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.

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 high 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 looking 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 overpredict for moderate and high ozone levels, and performed better at low concentrations.  When using spatially paired means, the model overpredicted at both the exact grid and the 5x5 grids.

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

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.

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

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 NO2 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 NO2, the LSM-1 run showed some overprediction at Mt. View and Lafayette, but matched the general trend at most times.  At Castle Rock, there was a large overestimation of NO2 on the non-episode days.

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

Figure 30. Observed and simulated NO/NO2 concentrations at Lafayette, Castle Rock, and Mt. View from July 17 to 21, 1997.

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 July 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 shown in section 6.2.1.  Time series plots, scatter plots, and Quantile-Quantile plots also showed generally good agreement between model simulations and observations.  For the July 1997 episode, the observed 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 simulations due to higher observed ozone concentrations and better simulation of ozone levels.

7 Future episode modeling (2015)

7.1 Future year managed growth maintenance projection simulation
7.1.1 CMAQ modeling results
To investigate the impact of changes in emissions due to future growth and various control strategies, a year 2015 emission inventory was developed.  This was then used in a model run with July 1998 meteorology to create a 2015 managed growth maintenance 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 reduction is only 26%, and consequently, the VOC/NOx ratio increases from 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 the 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 slightly 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 absolute ozone values in 2015 were lower.  As shown in Figure 31c, large reductions (20-30 ppb) mainly occur downwind of Portland extending from close to Carus to south of Salem.  In contrast to the large decrease of ozone downwind of urban center, the change within Portland itself is smaller (< 15 ppb).

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

Figure 31b. Simulated ozone contour 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 concentrations for the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and July 1998 episode are shown in Figure 32 for each monitoring site.  At the Castle Rock, Woodland, and Sauvie Island sites, there is a daytime decrease and slight night increase of ozone in 2015 compared to 1998.

At Mt. View and Milwaukie, the daytime reduction 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 broader 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 are 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 values are also slightly lowered.

Figure 32. Simulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and July 1998 episode.

7.1.2 VOC/NOx ratios and regional increase of ozone
The [O3]/[NOx] concentration ratio has been shown to be a reliable indicator of O3 response to VOC or NOx emissions changes (Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000b).  Values of the ratio < 15 indicate the strongly radical-limited, VOC sensitive condition.  Values > 46 indicate strongly NOx-limited and therefore NOx sensitive region (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 urban 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 helps 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 and reduces the O3 level.  In 2015, [O3]/[NOx] is slightly above 15 at the site.  Being less VOC-limited and hence 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 tracked by grid cell for each hour of simulations.  For example, ozone chemical production rates are mapped for the 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 contrast 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.

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

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

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

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

7.2 What if scenario - No lower Columbia River point sources
Following the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, a `what-if' control scenario was formulated for analysis.  The scenario assumed no lower Columbia River point sources.  This effectively means no large industrial activity along the lower Columbia River.  Emissions comparisons between the 2015 case and the no lower 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 lower Columbia River point sources.

Table 14. Anthropogenic emissions comparisons between the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and the no lower 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 difference plots are shown in Figure 35a-c.  Simulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for the 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 grids) for 1998 episode, 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, and 2015 no lower Columbia 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 therefore the maximum ozone in the Portland/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 afternoon of June 26.  At these two sites, there was also some increase in ozone at night due to less NO titration.  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 strategies, based upon modifications to the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection, will be conducted by ODEQ and SWCAA as part of the overall maintenance plan development.

Figure 35a. Simulated ozone contour for 2015 no lower 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

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

Figure 36. Simulated 1-hr and 8-hr surface ozone concentrations for the 2015 managed growth maintenance projection and its no lower Columbia River point sources modification.

Table 15. VOC/NOx ratio and predicted 8-hr daily maximum ozone (from the surrounding 5x5 grids) for 1998 episode, 2015 projection, and 2015 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

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

References

J.R. Arnold, R.L. Dennis and G.S. Tonnesen, 2003. Diagnostic evaluation of numerical air quality models with specialized ambient observations: 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 System. EPA Report No. EPA-600/R-99/030, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001. Coupling an advanced land surface - hydrology 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 University, 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). NCAR 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: Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: The Kain - Fritsch scheme. The Representation of Cumulus Convection in Numerical 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 system. The 5th WRF / 14th MM5 User's Workshop , Boulder, CO. June 22-25, 2004.

