L::!' Ozone max dail Bhr ave 0.2**t----,--~--_,_----=:::;:=:::;:==~=::::::;::::::::=:::::;:==-_._----_l..** 0.02 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

### Figure 14: Theeday episodes withmaximumtemperatures**~** 

### 90°F, wind speed < 1Omph, SolarRadiation>1Langleys/hr, all weekdays9.

9. Ozone measuredbyODEQ and SouthwestWashington Clean AirAgency, Meteorological data measured at SE Lafayette, Portland.1.4

1.2


### '" t: 

### $ 1.0

## ~ It



# .. .. (>

### ~ 0.6 

# .. 

# ­ 

# - ! 

# i**~** 

# .. 

# .. ..



# .. 

# .. ..

...



### ...


### ...

... 

# ---

# -

...**~**

# - +- 

# 1- 

# f July 1996 Aug 1996**~.**

## '~"'-"-'-l -a- Max Templ100 -6:-SR**~AverWS** -<)- Ozone max daily 8hr ave 

# f

..**-~-** ..--­**~** 0.6 

## i July 2004

0.4

0.2 

### Figure 15: Three day episodes withmaximumtemperatures**~** 

### 90°F, wind speed < IOmph, SolarRadiation >1 Langleylhr with third day on Saturday.
1998 and 2003 episode comparison. 0.14

0.12

0.10 

# i
0.06 

# J

0.06

0.04

0.02 

# -

In 2003 there were three multi-day episodes withtemperatures**~** 

### 90°F butthe maximum ozone level onlyreached 0.084 ppm. Conversely, in 1998 there was only onemulti-day 

# ­ episode> 90°F andthe maximum level reached 0.116 ppm. Ifthe maximum daily temperature criteriawere lowered to**~** 

### 88°F, there are more episodes to consider.
Threeday episodes In 1998 there is one three day episode and in 2003 there are two three day episodes**~** 

### 88°F (Table 2). These episodes all include at least one weekend day, however, one starts on a Sunday, one ends on Saturday, and one includesboth Saturday and Sunday. All three days inthe 1998 episodehavemaximumtemperatures inthehigh 90s and onlyone dayinthe 2003 episodes has atemperature inthehigh 90s. Solarradiation and wind speeds are comparable. Figure 16 compares thesethree episodes. Thereis a drop in ozonelevels in 2003 from 1998, however, thetemperature inthe 2003 episodes is also lower and the wind speed arehigher. The 1998 maximum ozone level occurs onthe first day (Sunday) ofthethree day episode. Theproceeding dayhad amaximumtemperature of85°F and a maximum 8hourozone of0.067ppm. Theeighthour ozone level had a jumpof0.05 ppmin one day. Thefirst days ofthe2003 episode wereboth only 0.002ppmhigher than theproceeding day.



# - 9. Ozone measuredbyODEQ and SouthwestWashingtonCleanAirAgency, Meteorological data measured at SELafayette, Portland.

### Table 2. Three day ozone episodes withmaximumtemperatures:::: 88°F, average ws <10 hId" 1 L 1 

### 1hr 9 

### mpl , average so arra latlOn > 

### angleyl Aver Max Max Temp max aver WS maxWS Year Date Day 

### 03 (X10) SR SR mph MPS 7126/98 Sun 

### 0.116 9.8 1.26 0.43 4 6.2 1998 7/27/98 Mon 

### 0.088 9.7 1.27 0.38 4 7.7 7/28/98 Tue 

### 0.098 9.9 1.25 0.45 5 11.7 

### I

6/5/03 Thr 

### 0.070 9.0 1.33 0.50 8 13.7 

### I 2003 6/6/03 Fri 

### 0.071 9.6 1.31 0.49 6 10.4 I 6/7/03 Sat 

### 0.071 9.0

. 1.29 0.47 5 9.3 6127/03 Fri 

### 0.046 8.8 1.29 i 

### 0.48 7 11.8 2003 6/28/03· Sat 

### 0.066 9.2 1.32 0.47 7 13.1 6/29/03 Sun 

### 0.055 8.9 1.29 0.47 9 14.0

___ MaxTemp (Xl0)**~AverWSmph** -tr-maxSR 0,116

## ~ _._--_.



# __. 

# ··-9

0.08a 0.071 0,066 0,070 0,071

# .-D,

..**~~.--** ..-- 0,046

---- ...

# _ ... c 

# .. 

# .. .a 

# .. 

# .. .a 

# .. ..
Sun

.. Tues. Jul 26

.. Jul 28 Thr· Sat. Jun 5 Jun 7 Fri

.. Sun. Jun 27 • Jun 29 0,14 12

0.12 10

0.10 

# I 8

0.08

# i**~** <f 6 

# i is I/. 0.06**~** {!!. 4 

# t 0,04

2 0.02

a 0.00 1998 2003 2003 

### Figure 16. 1998 and 2003 three dayepisodes with temperatures:::: 88°F, ws < 10mph, 

### > 1

. Langleylhr 9•



# -

9. Ozone measuredbyODEQ and SouthwestWashingtonCleanAir Agency, Meteorological data measured at SELafayette, Portland.

### Four day episodes



# - Two four day episodes with similar meteorological patterns occurred in 1998 and 2003 in early September(Table 3). The maximum ozonelevels during thesetwo four day episodes werevirtually identical and theybothoccurredinthe second day ofthe four day stretch (Figure 17).
Table 3. Four day ozone episodes withmaximum temperatures

### 2: 88°F, average ws <10 

### h I latlOn> 

### 1 L 1 

### Ihr mpJ , average so arr

### ad" angJeyl

Max Max Temp max aver AverWS maxWS Year Date Day 

### 03 (X10) SR SR mph MPS I 8/31/98 Mon 

### 0.079 9.6 1.1 0.36 6 9.2 1998 9/1/98 Tue 

### 0.081 9.1 1.1 0.36 I 

### 5 9.7 9/2/98 Wed 

### 0.041 8.8 1.1 0.36 I 

### 7 11.2 9/3/98 Thr 

### 0.053 8.9 I 

### 1.1 I 

### 0.35 ! 

### 7 11.2 9/2/03 Tue 

### 0.055 9.2 I 

### 1.0 ! 

### 0.33 I 

### 5 : 

### 6.8 I 9/3/03 Wed 

### 0.084 9.2 I 

### 1.0 I 

### 0.30 4 6.6 2003 9/4/03 

### 0.075 9.2 1.0 Thr ! ; 

### 0.33 4**6.:~** 9/5/03 Fri 

### 0.050 9.0 I 

### 1.1 ! 

### 0.34 4 6.9

1998 vs 2003 Four day episodes 0.090 12.0 

# I=:::**~::r ~~~~1**  

# 0>-\ 0.064 0.079

,
__ maxSR
10.0 I • Max03

.



