-------
o
a>
TJ
II
o
o
o
CO
CD
s,
c
o
01
o
o
2
C
>>
4J
c
O
rt
CO
Q>
T3
O
O
O
s-
s
CO
flj
0)
iU
rt
Cu
ai
cu
c\j
iT
Cd
CQ
cu
t ^
*j
c
o
J^
o
Q
U
o
2
^
o
Q.
ff\
WJ
00
^H*
^5
2
"S
0)
c
2
-3
CO
2u
J^
Q.
ff
^i
t.
(TJ
JL,
J3
0)
r
t-L4
C
iซ>
^j
CO ^
>> L, QJ
ซJ
oooooooooo
79
-------
TABLE 4-3. Relationship between cost pods, source categories,
and source classification codes (SCC). (Source: E. H. Pechan
4 Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod #
0. f*/*\Fnhi i o I" i c\n O
"" WUIJJL/UO LsXlrlJ \J
n
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 - Solvent metal cleaning 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 - Printing and publishing 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SCC
i
?-___--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
40100201
40100202
40100203
40100204
40100205
40100206
40100297
40100299
40100306
40200912
40201199
40200920
41200921
40500101
40500201
40500211
40500212
40500301
88151 3
80
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod #
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3 - Dry cleaning 3
3
3
3
3
4 - Fixed roof crude tanks 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
SCC
40500303
40500304
40500305
40500311
40500312
40500401
40500411
40500412
40500501
40500510
405005 1 1
40500512
40500513
40500598
40500599
40500701
40100101
40100102
40100103
40100104
40100199
40300102
40300104
40300105
40300107
40300150
40300152
40300198
40300199
40301010
40301011
40301012
40301013
40301015
40301019
40301021
40301097
40301099
88151 3
81
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod #
5 - Fixed roof gasoline tanks 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6 - Floating roof crude tanks 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7 - Floating roof gasoline tanks 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
SCC
40300101
40300103
40301001
40301002
40301003
40301004
40301007
40301008
40301009
40400101
40400102
40400107
40400108
40400202
40400205
40300203
40300204
40301109
40301110
40301132
40301197
40301198
40301199
40300201
40300202
40301101
40301102
40301103
40301104
40301105
40301107
40301108
40400110
40400111
40400115
40400116
40400117
82
88151 3
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCO.
(Source: E. H. Pechan 4 Associates, 1988).
Source Category
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
Bulk terminals-splash loading
Bulk terminals vapor balanced
Bulk terminals-submerged loading
Stage I
Stage II
Ethylene oxide manufacture
Phenol Manufacture
Terephthalic acid manufacture
Acrylonitrile manufacture
SOCMI fugitives
Pod i
1
7
8
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
15
16
17
17
17
17
17
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
sec
40400207
40400210
40600136
40600141
40600126
40600131
103
40600301
40600302
40600306
40600307
40600401
40600402
40600403
30117401
30120201
30100103
30103101
30112099
30113205
30113299
30125405
30100509
30199999
30113799
30103499
30106099
30106008
30116799
30100902
30100999
30100901
30180001
30183001
30188801
102
106
88151 3
83
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan 4 Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod #
20 - Petroleum refinery fugitives 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21 - Cellulose acetate manufacture 21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22 - Styrene-butadiene rubber manufacture 22
22
22
22
22
23 - Polypropylene manufacture 23
SCC
30600801
30600802
30600803
30600804
30600805
30600806
30600807
30600811
30600812
30600813
30600814
30600815
30600816
30600817
30600818
30600819
30600820
30600821
30600822
30688801
30688802
30688803
30688804
30688805
104
30102401
30102410
30102415
30102499
30102501
30102505
107
30102601
30102608
30102609
30102615
30102699
30101802
88151 3
84
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category
24 - Polyethylene manufacture
25 - Ethylene manufacture
26 - Pet. ref. wastewater treatment
27 - Pet. ref. vacuum distillation
28 - Vegetable oil manufacture
29 - Paint and varnish manufacture
30 - Rubber tire manufacture
31 - Green tire spray
32 - Carbon black manufacture
33 - Automobile surface coating
Pod *
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
SCC
30101807
30101812
30101817
30101892
30101899
30119701
30119705
30119799
30125801
30125810
30125815
30125899
30182001
30600503
30600504
30600201
30600301
30600602
30600603
30201901
30201902
30201903
30201911
30201914
30101401
30101499
30101503
30101599
30102001
30102099
30800104
30800105
30800199
30800106
30100504
40200101
40201620
40200110
40200401
40200501
40200510
40200601
88151 3
85
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod #
33
33
33
33
33
33
34 - Beverage can surface coating . 34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
35 - General surface coating 35
35
35
35
35
35
36 - Paper surface coating 36
36
36
36
36
37 - Miscellaneous surface coating 37
37
37
SCC
40200610
40200901
40200998
40201601
40201606
40201631
40200301
40201724
40201705
40200310
40200801
40200802
40200803
40200810
40201702
40201721
40201722
40201723
40201725
40201726
40201727
40201728
40201731
40201736
40201799
40200410
40201901
40202106
40202108
40202109
40202199
40200701
40200706
40200710
40201301
40201399
40200902
40200903
40200904
88151 3
86
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCO.
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod #
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
40 - Paper surface coating 40
41 - Degreasing 41
42 - Dry cleaning 42
43 - Printing/publishing 43
44 - Rubber & plastics 44
45 - Miscellaneous 45
45
45
45
45
45
45
sec
40200905
40200906
40200907
40200909
40200910
40200914
40200915
40200917
40200918
40200919
40200922
40200923
40200924
40200925
40201101
40201103
40201406
40201801
40201806
40201899
40202001
40202201
40202501
40202531
40202599
40288801
40299998
40299999
85
78
79
80
81
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
88151 3
87
-------
TM5LE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category
46
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
55
60
61
62
- Stage I
- Stage II
- Architectural surface coating
- Coke ovens - door and topside leaks
- Coke oven by-product plants
- Aircraft surface coating
- Whiskey fermentation - aging
- Charcoal manufacturing
- Vessel loading: petroleum liquids
- Light duty gasoline vehicles
- Light duty gasoline trucks
- Heavy duty gasoline vehicles
Pod i
45
45
45
45
45
46
47
48
50
50
51
52
52
52
53
54
54
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
I SCC
91
92
93
94
95
54
54
82
30300302
30300314
30300315
40202401
40202406
40202499
30201003
30100601
30100603
4060023 1
40600232
40600233
40600234
40600235
40600236
40600237
40600238
40600239
40600240
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
88151 3
88
-------
TABLE 4-3 (continued) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: .E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category
63 - Heavy duty diesel vehicles
64 - Off highway vehicles
65 - Railroads
66 - Burning and fires
67 - Area source incineration
68 - Aircraft and marine vessels
70 - TSDFs
71 - Bakeries
72 - Cutback Asphalt
73 - POTWs
90 - Other
Pod 1
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
70
71
72
73
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
SCC
40
41
42
43
39
44
55
45
24
25
26
60
61
62
64
21
50100101
22
23
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
56
109
105
101
100
63
30510199
30501402
30502001
66
67
68
69
70
88151 3
89
-------
TABLE 4-3 (concluded) Relationship between cost pods,
source categories, and source classification codes (SCC).
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Source Category Pod # SCC
90 71
90 72
90 73
90 74
90 75
90 76
90 77
90 108
88151 3
90
-------
TABLE 4-4a. Carbon monoxide emissions for
New York CMSA assuming continuation of
current EPA policy. (Source: E. H. Pechan
& Associates, 1988).
Pod
No.
0
12
15
16
60
61
62
63
80
90
1985 NEDS
Emissions
15002
704
2235
1031
1002244
160258
172701
26047
128048
391321
1995
Projected
Base
Emissions
15002
704
2235
1031
583115
122453
52813
18216
139016
424843
1995/1985
Ratio
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
. 0.582
0.764
0.306
0.699
1.086
1.086
8815 lr 1 2
91
-------
TABLE 4-4a. (concluded) Carbon monoxide
emissions for St. Louis CMSA assuming
continuation of current EPA policy.
(Source: E. H. Pechan & Associates,
1988).
1995
Projected
Pod 1985 NEDS Base 1995/1985
No. Emissions Emissions Ratio
0 19204 19204 1.000
11 18992 18992 1.000
12 3864 3864 1.000
15 1050 1050 1.000
17 4069 4069 1.000
23 246 246 1.000
60 208366 121229 0.582
61 65017 49680 0.764
62 29925 9152 0.306
63 6261 4378 0.699
80 30062 32637 1.086
90 81123 88072 1.086
88 15 lrl 2
92
-------
TABLE 1Mb. VOC emissions for New York
CMSA assuming continuation of current
EPA policy. (Source: E. H. Pechan &
Associates, 1988).
Pod
No.
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
19
21
23
24
25
29
33
34
35
36
37 .
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
90
1985 NEDS
Emissions
4147
52
2109
193
247
29
1477
252
12
77
142
32
71
1765
2057
1017
12
3417
3173
41217
27451
15892
11920
91382
1556
33314
43703
92824
227311
36193
17305
9492
25774
7443
16836
8231
9996
105446
4198
14403
1906
23460
1995
Projected
Base
Emissions
5659
42
449
150
288
14
2516
299
13
78
144
35
76
262
1855
1864
1
1464
3950
53263
32776
18977
5255
118894
1383
44418
56859
120768
141082
28240
7094
6360
36508
10276
16836
10656
14724
136596
5552
0
2469
23756
1995/1985
Ratio
1.365
0.808
0.213
0.777
1.166
0.483
1.703
1.187
1.083
1.013
1.014
1.094
1.070
0.148
0.902
1.833
0.083
0.428
1.245
1.292
1.194
1.194
0.441
1.301
0.889
1.333
1.301
1.301
0.621
0.780
0.410
0.670
1.416
1.381
1.000
1.295
1.473
1.295
1.323
0.000
1.295
1.013
88151r 1 2
93
-------
TABLE 4-4b. (concluded) VOC emissions
for St. Louis CMSA assuming continuation
of current EPA policy. (Source: E. H.
Pechan & Associates, 1988).
Pod
No.
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
19
21
23
24
25
29
33
34
35
36
37
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
55
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
90
1985 NEDS
Emissions
1131
501
4322
480
1491
2081
2957
184
95
80
909
769
3099
2
8530
2250
83
334
423
5746
3853
2231
1673
12826
226
7256
6134
13029
1742
38862
13121
3086
2274
5348
2603
2596
2890
2882
14392
512
1966
260
10148
1995
Projected
Base
Emissions
1441
310
2329
10
71
246
322
256
95
90
132
679
11
3
1401
1600
22
244
546
7412
4508
2610
722
16546
273
8779
7913
16808
211
23617
9887
1265
1524
6846
3332
2596
3728
3689
18566
737
0
366
5199
1995/1985
Ratio
1.274
0.619
0.539
0.021
0.048
0.118
0.109
1.391
1.000
1.125
0.145
0.883
0.004
1.500
0.164
0.711
0.265
0.731
1.291
1.290
1.170
1.170
0.432
1.290
1.208
1.210
1.290
1.290
0.121
0.608
0.754
0.410
0.670
1.280
1.280
1.000
1.290
1.280
1.290
1.439
0.000
1.408
0.512
88151r 1 2
94
-------
TABLE 4-5. Exhaust and evaporative emission separation factors for
1985 NAPAP (tons of VOC).
Road Class
Urban
Rural Limited Access
St Louis (Counties with I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
St. Louis
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
New York
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
New York
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
(Counties without I/M)
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
(Counties with I/M)
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
(Counties without I/M)
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
Exh.
Evap.
0.682
0.318
0.700
0.300
0.432
0.568
1.000
0.000
0.707
0.293
0.722
0.278
0.432
0.568
1.000
0.000
0.66
0.340
0.677
0.323
0.435
0.565
1.000
0.000
0.712
0.288
0.727
0.273
0.435
0.565
1.000
0.000
0.504
0.496
0.523
0.477
0.223
0.777
1.000
0.000
0.533
0.467
0.548
0.452
0.223
0.777
1.000
0.000
0.479
0.521
0.495
0.505
0.226
0.774
1.000
0.000
0.54
0.460
0.565
0.435
0.794
0.206
1.000
0.000
0.460
0.540
0.477
0.523
0.187
0.813
1.000
0.000
0.489
0.511
0.503
0.497
0.187
0.813
1.000
0.000
0.436
0.564
0.450
0.550
0.189
0.811
1.000
0.000
0.679
0.321
0.554
0.446
0.226
0.774
1.000
0.000
881517
95
-------
TABLE 4-6. I/M applicability by
county.
I/M
No I/M
New York region:
All CT counties
All NJ counties
Bronx, NY
Kings, NY
Nassau, NY
New York, NY
Queens, NY
Richmond, NY
Rockland, NY
Suffolk, NY
Westchester, NY
Columbia, NY
Dutchess, NY
Orange, NY
Putram, NY
Sullivan, NY
Ulster, NY
St. Louis region:
Madison, II
St. Clair, IL
Jefferson, MO
St. Charles, MO
St. Louis, MO
Calhoun, IL
Greene, IL
Jersey, IL
Macoupin, IL
Monroe, IL
Randolph, IL
Lincoln, MO
88151r 1 2
96
-------
TABLE 4-7. Multiplicative factors for adjusting 1985 NAPAP annual
emissions to 1985 episode day conditions and for converting from MOBILES
to MOBILES.9 (RVP equal to ASTM limit).
Road Class
St Louis (
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
St. Louis
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
10.0 RVP) (Counties with I/M)
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
(10.0 RVP) (Counties without
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Urban
0.861
1.230
0.844
0.771
0.873
1.050
0.938
0.800
0.986
0.950
1.150
0.858
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
I/M)
0.865
1.230
0.886
0.767
0.893
1.050
0.958
0.798
0.986
0.950
1.150
0.858
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
Rural Limited Access
0.862
1.230
0.887
0.780
0.874
1.050
0.941
0.727
0.991
0.950
1.150
0.858
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
0.861
1.230
0.891
0.784
0.891
1.050
0.956
0.807
0.991
0.950
1.150
0.858
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
0.866
1.230
0.910
0.785
0.876
1.050
0.948
0.805
0.989
0.950
1.150
0.858
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
0.862
1.230
0.912
0.782
0.888
1.050
0.959
0.806
0.989
0.950
1.150
0.858
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
88151 7
97
-------
TABLE 4-7. (Continued). Multiplicative factors for adjusting 1985
NAPAP annual emissions to 1985 episode day conditions and for converting
from MOBILES to MOBILES.9 (RVP equal to ASTM limit).
Road Class
New York (11.5 RVP)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
New York (11.5 RVP)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
(Counties with
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Urban
I/M)
0.855
1.480
0.869
0.736
0.886
1.210
0.971
0.767
0.992
1 ..020
1.190
0.835
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
Rural Limited Access
0.848
1.480
0.874
0.748
0.880
1.210
0.969
0.777
0.995
1.020
1.190
0.835
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
0.852
1.480
0.902
0.748
0.880
1.210
0.973
0.776
1.000
1.020
1.190
0.834
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
(Counties without I/M)
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
0.862
1.480
0.900
0.733
0.889
1.210
0.979
0.767
0.995
1.020
1.190
0.835
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
0.858
1.480
0.904
0.749
0.885
1.210
0.976
0.775
0.966
1.020
1.190
0.834
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
0.857
1.480
0.927
0.749
0.886
1.210
0.978
0.774
1.000
1.070
1.190
0.834
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
88151 7
98
-------
TABLE 4-8. Factors to multiply by exhaust VOC tons (after adjustment
using Table 2) to obtain 1985 uncontrolled refueling VOC tons for episode
day conditions.
St Louis (10.0 RVP (Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
St. Louis (10.0 RVP) (Counties without
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
New York (11.5) (Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
New York (11.5 RVP) (Counties without
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Urban
0.138
0.096
0.106
0.000
I/M)
0.122
0.078
0.106
0.000
0.180
0.113
0.120
0.000
I/M)
0.140
0.089
0.120
0.000
Road
Rural
0.29
0.206
0.280
0.000
0.259
0.168
0.280
0.000
0.382
0.244
0.315
0.000
0.296
0.192
0.315
0.000
Class
Limited Access
0.345
0.245
0.351
0.000
0.308
0.202
0.351
0.000
0.453
0.293
0.393
0.000
0.354
0.195
0.393
0.000
18151 7
99
-------
TABLE 4-9. Factors to increase
1985 exhaust VOC to account for
unmeasured aldehydes.
All Road Classes
1985
LDV 1.0116
LOT 1.0116
HDGV 1.0116
HDDV 1.0420
TABLE 4-10. Growth factors
for motor vehicle emissions.
All Road Classes
Annual 1995:1985
LDV 1.9* 1.207
LOT 2.1* 1.231
HDGV 0.1* 1-.010
HDDV 2.9* 1.331
88151 7
100
-------
TABLE 4-11. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and
RVP effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenarios 1 and 7.
City: St. Louis
Gasoline RVP: 10.0
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Urban
0.487
0.493
0.759
0.477
0.631
0.555
0.470
0.811
0.518
0.651
0.456
0.337
0.852
0.243
0.853
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
Gasohol RVP: NA
Gasohol Market Share: 0%
Road Class
Rural
0.367
0.493
0.759
0.339
0.583
0.387
0.470
0.811
0.330
0.596
0.456
0.337
0.852
0.243
0.853
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.360
0.493
0.759
0.319
0.473
0.364
0.470
0.811
0.301
0.520
0.454
0.337
0.852
0.243
0.855
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
0.482
0.493
0.759
0.450
0.508
0.523
0.470
0.811
0.477
0.563
0.454
0.337
0.852
0.243
0.855
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
Limited Access
0.333
0.493
0.759
0.255
0.456
0.337
0.470
0.811
0.249
0.520
0.454
0.337
0.852
0.243
0.854
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.447
0.493
.759
.362
0.
0.
0.490
0.486
0.470
0.811
0.398
0.563
0.454
0.337
.852
.243
.854
0.
0,
0.
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
-------
TABLE 4-12. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and
RVP effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenario 2.
City: St. Louis
Gasoline RVP: 7.8
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
WOx
Gasohol RVP: NA
Gasohol Market Share:
Road Class
Urban Rural Limited Access
0.298
0.236
0.586
0.213
0.456
0.319
0.274
0.649
0.221
0.520
0.443
0.209
0.672
0.233
0.854
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.445 0.438 0.404
0.236 0.236 0.236
0.586 0.586 0.586
0.399 0.376 0.303
0.631 0.508 0.490
0.523 0.491 0.449
0.274 0.274 0.274
0.649 0.649 0.649
0.461 0.424 0.355
0.651 0.563 0.563
0.441 0.440 0.443
0.209 0.209 0.209
0.672 0.672 0.672
0.233 0.233 0.233
0.853 0.855 0.854
0.630 0.630 0.628
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
0.819 0.817 0.818
0.613 0.613 0.613
0.338
0.236
0.586
0.283
0.583
0.365
0.274
0.649
0.293
0.596
0.441
0.209
0.672
0.233
0.853
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.330
0.236
0.586
0.265
0.473
0.344
0.274
0.649
0.266
0.520
0.440
0.209
0.672
0.233
0.855
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
102
-------
TABLE 4-13. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and RVP
effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenario 5.
