## Historical and Future Ozone Simulations using the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ System

in the Portland/Vancouver Area

Prepared by

Ying Xie and Brian Lamb Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Washington State University

Prepared for

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Southwest Clean Air Agency Washington State Department of Ecology

December 31, 2005

1

### Table of co ntents 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction

............................................................................................................................... ... 5 3 Ozone Modeling Study Goal and Design .................................................................................... 5 3.1 Previous Ozone Modeling Work ...........................................................................................5 3.1.1 Maintenance Plan EKMA modeling .............................................................................. 6 3.1.2 Southwest Washington Ozone Study ............................................................................. 6 3.1.3 NW Regional Technical Ce nter Dem onstration Project ................................................ 6 4 Episode Selection ......................................................................................................................... 7 5 Meteorological modeling ............................................................................................................. 9 5.1 Modeling methods .................................................................................................................9 5.2 Meteorological modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) .................................12 5.2.1 Surface Temperature .................................................................................................... 12 5.2.2 Surface winds ............................................................................................................... 16 5.2.3 Soil moisture ................................................................................................................ 19 5.2.4 PBL height and vertical profile .................................................................................... 21 5.2.5 MM5 statistical evaluation ........................................................................................... 27 5.2.6 LSM run compared with simple soil model run .......................................................... 28 5.3 Modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) ..........................................................29 5.4 Back trajectory analysis .......................................................................................................35 6 Photochemical air quality modeling .......................................................................................... 37 6.1 Modeling methods ...............................................................................................................37 6.2 CMAQ modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) .............................................39 6.2.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation ......................................................................................... 47 6.2.2 Comparisons with NOx /VOC monitoring data ............................................................ 52 6.3 CMAQ modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) .............................................58 6.3.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation ......................................................................................... 64 6.3.2 Comparisons with NOx monitoring data ..................................................................... 69 6.4 Conclusion for July 1998 and 1997 CMAQ simulation ......................................................76 7 Future episode modeling (2015) ................................................................................................ 76 7.1 Future year base case ...........................................................................................................76 7.1.1 CMAQ modeling results .............................................................................................. 76 7.1.2 VOC/NOx ratios and regional increase of ozone ........................................................ 83 7.2 What if scenario - No lowe r Colum bia River point sources ................................................86 Reference

............................................................................................................................... ....... 93 Appendix A. Emission Inventory Documentation ........................................................................ 95 Appendix B: Area Source Category Em ission Calculation Methodologies ............................... 108 Appendix C: MOBILE6.2 input files for the 1997 and 1998 episodes. ..................................... 111 Appendix D: Acronyms ............................................................................................................. 125

2

### 1 Executive Summary

In order to develop quantitative estimates of ozone levels in fu ture years, a modeling study was completed for the Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA urban region. This work was conducted as part of the State Implementation Plan developmen t for this area. Two historical episodes (July 17-21, 1997 and July 26-28, 1998) were simulated using the Mesoscale Meteorological model version 5/ Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Em issions Modeling System / Community Multi-scale Air Quality Modeling System (MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ) . These two episodes were selected for this modeling work because th e July 1998 episode had the highe st ozone levels observed in recent years for the airshed and the July 1997 ep isode had slightly different meteorological patterns compared to the 1998 cas e. In addition to the normal ozone observations, VOC/NOx monitoring data were also avai lable for the July 1997 episode for comparison to the modeled results.

As part of the base simulation for the July 1998 episode, tests were conduct ed to investigate the effects of using a more complex land-surf ace modeling option—the Noah Land Surface Model, LSM—within the MM5 meteorological model. In these tests, using th e LSM in MM5 produced a better simulation of surface temperatures a nd generally lower and more accurate planetary boundary layer (PBL) heights along the west side of the Cascades compared to using the traditional simple soil model. As a result, air quality modeling results for ozone were also improved using MM5 with the LSM option. For the CMAQ simulation, model performance statistics for most monitoring sites were within United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested 1-hr and 8-hr ozone modeling guideli nes. Time series plot s, scatter plots, and Quantile-Quantile plots also showed generally good agreement between model simulations and observations. .While model performance was accep table for both episodes, the July 1998 episode was selected as the base for evaluation of future year (2015) mana ged growth maintenance projection simulations because observed ozone concentrations were much higher in 1998. Two 2015 managed growth maintenance project ion simulations were modeled. The first simulation analyzed changes in ozone formation with the emissions inventory changes in the future. The second simulation was a modification of the first designed to examine the influence of the industrial sources located along the lowe r Columbia River on the ozone formation in the Portland/Vancouver urban area.

The future year (2015) emission inventory was de veloped using growth f actors depending on the surrogates for each source category. Federally mandated control strategies and foreseeable changes were also taken into account. Total emissions for all pollutants were projected to decrease in the 2015 emissions inventory co mpared to the 1998 emissions inventory. Furthermore, NOx emissions were projected to have a greater reduction than VOC emissions which resulted in an increase of the VOC/NOx emission ratio. For 1998, the entire Portland urban area and I-5 corridor appeared to be in the VOC-sensitive region, based upon predicted O3/NOx concentration ratios. For 2015, the VOC-s ensitive areas were much smaller, which is consistent with the increased VOC /NOx ratio. A large reduction in ozone was predicted to occur downwind of urban Portland in 2015 CMAQ simula tion results compared to the 1998 modeling results. The reduction of ozone levels within the urban core was less significant than at the downwind sites. The second projected 2015 simu lation which assumed no large industrial activity along the lower Columbia River showed reductions up to 12 ppb at the southwestern

3

### Washington observation sites when com pared to the first 2015 managed growth maintenance projection; sites in Oregon showed small or no differences associated with this simulation.

Further analysis of other potential control st rategies, based upon modi fications to the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, will be conducted by ODEQ an d SWCAA as part of the overall maintenance plan development.

4

### 2 Introduction

The current 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plans fo r the Portland/Vancouver airshed were adopted as part of the Oregon and W ashington Stat e Implementation Plans in 1997. The control measures in those plans have helped the regi on maintain the now-revoke d 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The regi on is also in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the current ozone standard.

However, due to exceedances of the 1-hour oz one standard in the recent past, the unique meteorological influences from the Columbia River Gorge, and the potential for ozone precursor transport in the region, regional air regulatory agencies propose d performance of photochemical modeling for the area as a basis for improving our understanding of the potential for ozone exceedances in the future. This report presents the results of this modeling study. The modeling system used for this work was the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ system; it was applied to a domain consisting of 4 km x 4 km horizontal grid cells covering an area that extended from north of Puget Sound to south of Salem, OR and from the Pacific coast on the west to beyond the Cascade Mountain range on the east. The modeling work involved simulation of two historical episodes, July 17-21, 1997 and July 26-28, 1998. The model results were compared to available observations, and then the 1998 episode was used as a basis for evaluation of future year (2015) managed growth projections. An important aspe ct of the modeling study was the evaluation of model sensitivity to use of different land/surface models within the MM5 meteorological model. Results from these sensitivity studies are also described in this report.

3 Ozone Modeling Study Goal and Design

The overall goal for this work was to im pr ove understanding of oz one behavior in the Portland/Vancouver airshed and to obtain model re sults to help evaluate future year conditions and the effectiveness of potential control strategies. The approach involved the following steps: 1) selection of suitable ozone episodes that repr esented worst-case or ty pical ozone conditions, 2) development of the necessary mete orological, emissions, and air qua lity observations data sets, 3) optimization of the modeling system to yield acceptable model performance for these episodes, and 4) use of the meteorological simula tion from one of these episodes as a basis for evaluation of future year conditions and control strategy effectiveness. This work was guided by the Portland/Vancouver ozone modeling technical committee consisting of representatives from Oregon Department of Environmental Qual ity (ODEQ), Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Washi ngton State University (WSU).

3.1 Previous Ozone Modeling Work There have been only limited ozone modeling effo rts for the Portland/Vancouver area. The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments classified the Portland/Vancouver airshed as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. There is no CAA re quirement for a marginal ozone nonattainment area to perform photochemical modeling or any ot her attainment demonstration. Furthermore,

5

### there h ave not been other federal requirements fo r air regulatory agencies to perform ozone air quality modeling in the Portla nd/Vancouver airshed. The only ozone modeling work that has been performed has been a result of special proj ect work or large-scale regional modeling efforts that included the Portland/Vancouve r airshed in the overall domain.

3.1.1 Maintenance Plan EKMA modeling The redesignation request/ozone maintenance plans that were submitted to the Oregon and Washington SIPs in 1996 relied on historical ozone monitoring data, future control measures, and emission inventory projections to demonstrate future attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard. The ozone modeling work for that submittal was limited to a determination of emission levels necessary to prevent future ex ceedances using the Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach (EKMA). This work utilized the Ozone Isopleth Plotting Package with Optional Mechanisms (OSIPM-4) to conduct the EKMA analysis.

3.1.2 Southwest Washington Ozone Study Following EPA’s approval of the Portland a nd Vancouver ozone SIP submittals, WSU was contracted by Ecology and SWCAA to conduct a photochemical modeling study of the area to determine the potential effects of point sources upwind of the Portland/Vancouver maintenance area on the area’s monitored ozone values. The main purpose of the study was to address the question of the impact of the emissions from the major industrial point sources in Cowlitz County, WA on ozone levels in the Portland/Vanc ouver maintenance area. This study also had an objective to help develop the regional phot ochemical modeling system. This included running the MM5 prognostic weather model and th e CALGRID/CALMET suite of models with a fine resolution grid (5 km). The study focused on an ozone episode during July 11-14, 1996. The final report for this study wa s published in January of 1999 a nd is available for review on the Ecology website.

3.1.3 NW Regional Technical Ce nter Dem onstration Project This work was the result of a multi-agency coll aborative effort to develop regional air quality modeling capabilities. The contributing agenci es for this work were EPA Region 10, Ecology, ODEQ, Idaho Department of Environmental Qual ity and Environment Canada. The main goal of this project was to establis h a virtual technical center and to demonstrate the use of the EPA CMAQ regional modeling system. The agencies contracted with WSU to run several CMAQ and CALGRID runs with varying ch emical mechanisms and MM5 grid scales. This has been the most extensive modeling exercise that has encompassed the Portland/Vancouver region to date. Several modeling runs were completed to look at oz one and visibility at a 12 km grid scale. The model runs focused on two events, July 2-14, 1996 and July 23-30, 1996. The work was conducted from early 2000 to June 2002. Furthe r details are in O’Neill and Lamb (2004); O’Neill et al. (2005); and Chen (2002).

These ozone modeling studies provid ed the basis for the design of the current modeling project. In particular, the demonstration and evaluation of CMAQ in these previous studies were very valuable for the current study. Details descri bing the episode selection and modeling methods are given in the following sections.

6

### 4 Episode Selection

The Portland/Vancouver Maintena nce Area has had relatively mild ozone seasons during the summers of 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. There were m onitored exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard in 1996 and 1998. There were also times of elevated ozon e levels during most years when the standard was not exceeded.

General EPA guidance for episode selection re commends analyzing observed meteorological patterns to determine which have caused vi olations for the area in the past. The Portland/Vancouver ozone modeling technical committee recommended modeling one scenario of each of the major meteorological s ituations that cause exceedances.

The following episodes were suggested as potential episodes to model.

 July 11-14, 1996 (Same episode used for th e NWRTC Demonstration Project and the Southwest Ozone Study, one 1-hour ozone exceedance in the Portland area)

 July 22-31, 1998 (Series of 3 exceedances in the Portland area during the 25 th 

### through the 28 th 

### )

 July 17-22, 1997 (Episode with moderate mon itored values under th e 8-hour standard at the Portland/Vancouver monitors but well monitored)

 July 22-26, 1996 (Episode with the highest ozone measurements in the area for 1996, 1997, and 1998)

 August 7-10, 1996 (Episode with Sauvie Island mon itor reaching its highest value for 1996)

The Portland/Vancouver ozone modeling technical committee considered several factors during selection of the episodes to be modeled, including:

 Ozone episodes selected for modeling shoul d be selected from the most frequent, typical, and representative patterns associated with high ozone in the region.

 Recent episodes are preferred over older epis odes because recent episodes represent the current emissions inventory, including mobile and point configurations. Recent episodes can also be more representa tive of current reduction strategies.

 Well-monitored episodes (with more meteorology, VOC, and NO x 

### data) are preferred over data poor episodes. Additio nal data allow for more thorough model evaluation and provide information necessary to understand the pr ocesses leading to high ozone.

 Ozone episodes should be selected with high monitored values to represent the meteorology that results in severe ozone. Furthermore, episodes should have high ozone in the geographical areas where high values typically occu r. Such selection will allow modeling potential control st rategies with representative ozone concentrations in the areas where the strategies must work.

 Multi-day episodes are the most efficient way to model both long range transport of ozone and the accumulation of local emissi ons that are associated with ozone.

7

###  Multi-day episodes also allow the possibility of testing m odel responsiveness. If the model can reproduce both the high and low ozone days within a period, there will be more confidence in the model and its ability to replicate and forecast events.

The Portland/Vancouver ozone modeling technical committee screened the suggested episodes based on the considerations listed above and recommended two episodes. The recommended episodes are as follows:

July 22-31, 1998 was selected to be the first episode modeled. The July 1998 episode accounted for 3 exceedances of both the 1-hour and 8-hour oz one standards at the Carus monitor in the Portland area within a short pe riod of time. There was also a near exceedance of the 1-hour standard and an exceedance of the 8-hour standa rd at the Milwaukie monitor. There were elevated temperatures over the series of days and light NW wi nds. The 1998 episode was chosen instead of the July 11-14, 1996 episode because c onsiderable analysis has already been done for the 1996 episode, and there would be more bene fit from analyzing a new episode. Table 1 shows some select data from the 1998 episode.

Table 1: Selected peak ozone concentra tions during the July 22-31, 1998 episode (ppb) Milwaukie Carus Date 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour July 26 124 100 136 117 July 27 133 86 July 28 137 98

July 17-22, 1997 was selected to be the second episode modeled. This episode did not coincide with any ozone standard exceedances; however there were moderately high ozone levels recorded at the Milwaukie monitor. This epis ode also seemed to show a slightly different meteorological pattern than the 1998 episode as indicated by moderate values at both the Vancouver and Carus sites. The modeling techni cal committee compared this episode with the July 11-14, 1996 episode and decided that it would be more beneficial to focus the efforts on an event that has not previously been analyzed with a model in this area. Another reason for the selection of this episode (as opposed to 1996) is that there ar e additional monitoring data for southwest Washington obtained during an Ecology study conduc ted in the summer of 1997, 1998, and part of 1999. In addition to the meteor ological and ozone data on the Oregon side, in both 1998 and 1997, Southwest WA had four ozone sites in the domain (Woodland, Mt. View, Castle Rock, and Hockinson), and three NO x 

### sites (Castle Rock, Mt.View and Woodland). Additionally, in 1997 HC and carbo nyl measurements were taken at Castle Rock and Mt.View and there was one additional met site at a Bonnevi lle Power Administration site. This additional monitoring in 1997 contrasts with the usual situat ion in southwest Washington where there is a lack of NO x 

### and VOC sites and only a single ozone site . Table 2 shows some select data from the 1997 episode.

8

### Table 2: Summary of the July 17- 22, 1997 episode ozone values (ppb) Mt. View (Vancouver) Milwaukie Carus Sauvie Island

Date 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour July 19 59 53 65 55 77 65 59 52 July 20 77 62 101 73 73 68 48 38

5 Meteorological modeling

5.1 Modeling methods The Mesoscale Meteorological model Version 5 ( MM5, Grell et al., 1994) was used to provide the 3-D meteorological field for air quality modeling. Three one-way nested domains with grid cell horizontal sizes of 36 km, 12 km, and 4 km were applied. The two outer domains consisted of 98x95 and 133x151 grid cells, respectively. The innermost domain consisted of 112x112 grid cells which extended from north of Puget Sound in Washington to south of Salem, OR and from the Pacific coast on the west to beyond the Cascade Mountain range on the east. This domain was larger than the immediate area of Portland/Vancouver and was selected to minimize the influence of boundary conditions. Vertically, 38 sigma layers were specified. The 12 km and 4 km MM5 domains are shown in Figure 1.

To obtain meteorological fields that produced acceptable resu lts with CMAQ in terms of ozone performance, several MM5 runs with different physics configurations were conducted as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. MM5 configuration used for different model runs

Runs 5-layer soil model_1 5-layer soil mode_2 LSM_1 LSM_2

Label "_o" "base_sen" "s en_ini_LSM" "sen_ini_LSM_ns"

Initialization NCEP GDAS ETA212 ETA212 ETA212

Radiation Cloud-radiation CCM2 Radiat ion Cloud-radiation Cloud-radiation

Moisture Simple ice Reisner 2 Simple ice Simple ice
Surface scheme 5-layer soil model 5-layer soil model Noah LSM Noah LSM
Cumulus scheme KF Cumulus KF Cumulus KF Cumulus KF Cumulus

PBL scheme MRF MRF MRF MRF

Analysis nudging of T sfc and winds within boundary layer Not turned on Not turned on Not turned on Turned on



### As described later, the “LSM_1” run produced the best overall re sults for air qua lity modeling. In this report, this run is eval uated and compared with the origin al run (“5-layer soil model_1”). The original 5-layer soil model run was initializ ed using NCEP Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS) analysis archived on a 2.5x2.5 degree lat/long grid at every 12 hours. All other runs were initialized using NCEP Eta model analysis archived on a 40 km grid at every 3hrs. Analysis nudging was applied in the coarse domains (36 km, 12 km) and observational nudging was applied in the inner 4k m domain. For analysis nudgi ng, 3D nudging was employed for

9

### winds, tem perature, and moisture above the PBL. Surface nudging was applied for winds and moisture, but not temperature. In some sensitivity runs, boundary layer 3D nudging was turned on for winds and surface nudging was also turned on for temperature. See Table 3 for configuration details. Wind speed and directi on observations from about 20 surface stations were used for observational nudging of the winds in the inner 4 km domain. A map of these stations is shown in Figure 2. Data from four surface stations (Ecology sites as shown in Figure 2) were withheld from the nudging analysis so that an independent evaluation could be conducted at these sites. For a ll runs, land use data were derive d from 1 km USGS global terrain and land use database.