# ---
8.0

60 '

4.0

2.0 

### '" '" 

# .. ... Tue

- Thr, Aug 31 Sept 3 Mon

- Wed, Sep 2 5 0.0 0.080 

# -
0.070

0.060 

# i
0.050

# i**~** Pi &



# .. 0.040 

### B 

# i

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000 1998 2003 

### Figure 17. 1998 and 2003 four dayearly September episodes withtemperatures

### 2: 88°F, ws 

### < lOmph, > 1Langleylhr.

9. Ozone measured byODEQ and SouthwestWashington Clean AirAgency, Meteorologicaldata measured at SELafayette, Portland.

### Discussion: In

### the last 14 years, ozone levels inPortland and Vancouverhavebeen going down slightlywhile thepopulation and the vehiclemiles traveled continued to grow. The numberofconsecutive days with temperatures over 90°F wentup duringthe sameperiod. When similarhigh temperature episodes were compared overthe years, ozonetrends also were slightlynegative. Portland also witnessed a drop inprecursorpollutants concentrations whichhelps explainthe lowerthan expected ozonelevels. The wind speed and ventilation on maximum ozone days were typical for stagnant conditions and werenot a factor inthe ozonetrending.
The 2003 episodes were evidence ofthis. 2003 had more episodes than a similarhot year, 1998, buthad a muchlowermaximum. The 1998 maximum occurred on a Sunday andjumped0.05 ppmin one day. This is a verylargerate ofincrease for the eighthour average and indicates that there was much more activityon Sundaythanusual along with low wind speeds and high temperatures. The 1998 solarradiation levels were actually lower thanthe 2003 episodes however. The Monday following this eventwas a Clean Air ActionDayand couldhavehelped lowerthe precursorpollutants levels. The 2003 episodes had lower ozonelevels with similarmeteorological factors which could mean lowerprecursorlevels werepresent. Theprecursortrends shown inFigures 4 through 7 aboveprovethis to betrue. Conclusion: The slightlynegative ozonetrend, theupward temperaturetrends, and thenegative precursortrends would indicate that the ozonereduction programs are working. This argument canbemadebecausethe PortlandNancouverpopUlation and total vehicle miles traveled continues to grow. However, many ofthe VOC controls are alreadyin place and PortlandNancouvercould seemore ozone with the expectedpopulation growth. The Oregon Low Emission Vehicleprogram is new in 2005-2006 and may resultin further reduction inprecursorsperVMT.

### References 1. Bamack, A. 

### 2004 OregonAir QualityDataSummaries, Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality, Air QualityDivision, May2005. pg44. 2. Cai, Q. 2004 Oregon Population Report, Population Research Center, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland StateUniversity. Pg7. 3. Authorunknown, 2002 Oregon PopulationReport, Population Research Center, College ofUrban and PublicAffairs, Portland StateUniversity. Pg 6. 4. Turpe1 M., Principal Transportation Planner 5. Horowitz D., OOl_Portland-National-DMVT.xls, Portland Metro 6. Finneran, B. 1996 Meteorological Factors Conduciveto OzoneFormationinthe PortlandNancouverArea, OregonDEQ. 

### Simplified Ozone Formation
Ozone (03) 

### is a secondarypollutantproducedbythephotolysis ofNitrogen Dioxide (N02) to NO and a single oxygen (0). The single Oxygen(0)bondsto Oxygen (02 ) in the presenceofany solid material. In 

### summarythereactionis: 

### hv ' N02

### + O2

### +m---to> NO

### +0 3

### +m Ozonereadilyreacts withNitrogen oxide (NO) to returnto oxygenwhentheultraviolet radiation levels drop.
NO 

### + 0 3

### noh~ N02

### + O2 This is an equilibrium which can be drivento producemore ozonebythe additionof moreN02. N02 is formed indirectly from the degradationofvolatile organic carbons (RHOC) inthe presence offree radicals (OH-) andultravioletradiation. TheRHOC and OH- produce another free radical H02

- which canreactwithNO to form N02 and another free radical (OH-).
OH- 

### +RHOC 

# JJx.. NO

### +H02- ---to> N02+OH­ 

# -

### Appendix 010-3 Emission Inventory The Portland-Vancouver AQMA and the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study air quality area were designated "Unclassifiable/Attainment" with the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23829-30), as demonstrated through air quality monitoring data. EPA requires this maintenance plan to demonstrate continued compliance for at least ten years following EPA deSignation. WSU performed a modeling analysis that forecasted ozone levels to 2015 and determined that these areas will continue to meet the standard. The maintenance plan accommodates future growth and provides forthe protection of public health by ensuring compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. The maintenance plan continues emission reduction strategies needed to maintain compliance. To approve the maintenance plan, EPA requires permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions to remain in effectthroughout the maintenance period. In compliance with published EPA requirements, this emission inventory is provided as a part of the State's revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to formulate a strategy to maintain the NAAQS. The principal components for development and documentation for the maintenance plan inventories include stationary point sources, stationary area sources, nonroad mobile sources, on-road mobile sources, biogenic emission sources, quality assurance implementation, and emissions summaries. The geographicfocus forthis emission inventory is the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA and the Salem-KeizerArea Transportation Study (SKATS) air quality area. Countywide estimates are used to facilitate comparison with future year National Emission Inventory submittals. The emissions inventoryfor the PortlandVancouver AQMA (Oregon portion) includes Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties. The emissions inventory for the Salem-Keizer SKATS air quality area includes Marion and Polk counties. A complete copy ofthe emission inventory is on file at OEQ and available upon request. The WSU modeling study (Appendix 010-4) describes the emissions inventory that was used to validate the model and evaluate the 2015 projection. The model meteorologywas based on a July 1998 episode in which the Portland area violated the one-hour ozone NAAQS at the Carus monitoring site. Point source emissions from sources that are not Title 5 point sources were inventoried by OEQ regional staff and SWCAA using the following parameters: Geographic Area !VOC NOx CO I 