City: St. Louis
Gasoline RVP: 7.8
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Gasohol RVP: 8.8
Gasohol Market Share: 50%
Road Class
Urban Rural Limited Access
0.310
0.271
0.621
0.224
0.456
0.325
0.307
0.676
0.229
0.520
0.443
0.231
0.705
0.236
0.854
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.458 0.455 0.415
0.271 0.271 0.271
0.621 0.621 0.621
0.420 0.396 0.319
0.631 0.508 0.490
0.532 0.500 0.464
0.307 0.307 0.307
0.676 0.676 0.676
0.476 0.439 0.366
0.651 0.563 0.563
0.444 0.445 0.443
0.231 0.231 0.231
0.705 0.705 0.705
0.236 0.236 0.236
0.853 0.855 0.854
0.630 0.630 0.628
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
0.819 0.817 0.818
0.613 0.613 0.613
0.348
0.271
0.621
0.298
0.583
0.370
0.307
0.676
0.303
0.596
0.444
0.231
0.705
0.236
0.853
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.340
0.271
0.621
0.279
0.473
0.349
0.307
0.676
0.276
0.520
0.445
0.231
0.705
0.236
0.855
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
-------
TABLE 4-14. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and RVP
effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenario 6.
City: St.
Fuel Type:
RVP: 7.8
Louis
100? sales of ETBE blend at 2f> oxygen level
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Road Class
Urban Rural Limited Access
0.298
0.236
0.586
0.213
0.456
0.319
0.274
0.649
0.221
0.520
0.443
0.209
0.672
0.233
0.854
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.445 0.438 0.404
0.236 0.236 0.236
0.586 0.586 0.586
0.399 0.376 0.303
0.631 0.508 0.490
0.523 0.491 0.449
0.274 0.274 0.274
0.649 0.649 0.649
0.461 0.424 0.355
0.651 0.563 0.563
0.441 0.440 0.443
0.209 0.209 0.209
0.672 0.672 0.672
0.233 0.233 0.233
0.853 0.855 0.854
0.630 0.630 0.628
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
0.819 0.817 0.818
0.613 0.613 0.613
0.338
0.236
0.586
0.283
0.583
0.365
0.274
0.649
0.293
0.596
0.441
0.209
0.672
0.233
0.853
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.330
0.236
0.586
0.265
0.473
0.344
0.274
0.649
0.266
0.520
0.440
0.209
0.672
0.233
0.855
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
104
-------
TABLE 4-15. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and RVP
effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenarios 1 and 4.
City: New York
Gasoline RVP: 11.5
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Urban
Gasohol RVP: NA
Gasohol Market Share: Q%
Road Class
Rural
0.407
0.491
0.735
0.437
0.568
0.414
0.421
0.791
0.423
0.583
0.456
0.341
0.843
0.239
0.827
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.404
0.491
0.735
0.416
0.459
0.392
0.421
0.791
0.397
0.508
0.455
0.341
0.843
0.239
0.829
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
0.486
0.533
0.735
0.464
0.617
0.559
0.486
0.791
0.514
0.636
0.456
0.341
0.843
0.239
0.827
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.478
0.533
0.735
0.438
0.495
0.527
0.486
0.791
0.475
0.552
0.435
0.341
0.843
0.239
0.829
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
Limited Access
0.360
0.491
0.735
0.337
0.444
0.367
0.421
0.791
0.333
0.512
0.455
0.341
0.843
0.239
0.828
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.438
0.533
0.735
0.352
0.477
0.489
0.486
0.791
0.396
0.552
0.435
0.341
0.843
0.239
0.828
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
105
-------
TABLE 4-16. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and RVP
effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenario 2.
City: New York
Gasoline RVP: 9-0
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Gasohol RVP: NA
Gasohol Market Share: 0%
' Road Class
Urban Rural Limited Access
0.333
0.172
0.559
0.282
0.444
0.340
0.194
0.628
0.294
0.512
0.438
0.198
0.657
0.229
0.828
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.444 0.435 0.406
0.201 0.201 0.201
0.559 0.559 0.559
0.388 0.366 0.295
0.617 0.495 0.477
0.526 0.496 0.462
0.249 0.249 0.249
0.628 0.628 0.628
0.459 0.423 0.354
0.636 0.552 0.552
0.441 0.441 0.438
0.198 0.198 0.198
0.657 0.657 0.657
0.229 0.229 0.229
0.827 0.829 0.828
0.630 0.630 0.628
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
0.819 0.817 0.818
0.613 0.613 0.613
0.370
0.172
0.559
0.364
0.568
0.388
0.194
0.628
0.375
0.583
0.441
0.198
0.657
0.229
0.827
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.371
0.172
0.559
0.348
0.459
0.369
0.194
0.628
0.351
0.508
0.441
0.198
0.657
0.229
0.829
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
106
-------
TABLE 4-17. 1995:1985 emission factor ratios for fleet turnover and RVP
effects for episode day conditions and inventory scenario 3.
City: New York
Gasoline RVP: 9.0
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
(Counties without I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
Refuel VOC
CO
NOx
Gasohol RVP: 10.0
Gasohol Market Share: 100$
Road Class
Urban Rural Limited Access
0.347
0.254
0.647
0.303
0.444
0.354
0.255
0.698
0.310
0.511
0.444
0.239
0.743
0.233
0.828
0.628
NA
NA
0.818
0.613
0.453 0.443 0.406
0.243 0.243 0.243
0.618 0.618 0.618
0.406 0.383 0.309
0.617 0.495 0.477
0.532 0.504 0.468
0.285 0.285 0.285
0.651 0.651 0.651
0.472 0.435 0.364
0.636 0.552 0.552
0.444 0.446 0.444
0.219 0.219 0.219
0.714 0.714 0.714
0.449 0.229 0.232
0.701 0.829 0.828
0.630 0.630 0.628
NA NA NA
NA- NA NA
0.819 0.817 0.818
0.613 0.613 0.613
0.386
0.254
0.647
0.394
0.568
0.398
0.255
0.698
0.394
0.583
0.448
0.239
0.743
0.233
0.827
0.630
NA
NA
0.819
0.613
0.382
0.254
0.647
0.375
0.459
0.381
0.255
0.698
0.369
0.509
0.446
0.239
0.743
0.233
0.829
0.630
NA
NA
0.817
0.613
-------
TABLE 4-18. Adjustment factors to account for fuel composition effects
(oxygen and distillation, but not RVP) for St. Louis scenario 5.
City: St. Louis
Scenarios: 50% gasohol sales (scenario 5)
Road Class
Urban
Rural Limited Access
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
(Counties without
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
I/M)
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
0.969
1.033
0.883
1.038
0.948
1.052
0.860
1.029
0.946
1.076
0.858
1.020
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.965
1.033
0.881
1.038
0.948
1.052
0.859
1.030
0.946
1.073
0.858
1.020
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.967
1.033
0.889
1.037
0.949
1.052
0.861
1.029
0.946
1.076
0.858
1.020
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.966
1.033
0.882
1.038
0.949
1.052
0.861
1.029
0.946
1.073
0.858
1.020
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.967
1.033
0.882
1.037
0.949
1.052
0.862
1.029
0.946
1.076
0.858
1.020
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.965
1.033
0.881
1.038
0.949
. 1.052
0.861
1.029
0.946
1.073
0.858
1.020
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
108
88151 7
-------
TABLE 4-19. Adjustment factors to account for fuel composition effects
(oxygen and distillation, but not RVP) for St. Louis scenario 6.
City: St. Louis
Scenarios: 100^ ETBE blend sales (scenario 6)
Road Class
Urban
Rural Limited Access
(Counties with I/M)
LDV
LOT
HDGV
HDDV
(Counties without
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
I/M)
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
0.963
1.035
0.873
1.041
0.944
1.044
0.848
1.032
0.941
1.053
0.846
1.022
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.962
1.035
0.871
1.041
0.943
1.044
0.847
1.033
0.941
1.053
0.846
1.022
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.963
1.035
0.873
1.041
0.945
1.044
0.850
1.032
0.941
1.053
0.846
1.022
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.963
1.035
0.872
1.041
0.945
1.044
0.849
1.032
0.941
1.053
0.846
1.022
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.963
1.035
0.872
1.041
0.945
1.044
0.850
1.031
0.941
1.053
0.846
1.022
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.962
1.035
0.871
1.041
0.945
1.044
0.849
1.032
0.941
1.053
0.846
1.022
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
88151 7
109
-------
TABLE 4-20. Adjustment factors to account for fuel composition effects
(oxygen and distillation, but not RVP) for New York scenario 3.
City: New York
Scenarios: 100^ gasohol sales (scenario 3)
Road Class
(Counties
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
(Counties
LDV
LDT
HDGV
HDDV
with I/M)
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
without I/M)
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Exh. VOC
Evap. VOC
CO
NOx
Urban
0.932
1.050
0.766
1.075
0.898
1.092
0.720
1.059
0.891
1.144
0.716
1.039
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.930
1.050
0.762
1.075
0.895
1.092
0.716
1.060
0.891
1.144
0.716
1.039
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
Rural Limited Access
0.933
1.050
0.768
1.074
0.900
1.092
0.724
1.058
0.891
1.144
0.716
1.039
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.931
1.050
0.763
1.075
0.897
1.092
0.720
1.059
0.891
1.144
0.716
1.039
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.933
1.050
0.766
1.074
0.900
1.092
0.725
1.057
0.892
1.144
0.716
1.039
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
0.931
1.050
0.762
1.074
0.897
1.092
0.721
1.058
0.892
1.144
0.716
1.039
1.000
NA
1.000
1.000
110
88151 7
-------
TABLE 4-21. California state highway
system estimated VMT for 1985 weekday
travel. (Source: California Department
of Transportation, 1987).
VMT
Month (billion miles)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
5.83
5.97
6.13
6.50
6.52
6.77
6.94
7.28
6.71
6.42
6.40
6.36
77.83
Fraction of
Annual Total
0.075
0.077
0.079
0.084
0.084
0.087
0.089
0.094
0.086
0.082
0.082
0.082
88151r2 2
111
-------
TABLE 4-22. Gasoline marketing emission adjustment factors for
RVP and fuel type (EPA, QMS, 1988).
RVP Gasoline 100ฃ Gasohol IQOfl ETBE Blend 50% Gasohol
11.5 1.15 not needed not needed not needed
10.0 1.0 0.958 not needed not needed
9.0 0.9 not needed 0.953 not needed
8.8 not needed not needed not needed not needed
8.4 not needed not needed not needed 0.812
7.8 0.78 not needed 0.826 not needed
88151r2 2
-------
TABLE 4-23. Relationship between NAPAP area source category codes and area
source types used for gridding purposes.
Source
Category Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Source
Type*
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
2
Category Description
Residential Fuel - Anthracite Coal
Residential Fuel - Bituminous Coal
Residential Fuel - Distillate Oil
Residential Fuel - Residual Oil
Residential Fuel - Natural Gas
Residential Fuel - Wood
Commercial/Institutional Fuel - Anthracite Coal
Commercial/Institutional Fuel - Bituminous Coal
Commercial/Institutional Fuel - Distillate Oil
Commercial/Institutional Fuel - Residual Oil
Commercial/Institutional Fuel - Natural Gas
Commercial /Institutional Fuel - Wood
Industrial Fuel - Anthracite Coal
Industrial Fuel - Bituminous Coal
Industrial Fuel - Coke
Industrial Fuel - Distillate Oil
Industrial Fuel - Residual Oil
Industrial Fuel - Natural Gas
Industrial Fuel - Wood
Industrial Fuel - Process Gas
On-Site Incineration - Residential
On-Site Incineration - Industrial
On-site Incineration - Commercial/Institutional
Open Burning - Residential
Open Burning - Industrial
Open Burning - Commercial/Institutional
Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Limited Access Roads
Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Rural Roads
Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Suburban Roads
Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Urban Roads
Medium Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Limited Access Roads
Medium Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Rural Roads
Medium Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Suburban Roads
Medium Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Urban Roads
Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Limited Access Roads
Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Rural Roads
Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Suburban Roads
Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles - Urban Roads
Off Highway Gasoline Vehicles
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles - Limited Access Roads
continued
113
88 1 SIp2 2
-------
TABLE 4-23. (continued) Relationship between NAPAP area source category codes
and area source types used for gridding purposes.
Source
Category Code
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53*
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
- 64
65
66
67
68
69*
70*
71ง
72ง
73!
74ง
75*
76t
77
78
79
80
Source
Type*
4
1
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
1
0
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
Category Description
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles - Rural Roads
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles - Suburban Roads
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles - Urban Roads
Off Highway Diesel Vehicles
Railroad Locomotives
Aircraft LTOs - Military
Aircraft LTOs - Civil
Aircraft LTOs - Commercial
Vessels - Coal
Vessels - Diesel Oil
Vessels - Residual Oil
Vessels - Gasoline
Solvents Purchased (not used)
Gasoline Marketed
Unpaved Road Travel
Unpaved Airstrip LTOs
(Not used)
(Not used)
(Not used)
Forest Wild Fires
Managed Burning - Prescribed
Agricultural Field Burning
Frost control - Orchard Heaters
Structural Fires
(Not used)
Ammonia Emissions - Light duty Gasoline Vehicles
Ammonia Emissions - Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles
Ammonia Emissions - Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles
Livestock Waste Management - Turkeys
Livestock Waste Management - Sheep
Livestock Waste Management - Beef Cattle
Livestock Waste Management - Dairy Cattle
Livestock Waste Management - Swine
Livestock Waste Management - Broilers
Livestock Waste Management - Other Chickens
Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer Application
Beef Cattle Feed Lots
Degreasing
Dry Cleaning
Graphic Arts/Printing
continued
114
88151r2 2
-------
TABLE 4-23. (concluded) Relationship between NAPAP area source category codes
and area source types used for gridding purposes.
Source
Category Code
Source
Type*
Category Description
81 2 Rubber and Plastics Manufacture
82 1 Architectural Coatings
83 2 Auto body Repair
84 2 Motor Vehicle Manufacture
85 2 Paper Coating
86 2 Fabricated Metals
87 2 Machinery Manufacture
88 2 Furniture Manufacture
89 2 Flatwood Products
90 2 Other Transportation Equipment Manufacture
91 2 Electrical Equipment Manufacture
92 2 Shipbuilding and Repairing
93 2 Miscellaneous Industrial Manufacture
94** 0 (Not used)
95** 1 Miscellaneous Solvent Use
96 0 (Not used)
97 0 (Not used)
98 0 (Not used)
99 0 (Not used)
100 2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
101 2 Cutback Asphalt Paving Operation
102 2 Fugitives from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacture
103 2 Bulk Terminal and Bulk Plants
. 104 2 Fugitives from Petroleum Refinery Operations
105 2 Process Emissions from Bakeries
106 2 Process Emissions from Pharmaceutical Manufacture
107 2 Process Emissions from Synthetic Fibers Manufacture
108 4 Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production Fields
109 2 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDFs)
Notes:
* Source type:
1 - Population
2 - Commercial industrial
3 - Off-highway
4 - Rural
0 - Not used
t SCC 53 is disaggregated into process categories 78 to 95.
* These categories formerly referred to as "manure field application."
** Formerly "miscellaneous industrial solvent use" (94) and "miscellaneous
nonindustrial solvent use" (95); now combined into one category.
115
-------
TABLE 4-24. Speciation of evaporative VOC emissions by weight percent
of VOC (Source: EPA/OMS, 1988).
Gasoline RVP
Paraffins (total)
n-butane
Isobutane
n-pentane
Isopentane
Other paraffins1
Olefins1'2
Aroma tics '^
Ethanol
ETBE
11.5
70
27
6
4
13
20
13
17
0
0
10.0
67
24
6
4
13
20
15
18
0
0
9.0
64
21
6
4
13
20
17
19
0
0
7.8
60
17
6
4
13
20
20
20
0
0
Ethanol
Blend RVP
10.0
57
14
6
4
13
20
13
15
15
0
8.8
55
12
6
4
13
20
14
16
15
0
ETBE
Blend RVP
9.0
58
15
6
4
13
20
15
17
0
10
7.8
54
11
6
4
13
20
18
18
0
10
1 Within other paraffins, olefins, and aromatics, speciated with the
same relative weights as given in the speciation manual (EPA, 1988).
Speciation manual combines propylene (propene) and propane and
lists it as propane; assumed it was 100 percent propane.
3 Speciation manual combines benzene and cyclohexane, speciated as
half each compound.
88151 7
116
-------
TABLE 4-25. Speciation of exhaust VOC emissions by weight percent of VOC
into CB-IV species.
CB-IV
Species
OLE
PAR
TOL
XYL
FORM
ALD2
ETH
MEOH
ETOH
Gasoline RVP
11.5
3
53
11
20
1
2
10
0
0
10.0
3
53
11
20
1
2
10
0
0
9.0
3
53
11
20
1
2
10
0
0
7.8
3
53
11
20
1
2
10
0
0
Ethanol Blend ETBE Blend RVP
RVP/Market Share (100* Market Share)
10.0/100?
4
51
11
19
1
3
10
0
2
8.8/50?
4
52
11
19
1
3
10
0
1
7.8
4
53
11
19
1
3
10
0
0
88151r2 2
117
-------
^
JQ
X
0
2
C
CO
o"
O
tS
o
^*
0
Of}
Q
0
H
CO
CO
H
B
ง
CO
^i
co
3
ฃ^
|
o
^H
a
Jc
>
SH
O
4J
g
0
O
L,
C
O
c:
Cfl
r^
03
4^
o
E-i
vO
CM
1 O
3" -H
01
3
o
e-
i
CO
,_(
o *
O -H -0
S*1 rtl
^ w
a) -a
ฐT ^ S
t t rt
SL, 0>
0 0=
o
X
OJ
4j
Q
E~*
i
(U
rH
a *
^Q *f4 ^3
งf^ flj
0} JJ
as > cd
1 1 rH
C ฃ- (3J
<5 o os
4J
o
3
o
H
1
0)
rH
O *
o -H -a
Sf" fl>
A- w
(U JP
ce > - in
CO CO CM CO
O O =T O
fl- vO vO W
CO CO ON CO
co in CM co
T- . t T-
in vo co vo
ON CO in ON
CM it ON in
sr co co CM
iT O> vO CM
C CM ST ON
CM ซ- CO t
CM ซ- ซ-
ซ- CM CO .=T
O O O O
H i-l -H -H CO
X ฃ- ฃ- t- S- -H
I- i /*
Wi
1 CO
L. i-l
O E
4-> CO
i co
c
TJ -H
cd J->
O CO
cL ^
i i-
c cd
o g
to co
CO CZ
T3 -H
3 -H
O CO
c cd
hH bO
*
CM
t.