The MM5 physics options used in the LSM run included use of the Kain-Fritsch cumulus parameterization scheme (Kain and Fritsch, 1993), the MRF PBL scheme (Hong and Pan, 1996), simple ice moisture, cloud-radiation, and No ah Land Surface Model (Chen and Dudhia, 2001). In some sensitivity runs, CCM2 radiation, Reisner2 moisture, and the 5-layer soil model were employed as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that the current conf iguration used in the University of Washington MM5 forecast system matches the configuration of the soil model run with the CCM2 radiation and Reisner2 moisture treatment.

10

### Figure 1. 12 and 4 km MM5 domain (D03 and D04)

Figure2. Surface stations used in MM5 obser vational nudg ing. The stations within the box outlined in blue were used in nudging (expect for four ecology sites which were withheld). The sites within the inner box outlined in gr een were used in model evaluation.

11

### It has been s hown that soil moisture has a significant impact on PBL parameters such as surface temperature and PBL height (Zhang and Anthes , 1982). These processes as well as cloud coverage, profiles of humidity, temperature a nd wind are all related to surface wetness and vegetation cover (Xiu and Pleim, 2001). In the traditional MM5 approach (5-layer soil model), soil moisture is set to constant seasonal valu es depending on land use type. Therefore, the effects of precipitation and evapor ation are not treated explicitly. In contrast, the Noah LSM has four soil layers with the th ickness of 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0 m. It employs one canopy layer and prognostically solves for soil moisture and temperatur es in each soil layer. As a result, the LSM has the ability to account for tem poral and spatial changes in soil moisture due to precipitation and evapo-transpiration effects.

5.2 Meteorological modelin g results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) 5.2.1 Surface Temperature Surface temperature contours from the simple soil- 1 and LSM-1 runs are shown in Figure 3a and 3b at 17 PDT on July 28, 1998. For western Washington and Oregon, the LSM run predicted cooler surface temperatures than the simple soil model, with only a small area around Portland above 35  C. In the simple soil model, the warm areas were much more extensive around the Puget Sound area and from Portland to Salem. In eastern Washington, th e temperature patterns were opposite, where LSM-1 simulated warmer conditions than the simple soil model.

Predicted surface temperature and cloud coverage we re compared with observations as shown in Figure 4a-c. It appears that on the high ozone days (July 26 to July 28), the daily maximum temperatures predicted by both the LSM-1 and simp le soil-1 models were fairly close to the observations at Portland and Salem. On the low ozone days (July 23 to July 25), LSM-1 showed better agreement with the observations which might be related to improved simulation of clouds on these days. However, in the northwestern part of the domain, such as at Castle Rock(Figure 4c), diurnal variations of surface temperature in LSM-1 were too small compared to the daily variations in the observations. Si milar patterns could also be f ound at some southwest sites such as UAO and HIO (not shown). A s catter plot (Figure 5) showed that both model runs tended to overestimate low temperatures and underestim ate high temperatures. However, LSM-1 had slightly better agreement with the observat ions especially for the peak temperatures.

12

### Figure 2a. Figure 3a. Surface temperature pattern from simple soil model run for 17:00 PDT on July 28,

1998.

Figure 3b.. Surface temperature pattern from LSM model run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 1998.

13PDX

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

7/22/98 0:00 7/23/98 0:00 7/24/98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00 7/31/98 0:00temperature (C)/cloud cover (oktas)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5cloud fraction

PDX temp_obs PDX cloud_cover PDX temp_o_1.5 PDX temp_1.5_r_sen_ini_LSM PDX cfrac_r_sen_ini_LSM PDX cfrac_o 

### Figure 4a. S urface temperature and cloud cover tim e series predicted by LSM and simple soil model compared with observations at Portland.

SLE

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

7/22/98 0:00 7/23/98 0:00 7/24/ 98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/ 27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00 7/31/98 0:00temperature (C)/cloud cover (oktas)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10cloud fraction

SLE temp_obs SLE cloud_cover SLE temp_o_1.5 SLE temp_1.5_r_sen_ini_LSM SLE cfrac_r_sen_ini_LSM SLE cfrac_o 

### Figure 4b. S urface temperature and cloud cover tim e series predicted by LSM and simple soil model compared with observations at Salem.

14

### Figure 4c. S urface temperature and cloud cover tim e series predicted by LSM and simple soil model compared with observ ations at Castle Rock. Castlerock

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

7/22/98 0:00 7/23/98 0:00 7/24/98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00 7/31/98 0:00temperature (C)/cloud cover (oktas)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5cloud fraction

Castlrck temp_obs Castlrck temp_o_1.5 Castlrck temp_1.5_r_sen_ini_LSM Castlrck cloud_cover Castlrck cfrac_o Castlrck cfrac_r_sen_ini_LSM

y = 0.8242x + 5.6587
R 2 = 0.7636

y = 0.7917x + 7.5913
R 2 = 0.7583

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 obs (degree C)pre (degree C) temp1.5_old temp1.5_sen_ini_LSM
1:1 Linear (temp1.5_sen_ini_LSM) Linear (temp1.5_old)



### Figure 5. Scatter plo t of predic ted surface temperature (LSM and simple soil) and observations

from all available surface stations

15

### 5.2.2 Surface winds Surface wind patterns are shown in Figure 6a, and 6b for 17 PDT on July 28. The LSM-1 run predicted northerly winds along the I-5 corridor in western Washington, which veered to northwesterly and moved through the Portland area. As the flow went further south, there was some apparent convergence with the strong southw esterly onshore flow along the Oregon coast. In contrast, the winds from the simple soil m odel run showed very consistent northwesterly winds along the I-5 corridor. The onshore winds along the Oregon coast flowed northwesterly instead of southwesterly as in the LSM-1 run. Similar southwesterly onshore flows were also seen in other runs initialized using the Eta an alysis, so this might be more related to the difference in initialization than in the surface scheme.

The MM5 first layer (38 m) winds were extrapolated to 10 m us ing the neutral logarithmic wind speed profile and compared with 10 m surface station observations as shown in Figure 7. Predicted wind speed and directi on showed reasonable agreement with the observations. Both runs tended to underestimate the daytime surface wi nds (Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c). This problem is well known for the MRF PBL scheme (Liu et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2004.) and was related either to the underestimation of downwar d momentum flux or to the overe stimation of friction velocity according to these researchers.

Figure 6a. Surface wind pattern from simple soil model run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 1998.

16

### Figure 6b. Surface wind pattern from LS M run for 17:00 PDT on July 28, 1998.

PDX

0 90 180 270 360

7/22/98 0:00 7/23/98 0:00 7/24/98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00 7/31/98 0:00Wd (degree)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0Ws (m/s)

PDX wd_obs PDX Wd_o PDX Wd_r_sen_ini_LSM PDX ws_obs PDX Ws_o PDX Ws_r_sen_ini_LSM 

### Figure 7a. S urface wind speed and wind direction tim e series predicted by LSM and simple soil model compared with observations at Portland

17

### Figure 7b. S urface wind speed and wind direction tim e series predicted by LSM and simple soil model compared with observations at Salem. SLE

-90

0 90 180 270 360

7/23/98 0:00 7/24/98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00Wd (degree)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0Ws (m/s)

SLE wd_obs SLE Wd_o SLE Wd_r_sen_ini_LSM SLE ws_obs SLE Ws_o SLE Ws_r_sen_ini_LSM

Castlerock

-90

0 90 180 270 360

7/23/98 0:00 7/24/98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00Wd (degree)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0Ws (m/s)

Castlrck wd_obs Castlrck Wd_o Castlrck Wd_r_sen_ini_LSM Castlrck ws_obs Castlrck Ws_o Castlrck Ws_r_sen_ini_LSM



### Figure 7c. S urface wind speed and wind direction tim e series predicted by LSM and simple soil model compared with observ ations at Castle Rock.

18

### 19 5.2.3 Soil moisture In the simple soil model, soil moisture has consta nt seasonal values (summer or winter) defined as a function of land use type. Consequently, in summer most areas on the west side of the domain had volumetric soil moisture values of 0.3, except for urban areas where the soil moisture equaled 0.1. On the east side of the Ca scades, most areas were much drier with soil moisture of 0.1 except for the irrigated land (shown in Figure 8) where soil moistures were equal to 0.5.

In the LSM-1 run, soil moisture was initialized using analysis fields from the Eta model and solved prognostically. Figure 8 shows the pred icted values from LSM-1 at 17 PDT on July 27. Soil moisture for each layer (0.1, 0.3, 0.6, and 1 m) is shown. It appears that soil was driest at the surface layer, and had more wate r in the deeper layers. On the west side of the Cascades, soil moisture varied from 0.25 at the surface to 0.3 in the deeper layers. The difference was more substantial on the east side of the Cascades wher e the water content varied from about 0.1 in the first layer to about 0.3 at 1 m deep. Some wet ar eas in the shallow soil layer are obvious in the lower right corner of the domain; these were the re sult of convective rain storms simulated in this

run.
Modeled soil moisture was also compared with the observations at the Wind River Canopy Crane research site located north of Stevens on, WA approximately 30 km from the Columbia River. As described on the research site web page (http://cdiac.ornl .gov/ftp/ameriflux/data/ussites/preliminary-data/Wind-Ri ver/1998/WRCCRF _met_meta_data.html), the observed values were measured at 30 cm using Campbell Scientific CS-615 probes. The station is located in an old growth forest canopy where soil moistu re can be highly heterogeneous (personal communication, Timothy Link). However, the LSM-1 captured the drying trend in the observations fairly well (Figure 9). Note that this is consistent w ith the fact that there was little rainfall during the episode for most of the dom ain, and therefore, soil moisture was mainly controlled by evapotranspiration.

### Figure 8. Volum etric soil moisture defined in the simple soil model and values calculated in the LSM for different layers.

Simple soil

L SM – layer 1 (0.1 m)

LSM – layer 2 (0.3 m) LSM – layer3 (0.6 m)

LSM – layer4 (1 m)

20Wind River

0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

7/19/98 0:00 7/23/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/31/98 0:00

DateVolumetic soil moisture layer4 layer3 layer2 layer1
obs



### Figure 9. Predicted and observed soil m o isture at Wind River Crane site.

5.2.4 PBL height and vertical profile PBL heights on the three peak ozone days are plotted in Figure 10 for the time when daily peak values were reached. The LSM-1 run generally predicted lower PBL heights along the west side of the Cascades, especially in western Washingto n. For this part of the domain, the peak PBL heights from the LSM-1 run were around 800 to 1000 m. In contrast, the simple soil-1 run predicted average peak heights around 1200 m in this area for all three days. Different patterns showed up for the east side of the Cascades where the LSM-1 generally predicted higher PBL heights, except for the very low heights in the lo wer right corner of the domain associated with areas of convective rainfall.

Mixing heights estimated from upper air soundings at Salem, OR were compared to simulations from two models as shown in Figure 11. The LSM-1 run predicted lower PBL heights on July 24, 25 and 27 than the simple soil-1 run. On Ju ly 26 and 28, the pattern was opposite. Compared to observed values (only available on July 26 to 28), both models tended to overestimate mixing heights by 200 to 300 m on these peak ozone days.

21

### Figure 10. P redicted PBL heights by LSM and simple soil model for July 1998 episode

22PBL height -salem

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

7/23/98 17:00 7/24/98 17:00 7/25/98 17:00 7/26/98 17:00 7/27/98 17:00 7/28/98 17:00 7/29/98 17:00height (m)

SLE pbl_o SLE pbl_r_sen_ini_LSM obs



### Figure 11. P BL predicted by simple soil and LSM compared with observed values for July 1998 episode.

Vertical profiles of temperature, wind speed, an d wind direction were also compared with the upper air soundings at Salem at 17PDT on July 25 and July 26 as shown in Figure 12. The LSM-1 run captured the vertical temperature prof ile fairly well on July 25, whereas the simple soil-1 run appeared to overestimate the temperat ure and predicted a deeper mixed layer than the soundings. On July 26, both models matched the temperature profile well up to 700 m but predicted a deeper mixed layer than the observations. For wind speed, the LSM-1 run underestimated wind speeds up to 600 m and the simple soil-1 run showed some overestimation up to 1500 m on July 25. On July 26, both models underestimated wind speed. For wind direction, both models had very good performa nce on July 25. On July 26, the LSM-1 run showed better agreement with the ob servations below the boundary layer.

23

### Figure 12. Observed and predicted vertical pr ofiles of temperature, wind speed and wind direction from the simple soil-1 and LSM-1 runs. (“old_run” refe rs to the simple soil-1 run, and “rerun” refers to the LSM-1 run)

Salem July 25, 1998 17:00 PDT

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 10 20 30 40 Temp (degree C)Height (m) obs

rerun old_run

Salem July 25, 1998 17:00 PDT

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Ws (m/s)Height (m) obs

rerun old_run



### 24Salem July 26, 1998 17:00 PDT

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 10 20 30 40 Temp (degree C)Height (m) obs

rerun old_run Salem July 25, 1998 17:00 PDT

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 90 180 270 360 Wd (degree)Height (m) obs

rerun old_run



### 25Salem July 26, 1998 17:00 PDT

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 5 10 15
Ws (m/s)Height (m) obs

rerun old_run

Salem July 26, 1998 17:00 PDT

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 90 180 270 360 Wd (degree)Height (m) obs

rerun old_run



### 26

### 5.2.5 MM5 statistical evaluation The meteorological simulations were also evaluated using the mean bias and mean error for wind speed, direction, and temperature (Table 4). Four Ecology network sites (Castle Rock, Woodland, BPA, and Mt.Zion) were selected as independent sites and withheld from observational nudging for surface winds. The mean bi as of temperature from the LSM-1 run was 1.4  C, about 1  C smaller than the bias from the simple soil-1 run. The mean error of temperature was also smaller in the LSM-1 run compared to the simple soil-1 run (2.9  C versus 3.2  C). The mean bias and mean error of wind speed and wind direction from the LSM-1 run (ME = 1.5 m/s for WS; ME = 50  for WD) were both larger than t hose from the simple soil-1 run (ME = 1.2 m/s for WS; ME = 40  for WD). This could be related to the underestimation of daytime surface winds and resulting error in the wind direction. Th e statistics for wind direction and wind speed were calculated separately for stations used for obser vational nudging and those withheld from observational nudging; these results show that model performance was similar for these two groups of stations. This might due to the relative low density of the surface stations available for observational nudging in the region. Nevertheless, for the simple soil-1 run, the results for obs nudging stations had slightly smaller error (38  ) in wind direction compared with the results for withheld stations (47  ).

Table 4. MM5 performance statistics for July 1998 episode

1998 Run T_bias T_error Wd_bias Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error

 C  C   m/s m/s
TDO LSM-1 0.75 2.83 6.5 45.4 -0.90 1.57 simple_soil_1 2.28 3.05 -1.5 28.9 -0.50 1.19
Castle Rock LSM-1 1.33 2.88 -2.3 58.3 0.63 1.56 simple_soil_1 2.85 3.37 -12.1 63.1 1.01 1.27
KLS LSM-1 1.26 2.89 -9.1 34.3 0.07 1.32 simple_soil_1 2.85 3.22 -9.4 25.4 0.37 1.16
Woodland LSM-1 1.89 3.20 -8.5 20.2 -1.60 1.88 simple_soil_1 2.49 3.23 -0.2 15.6 -1.00 1.46
BPA LSM-1 2.08 3.10 -9.2 42.8 0.62 1.48 simple_soil_1 2.95 3.39 -3.3 36.8 1.02 1.29
VUO LSM-1 1.64 2.86 2.1 52.9 -0.36 1.28 simple_soil_1 2.50 2.96 3.4 46.9 0.10 1.00
PDX LSM-1 0.83 2.63 -3.6 46.8 -0.55 1.63 simple_soil_1 1.92 2.64 5.7 36.0 -0.46 1.25
Mt. Zion LSM-1 0.97 2.62 6.8 67.7 -0.36 1.18 simple_soil_1 2.45 3.16 10.7 74.0 0.13 0.97
HIO LSM-1 1.57 3.25 -18.9 52.3 -0.87 1.40 simple_soil_1 2.97 3.58 -26.6 39.0 -0.76 1.01
TTD LSM-1 1.46 2.71 7.3 75.1 -0.74 1.36 simple_soil_1 2.98 3.27 25.1 54.6 -0.56 1.15
UAO LSM-1 1.27 2.66 0.8 58.9 -0.44 1.62 simple_soil_1 2.85 3.22 -7.8 36.9 -0.23 1.09



### 27

### Table 4. Cont.

SLE LSM-1 1.65 2.88 1.7 47.6 0.04 1.77 simple_soil_1 3.00 3.37 5.4 35.2 0.24 1.15

average Run T_bias T_error Wd_bi as Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error

 C  C   m/s m/s
all stations LSM-1 1.39 2.88 -2.19 50.18 -0.37 1.50 simple_soil_1 2.68 3.21 -0.90 41.03 -0.05 1.17

Withheld stations LSM-1 1.57 2.95 -3.31 47.23 -0.18 1.53 simple_soil_1 2.68 3.29 -1.23 47.37 0.29 1.25

Nudged stations LSM-1 1.31 2.84 -1.63 51.66 -0.47 1.49 simple_soil_1 2.67 3.16 -0.73 37.86 -0.23 1.13



### 5.2.6 LSM run compared with simple soil model run The differences from LSM-1 and simple _soil_1 runs are summarized below:

1) LSM showed better simulation of surface temperatures. 2) LSM predicted generally lower PBL heights along the west si de of the Cascades on the peak ozone days. 3) LSM was able to predict temporally and spatia lly varied soil moisture field in response to precipitation and evapo-transpiration. 4) The performance for winds were slightly degraded in the LSM run compared to the simple soil model run due to well know n problem of the MRF PBL scheme. 5) Ozone simulation was also improved with MM5 including the Noah LSM as shown in the CMAQ modeling section.

Therefore, LSM-1 run was selected for th e MM5 simulation due its overall improved meteorological simulation and better ozone predictions.

28

### 5.3 Modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode) Surface temperature contours from MM5/MCIP are shown in Figure 13. Compared to the July 1998 episode in which extensive high temperatures existed, the surface temperatures in 1997 episode were considerably lower and in the range of 12-35  C. There was generally good agreement between the predicted and observed surface temperatures and cloud coverage at Portland and Salem as shown in Figure 15a and b. At the KLS site (Figure 15c) located along the I-5 corridor in southwestern Washington, the LSM-1 run under-estimated daytime temperatures on most days. Neve rtheless, there was a fairly large over-estimation of the daytime temperatures on July 20. The model also misse d the overcast condition in that morning, which might explain the overestimate of temperature as well as ozone (shown in the ozone modeling section) around the area. Overall, however, th e LSM-1 performance appears to be better for the 1997 episode compared to 1998, especially for nighttime temperatures.