O'Neill, S.M.; Lamb, B.K., 2004.  Inter-comparison 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. Slocum, C. Swab, M. Stoll, M. DuBois, and M. Anderson, 2005.  Modeling aerosol formation and transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system, Environ. Sci. & Technol. , in press.

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. Journal 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-Hour Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/R-99-004, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/drafto3.pdf

Vukovich, J. and T. Pierce, 2002. The Implementation of BEIS3 within the SMOKE Modeling Framework, In Proceedings of the 11thInternational 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-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer -- sensitivity tests and comparisons with SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor, 21, 1594 - 1609.

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

Appendix A. Emission Inventory Documentation

1998 and 1997 Methodologies

Biogenic
Biogenic emissions were processed using BEIS v3.09 (Vukovich and Pierce, 2002). The model estimates VOC emissions from vegetation based on land-use categories 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 involved in BEIS3 modeling. In the first step, the model inputs the BELD3 land-use data and emissions factors, and outputs gridded, normalized emissions (at 30C and 1000 umol m[-2]·s[-1] PAR). In the second step, the model uses meteorological data, speciation profiles, and normalized emissions generated from the previous step, and outputs gridded, speciated, 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 sources in the central part of the domain that encompasses the Portland/Vancouver area.

Table A1.  Biogenic emissions summed over the central domain for the July 1998 episode.
                                   Species
                              Biogenic emissions
                                Total 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 the modeling domain using MS ACCESS. Table A2 below details the development of the fractions used for each county.  In Appendix B, Table B1 lists the area source categories that were inventoried.

        Table A1: Population and Emission Ratios by County
STATE/COUNTY
July 1
July 1
99-97 County
99-98 County
July 1
1997
1998
reduction fraction
reduction fraction
1999
OREGON
3,217,000
3,267,550
3,300,800
BENTON
76,700
76,600
0.9948
0.9935
77,100
CLACKAMAS
317,700
323,600
0.9720
0.9901
326,850
CLATSOP
34,500
34,700
0.9928
0.9986
34,750
COLUMBIA
41,500
42,300
0.9730
0.9918
42,650
HOOD RIVER
19,200
19,500
0.9746
0.9898
19,700
JEFFERSON
17,100
17,400
0.9688
0.9858
17,650
LINCOLN
42,500
43,200
0.9804
0.9965
43,350
LINN
100,700
102,200
0.9777
0.9922
103,000
MARION
267,700
271,900
0.9726
0.9878
275,250
MULTNOMAH
639,000
641,900
0.9879
0.9923
646,850
POLK
57,400
59,500
0.9551
0.9900
60,100
TILLAMOOK
23,800
24,000
0.9876
0.9959
24,100
WASCO
22,600
22,600
0.9978
0.9978
22,650
WASHINGTON
385,000
397,600
0.9512
0.9823
404,750
YAMHILL
79,200
81,900
0.9531
0.9856
83,100
SWCAA and the Washington Department of Ecology 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, Klickitat, 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 Regional 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 NONROAD 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 NONROAD model allows users to design various scenarios to generate emissions. The period input parameters for the model runs that generated this data were: seasonal, typical 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 change in year. Table A2 summarizes the fuel parameter inputs representing both episodes.

                   Table A2. Oregon 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 RVP for western Oregon and the Portland/Vancouver area (1997).  The O2 and diesel sulfur weight % are DEQ estimates.  Gasoline sulfur is from a state-by-state fuel properties report prepared for the EPA by ICF consulting.  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

Temperature data for WA counties in the 1997 and 1998 episode runs were derived from NOAA data at various sites within those counties.  The temperatures used were average temperatures during the peak days of each respected episode.  Table A4 shows the temperatures used for the 8 core counties in 1998 and for the 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 marine emissions in Oregon were estimated in the same manner as the area sources.  They were back cast based on the population ratios between the 1999 inventory year and each specific episode year.  ODEQ calculated the Columbia River commercial marine emissions and the emissions were apportioned to the Oregon counties that bordered the Columbia River.  In Washington, aircraft and commercial marine emissions from the 1996 NWRTC demonstration project were used because most of these emissions were outside of the 8 county core WA domain.  Washington locomotive emissions were developed by ODEQ for a 1997 locomotive emission inventory.