CD
ID
118
-------
5 ANALYSIS OF THE URBAN AIRSHED MODELING RESULTS
In this section we present the results of exercising the UAM(CB-IV) for the New York
and St. Louis episodes using various emission scenarios. These emission scenarios
consist of a base year inventory, several inventories for 1995 reflecting the effects
of changes in mobile VOC and CO emissions due to different fuel RVP and ethanol
blends, and SIP control strategies for St. Louis. In the following discussion, we pre-
sent ozone concentrations in parts per hundred million (pphm) and differences in
ozone concentrations in parts per billion (ppb). Note that for the ozone NAAQS .12
ppm = 12.0 pphm = 120 ppb. To have confidence in model results, it is desirable to
first evaluate the model by using a meteorological base year emissions inventory and
concurrent ozone observations to compare model results with measurements.
MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
A major effort in past (JAM applications was devoted to the many diagnostic simula-
tions required to achieve strict model performance standards. One of the key com-
ponents of the UAM PLANR application is a relaxation of these strict model per-
formance evaluation requirements. Thus the goal of the UAM PLANR application is
to achieve a satisfactory level of performance involving as few diagnostic simula-
tions as possible. However, the model must show some skill in predicting observa-
tions to promote confidence in its ability to correctly respond to changes in inputs,
such as alternative emission scenarios.
Model performance evaluation can be divided into two categories: statistical and
diagnostic. In the statistical evaluation, model predictions are compared with obser-
vations to see how well model results agree with observations. In a diagnostic
evaluation, the goal is to determine why the model predicts what it does. Diagnostic
evaluation generally involves many simulations in which the input data vary to pro-
vide insight into the reasons for the model's predictions. Although diagnostic evalua-
tions are important, time and resource constraints allowed only a statistical evalua-
tion of the UAM to be carried out as part of this project.
For the PLANR use of the UAM(CB-IV) for New York and St. Louis described herein,
only one evaluation simulation was carried out. Model inputs were prepared accord-
ing to the objective techniques described in Section 3, and the model was exercised
using the best estimate of a meteorological base year inventory. For St. Louis, the
88151r2 3
119
-------
emission inventory used in the model evaluation was derived from the emission
inventory used in the St. Louis ozone modeling project (Schere and Shreffler, 1982;
Cole et al., 1983) and was for the year 1976. For the New York metropolitan area,
the emission inventory used in the model evaluation was derived from the 1988
SCOPE Base Case inventory used in the OMNYMAP project (Rao, 1987) and was for
the year 1988. Both inventories had to be converted from CB-II to CB-IV species.
The uncertainties introduced by not using proper CB-IV speciation methodologies and
the 1988 year inventory for the New York evaluations are unknown. Model predic-
tions were compared with observations, and, given the uncertainties noted, the model
exhibited sufficient skill in predicting observations that no diagnostic simulations
were deemed necessary to improve model performance.
The fairly good level of model performance noted in these two UAM applications
using the PLANR procedures may be due in part to the fact that both episodes were
modeled and evaluated in a previous simulation involving the CB-II version of the
UAM and that both applications made use of nonroutine data. Thus it is possible that
future UAM PLANR applications may require some diagnostic simulations to improve
model performance.
In the following discussions of model performance evaluation, we focus on three
aspects of the model's ability to replicate observations:
1. Accuracy in predicting the peak observation. The peak observation will
be compared with the peak prediction that occurs anywhere within the
modeling domain (unmatched by time and location). Traditionally, it has
been a UAM performance goal that the peak predicted value be within 30
percent and in the general location of the peak observed value unmatched
by time or location. Traditionally, model performance has been con-
sidered to be good if the maximum ozone concentration is matched to
within 15 percent. In addition, the peak prediction at the location of the
peak observation will be compared with the maximum observation
(matched by location but not time).
2. Accuracy in predicting hourly ozone concentrations. Hourly predicted
and observed ozone concentrations will be paired together, matched by
time and location, to reveal whether the model replicates the diurnal and
spatial variability noted in the observations. Model results will be
examined to determine whether the model exhibits any systematic bias in
predicting observations.
3. Accuracy in predicting maximum daily observations throughout the
modeling domain. Model results will be examined to determine whether
the model predicts the observed spatial patterns of the maximum daily
ozone observations. Exceptional model performance will be indicated if
the model predicts all of the observed maximum daily ozone observations
within 30 percent matched by location but not by time.
88151r2 a
120
-------
The focus has been on accuracy because, if desired, it can be accounted for in the
development and adoption of control strategies.
Although there are many statistical measures that can be used to evaluate model
performance (Fox, 1981, 1984; Dennis, Downton, and Keil, 1983), only a few key sta-
tistical measures are discussed for the two paired data sets of predictions and obser-
vations: hourly ozone concentrations matched by time and location and maximum
daily ozone concentrations matched by location only. Other statistical measures of
model performance are presented in figures and tables. Since statistical perform-
ance measures alone do not always provide a clear picture of model performance, we
also present several qualitative measures of model performance. These measures
include time series of predicted and observed hourly ozone concentrations at each
monitoring site and spatial maps containing isopleths of predicted maximum daily
ozone concentrations, with the maximum daily observation superimposed at the loca-
tion of the observation.
The key statistical performance measures to be presented for the two paired data
sets are as follows:
Average Observed
Average Predicted
Bias = Averge Observed - Average Predicted
Absolute Average Gross Error
Correlation Coefficient
Comparison of the average observed and predicted hourly ozone concentrations pro-
vides an indication of how well the model is reproducing the observations on
average. A zero bias indicates that the model is underpredicting to the same degree
that it is overpredicting. The absolute average gross error measures how well the
hourly model predictions match the observations in an absolute sense. If the bias is
approximately equal in magnitude to the absolute average gross error, then the
model is systematically over- or underpredicting. The correlation coefficient, when
applied to the hourly ozone concentration pairs, provides insight into how well the
model can reproduce the diurnal and spatial variability of the observations. Perfect
model performance, which is nearly impossible to attain because of the stochastic
nature of the atmosphere and the differences in what the predictions and observa-
tions represent, would be a bias and absolute average gross error of zero and a corre-
lation coefficient of one.
The correlation coefficient between the predicted and observed maximum daily
ozone concentration pairs indicates how well the model replicates the spatial pattern
of the maximum daily ozone observations. Before we present a comparison of the
predicted and observed hourly ozone concentrations, it should be noted that there are
fundamental differences in what the observed and predicted ozone values represent.
88151r2 8
121
-------
Model predictions are for a grid cell average and represent a volumetric average for
a volume ranging from approximately 2 to 100 cubic kilometers. The observations,
on the other hand, are representative of a point and may be subject to sub-grid-scale
influences. Of particular importance for ozone measurements is the possibility that
NOX sources located near the ozone monitor may cause a local titration of the
observed ozone concentration that is not reflected in the grid cell ensemble concen-
tration.
Evaluation of the New York Application of the UAM(CB-IV)
The New York modeling episode spanned the period beginning at 1200 LST on 7
August 1980 and ending at 2000 LST on 8 August 1980. The sole purpose of initiali-
zing the model at noon on 7 August was to eliminate the effects of initial conditions
on ozone and ozone precursor concentrations on 8 August. Thus we limit our evalua-
tion discussion for the New York episode to model predictions for 8 August 1980.
Within the New York modeling domain there were 32 ozone monitoring sites. The
site names and four-character identifiers are listed in Table 5-1, while the locations
of the monitors are shown in Figure 5-1. Of the 32 sites, two (LIND and MIDS) did
not collect any ozone observations on 8 August, and another (MORR) lay inside a
boundary cell that is not modeled by the UAM. Thus 29 observation sites remained
for model evaluation. (For the reader's convenience, all figures and tables are loca-
ted at the end of this section.)
Figure 5-2 displays isopleths of the predicted maximum daily ozone concentrations
on 8 August 1980. Also shown in Figure 5-2 are the maximum daily observed ozone
concentrations at all sites superimposed over the predicted isopleths. The peak
observed ozone of 24.6 pphm occurred at Stratford, CT (STRF), while the peak pre-
diction of 23.5 pphm occurred approximately 30 km to the east-southeast of STRF in
the Long Island Sound between Long Island, NY and the coast of Connecticut. The
model predicts the peak observed ozone concentration within k percent, unmatched
by time or location. Since there are no ozone monitors in the vicinity of the predic-
ted peak ozone concentration, it is uncertain whether the ozone peak actually occur-
red over the Long Island Sound.
Examination of the predicted and observed maximum daily ozone concentrations
away from the peak observation at STRF reveals that the model tends to overpredict
the maximum daily ozone concentrations throughout the region (Figure 5-2). This
tendency toward overprediction of the afternoon ozone concentrations is also illus-
trated in the time series plots of predicted and observed hourly ozone concentrations
at all sites presented in Figure 5-3. The maximum daily ozone concentration predic-
ted by the model typically occurs 1 to 3 hours later in the afternoon than does the
observed maximum. The model predicts a maximum daily ozone concentration of
88151r2 8
122
-------
21.4 pphm (underprediction by 13 percent) at STRF 3 hours later (4:00 p.m.) than the
occurrence of the observed peak. However, there is some doubt whether the STRF
observations are representative of the large-scale ozone buildup observed in southern
Connecticut. In fact, at an ozone monitor in Bridgeport, CT (BRPT), less than 8 km
from STRF, the observed maximum daily ozone is 17 pphm, whereas the predicted
maximum daily ozone concentration is 20 pphm, an 18 percent overprediction at this
site. Clearly, the model cannot resolve such sharp spatial concentration gradients in
the observations using an 8-km grid spacing.
A more representative measure of the observed ozone buildup over southern Con-
necticut would be to combine the four ozone monitors, STRF, BRPT, Derby (DRBY),
and New Haven (NHVN), that lie within a few grid cells of each other. When the
hourly observations from these four sites are averaged and compared with the corre-
sponding average predictions, we see that the model is better at predicting the
ensemble spatially averaged observed ozone than a point measurement (Figure 5-4).
The model overpredicts the observed maximum daily ozone averaged for the four
sites in southern Connecticut by about 27 percent, matched by time and location.
The maximum observed and maximum predicted ozone concentrations both occur at
the same time of the day (2:00 p.m.).
The maximum predicted ozone concentrations at all other sites are within a factor of
two except at three sites (HEMP, MAMA, and POUG). This discrepancy may be due
to ozone titration from local sources at these sites. The HEMP site is the only site
with concurrent NOX measurements, and observed NOX concentrations are high (10
pphm). Thus overprediction of ozone at the HEMP site can be attributed to local
NOX emissions. Unfortunately, there are no concurrent NOX measurements at the
other two sites, where significant overprediction occurs.
Figures 5-5 and 5-6 display scatterplots, residual analysis, and some statistical mea-
sures for all hourly ozone concentrations (matched by time and location) and for the
maximum daily ozone concentrations (matched by location but not time). Over all
hours (Figure 5-5a) the predictions and observations correlate well, with a correla-
tion coefficient of 0.80. However, as illustrated in the time series analysis and
maximum daily ozone isopleths in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, the model tends to overpre-
dict observations, on average, by approximately 3.1 pphm (51 percent). The absolute
average gross error is 3.8 pphm (62 percent), approximately the same as the bias,
which indicates that the model is systematically overpredicting the observations.
The model, on average, tends to overpredict by 5.4 pphm (45 percent) the maximum
daily ozone concentrations at each site (Figure 5-6). The absolute average gross
error is 5.6 pphm (47 percent), again indicating a systematic overprediction. The
model does show some skill in replicating the spatial distribution of the observed
maximum daily ozone concentrations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.58 between
predicted and observed maximum daily ozone concentrations matched in location but
not in time.
88151r2 8
123
-------
Comparison of UAM(CB-IV) Model Performance for
New York with Performance in a Previous Study
The 8 August 1980 episode was modeled with the CB-II version of the UAM by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as part of the
Oxidant Modeling in the New York Metropolitan Area Program (OMNYMAP). As dis-
cussed in Section 3, the OMNYMAP UAM(CB-II) inputs formed a starting point for
the inputs prepared for the UAM(CB-IV) for this study. The principal differences
between this study and the OMNYMAP UAM evaluation of 8 August 1980 are: (1)
this study used the latest version of the UAM, which includes the chemistry of the
CB-IV and an improved advection algorithm; (2) in this study the modeling period was
extended by beginning the simulation at noon on 7 August compared to starting at
4:00 a.m. on 8 August in the OMNYMAP study; (3) this study used a diagnostic wind
model, whereas the OMNYMAP study used constant wind fields; however, the bulk
flow direction remains similar; (4) in this study the region top was held constant at
1500 m, whereas a rising region top was used in the OMNYMAP study; (5) this study
used slightly lower boundary conditions on the southwestern inflow boundary; and (6)
this study used a 1988 emissions inventory whereas the OMNYMAP study used a 1980
inventory.
Table 5-2 compares some key statistical performance measures for application of the
UAM(CB-IV) in this study and the OMNYMAP application of the UAM(CB-II) for 8
August 1980. As seen in Table 5-2, the OMNYMAP application of the UAM(CB-II)
also tended to overpredict observations.
The OMNYMAP application of the UAM tended to produce a double ozone peak: one
centered over the Connecticut coastline and one located over the New Jersey coast-
line. The ozone peak over New Jersey predicted by the UAM in the OMNYMAP
study is not supported by the observations (see sites EORG, BAYO, and PLFD in
Figure 5-3). It is suspected that this predicted ozone peak may have been caused by
prescription of higher boundary condition concentrations near the southwest corner
of the modeling domain. In this study the UAM did not predict an ozone peak over
New Jersey. In general, however, the UAM model performance in this study was
comparable to the performance in the OMNYMAP study. Any differences may be
attributable to this study's use of a 1988 emissions inventory, which contains
approximately 32 and 14 percent less VOC and NOX emissions, respectively.
The UAM(CB-IV) application has shown some skill in predicting observed ozone con-
centrations for 8 August 1980 in the New York metropolitan area. There is a general
tendency to overpredict the maximum afternoon observed ozone concentration.
However, the peak observed ozone concentration is replicated within 4 percent
unmatched by time and location, and within 13 percent when matched by location but
not time. Overall model performance could most likely be improved by using a 1980
emissions inventory and/or finer model resolution and/or by lowering the boundary
conditions or other uncertain inputs that would in turn lower the predicted afternoon
88lSlr2 8 ]_24
-------
peak ozone concentrations throughout the modeling region. However, this procedure
may also result in less agreement with the observed peak ozone value. The single
evaluation simulation of the UAM(CB-IV) indicates that the model displays sufficient
skill in replicating observations and will provide a useful and credible tool for analy-
sis of the formation of elevated ozone episodes in the New York metropolitan area.
Evaluation of the St. Louis Application of the UAM(CB-IV)
The St. Louis modeling episode spanned the period from midnight to 1900 LST on
13 July 1976. This modeling episode was an extension of a previous UAM(CB-II)
modeling episode performed as part of the St. Louis modeling project (Cole et al.,
1983; Schere and Shreffler, 1982), in which the model was exercised from 0400 to
1800 LST. The purpose of extending the episode the extra four hours in this study
was to minimize the effects of initial conditions on the afternoon peak predicted
ozone concentrations.
The St. Louis modeling period coincided with the Regional Air Pollution Study
(RAPS); thus there was a fairly dense network of 21 ozone monitors within and
around the city of St. Louis. On 13 July 1976, seven of the monitors did not measure
afternoon ozone concentrations; 14 monitoring sites provided sufficient data for con-
ducting a model performance evaluation. Figure 5-7 shows the spatial distribution of
the ozone monitoring network; sites 102, 104, 105, 111, 115, 118, and 121 are the
seven sites with no afternoon ozone observations.
Figure 5-8 shows isopleths of the predicted maximum daily ozone concentrations
with the maximum daily observations superimposed. The peak observation is 22.2
pphm and occurs at hour 16, while the peak prediction anywhere in the modeling
domain is 24.2 pphm (within 9 percent of the peak observation) and also occurs at
hour 16, approximately 10 km to the southwest (upwind) of the observation.
The time series of predicted and observed ozone concentrations for all the sites
within the St. Louis modeling domain are shown in Figure 5-9. The model exhibits
very good agreement at almost all sites. At the location of the observed peak ozone
concentration (site 114), the model appears to replicate the rise of the observations
in the morning until around 1000 LST, when a shoulder appears in the time series of
predicted concentrations. This shoulder is most probably due to a wind shift in the
input wind field. Despite the shoulder, the model reproduces the observed peak at
site 114 within 1 percent (22.2 pphm observed versus 21.9 pphm predicted), although
the modeled peak occurs two hours later than the observed peak. The peak observed
ozone concentration at each site is replicated by the model within 30 percent at all
sites except site 108. At site 108 the model predicts a sharp spike for peak ozone
that is not supported by observations.
Figure 5-10 contains a scatterplot, residual analysis, and some statistical measures
comparing the hourly predicted and observed ozone concentrations for all hours of 13
381Slr2 8
125
-------
July 1976. Except for a tendency to overpredict the extremely low nighttime ozone
observations, the model exhibits no systematic bias in predicting the hourly observed
ozone concentrations. The bias between the predicted and observed ozone concen-
trations is -0.9 pphm, yielding an average overprediction of approximately 14 per-
cent. The gross absolute error is 1.7 pphm (28 percent), which indicates that the
model is not systematically over- or underpredicting. The predicted hourly ozone
concentrations correlate extremely well with the observations, with a correlation
coefficient of 0.92.
A scatterplot and statistical measures for the predicted and observed maximum daily
ozone concentrations, matched by location but not time, are given in Figure 5-11.
Again the model exhibits substantial skill in replicating the observed maximum daily
ozone concentrations with a bias of only 1.0 pphm (6 percent) and an absolute
average gross error of only 2.* pphm (16 percent). The spatial distribution of the
observed maximum daily ozone concentrations is also reproduced by the model, with
a correlation coefficient of 0.68.
Comparison of UAM(CB-IV) Model Performance for
St. Louis with Performance in a Previous Study
The 13 July 1976 episode was one of the 20 early ozone episodes from RAPS used to
evaluate an early version of the UAM and other urban-scale photochemical air
quality simulation models in the early 1980s (Schere and Shreffler, 1982). Table 5-3
displays several key statistical performance measures for the 13 July 1976 St. Louis
modeling episode discussed in this study using the UAM(CB-IV) and from the previous
study using the UAM(CB-II). In general, the bias and correlation coefficients for
both the UAM(CB-IV) and UAM(CB-II) applications to St. Louis on 13 July indicate
quite good model performance (bias in magnitude is less than 1 pphm, and correlation
coefficients are greater than 0.9). However, the UAM(CB-IV) predictions of peak
observed ozone concentrations in this study are substantially better than those pro-
duced by the UAM(CB-II) in the previous study. Comparison of the peak predicted
ozone concentrations anywhere within the modeling domain with the peak observed
ozone concentrations (unmatched by time or location) reveals that the UAM(CB-IV)
overpredicted by 9 percent, whereas the UAM(CB-II) underpredicted by 22 percent.