The surface wind patterns in the afternoon of July 20 are shown in Figure 14. There were consistent northwesterly/westerly flows across western Washington and Oregon. Some convergence close to Milwaukie was apparent between the northwesterly and southwesterly winds in the simulation, which mi ght contribute to the high ozone levels there. Surface time series of wind speed and wind direction are s hown in Figure 16a-c. The LSM-1 run performed relatively well for wind direction. Similar to th e 1998 episode, underestimation of daytime wind speeds were also the case for 1997.

Modeled PBL heights were compared with obser vations at Salem as s hown in Figure 17. On three of the four days when data were avai lable (July 15, 17, and 22), the LSM-1 run predicted PBL heights were very close to the observ ations. On July 21, the PBL heights were overestimated by about 200 m.

The LSM-1 performance statistics for the July 19 97 episode are summarized in Table 5. Similar to the 1998 case, Ecology meteorol ogical sites (Castle Rock, BPA, and Mt. Zion) were withheld from observational nudging of surface winds. Compar ed with the withheld stations, the stations used for observational nudging had a smaller mean error in wind direction (37  versus 49  ), but slightly larger mean bias and error in wind sp eed. Overall, the sta tistics for the 1997 episode were better than for 1998, with smaller mean error in temperature (2.1  C versus 2.9  C) and wind direction (40  versus 50  ). It is also worth noting that in 1997 there was a negative temperature bias and positive temperature bias in 1998; this wh ich might be due to the better simulations of nighttime temperature in the 1997 episode.

29

### Figure 13. Surface temperature pattern from MM5 for 17:00 PDT on July 20, 1997.

Figure 14. Surface wind pattern from MM5 for 17:00 PDT on July 20, 1997.

30PDX

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

7/15/97 0:00 7/16/97 0:00 7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PST)Temperature (C)/Cloud cover (oktas)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2. 5Cloud fraction 3 3. 5 4 4.5 5

PDX temp_obs PDX cloud_cover



### 31 Figure 15a. Surface temperature and cloud cover tim e series predicted by LSM compared with observations at Portland.

Figure 15b. Surface temperature and cloud cover time series predicted by LSM compared with observations at Salem. PDX temp1.5 PDX cfrac

SLE

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

7/15/97 0:00 7/16/97 0:00 7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PST)Temperature (C)/Cloud cover (oktas)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2. 5Cloud fraction 3 3. 5 4 4.5 5

SLE temp_obs SLE cloud_cover SLE temp1.5 SLE cfracKLS

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

7/15/97 0:00 7/16/97 0:00 7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PST)Temperature (C)/Cloud cover (oktas)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2. 5Cloud fraction 3 3. 5 4 4.5 5

KLS temp_obs KLS cloud_cover



### Figure15c. S urface temperature and cloud cover tim e series predicted by LSM compared with observations at KLS.

Figure 16a. Surface wind speed and wind direction time series predicted by LSM compared with observations at Portland. KLS temp1.5 KLS cfrac

PDX

0 90 180 270 360

7/15/97 0:00 7/16/97 0:00 7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Wd (degree)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00Ws (m/s)

PDX wd_obs PDX Wd PDX ws_obs PDX Ws



### 32

### Figure 16b. Surface wind speed and wind direction tim e series predicted by LSM compared with observations at Salem. SLE

0 90 180 270 360

7/15/97 0:00 7/16/97 0:00 7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Wd (degree)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00Ws (m/s)

SLE wd_obs SLE Wd SLE ws_obs SLE Ws

KLS

0 90 180 270 360

7/15/97 0:00 7/16/97 0:00 7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Wd (degree)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00Ws (m/s)

KLS wd_obs KLS Wd KLS ws_obs KLS Ws 

### Figure 16c. Surface wind speed and wind direction tim e series predicted by LSM compared with observations at KLS.

33PBL height - Salem

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

7/14/97 17:00 7/15/97 17:00 7/16/97 17:00 7/17/97 17:00 7/18/97 17:00 7/19/97 17:00 7/20/97 17:00 7/21/97 17:00 7/22/97 17:00 7/23/97 17 :00 Date (PDT)Height (m) SLE_pbl_obs SLE pbl



### Figure 17. P BL predicted by LSM compared with observed values for July 1997 episode.

Table 5. MM5/MCIP performance st atistics for July 1997 episode

1997 Run T_bias T_error Wd_bias Wd_error Ws_bias Ws_error

 C  C   m/s m/s
TDO LSM-1 -0.63 1.74 -9.1 36.1 -1.37 1.74
Castle Rock LSM-1 -0.16 1.93 2.4 54.4 0.15 1.25
KLS LSM-1 -1.02 1.82 -20.6 36.4 -0.37 1.42

BPA LSM-1 0.32 2.04 -3.3 29.7 0.36 1.35

PDX LSM-1 -1.49 2.14 -4.7 29.8 -1.26 1.71
Mt. Zion LSM-1 N/A N/A -2.5 63.1 -0.11 1.24

DLS LSM-1 -3.50 3.67 -1.7 35.2 -0.99 2.16
HIO LSM-1 -1.42 1.96 -22.4 32.2 -0.29 1.50

TTD LSM-1 -1.44 2.33 29.1 41.3 -0.93 1.48
UAO LSM-1 -0.39 1.56 -1.4 42.3 -0.82 1.51
SLE LSM-1 -0.32 1.74 6.3 44.7 -0.87 1.66

average Run T_bias T_error W d_bias Wd_error Ws _bias Ws_error

 C  C   m/s m/s

all stations LSM-1 -1.01 2.09 -2.54 40.49 -0.59 1.55
withheld stations LSM-1 0.08 1.98 -1.15 49.09 0.13 1.28 nudged stations LSM-1 -1.28 2.12 -3.06 37.26 -0.86 1.65



### 34

### 5.4 Back trajectory analysis An analysis of back trajectories for the Po rtland urban area was conduc ted by Ecology using the MM5 wind fields (Bowman, person al communication) and the Vis5D software package. This analysis was done at an early stage of the modeli ng work, and therefore, the simple soil-1 runs were used for both episodes. On each day from July 26 to 29 in 1998 and July 18 to 21 in 1997, two 12-hr back trajectories starting 13 PDT and 17 PDT were produced for each monitoring site. The trajectories terminated at 150 meters above the surface to avoid being kept in the surface layer. The length of time a parcel spends al ong the path was accumulated if the parcel was within 500 meters of the surface. This height was selected to accommodate seasonal and diurnal variations in the mixed layer.

Two summary plots with all available back tr ajectories for 1998 and 1997 are shown in Figure 18a and b. The plots show that for both years th e air parcels spent a relatively long time in the immediate area due to the low wind speeds that existed. In 1998, most back trajectories originated from the north and northwest with a few exceptions coming from the southwest. It appeared that there was no direct impact from the Puget Sound area in that year. Compared to 1998, winds in 1997 were more varied. In additio n to trajectories from northwest/north and southwest, there were also trajectories that originated from the north east in the Puget Sound region.

18a. Summary plots of back trajec tories during July 26 to 29, 1998.

35

### 18b. Summary plots of back trajec tories during July 18 to 21, 1997.

36

### 6 Photochemical air quality modeling

6.1 Modeling methods EPA Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Qu ality (CMAQ) Modeling System (Byun and Ching, 1999) version 4.3 was used for photochemi cal air quality modeling. Based on state-ofscience techniques, CMAQ is a multi-scale, multi- pollutant air quality model that simulates the transportation, transformation, and depositi on of atmospheric pollutants including as photochemical precursors and oxidants, particulate ma tter, and airborne toxics. It incorporates the output fields from the MM5/MCIP meteorologi cal simulations and em issions derived from the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System (SMOKE) (http://cf.unc.edu/cep/em pd/products/smoke/index.cfm), and then simulates the chemical transport using the CMAQ Chemi cal Transport Model (CCTM).

Initial and boundary conditions were primar ily derived from GEOS-CHEM global model simulations (personal communi cation, Rob Elleman). However, vertical ozone IC/BC concentrations were derived from a combinati on of data sources. For the western boundary, ozone levels were based on Trinidad Head ozone sondes data collected du ring July 98 (personal communication, Dan Jaffe). For the other th ree sides (north, east, and south), ozone concentrations were derived from ICTC gl obal model simulations (personal communication, Youhua Tang). The concentrations of each mo del species were height dependent. The concentrations in the first model layer are s hown in Table 6. The CMAQ modeling domain is slightly smaller than the MM5 i nnermost domain with 99x99 horizonta l grid cells at 4 km x 4 km spacing and with 22 layers in th e vertical. The SAPRC99 phot ochemical mechanism including aqueous chemistry but no aerosol dynamics was employed. The aer osol module was not employed because of the lack of emission inve ntory data for key aerosol precursors. The chemical speciation of the emission invent ory was performed by SMOKE according to the SAPRC99 mechanism. The Modifi ed Euler Backward Interactive (MEBI) solver was used to solve the chemical kinetic equations. The first tw o days of each episode were run twice as model spinup to minimize the effect s of initial conditions.

37

### Table 6. Initial and boundary condi tions for CMAQ run (first layer) Species Description East North South West (ppbV) (ppbV) (ppbV) (ppbV)
HCHO Formaldehyde 1.98E+00 9.21E-01 1.11E+00 2.01E-01

ALD Acetaldehyde and higher aldehydes 1.39E+00 5.03E-01 7.80E-01 3.30E-02
OP1 Methyl hydrogen peroxide 6. 03E-01 5.45E-01 7.43E-01 8.22E-01
KET Ketones 7.51E+00 4. 52E+00 4.69E+00 1.92E+00
ONIT Organic nitrate 2.69E-0 2 1.96E-02 1.23E-02 2.07E-03
ETH Ethane 1.46E+00 1.25E +00 1.27E+00 1.03E+00

HC3 Alkanes w/ 2.7x10-13 > kOH < 3.4x10-12 3.35E-01 2.10E-01 2.06E-01 6.26E-02

HC5 Alkanes w/ 3.4x10-12 > kOH < 6.8x10-12 2.70E+00 2. 70E+00 2.70E+00 1.39E+00

HC8 Alkanes w/ kOH > 6.8x10-12 5.00E-01 5.00E -01 5.00E-01 1.29E-01
OL2 Ethene 5.00E-01 5.00E -01 5.00E-01 1.50E-01
OLT Terminal olefins 2.00E-0 1 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 8.71E-02
OLI Internal olefins 4.00E-0 1 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 4.30E-02

TOL Toluene and less reactive aromatics 4.00E-01 4.00E -01 4.00E-01 2.14E-01

XYL Xylene and more reactive aromatics 5.00E-01 5.00E-01 5.00E-01 3.70E-01

PAN Peroxyacetyl nitrate and higher PANs 1.55E-01 1.20E-01 5.89E-02 3.24E-03
ISO Isoprene 4.00E+00 1. 46E+00 3.08E+00 2.06E-02
MACR Methacrolein 3.30E-01 1.23E-01 2.12E-01 1.03E-03
MVK Methyl Vinyl Ketone 3.82E -01 1.61E-01 2.31E-01 1.38E-03

MPAN PAN analogue formed from Methacrolein 5.83E-0 2 3.71E-02 2.67E-02 2.67E-04
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 5.67E-0 1 5.09E-01 1.90E-01 1.17E-02
NO Nitric oxide 8.69E-02 5.92E-02 2.29E-02 1.17E-03
O3 Ozone 4.00E+01 4.00E +01 4.00E+01 2.34E+01
HNO3 Nitric acid 8.30E-01 3.38E-01 3.42E-01 1.37E-02
HNO4 Peroxynitric acid 1.86E -03 1.91E-03 5.50E-04 5.01E-05
NO3 Nitrogen trioxide 1.00E-0 1 1.00E-01 1.00E-01 1.00E-01
H2O2 Hydrogen peroxide 2.35E+ 00 1.26E+00 1.55E+00 9.37E-01

CO Carbon monoxide 1.45E+02 1.21E+02 1.17E+02 8.64E+01
N2O5 Nitrogen pentoxide 1.47E -03 1.82E-03 1.87E-04 2.28E-05
SO2 Sulfur dioxide 5.00E-0 2 5.00E-02 5.00E-02 3.00E-02
SULF Sulfuric acid 3.00E-0 1 3.00E-01 3.00E-01 2.99E-01



### 38

### 6.2 CMAQ modeling results and evaluation (July 1998 episode) The local ozone monitoring sites are shown in Figure 19. Simulated surface ozone contours from the LSM-1 run for July 28 are shown in Figure 20 at hour 6, 10, 14, and 18 PDT. At 6 PDT, nitric oxide (NO) titrati on effects were obvious within the urban core and along the I-5 corridor with ozone concentrations below 20 ppb. At 10 PDT, ozone increases were evident south of Seattle with values above 60 ppb. However, there was no evident ozone production downwind of Portland at that hour. At 14 PD T, ozone values above 100 ppb were simulated immediately north and south of the Portland urban core. Maximu m ozone concentrations were simulated at 18 PDT, with the maximum pred icted ozone concentra tion reaching 149 ppb south of Portland.

Figure 19. Ozone monitoring site map for Southwest Washington and Oregon.

39

### Figure 20. S imulated surface ozone contour on July 28, 1998 at 6, 10, 14, and 18 PDT.

40

### 41

### Observed an d simulated 1-hr surface ozone conc entration time series are shown in Figure 21. Note that the first two days (J uly 24 and 25) were used as model spinup, so the results are not included in the statistical eval uation. All monitoring sites except Hockinson and Wishram are located along the I-5 corridor. Extending fr om North to South, Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island are rural sites situated north of Portland; Mt View and Milwaukie are two suburban sites, close to Vancouver and slightly southeast of downtown Portland respectively; Carus, another rural site, is located about 30 mile s south of Portland at th e foot of the mountains; and Turner, the most southern s ite within the domain, is close to Salem, OR. Hockinson and Wishram are the two sites that are further away from I-5 and influenced heavily by complex terrain close to the west slope of the Cascade Mountains and along the east edge of the Columbia River Gorge, respectively.

At Castle Rock, Woodland, Sauvie Island, a nd Mt View, the maximum observed ozone concentrations were close to 100 ppb during July 26 to 28. Nighttime ozone titration was obvious at Sauvie Island and Mt View with concentra tions decreasing to near zero. At these four sites, the model simulated the ozone peaks reas onably well, although sometimes the duration of elevated ozone in the simulations wa s longer than in the observations.

At Milwaukie, observation data were missing on July 27 and part of July 26 and 28. The available data show an exceedance of the 1-hr standard on July 26 with maximum value of 124 ppb. (NAAQS 1-hr ozone = 120 ppb, 8-hr ozone = 80 ppb). The LSM-1 run underestimated the peak ozone on July 26 and slightly overestimated it on July 28. At Carus, a series of three exceedances of the 1-hr and 8-hr ozone standards occurred on July 26 through 28, with 1-hr peak values of 136, 133, and 137 ppb, respectively. Nighttime ozone at Carus remained about 20 ppb because it was not affected by lo cal NOx sources. Compared to the observations, the LSM-1 run missed the maximum ozone on the July 26 but cap tured the peaks fairly well on the following two days. The nighttime values were also well simulated, but the timing of the daytime peaks were slightly delayed in the simulations. At Turner, there was very good agreement between the observed and simulated ozone concentrations although nighttime ozone was overestimated.

The model performance was different at the comp lex terrain sites of Wishram and Hockinson. At Wishram, ozone values were moderate th roughout the episode with maximum value of 77 ppb on July 27. The LSM-1 run performed reas onably well at this site. At Hockinson, moderately high ozone values (close to 100 ppb) were observed. However, the LSM-1 run seemed unable to capture the ozone peaks from July 26 to 28.

42

### Figure 21. Observed and sim ulated 1-hr surface ozone concentrations for July 1998 episode

Castlerock

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_CR O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_CR

Woodland

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_WD O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_WD



### 43Sauvie Island

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_SI O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_SI

Mt. View

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_MV O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_MV



### 44Milwaukie

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_MW O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_MW

Carus

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_CA O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_CA



### 45Turner

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_TN O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_TN

Hockinson

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_HK O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_HK



### 46Wishram

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

7/24/98 0:00 7/24/98 12:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/25/98 12:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/26/98 12:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/27/98 12:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/28/98 12:00 7/ 29/98 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

O3_1hr_obs_WR O3_1hr_sen_ini_LSM_WR



### 6.2.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation CMAQ model performance was evaluated by the fo llowing set of ozone statistics based on the simulations from July 26 to 28. 1) Normalized bias and normalized gross erro r between observed and predicted 1-hr/8-hr ozone concentrations. Data within a select ed time window were used in evaluation (10- 19 PDT for 1-hr and 14-23 PDT for 8-hr ozone ; shown in Table 7). These time windows were selected to encompass periods of elevated ozone. 2) Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means. (Shown in Table 8) 3) Normalized bias between observe d and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs. (Shown in Table 9) 4) Correlation coefficients and scatter plots of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means. (Shown in Figure 22) 5) Quantile-quantile plots of observed and predic ted 8-hr daily maxima using (a) all data pairs (b) spatially pa ired means. (Shown in Figure 23a and 23b)

The normalized gross error is defined as:


# 

 

### 

 N

i i ii



### O OP
N NE

1 

### || 1



### and the normalized bias is defined as:

47

# 

 

### 

 N

i i ii



### O OP
N NB

1 

### 1



### At Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island, lo cated upwind of Portland, the LSM-1 run had a positive bias especially at Woodland and Sauvie Is land (1-hr NB of 24% a nd 28%, respectively). This could be related to the fact that simula ted ozone peaks are slightly broader than the observed ones. For spatially paired means, th e normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima are all below 20% at these sites, which meets EPA suggested guidelines (EPA, 1999). Nevertheless, if evaluated on a da ily basis (as shown in Table 9), there was a larger positive bias especially on July 28.

Mt. View and Milwaukie are two urban sites w ithin the Portland/Vanc ouver airshed. At Mt. View, the normalized bias and gross error were reasonable (1-hr NB = 2%, 8-hr NB = 3%, 1-hr NE = 34%, 8-hr NE = 26%). For 8-hr daily maxima, the bias between the observed and predicted is generally negative wh en evaluated at the exact grid point of the monitoring site. However, when evaluated using the surrounding 5x5 matrix of grid cells, the bias becomes positive as a result of steep horizontal ozone grad ients around the site. Due to missing data at Milwaukie, no statistics were calculated for this site.