### AQMA I >10 tons/year >40 tons/year > 100 tons/year •25-mile buffer**~** 

### >100 tons/year 

### i >40 tons/year >100 tons/year

Modeling domain ! >100 tons/year >40 tons/year >100 tons/year
In this documentthe terms "annual emissions" and "typical summer day" emissions are used to categorize the estimated emissions for a particular time period. The annual emissions, in tons per year, are a total amount ofemissions for the source category that occurred throughout the year. The typical summer day emissions, in pounds per day, are based on the ozone season



# - period from May 1 st 

### through September 30th 

### as one in which, historically, the 8-hour ozone standard would most likely be exceeded.

Adopted by

### the EQC 02122107 

### 38

### Point Source Inventory Area 

# -

Lrgt>nd**.~.** 'I' DSKATS AO Boundary**~ncouver** AQMA DporllandAOMA CJ25 Mile Buffer -Highways -Roads a .;) 1eJ"

.. It, 1 t ! • ! !


# -

Annual Emission Inventory The attainment year emission inventory (2002) for area sources, non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources and Title 5 point sources was developed from the DEQ 2002 Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) National Emission Inventory (NEI) submittal. For point sources, DEQ used 2002 "actual" data generated from point source annual reports for the attainment year inventory. For the 2015 maintenance demonstration, DEQ used "allowable" data generated from point source permits that represents the maximum allowable emissions that could be generated at each facility. Washington sources were grown proportionally. The 2015 maintenance demonstration also included a growth allowance in both Oregon and Washington. 5,000 tons VOC and 5,000 tons NOx were added to areas zoned for industrial growth in the Oregon portion of the Portland-Vancouver AQMA, and a proportional amount of 411 tons ofVOC and 1,313 tons of NOx was added to areas zoned for industrial growth in the Washington portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA. The annual emission inventory is summarized in Tables 12 and 13 below. The annual emissions are included for ease of comparison with future year CERR National Emission Inventory submittals.



# -

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 39

### Table12: Portland Area

## voe and NOx 

### Emissions (tons/year)

Portland Area VOC Emissions Portland Area NO.Emissions Portland Area CO Emissions Annual Emissions (tons/year) Annual Emissions (tons/year) Annual Emissions (tonslyear) Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Counties 

## g,g

c:**~g** 1ii**~g** 1ii 1ii :::0 :::0 :::0**",,,,~**

## ~g ",,,,I!! 

# t§

c: '"

## t~ ",lii2! .,-c:1i) .,-c:fi) .,-c't)**~** ell;!**~** r:5&j**~** r:5&j e.!c: o.!c: oj!c: g !.l)'(5' g ",'0' g 11)'0' NcO N·ffi § N·ffi**~** 0 0 0 

### ott oD: iii**~** "I "I**~o:** "I "I "I Source Til!e**2~ SourceT~~e** **2~** Source Til!9 20 AREA 92,946 108,109 108,109 AREA 5.808 5,822 5,822 AREA 104,621 139,992 139,992 NON-ROAD 13,247 13,308 13,308 NON-ROAD 17,344 17,223 17,223 NON-ROAD 153,204 330,324 330,324 ON-ROAD 23,683 8.538 8.538 ON-ROAD 36.786 10.339 10,339 ON-ROAD 288,435 127.923 127,923 POINT 3,056 3.292 21.721 POINT 2,522 2,862 15.191 POINT 2,214 2,364 19,768 Total 132,931 133,246 151,675 Total 62,461 36,245 48,574 Total 548,474 600,603 618,007



### Table13: Salem Area

## voe and NOx 

### Emissions (tons/year)

Salem Area VOC Emissions Salem Area NO.Emissions Salem Area CO Emissions Annual Emissions (tons/year) Annual Emissions (tons/year) Annual Emissions (tons/year) Marion. Polk Counties Marion, Polk Counties Marion, Polk Counties 1ii -5**~.g** 1ii 

### j c: 

## g**~** 1ii ..c (U .2 :::J 3:6 em :::0 jagm o.Q", ",.I:s 

### " 0·- '" ",.I:s 9 

### e., '" "'""

.....**ell!lo1ii~c: ~** **{5ioai~c: ~** **(5~oai~c:** g g g !.O'O'Nc;O**~e-N5~ ~**  'e N:S**~** o 0 0 00:**'m~** N**~a. ~~**  "I**~a. ~~**  N N 20**SourceT~ SourceT~** **SourceT~** AREA 20.297 22,594 22.594 AREA 1,646 1,581 1,581 AREA 34,547 42,428 42,428 NON-ROAD 2,401 2.334 2.334 NON-ROAD 3,159 3,062 3,062 NON-ROAD 27,025 55,138 55,138 ON-ROAD 9,331 2.724 2,724 ON-ROAD 11,276 3,326 3.326 ON-ROAD 116,116 42,445 42,445 POINT 218 302 1,079 POINT 302 577 846 POINT 30 329 767 Total 32,247 27.954 28,731 Total 16,383 8.547 8,815 Total 177.719 140,341 140,779