The UAM(CB-IV) predicted the observed peak ozone at the monitoring site (matched
by location but not time) to within 2 percent, whereas the UAM(CB-II) underpredic-
ted the maximum observed ozone concentration at the site by 25 percent.
The UAM(CB-IV) model performance for the St. Louis region is quite good by any
measure. The improvement in model performance over the past application of the
UAM(CB-II) may be due to improvements in the treatment of chemistry and advec-
tion in the model, and improvements in the wind fields. However, this improvement
in model performance tends to indicate that the UAM(CB-IV), using the PLANR input
preparation procedures, does produce significantly better modeling results than those
obtained with the earlier version of the UAM and its preprocessor programs.
126
-------
ANALYSIS OF UAM RESULTS FOR NEW YORK
The UAM(CB-IV) was exercised for four separate future year emission sensitivity
scenarios reflecting VOC emissions changes resulting from use of different fuel RVP,
use of ethanol-blended fuels, and running loss mobile emissions. These four emission
scenarios for New York can be summarized as follows:
Scenario 1: 1995 emission rates at current RVP values (11.5 psi) with running
losses,
Scenario 2: 1995 emission rates at low RVP values (9.0 psi) with running losses,
Scenario 3: 1995 emission rates with a 100 percent market penetration of a 10
percent ethanol-blended fuel at the low RVP values with a 1 psi exemption
(10.0 psi) with running losses, and
Scenario 4: 1995 emission rates at current RVP values (11.5 psi) with no
running losses.
All four of the 1995 emission scenarios were exercised using the same initial and
boundary conditions (i.e., the changes in the 1995 emission scenarios were not reflec-
ted in the boundary conditions). Thus the changes in the 1995 emissions have to be
viewed as local changes in the emissions inventory within the New York modeling
domain. The changes in emissions are not reflected in regions upwind of the New
York metropolitan area. It is even more important that the reader bear in mind that
the results do not reflect changes from regional and/or national policies (e.g.,
reducing RVP on a regional basis). This study treated the lower RVP as occurring
only in the study area.
The four 1995 emission scenarios described above are designed to address the follow-
ing issues:
Fuel RVP. The EPA is considering regulations to require lower fuel RVP to
reduce evaporative VOC emissions from mobile and gas refueling sources.
Note that limitations in our modeling capabilities precluded our examining at
this time the impact of regional (i.e., Northeast Corridor) lowering of RVP.
Results of scenarios 1 and 2 do not reflect the likely "real-world" policy, nor
does comparison of them provide definitive results.
Ethanol-blended fuels. The use of ethanol blends in gasoline-powered vehicles
results in significant reductions in exhaust CO emissions but some increases in
exhaust NOX and evaporative VOC emissions. At this time it is unclear
whether the increase in ozone concentrations due to the increases in VOC
emissions will be counteracted by the reductions in ozone due to the reductions
88151r2 3
127
-------
in CO emissions. Comparison of scenarios 2 and 3 allows us to assess the
potential benefits or disbenefits of ethanol-blended fuels regarding ozone con-
centrations.
Running losses. The term "running losses" refers to VOC emissions that occur
during the operation of the vehicle that have not been accounted for in past
mobile source emission inventories. These VOC emissions have only recently
been estimated and have not been rigorously treated in any previous ozone
modeling analysis. Comparison of scenarios 1 and 4 allows us to estimate the
effects of running loss emissions on urban ozone concentrations.
Previous UAM studies of the New York modeling domain have reported a high degree
of sensitivity of peak ozone predictions to initial and boundary conditions (Rao, 1987;
Rao and Sistla, 1987). Rao and Sistla examined the sensitivity of the UAM to emis-
sions, initial concentrations, and boundary conditions by exercising the UAM with and
without the influences of these components. Although their sensitivity analysis was
performed for a different episode than the one studied here, the general meteoro-
logical conditions, boundary conditions, and model predictions were similar. The
overall conclusion reached by Rao and Sistla was that initial and boundary conditions
contributed approximately 70 to 90 percent of the maximum ozone concentrations in
the New York metropolitan area for the episode studied.
In light of the importance of initial and boundary conditions in the work reported by
Rao and Sistla, it was decided to perform a weighted tracer simulation for the New
York modeling episode. The weighted tracer simulation gives an indication of the
relative influences of initial conditions, boundary conditions, and emissions on VOC
and NOX concentrations in the regions of elevated ozone predictions. Since the
weighted tracer simulation will provide insight into the UAM results for the 1995
emission scenarios, it is discussed next.
Tracer Simulation for New York
In a weighted tracer simulation, the UAM is run in an inert mode (i.e., no chemistry
or deposition) with seven different "colored tracers" (species) representing the
effects of initial conditions, lateral boundary conditions (four colors, one for each
face), boundary top conditions, and emissions. Each colored tracer represents the
different contributors to VOC concentrations within the modeling domain. The
magnitudes of the initial and boundary conditions and emission rates correspond to
the actual VOC initial and boundary conditions and emissions for the 1995 modeling
scenario 1. Similarly, seven other colored tracers are set up for the NOX species,
resulting in a UAM 1 ^-species weighted tracer simulation.
Note that the weighted tracer simulation cannot be used for a secondary species such
as ozone. Also, colored tracers cannot exactly apportion the source (initial condi-
tion, boundary condition, or emissions) of a pollutant concentration at a given grid
881Slr2 8 2.28
-------
ceil and time since the inert tracer simulation neglects deposition and chemical
transformation. However, the simulation can, in a general sense, provide an esti-
mate of the relative importance of the contribution of initial concentrations, boun-
dary conditions, and emissions to pollutant concentrations.
Figure 5-12a displays the percent contribution of the hydrocarbon boundary condi-
tions and emissions to the total hydrocarbon concentrations for hours 1200 LSI
through 1700 LSI on 8 August 1980. Upwind of New York City, boundary conditions
are the predominant contributor to modeled hydrocarbon concentrations. From New
York City to the location of the peak predicted ozone concentration, which the cal-
culations locate in the middle of Long Island Sound late in the afternoon, boundary
conditions and emissions contribute about equally to the modeled atmospheric con-
centrations of hydrocarbons. Downwind of the location of the peak modeled ozone
concentration, boundary conditions contribute approximately 40 percent, and emis-
sions about 60 percent to the total modeled hydrocarbon concentrations. Away from
the predicted elevated ozone cloud that stretches from New York City over the Long
Island Sound, boundary conditions tend to contribute more than emissions to the pre-
dicted hydrocarbon concentrations. Initial conditions do not contribute at all to the
atmospheric concentrations on 8 August.
The percent contribution of boundary conditions and emissions to calculated ambient
NOX concentrations on the afternoon of 8 August is presented in Figure 5-12b. Boun-
dary NOX concentrations contribute approximately 40 percent to ambient NOX con-
centrations in the regions of highest predicted ozone concentrations, with NOX emis-
sions contributing the remainder. As has been noted for the hydrocarbons, away
from the predicted peak ozone cloud, NOX concentrations are more influenced by
boundary conditions than by emissions within the modeling domain.
New York 1995 Emission Scenarios
Interpretation of the effects of the different 1995 emission scenarios on ozone con-
centrations must include the influences of boundary conditions. Since boundary con-
ditions are estimated to contribute about half of the hydrocarbon concentrations in
the region of elevated ozone concentrations, and boundary conditions remained
unchanged for all 1995 emission scenarios, then the effectiveness of VOC emission
reductions on ambient ozone concentrations would be much less than if the boundary
conditions also reflected the changes in the alternative emission inventories.
Table 5-4 summarizes the hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide emis-
sion rates for the 1995 emission inventories. Also tabulated are VOC-to-NOx ratio,
estimated from the inventory, for each scenario. Of particular note is that the VOC-
to-NOx ratio for the 1995 scenario 1 base case emissions inventory is 10.8 compared
to current urban emission inventory VOC-to-NOx ratios that usually range from 3 to
6. Since NOX reacts away into secondary products faster than VOC species do, urban
ambient measurements of VOC-to-NOx ratios are higher (the national average is
83151r2 8
129
-------
around 10, and a three-year average (1983-1985) for New York City is around 12).
Reductions of VOC emissions are less effective in reducing ozone at high VOC-to-
NOX ratios than at lower VOC-to-NOx ratios. The 1988 Scope Base Case and 1985
NAPAP emission inventories have lower VOC-to-NOx ratios, 3.4 and 4.8, respec-
tively, than those exhibited by the 1995 scenario 1 base case. The projection of the
emissions from the 1985 NAPAP inventory to the 1995 inventory without running
losses (scenario 4) results in a VOC-to-NOx ratio of 7.2. This increase in the VOC-
to-NOx ratio is primarily due to the increases in evaporative VOC emissions resulting
from the change from Mobile-3 to Mobile-3.9 emissions. Mobile-3.9 accounts for
increases in evaporative emissions due to increases in temperature and RVP. The
addition of running loss VOC emissions to the inventory, which adds an additional 50
percent VOC to the scenario 4 inventory, results in a 50 percent increase in the
VOC-to-NOx ratio, from 7.2 to 10.8 in the 1995 base case inventory at current RVP
(scenario 1).
Exercising the UAM(CB-IV) for the four 1995 emission scenarios generates gridded
fields of hourly concentrations for 22 species at 5 vertical levels for the 32-hour
simulation. The following discussion is accompanied by isopleth maps of the maxi-
mum daily ozone concentrations and hourly ozone concentrations in the afternoon of
8 August. In addition, difference plots of maximum daily and hourly ozone concen-
trations between scenarios are presented, where appropriate.
Effects of Lower RVP
As seen in Table 5-4, the effect of lowering the RVP of gasoline fuel in New York
from the current value of 11.5 to 9.0 results in a 24 percent reduction in VOC emis-
sions. Although these VOC reductions are mainly lower reactive hydrocarbons
(butane and pentane), there are also some reductions in more reactive species such as
olefins and xylenes.
Figures 5-13 and 5-14 show isopleth maps of maximum daily ozone concentrations for
the current RVP (scenario 1) and low RVP (scenario 2), respectively. Isopleths of
afternoon hourly ozone concentrations for scenarios 1 and 2 are presented in Appen-
dixes D-l and D-2. Qualitatively, the effect of lower RVP on ambient ozone concen-
trations is very small. The calculated highest ozone concentration of 17.4 pphm is
similar for both scenarios. The highest ozone concentration for scenario 2 is calcula-
ted to be located somewhat further downwind of the city (Figures 5-13 and 5-14).
Further evidence of the similarity of results is observed in the difference plots
between scenario 1 and scenario 2 for the maximum daily ozone and afternoon hourly
ozone concentrations shown in Figure 5-15 and Appendix D-3. Immediately down-
wind of New York City, the area with the largest fraction of mobile emissions, there
is a region of decreased maximum ozone concentrations due to lower RVP stretching
across Long Island. The maximum decrease is approximately 1.4 ppb. However,
further downwind at the end of Long Island, there is a region of slight increases in
130
88151r2 8
-------
the maximum daily ozone concentrations due to the lower RVP. Although the
increases and decreases in the ozone concentrations are low, maximum values of
approximately 1.5 ppb, the observation that a reduction in VOC emissions results in
an increase in the maximum daily ozone concentration in some regions is somewhat
surprising. This topic is discussed further later in this section.
Although the highest ozone concentrations are the same for the current and low RVP
scenarios, the low RVP scenario produces lower ozone concentrations earlier in the
day (see Appendixes D-l, D-2, and D-3). Thus the lower RVP may help reduce the
number of people-hours exposed to ozone concentrations in excess of the NAAQS. It
is important to remember that, given the large VOC reductions, the apparent lack of
change in ambient ozone is confounded by the analysis's failure to account for the
effects of changes in fuel RVP on the long-range transport of pollutants (i.e.,
boundary conditions).
Effects of Ethanol-Blended Fuels
Figures 5-16 and 5-17 display, respectively, isopleths of the maximum daily ozone
concentrations predicted for the 1995 ethanol-blend scenario (scenario 3) and the dif-
ference in maximum daily ozone concentrations between scenario 3 and scenario 2.
(similar figures for the afternoon hourly ozone concentrations are given in Appen-
dixes D-4 and D-5). There is a very slight increase in the maximum daily ozone con-
centrations, with a maximum increase of less than 1 ppb. Downwind of New York
City, CO concentrations decrease about 2 to 4 percent, while there are slight
increases in hydrocarbon and NOX concentrations. Examination of the differences in
hourly ozone concentrations between the ethanol-blend scenario (scenario 3) and the
low RVP scenario (scenario 2) (Appendix D-5) reveals that the effects of ethanol
blends on hourly ozone concentrations are very small, with ozone increases or
decreases always less than 1 ppb.
Effects of Running Losses
The maximum daily ozone isopleth concentrations for the current RVP scenario
without running losses (scenario 4) and differences with the scenario with running
losses at current RVP (scenario 1) are shown in Figures 5-18 and 5-19, respectively
(the corresponding figures for afternoon hourly ozone concentrations are given in
Appendixes D-6 and D-7). Despite a 33 percent reduction in VOC emissions, there is
only a slight (up to 2 ppb) reduction in the maximum daily ozone concentrations. As
was noted for the low RVP scenario, further downwind from the region of elevated
ozone, there is a slight increase in ozone for the scenario with running losses. How-
ever, it appears that including running loss VOC emissions will result in significant
increases in hourly ozone concentrations earlier in the day (see Appendix D-7).
Between the hours of 1200 to 1300, running loss VOC emissions increase ozone con-
centrations in some regions by as much as 20 ppb (2.0 pphm).
8615 Ir2 8
131
-------
Preliminary Analysis of the New York 1995 Emission Scenarios
Table 5-5 summarizes the VOC emission reductions and the predicted changes in the
highest ozone concentrations for the four 1995 emission scenario simulations for New
York. The most striking feature of these simulations is the insensitivity of the
highest ozone concentration to the VOC emission reductions. However, this insensi-
tivity is not surprising when one considers the effects of the boundary conditions, the
high VOC-to-NOx ratio in the 1995 emission inventories, and the fact that a higher
percentage of less reactive hydrocarbon species (paraffins) is part of the VOC emis-
sion reductions than is in the normal distribution of the inventory.
The southwestern boundary conditions (the most prominent inflow boundary) have
(molar) VOC-to-NOx ratios that vary from approximately 30 to 70. Given this VOC-
to-NOx ratio; the estimate from the tracer simulation that approximately half of the
hydrocarbons and NOX concentrations at the location of the maximum ozone concen-
trations come from the boundary conditions; and the fact that NO reacts away
faster than VOC, the effective atmospheric VOC-to-NOx ratio would be greater than
about 20. Thus the largest VOC emissions reduction, a 33 percent VOC reduction
from scenario 1 to scenario 4, would only lower the effective atmospheric VOC-to-
NOX ratio by about 2 units (from a value greater than 20 to a value greater than
18). Usually the atmospheric VOC-to-NOx ratio must be below approximately 15
before the beneficial effects of hydrocarbon reductions on ozone concentrations can
be realized.
Calculated VOC-to-NOx ratios tend to be higher than those estimated above because
the effects of chemical transformation and deposition of NOX are included. The 6:00
to 9:00 a.m. LST VOC-to-NOx ratios range from 8 to 15 at sites in New York City to
approximately 20 on the Connecticut-New York coastline border (WPLN and GWCH)
and up to 16 to 40 for the sites around the location of the peak ozone (STRF) on the
Connecticut coastline.
Although the effects of the boundary conditions and high VOC-to-NOx ratios in the
1995 emission inventories can explain the small reductions in ozone concentrations
due to VOC emission reductions; they do not, by themselves, explain the slight ozone
increases further downwind of New York City at the end of Long Island and in north-
eastern Connecticut that are associated with the lowering of VOC emissions in
scenarios 2 and 4. Comparisons of predicted concentrations in the afternoon for
scenarios 1 and *f reveal that scenario 4 contains about 10 percent higher NOX con-
centrations in this region. This higher NOX concentration is almost exactly compen-
sated by lower peroxyacyl nitrate (PAN) and nitric acid concentrations, which may
explain the slight increases in ozone concentrations far downwind of New York City
in scenarios 2 and 4. The reductions in VOC emissions in New York City, noted in
scenarios 2 and 4, result in a decrease in the generation of radical concentrations
immediately downwind of New York City. These decreases in radical concentrations
88151r2 8
-------
result in a decrease in the rate of ozone formation (as indicated by the lower ozone
concentrations earlier in the day) and in the rate of transformation of NOX to PAN
and nitric acid. Further downwind, there is still an abundance of hydrocarbon con-
centrations; however, NOX levels are low near the eastern end of Long Island (less
than 1 ppb). Since less of the NOX has been transformed to PAN in the VOC emission
reduction scenarios, there is more NOX available for ozone formation. At these high
VOC-to-NOx ratios, small increases in NOX concentrations result in increases in
ozone.
Another possible explanation for the predicted increases in ozone in VOC emission
reduction scenarios 2 and 4 compared to scenario 1 is the ozone reaction with olef ins
and toluene VOC species. At lower VOC concentrations there is less depletion of
ozone due to its reaction with olefins and toluene, resulting in slightly higher ozone
concentrations. Although these explanations appear plausible, time constraints did
not allow thorough investigation into the causes of these phenomena; thus further
study is needed.
ANALYSIS OF UAM RESULTS FOR ST. LOUIS
The UAM(CB-IV) was exercised for the St. Louis episode for seven 1995 emission
scenariosfive reflecting the changes in mobile sources due to differences in fuels,
and two VOC reduction scenarios corresponding to State Implementation Plan (SIP)
control strategies. These 1995 emission scenarios are summarized as follows:*
Scenario 1: 1995 emission rates at current RVP values (10.0 psi) with running
losses,
Scenario 2: 1995 emission rates at low RVP values (7.8 psi) with running losses,
Scenario 5: 1995 emission rates with a 50 percent market penetration of a 10
percent ethanol-blended fuel at low RVP values with a 1 psi exemption (8.8 psi)
with running losses,
Scenario 6: 1995 emission rates with a 100 percent market penetration of
oxygenated fuel with enough ethyl butyl tertiary ether (ETBE) to produce a fuel
with a 2 percent oxygen content with running losses (note that a 10 percent
ethanol blend results in a fuel with a 3.7 percent oxygen content),
* Time constraints and the need to analyze several alternative emission scenarios
precluded our performing Scenarios 3 and 4 for St. Louis, and the SIP scenarios and
Scenarios 6 and 7 for New York.