At Carus and Turner, downwind of Portland, observed ozone peaks were generally well simulated as shown in the bias between observe d and predicted 8-hr daily maxima. However, the timing of the ozone peaks were slightly shif ted at Carus, and conse quently, the gross error was moderately high (1-hr NE = 36% and 8-hr NE = 27%).

Hockinson and Wishram are two sites further away from the I-5 corridor and influenced heavily by complex terrain. The performance statistics we re fairly good at Wishram. At Hockinson, performance was poor with large und erprediction. Nevertheless, th ere were also steep horizontal ozone gradients around Hockinson so that the pr edicted 8-hr maxima are considerably higher when evaluated with the surrounding 5x5 grids.

Table 7. Normalized bias and normalized gross error between observed an d predicted 1-hr/8-hr ozone concentrations. (1-hr statis tics are calculated within 10- 19 PDT, and 8-hr statistics are calculated within 14-23 PDT on July 26, 27, and 28, 1998.)

Site 1-hr NB 1-hr NE 8-hr NB 8-hr NE
Castle Rock 12% 24% 9% 16%
Woodland 24% 31% 23% 26%
Sauvie Island 28% 36% 24% 27%

Mt. View 2% 34% 3% 26%
Milwaukie N/A N/A N/A N/A

Carus 4% 36% 2% 27%
Turner 10% 29% 5% 16%
Wishram -6% 13% -6% 9%
Hockinson -17% 36% -15% 28% Note: Values higher than EPA suggested model performance goal are highlighted in red.



### 48

### Table 8. Norm alized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means. (based on 5x5 and 1x1 grids)

site Ave obs 8-hr daily max (ppm) Ave pre 8-hr daily max 1x1 (ppm) NB (1x1) Ave pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) NB (5x5)

Castle Rock 0.075 0.079 4% 0.081 8%

Woodland 0.071 0.080 13% 0.082 16%
Sauvie Island 0.071 0.081 14% 0.083 16%

Mt. View 0.075 0.066 -12% 0.083 11%

Milwaukie N/A 0.085 N/A 0.092 N/A

Carus 0.101 0.096 -5% 0.098 -3%

Turner 0.084 0.085 0% 0.088 5%

Wishram 0.061 0.056 -9% 0.057 -7%

Hockinson 0.078 0.059 -24% 0.069 -12%

Note: “1x1” – data extract ed from the exact grids. “5x5” – data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids.



### Table 9. Normalized bias between observed and pred icted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs. (based on 5x5 and 1x1 grids)

Site Date Obs 8-hr daily max (ppm) Pre 8-hr daily max 1x1 (ppm) NB (1x1) Pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) NB (5x5)

Castle Rock July 26 0.077 0.073 -6% 0.075 -3%
Castle Rock July 27 0.077 0.088 14% 0.091 17%
Castle Rock July 28 0.072 0.075 5% 0.079 10%

Woodland July 26 0.069 0.071 2% 0.073 5%

Woodland July 27 0.089 0.091 2% 0.091 2%

Woodland July 28 0.054 0.079 47% 0.083 55%
Sauvie_Island July 26 0.074 0.069 -7% 0.070 -4%
Sauvie_Island July 27 0.078 0.090 15% 0.090 16%
Sauvie_Island July 28 0.063 0.086 37% 0.087 39%
Mt_View July 26 0.071 0.060 -15% 0.076 7%
Mt_View July 27 0.078 0.064 -17% 0.086 10%
Mt_View July 28 0.076 0.072 -5% 0.088 16%

Milwaukie July 26 N/A 0.082 N/A 0.086 N/A

Milwaukie July 27 N/A 0.085 N/A 0.091 N/A

Milwaukie July 28 N/A 0.087 N/A 0.098 N/A

Carus July 26 0.117 0.088 -25% 0.090 -23%
Carus July 27 0.088 0.093 5% 0.097 10%
Carus July 28 0.098 0.107 9% 0.107 9%

Turner July 26 0.076 0.070 -8% 0.074 -3%

Turner July 27 0.098 0.095 -3% 0.101 3%

Turner July 28 0.078 0.089 13% 0.089 14%

Wishram July 26 0.060 0.054 -10% 0.055 -8%

Wishram July 27 0.063 0.054 -14% 0.056 -11%

Wishram July 28 0.061 0.058 -4% 0.059 -2%



### 49

### Table 9. cont.

Hockinson July 26 0.070 0.054 -23% 0.062 -12%

Hockinson July 27 0.083 0.058 -30% 0.069 -16%

Hockinson July 28 0.082 0.066 -19% 0.075 -8%

Note: “1x1” – data extract ed from the exact grids. “5x5” – data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids.



### A scatter diagram of average observed and simulated 8-hr daily maxima (paired in space) is shown in Figure 22. When plotted with th e surrounding 5x5 grid points, the LSM-1 run predicted the peak and the lowest concentrations fairly well with R 2 

### of 0.63, but there was some overprediction of the moderate values (70-80 ppb). When looking at the exact grid cell, there was more scatter around the mode rate ozone concentrations.

Quantile-Quantile plots (Figure 23a and 23b) are al so plotted for the observed and simulated 8-hr daily maxima which compares the frequency dist ributions of the observed and predicted ozone concentrations. The plots show generally good agreement between the observed and predicted concentration distributions, but there was so me underperdiction of the peak ozone and overprediction of moderate ozone (80-90 ppb) when evaluated using the ra nge of concentrations within the 5x5 surrounding grid points. When l ooking the exact grid point, the bias was similar except for some additional underprediction for the moderate concentrations (around 70 ppb).

average predicted and obsvered 8-hr daily maxima y = 0.8381x + 0.0155
R 2 = 0.6279

y = 0.8381x + 0.0105 R 2 = 0.5112

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 observed ozone (ppm)predicted ozone (ppm) 1x1
5x5
1:1 Linear (5x5) Linear (1x1)



### Figure 22. Scatter plot of the average observed and predicted 8- hr daily m axima for 5x5 and 1x1 grids for July 1998 episode

50Q-Q: 8-hr daily maxima (a. all data pairs)

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 observed ozone (ppm)predicted ozone (ppm)
1x1
5x5
1:1



### Figure 23a. Quantile -Quantile plot of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs for 5x5 and 1x1 grids for July 1998 episode.

Q-Q: 8-hr daily maxima (b: spatially paired mean)

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 observed ozone (ppm)predicted ozone (ppm)
1x1
5x5
1:1



### Figure 23b. Quantile-Quantile plo t of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means for 5x5 and 1x1 grids for July 1998 episode.

51

### 52 6.2.2 Comparisons with NOx /VOC monitoring data In 1998, there were four NOx monitoring sites in southwest Washington and Oregon: Lafayette, Castle Rock, Woodland, and Mt. View. In addi tion to the three sites mentioned previously, Lafayette is a suburban site very close to the Milwaukie ozone monitoring site. A major roadway (US-26) is located about 100 m north of the Lafayette site. Predicted and observed NO/NO 2 

### from 6 to 21 PDT on each day (July 26-28) are shown in Figure 24 for each monitoring site.

At Lafayette, there were NO peaks in the morning associated with early morning emissions into a shallow mixed layer and lower NO concentrations during the remainder of the daylight hours. The LSM-1 run appeared to underestimate the ea rly morning peaks and slightly overestimated observed levels from noon into the afternoon. NO 2 

### concentrations were also generally high in the morning, and lower in the afternoon. The model captured the trend of NO 2 

### well at most times, especially on July 27. At Woodland, ea rly morning NO peaks were underestimated and predicted NO 2 

### concentrations were also generally lower than the observed ones. At Castle Rock, both NO and NO 2 

### were quite low and there was a lack of a distinct diurnal pattern due to its rural location. The LSM-1 run pr edicted NO well and also captured the range of NO 2 

### values. At Mt. View, another urban/suburban site, the LSM-1 run underpredicted morning peaks of NO on the first two days, and overpredicted on the last day. Concentrations of NO 2 

### were also overestimated at this site, especially for the afternoon hours. One thing worth no ticing is that, the grid points of Mt. View and Lafayette both have fairly large NO emissions related to mobile sources, which might have a large impact on the predicted NO/NO 2 

### concentrations.

VOC measurements were also collected at Lafa yette on selected days in 1998. The simulated and observed VOC concentrations are shown at Figure 25. The VOC data were canister measurements with sampling time from 5-8 and 8-11 PDT on selected days. The model values were converted from CMAQ output by summing of selected species (alkanes, aromatics, alkenes, terpenes, and isoprene). The obser ved NMOC was mostly within 150-200 ppbC except for July 28 when value of 740 ppbC was repor ted. The LSM-1 run simulated VOC levels perfectly on July 27. There was a slight underestimation on July 26. On July 28, the LSM-1 run missed the elevated level in the early morning and then slightly overestimated the total VOC concentration at 8-11 PDT.

### Figure 24. Observed and sim ulated NO/NO 2 

### concentrations at Lafayette, Woodland, Castle Rock, and Mt. View from July 26 to 28, 1998.

Lafayette July 26,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre Lafayette July 26, 1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre

Lafayette July 27,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03 0.035

0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Lafayette July 27, 1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Lafayette July 28, 1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre Lafayette July 28,1998

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre



### 53Woodland July 26,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Woodland July 26,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Woodland July 27,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Woodland July 27,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Woodland July 28,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Woodland July 28,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03 0.035

0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 54Castlerock July 26,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Castlerock July 26,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Casterock July 27,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre Castlerock July 27,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre

Castlerock July 28,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Castlerock July 28,1998

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

0.03

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 55

### 56 Mt. View July 26,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 26,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Mt. View July 27,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 27,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Mt. View July 28,1998

0 0.025

0.05 0.075

0.1

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 28,1998

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_preLafayette

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

7/24/98 0:00 7/25/98 0:00 7/26/98 0:00 7/27/98 0:00 7/28/98 0:00 7/29/98 0:00 7/30/98 0:00

HourVOC (ppmC)

Canister NMOC(ppmC) Pre_VOC



### Figure 25. S imulated and observed VOC (ppmC) at Lafayette during the July 1998 episode.

57

### 6.3 CMAQ modeling results and evaluation (July 1997 episode)

Surface ozone contours from the LSM-1 run are shown in Figure 26a and 26b for the afternoon of July 19 and 20. On July 19, elevated ozone concentrations were simulated downwind of Portland with maximum slightly above 100 ppb. On the next day, high level ozone was simulated right around the Portland urban area with maximum close to 130 ppb.

Figure 26a. Simulated surface ozone contour on July 19, 1997 at 17PDT.

Figure 26b. Simulated surface ozone contour on July 20, 1997 at 17PDT.

58

### Predicted an d observed surface ozone time series were plotted in Figure 27 for each monitoring site. At Castle Rock, Woodland, and Mt. View, ozone concentrations were quite low on most days except July 19 when moderate concentrat ions (around 60 ppb) occurred. The LSM-1 run slightly overestimated ozone levels on July 19 and simulated most low ozone days well. Nevertheless, there was significant overestimation on July 20 at all three sites. As mentioned in the meteorological modeling section, there we re also underestimation of cloud cover and overestimation of surface temperatures on that day around these sites, which might explain the large overestimation of ozone.

At Mt. View and Milwaukie, moderate values oc curred on July 19 at both sites and on July 20 at Mt. View. The peak 1-hr average ozone re ached 101 ppb at Milwaukie on July 20, which was the maximum observed in this episode. The LSM-1 run simulated ozone quite well on low ozone days, and slightly overestimated on moderate and high days. There also appeared to be some time delay of the ozone peaks at these two sites.

At Carus and Turner, ozone concentrations we re around 80 ppb on July 19 and 20, and quite low on rest of the days. The LSM- 1 run showed some overestimati on but captured the overall trend quite well on July 19 and 20. On the low oz one days, both sites showed very good agreement between observations and simulations.

At Hockinson and Wishram, ozone levels were low to moderate thr oughout the episode. The LSM-1 run simulated ozone quite well at Wishra m. At Hockinson, wh ere simulation was poor in the 1998 episode, model performance was better. It simulated the right level of ozone on July 20, although the timing of the peak was shifted.

59

### Figure 27. Observed and sim ulated 1-hr surface ozone concentrations for July 1997 episode.

CASTLEROCK

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

CASTLEROCK_1hr_obs CASTLEROCK_1hr_sen_ini_LSM

Woodland

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Woodland_1hr_obs Woodland_1hr_sen_ini_LSM



### 60Sauvie_Island

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Sauvie_Island_1hr_obs Sauvie_Island_1hr_sen_ini_LSM

Mt_View

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Mt_View_1hr_obs Mt_View_1hr_sen_ini_LSM



### 61Milwaukie

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Milwaukie_1hr_obs Milwaukie_1hr_sen_ini_LSM

Carus

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Carus_1hr_obs Carus_1hr_sen_ini_LSM



### 62Turner

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Turner_1hr_obs Turner_1hr_sen_ini_LSM

Hockinson

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

HOCKINSON_1hr_obs HOCKINSON_1hr_sen_ini_LSM



### 63Wishram

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080

7/17/97 0:00 7/18/97 0:00 7/19/97 0:00 7/20/97 0:00 7/21/97 0:00 7/22/97 0:00 7/23/97 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Wishram_1hr_obs Wishram_1hr_sen_ini_LSM



### 6.3.1 CMAQ statistics evaluation Model performance was evaluated using the pe rformance measures based on the simulations from July 17 to 21. Normalized bias and norma lized gross error between observed and predicted 1-hr and 8-hr ozone concentra tions are shown in Table 10. No rmalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means and all data pairs are shown in Table 11 and 12, respectively.

The three upwind sites, Castle Rock, Woodl and, and Sauvie Island, all showed positive normalized bias around 20% due to the large overe stimation of ozone on July 20. Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means was around 20% if evaluated at the exact grid, and 30% us ing the maxima from the 5x5 grids as shown in Table 11.

Mt. View and Milwaukie, the two urban sites, had a negative (1hr NB = -21%) and positive bias (1hr NB = 15 %), respectively. The negativ e bias at Mt. View was mostly due to underprediction on low ozone days. The two site s both had relatively large normalized errors, partly due to the timing shift of peaks. On July 19 and 20, the normalized bias between the observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima was about 20% if evaluate d at the exact grid as shown in Table 12.

The run showed fairly good statistical performan ce at the Carus and Turn er downwind sites (1-hr NB = 0% and -7%; 1-hr NE = 22% and 17%, resp ectively). Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means or all data pairs was also mostly below 20%. Reasonably good performance was f ound at the Wishram and Hockinson sites.

64

### Table 10. Norm alized bias and normalized gross error between observed and predicted 1-hr/8-hr ozone concentrations. (1-hr statis tics are calculated within 10- 19 PDT, and 8-hr statistics are calculated within 14-23 PDT from July 17 to 21, 1997.)

Site 1-hr NB 1-hr NE 8-hr NB 8-hr NE
Castle Rock 22% 37% 18% 32%

Woodland 17% 31% 16% 27%

Sauvie Island 22% 31% 20% 27%

Mt. View -21% 43% -23% 36%

Milwaukie 15% 46% 5% 27%

Carus 0% 22% -3% 14%

Turner -7% 17% -8% 12%

Wishram -5% 12% -5% 9%

Hockinson -3% 25% -1% 19% Note: Values higher than EPA suggested model performance goal are highlighted in red.



### Table 11. Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means. (based on 5x5 and 1x1 grids)

Site Ave obs 8-hr daily max (ppm) Ave pre 8-hr daily max 1x1 (ppm) NB (1x1) Ave pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) NB (5x5)
Castle Rock 0.034 0.040 19% 0.044 32%
Woodland 0.036 0.043 20% 0.045 27%
Sauvie Island 0.036 0.044 24% 0.046 29%

Mt. View 0.040 0.036 -10% 0.050 26%
Milwaukie 0.038 0.044 15% 0.050 29%

Carus 0.045 0.048 6% 0.054 21%
Turner 0.047 0.045 -4% 0.050 7%
Wishram 0.046 0.043 -6% 0.045 -1%
Hockinson 0.042 0.040 -6% 0.045 6% Note: “1x1” – data extracted from the exact grids. “5x5” – data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids



### Table 12. Normalized bias between observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs. (based on 5x5 and 1x1 grids)

Site Date Obs 8-hr daily

max (ppm) Pre 8-hr daily max 1x1 (ppm) NB (1x1) Pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) NB (5x5)
Castle Rock July 17 0.028 0.021 -26% 0.023 -16%
Castle Rock July 18 0.032 0.036 11% 0.044 35%
Castle Rock July 19 0.058 0.064 12% 0.066 15%
Castle Rock July 20 0.028 0.056 99% 0.061 114%
Castle Rock July 21 0.022 0.024 7% 0.028 25%



### 65

### Table 12. Cont.

Woodland July 17 0.033 0.025 -24% 0.026 -20%
Woodland July 18 0.034 0.033 -4% 0.037 6%
Woodland July 19 0.053 0.069 29% 0.069 29%
Woodland July 20 0.032 0.060 85% 0.067 107%
Woodland July 21 0.026 0.027 5% 0.028 10% Sauvie_Island July 17 0.029 0.024 -18% 0.026 -12% Sauvie_Island July 18 0.033 0.036 6% 0.038 14% Sauvie_Island July 19 0.052 0.069 32% 0.069 32% Sauvie_Island July 20 0.038 0.065 71% 0.070 83% Sauvie_Island July 21 0.025 0.027 8% 0.028 10% Mt_View July 17 0.028 0.009 -68% 0.023 -17% Mt_View July 18 0.035 0.032 -9% 0.041 18% Mt_View July 19 0.053 0.052 -1% 0.070 33% Mt_View July 20 0.062 0.075 21% 0.091 47% Mt_View July 21 0.023 0.012 -48% 0.026 17%
Milwaukie July 17 0.022 0.014 -37% 0.019 -10%
Milwaukie July 18 0.028 0.034 22% 0.038 34%
Milwaukie July 19 0.055 0.068 25% 0.075 38%
Milwaukie July 20 0.073 0.089 23% 0.096 33%
Milwaukie July 21 0.016 0.017 7% 0.020 30%

Carus July 17 0.030 0.026 -15% 0.027 -10%
Carus July 18 0.037 0.037 0% 0.043 16%
Carus July 19 0.065 0.071 10% 0.080 24%
Carus July 20 0.068 0.080 16% 0.087 27%
Carus July 21 0.026 0.026 4% 0.035 37%
Turner July 17 0.028 0.023 -18% 0.028 0%
Turner July 18 0.047 0.045 -5% 0.049 3%
Turner July 19 0.067 0.072 7% 0.075 12%
Turner July 20 0.061 0.058 -4% 0.067 10%
Turner July 21 0.032 0.027 -15% 0.032 2%
Wishram July 17 0.040 0.038 -5% 0.039 -1%
Wishram July 18 0.039 0.040 5% 0.041 7%
Wishram July 19 0.054 0.048 -11% 0.050 -7%
Wishram July 20 0.061 0.052 -14% 0.056 -8%
Wishram July 21 0.037 0.038 5% 0.040 9%
Hockinson July 17 0.035 0.027 -21% 0.029 -17%
Hockinson July 18 0.036 0.041 15% 0.047 30%
Hockinson July 19 0.056 0.044 -21% 0.052 -7%
Hockinson July 20 0.057 0.054 -5% 0.062 10%
Hockinson July 21 0.028 0.031 14% 0.033 21%

Note: “1x1” – data extracted from the exact grids. “5x5” – data extracted from the surrounding 5x5 grids.