### Typical Summer Day Emission Inventory For the 2002 base yearand 2015 maintenance demonstration, DEQ used the countywide inventory for area, on-road and non-road sources. DEQ generated the typical summer day emission inventory using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System (SMOKE) model to make the seasonal adjustments to the annual emissions inventory. Complete descriptions ofthe seasonal adjustment factors used to develop typical summer day emissions can be found in the Inventory Preparation Plan, available from DEQ. The SMOKE model was used to seasonally adjust the emissions forthe CMAQ model validation, 2002 attainment inventory and 2015 maintenance demonstration emissions inventories. Fireplace and woodstove emissions were not included in the seasonally-adjusted area source inventory because they would not likely be used during meteorological conditions conducive to ozone formation (hot, stagnant summer days). Wildfires, prescribed fires and structural fires were also not included in the 2002**Att~inment** 

### Inventory and 2015 maintenance demonstration inventory because the modeling team's research on source activity during the July 1998 episode indicated that these emissions were not Significant during the 1998 episode. Typically, industrial production and emissions are fairly constant throughout the year. Figures 7 and 8, and Tables 14and15, describe the typical summer day emissions inventories in Portland and Salem. 

# -.

Adopted by the EQC 02/22107 40

### Figure 7: Top Ten Sources, Portland



## to Nonroad: Gasoune 2­

stroke

• Msc, Non-Industrial

Solvent Utilization iiiNonroad: Gasonne 4­ 

## I stroke 'ii[)egreasing 

# I , _ IQ I Marine , , 

# I.
Industrial Fblnt Sources ! (actuals) 

## Iii Nonroad: Diesel 

### I Top Ten Sources**~'--~-----~---------** Portland Area 2002

### voe Top Ten Sources (excluding biogenicemisslons) 160,000

140,000

1?n nnn

100,000

60,000

40,000

20,000



### o

Portland Area 2002 NOx Top Ten Sources (excluding biogenicemissions) 140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000 >­ It! "C 

### ;e 60,000

40,000

20,000

0 TopTen Sources r---'**---~,** I iI On-Road: Gasoline 

# I I Vehicles

• On-Road: Diesel 

## I Vehicles 

## IQ Nonroad: lAeset

iQNonroad: Comrercial 

## I Marine Vessels
i • Industrial Point 

# I , Sources (actuals) iii Nonroad: Locormlive 

## I ': Ii Nonroad: Gasofl!'le 4­ :

stroke

: !JNonroad: LPG

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 Portland Area 2015

### voe Top Ten Sources (excluding biogenic emissions) 160,000

140,000

1?O non

100,000

60,000

40,000 I 20,000



### o QOn-Road: GasoWne

[JMsc, Non-Industrial

Solvent Utilization

iii Nonroad: Gasoroo 2­

stroke

• Industrial Fblnl

(actuals +projection)

Top Ten Sources

--I I Portland Area 2015 NOx Top Ten Sources (excluding biogenic emissions) 140.000

120,000

100,000

80.000 if!' "C 

### ;e 60,000

40.000

20,000



### o 

# - iI On-Road: Gasoline I

Vehicles

• Nonroad: Diesel
QOn-Road: Diesel

Vehicles !Cl Nonroad: Corrmercial

, Marine Vessels

• industrial Point

projection) iiiNoIiroad: Gasonne 4- I

stroke ' 

## IIi Nonroad: Locomotive I 

# ,0 Nonroad: Aircraft &

, Aircraft Refueling

• Nonfoad: Recreational '

Marine :

Top Ten Sources

41• Open Burning: Agriculural o On-Road: Gasoline

Vehicles 13 Msc. Non-Industrial

Solvent Utilization

Ii Nonroad: Recreational

iv1arine 

### Figure 8: Top Ten 

### Sources, Salem

SalemArea 2002 VOC

Top Ten Sources (excluding biogenicemissions)
60,000 liOn-Road: GaSOIin.

# "I Vehicles

• Surface Coating 50,000 oOpen Burning: Agricultural Ell Nonroad: Gasorl!le

2-stroke 40,000

• Msc. Non-Industrial Solvent Utilization**~** "0 30,000 Ii Auto Gas: Storage**~** & Transport Ii Nonroad: Gasoline 20,000 4-stroke IJGraphicArts 10,000 • Degreasing
Ii Nonroad: Diesel 

# ° Top Ten Sources SalemArea 2015 VOC TopTen Sources (excluding biogenic emiSSions)
60,000

50,000

40,000**~ ~**  30,000

20,000

10,000 

# ° Top Ten Sources

CJ Open Burning: ,

Agricuttural I' • Nonroad: Locormtive

iiiIndustrial A::>int I

I Sources (actuals) " iiiNonrood: Gasoline4­

stroke 

## I

I iiiIndustrial Fuel I 

# LConsurrption ,**,"--~'~~'--'------'---'-------,** SalemArea 2002 NOx

Top Ten Sources (excluding biogenic emissions)

# ~ 45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000

>. 25,000

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000



### o**.-~.-~.-** ..**~** Top Ten Sources SalemArea 2015 NOx TopTen Sources (excluding biogenic emissions)
45,000

.I>i:mroad: Diesel IiiOn-Road:GasoHne

Vehicles 40,000
35,000 [JOn-Road: Diesel Vehicles 30,000 CJ Open Burning: Agriculural

>. 25,000 • Industrial Point <U Sources (actual. + projection) IOl Nonrood: Locorrotive

### ~ 20,000

IiiNonroad: Gasotine 4­

stroke 15,000

CJ Open Burning: 10,000 Residential

• Industrial Fuel 5,000 Consufl1:llion

! iii Residential NGIOn 

### o**L~Consufl1:l~-----.J** Top Ten Sources

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 42 iSummary of Portland AQMA Emissions (Clackamas. Multnomah, and Washington Counties) 

# - A summary of the Portland-Vancouver AQMA Ozone Maintenance Plan Emission Inventoryfor Point, Area, Non-road Mobile and On-road Mobile sources ofVOC and NOx emissions is presented in the following section. Percentages reflect anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions; biogenic emissions have been subtracted from this summary (see Tables 14 and 15). A full copy of the emission inventory is available upon request from DEQ.