88151r2 8
133
-------
Scenario 7: 1995 emission rates at current RVP values (10.0 psi) with a high
estimate of running losses,
SIP scenario A: 1995 emission rates at low RVP (7.8 psi) with enhanced I/M and
other non-mobile-source VOC emissions reduced uniformly to result in a 40
percent VOC reduction from scenario 1, with the same CO and NOX emissions
as in scenario 1, and
SIP scenario B: 1995 emission rates with a 40 percent VOC reduction from
scenario 1, where the most reactive species of hydrocarbons are first reduced
up to 80 percent in each grid cell to obtain the 40 percent total VOC reduction.
These 1995 emission scenarios are designed to address the following issues:
Fuel RVP. As in the New York scenarios, comparison of scenarios 1 and 2 will
allow us to estimate the effects of lower fuel RVP on urban ozone concentra-
tions,
Alternative fuels. Two types of alternative fuel scenarios will be simulated for
St. Louis: a 50 percent market penetration of a 10 percent ethanol-blend and a
100 percent market penetration of an ETBE blend. Unlike ethanol blends,
ETBE does not increase evaporative VOC emissions and thus may produce more
benefits regarding ozone reductions than will an ethanol blend.
Running losses. There is considerable uncertainty in running loss emission
rates. The 1995 UAM simulations for New York and St. Louis have used a best
guess of running losses obtained from an EPA OMS analysis of running loss
emissions from 12 cars. Running loss emissions may be higher or lower than
the best guess estimate. A higher estimate of running losses is used in scenario
7. Comparison of scenarios 7 and 1 allows us to estimate the effects of the
uncertainty in running loss emissions on ozone concentrations.
SIP control strategies. The two SIP scenarios represent two different ways of
obtaining a 40 percent VOC emissions reduction from scenario 1. The main dif-
ference in the two SIP scenarios is that in SIP scenario B, the most reactive
hydrocarbon species are targeted for reduction first. Comparison of the ozone
reductions obtained in SIP scenarios A and B with those in scenario 1 allows us
to estimate the importance of including hydrocarbon reactivity in SIP control
strategies.
Effects of Lower RVP
Figures 5-20 and 5-21, respectively, display isopleths of the maximum daily ozone
concentrations for the current RVP (scenario 1) and low RVP (scenario 2) scenarios.
Isopleth plots of afternoon hourly ozone concentrations for scenarios 1 and 2 are
aaisir2 s
134
-------
given in Appendixes E-l and E-2. The difference plots of maximum daily ozone and
afternoon ozone concentrations between scenario 1 and scenario 2 are illustrated in
Figure 5-22 and Appendix E-3. Despite the lower net VOC emissions reduction due
to lower RVP than was noted in the corresponding New York case (15 percent reduc-
tion versus 24 percent reduction), ozone concentrations are reduced to a greater
extent in St. Louis (up to 5 ppb at the location of the peak). As Table 5-5 shows, the
highest ozone concentration is reduced over 3 percent due to the 15 percent VOC
reduction. The maximum decrease in the afternoon hourly ozone concentrations due
to the lower RVP is approximately 6 ppb (see Appendix E-3).
Effects of Alternative Fuels
Isopleths of maximum daily ozone predictions for the ethanol-blend scenario
(scenario 5) and ETBE blend scenario (scenario 6) are shown in Figures 5-23 and 5-24,
respectively. The corresponding difference plots for these two scenarios versus
scenario 2 are given in Figures 5-25 and 5-26. Similar isopleth plots of afternoon
hourly ozone concentrations for scenarios 5 and 6, and difference plots for these two
scenarios versus scenario 2 are given in Appendixes E-4 through E-7. When compared
to the low RVP scenario, the use of a 50 percent market penetration of a 10 percent
ethanol-blended fuel with the 1 psi exemption results in no increase in the highest
ozone concentration (Table 5-5) and a slight increase in the maximum daily ozone
concentrations (less than 1 ppb) downwind of the location of the highest ozone con-
centration (see Figure 5-25). In the early afternoon (1200-1400) any increases in
hourly ozone concentrations are compensated by an equal decrease (Appendix E-6).
Later in the afternoon there are more increases due to the ethanol blend although
these increases in hourly ozone concentrations are always very small (less than
1 ppb).
As Figure 5-26 shows, the use of an ETBE blend results in a larger benefit (decrease
of 0.8 ppb) than disbenefit (increase of 0.6 ppb) in the changes in maximum daily
ozone concentrations when compared to the low RVP scenario. The highest ozone
concentration is reduced by 1 ppb (Table 5-5). Further evidence of the benefits of
using an ETBE blend for reducing ozone concentrations can be seen in the difference
plots of hourly ozone concentrations in Appendix E-7. Maximum decreases in hourly
ozone concentrations resulting from use of an ETBE blend always exceed any
increases.
Effects of Running Losses
Assuming a higher estimate of running loss emissions (scenario 7) results in an
increase in the maximum ozone concentration by as much as 7 ppb (Figures 5-27 and
5-28 and Appendixes E-8 and E-9). The predicted regional maximum ozone concen-
tration increases by about 5 ppb (3 percent) due to the 26 percent increase in VOC
135
-------
emissions when compared to the high RVP scenario (Table 5-5). Clearly, more data
must be collected to provide a better estimate of the amount and speciation of
running loss emissions.
SIP Control Strategies
The two SIP control strategies (SIP A and B) represent a 40 percent VOC reduction
from scenario 1. However, they differ in the method of VOC reduction. In SIP
scenario A, the 40 percent VOC reduction is obtained by switching to a low RVP fuel
and including an enhanced I/M program. This results in a 15 percent reduction in
VOC emissions from scenario 1. The remainder of the 25 percent VOC reduction is
obtained by uniformly reducing VOC emissions from nonmobile area sources and
point sources. Under SIP scenario B, the 40 percent VOC reduction from scenario 1
is obtained by reducing the most reactive VOC species first (up to 80 percent for
each species in each grid cell). The same NOX and CO emissions used in scenario 1
are used in SIP scenarios A and B.
Figures 5-29 and 5-30 show isopleths of maximum daily ozone concentrations for SIP
scenarios A and B, respectively. Corresponding isopleths of afternoon hourly ozone
concentrations for the SIP scenarios are given in Appendixes E-10 and E-ll. Differ-
ence plots between maximum daily and afternoon hourly ozone concentrations for
the SIP scenarios and scenario 1 are shown in Figures 5-31 and 5-32 and in Appen-
dixes E-12 and E-13.
The 40 percent reduction in SIP scenario A results in a 10 percent reduction in the
highest ozone concentration (Table 5-5). However, in targeting the most reactive
VOC species for reduction first (SIP scenario B), the 40 percent VOC reduction
results in an 18 percent reduction in the highest ozone concentration. In fact, under
SIP scenario A, the region is still experiencing an exceedance of the ozone NAAQS
(i.e., the highest ozone, 14 pphm, is greater than the NAAQS of 12 pphm). However,
under SIP scenario B the region does not experience an exceedance of the ozone
NAAQS (i.e., the highest ozone, 12 pphm, is not greater than the ozone NAAQS).
The differences in hourly ozone concentrations for the SIP scenarios and scenario 1
(Appendixes E-12 and E-13) suggest that targeting the most reactive VOC species for
reduction first is approximately twice as effective at reducing ozone concentrations
as are the usual VOC emission reduction strategies.
Preliminary Analysis of the St. Louis 1995 Emission Scenarios
Without the large influences of the boundary conditions and the high VOC-to-NOx
ratios that complicate the New. York UAM application, VOC emission reductions are
much more effective in lowering ozone concentrations for the St. Louis UAM simula-
tions. A measure of the efficiency in ozone reduction as a function of VOC emission
reductions can be obtained for a given scenario by deriving a ratio of the percentage
change between the predicted highest ozone concentration from scenario 1 to the
88151r2 8
136
-------
percentage VOC emission reductions from scenario 1. As Table 5-5 indicates, these
VOC reduction efficiency values range from 0.20 to 0.25 for almost all of the emis-
sion scenarios (e.g., a 10 percent VOC emission reduction results in approximately a
2 to 2.5 percent reduction in the peak ozone). The exception is SIP scenario B, which
has a VOC reduction efficiency value of almost double that of all the other emission
scenarios. Thus targeting the most reactive hydrocarbon species for emission reduc-
tions is expected to be twice as effective at reducing ozone concentrations as the
usual across-the-board VOC reductions. It appears reasonable that the reverse of
this result is also true, i.e., reducing the less reactive hydrocarbon species will not
have as beneficial an effect in reducing ozone concentrations. Clearly, hydrocarbon
reactivity should be taken into account to the extent possible in analyzing VOC emis-
sion control strategies.
137
88 151r2 8
-------
1SV3
i i i | i i
C
H
I
'c
1
0
in
K
U
O
1S3M
X
0.
s
o
138
CO
00
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 EST
520 540 560 580 600 620
Maximum Value = 23.52
Minimum Value = 4.37
NORTH
640 660
680 700 720 740 760
i i i I i i i I i i i I
SOUTH
4660
4640
4620
4600
4580
- 4560
- 4540
- 4520
- 4500
- 4480
30
4460
Maximum Ozone Concentration
Evaluation 1
Aug 8, 1980 (pphm)
FIGUPE 5-2. Isopleths of predicted maximum daily ozone concentrations
(pphm) with superimposed observations for the New York region on
8 August 1980. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value.)
88151
139
-------
I > I ! | I I ! I I | I I i I I | I I
- HART
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
12
18
i i i i | i i i r i | i i i i i | i i i
- BRPT
OBSERVED [
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
20 20
I
Q.
CL
K)
O
24
10
0 0
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
30
20
10
24
30
12
18
i r i i i T i i i i r r r t i i i i
- DANB
OBSERVED [JJ
PREDICTED
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
- 10
Mew York - 3/8/80 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-3. Time series of predicted and observed hourly ozone concentrations
at all sites in the New York modeling domain.
SYSTEMS APPLJCATIONS, INC.
88151
140
-------
12
18
24
I I I I | I 1 I I I | ! I I I 'I ! I I I
OBSERVED |3
PREDICTED
20
5
I
Q.
Q.
IO
O
10
30
20
10
6 12
TIME (HOURS)
18
24
10
12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
12
i i i i i | i i i i i |
- MDTN
OBSERVED [JJ
PREDICTED
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS;
New fork - 3/8/80 - 03 - EVALUAT ON =!UN
FIGURE 5-3. Continued.
SYSTEMS A=PL CATIONS, INC.
88151
141
-------
12
18
24
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' | I I I T
OBSERVED 0]
PREDICTED
20
I I I I ' I I I r | I I I I I | i | I I (
- 5TRF
OBSERVED 0]
PREDICTED
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24 0
6 12 16
TIME (HOURS)
30
12
i > | i i i i | i i i i
- DMM
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
I I I I I I I I
V EORG
OBSERVED CO
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS)
6 12
TIME (HOURS)
\ew fork - 5/8/50 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-3. Continued.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, IN
38151
142
-------
12
18
24
- LIND
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
20
I
0.
Q.
to
O
10
_> i i i
30 30
12
18
1 I I I I I I I I I I | I i I I 1 I I I I T
r NEWK
OBSERVED HI
PREDICTED
20 20
5
Q.
0.
rj
O
10 10
12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
0 0
30
20
10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
12
18 24
OBSERVED CD
PREDICT:
OBSERVED [0
DPEDICTED
10
6 12 16
TIME (HOURS)
24
New iofV - 8/3/80 - 03 - EVALUATION RUM
FIGURE 5-3. Continued.
i''STEMS APPLICATIONS, INC
143
88151
-------
12 18
20
2
I
0.
Q.
fl
O
I I I I I I I I I
NBRW
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED -
ED
30
12 18
I I 1 I | I I i I I | I I ' I F | T T I 1 I
- MORR
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
20 20
i
CL
O
O
10 10
12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
0 0
30
20
10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
12 18
i r T r i [ T rii i ( ' i \\ r j i i i r
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
20 -
Q.
Q_
O
10 -
24 0
30 30
12
18
24
T \ I I i | I T 1 I I I i I ' I I | I I I I I
- HEMP
OBSERVED CD
20 20
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
12 18
TIME (HOURS;
New rork - 8/8/80 - C3 - EVALUAT ON RUN
FIGURE 5-3. Continued.
SYSTEMS ADPLCA~ONS, INC
144
88151
-------
i i i i i i i r i i | i i i i i | i i i i
OBSERVED Q
PREDICTED
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
12
18
24
12
18
OBSERVED [JJ
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HCURS)
12
TIME (HOURS)
New York - 8/8/30 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-3. Continued.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. INC.
88151
145
-------
12
18
24
12 18
I I! I | I I I I I | i I I I I | I I I I I
- NYC4
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
I I I I | I I t I I | I I i I | I I : I
- NYC5
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS)
12 18
TIME (HOURS)
30
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
OBSERVED [JJ
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS;
24 0
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
New 'fork - 8/8/30 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-3. Continued.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, INC
88151
146
-------
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
i I i i i i ...i i i V
12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
12 18
24
20
2
X
CL
Q.
O
I I I i
POLG
OBSERVES [Jj
PREDICTED
20 20 -
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
10 10 -
6 12
TIME (HOURS)
13
24
New fork - 8/8/80 - 03 - EVALUAT ON RUN
FIGURE 5-3. Concluded.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, INC.
I151
147
-------
30
12
18
24
1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I li I r
- CONN
OBSERVED [3
PREDICTED
20
5
0.
a.
30
20
10
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
24
Average Observed =7.9
Average Predicted =10.7
Bias = -2.8
Correlation Coefficient = 0.996
Peak Predicted/Peak Observed =1.27
(at hour 13)
FIGURE 5-4. Statistical performance measures and
time series of predicted and observed hourly averaged
ozone concentrations averaged over four sites (STRF,
BBPT, DPBY, and NHVN) in southern Connecticut.
148
88151
-------
20.00
15.00
a
c.
10.00
Uj
(X
a.
5.00
I I I I
I I I I
x X* *&ป*;//<- '
* / r ** #** *r yj
* /
*%%,
fฃ&? i ; i i i
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
G CF THE FFCEAElLlfr DEKSlTf FINCTICK
CESEPVEC PREDICTED
AVERAGE
STANDARD DEVIATION
SrEKNESS
KURTCSIS
OTHER MEASURES
MEDIAN
UPPER &LARTJLE
LOkER &LARTRE
MIMMliM VALUE
MAXIMLM VALUE
6. 15970
4.46305
0.70<07
0.40520
5.600CC
9.300CO
2.200CO
0. 100CO
24.60COC
9.26025
6. 17426
C.C4C50
-1.35550
9.7CCOO
14.77000
3. 16COC
c.ceocc
21.37000
STILL CF PPED3CTICN PARAMETERS
CCRRELATICN COEFFICIENT OF FRELICTEt
VERSUS OBSERVED C.6CC
THE BOUNDS OF THE CORRELATION AT THE
CONFIDENCE LEv'EL OF C.CEC ARE
LOW BOUND C.767 HIOH BOUND C.629
RATIO OF OVER TO UNDER PREDICTIONS
PERCENT OF OVER PREDICTIONS
GREATER THAN 2CC PERCENT OF ThE
OBSERVED 30.392
PERCENT OF UNDER PREDICTIONS
UESS THAN EC PERCENT OF THE
OBSERVED 9.ece
5.20C
FIGURE 5-5a. Scatterplot of predicted versus observed hourly ozone concentrations
(matched by time and locations) for New York region on 8 August 1980 (N = 520) .
88151
149
-------
0.20 -
-11.00 -6.60 -2.20
RESIDUAL 'CES-PRED:
2.20
6.60
11. OC
THE EINSIZE ECLALS 2.200
RESIDUAL ANAL'SIS
AVERAGE
S'ANDARD DEVIA"!
SfEWNESS
rUP'OSIS
G'HER MEASURES
MEDIAN
UPPER QUART HE
LOWER QUARTILE
MINIMUM VALUE
MAXIMUM VALUE
ON
-3. 12072
3.73333
-0.22626
0.18046
-2.78000
-0.47000
-5.61000
-14.96000
10.21000
BIAS CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
AT THE G.C5GC LEVEL
LOWER BOUND -3.6722
UPPER BOUND -2.S692
STD RESIDUAL CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
AT THE 0.0500 LEVEL
LOWER BOUND 12.6228
UPPER ECUND 15.4629
THE MEASURES CF GROSS ERROR
THE ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR IS 4.66
THE AVERAGE ABSOLUTE ERROR IS 3.64
VARIOUS MEASURES OF RELATIVE VARIABILITY
OBSERVATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
0.727&
RESIDUAL COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
0.6061
RATIO OF RESIDUAL TO OBSERVED ST. DEV.
0.6328
FIGURE 5-5b. Residual analysis of observed minus predicted hourly ozone
concentrations for New York region on 8 August 1980 (N = 520).
150
-------
20.00
15.00
e
.c
a.
a.
10. 00
tx
H.
5.00
5.00 !0.00 15.00
OBSERVED pphr,
I ii i I ii I I I ii i i
20.00
STILL CF PREDICTION PARAMETERS
CORRELA'ION COEFFICIEN- OF PPEDIC'ED
VERSUS OBSERVED 0.576
'HE BOUNDS OF THE CORRELATION A" 'HE
CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF 0.05C ARE
LOW BOUND 0.266 HIGH BOUND 0.778
RATJO CF OVER T0 UNDER PREDICTIONS 28.000
PERCEN' OF OVER PREDIC'ICNS
GREATER 'HAN 200 PERCENT OF "HE
OBSERVED 10.345
PERCENT OF UNDER PREDICTIONS
LESS THAN 50 PERCEN" OF 'HE
OBSERVED 0.000
* ' i ^ '.J k. t "I ,'-*'-' ^ W W &**ซJ/WWW
FIGURE 5-6a. Scatterplot of predicted versus observed maximum daily ozone concentrations
(matched by location but not time) for 8 August 1980 (N = 29).