### 66

### A scatter diagram of average observed and simulated 8-hr daily maxima (paired in space) are shown in Figure 28. Unlike the July 1998 episode in which only three peak ozone days were used in averaging, both low and hi gh ozone days were included in the 1997 case. Therefore, all spatially paired means were within the 30-50 ppb range. When plotted using the exact grid cell, there was some slight overprediction. When l ooking at the 5x5 grid cells , ozone at most sites was overestimated.

Quantile-Quantile plots (Figure 29a and 29b) are plotted for the observed and simulated 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs and spatially paired means. When using all data pairs, it appears that the LSM-1 run tended to overpredi ct for moderate and high ozone levels, and performed better at low concen trations. When using spatia lly paired means, the model overpredicted at both the exact grid and the 5x5 grids.

average predicted and observed 8-hr daily maxima

y = 0.2432x + 0.0327 R 2 = 0.1137

y = 0.3808x + 0.0325 R 2 = 0.2971

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 observed ozone (ppm)predicted ozone (ppm)

5x5
1x1
1:1 Linear (1x1) Linear (5x5)



### Figure 28. S catter plot of the average observed an d predicted 8-hr daily maxima for 5x5 and 1x1 grids for July 1997 episode.

67Q-Q: 8-hr daily maxima (a. all data pairs)

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 Observed Ozone (ppm)Predicted Ozone (ppm)

5x5
1x1
1:1



### Figure 29a. Quantile -Quantile plot of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using all data pairs for 5x5 and 1x1 grids for July 1997 episode.

Q-Q: 8-hr daily maxima (b: spatially paired mean)

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 Observed Ozone (ppm)Predicted Ozone (ppm)

5x5
1x1
1:1



### Figure 29b. Quantile-Quantile plo t of observed and predicted 8-hr daily maxima using spatially paired means for 5x5 and 1x1 grids for July 1997 episode.

68

### 69 6.3.2 Comparisons with NOx monitoring data
NOx data were available at Castle Rock, Mt . View, and Lafayette for the July 1997 ozone episode. Predicted and observed NO and NO 2 

### concentrations from 6 to 21 PDT are shown for each site in Figure 30 for July 17-21, 1997.

The observed NOx peaks in the 1997 episode were lower than those in the 1998 episode at Mt. View and Lafayette. The LSM-1 run showed a large overestimation of NO on the non-episode days (July 17, 18, and 21) at all three sites. In contrast, the agreement was much better for NO during days with elevated ozone (July 19 and 20) . Note, that these were weekend days with smaller NO emissions from mobile sources. For NO 2 

### , the LSM-1 run showed some overprediction at Mt. View and Lafayette, but ma tched the general trend at most times. At Castle Rock, there was a large overestimation of NO 2 

### on the non-episode days.

The VOC data collected at the southwest Wa shington sites in 1997 were reported to have abnormally high levels of aromatics due to c ontamination issues (Westberg et al, 1998), therefore no comparisons were made for this episode.

### Figure 30. Observed and sim ulated NO/NO 2 

### concentrations at Lafayette, Castle Rock, and Mt. View from July 17 to 21, 1997.

Lafayette July 17, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre Lafayette July 17, 1997

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre

Lafayette July 18, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre Lafayette July 18, 1997

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre

Lafayette July 19, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre Lafayette July 19, 1997

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre



### 70Lafayette July 20, 1997

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Lafayette July 20, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

LafayetteJuly 21, 1997

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre LafayetteJuly 21, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 71Castlerock July 17, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Castlerock July 17, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Castlerock July 18, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Castlerock July 18, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Castlerock July 19, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Castlerock July 19, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 72Castlerock July 20, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Castlerock July 20, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Castlerock July 21, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre CastlerockJuly 21, 1997

0 0.005

0.01 0.015

0.02 0.025

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 73Mt. View July 18, 1997

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 18, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Mt. View July 19, 1997

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 19, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre

Mt. View July 20, 1997

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 20, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 74Mt. View July 21, 1997

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO (ppm)

NO_obs NO_pre Mt. View July 21, 1997

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

HourNO2 (ppm)

NO2_obs NO2_pre



### 75

### 6.4 Conclusion for July 1998 and 1997 CMAQ simulation Two historical episodes (July 17-21, 1997 and July 26-28, 1998) were selected as potential base episodes for this modeling work because the Ju ly 1998 episode had the highest ozone levels observed in recent years for the airshed and the July 1997 episode had slightly different meteorological patterns compared to the 1998 case. For the July 1998 episode, CMAQ model performance statistics for most monitoring sites were within EPA suggested 1-hr and 8-hr ozone modeling guidelines as s hown in section 6.2.1. Time series pl ots, scatter plots, and QuantileQuantile plots also showed generally good agreement between model simulations and observations. For the July 1997 episode, the obser ved ozone levels were much lower than those in the 1998 case. The CMAQ performance for ozone was also acceptable for the 1997 run, but there was less accurate simulation of ozone levels at different times and locations compared to the 1998 case. Therefore, the July 1998 episode was selected as the base for evaluation of future year (2015) control strategy simu lations due to higher observed ozone concentrations and better simulation of ozone levels.

7 Future episode modeling (2015)

7.1 Future year managed growth ma intenance projection simulation 7.1.1 CMAQ modeling results To investigate the impact of changes in emissi ons due to future growth and various control strategies, a year 2015 emission i nventory was developed. This was then used in a model run with July 1998 meteorology to create a 2015 mana ged growth maintenan ce projection for ozone simulation. Emissions comparisons for 2015 and 1998 are shown in Table 13. For year 2015, the NOx emissions are reduced by 49%. In contrast, the VOC emissions redu ction is only 26%, and consequently, the VOC/NOx ratio increases fr om 0.73 in 1998 to 1.06 in 2015. There are also 41% and 16% reductions in SOx and CO emissions in 2015 compared to 1998.

Table 13

. Anthropogenic emission comparison between the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and 1998 run
1998 2015 base Percentage change Mole/day Mole/day VOC 1253 924 -26% NOx 1722 875 -49% SOx 166 99 -41% CO 23264 19455 -16% VOC/NOx 0.73 1.06 45% Note: Emissions are daily averages (July 24 –29) summed over the central domain (grid cells 10,20 to 45,55)



### Simulated ozone surface contours at 17PDT on July 28, 2015 are shown in Figure 31a. For comparison, the contours from the 1998 run and th e difference plot between the two years are shown in Figure 31b and 31c, respectively. In the 2015 episode, the maximum 1-hr average ozone reached 128 ppb at 17 PDT on July 28 sligh tly south of Portland, as compared to 148 ppb in 1998. The areas with elevated ozone appear to be similar between the two years, although the

76

### absolute ozone values in 2015 were lower. As shown in Figure 31c, large reductions (20-30 ppb)

m ainly occur downwind of Portland extending from close to Carus to south of Salem. In contrast to the large decrease of ozone downwi nd of urban center, the change within Portland itself is smaller (< 15 ppb).

Figure 31a. Simulated ozone c ontour at 17 PDT on July 28, 2015

77

### Figure 31b. Sim ulated ozone cont our at 17 PDT on July 28, 1998

Figure 31c. Ozone difference contour at 17 PDT on July 28 between 1998 and 2015 (1998 – 2015)

Simulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentr ations for the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and July 1998 episode are shown in Fi gure 32 for each monitoring site. At the Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island site s, there is a daytime decrease and slight night increase of ozone in 2015 compared to 1998.

At Mt. View and Milwaukie, the daytime reductio n is relatively small and sometimes the daily maxima occur slightly earlier in the future year run. On July 28, for example, the 1-hr ozone peak at Milwaukie is 2-hr earlier and also broa der in 2015 compared to 1998. As a result, the 8- hr maximum ozone on that day increases slightly (89 ppb versus 87 ppb) in the future year run.

At Carus and Turner, the daytime reductions ar e large (up to 30 ppb at Turner), but nighttime ozone remains about the same level as 1998. At Wishram and Hockinson, in addition to the daytime decrease of ozone, nighttime va lues are also slightly lowered.

78

### Figure 32. S imulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface oz one concentrations for 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and July 1998 episode.

Castlerock

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

CASTLEROCK O3_2015_1hr CASTLEROCK O3_2015_8hr CASTLEROCK O3_98_1hr CASTLEROCK O3_98_8hr

Woodland

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

WOODLAND O3_2015_1hr WOODLAND O3_2015_8hr WOODLAND O3_98_1hr WOODLAND O3_98_8hr



### 79Sauvie Island

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Sauvie_Island O3_2015_1hr Sauvie_Island O3_2015_8hr Sauvie_Island O3_98_1hr Sauvie_Island O3_98_8hr

Mt. View

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Mt_View O3_2015_1hr Mt_View O3_2015_8hr Mt_View O3_98_1hr Mt_View O3_98_8hr



### 80Milwaukie

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Milwaukie O3_2015_1hr Milwaukie O3_2015_8hr Milwaukie O3_98_1hr Milwaukie O3_98_8hr

Carus

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Carus O3_2015_1hr Carus O3_2015_8hr Carus O3_98_1hr Carus O3_98_8hr



### 81Turner

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Turner O3_2015_1hr Turner O3_2015_8hr Turner O3_98_1hr Turner O3_98_8hr

Hockinson

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

HOCKINSON O3_2015_1hr HOCKINSON O3_2015_8hr HOCKINSON O3_98_1hr HOCKINSON O3_98_8hr



### 82Wishram

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Wishram O3_2015_1hr Wishram O3_2015_8hr Wishram O3_98_1hr Wishram O3_98_8hr



### 7.1.2 VOC/NOx ratios and regional increase of ozone
The [O3]/[NOx] concentrat ion ratio has been shown to be a reliable indicator of O3 response to VOC or NOx emissions changes (Tonnesen a nd Dennis, 2000b). Values of the ratio < 15 indicate the strongly radical-lim ited, VOC sensitive condition. Va lues > 46 indicate strongly NOx-limited and therefore NOx sensitive regi on (Arnold et al., 2003). The predicted [O3]/[NOx] contours in the afternoon of 2015 and 1998 are shown in Figure 33a and b. For 1998, the entire Portland ur ban area and I-5 corridor appear to be well into the VOC-sensitive region. In contrast, for 2015 the VOC-limited areas are much smaller, which is consistent with the increased VOC/NOx ratio. This indicator he lps to explain the ozone increase at Milwaukie in 2015. The site appears to be strongly VOC limited in the afternoon hours of 1998, and therefore, excess NO titrates O3 a nd reduces the O3 level. In 2015, [O3]/[NOx] is slightly above 15 at the site. Being less VOC-limited and he nce having less NO titration, an increase of O3 could be expected.

Another way to understand the regional increase of ozone is to look at process analysis output from CMAQ. Process analysis is a feature in CMAQ where the contributions of different chemical/physical processes are tr acked by grid cell for each hour of simulations. For example, ozone chemical production rates are mapped for th e two years in Figure 34a and b. In 1998 there is a net loss of ozone due to NOx titration in the urban core. In c ontrast in 2015, ozone is produced at a net rate of 10 to 20 ppb/hr within the urban core. Almost no NOx titration effects are observed in the 2015 case. Therefore, higher ozone values might occur in 2015 for the sites within urban center.

83

### Figure 33a. O3/NOx contour pl ot at 15 PDT on July 28, 2015

Figure 33b. O3/NOx co ntour plot at 15 PDT on July 28, 1998

84

### Figure 34a. Ozone chemical produc tion rates from process analysis at 15 PDT on July 28, 2015

Figure 34b. Ozone chemical producti on rates from process analysis at 15 PDT on July 28, 1998

85

### 7.2 What if scenario - No low er Columbia River point sources Following the 2015 managed growth maintenance pr ojection, a ‘what-if’ c ontrol scenario was formulated for analysis. The scenario assumed no lower Columbia River point sources. This effectively means no large industrial activity al ong the lower Columbia River. Emissions comparisons between the 2015 case and the no lo wer Columbia River point source case are shown in Table 14. There is a 6% reduction in VOC emissions and an 11% reduction in NOx emissions due to the removal of the lo wer Columbia River point sources.

Table 14. Anthropogenic emissions compar isons between the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and the no lowe r Columbia River point source case. 2015 projection 2015 no_columbia_pt Percentage change Mole/day Mole/day VOC 924 870 -6% NOX 875 779 -11% SOX 99 55 -44% CO 19455 19046 -2% VOC/NOx 1.06 1.12 6% Note: Emissions are daily averages (July 24 –29) summed over the central domain (grid cells 10,20 to 45,55)



### Simulated ozone contours for the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, the no lower Columbia River point source case, and the differe nce plots are shown in Figure 35a-c. Simulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for th e two cases are shown in Figure 36 for the sites with large ozone changes. A summary of VOC/ NOx emission ratios and predicted 8-hr daily maximum ozone (from the surrounding 5x5 grid s) for 1998 episode, 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, and 2015 no lower Columb ia River point sources modification are shown in Table 15 and Figure 37.

The amount of O3 reduction is up to 16 ppb for the case with no lower Columbia River point sources. The maximum reduction does not occur in the same region as the peak ozone is predicted to occur, and theref ore the maximum ozone in the Po rtland/Vancouver airshed is not affected. The most affected sites are at Woodland and Sauvie Island where up to a 12 ppb decrease was predicted for the af ternoon of June 26. At these tw o sites, there was also some increase in ozone at night due to less NO titra tion. At Mt View and Milwaukie, a small reduction was predicted, but not at the peak ozone hours. At the other sites, the changes in O3 concentrations were almost negligible.

Further analysis of other potential control st rategies, based upon modi fications to the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, will be conducted by ODEQ an d SWCAA as part of the overall maintenance plan development.

86

### Figure 35a. Simulated ozone contour for 2015 no lowe r Columbia River point source case at 15 PDT on July 26

Figure 35b. Simulated ozone contour for 2015 projection at 15 PDT on July 26

87

### Figure 35c. Ozone difference plots between the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and its no Lower Columbia River point sour ces modification at 15 PDT on July 26, 2015 (2015 – no Lower Columbia point sources)

88

### Figure 36. S imulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and its no lower Co lumbia River point sources modification.

Woodland

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

WOODLAND O3_2015_1hr WOODLAND O3_2015_8hr WOODLAND O3_2015_no_cpt_1hr WOODLAND O3_2015_no_cpt_8hr

Sauvie Island

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Sauvie_Island O3_2015_1hr Sauvie_Island O3_2015_8hr Sauvie_Island O3_2015_no_cpt_1hr Sauvie_Island O3_2015_no_cpt_8hr



### 89Mt. View

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Mt_View O3_2015_1hr Mt_View O3_2015_8hr Mt_View O3_2015_no_cpt_1hr Mt_View O3_2015_no_cpt_8hr

Milwaukie

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

7/24/15 0:00 7/25/15 0:00 7/26/15 0:00 7/27/15 0:00 7/28/15 0:00 7/29/15 0:00 Date (PDT)Ozone (ppm)

Milwaukie O3_2015_1hr Milwaukie O3_2015_8hr Milwaukie O3_2015_no_cpt_1hr Milwaukie O3_2015_no_cpt_8hr



### 90

### Table 15. VOC/NOx ratio and predicted 8-hr daily m aximum ozone (from the surrounding 5x5 grids) for 1998 episode, 2015 projection, and 201 5 no lower Columbia River modification. 1998 base 2015 base 2015 no_Columbia_pt VOC/NOx 0.73 1.06 1.12

Site Date Pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) Pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) Pre 8-hr daily max 5x5 (ppm) Castle Rock 26-Jul 0.075 0.060 0.060 Castle Rock 27-Jul 0.091 0.077 0.077 Castle Rock 28-Jul 0.079 0.068 0.068

Woodland 26-Jul 0.073 0.062 0.057 Woodland 27-Jul 0.091 0.075 0.073 Woodland 28-Jul 0.083 0.072 0.072 Sauvie_Island 26-Jul 0.070 0.061 0.054 Sauvie_Island 27-Jul 0.090 0.073 0.071 Sauvie_Island 28-Jul 0.087 0.075 0.074 Mt_View 26-Jul 0.076 0.071 0.070 Mt_View 27-Jul 0.086 0.072 0.069 Mt_View 28-Jul 0.088 0.082 0.081 Milwaukie 26-Jul 0.086 0.084 0.084 Milwaukie 27-Jul 0.091 0.085 0.084 Milwaukie 28-Jul 0.098 0.095 0.095

Carus 26-Jul 0.090 0.077 0.077 Carus 27-Jul 0.097 0.085 0.084 Carus 28-Jul 0.107 0.095 0.095 Turner 26-Jul 0.074 0.060 0.059 Turner 27-Jul 0.101 0.078 0.076 Turner 28-Jul 0.089 0.068 0.068 Wishram 26-Jul 0.055 0.050 0.052 Wishram 27-Jul 0.056 0.049 0.050 Wishram 28-Jul 0.059 0.050 0.051 Hockinson 26-Jul 0.062 0.050 0.049 Hockinson 27-Jul 0.069 0.059 0.059 Hockinson 28-Jul 0.075 0.064 0.065

mean 0.081 0.070 0.069

max 0.107 0.095 0.095 min 0.055 0.049 0.049



### 910.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

C a s t l e r o c k _ 2 6

C a s t l e r o c k _ 2 7

C a s t l e r o c k _ 2 8

W o o d l a n d _ 2 6

W o o d l a n d _ 2 7

W o o d l a n d _ 2 8

S a u v i e _ I s l a n d _ 2 6

S a u v i e _ I s l a n d _ 2 7

S a u v i e _ I s l a n d _ 2 8

M t _ V i e w _ 2 6

M t _ V i e w _ 2 7

M t _ V i e w _ 2 8

M i l w a u k i e _ 2 6

M i l w a u k i e _ 2 7

M i l w a u k i e _ 2 8

C a r u s _ 2 6

C

a r u s _ 2 7

C

a r u s _ 2 8

T u r n e r _ 2 6

T

u r n e r _ 2 7

T

u r n e r _ 2 8

W i s h r a m _ 2 6

W i s h r a m _ 2 7

W i s h r a m _ 2 8

H o c k i n s o n _ 2 6

H o c k i n s o n _ 2 7

H o c k i n s o n _ 2 8

SitePredicted 8-hr daily max O3 (ppm)

1998 base 2015 base 2015 no_Columbia_pt



### Figure 37. P redicted 8-hr daily maximum ozone (from surrounding 5x5 grids) for 1998 episode, 2015 managed growth maintanence projection, an d 2015 no lower Columbia River point source modification.