Washington Department of Ecology assisted in the Nonroad inventory 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 calculated based on episode specific, 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 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, 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 features); 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 temperature and at individual temperatures.
 Calculate average daily emissions at the standard temperature.
 Create a set of temperature adjustment factors from the individual temperature runs.
 Use SMOKE's gridded temperature file (from MM5) to apply adjustments to the standard emissions.

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

Industrial Point Sources

Industrial Point Sources from both states were loaded into a common database to ease tracking and model input file generation.  Regional staff for Washington and Oregon compiled annual emission information for permitted facilities.  Industrial Point sources that emit more than 10 tons per year of VOC, 40 tons per year of NOx, or 100 tons per year of CO within the 4 counties of the Portland/Vancouver ozone maintenance area were inventoried for this work.  Point sources that emit more than 40 tpy of NOx or 100 tpy of VOC or CO outside the maintenance area counties were also inventoried.  Additionally, point sources emitting 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.

SOX emissions have an indirect influence on ozone, as such these emissions were included in the model run inventories.  No SOX parameters were used in compiling the point source list for this project.  The emissions were included only for sources that met the NOX, CO, and/or VOC thresholds described above.  Facility SOX data for Washington point sources were included in the 1997 and 1998 runs.  For Oregon, 1997 and 1998 estimated actual SOX emissions for TV point sources were generated from the ODEQ ACSIS point source database.  The emissions were split by SCC, but not by stack or device.  SOX data for the 2002 EI that was used to forecast 2015 emissions estimates was included for all sources in both states.  ODEQ Program Operations staff inventoried the emissions for TV sources; regional staff estimated the emissions for all other sources.

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 emission inventory that was created for submittal to EPA under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). This 2002 county by county annual inventory was developed 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 covered many more pollutants than were needed for this ozone modeling. Therefore the ozone precursor pollutants (CO, NOx, VOC) and SOx were selected 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 Oregon 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, commercial, 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

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 the average growth rate for the period 2002 to 2015 derived from the industrial and commercial employment projections, population, and resulting household growth. The industrial and commercial decisions were based on SIC grouping from Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources and represent an average of the following sectors.  The same growth factors were used for both the Washington and Oregon source categories (Table A6).  Although, 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 calculated with the following formula:

      (Future yr employment - initial yr employment)/initial employment/ # of years of growth.

Table A6.  2002 to 2015 METRO Ozone Summary Industrial Growth Factor Table

Table A7.  2002 to 2015 METRO Ozone Summary Commercial Growth Factor Table

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

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

2015 Nonroad Mobile

The NONROAD2004 model was used to estimate the 2015 emissions since it accounts for both growth and federal controls on covered nonroad sources.  According to the May 2004 EPA FAQ on the NONROAD model, the draft NONROAD2004 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 recreational equipment and large spark-ignition standards. [Adjustments for the evaporative reductions were not done for this modeling effort.]

        2) Final nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards 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 sulfur 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 generated to develop the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Engine Final Rule.  Stage II control % was set to 0 since Oregon Stage II phase out is expected to begin sometime in 2008.  The CNG/LPG sulfur weight % and all temperature data were retained from the 1997/1998 runs.

Fuel O2 weight % and RVP data were improved 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 terminals.  DEQ assumes that blending will continue through 2015, so the 2015 fuel O2 was estimated 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 weight %.  The final RVP estimates are shown by county in Table A8.

  Table A8.  2015 Ozone Modeling Nonroad Model Input RVP  -  Oregon Counties

For the Washington 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 summarizing Mobile 6/6.2 input parameters for the different regions of the state 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

Railroad, marine vessels, and airports are estimated independently of the NONROAD model. 2015 locomotive and commercial marine vessel emissions were estimated by the growth factor analysis method similar to area sources. For locomotive engines the national average growth factor (1.3%) from the Federal Clean Air Nonroad Diesel  -  Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis Document was applied to grow the emissions. However in the 13 years separating the base and future years that analysis showed that the clean engine technology was working its way into use and lowering the emissions. The reductions 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 emission 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
                                      NOx
                                     0.607
                                      PM
                                     0.779

These ratios were applied to the grown 2015 emissions 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 locomotives and marine engines. Chapter 3 of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel  -  Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis gives the anticipated changes to SO2 emissions.

Table 3.1-6a on page 3-19 gives the Baseline Locomotive fuel sulfur content and Locomotive SO2 emissions in tpy.  This `baseline' sulfur content only fluctuates due to `spillover' from the low-sulfur highway diesel.