MENTS OF 'HE PROBABILl'r DENS
OBSERVED
AVERAGE 12.05171
STANDARD DEVIA'ION 3.84678
SrEWNESS 0.93123
njR'OSIS 1.85087
OTHER MEASURES
MEDIAN 11.70000
UPPER QUARTJLE 13.30000
LOWER OUAR'ILE 9.50000
MINIMUM VALUE 5. ' 0000
MAXIMUM VALUE 24.60000
IT* FUNC'ION
PREDIC'ED
17.43653
2.41584
-0.34467
-0.65029
17.48000
18.59000
15. 18000
12.01000
21.37000
151
58151
-------
0. 40 -
-9.30
RESIDUAL
-3. 10
I06S-PRED)
3. 10
9.30
HE BINSIZE EQUALS 3.100
REC1DLAL ANALYSIS
AVERAGE
STANDARD DEVIA
ION
KURTCSIS
CTHER MEASURES
MEDIAN
UPPER GLi/RT ILE
LCHER CbARTILE
MINIMUM VALUE
MAXIMUM VALLE
-5.26463
3.15023
-C. 25710
2.01413
-5.56CGO
-4. 10COO
-7.C2COO
-14.56000
3.2-50CO
BIAS CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
AT 'HE 0.0500 LEVEL
LOWER BOUND -6.8164
UPPER BOUND -3.9513
S"D RESIDUAL CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
A' "HE 0.0500 LEVEL
BOUND 6.763;
UPPER BOUND 36.2557
"HE MEASURES OF GROSS ERROR
~HE ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR IS 6.2:
"HE AVERAGE ABSOLU'E ERROR IS 5.61
VARIOUS MEASURES OF RELATIVE VARIABILI'
OBSERVATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
0.5192
RESIDUAL COEFFICIENT OF VARIA'ION
0.2614
RATIO OF RESIDUAL TO OBSERVED ST. DEV.
0.8:89
FIGURE 5-6b. Residual analysis of observed minus predicted maximum daily
ozone concentrations for 8 August 1980 (N = 29).
152
88151
-------
FIGURE 5-7. The St. Louis modeling domain showing the location of the RAPS
ozone monitors. (Source: Cole et al., 1983)
88151
153
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 GST
706 726
20 -
V)
NORTH
746
Maximum value = 24.35
Minimum Value = 7.73
766
10
SOUTH
-4-316
- 4-296
- 4-276
- 4256
4236
151
FIGURE 5-8. Isopleths of predicted maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm)
with superimposed maximum daily observations for the St. Louis region on
13 July 1976. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value.)
154
-------
30
12
18 24
20
S
CL
Q.
10
i i r i i | T i i n i i i i i I i T i i i I
- 105
OBSERVED Q
PREDICTED
30
20 20 -
i imm I i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i m
6 12 18 24"
TIME (HOURS)
i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i
- 106
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
10 10-
- 10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
2430 30ฐ
i i i | i i i i i | i i i i i I i i i i i
- 1C7
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
- 108
OBSERVED El
PREDICTED
OBSERVED Q
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS)
12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
ST. LOUIS - 7/13/76 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-9 . Time series of predicted and observed hourly ozone concentrations at
all sites in the St. Louis modeling domain.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. INC.
88151
155
-------
12
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
- 102
i i i i I i i i i i | i i i i i I i i i i i
- 101
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
12
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
- 103
OBSERVED [Jj
PREDICTED
24 0
30 30
6
12
18
24
- 20 20
5
I
Q.
a.
10 10
1 I I T I | II I I i | ( 1 I f 1^ \ I II !
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED -
6 12
TIME (HOURS)
18
24
I I i I i I i I i I i I i I i I
30
20
10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
ST. LOUIS - 7/13/76 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-9. Continued.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, INC.
88151
156
-------
30
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED -
30
12
18
24
I I I i | I I I I I I I I I I I | I 1 I 1 T
r OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
- 20 20
a.
CL
K)
O
- 10 10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
20
10
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
24
30
12
18
24
I I I I j I I I T
- 111
20
CL
CL
lO
O
10
ct 3CDD] * ' ' I
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
i
30
.24,
20 20-
12
TIME (HOURS)
18
24
OBSERVED UJ
PREDICTED
10 10 -
10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
ST. LOUIS - 7/13/76 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-9. Continued.
SYSTEMS APPL'CATIONS, INC.
157
88151
-------
12
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
- 113
OBSERVED Q
PREDICTED =
CD i i i I "r1 i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i
24 0
30 30
6
12
18
24
T I I I I | I I I I I | 1 IT 1 I I 1 I I T
OBSERVED CO
PREDICTED
- 20 20
I
CL
O.
- 10 10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
30
20
10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
12
18
20
i
Q_
Q.
10
I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I
OBSERVED D
PREDICTED -=-
24 0
30 30
12
18
i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i I i I i i i i i
20 20 -
Z
0.
0.
10 10 -
6 12
TIME (HOURS)
18 24
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I i I
- 116
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
TIME (HOURS)
ST. LOUIS - 7/13/76 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-9. Continued.
88151
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, INC.
158
-------
30
6
12
18
24
20
2
O.
ฃL
I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I I | I I I I T
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
i i I i i i I i I i i i i i I i i i I i
30 30
12 18
24
20 20
0.
G-
10 10
L- 118
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
OBSERVED [JJ
PREDICTED
30
20
10
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
30
12
18
12 18
2430 30ฐ
i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i
- 119
I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- 120
OBSERVED CD
PREDICTED
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
12
TIME (HOURS)
6 12 18
TIME (HOURS)
24
ST. LOUIS - 7/13/76 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-9. Continued.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, INC.
88151
159
-------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- 121
OBSERVED 0]
PREDICTED
- 10
6 12
TIME (HOURS)
ST. LOJIS - 7/13/76 - 03 - EVALUATION RUN
FIGURE 5-9. Concluded.
SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. INC.
88151
160
-------
20.00 -
15.00 -
a
a.
<-> 10. 00 -
cr
a.
5.00 -
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i i i
x
5.00
10.00
CECERVCD i
15.00
20.00
AVERAGE
STANDARD DEVIATION
OTHER MEASURES
MEDIAN
UPPER CUARTILE
LCKER OLARTILE
MINIMUM VALUE
MAXIMUM VALUE
LITv CENC
SERVED
6.77643
4.65695
C. 66694
-0.47257
4.9CCCC
1C.6CCCC
2.9CCCC
C.20CCO
22.2CCCC
ITY FUNCTION
PREDICTED
7.51675
4.99563
C. 69536
-C.C1636
6.79CCC
1C.57CCC
3.42CCC
C. 11CCC
23.37CCC
SKILL CF FREDICTICN PARAMETERS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTED
VERSUS OBSERVED C.914
ThE BOUNDS CF THE CCRRELATICK A' 'HE
CONFIDENCE LEVEL CF C.C5C ARE
LOh ECUND C.691 hIGh ECLNC C.5!2
RATIO CF OVER TC UNDER FRECICTICNS 2.442
PERCENT CF OVER PREDICTIONS
GREATER THAN 20C PERCENT OF THE
OBSERVED 6.792
PERCENT CF UNDER FREDIC'ICNS
UESS THAN 5C PERCENT OF
OBSERVED 4.906
FIGURE 5-10a. Scatterplot of predicted versus observed hourly ozone concentrations
(matched by time and locations) for St. Louis region on 13 July 1976 (N = 265).
88151'
161
-------
0.40 -
-6.50 -3.90 -1.30
RESIDUAL ICES-PREDJ
THE BINSIZE EQUALS 1.300
1. 30
3.90
6.50
RESIDUAL ANALYSIS
AVERAGE -0.73855
s'ANCARD DEV:A-:ON 2.05:25
SfEWNESS 0.40933
rUR-'OSIS 2.00005
CTHER MEASURES
MEDIAN -0.86000
UPPER QUARTILE 0.25000
LOWER QUAR'ILE -1.92000
MINIMUM VALUE -8.620CO
MAXIMUM VALUE 7.36000
BIAS CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
AT THE 0.0500 LEVEL
LOWER BGUND -1.^451
UPPER BOUND -0.0316
STD RESIDUAL CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
AT THE 0.0500 LEVEL
LOWER BOUND 3.6681
UPPER BOUND 4.8841
THE MEASURES OF GROSS ERROR
THE ROOT MEAN SOUARE ERROR IS 2.18
THE AVERAGE ABSOLUTE ERROR IS 1.67
VARIOUS MEASURES OF RELATIVE VARlA6ILITf
OBSERVATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
0.7166
RESIDUAL COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
0.3026
RATIO OF RESIDUAL TO OBSERVED ST. DEV.
0.4222
FIGURE 5-10b. Residual analysis of observed minus predicted hourly ozone
concentrations for St. Louis region on 13 July 1976 (N = 265).
88151
162
-------
20.00
15.00
e
c.
a.
o.
10.00
tr
a_
5.00
1 I ( I | 1 I 1 I
I I
5.00
:0.00
CESERVEC
15.00
20.00
HCrENTS CF THE FRCBAEI
CE
AVERAGE
STANDARD DEVIATION
c \ E^NE^*--
rLRTCSIS
CTHER MEASLRES
MEDIAN
LPFER CLART1LE
LCUER CLARTILE
PINIfLP VALLE
MAXI^Lf VALLE
LITY DENS
SERVED
15.C1427
2.65243
1. 1C626
1.55511
14.5CCCC
15.30COC
13.7CCCC
10.6CCCC
22.2CCOC
ITY FLNC'ICN
PREDICTED
15.96999
4 . 164C4
C . 426 4C
-1.2C929
15.C6CCC
17.39CCO
12.C2CCC
1C.67CCC
23.37CCC
SflLL CF FREDICTICK FARAf'ETEFr.
CCRRELATICN CCEFFICIEK' CF FFELIC'ED
VERSLS CESERVED C.d76
THE ECLNDS CF THE CCRRELA'ICN .A' ThE
CCNFIDENCE LEVEL CF C.C5C ARE
LCk ECLND C.227 hlCh ECLKL C.5ฃฃ
RAT1C CF CVER TC LNDER PREDIC'ICKS :
PERCENT CF CVER FREDICTICKS
CREATER ThAN 20C PERCENT CF ThE
CESERVEC C.COC
FERCENT CF LNDER FREC1CT1CNS
LESS THAN 5C PERCENT CF 'HE
CESERVEC C.CCC
CCC
FIGURE 5-lla. Scatterplot of predicted versus observed maximum daily ozone concentra-
tions (matched by location but not time) for 13 July 1976 (N = 14).
88151
163
-------
0. 40
0. 30
0.20
^0.10
e.
-6.0D -3.6C -1.2C
RESIDUAL ICBS-PRED,
1.20
3.50
6.CC
'HE EINSIZE EQLALS 1.20C
RESIDUAL ANALYSIS
AVERAGE -0.95571
STANDARD DEVIATION 3.C8663
SrEWNESS -0.71570
KUPTOSIS -0.38M3
OTHER MEASURES
MEDIAN -1.^2000
UPPER OU'.RTILE 0.2600C
LOWER CU/RTILE -3.43000
MINIMUM VALUE -7.92000
MAXIMUM VALUE 3.08000
ETAS CONFIDENCE IN'ERYAL
A' 'HE O.C500 LEVEL
LOWER BOUND -3.2883
UPPER BOUND :.3769
S~D RES:LUAL CONFIDENCE IN
A" 'HE O.C5CO LEVEL
LOWER BOUND 5.6337
UPPER BOUND 20.32:6
THE MEASURES OF GROSS ERROR
*HE ROD' MEAN SCUARE ERROR IS 3.12
-HE AVERAGE AESOLU'E ERROR IS 2.26
VARIOUS MEASURES OF RELATIVE VARIABILI
OBSERVA'ICN CCEFFICIEN' OF VARIA'ION
0. 1767
RESIDUAL COEFFICIEN' OF VARIA'ION
0.2056
RATIO OF RESIDUAL "0 OBSERVED S~. DEV.
I.1637
FIGURE 5-llb. Residvial analysis of observed minus predicted maximum daily
ozone concentrations for 13 July 1976 (N = 14) .
88151
164
-------
1SV3
o
00
V)
Q-.
D
<
00
00
LJ
O
O
C)
O
L-
o>
u
o
o
o
o
r,
O
1S3M
(T3
CM
I
LO
165
CO
CO
-------
1S3M
O
CO
a>
en
oo
LJ
O
O
CM
0)
O
O
c
o
O
o
a
a.
ro
CM
I
LD
LJ
o
OD
CO
166
-------
o
00
05
1SV3
00
o
o
0)
O
Q
c
o
o
o
o
If!
1S3M
c
<\J
o
rc
CVI
I
in
167
CO
oo
-------
I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I i i
I I I I 1 I I J I I I I I I
O
oo
C7>
00
(fi
LJ
O
O
O
^
cu
O
O
c
O
JD
w
O
O
O
1S3M
ฃ
CL)
C.
O
C
O
o
OJ
o
O.
rtJ
CM
O
168
CO
oo
-------
O
oo
cr>
if)
00
CO
LJ
O
O
O
O
c
o
o
o
o
1S3M
O
r;
o
.^
13
JD
o
-t-*
r^
O
Q_
re
l-H
I
LO
UJ
O
169
CO
oo
-------
O
00
(7)
1S3M
00
LJ
O
O
o>
O
O
c
o
JO
^
D
U
O
OJ
C
o>
c
o
c
o
o
c
1>
o
5
CL
CM
4
LT>
cr
D
o
170
oo
00
-------
1SV3
o
CO
CO
00
CO
LJ
o
o
(O
0;
O
o
c
o
-Q
C
>,
O
r^
O
1S3M
CL
ro
c\j
ID
u
171
CD
CO
-------
1SV3
00
a*
OO
O
O
0)
O
O
c
O
n
v_
O
O
O
1S3M
O
r^
5
c
o
cu
0.
(D
C\J
I
LO
O
172
ao
CD
-------
o
oo
1SV3
C7-
00
h-"
CO
LJ
O
O
o
O
c
o
O
o
o
o
IS3M
CM
I
un
173
00
CO
-------
8
to
O
0>
Q_
(O
CM
u
tt:
>
o
iT
174
oo
CO
-------
I I I I I ! I 1
1S3M
O
00
O)
V)
oo
u
O
O
0)
u
o
c
o
_Q
t_
O
CJ
o
o
TD
C
ZJ
o
C
O
C
O
c
o
CL
CM
t(
I
in
LJ
3>
O
175
CO
CO
-------
o
ID
-------
1SV3
i i i I i i i I t t i i i i i
i i i i I I i i i i
o
00
(ฃ>
1>
C7>
13
00
LJ
O
O
rj
'J
o
X
o
O
.0
1S3M
0.
I
ID
177
CO
co
-------
o
00
rs
00
h-"
LJ
O
O
CJ
O
1S3M
CM
I
ID
LJ
178
oo
OD
-------
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I < I I t i
O
00
GO
3
er-
rs
00
UJ
o
o
CD
O
O
X
O
o
Ij
o
-O
"o
o
6
IT)
1S3M
CVJ
I
LD
179
CD
03
-------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
o
00
CO
3
OO
LU
O
o
o
o
1S3M
0>
4*
E
"o
o
r;
O
0)
Q_
CM
T1
I
LJ
cr:
O
180
co
00
-------
O
oo
CD
00
LJ
O
O
o
O
x
O
z
Q
"Q
J.S3M
O
O
O
o>
CM
LO
LJ
u_
181
-------
O
00
tf)
Z3
3
00
I"
CO
O
O
Tf
CD
O
O
x
O
O
J3
Ci
c
O
O
1S3M
CM
Lf)
LJ
'
182
in
r=H
CO
-------
1SV3
I i i
O
oo
O'l
13
a>
oo
i"
LJ
o
o
m
o
o
X
O
1S3M
0.
-Q
OJ
I
un
183
00
00
-------
g 8
00
CT>
00
UJ
O
O
in
x-
o
1S3M
LL
JD
CVJ
I
tn
184
00
CO
-------
o
CO
00
LO
LJ
O
O
x
O
r>
C"
13
O
"o
1S3M
1)
JD
CM
LO
u
CO
CD
185
-------
o
00
en
in
15
00
I"
V)
O
O
(ฃ>
o
o
X
O
o
1S3W
O
'J
O
k.
0)
CL
I
ID
LJ
cr
D
O
00
00
186
-------
o
00
en
-
z>
Q'
13
<
00
(f)
LJ
O
O
CD
O
X
o
ri
^*
r<
1S3AA
.a
CM
in
U
187
00
oo
-------
o
CO
cr>
cr>
^
<
00
("
to
o
o
r-.
o
2
O
1S3M
G.
(NJ
LJ
188
CD
CO
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 EST
520 540 560 580
600
Maximum Value = 17.41
Minimum Value = 4.40
NORTH
620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
4660
4640
- 4620
- 4600
4580
- 4560
- 4540
- 4520
- 4500
- 4480
20
10
rn i i i i yrr M * * i
10
20
SOUTH
30
4460
FIGURE 5-13. Maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm) for scenario 1
on 8 August 1980. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value)
189
-------
Maximum Value = 17.42
Time : 800 - 2000 EST Minimum Value = 4.40
NORTH
520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
20
(fl
10
I I I I I t I I f I I I I I ) I i I I I f I ' I I I I I i 1 I I I I I 1 ' ' t I I I I I I I I .-I
16
HEMP RABL
MORR
SOMV I ./ .
\
NBRW-
MMTH
i i_ t } t* \ 1 tit 1 I l I I I i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
10
20
SOUTH
4660
4640
4620
4600
4580
- 4560
- 4540
- 4520
- 4500
- 4480
j
30
4460
FIGURE 5-14. Maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm) for scenario 2
on 8 August 1980. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value)
190
-------
Moximum Value = 1.28
Time : 800 - 2000 EST Minimum Value = -1.61
NORTH
520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
4660
4640
4620
- 4600
4580
- 4560
- 4540
- 4520
- 4500
- 4480
4460
I I I I t I I I I I t j I 1 I I I I I I V i i I i i i I i r i
,.-' .. ..-''.--0.5
' BABL "'.--''
BAY
MIDS
PFLD LIN
SOMV
ATLANTIC
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-15. Differences in maximum daily ozone concentrations (ppb)
between scenario 1 and scenario 2. (* denotes location of maximum
ozone decrease)
191
-------
Time 800 - 2000 EST
NORTH
520 540 560 580 600 620 6*0 660
Maximum Value = 17 49
Minirr,jm Value = 4.40
680 700 720 740 760
i i | i i f | i i i | i i i | f i i [ i i i | i
I I I I I ! I I ! I I I ! I I 1 I I
30
4660
4640
4620
4600
4580
4560
4540
4520
4500
4480
4460
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-16. Maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm) for scenario 3
for 8 August 1980. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value.)
192
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 EST
520 540 560 580 600
Maximum Value = 0.89
Minimum Value = -0.1 1
NORTH
620 640 660
680 700 720 740 760
I I | I I I I I I | 1 I I | I I I | I I I L ' f I ' ' ' I '''
BAY
MIDS
PFLD L
SOMV . ./ .
ATLANTIC
SOUTH
4660
4640
- 4620
- 4600
4580
- 4560
4540
- 4520
- 4500
- 4480
4460
FIGURE 5-17. Differences in maximum daily ozone concentrations (ppb)
between scenario 2 and scenario 3. (* denotes location of maximum
ozone decrease.)