92

### References

J.R. Arnold, R.L. Dennis and G.S. Tonnesen, 2003. Diagnostic evaluati on of num erical air quality models with specialized ambient obser vations: testing the Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system (CMAQ) at selected SOS 95 ground sites, Atmos. Environ. 37, pp. 1185–1198.

Byun, D.W., Ching, J.K.S. (Eds.), 1999. Science algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling Sy stem. EPA Report No. EPA-600/R-99/030, Office of Research and Development, US Envir onmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001. Coupling an a dvanced land surface–hydr ology model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 569–604.

Chen, J.C. M.S. thesis, Washington State Univ ersity, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pullman, WA, 2002.

Grell, G.A., Dudhia, J., Stau!er, D.R., 1994. A description of the "fifth generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NC AR Technical Note NCAR/TN-398#STR, 138 pp.

H. Westberg, B. Hopkins, E. Allwine and B. Lamb, 1998. Speciated VOC Measurements in Western Washington during the Summer of 1997, Washington State University Laboratory for Atmospheric Research.

Hong, S.-Y., and H.-L. Pan, 1996. Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124, 2322–2339.

Kain, J. S., and J. M. Fritsch, 1993: Convectiv e parameterization for mesoscale models: The Kain–Fritsch scheme. The Representation of Cu mulus Convection in Nume rical Models, Meteor. Monogr., No. 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 165–170.

Liu, Y., and co-authors, 2004: Improvements to surface flux computations in the MRF PBL scheme, and refinements to urban processes in the Noah Land-Surface model with the NCAR/ATEC Real-Time FDDA and forecast sy stem. The 5th WRF / 14th MM5 User's Workshop , Boulder, CO. June 22-25, 2004.

O’Neill, S.M.; Lamb, B.K., 2004. Inter-comparis on of the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model and CALGRID using Process Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39 , 5742-5763.

O'Neill, S., B. Lamb, J. Chen, C. Claiborn, D. Finn, S. Otterson, C. Figueroa, C. Bowman, M. Boyer, R. Wilson, J. Arnold, S. Aalbers, J. Sl ocum, C. Swab, M. Stoll, M. DuBois, and M. Anderson, 2005. Modeling aerosol formation and tr ansport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system, Environ. Sci. & Technol. , in
press.

93

### 94 Tonnesen, G.S. and Dennis, R.L., 2000. Analysis of radical propagation efficiency to assess ozone sensitivity to hydrocarbons and NOX. Part II: long-lived species as indicators or ozone concentration sensitivity. Journa l of Geophysical Research 105, pp. 9227–9241.

U.S. EPA, (May 1999). Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-H our Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/R-99-004, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/drafto3.pdf

Vukovich, J. and T. Pierce, 2002. The Implemen tation of BEIS3 within the SMOKE Modeling Framework, In Proceedings of the 11thInternation al Emissions Inventory Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, April 15-18, 2002. (Available online:www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ conference/ei11/modeling/vukovich.pdf)

Xiu, A., and J. E. Pleim, 2001. Development of a land surface model. Part I: Application in a mesoscale meteorological model. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 192–209.

Zhang, D.-L., and R. A. Anthes, 1982. A high-re solution model of the planetary boundary layer—sensitivity tests and comparisons w ith SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor, 21, 1594– 1609.

Zhang, D.-L., and W. Zheng, 2004: Diurnal cycl es of surface winds and temperatures as simulated by five boundary-layer paramete rizations. J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 157-169.

### Appendix A. Emission In ventory Documentation

1998 and 1997 Methodologies

Biogenic Biogenic emissions were processed using BE IS v3.09 (Vukovich and Pierce, 2002). The model estimates VOC emissions from vegetation ba sed on land-use categorie s and nitric oxide emissions from microbial activity based on soil types. The BEIS3 modeling system uses the Biogenic Emissions Landcover Database version 3 (BELD3) which consists of 1 km gridded data 230 land-use types. There are two steps invo lved in BEIS3 modeling. In the first step, the model inputs the BELD3 land-use data and emissi ons factors, and outputs gridded, normalized emissions (at 30  C and 1000 umol m -2 

### ·s -1 

### PAR). In the second step, the model uses meteorological data, speciation profiles, and norma lized emissions generated from the previous step, and outputs gridded, speci ated, hourly biogenic emissions. The biogenic emissions for 1998 episode are summarized in Table A1 which shows that 58% of the VOC emissions and 2% of the NOx emissions are from biogenic so urces in the central part of the domain that encompasses the Portland/Vancouver area.

Table A1. Biogenic emissions summed over th e central domain for the July 1998 episode.

Species Biogenic emissions Tota l emissions Percent biogenic Mole/day Mole/day % ALK2 643 699 92.0 ISOPRENE 225 226 99.6 OLE2 76 131 57.5 TRP1 781 783 99.7

NO 37 1673 2.2 VOC 1724 2977 57.9 NOX 37 1759 2.1 Note: Emissions are daily averages (July 24 –29) summed over the central domain (grid cells 10,20 to 45,55)



### Area The 1999 inventory, developed for submittal by Oregon to EPA for the 1999 NEI, was the starting point for the Oregon 1997 and 1998 area source emission inventory used for model validation. Using population as a surrogate, all the 1999 emissions were scaled back to estimate 1997 and 1998 emissions for the 15 counties in th e modeling domain using MS ACCESS. Table A2 below details the development of the fracti ons used for each county. In Appendix B, Table B1 lists the area source categories that were inventoried.

95

### Table A1: P opulation and Emission Ratios by County 99-97 County 99-98 County July 1 July 1 July 1 STATE/COUNTY reduction fraction reduction fraction 1997 1998 1999 3,217,000 3,267,550 3,300,800 OREGON 0.9948 0.9935 76,700 76,600 77,100 BENTON 0.9720 0.9901 317,700 323,600 326,850 CLACKAMAS 0.9928 0.9986 34,500 34,700 34,750 CLATSOP 0.9730 0.9918 41,500 42,300 42,650 COLUMBIA 0.9746 0.9898 19,200 19,500 19,700 HOOD RIVE R 0.9688 0.9858 17,100 17,400 17,650 JEFFERSON 0.9804 0.9965 42,500 43,200 43,350 LINCOLN 0.9777 0.9922 100,700 102,200 103,000 LINN 0.9726 0.9878 267,700 271,900 275,250 MARION 0.9879 0.9923 639,000 641,900 646,850 MULTNOMAH 0.9551 0.9900 57,400 59,500 60,100 POLK 0.9876 0.9959 23,800 24,000 24,100 TILLAMOOK 0.9978 0.9978 22,600 22,600 22,650 WASCO 0.9512 0.9823 385,000 397,600 404,750 WASHINGTON 79,200 81,900 YAMHILL 0.9531 0.9856 83,100

SW CAA and the Washington Department of Ec ology did not have a complete 1999 area source submittal to start with so SWCAA built a 1998 EI for the 8 counties in the core Washington domain following EPA protocols as outlined in EIIP references. The eight counties in the core Washington domain were Clark, Cowlitz, Klickita t, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and Yakima counties. WSU staff then used 1996 area source data for the remainder of the domain counties from the Northwest Regi onal Technical Center (NWRTC) demonstration project work. The emission categories, and the methodologies used for calculating emissions for these categories are described in Appendix B.

Nonroad Mobile To create nonroad mobile estimates, excluding aircraft, rail and marine, for the 1997 and 1998 episodes, DEQ and SWCAA used EPA’s 2002 NON ROAD model. Collaborative care was taken to assure the consistency and validity of the model inputs between states and accurately reflect the conditions in each state. The NONR OAD model allows users to design various scenarios to generate emissions. The period input parameters for the model runs that generated this data were: seasonal, typica l day, summer, weekday to provide a conservative estimate of emissions. The 2002 NONROAD model was run for 1997 and 1998 episodes, with the same input parameters except for the ch ange in year. Table A2 summarizes the fuel parameter inputs representing both episodes.

96

### Table A2. Oregon NONROAD m o del fuel parameter inputs

1997/1998 Modeling Episode Input Inputs
Fuel RVP 7.8
Fuel O2 wt% 2.0 Gasoline sulfur wt% 0.021 Diesel sulfur wt% 0.5 CNG/LPG sulfur wt% 0.0123 Stage II control % *

NONROAD Model fuel parameter inputs:

* Control efficiency in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties was set to 81% based on DEQ estimates. For all other counties within the domain, the control efficiency was set to 0.



### Fuel RVP is the July ASTM terminal limit RV P for western Oregon and the Portland/Vancouver area (1997). The O2 and diesel su lfur weight % are DEQ estimates. Gasoline sulfur is from a state-by-state fuel properties repor t prepared for the EPA by ICF c onsulting. The CNG sulfur is a conservative estimate for HD5 propane rated for fuel use.

Temperature data for Oregon counties for the 1997 and 1998 episode runs were averaged from the temperatures of the top ten ozone days in the three years leading up to and including the original base year of 1996. Temperature data were taken from the Oregon Climatological Data Survey. The temperatures were averaged for the episode; the results are shown in Table A3.

Table A3. Oregon NONROAD temperature data inputs Avg. T Avg High T Avg. Low T County (F) (F) (F)
BENTON 75.7 92.1 59.2 CLACKAMAS 77.0 95.9 58.2 CLATSOP 65.4 76.5 54.2 COLUMBIA 78.2 96.0 60.4 HOOD RIVER 79.3 99.2 59.5 JEFFERSON 72.2 95.4 49.0 LINCOLN 65.4 76.5 54.2 LINN 77.0 95.9 58.2 MARION 77.2 95.9 58.5 MULTNOMAH 77.7 96.0 59.5 POLK 71.8 86.3 57.3 TILLAMOOK 65.4 76.5 54.2 WASCO 79.3 99.2 59.5 WASHINGTON 77.0 94.1 59.8 YAMHILL 73.1 88.2 58.0



### Temperature data for WA counties in the 1997 and 1998 episode runs were derived from NOAA data at various sites within those counties. Th e temperatures used were average temperatures

97

### during th e peak days of each respected episode. Table A4 shows the temperatures used for the 8 core counties in 1998 and for th e entire WA domain in 1997.

Table A4. WA core domain counties NONROAD temperature data inputs 1997 Episode 1998 Episode Avg. High (F) Avg. Low (F) Avg. (F) Avg. High (F) Avg. Low (F) Avg. (F) Clark 78.9 52.6 65.8 86.8 58.6 72.7 Cowlitz 77.6 53.8 65.7 87.1 59.6 73.4 Klickitat 88.4 50.1 69.3 101.4 58.8 80.1 Lewis 79.9 54.0 67.0 89.1 61.4 75.3 Pacific 72.8 50.7 61.8 74.9 57.0 66.0 Wahkiakum 54.0 72.9 63.5 80.8 56.4 68.6 Skamania 80.4 47.2 63.8 92.3 57.2 74.8 Yakima 89.2 53.6 71.4 99.7 66.1 82.9



### Aircraft, rail and commercial mari ne emissions in Oregon were estimated in the same manner as the area sources. They were back cast based on the population ratios be tween the 1999 inventory year and each specific episode year. ODEQ calcu lated the Columbia River commercial marine emissions and the emissions were apportione d to the Oregon countie s that bordered the Columbia River. In Washington, aircraft and commercial marine emissions from the 1996 NWRTC demonstration projec t were used because most of these emissions were outside of the 8 county core WA domain. Wash ington locomotive emissions were developed by ODEQ for a 1997 locomotive emission inventory.

Washington Department of Ecol ogy assisted in the Nonroad i nventory work by processing the Nonroad model outputs for input into the SMOKE model with a customized script.

On-road Mobile

The 1997 and 1998 mobile emissions were calcula ted based on episode specific, link-based, daily trip VMT data modeled by RTC and Metr o using traffic demand models. MOBILE6.2 was used to calculate the emission fa ctors with the episode -specific conditions. The summary of the approach to mobile emissions modeling estimates was to:

 Create link-based daily VMT for the AQM A using traffic demand models, and county-wide VMT for the remainder of the domain.

 Create four total MOBILE6.2 input files representing Clark County, Portland Metro Area Counties (both with I/M feat ures); Washington State counties, and Oregon State counties (both without I/M features ) for the remainder of the modeling domain.

 Run MOBILE6.2 at a standard temperatur e and at individual temperatures.

 Calculate average daily emissions at the standard temperature.

 Create a set of temperature adjustment fact ors from the individual temperature runs.

 Use SMOKE's gridded temperature file (f rom MM5) to apply adjustments to the standard emissions.

98

### This m ethod allowed adjustment of hourly emi ssions based on temperature, but involved postprocessing of SMOKE data. ODEQ completed the MOBILE6.2 work with assistance from ECOLOGY and SWCAA for Washington data, a nd WSU completed the SMOKE processing. The eight (4 per episode y ear) MOBILE6.2 input files can be found in Appendix C.

Industrial Point Sources

Industrial Point Sources from both states were lo aded into a common data base to ease tracking and model input file generation. Regional st aff for Washington and Oregon compiled annual emission information for permitted facilities. In dustrial Point sources that emit more than 10 tons per year of VOC, 40 tons per year of NO x 

### , or 100 tons per year of CO within the 4 counties of the Portland/Vancouver ozone maintenance area we re inventoried for this work. Point sources that emit more than 40 tpy of NO x 

### or 100 tpy of VOC or CO outside the maintenance area counties were also inventoried. Additionally, point sources emitt ing less than those thresholds within 4 kilometers of ozone monitoring sites were included in the episode emission inventories. Stack parameters, activity, and exact location were collected when available to provide the most comprehensive accounting possible.

SO X 

### emissions have an indirect in fluence on ozone, as such these emissions were included in the model run inventories. No SO X 

### parameters were used in compili ng the point source list for this project. The emissions were includ ed only for sources that met the NO X 

### , CO, and/or VOC thresholds described above. Facility SO X 

### data for Washington point sources were included in the 1997 and 1998 runs. For Oregon, 1997 and 1998 estimated actual SO X 

### emissions for TV point sources were generated fr om the ODEQ ACSIS point source da tabase. The emissions were split by SCC, but not by stack or device. SO X 

### data for the 2002 EI that was used to forecast 2015 emissions estimates was included for all sour ces in both states. ODEQ Program Operations staff inventoried the emissions for TV sources; regional staff estimated the emissions for all other sou rces.
All of these major categories were processed through SMOKE by WSU staff in preparation for the modeling.

Future Year Documentation

Base Year (2002) methodology for area and point sources

The base year EI chosen to be forecasted to 2015 was the latest emi ssion inventory that was created for submittal to EPA unde r the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). This 2002 county by county annual inventory was devel oped by the respective states following the currently accepted methodologies and submitted as part of the National Emission Inventory (NEI). As required by the submittal process it underwent rigorous QA by ODEQ, Ecology and EPA contractors. These statewide inventories co vered many more pollutants than were needed for this ozone modeling. Therefore the ozone precursor pollutants (CO, NOx, VOC) and SOx

99

### were selecte d by source classification code (SCC) from the submitted inventories for the counties in the modeling domain.

Area source forecast method The selected pollutants comprising the Ore gon inventory were input into a MS ACCESS database table to begin the future forecast. Area source forecasts were developed following a method that had been used in the previous Oregon SIPs following EPA guidance in Procedures for Preparing Emission Projections & Guidance for Growth Factors . This method involves creating surrogate growth factors (Table A5 ) for industrial, comme rcial, population, and household growth. In addition, there is a no growth option. Each SCC in the inventory is then assigned one of these surrogates.

Table A5. 2015 Growth Surrogate Factors

PSC Portland Metro CO MA Growth Factors Percent Growth Parameter Data

1 Population (Zoning & Land Use Based) 1.8% Linear, Non-Compounding 2 Housing Growth & Land Use Projections 2.0% Linear, Non-Compounding 3 Commerical Employment & Land Use Projections 1.0% Linear, Non-Compounding 4 Industrial Employment & Land Use Pr ojections 0.2% Linear, Non-Compounding 5 Field burning, orchard heating, orchard prunning burning, RWC 0.0% No Growth 6 RR -Transportation, Communication, Utilities 1.3% Linear, Non-Compounding



### The factors themselves were developed from the METRO Economic Report Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA area provided by Chief Economist, Dennis Yee with METRO’s Data Resource Center. They represent th e average growth rate for the period 2002 to 2015 derived from the industrial and commerc ial employment projections, population, and resulting household growth. The industrial and commercial decisi ons were based on SIC grouping from Procedures for the Preparation of Em ission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: Gene ral Guidance for Stationary Sources and represent an average of the following sectors. The same gr owth factors were used for both the Washington and Oregon source categories (Table A6). A lthough, SWCAA did look for WA specific data in other parts of the domain, it was decided that Portland/Vancouver area influences were the greatest and local planning decisions were the most influential in model results.

The rate of growth was calcula ted with the following formula:

(Future yr employment - initia l yr employment)/initial employ ment/ # of years of growth.