Portland Area VOC and NO. Emissions, (Ib/day) (Clackamas, Multnomah. Washington Counties)

----- voe, 100 per day

------­ NO•• Ibs per day

-----­ ---­ 2015 2015 2015 Source 2002 2015 Growth Maintenance Source 2002 Growth Maintenance T:lee Actual Projection Demonstration**T~ee** Actual Projection Demonstration AREA 253,871 291,098 291,098 AREA 5,529 6,157 6,157 BIOGENIC 437,910 437,910 437,910 BIOGENIC 3,890 3,890 3,890 NONROAD 110,188 101,699 101,699 NONROAD 136,713 95.638 95,638 ON-ROAD 139,542 54,521 54,521 ON-ROAD 216,750 66,910 66,910 POINT 17,020 18,304 119,943 POINT 14,913 16,783 66,780 Totals

--

.. Totals 958,531 903,531 1,005,171 Totals -"-"­ 377,794 191,378**~~1,37~** Minus Biogenic 520,621 465,621 567,260 373,904 187,487 257,485 2002 Attainment Inventory (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties) During an ozone season day, on-road mobile sources contribute 27% ofthe VOC and 58% of the total NOx air emissions in the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA. On-road mobile source emissions are based on motorvehicle travel on a typical summer day and the seasonal adjustment factor reflects the fact that emissions would likely increase during the summer months when tourism traffic picks up. Gasoline vehicles contribute 26% ofthe VOC emissions and 34% ofthe NOx emissions within the on-road mobile category; diesel vehicles contribute 24% ofthe NOxemissions. Stationary area sources comprise 49% ofthe

## voe and 1 % ofthe NOxair emissions in the Portland area on a typical summer day. Within the area source category, surface coating contributes 25% ofthe VOC emissions while consumer solvents contribute 7% and graphic arts contribute 10% ofthe VOC emissions. NOxemissions from area sources are insignificant. Non-road mobile sources contribute 21% ofthe VOC and 37% ofthe NOx emissions on a typical summer day. Off-highway diesel equipment comprises 21% ofthe daily NOx emissions; 8% ofthe VOC emissions originate from 2-cycle engines within the non-road mobile source category. Stationary point sources comprise 3% ofthe

## voe and 4 % ofthe NOx emissions in the Portland area on a typical summerday. Biogenic emissions which are produced by life substances (e.g. terpenes from pine trees) contribute 46% ofthe total

## voe during a typical summer day. Washington State University provided the biogenic emissions data and these emissions are assumed to remain unchanged in the future, although urban development does modify the amount, location and type of



# - vegetation over time.

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 43

# --

----- 2015 Maintenance Demonstration (Clackamas. Multnomah. and Washington Counties) During an ozone season day, on-road mobile sources contribute 12% ofthe VOC and 37% of the NOx

### air emissions in the Oregon portion ofthe Portland-Vancouver AQMA. On-road mobile source emissions are based on motor vehicle travel on a typical summer day and the seasonal adjustmentfactor reflects the fact that emissions would likely increase during the summer months when tourism traffic picks up. Gasoline vehicles contribute 11

### % ofthe VOC emissions and 24% ofthe NOx 

### emissions within the on-road mobile category; diesel vehicles contribute 13% ofthe NOx

### emissions. Stationary area sources comprise 63% ofthe VOC and 3% ofthe NOx 

### emissions in the Portland area on a typical summer day. Within the area source category, surface coating contributes 32% ofthe VOC emissions while consumer solvents contributes 9% and graphic arts contribute 13% ofthe VOC emissions. Non-road mobile sources contribute 22% ofthe VOC and 51% ofthe NOx

### emissions on a typical summer day. Off-highway diesel equipment comprises 23% ofthe daily NOx 

### emissions. Stationary point sources comprise 4% ofthe VOC and 9 % ofthe NOx 

### emissions in the Portland area on a typical summer day. Biogenic emissions which are produced by life substances (e.g. terpenes from pine trees) contribute 48% ofthe total VOC during a typical summer day. Washington State University provided the biogenic emissions data and these emissions are assumed to remain unchanged in the future, although urban development does modify the amount, location and type of vegetation overtime. Summary of Salem-Keizer (SKATS) Emissions (Marion and Polk Counties) 

### A summary ofthe Salem-Keizer Area Ozone Maintenance Plan Emission Inventoryfor Point, Area, Non-road Mobile and On-road Mobile sources ofVOC and NOx 

### emissions is presented in the following section. Percentages reflect anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions; biogenic emissions have been subtracted from this summary (see Tables 12 and 13). A full copy ofthe emission inventory is available upon requestfrom DEQ.

Salem Area VOC and NO. Emissions, (Ib/day) (Marion & Polk Counties) 

### voe, Ibs per day

------ NO•• Ibs per ----­ day

------­ Source T;tEe AREA BIOGENIC NONROAD ON-ROAD POINT 2002 2 Actual 66.252 296.719 20.462 54.980

1;198 015 Growth Projection 66.416 296.719

17,901 16.004 1.657 2015 Maintenance Demonstration 68,416 296.719

17.901 16.004 6.021 Source**Tl:~e** AREA BIOGENIC NONROAD ON-ROAD POINT 2002 Actual

6.227 3,803 28,793 66,442 1,701 2015 Growth Projection 6.400 3.803 16,618 20.582 3,168 2015 Maintenance Demonstration 6.400 3,803 16.618 20.582 4,701
Totals Totals Minus Biogenic 439,610

142,891 400.698

103,979 405.062

108,343 Totals

__ 106,967

103.163**50,571~** ____

46.768**~,!Q~**

48.300

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 442002 Attainment Inventory (Marion and Polk Counties) During an ozone season day, on-road mobile sources contribute 38% ofthe 

## voe and 64% of the NOx emissions in the Salem-Keizerarea. On-road mobile source emissions are based on motorvehicle travel on a typical summer day and the seasonal adjustmentfactor reflects the fact that emissions would likely increase during the summer monthswhen tourism traffic picks up. Gasoline vehicles contribute 35% of the