193
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 EST
NORTH
520 54-0 560 580 600 620 64-0 660
Maximum Value = 17.4-4
Minimum Value = A.40
680 700 720 740 760
t i i ซ i i Y i > ป I T r ' T ' ' ' 1 ' ' 'iT\ I T I I ' ' T 'ป['- f
SOMV .V
MMTH
I* f 1 1 I I ! I I I t I 1 t 1 1 I I t I I t I ! I 1
4660
4640
- 4620
- 4600
4580
- 4560
- 4540
- 4520
- 4500
- 4480
30
44-60
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-18. Maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm) for scenario 4
for 8 August 1980. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value)
194
-------
Maximum Value = 2.04
Time : 800 - 2000 EST Minimum Value = -220
NORTH
520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
4660
4640
4620
- 4600
4580
- 4560
- 4540
- 4520
- 4500
4480
l I i i i l i i | i l i | i i i i
MWTH
I l* t 1 lit i 1 t I i
10
20
30
4460
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-19. Differences in maximum daily ozone concentrations (ppb)
between scenario 1 and scenario 4. (* denotes location of maximum
ozone decrease.)
195
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 GST
706
V)
NORTH
726
746
Maximum Value = 14-.98
Minimum Value = 7.83
766
- 4316
- 4296
- 4276
- 4256
10
4236
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-20. Maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm) for scenario 1 on
13 July 1976. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value)
IQfi
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 CST
706
NORTH
726
746
Maximum Value = 1 4-.50
Minimum Value = 7.83
766
20
10
t t t i fit
+316
4296
4276
4256
10
4236
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-21. Maximum daily ozone concentrations (pphm) for scenario 2 on
13 July 1976. (* denotes location of maximum concentration value)
197
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 CST
NORTH
706
726
746
Maximum v/olue = 0.13
Minimum Value = -4.99
766
-4316
- 4296
- 4276
- 4256
10
4236
SOUTW
FIGURE 5-22. Differences in maximum daily ozone concentrations (ppb)
between scenario 1 and scenario 2. (* denotes location of maximum
ozone decrease.)
198
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 GST
706
20
-------
Time : 800 - 2000 CST
706
NORTH
726
74-6
Maximum Value = 0.49
Minimum Value = -41.34
766
- 4316
- 4296
- 4276
- 4256
10
4236
SOUTH
FIGURE 5-32. Differences in maximum daily ozone concentrations (ppb)
between scenario 1 and SIP scenario B. (* denotes location of maximum
ozone decrease.)
208
-------
TABLE 5-1. Ozone monitoring' sites
within the New York modeling domain.
Four-Letter
Site Name Identifier
Hartford CT HART
Bridgeport CT BRPT
Danbury CT DANE
Derby CT DRBY
Greenwich CT GWCH
Litchfield CT LTCF
Middletown CT MDTN
New Haven CT NHVN
Stratford CT STRF
Bayonne NJ BAYO
Dumont NJ DMNT
East Orange NJ EORG
Linden NJ LIND
Newark NJ NEWK
Plainfield NJ PLFD
Middlesex County NJ MIDS
New Brunswick NJ NBRW
Morris County NJ MORR
Somerville NJ SOMV
Hempstead Park NY HEMP
Hempstead NY HMPS
NYC Queens College NY NYC1
NYC Kings NY NYC2
NYC 2nd Avenue NY NYC3
NYC Richmond NY NYC4
NYC Woolsey NY NYC5
NYC PS 321 NY NYC6
White Plains NY WPLN
Babylon NY BABL
Mamaroneck NY MAMA
Poughkeepsie NY POUG
Stonybrook NY STON
88151 9
209
-------
TABLE 5-2. UAM model performance for 8 August 1980 hourly
ozone concentrations (comparison of application of the
UAM (CB-IV) in this study and application of the UAM (CB-II)
in the OMNYMAP studies).
Performance Measure
Number of pairs
Average observed (pphm)
Average predicted (pphm)
Bias (pphm)
Average percent overprediction
Absolute average gross error
(pphm)
Gross error percent difference
Root mean squared error (pphm)
Correlation coefficient
Peak observed (pphm)
Peak predicted (pphm)
This Study
UAM (CB-IV)
520
6.1
9.3
-3.1
51%
3.8
62%
4.9
0.800
24.6
23.5
OMNYMAP
Study
UAM (CB-II)
408
7.0
11.7
-4.7
67%
5.0
71%
6.8
0.739
24.6
26.3
(unmatched by time or location)
Percent agreement of peak 4% 7%
(unmatched by time or location)
Peak predicted (pphm) (matched by 21.4 -23
location but not time)
Percent agreement of peak 13% -7%
(matched by location but not time
88151 9
210
-------
TABLE 5-3. UAM model performance for 13 July 1980 hourly ozone
concentrations (comparison of application of the UAM (CB-IV) in
this study and application of the UAM (CB-II) in the St. Louis
Ozone Modeling Project).
Performance Measure
Number of pairs
Average observed (pphm)
Average predicted (pphm)
Bias (pphm)
Average percent difference
Average absolute gross error (pphm)
Gross error percent difference
Root mean squared error
Correlation coefficient
Peak observed (pphm)
Peak predicted (pphm) (unmatched
This Study
UAM (CB-IV)
265
6.8
7.5
-0.7
11*
1.7
25*
2.2
0.91
22.3
24.2
St. Louis Ozone
Modeling Project
UAM (CB-II)
184
8.3
7.4
0.9
11*
N/A
N/A
1.8
0.95
22.3
17.4
by time or location)
Percent agreement of peak 9* 22%
(unmatched by time or location)
Peak predicted (pphm) (matched by 21.9 16.8
location but not time)
Percent agreement of peak (matched 2% 25%
by location but not time)
88151 9
211
-------
CM
o
ซ-
n
5
as
S
8
in
1
5
"3
td JJ
C- c.
ซ* o
6- V.
X
ง
8
ง
S
0
I.
ซฃ
c
8
fe
a.
4->
ง
0,
0s*
i
o
ง
4-1
4)
00
ง
5
ง
CM
4>
eo
js
0
4
g
frt
j*
u
g
2
00
ง
5
^
5
^
ง
i.
4)
00
C
as
u
s
i
4>
eo
1
O
rM
>
o
ซป
n
ง
ii
CM
"2
ID
C
4)
CO
O
i.
s
4)
O
CO
,_,
^
" 4) 4) 41 4)
p o a o
3 CO CO CO CO
a>
\0 t~ CO
in rr ^*
0 1
1 O
f
O O CM
in in in
r i vo
f t
1 vO CM
1
CM in CO
ON in CM
in m in
CO 1 CM
ซ- +
i m oo
*7 T
vo in vo
ซ- CM in
0 0 O
3 (8 18 (0
_J 4) 4) 4>
O O O
CO CO CO
1^*
CO
vo
*
^
,_
+
CM
in
00
1
2
1
~
in
,_
i
i
CO
vO
in
vo
o
*
212
-------
T3
O
C CM CO iH
CU O C L,
O O CO
J. CD -rH C
CO 00 CO CU
cu e co o
rt ^ CO
5 tง
CD
00
C 40 JC CM
CO CO 4O
ฃ CU -ซH O
0 ฃ 3 ~H
00 L,
40 -rH CU Cfl
exec
cu o cu
O CM N CJ
L, O O CO
cu
CU
85
H ซ*
5ป 3
40 O
C CM CO -H
goes.
O CO
L, CU TH C
CU 00 CO CU
ro *^ ^7
6b!
cu
00
C 40 ฃ
CO CO 40
ฃ CD tH O
CJ ฃ 3 -H
00 L,
40 -rH CU CO
exec
cu o cu
CJ CM N CJ
L, 0 O CO
cu
Cu
cu c
C 0
o -*
N 40
2 'B'
40 40 ฃ
to c a.
cu cu a
ฃ O ซ
00 C
ScS
*
o
H
f ,
s
cu
CJ
CO
CM o in
CO +
^
in
o o o
O =3- ซ-
CVJ CM
1 1
in
o o o
if .=r in
e- t^ c~
^^
rH
0
c
CO
40
cu
*^** J3
Q-. J->
^> ! (
0= 3
40 CU CU
B S> >
cu ce as
^,
Li 3 3
300
CJ rH rH
**^ **~* **
ป- CM CO
o o o
4 .H .rH -rH
s<* Li Li Li
Li cO co cO
o c e c
x cu cu a>
O CJ O
3 CO CO CO
0)
z
4ซ
T"1
1
o
CO
CO
1
o
^f
t-
0
c
ฃ
40
rH ^"s
3 n
cu
Cu CO
:> co
cc o
H
40
B 00
CU B
Li C
1!
^f
o
rH
L,
cfl
e
cu
CJ
CO
CO
3
O
CO
CO
A
o
t-
o
o
o
in
^^
CU
^fc
OS
40
C
cu
L,
L,
3
O
^
O
ปH
CO
C
cu
o
CO
o
o
tn
T
ซ
CO
1
in
.=T
^^
Cu
cc
3
O
rH
CM
o
CO
e
cu
CJ
CO
CM
+
O
CO
*
1
^-
*
CO
1
in
=f
X"N
rH
O
s
ฃ
40
CU
C
40
H
3
Cu
as
3
O
rH
in
0
CO
c
CJ
CO
^
1
CM
O
1
^o
ซ
1
CO
*
CO
1
3"
=r
b7
03
H
bl
f^
40
H
3
CU
g
3
O
rH
vO
O
rH
CO
C
CU
CJ
CO
CO
=r
CM
^O
^
vO
CM
p*-
CM
^
=r
in
_cl
00
ฃ
>^
40
H
3
Cu
^>
CC
40
CU
L.
L.
3
CJ
C
o
rH
CO
c
CD
O
CO
^-ป*
n
cu
to
CO
o
rH
00
H
c
c
3
*"
^5
O^
1
o^
vp
1
o
i
o
,
o
ป
1
in
CO
^^n
C
O
rH
40
CJ
3
o
CU
Li
o
o
**.
o
^^1
^B
L,
fd
c
^
CO
Qu
I-H
co
^^
o^
1
t-
in
i
o
i
t-
*
CO
ป
1
CO
CM
s~+*
^J
C 40
o "H
rH >
4O -rH
CJ 4O
3 O
"O CO
cu cu
Li L,
O C
O O
^J
ป*. cu
O CO
=r co
' jQ
CO
rH
L.
a)
C
cu
CO
Cu
rH
CO
,rs
o
in
i
S
n
00
Q.
CO
o
rH
L.
CO
V
0
CO
CM
O
c
0
TH
4J
CO
1
CO
i-H
CU
f
o
CM
40
>:
cu
cu
cu
CO
*
cu
c
cu o
00 N
c o
CO
L. CU
1 .C
00 40
c
O ^M
rH O
cu >>
40 ฃ
6 i-l
O 40
rH
CO CO
o B
H CU
L, CO
CO C
C *"H
cu
O 4O
CO C
cu
B L,
.2 s
co a
CO CO
e co
CU ฃ
40
1 *
c o
CU 40
cu >>
CM rH
CM -H
rH >
o >
CU L,
CM CO
CM 73
CU C
3
cu o
ฃ. JQ
L, "
CU CU
o
rH -rH
CO "^
c
O CO
CJ 40
40 (0
0 40
C 3
"O p"H
^H O
O Q.
Me. .
>*H
rH O
CO
>> 40
rH L,
CO O
Cf* .
u.
cfl co
c
CU CO
p 40
4
Ll
CU
40
Ll
CM
Li
0
CM
40
}Q
CU
40
cu
f
40
0
40
T3
CU
L.
L,
CU
CM
CU
t-
co
rH
L,
CU
T3
cO
cu
L>
CU
s:
H
CO
e
o
rH
40
CO
CJ
H
rH
a
a.
CO
^
Li
O
>H
3
O
z
cu
g"i
40
L.
O
CM
>,
O
40
C
cu
^
c
iH
ง
cu
ฃ *-*
40 CO
CO
c ซ-
CM
CO CO
cu ซ-
00
c n
CO CU
ฃ 00
O CO
a.
cu -^
L, C
Cfl O
rH -rH
40
O cfl
** i
^ iH
CO Q.
a; x
Q. CU
01
-------
References
Ames, 3., T. C. Myers, L. E. Reid, D. C. Whitney, S. H. Golding, S. R. Hayes, and
S.D.Reynolds. 1985. "SAI Airshed Model Operations Manuals, Volume I
User's Manual and Volume IISystems Manual." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (EPA-600/8-85-007a,b).
Bass, A. M., L. C. Glasgow, C. Miller, 3. P. Jesson, and D. L. Filken. 1980. Planet
Space Sci., 28:675.
Boris, 3. P., and D. L. Book. 1973. Flux-corrected transport: I. SHASTA, a fluid
transport algorithm that works. 3. Comp. Phys., 11:38-69.
Brimblecombe, P. 1986. Air Composition and Chemistry. Cambridge University
Press.
Burton, C. S. 1988. Comments on "Ozone Air Quality Models." 3. Air Pollut.
Control Assoc., 38(9): 1119-1128.
Chock, D. P., and A. M. Dunker. 1983. A comparison of numerical methods for
solving the advection equation. Atmos. Environ., 17:11-24.
Chock, D. P. 1985. A comparison of numerical methods for solving the advection
equationII. Atmos. Environ., 19:571-586.
Cole, H. S., D. E. Layland, G. K. Moss, and C. F. Newberry. 1983. "The St. Louis
Ozone Modeling Project." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC (EPA-450/4-83-019).
Dennis * R. L., M. W. Downton, and R. S. Keil. 1983. "Evaluation of Performance
Measures for an Urban Photochemical Model." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA-450/4-83-021).
Douglas, S., and R. Kessier. 1988. "User's Guide to the Diagnostic Wind Model. Ver-
sion 1.0." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California.
EPA. 1980. "Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project Continuous Nonmethane
Organic Compound Data Collection." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (EPA-450/4-80-034).
881Slrl 12
214
-------
EPA. 1985a. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary
Point and Area Sources." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (AP-42).
EPA. 1985b. "National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1985." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
(EPA-450/4-87-001).
EPA. 1986. "Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)." U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (EPA-450/2-78-027R).
EPA. 1987a. "Control of Gasoline Volatility and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emissions
from New Motor Vehicles." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1987b. "Guideline for Use of City-Specific EKMA in Preparing Post-1987
Ozone SIP's." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1988. Office of Mobile Sources, personal communication.
EPA. 1988. "Air Emissions Species Manual. Volume I: Volatile Organic Compound
Species Profiles." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina (EPA-450/2-88-003a).
Federal Register. 1987. "State Implementation Plans; Approval of Post-1987 Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas Not Attaining the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Notice." Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 226
(November 24, 1987).
Fehsenfeld, F. C., D. D. Parrisch, and D. W. Fancy. 1988. "The Measurement of
NOX in the Non-Urban Troposphere," in Tropospheric Ozone, I. Isaksen, ed.
(D. Reidel Publishing Company).
Fox, D. 1981. Judging air quality model performance. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
62(5):599-609.
Fox, D. G. 1984. Uncertainty in air quality modeling. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
65:27-36.
Gery, M. W., G. Z. Whitten, and J. P. Killus. 1988. "Development and Testing of the
CBM-IV for Urban and Regional Modeling." Systems Applications, Inc., San
Rafael, California (SYSAPP-88/002).
88I51rl 12
215
-------
Godden, D., and F. Lurmann. 1983. "Development of the PLMSTAR Model and Its
Application to Ozone Episode Conditions in the South Coast Air Basin."
Environmental Research
-------
O'Brien, J. 3. 1970. A note on the vertical structure of the eddy exchange coef-
ficient in the planetary boundary layer. 3. Atmos. Sci., 27:1213-1215.
OTA. 1988a. "Urban Ozone and the Clean Air Act: Problems and Proposals for
Change." Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
OTA. 1988b. "Ozone and the Clean Air Act: Summary of OTA Workshop with State
and Local Air Pollution Control Agency Officials." Office of Technology
Assessment, Washington, D.C.
OTA. 1988c. "Ozone and the Clean Air Act: A Summary of OTA Workshops on
Congressional Options to Address Nonattainment of the Ozone Standard."
Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
Pechan, E. H., and Associates. 1988. "National Assessment of VOC, CO, and NOX
Emissions and Costs for Attainment of the Ozone and CO Standards" (in
preparation).
Pedco. 1980. "Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project (NECRMP)." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-450/4-80-034).
Peters, L. K., and W. L. Chameides. 1980. "Methane and Carbon Monoxide in the
Troposphere," in Advances in Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume
3, Pfaffin and Ziegler, eds. (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers), pp.
100-149.
Price, H. S., R. S. Varga, and 3. E. Warren. 1966. Applications of oscillation
matrices to diffusion and convection equations. 3. Math. Phys., 45:301-311.
Rao, S. T. 1987. "Application of the Urban Airshed Model to the New York Metro-
politan Area." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina (EPA-450/4-87-011).
Rao, S. T., and G. Sistla. 1987. "Sensitivity Analysis of the Urban Airshed Model."
Air Pollution Control Association Conference on the Scientific <5c Technical
Issues Facing the Post-1987 Ozone Control Strategies. Hartford, Connecticut
(16-19 November).
Ross, D. G., and I. Smith. 1986. "Diagnostic Wind Field Modeling for Complex Ter-
rainTesting and Evaluation." Centre for Applied Mathematical Modeling,
Chisholm Institute of Technology (CAMM Report No. 5/86).
Schere, K. L. 1983. An evaluation of several numerical advection schemes. Atmos.
Environ., 17:1897-1907.
8815lrl 12
217
-------
Schere, K. L., and K. L. Demerjian. 1977. "Calculation of Selected Photolytic Rate
Constants over a Diurnal Range. A Computer Algorithm." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (EPA-600/4-77-
015).
Schere, K. L., and 3. H. Shreffler. 1982. "Final Evaluation of Urban-Scale Photo-
chemical Air Quality Simulation Models." Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina (EPA-600/3-82-094).
Science. 1988. Rural and urban ozone. Editorial in Science, 2* 1(4873): 1569.
Seinfeld, 3. H. 1988a. Ozone air quality models. A critical review. 3. Air Pollut.
Control Assoc., 38(5):616.
Seinfeld, 3. H. 1988b. Closing remarks. 3. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 38(8): 1136-
1137.
Shareef, G. S., W. A. Butler, L. A. Bravo, and M. B. Stockton. 1988. "Air Emissions
Species Manual. Volume I. Volatile Organic Compound Species Profiles." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
(EPA-450/2-88-003a).
Smolarkiewicz, P. K. 1983. A simple positive definite advection scheme with small
implicit diffusion. Monthly Weather Review, 111:479-486.
Whitten, G. Z. 1988. "Evaluation of the Impact of Ethanol/Gasoline Blends on Urban
Ozone Formation." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California
(SYSAPP-88/029).
Whitten, G. Z., 3. P. Killus, and H. Hogo. 1980. "Modeling of Simulated Photo-
chemical Smog with Kinetic Mechanisms. Volume 1. Final Report." Systems
Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California (EPA-600/3-80-028a).