100

### Table A6. 2002 to 2015 METRO Oz one Summ ary Industrial Growth Factor Table 2002-2015 Industrial Categories 2002 2015 linear, non-compounding 6 Food Processing 8.35 7.71 -0.59% 7 Textiles & Apparel 3.5 3.06 -0.97% 8 Paper & Pulp 6.61 6.22 -0.45% 9 Printing & Publishing 11.4 13.47 1.40% 10 Nondur. Goods, other 7.24 10.06 3.00% 12 Lumber & Wood 7.52 5.9 -1.66% 13 Metals 18.49 19.6 0.46% 15 Nonelectrical Mach. 15.91 20.82 2.37% 16 Electrical Mach. & Instr. 43.24 59.31 2.86% 17 Transportation Equip. 9.52 11.68 1.75% 18 Durable Goods, other 8.59 11.06 2.21% 20 Constr. & Mining 53.34 71.82 2.67%

2002-2015 rate 2195.71 2255.71 0.21%



### Table A7. 2002 to 2015 METRO Ozone Summar y Commercial Growth Factor Table

Commercial 2002 2015 linear, non-compounding 2 Nonfarm Self-Employ. 253.3 352.0 3.00% 22 Transport., Comm., & Util. 54.5 69.9 2.176% 24 Retail Trade 167.4 225.6 2.67% 25 Wholesale Trade 65.0 87.9 2.70% 26 Fin., Ins., & Real Est. 64.5 80.1 1.87% 28 Health 64.6 93.5 3.45% 29 Nonhealth 214.5 326.3 4.01% 30 Govt., Fed. Civilian 18.1 19.4 0.55% 31 Govt., Fed. Military 6.6 6.7 0.07% 32 Govt., State & Local 109.0 129.7 1.46%

2002-2015 rate 3,019.6 3,406.1 0.98%



### Those factors were then used in the ACCESS database to esti mate the 2015 emissions with the following equation:

2002 base year emissions + (2002 base year emi ssions * growth factor * 13 growth years)

2015 Nonroad Mobile

The NONROAD2004 model was used to estimate th e 2015 emissions since it accounts for both growth and federal controls on covered nonroa d sources. According to the May 2004 EPA FAQ

101

### on the NONROAD m odel, the draft NONROAD 2004 model includes the following federal emission reduction rules:

1) Final Tier 4 nonroad diesel engine standards (also known as the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule), final rule. However, the model does not yet contain the evaporative emission benefits for the new recreati onal equipment and large spark-ignition standards. [Adjustments for the evaporative reductions were not done for this modeling effort.]

2) Final nonroad diesel fuel sulfur sta ndards associated with the Tier 4 rule

For the 2015 Nonroad Model run inputs, all period parameters except year were retained from the 1997/1998 runs.

For fuel parameter inputs, a 2015 gasoline su lfur default of 0.0030 weight % from EPA’s MOBILE6 was used. A 2015 diesel sulfur 0.0011 weight % was taken from the inputs for the NONROAD model runs EPA genera ted to develop the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Engine Final Rule. Stage II control % was set to 0 si nce Oregon Stage II phase out is expected to begin sometime in 2008. The CNG/LPG sulfur weight % and all te mperature data were retained from the 1997/1998 runs.

Fuel O2 weight % and RVP data were im proved and revised for the 2015 Nonroad Model episode runs. Baseline oxygen weight % was revised downward, and it was determined that ethanol is blended year-round at some Oregon te rminals. DEQ assumes that blending will continue through 2015, so the 2015 fuel O2 was estim ated to be 1.03% by weight for all counties in the domain. RVP refinements were made by apportioning terminal RVP to county and subsequently incorporating the revised O2 wei ght %. The final RVP estimates are shown by county in Table A8.

Table A8. 2015 Ozone Modeling Nonroad Model Input RVP – Oregon Counties Fuel County RVP Benton 9.3 Clackamas 8.1 Clatsop 9.3 Columbia 9.3 Hood River 9.3 Jefferson 9.3 Lincoln 9.3 Linn 9.3 Marion 8.6 Multnomah 8.1 Polk 8.2 Tillamook 9.3 Wasco 9.3 Washington 8.1 Yamhill 9.3



### 102

### For the W ashington portion of the modeling domain, SWCAA used the same temporal parameters that ODEQ used for their portion of the domain. The fuel parameters were also consistent with the Oregon portion of the domain except for Fuel RVP. The inputs used for WA counties were consistent with an internal Ecology document summarizi ng Mobile 6/6.2 input parameters for the different regions of the stat e entitled Mobile 6/6.1/6.2 Input Parameters and Processing (May 6, 2003 update). Fuel RVP values used for WA in the 2015 nonroad emissions modeling are shown in Table A9.

Table A9: 2015 Ozone Modeling Nonroad Model Input RVP - Washington Counties

County Fuel RVP County Fuel RVP

ADAMS 8.5 KITTITAS 8.5

BENTON 8.5 KLICKITAT 8.5

CHELAN 8.5 LEWIS 8.5

CLALLAM 8.5 LINCOLN 8.5

CLARK 7.8 MASON 8.5

COWLITZ 8.5 PACIFIC 8.5

DOUGLAS 8.5 PIERCE 7.8

FRANKLIN 8.5 SKAMANIA 8.5

GRANT 8.5 SNOHOMISH 7.8

GRAYS HARBOR 8.5 THURSTON 8.5

ISLAND 8.5 WAHKIAKUM 8.5

JEFFERSON 8.5 WALLA WALLA 8.5

KING 7.8 YAKIMA 8.5

KITSAP 8.5



### Railroad, marine vessels, and airports are estim ated independently of the NONROAD model. 2015 locomotive and commercial marine vessel emi ssions were estimated by the growth factor analysis method similar to area sources. For locomotive engines the na tional average growth factor (1.3%) from the Federal Clean Air Nonroad Diesel – Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis Document was applied to grow the emissions. Ho wever in the 13 years separating the base and future years that analysis showed that the clean engine techno logy was working its way into use and lowering the emissions. The reduc tions from the Tier 0/I/II implementation on emissions work is shown in EPA’s Emission Factors for Locomotives (Document EPA420-F-97- 051 Dec. 1997) which gives fleet average emission factors for all locomotives from 1999 to 2040. By comparing the 2002 fleet average emissi on factors to the 2015 fleet average emission factors, the effects on NOx, CO, HC , and PM are given as follows:

Table A10. 2002 vs. 2015 Locomotive EF Ratios Pollutant 2015/2002 Ratio HC 0.794
CO 1 NO x 

### 0.607 PM 0.779

103

### These ratios were applied to the grown 2015 e missions to reflect the expected fleet penetration of the Tier 0-II locomotives over time. In the same manner Nonroad diesel sulfur content is expected to drop to 15 ppm by 2012 for locomo tives and marine engines. Chapter 3 of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel – Final Ru le Regulatory Impact Analysis gives the anticipated changes to SO2 emissions.

Table 3.1-6a on page 3-19 gives the Baseline Lo comotive fuel sulfur content and Locomotive SO 2 

### emissions in tpy. This ‘baseline’ sulfur c ontent only fluctuates due to ‘spillover’ from the low-sulfur highway diesel.

Table 3.4-8a on page 3-57 gives the Control Lo comotive fuel sulfur content and Locomotive SO2 emissions in tpy. This table shows substantia l reductions for the nonroad low-sulfur diesel impacts as well as highway diesel spillover.

To get the 2002 and 2015 (controlled) numbers on the same basis (lb SO2/gallon diesel), each years annual emissions were divided by the annual fuel usage for that year from table 3.1-6a. This resulted in the following:

Table A11. Locomotive Baseline and Future Fuel Usage and Emissions

Year Fuel Usage (gal) SO 2 

### Emissions (tpy) Rate (lb SO 2 

### /gal) 2002 2.692 x10^9 49,291 0.03662 2015 3.148 x10^9 1,231 0.000782

Therefore the ratio of 2015 to 2002 SO2 emissions due to the low-sulfur fuel is equal to the ratio of 0.000782/0.03662 or:

Table A12. Locomotive Sulfur Emissions Reduction Factor Pollutant 2015/2002 Ratio SO 2 

### 0.02135

Commercial marine vessel 2015 emissions recei ved the derived commercial growth factor application. The change in sulfur emissions from large trans-oceanic shipping is not yet clear so it was decided that there would be no reduction f actor applied to the commercial marine vessel emissions.

Recreational marine vessels are also calculate d “off model” and so the 2002 emissions were grown to 2015 using population as a surrogate following the area source application method.

Aircraft emissions for the Oregon 2002 NEI s ubmitted data had two sources. The Port of Portland went through great deta il to prepare emissions for Hi llsboro, Troutdale, Mulino, and Portland International airports out to the year 2020. This data was verified and accepted as part of the Oregon CERR submittal. Because the rema ining towered airports and the many smaller airports do not fall under the Port’s jurisdiction they were estimated by DEQ using the Emissions Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS) developed by the FAA. Therefore, the 2015 aircraft emissions include those estimated by the Port (where appropriate) and those grown by DEQ using the commercial growth factor as discussed above.

104

### In the W ashington part of the modeling domain, the only significant aircraft emissions were in the Puget Sound region, and the most notable of thes e at the Seattle Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac). Emission data for that facility were compiled by a consultant (CDM) and provided to PSCAA. PSCAA provided these data to SWCAA fo r input into the model along with aircraft emissions for Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties.

2015 On-road Mobile

The 2015 mobile emissions were calculated base d on link-based, daily trip VMT data modeled by RTC and Metro using traffic demand models . MOBILE6.2 was used to calculate the emission factors with the 1998 episode-specific conditions. The summary of the approach to mobile emissions modeling estimates was to:

 Create link-based daily VMT for the AQMA using traffic demand models,

 ODOT and WDOT provided count y-wide VMT for the remainder of the domain.

 Create four total MOBILE6.2 input files representing Clark County, Portland Metro Area Counties (both with I/M features); Wa shington State counties, and Oregon State counties (both without I/M features) for the remainde r of the modeling domain.

 Run MOBILE6.2 at a standard temperatur e and at individual temperatures.

 Calculate average daily emissions at the standard temperature.

 Create a set of temperature adjustment fact ors from the individual temperature runs.

 Use SMOKE's gridded temperature file (f rom MM5) to apply adjustments to the standard emissions.

This method allowed adjustment of hourly emi ssions based on temperature, but involved postprocessing of SMOKE data. ODEQ completed the MOBILE6.2 work with assistance from ECOLOGY and SWCAA for Washington data, a nd WSU completed the SMOKE processing. The eight (4 per episode y ear) MOBILE6.2 input files can be found in Appendix C.

2015 Point Source Growth Factor Implementation

Point source emissions were grown using 2003 through 2015 annual growth factors supplied by Metro (ref 603). The growth factors are keyed by Metro number, which was cross-walked to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) by DE Q staff (Marianne Fitzgerald, AQ-PPD). The growth factors with matched SICs are shown in Table A.13.

105

### Table A13. Point Source SIC growth rates SIC Industry MetroNumber 2015

20 Bakeries 6 -1.28% 26 Pulp/paper/paperboard 8 -1.11% 27 Graphic arts/printing 9 0.45% 28 Organic chemical mfg. 10 2.55% 29 Petroleum refining 10 2.55% 32 Glass products 10 2.55% 24 Sawmills 12 -3.12% 25 Furniture & Fixtures 12 -3.12% 34 Fabricated metal products 13 -0.61% 33 Iron & steel mfg 13 -0.61% 35 Machinery & computer equip. 15 0.77% 38 Photographic equipment 16 1.00% 36 Electronic equipment & components 16 1.00% 37 Transportation equipment 17 -0.09% 30 Rubber & misc. plastic products 18 1.19% 17 Construction 20 0.43% 13 Oil & Gas Extraction 20 0.43% 42 Farm product storage 22 1.55% 45 Airports 22 1.55% 49 Waste disposal 22 1.55% 52 Building materials 24 1.59% 50 Scrap & waste materials 25 1.29% 51 Gasoline storage 25 1.29% 72 Industrial laundries 29 2.50% 75 Carwashes 29 2.50% 76 Repair shops 29 2.50% 82 Colleges & Universities 29 2.50% 97 Air national guard 31 0.00%



### Emissions by facility were grown by matching th e facility primary SIC to the SIC in Table 2.7.X. A linear, non-compounding formula was used:

((Metro growth factor) * (p revious year emissions)) + (previous year emissions)

For example, for a selected SIC sub-category for the year 2003, with a 20 02 (base year) value of 10 tons per year, and growth fact ors of 2.5% in 2003 and 3.0 % in 2004:

2003 tpy = (0.025 growth * 10 tpy) + (10 tpy) = 10.25 tpy 2004 tpy = (0.03 growth * 10.25 tpy) + (10.25 tpy ) = 10.56 tpy

Biogenic emissions will be assumed to remain unchanged in the future, although urban development does modify the amount, loca tion, and type of vegetation over time.

106

### Comparisons between 1998 and 2015 future year

Figure A1. Episode Emission Comparison

139,585 10,334 7,519

115,186 5,269 5,516

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000Moles/episode

1998 2015
Year Domain Anthrogenic Pollution 1998 vs 2015

VOC
SOX
NOX
CO



### Summary of Assumptions and Strategies built into 2015 EI

The following is a list of the assumptions built in to the 2015 emissions inventory used for the modeling of the base future year scenario.

 Railroad emissions have incorporated low sulfur fuel and the effect of Tier I/II engine pene tration into the fleet.

 Final Tier 4 nonroad dies el engine standards a nd diesel fuel sulfur standards associated with th e rule have been included.

 Onroad diesel sulfur was 15 ppm

 Population increased 1.8%

 Household growth was 2.0%

 Commercial employment growth was 1.0%

 Industrial employment growth was 0.21%

107

### Appendix B: Area Source Category Em ission Calculation Methodologies

Category: AREA SOURCES SCC SWCAA Methodology SWCAA Methodology 1997 & 1998 O3 Episodes 2002/2015 Future Year Episode AREA SOURCES
FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORT

Area Source Categories 25-01-000-000 Did not include Did not include Marine Vessel Transport

Residual Oil 25-05-000-060 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Tanker - Gasoline 25-05-020-120 Contribution from Tidewater Barge Lines Contribution from Tidewater Barge Lines Barge - Gasoline 25-05-020-121 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Jet Naphtha 25-05-000-150 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Aviation Fuel Distribution

Aircraft Fueling: Uncontrolled - Aviation Gas Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Aircraft Fueling: Controlled - Aviation Gas Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) UST Working Loss - All Fuels 22-75-900-202 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) UST Filling - All Fuels 22-75-900-201 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Truck Transport (Jet Naphtha) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Truck Transport (Aviation Gas) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Truck Transport (Jet Fuel) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Vehicle Fuel Distribution

Stage I Uncontrolled 25-01-060-052 Calculated from SWCAA Database SWCAA and PSCAA data Stage I Controlled 25-01-060-053 Calculated from SWCAA Database SWCAA and PSCAA data Stage II Uncontrolled (doesn't exist) 25-01-060-101 Did Not Include Did Not Include Stage II Controlled 25-01-060-102 Calculated from SWCAA Database No Stage II in out-year UST Working Loss 25-01-060-201 These emissions included in other 25-01-060-xxx categories These emissions included in other 25-01- 060-xxx categories Truck Transport (Auto Gas) 25-05-030-120 Calculated using EIIP EF Did Not Include SOLVENT EVAPORATION/UTILIZATION

Surface Coating

Auto Refinishing 24-01-005-000 Actual Emissions from small source database Actual Emissions from SWCAA - EIIP for other counties Factory Finished Wood 24-01-015-000 Wood Furniture 24-01-020-000 Paper 24-01-030-000 Not inventoried as area source (assumed point source) Not inventoried as area source (assumed point source) Metal Cans 24-01-040-000 Metal Coils 24-01-045-000 Misc. Metals 24-01-050-000 Lumped into Industrial Coatin g s Machinery & Equipment 24-01-055-000 2002 NEI data Electronic & Other Electrical 24-01-065-000 Motor Vehicles 24-01-070-000

Marine 24-01-080-000 EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2.

Plastic Products 24-01-035-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Misc. Manufacturing 24-01-090-000 EIIP, Table 8.5-2 (9/26/97) EIIP, Table 8.5-2 (9/26/97) Industrial Maintenance 24-01-100-000 EIIP, Table 8.5-2 (9/26/97) EIIP, Table 8.5-2 (9/26/97) Special Purpose 24-01-200-000 EIIP, Table 8.5-2 (9/26/97) EIIP, Table 8.5-2 (9/26/97) Traffic Markings 24-01-008-000 EIIP Chapter 14 (5/17/97), Alternative 1 EIIP Chapter 14 (5/17/97), Alternative 1

Architectural 24-01-001-000 EIIP Chapter 3 & Census/Paint and Allied Products EF dev WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP Chapter 3 & Census/Paint and Allied Products EF dev Surface Cleaning: E ach category contains 4 subcategories Furniture & Fixtures 24-15-005 to 305-000 Primary Metal Industries 24-15-010 to 310-000 Fabricated Metal Products 24-15-020 to 320-000 Industrial Machinery & Equipment 24-15-025 to 325-000 Electronic & Other Electrical 24-15-030 to 330-000 Transportation Equipment 24-15-035 to 335-000 Instruments & Related Products 24-15-040 to 340-000 Misc. Manufacturing 24-15-045 to 345-000 Transportation Maintenance Facilities 24-15-050 to 350-000 Automative Dealers 24-15-055 to 355-000 Auto Repair Services 24-15-065 to 365-000 Graphic Arts

All Processes & Solvents 24-25-000-000 Alternative method 2 from EIIP Chapter 7 (10/96): (SIC or NAICS employment) Subtract out to avoid double counting Alternative method 2 from EIIP Chapter 7 (10/96): (employment surrogate) Subtract out to avoid double counting 22-75-900-101

25-05-030-180

EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2. EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2.

EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2. 2002 NEI data

Methodology per SIC employee emission factors given in EIIP, Chapt. 6. SIC employee data obtained from County Business Patterns website. SIC converted to NAICS (for 1998) (EIIP methodology, Chapt. 8). No total (all processes) entered into the database to avoid double counting. Open top degreasing categories added. Methodology per SIC employee emission factors given in EIIP, Chapt. 6. SIC employee data obtained from County Business Patterns website. SIC converted to NAICS (EIIP methodology, Chapt. 8). No total (all processes) entered into the database to avoid double counting. Open top degreasing categories added. EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2. EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2. EIIP Chapter 8, Employees from County Business Patterns (SIC in 1997 and NAICS in 1998), VOC EF from Table 8.5-2.