## voe emissions and 40% ofthe NOxemissions within the on-road mobile category. On-road diesel vehicles contribute 24% ofthe NOx emissions. Stationary area sources comprise 46% ofthe 

## voe and 6% ofthe NOxemissions in the Salem area on a typical summer day. Within the area source category, surface coating contributes 15% ofthe

## voe emissions while agricultural open burning contributes 13% and consumer solvents contributes 6% ofthe 

## voe emissions. Non-road mobile sources contribute 14% of the

## voe and 28% ofthe NOxemissions on a typical summer day. Off-highway diesel equipment comprises 21 % ofthe daily NOxemissions; 7% of the total 

## voe emissions originate from 2-cycle engines within the non-road mobile source category. Stationary point sources comprise 1 % ofthe

## voe and 2 % ofthe NOx emissions in the Salem area on a typical summerday. Biogenic emissions contribute 67% ofthe total

## voe during a typical ozone season day. Biogenic emissions data was provided by Washington State University and these emissions were assumed to remain unchanged in the future, although urban development does modify the 

# ­ amount, location and type ofvegetation over time. 2015 Maintenance Demonstration (Marion and Polk Counties) During an ozone season day, on-road mobile sources contribute 15% ofthe 

## voe and 44% of the NOxemissions in the Salem-Keizer area. On-road mobile source emissions are based on motor vehicle travel on a typical summer day and the seasonal adjustment factor reflects the fact that emissions would likely increase during the summer months when tourism traffic picks up. Gasoline vehicles contribute 15% of the

## voe emissions and 28% ofthe NOx emissions within the on-road mobile category. On-road diesel vehicles contribute 16% ofthe NOx emissions. Stationary area sources comprise 66% ofthe

## voe and 13% of the NOxemissions in the Salem area on a typical summer day. Within the area source category, surface coating contributes 25% ofthe

## voe emissions while agricultural open burning contributes 18% and consumer solvents contributes 10% ofthe

## voe emissions. Non-road mobile sources contribute 17% ofthe

## voe and 36% ofthe NOxemissions on a typical summer day. Off-highway diesel equipment comprises 25% ofthe daily NOx emissions; 7% of the

## voe emissions originate from 2-cycle engines within the non-road mobile source category. Stationary point sources comprise 2% of the 

## voe and 7 % of the NOxemissions in the Salem area on a typical summer day. This includes one proposed energy facility that has since withdrawn its permit application and will not be constructed. 

# -

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 45

### Biogenic emissions contribute 74% ofthe total 

## vae during a typical ozone season day. Biogenic emissions data was provided by Washington State University and these emissions were assumed to remain unchanged in the future, although urban development does modify the amount, location and type ofvegetation over time.

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 46

### Table14: 2002 Emission Inventory grouped by

## see codes



# - MullnomahIWashin ton/Clackamas Coun 2002 Totals MarionlPolk Coun 2002 Totals GroY Desc voe tpy VOC IbG perday 437,910**Bi~nic Emissi()~!>**  296,719 22,782,1 134,234**On~Roed'-** Gasoline V(lhic!es 53,497 21,e01J;! 131,550 Su1ece Coat:ng 21,586 8,233,3, 54,416 Open Burning: Agricultura! 8146 1S,503 5,1336 42041 Nonroad: Gasohne**2~stroke** 1,166,2 9,854 5,729.e 35,026 1.-'7?5.4 5.829 4,149.6 32,054 8,660 4,428,0, 25,1)49 5,92 1**22,~92** 3,985 17p20 666,8 3,772 9,0,35 223.0 2,409 5,308 ABe.6 1§56 M88 1,483 2,513 1,198 1,874 719 953 59.4 347 125A 774 29.3 161 94.1' 516 22.a '\21 895 490 20,2 111 672 366 Feod P'l!.paratl::lfi 106 58 646 355**!rd~i.~** Fuel COnGumplion 7.9 8 553 299 ResidetrtiAl NGlOil Consumpfior 60 86 50 CommerClalr!nstrtut.onal Fuei Ccnsumpt,on 3.7 45.4 275 25.1 '6 27 2. _ Non-Perc DryclAAning NONROAD Nonrnad' CNG AREA Residential Wood Combustion 04 0' 11**:~33** 3 29 17 AREA Prescnbad Burning 464.6 51,141.0 AREA Structure**~I;as** 155

209.3 AREA Wikff.rn:s 9.1 194,9

20, Totals Totals minus BIOGEN!C 32.247,1 439,610 142,891 ; 132,930,8 958,531 520,621 NOX 'PY Grow Dese NOX tpy NOX lbe per day 21,588.8 On-Road: Gasol ne**Var~des** 7,018.7 41,355 15,t97 7 On-Road' ::llesel Vehicles 4.257]

.**25,O~7** 7,393.6 NOnfoad, :liesel 1,959.4 21.479 3,444.7 Ope" BUffill''l9: Agriculiural 34.2 5,201 2,522.0 2,136.6 Nonroed: LOCO"f"otlve BI09!'nic EmiSSions 713.4 3,909 3,803 

# - 1,494.6 Industrial**POtl~ So~rces**  (aduals) 301,6 1,70' 1,6 1 94 Nonroad: Gasoline 4-st"Oke 211.0 1892 7952 Nom'Oad: LPG 222.5 1,302 Oper Bumlng KeSidenlial 63.0 341 241.4 'rdustrial Fuel Consumption 321 1,895.3 Resldentlal NG'Od Consu,,",pllon 220

179,9 AD Nonrcad; .qecreahoral Marine 17.6 173

Ccmmerciallinslitutional Fuel Consumption 1,0304 9728 Nonroad, eNG Commerclalr!nsti!uhona: FUG' Ccnsumpfon 24.4 1417 '52 145 Open Burnmg. Agricuttural**O~n** Burnin9: Residen1ia! Nonroad: Gasoline 2·stroke 1060 1Cl,J9 36,3 Nontoad: GaSOline 2-stroke Nont"Oad,**Airc!~** 8. Aircraft Refueling Residential Wood Combus1.on 78**2~** 336.4 70 16
Mumc,pe! (non-TY; Lerldfills 34.9 Prescribed**Bu~nlng** 215.7 Reslderrtial Wood Combusll:m 1,545.2 972 248 08 62,460,5 Wildfires Stl"UCture Fires