Table 3.4-8a on page 3-57 gives the Control Locomotive fuel sulfur content and Locomotive SO2 emissions in tpy.  This table shows substantial 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)
SO2 Emissions (tpy)
Rate (lb SO2/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
                                      SO2
                                    0.02135

Commercial marine vessel 2015 emissions received 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 factor applied to the commercial marine vessel emissions.

Recreational marine vessels are also calculated "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 submitted data had two sources. The Port of Portland went through great detail to prepare emissions for Hillsboro, 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 remaining 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.

In the Washington part of the modeling domain, the only significant aircraft emissions were in the Puget Sound region, and the most notable of these 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 for input into the model along with aircraft emissions for Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties.

2015 On-road Mobile

The 2015 mobile emissions were calculated based 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 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 features); 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 temperature and at individual temperatures.
 Calculate average daily emissions at the standard temperature.
 Create a set of temperature adjustment factors from the individual temperature runs.
 Use SMOKE's gridded temperature file (from MM5) to apply adjustments to the standard emissions.

This method allowed adjustment of hourly emissions based on temperature, but involved post-processing of SMOKE data.  ODEQ completed the MOBILE6.2 work with assistance from ECOLOGY and SWCAA for Washington data, and WSU completed the SMOKE processing. The eight (4 per episode year) 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 DEQ staff (Marianne Fitzgerald, AQ-PPD).  The growth factors with matched SICs are shown in Table A.13.

         Table A13.  Point Source SIC growth rates

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

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

For example, for a selected SIC sub-category for the year 2003, with a 2002 (base year) value of 10 tons per year, and growth factors 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, location, and type of vegetation over time.

Comparisons between 1998 and 2015 future year

   Figure A1.  Episode Emission Comparison

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 penetration into the fleet.
      Final Tier 4 nonroad diesel engine standards and diesel fuel sulfur standards associated with the 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%

Appendix B: Area Source Category Emission Calculation Methodologies

Appendix C: MOBILE6.2 input files for the 1997 and 1998 episodes.

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

* This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx  emissions from CY1997 for Clark County Washington using Washington 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

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: WaNoIM97 -- 1997 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 CY1997 for all Washington Non I/M counties in themodeling domain using Washington 1997 reg data (reg1997) because it is the registration 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-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1997 for Tri-County area using Tri-county average 1996 registration from the reg data we used for the 1996 EI because this data is closer in time to the 97 modeling year and applying the reg data to the LDV and LDT and using the Wa ECOLOGY 1999 vehicle registration 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<PHONE_NUMBER>1

*******************  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

* 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 counties 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

1998 Episode

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

* This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1998 for Clark County Washington using 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

* 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 Non 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

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

* This input generates the summer fleet-average VOC, CO, SOx and NOx emissions from CY1998 for Tri-County area using Tri-county average 2002 registration from Jeff's query of the DMV data (no gas/diesel distinction) and applying the reg data to the LDV and LDT and using the Wa ECOLOGY 1999 vehicle registration 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_PROG\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

* 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<PHONE_NUMBER>1

*******************  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 registration 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_PROG\MOBILE62\Mobile6N\Run\96PdxSip\NoIM98OR.d

*******************  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      : 280

* Filename: Q15Clrk -- Clark 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\MOBILE62\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 after 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
I/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 *****************************

SCENARIO 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 tri-county  LDGV and LDDV registration and appropriate extended registration from WA for HDV. This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling of the future episode.  This file calculates the refueling emission as being controlled by the canisters on-board 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

* 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<PHONE_NUMBER>2

*******************  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 Clackamas Counties using the tri-county  LDGV and LDDV registration and appropriate extended registration from WA for HDV.  This is the file run by DEQ for the CMAQ modeling of the future episode. This file calculates the refueling emission as being controlled by the canisters on-board 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

*******************  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 the modeling domain using latest Washington 2004 reg 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           : 8.5
* enter the appropriate registration distribution filename for the county being modeled.
REG DIST           : H:\EPA_PROG\MOBILE62\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

Appendix D:  Acronyms

BELD3 	Biogenic Emissions Landcover Database - version 3
BEIS3 		Biogenic Emissions Inventory 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-Chemistry 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 Kernel Emissions Modeling System
SOx 		Oxides of Sulfur
SWCAA	Southwest Clean Air Agency
TV		Title V
VOC		Volatile Organic Compound