### 108Miscellaneous Non-Industrial : Commercial Cutback Asphalt 24-61-021-000 Emulsified Asphalt 24-61-022-000

Roofing Asphalt 24-61-023-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant)

Pesticide Application 24-61-850-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Fertilizer Application-Anhydrous Ammonia 28-01-700-001 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignific ant) Fertilizer Application-Aqua Ammonia 28-01-700-002 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Fertilizer Application-Nitrogen Solutions 28-01-700-003 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignifi cant) Fertilizer Application-Urea 28-01-700-004 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Fertilizer Application-Ammonium Nitrate 28-01-700-005 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignifica nt) Fertilizer Application-Ammonium Sulfate 28-01-700-006 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignifica nt) Fertilizer Application-Other Straight Nitrogen 28-01-700-008 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insi gnificant) Fertilizer Application-Ammonium Phosphates 28-01-700-009 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignif icant) Fertilizer Application-Nitrous oxide 28-01-700-011 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant ) Fertilizer Application-Nitric oxide 28-01-700-012 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Miscellaneous Non-Industrial: Consumer

Coatings and Related Products 24-60-500-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate

Personal care 24-65-100-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate

Household Products 24-65-200-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate

Auto Aftrmkt 24-65-400-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate

Adhesives/Sealants 24-65-600-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate

Pesticide(fifra) 24-65-800-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate

Miscellaneous 24-65-900-000 EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate WDOE 2002 CERR data - EIIP, Table 5.4-1 (8/2/96) - Population Surrogate Dry Cleaning

Solvents NEC 24-20-000-999 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant)

Perchloroethylene 1996 = 24-20-000-055 1999 = 4-01-001-13 Did Not Include (Not a VOC) Did Not Include (Not a VOC) WASTE DISPOSAL, TREATMENT, & RECOVERY

Open Burning

residential, garbage 26-10-030-000 All open burning based on past SWCAA survey's and extrapolated based on per capita growth. (Includes residential b rush, debris, and garbage). 2002 CERR data from WDOE

commercial 26-10-020-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) residential, includes leaves & brush 26-10-000-000 Lumped in with 26-10-030-000 Lumped in with 26-10-000-400

residential, brush 26-10-000-400 Lumped in with 26-10-030-000 2002 CERR data from WDOE residential, leaves 26-10-000-100 Lumped in with 26-10-030-000 Lumped in with 26-10-030-000 Municipal Landfills

Landfills 26-20-030-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Landfills (TV) 5-01-004-02 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Wastewater Treatment

POTW's 26-30-020-000 Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

LUST's 26-60-000-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) SMALL STATIONARY FUEL & WOOD USE ind. fuel oil (dist. & kero) 21-02-004-000 Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) ind. fuel oil (residual) 21-02-005-000 Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) industrial LPG 21-02-007-000 Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) Did Not Include (Included in PT sources) com. fuel oil (dist. & kero) 21-03-004-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors 2002 NEI data com. fuel oil (residual) 21-03-005-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors Lumped into 21-03-004-000 commercial LPG 21-03-007-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors 2002 NEI data commercial natural gas 21-03-006-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors 2002 NEI data industrial natural gas 21-02-006-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors Lumped into point sources or Commerci al Nat. Gas residential fuel oil (dist. & kero) 21-04-004-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors 2002 NEI data residential LPG 21-04-007-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors 2002 NEI data residential natural gas 21-04-006-000 Residential and Commercial Fuel Use Based SWCAA Factors 2002 NEI data Throughput from Chevron (sales to SW WA), methods from EIIP Chapt. 17 and Chevron/ODEQ Factors 2002 NEI data



### 109Residential Wood Combustion Fireplaces 21-04-008-001 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Catalytic Wood Stoves 21-04-008-030 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Non-catalytic Wood Stoves 21-04-008-050 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Convetional Wood Stoves 21-04-008-051 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Pellet Stoves 21-04-008-053 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) MISC. AREA SOURCES

Agricultural

Ag. field burning 28-01-500-000 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) WDOE 2002 CERR data Ag. propane burning 28-01-501-000 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Ag. stack burning 28-01-502-000 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Apples 28-01-500-320 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Cherries 28-01-500-350 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Grapes 28-01-500-500 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Hazelnuts 28-01-500-450 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Peaches 28-01-500-410 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Pears 28-01-500-420 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Prunes/Plums 28-01-500-430 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Walnuts 28-01-500-440 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Orchard Burning - Other 28-01-500-300 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer)

Orchard Heaters - All Fuels 28-01-520-000 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer)

Orchard Heaters - Propane 28-01-520-010 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer)

Orchard Heaters - Diesel 28-01-520-004 Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer) Did Not Include (Insignificant in Summer)

Other Combustion

Wildfires 28-10-001-000 Did Not Include (Checked episode dates and fire dates to assure these not si g nificant ) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant)
Prescribed Burning 28-10-015-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) WDOE 2002 CERR data Structure Fires 28-10-030-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Misc

Commercial Charbroiling 23-02-002-000 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant)

Commercial Deep Fat Frying 23-02-080-001 Did Not Include (One large source included in Pt sources) Did Not Include (One large source included in Pt sources)

Hospital Sterilization 28-50-000-010 Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant) Did Not Include (Assumed Insignificant)

Chrome Electroplating 3-09-010-XXX Did Not Include (Insignificant) Did Not Include (Insignificant)

NONROAD MOBILE Misc. 2-stroke, 4-stroke, Diesel 22-60,65,70-XXX-000 Nonroad 2002a Nonroad2004 model used to calculate 2015 data Recreational Marine Vessels 22-82-XXX-XXX Nonroad 2002a Nonroad2004 model used to calculate 2015 data

Commercial Marine Vessels 22-80-002-000 Relied on OR data for Columbia, NWRTC Data for Puget Sound Area ODEQ Calculated Columbia River data. WDOE 2002 CERR CMV data for all other counties

Aircraft 22-75-000-000 Calculated based on SWCAA derived EF Included aircraft emissions from Puget Sound Region

Railroads 22-85-002-XXX ODEQ 1996 Research for WA state WDOE 2002 CERR Data. Applied EPA Factors to adjust for Tier 0-II standards and fleet turnover ONROAD MOBILE
Onroad Mobile Emissions Mobile 6a (by ODEQ), RTC VMT, WDOE VMT Calculated directely for 2015 2002 CERR from WDOE lumped into 21-04-008-000



### 110

### Appendix C: MOBILE6.2 input file s for the 1997 and 1998 episodes.

* Filename: ClrkIM97 -- Clark County I/M ru n with M6

* This input generates the summer fleet-ave rage VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1997 for Clark County Washington using Wash ington 1997 registration data (reg1997) and Vancouver I/M program file description (im1997.van)

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT : *REPORT FILE :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA_PROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\reg1997.txt

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1993 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1968 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 34.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 93.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 2.0 4.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 1

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1993 2050 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1968 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 2 11111 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 34.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 93.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 2.0 4.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 1

******************** Scenario Section ***************************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50



### 111ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260



### * Filename: WaNoIM97 -- 1997 Washington No I/M counties * (for the remainder of the domain) run with M6.2

* This input generates the summer fleet-a verage VOC, CO, NOx, SO x and PM10 emissions from CY1997 for all Washington Non I/M counties in themodeling domain using Washington 1997 reg data (reg1997) because it is the registrati on developed for that year (vs using the 1999 distribution).

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 8.5 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA_PROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\reg1997.txt

******************* Scenario Section ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 350.0



### * Filename: PDXIM97 -- Tricounty Portland Ozone I/M run with M6

* This input generates the summer fleet-a verage VOC, CO, SOx a nd NOx emissions from CY1997 for Tri-County area using Tr i-county average 1996 registration from the reg data we used for the 1996 EI because this data is closer in time to the 97 modelin g year and applying the

112

### reg data to the LDV and LDT and using the Wa ECOLOGY 1999 vehicle re gistration for vehicle classes 6-16.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : h:\EPA_PROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\RegTRI97.d

* The Metro area has 2 levels of tests (during 1997) so there needs to be 2 I/M program entries * 1981-1995 Enhanced test, 1975-1980 Basic test, only the LD vehicles get tested.

* 1981-1995 Enhanced (Bar 31) Gary Beyer says this test (2525/5015) models real world better than IM240 I/M PROGRAM : 1 1975 2020 2 T/O ASM 2525/5015 FINAL I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1981 2020 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 0.0 I/M CUTPOINTS : 1 ORCUTPT.d I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2

* 1975-1980 Basic * According to VIP policy 201 "all 1975-1980 gasoline vehicles are subject to the Basic test." I/M PROGRAM : 2 1975 2020 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1975 1980 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 0.0

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 75 75 80 22222 22222222 1 12 090. 22212221

******************* Scenario Section ********************** * A separate scenario must be written for each calendar * year to be analyzed. SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7



### 113* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE * perl script will create a constant temp (min 61 max 61) throughout the range.

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50 ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260



### * Filename: ORNoIM97 -- 1997 Oregon No I/M counties

For the remainder of the domain run with M6.2 This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PM10 emissions from CY1997 for all Oregon Non I/M co unties in the modeling domain using the 1996 Oregon LDV and LDT vehicle class registration from the 1996 EI model year end count we received from the DMV and Wa all other registration.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 9.0 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA_PROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6\Run\96PdxSip\97episod\regOR97.d

******************* Scenario Section *************************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1997 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 280



### 114

### 1998 Episode

* Filename: ClrkIM98 -- Clark County I/M ru n with M6

* This input generates the summer fleet-ave rage VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1998 for Clark County Washington usi ng Washington 1999 registration data.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT : *REPORT FILE :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : D:\EPA_PROG\ MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\reg1999.txt

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1993 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1968 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 36.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 93.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 4.0 7.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 1

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1998 2050 2 T/O GC I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1968 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 36.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 93.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 4.0 7.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 1

I/M PROGRAM : 3 1993 2050 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1968 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 3 36.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 93.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 4.0 7.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 1

******************** Scenario Section ***************************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 EVALUATION MONTH : 7



### 115* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260



### * Filename: WaNoIM98 -- 1998 Washington No I/M counties

For the remainder of the domain run with M6.2 This input generates the summer fleet -average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PM10 emissions from CY1998 for all Washington N on I/M counties in the modeling domain using Washington 1999 reg data (Sally thinks that is better than the 1998).

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 8.5 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : D:\EPA_PROG\ MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\reg1999.txt

******************* Scenario Section ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 350.0



### 116

### * Filename: PDXIM98 -- Tricounty Portland Ozone I/M run with M6

* This input generates the summer fleet-ave rage VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1998 for Tri-County area using Tr i-county average 2002 registrati on from Jeff's query of the DMV data (no gas/diesel distinction) and applyi ng the reg data to the LDV and LDT and using the Wa ECOLOGY 1999 vehicle regist ration for vehicle classes 6-16.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : D:\EPA_PR OG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\IM98OR.d

* The Metro area has three levels of tests so there needs to be 3 I/M program entries * 1996 to present gets OBD, 1981-1995 Enhanced test, 1975-1980 Basic test * only the LD vehicles get tested

* 1996+ OBD exhaust benefits I/M PROGRAM : 1 1975 2020 2 T/O OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2020 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 0.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2

* 1996+ OBD evaporative benefits I/M PROGRAM : 2 1975 2020 2 T/O EVAP OBD I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1996 2020 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 0.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2

* 1981-1995 Enhanced (Bar 31) Gary Beyer says this test (2525/5015) models real world better than IM240 I/M PROGRAM : 3 1975 2020 2 T/O ASM 2525/5015 FINAL I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1981 1995 I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 3 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 0.0 0.0 I/M CUTPOINTS : 3 ORCUTPT.d



### 117* 1975-1980 Basic * According to VIP policy 201 "all 1975-1980 gasoline vehicles are subject to the Basic test." I/M PROGRAM : 4 1975 2020 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1975 1980 I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 4 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 0.0 0.0

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 75 75 80 22222 22222222 1 12 090. 22212221

******************* Scenario Section ********************** * A separate scenario must be written for each calendar year to be analyzed. SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE * perl script will create a constant temp (min 61 max 61) throughout the range.

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50 ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 260



### * Filename: ORNoIM98 -- 1998 Oregon No I/M counties For the remainder of the domain run with M6.2 This input generates the summer fleet -average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PM10 emissions from CY1998 for all Oregon Non I/M counties in the modeling domain using Oregon LDV and LDT vehicle class registra tion and Wa all other registration.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** NO REFUELING : FUEL RVP : 9.0 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : D:\EPA_PR OG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\NoIM98OR.d

******************* Scenario Section ***************************



### 118SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 1998 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-101 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 64.01 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 280



### * Filename: Q15Clrk -- Clar k County I/M run with M6

* This input generates the summer fleet-average emissions from CY2015 * for Clark County Washington using Washington 2004 registration data. * This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling of the future episode.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : *STAGE II REFUELING : 92 2 80. 80.

FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA_PROG\MO BILE62\Mobile6\Run\Regdist\WaReg\reg2004.txt

* There were not enough programs to define the 1) HDGV2b/3 EVAP OBD & GC program * anticipated to begin in 2008 and 2) HDGV4+ GC program that began in 2002. * HDGV gas cap added to program 2 to at least get some of the HD GC test * Received from W.Strange 10/21/2004 af ter consultation with his management.

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1993 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1968 1995 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 42.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 4.9 15.8 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25



### 119I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 5

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1998 2050 2 T/O GC I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1968 1995 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 4.9 15.8 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 5

I/M PROGRAM : 3 1993 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 3 42.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 4.9 5.3 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 5

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2002 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD & GC I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1 I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 4.9 5.3 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 5

I/M PROGRAM : 5 1993 2050 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1968 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 5 11111 11222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 5 42.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 5 4.9 8.3 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 5

I/M PROGRAM : 6 1993 2050 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1968 2007 I/M VEHICLES : 6 11111 22111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 6 42.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 6 4.9 8.3 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 6 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 5

I/M PROGRAM : 7 1993 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 7 2008 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 7 11111 22111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 7 42.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 7 91.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 7 4.9 5.3 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 7 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 7 5

******************** Scenario Section *****************************



### 120SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-102 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 15



### * Filename: Q15PDXIM-- 2015 Tri County I/M This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO and NOx, PM10 emissions from CY2015 for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties using the tr i-county LDGV and LDDV registration and appropriate extended registra tion from WA for HDV. This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling of the future ep isode. This file calculates the refueling emission as being controlled by the canisters on-boa rd the vehicles. There is no longer any stage II vapor recovery systems in place at the gas stations.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA

******************* Run Section *************************** EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : *STAGE II REFUELING : 92 2 80. 80. FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename path for the county being modeled. REG DIST : R02PDX2.d

* 2 I/M program entries * 1996 to CY - 2 gets OBD, 1975-1995 Basic test

* 1996+ OBD exhaust benefits I/M PROGRAM : 1 1975 2020 2 T/O OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2020 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 0.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 4



### 121* 1996+ OBD evaporative benefits I/M PROGRAM : 2 1975 2020 2 T/O EVAP OBD I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1996 2020 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 0.0 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 4

* 1975-1980 Basic - light duty gas vehicle basic testing I/M PROGRAM : 3 1975 2025 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1975 1995 I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 3 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 0.0 0.0

* 1975-1980 Basic - to correctly model the HDGV basic testing I/M PROGRAM : 4 1975 2025 2 T/O 2500/IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1975 2025 I/M VEHICLES : 4 11111 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 4 37.4 I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 90.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 0.0 0.0

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 75 75 80 22222 22222222 1 12 090. 22212222

******************* Scenario Section ********************** * A separate scenario must be written for each calendar * year to be analyzed.

****************************************************************************************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 15



### * Filename: Q15PXNIM-- 2015 Tri County No I/M This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO and NOx, PM10 and HAPS emissions from CY2015 for Multnomah, Washington and Clack amas Counties using the tri-county LDGV and LDDV registration and appropria te extended registration from WA for HDV. This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling of the future ep isode. This file calculates the refueling emission as being controlled by the canisters on-board the vehicles.

122

### There is no longer any stage II vapor recovery system s in place at the gas stations.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :

RUN DATA

******************* Run Section *************************** EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : *STAGE II REFUELING : 92 2 80. 80. FUEL RVP : 7.8

* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename path for the county being modeled. REG DIST : R02PDX2.d

******************* Scenario Section ********************** * A separate scenario must be written for each calendar * year to be analyzed.

****************************************************************************************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 15



### * Filename: WaNoIM15 -- 2015 Washington No I/M counties (for the remainder of the domain) run with M6.2

This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, NOx, SOx and PM10 emissions from CY2015 for all Washington Non I/M counties in th e modeling domain using latest Washington 2004 reg data. This is the file run by DEQ fo r the CMAQ modeling of the future episode.

******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES : SPREADSHEET : DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : AGGREGATED OUTPUT :



### 123RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** EXPAND EVAPORATIVE : *STAGE II REFUELING : 92 2 80. 80. FUEL RVP : 8.5 * enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled. REG DIST : H:\EPA_PROG\MO BILE62\Mobile6\Run\Regdist\WaReg\reg2004.txt

******************* Scenario Section ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : Summer Fleet-Average Emission CALENDAR YEAR : 2015 EVALUATION MONTH : 7

* Hourly temp will be varied from 50-100 F. To create temperature profile used by SMOKE

MIN/MAX TEMP : 50 50

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 50.24 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0 DIESEL SULFUR : 15



### 124

### 125 Appendix D: Acronyms

BELD3 Biogenic Emissions Landc over Database - version 3 BEIS3 Biogenic Emissions I nventory System – version 3 CAA Clean Air Act CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality CCTM CMAQ Chemical Transport Model Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EKMA Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach EPA Environmental Protection Agency GDAS Global Data Assimilation System GEOS Goddard Earth Observing System ICTC Intercontinental Transport and Chemical Transformation KF Kain-Fritsch cumulus scheme LSM Land Surface Model NCEP National Center for Environmental Prediction NOx Oxides of Nitrogen MCIP Meteorology-Chemis try Interface processor MEBI Modified Euler Backward Interactive MM5 Mesoscale Meteorological model Version 5 MRF Medium Range Forecast NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NWRTC Northwest Regional Technical Center PBL Planetary Boundary Layer SAPRC State Air Pollution Research Center chemical mechanisms SIP State Implementation Plan SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Ke rnel Emissions Modeling System SOx Oxides of Sulfur SWCAA Southwest Clean Air Agency TV Title V VOC Volatile Organic Compound