. Totals Totals minus BfOGENtC 38 2,0 16.383,0 106,967 103,163
Totals minus BIOGENIC COIpy co GroupDesc cotpy co 11:16 per day On-Road: Gasoline Vehiclas Nonroad: Gasoline 4-stroka 2B4,222.'1 120,950.2 On-Roed' Gasoline Vehicles Norroeci: Gasoline 4-s1roke 114,9286 21,5781 677,172 173,631 Nonroad, Recraalionel Meline 8,874.-4 Open Bumlng' Agricultural 6.223.6 140,948 9,639.3 2:';992 18,979 4,0167 1,040,6 11,390 6,341.5 1236.9 7,315 4,212.7 1,187.6 6.997 692.9 647.6 6358 Industfial Point Sourt:es (Actue!s) Nom'Oad Atn::raft 8. Akcrt'lfl**~efuelirg** 2,214,3 2,17£'-3 1,7081 713.3 4,319 Nonroad: LPG Nonroad: Aircraft & Aircraft Rafue:tng NONROAD NOl"Ifoed: CNG NONROA0 Nonroad. Locor"".olive 871_8 519.5 97.1 712 5,093 2,846 607 :)90 2742 1,502 POINT Industna! Po,nt SC:'.IICE1S (actuels) 30.0 1$8

Industrial Fuel Consumption**Kas.identll~1** NGI9;I_ConsumP.lJOn**Commerc~lf!nsti!utlon8!** Fuel Consump1ion Munu!!pal (non-TV) Landfills 2152 544.9 3932 350.1 30,B**1,~79** 660 383 358 169 AREA Industrial Fuel Consumption AREA Ros!denlia! NG/O:I Consump!lon AREA Comme'Cial,1ns!ih./ti'?.na; Fue! Cons'Jmplion AREA AREA Residential W"Jod Combustio;"i Prescribed Swning 111,0 86,1 513 21,170.5 5,476.1 114 

### •• 53

97,2474 2,4666 1.06:U

23. 548,474.2 2,941,144 AREA AREA Wild!l;es Structure Fires Totals 107-4 84_3 177,718,7 1,052,164


# -

Adopted 

### by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 47

### Table15: 2015 Emission Inventory grouped 

## by see codes



# - MultnomahlWashinaton/Clackamas County 2015 Totals Marion/Polk County 2015 Totals !IlIIIr'. GroupOeoo voetpy VOC 11>0 per day lfictor GroupOeoo VOCtpy VOC 1b6 per day**~. Bioge~~c**  Emissions**~urlace** Coating**~:~:I:;~aSOline** Vehicles AREA Misc. Non-Industrial Solvent Utilization ----,. . NONROAD Nonroad: Gasoline 4-slroke NONROAD Nonroad: Gasoline 2-stroke**-~** -**~Deg~asing ~_.**  Nonroad.**Re~r~atlona!** Marine**~~OAD ,~:~::i:~** **ci~~::~ources (actu~'s**  + pro/ecti_on) Auto G,,:Storaga & Transport**~~~;~O;~~~~;~~~I::I~~~:I ~,~onroad:** **Ai~cra~** &_ Aircraft Refueling

__ Open Buming. Residential**MUnlcl~e! ~non-TV)**  Landfills**~~~:::** Looomotive**~,Nonro;d:** CM\! Nonroad.J:.PG AREA Food Preparation**Non-~erc** Drycieening_ AREA Industrial Fuel Consumption**~esidanliat** NGlOfi Consumption**Commercierllns.tll~lonal** Fuel Consumption**~onr_oad: CN~..**  •**Resl~~,nl~al ~oo~**  CombustIOn SIr:uctura Flras Prascribed Bumlng**~Wild~res** I--

### ~::: minus BIOGENIC 24,8830 9,287.4 8,211.7 7,0260 5.429.7 3,B036 5,1018 2.6605 3,2919 890 1 4539 325 0 83.4 287.2 1579 1108 89.6 80.2 75.8 70.7 62.3 107 466 34.6 28.4 0.5 60,285 245.5 2093

2 133,246,1 BIOGENIC Biogenic Emissions AREA**Surf~ce** Coa_ting AREA Open Buming: AgricuHurel ON-ROAD On-Road: Gasoline Vehlclas

___ Misc.**Non-lndustn~1 Sol~nl**  Utilization NONROAD Nonroed. Gasoline 2-stroke NONROAD_ Nonroad: Gasoline 4·stroke**~~** __ GraphiC ,lI,!1s**~_.Degreasing** AREA A_u.to**~as:** Storege &**Tren~port** NONROAD Nonroed: Recreational Marine 437.910 151,071 61.383 52,324 42,764 37,204 28,890 28,861**2~,087** 18,304 4,685**~!616** 2,197 1,874 1,573 POINT Industrial POln! Sources (actuals + projection) I

974 607 491 440 415 351 337 62 48 337 29 NONROAD Nonroad: Diesel AREA _Open Burnlng._Residential ON-ROAD On-Road' Diasal Vehicles NONROAD Nonroad' Locomotive AREA POTWs NONROAD Nonroed: Aircraft & Alrcreft Refueling AREA Food Prepel"!'tlon NONROAD Nonroad: LPG AREA Industrial Fuel Consumption AREA Resldemlal NG/Oil Consumption**Commerclal!lnstltutio~Fuel** Consumption AREA Non·Perc Drycleanlng NONROAD Nonroad: CNG !!.esidantial Wood Combusti.9n**Pr~scribed** BU.f!1lng AREA Structure Fires AREA Wildfires

.--­

### ~~:::: minus BIOGENIC**903,531.~** __ 465,621 4,108 815 2,629 1.743 880 957 680 783 648 209 302 229 140 95 28 27 23 12 10 8

0.1 13.124

465 19 9 27,954,4 296,719 25,702 18,503 15,341 10,409 7,461 6,872 4,495 4,432 3,732 2,049 1,657 1,193 905 663 152 149 125 66 48 8

0.3

400,698 103,979

sector JGroupOeoo NOXtpy NOX lbe perday**I~r** GroupDesc I NoXtpyl NOX Ibs perday**O~-Roa~:** Gesoline yehldes Nonroed:piesel 9f!:R_o.ad

..**Dles~1** Vehlc!as.**~.** Nonroad' Commercial Manne Vessels

.Industrial Point Sources**(ecl~als** + proJeclion) Nl?nroed: Gasoline**4-sl~a ~,t\!9nroact** **Locomotl~** .f':I0nroed: AlI"craft & Aircraft Refueling**~. ~~genic**  Emissions_**~:N9nroad'** Recreational Merine**In~ustrial** Fual Consumption**~_AD** Nonroad' LPG**~~** Rasldentlel NG/OII Consumphon**~.** Commarcial/lnstitutlonal Fuel Consumption**~.** Open Burning' Agncultural Open Burning' Residential Nonroad: Gasoline 2-stroke MuniCipal (non·TV) Lendfilfs Nonroad' CNG

__ ReSidential Wood CombustIOn PreSCribed Bumlng**~.~~~::** Fires ===TotaiS Totals minus BIOGENIC 6,742.5 8,033.4 3,596.5 3,885.7 2,861.9 1,556.6 1,539.7 1,425.5

298.8 1,947.1 363.9 825 9 1,0973

106.0 1271 733 432 45.6 1,744.9

972 313 0.8 36,245.2 44,490 42,327**24!~** 21,292**16,7~** 10,248**8,~37** 7,8!,! 3,890 2,934 1,993 1,803 1,264 1,123 854 687 558 237 228**~:D ~:~:::::** **~:::,hne** Vehicles ON-ROAD On-Roed: Diesel VehIcles AREA Open Burning: .Ag,!"lcullurel BIOGENIC**~ic Emis~ions**  POINT Industrial POint Sources (,dulIl. +pm"d,onl_ NONROAD Nonroad: Locomotive NONROAD Nonroad'**Ga~line 4.str~**  AREA Open**Burnln~ldential** AREA Industrial Fuel Consumption AREA ReSidential NG/Oil Consumption NONROAD Nonroado LPG NONROAD Nonroad: Racreatlonal Manne AREA Commercl8Vlnstrtutlonal Fuel Consumption NONROAD Nonroad: Gesoline 2·slroke

. NONROAD Nonroad: CNG NONROAD Nonroad' Aircraft & Atrcraft Refueling AREA Prescribed Bummg**~._.** Residential Wood Combustion AREA Structure Frres AREA WildfIres**.~~~Totals** r---- Totals minus BIOGENIC**191,378.~~~** 187,487 2,279.B 2,222.7 1,0466 344.2

577.5 512.6**230.~** 79.3 3222 735 494 218 159.9 15.8 5.8 3.2 2157 3799

25 3.8 8,546,7 13,239 11,560 7,343 5,201 3,803 3,168 2,809 1.615 430 330 277 246 214 164 126 29 18

50,571 46,768

eotpy CO lba per day IDctor GroupDesc COtpy CO lba per day**~~~:::: ~aasso~::e** **::~:~:s** NONROAD Nonroad' Recreational Manne Nonroad: Gasoline 2-stroke NONROAD Nonroad. Diesel**~~-** -­**~OAD** Nonroad: A!fCraft & Alrcreft Refueling**Open8umm.a.:...Ag~icuHural** 'pOINT

_**In~ustnal** Poim Sources (actuals) Open Bumlna.: ReSidential**~~ROAD N~nroed:**  LPq,**~:~::: ~:e!**  Vehicles**~:~::: ~~~motlve** **~,Industnal** Fuel Consumption Resident.al NG/OII Consumption Commercial/Institutional Fual Consumption Mumclpal (non-TV) Landfills Residentlel Wood Combustion Prescribed Burning**~_** Structure FIres AREA WIldfires**~Totats** 294,269.2 127,031.9 10,983.9 14,200.1 4,1905 3,901.2 692.9 2,3641 2,151.5 1,990.2 891.2 309.3 263.0 2167 6625 495.2 394.9 382 131,7273

2,4668 1,3393

234 600,603,2 1,988,93B 554,972 107,84B 106,586 22,012 21,376 15.341 13,028 12,258**9,8~** 5,983 1.695 1.441 1.077 678 482 404 209 NONROAD Nonroad: Gasoline 4-stroke**~~** On-Road. Gasoline Vehicles AREA Open**~:** Agrlculturel NONROAD Nonroad: Gasoline 2-slroke AREA Open Bumlng' ReSidential NONROAD Nonroad: Recreational Menne NONROAD Nonroad: Diesel NONROAD Nonroad: AIrcraft & Alrcreft Refueling**~-ko ~~~:~~~.** **~~~n~~~::~e~actuaIS)** NONROAD Nonroad: LPG NONROAD Nonroad: Locomotive NONROAD Nonroad: CNG**~_** Industrial Fuel Consumption AREA Resldemial NG/OII Consumptio..!!. AREA Commerc!aL'lnslitutio_nal Fuel Consumption AREA Resldemial Wood Combustion**:~:~::~i~eusmlng** AREA Wildfires**.~~~Tot'IS** 2,864,167 c----­ 49,1B2.9 42,1849 6.2238 3,102.8 1,5580 B015 1,098.7 5860 3295 260.2 272 2 860 281 114.0 1084 57.9 28,676.7 5.4761

106.2 1074 140,341,1 343,740 165,709 140,948 24,101 9,214 7,870 5.719 3.211 1,813 1,799 1,349 471 139 117 106 59

706,364

Adopted by the EQC 02/22/07 

### 48