Whitten, G. Z., T. C. Meyers, C. Daly, L. R. Chinkin, S. D. Reynolds, N. M. Yonkow,
and B. Austin. 1985. "Application of the Urban Airshed Model to Kern
County." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California (SYSAPP-85/200).
Zalesak, S. T. 1979. Fully multi-dimensional flux-corrected transport algorithms for
fluids. 3. Comput. Phys., 31:335-362.
Zimmerman, D., W. Tax, M. Smith, 3. Demmy, and R. Battye. 1988. "Anthropogenic
Emissions Data for the 1985 NAPAP Inventory." U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C. (EPA-600/7-88-022).
88151r2 12
218
-------
Appendix A
PROTOCOL DOCUMENT FOR URBAN AIRSHED AND
EKMA MODELING IN THE NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN AREA
88139 1
-------
Final Report
PROTOCOL DOCUMENT FOR URBAN AIRSHED AND
EKMA MODELING IN THE NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN AREA
SYSAPP-88/149
September 1988
Prepared for
Mr. 3ohn Chamberlin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
Washington, DC 20460
and
Mr. Richard Scheffe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by
Systems Applications, Inc.
101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415M72-4011
[)95 10 88 1 36rl
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Four offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are involved in a joint
EPA-sponsored research study to investigate urban ozone air quality in a number of
U.S. cities. The offices involved are the following: Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of
Mobile Sources (QMS), and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE).
The urban areas to be studied include New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Dallas, and
Atlanta. A photochemical modeling analysis will be conducted in each of these urban
areas. This protocol addresses the New York application in particular.
Over 60 urban areas in the United States have failed to meet the legislated deadline
(31 December 1987) for ozone attainment. Possible reasons for this include one or
more of the following: the failure to actually reduce emissions or enforce emission
control requirements, the underestimation of actual urban hydrocarbon emissions,
and/or reliance on overly simplistic modeling approaches for calculating emission
control requirements. In the past, many air quality planners have relied on the
EKMA procedure (Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach) to provide control
requirements for ozone attainment purposes. The EKMA procedure uses a trajectory
model (OZIPM) to simulate ozone formation of an observed design value concentra-
tion at a downwind monitor. An ozone isopleth diagram is created (from multiple
simulations) that depicts ozone concentrations as a function of initial NOX and VOC
concentration. The diagram can be used to equate emission control requirements to
the required percentage change between the observed ozone design value isopleth
and the isopleth of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (0.12 ppm).
An approach to estimating the effectiveness of alternative ozone attainment strate-
gies uses grid models such as the Urban Airshed Model (UAM). The UAM numerically
simulates the effects of emissions, interurban transport of ozone and precursors,
advection, diffusion, chemistry, and surface removal processes on pollutant concen-
trations in a three-dimensional grid covering an urban area. The UAM has been
applied in a number of urban areas across the United States, Europe, and the Far
East but there has been a reluctance by some air quality planners to use the model in
other urban areas mainly because of the time and costs involved in collecting input
data and undertaking extensive performance evaluations. However, depending on the
complexity of the ozone problem of the urban area and the particular needs of the
38136rl 2
A-l
-------
air quality planners, extensive data bases and model evaluations may not be neces-
sary for an application of UAM. Indeed, no other air quality model currently in use is
subject to this level of performance evaluation. Moreover, even a "simplified" or
less stringent application of UAM appears desirable because it incorporates a reason-
ably complete mathematical treatment of the physical and chemical processes
believed to govern ozone formation. Furthermore, because this treatment appears to
be capable of reliably reproducing peak ozone concentrations and ozone concentra-
tions under episode conditions, the UAM provides more useful air quality planning
information than does EKMA (Seinfeld, 1988; Burton, 1988). As one aspect of this
study, the application of UAM will follow the simplified approach for the five urban
areas to demonstrate and test the utility of such an approach for air quality planning
purposes and future applications in other urban areas.
In recent years, air quality regulators have found it increasingly difficult to identify
additional urban hydrocarbon emissions that can be controlled in an effort to reduce
ozone concentrations. Yet at the same time there has been interest in using renew-
able fuels such as ethanol, which increase the evaporative emissions from light duty
vehicles while reducing exhaust CO emissions. Automobiles can be operated without
modification using 10 percent ethanol blended into gasoline. Substantial utilization
of ethanol can reduce the need for imported oil, the trade deficit, and farm sub-
sidies, but concern over increased evaporative emissions has hindered its widespread
use, especially in nonattainment areas. A recent EKMA modeling study of ethanol-
blended gasoline in seven urban areas showed a near balance in ozone increases due
to increased evaporative volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and ozone
decreases from reduced exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO). When the
chemistry of the evaporative emissions was explicitly treated in the model, the .
results always showed a net reduction in ozone associated with the use of ethanol
blends (Whitten, 1988). The results of this study have been questioned by the EPA
(Emison, 1988).
Because there is considerable interest nationwide in the potential benefits from the
expanded use of ethanol as an automotive fuel, more studies are needed to support or
refute the findings of the initial EKMA study. Such studies will provide guidance for
other urban areas. The current effort will use the Urban Airshed Model and EKMA
to examine the effects of using ethanol fuels in the five urban areas. A comparison
of results will be performed to test the reliability of EKMA for such evaluations. In
addition to the ethanol emission sensitivity work, the effects of VOC reactivity in
control strategy evaluation will be examined, and future year control strategy simu-
lations will be performed for the five urban areas.
The version of the UAM used in this project (UAM CBM-IV) contains several
improvements: (1) a new chemical mechanism of ozone formation that is further
extended here to treat ethanol and methanol explicitly; (2) a new numerical integra-
tion scheme for horizontal advection and transport; and (3) revised estimates of dry
deposition.
A-2
88136rl 2
-------
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The five key objectives to be accomplished in the overall 5-city study are as follows:
1. Demonstrate the simplified, limited-data application of UAM for air
quality planning;
2. Determine the effects of Reid vapor pressure (RVP) and ethanol-blended
gasoline on urban ozone concentrations in a number of urban areas, and
compare UAM results with those obtained with EKMA;
3. Investigate and clarify the effects of VOC reactivity potential in emis-
sion control strategy evaluation;
4. Perform SIP control strategy simulations with UAM and EKMA for air
quality planning and comparison of the two modeling approaches (this will
be performed by the New York Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (NYDEC) after acquisition of the modeling data base).
5. Transfer the UAM modeling data bases and application technology to the
5 states and EPA.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY PROTOCOL
This protocol is intended to serve as the basis for the performance and successful
completion of a photochemical modeling analysis of the New York metropolitan area
(separate protocols will be prepared for each of the 5 urban areas in the overall
study). The purpose of this protocol is to describe the methodologies to be followed
throughout the study. It should be viewed as a set of general guidelines that provide
focus, consistency, and a basis for consensus for all parties involved in the study. It
will be reviewed and approved by all participants at the beginning of the study.
At this time, some portions of the modeling analysis have not been finalized in this
document (e.g., the specific emission sensitivity scenarios). For those items that
have not been finalized, we provide lists of options that may be followed. For some
items, it will be up to the study participants to choose from the list of options as the
study evolves.
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The ozone air quality study in the New York metropolitan area comprises the follow-
ing tasks:
88136rl 2
-------
1. Prepare a protocol document (this document) that describes the back-
ground, purpose, and objectives of the study, and the procedures to be
followed in the remainder of the study. A draft protocol will be prepared
and sent to all participants for consensus and approval before the bulk of
the technical work is initiated.
2. Prepare future base year and ethanol-use sensitivity inventories for the
application of UAM for New York that will use the latest version of the
model containing the Carbon-Bond IV chemical mechanism. (Because of
time constraints, an existing episode created by the state of New York in
the OMNYMAP [Oxidant Modeling in the New York Metropolitan Area
Project] study will be used.) The future year inventories will be prepared
for 1995 and will be projected from the existing 1985 NAPAP inventory.
3. Perform an EKMA analysis for the New York area, following the 1987
EPA modeling guidelines, using the future year base case and ethanol-use
sensitivity inventories.
4. Perform an application of UAM for the future year base case and etha-
nol-use scenarios. Examine the results and compare with those obtained
in the EKMA analysis.
5. Prepare an interim report that will summarize the ethanol sensitivity
studies for EKMA and UAM, and provide an overview of the current
understanding of the factors that influence the effectiveness of precursor
control, such as VOC reactivity, NOX emissions character, timing, and
spatial emission source distribution.
6. Deliver and install a compiled copy of the CBM-IV version of UAM, and
all modeling input files used in the UAM application on the State of New
York's computer system. Provide copies of these input files to the
OAQPS Source Receptor Analysis Branch.
A-4
88136rl 2 "
-------
2 UAM MODELING METHODOLOGY
This section of the protocol provides details of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)
application in the New York area including input preparation procedures, base case
simulations, and preparation of future year emission scenario inventories. The
results of these simulations will be compared to the results of the EKMA modeling
described in Section 3 of this protocol.
UAM INPUT PREPARATION PROCEDURES
Time constraints do not permit identification of ozone episodes or development of
additional modeling data bases for this project. Instead, an ozone episode simulated
in the original OMNYMAP study by NYDEC (Rao, 1987) will be used in this study.
This episode (8 August 1980) was simulated from 0400 to 2000 LST. Because it is
important in any photochemical modeling application that initial conditions do not
greatly influence the peak calculated concentration, the simulations performed as
part of this project should begin on 7 August. A two-day simulation for the New
York modeling region will also allow investigation into the effects of slower reacting
hydrocarbon species, such as those produced by ethanol blended fuels, on peak ozone
concentrations. Inputs will be created for the hours preceding 0400 LST on 8 August
and 7 August.
The latest version of the UAM containing the Carbon-Bond IV (CBM-IV) chemical
mechanism (Gery et al., 1988) will be applied in this study. To ensure that the
modeling data base for 8 August received from NYDEC has been properly transferred
and converted to our in-house computer system, the base case simulation performed
by NYDEC will be re-run using the Carbon-Bond II version of UAM. All subsequent
modeling will involve the CBM-IV version of UAM.
UAM Modeling Grid Specification
The modeling will be performed on the original OMNYMAP (Rao, 1987) modeling
grid, which consists of 31 by 25 grid cells with a horizontal dimension of 8 km, cover-
ing an area 248 by 200 km. The location of this grid and its relation to other north-
eastern states is presented in Figure 2-1. It covers parts of New Jersey, New York,
and Connecticut. The grid is located in UTM zone 18 with the origin set at
520,000 m Easting and 4,460,000 m Northing.
88136r 1 2
A-5
-------
New York
UAM
modeling region
FIGURE 2-1. Geographical location of the New York metropolitan area
UAM modeling region (intrastate boundaries denote AQCR's).
A-6
-------
The original vertical structure of the OMNYMAP study contained 4 vertical cells
that were constrained to 3 below and 1 above the hourly mixing height. Vertical
layers above the mixing height that are allowed to become very thick during certain
simulation hours may result in inadequate vertical resolution. Under certain condi-
tions, especially during nighttime hours when mixing heights are low, pollutants from
large point sources that are emitted aloft may be artificially dispersed in such thick
layers. Also, with thick layers, the wind speed and direction, and vertical and hori-
zontal shear above the mixing height may not be appropriately resolved. To appro-
priately resolve the vertical structure, modeling with as many as 8 vertical layers
might be desirable but might also be computationally impractical. To provide a
balance between practicality and appropriate vertical resolution, we recommend a
new vertical grid structure consisting of 5 vertical cells, with 2 below and 3 above
the hourly mixing height. The heights of the vertical layers will vary in thickness
spatially and temporally depending on the hourly mixing height field. The minimum
height of the lower cells is to be 50 m, and the maximum height of the upper cells,
150m.
The following 13 input files are required for UAM modeling analyses:
DIFFBREAK
REGIONTOP
.WIND
METSCALARS
AIRQUALITY
BOUNDARY
This file contains the daytime mixing height or nighttime inversion
height for each column of cells at the beginning and end of each
hour of the simulation.
This file contains the height of each column of cells at the begin-
ning and end of each hour of the simulation. If this height is
greater than the mixing height, the cell or cells above the mixing
height are assumed to be within an inversion.
This file contains the x and y components of the wind velocity for
every grid cell for each hour of the simulation. Also the maximum
wind speed for the entire grid and average wind speeds at each
boundary for each hour are included in this file.
This file contains the hourly values of the meteorological
parameters that do not vary spatially. These scalars are the NC^
photolysis rate constant, the concentration of water vapor, the
temperature gradient above and below the inversion base, the
atmospheric pressure, and the exposure class.
This file contains the initial concentrations of each species for
each grid cell at the start of the simulation.
This file contains the location of the modeling region boundaries.
This file also contains the concentration of each species that is
used as the boundary condition along each boundary segment at
each vertical level.
88136rl 2
A-7
-------
TOPCONC This file contains the concentration of each species for the area
above the modeling region. These concentrations are the boundary
conditions for vertical integration.
TEMPERATURE This file contains the hourly temperature for each surface layer
grid cell.
EMISSIONS
PTSOURCE
TERRAIN
CHEMPARAM
SIMCONTROL
This file contains the ground-level emissions of NO, NO2, seven
carbon bond categories, and CO for each grid square for each hour
of the simulation.
This file contains the point source information, including the stack
height, temperature and flow rate, the plume rise, the grid cell
into which the emissions are emitted, and the emissions rates for
NO, NO2ป seven carbon bond categories, and CO for each point
source for each hour.
This file contains the value of the surface roughness and deposition
factor for each grid square.
This file contains information regarding the chemical species to be
simulated including reaction rate constants, upper and lower
bounds, activation energy, and reference temperature.
This file contains the simulation control information such as the
time of the simulation, file option information, default informa-
tion, and information on integration and chemistry time steps.
The majority of the input files used in the previous OMNYMAP application of UAM
for 8 August will be used "as is" in this application. However, certain of the files
(e.g., WINDS) will be recreated using new techniques, and one new file (TERRAIN)
will be added. In the original OMNYMAP application, spatially constant default
deposition and surface roughness parameters were used in place of spatially varying
parameters. The new TERRAIN file will contain updated spatially varying
parameters based on land use data. Because of the recommended changes in the ver-
tical layer structure for the new UAM modeling, those files affected by this change
will also be recreated.
The recommended procedures for preparing each of the above input files for the New
York application are summarized in the following subsections.
DIFFBREAK - The upper air sounding data collected at the John F. Kennedy airport
will be examined to provide estimates of daytime hourly mixing heights for
those hours preceding 0400 LST. The methodology followed in arriving at
spatially constant, temporally varying mixing heights for 7 August and the
88136rl 2
A- 8
-------
nighttime hours of 8 August will be the same as that used in the original
OMNYMAP work (i.e., following procedures developed by Benkley and Schul-
man, 1979; Garret, 1987).
REGIONTOP - The original OMNYMAP application used a temporally varying height
for the top of the region ranging from 1000 m to 1500 m. During the nighttime
hours, with a 1000 m region top, emissions from large point sources may have
plume rises above this level and will not be emitted into the modeling region.
Lowering the region top during the evening hours of 7 August causes artificial
dispersion of pollutants out of the top level of the modeling region that are lost
from the modeling domain. To avoid these potential problems, we recommend
setting the top of the region at a fixed level of 1500 m for all hours of the
simulation.
WIND - The wind fields created for the original OMNYMAP application were tem-
porally varying, spatially constant, based on observed surface and upper air
data. In the new application, we are recommending using a wind model along
with the measured data to derive new wind fields that are both temporally and
spatially varying. Hourly wind speed and direction data will be used along with
the Hybrid Diagnostic Wind Model (HDWM) (Douglas and Kessier, 1988; Morris
et al., 1987) to create new three-dimensional modeling wind fields.
METSCALARS - Meteorological data collected in the modeling region will be used to
complete this file for those hours preceding 0400 LST on 8 August. The
spatially constant, temporally varying parameters include estimates for Nฉ2
photolysis rate, water concentration, exposure class, atmospheric pressure, and
temperature gradients above and below the mixing height.
AIRQUALITY - The species initial concentration field, the AIRQUALITY file, will be
created by using air quality data collected at monitors in the modeling
domain. The values will correspond to the specific initial hour of the simula-
tion, which is not known at this time. The upper-layer initial field will use
values specified in the TOPCONC file. The AIRQUALITY file will be updated
with the new CBM-IV species.
BOUNDARY - Hourly boundary conditions will be specified based on observed air
quality data at monitors both near and outside the inflow boundaries. The flow
regime of 7-8 August is dominated by southwest transport; therefore, the criti-
cal inflow boundaries will be the southern and western boundaries. Boundary
conditions above the mixing height will use the values specified in the TOP-
CONC file. The new CBM-IV species will be added to the BOUNDARY file for
the CBM-IV simulations.
TOPCONC - The original concentrations specified at the top of the modeling region
were based on air quality data derived from aircraft spirals. This data will be
examined to determine whether the values specified for 0400 LST can be used
38136rl 2
A- 9
-------
for the preceding hours for 8 August and 7 August. CBM-IV species will be
added to this file before the UAM CBM-IV is exercised.
TEMPERATURE - The TEMPERATURE file contains gridded hourly surface tem-
perature information for the modeling region. This file is used in the UAM for
those chemical reactions that are temperature-dependent. Gridded tempera-
ture fields for hours preceding 0400 LST on 8 August will be derived from
observed data collected at National Weather Service and other local air quality
monitoring network sites. The Poisson interpolation method is used in the UAM
system for processing temperature observations. The Poisson method is a dis-
tance-weighted interpolation scheme that is most accurate when a reasonable
estimate is made of the initial field. A set of "pseudo" stations may have to be
used at the edges of the domain or where there are data gaps (e.g., over the
ocean) in the modeling region to ensure a good initial estimate.
EMISSIONS - The original inventory used in the OMNYMAP exercise containing
information on the CBM-II species will be updated to correspond to a CBM-IV
inventory. This will be accomplished by splitting total aromatics (ARO) into
the new CBM-IV species toluene (TOL) and xylene (XYL), and splitting total
carbonyls (CARB) into the new CBM-IV species formaldehyde (FORM) and
other aldehydes (ALD2). The splitting factors for the new CBM-IV species will
be taken from the recently published EKMA guidelines for CBM-IV (Hogo and
Gery, 1988). This 1980 base year CBM-IV inventory is needed for a new 1980
CBM-IV base case simulation to ensure that the changes made to all of the
other input files have been correctly implemented. The methodology for creat-
ing the future year emission scenario inventories is presented in the next sec-
tion.
PTSOURCE - The CBM-II input file containing point source information will be up-
dated for the 1980 CBM-IV base case simulation following the procedure per-
formed for the low level emissions. Methodology for deriving the future year
base case and emission scenario point source files is presented in the next sec-
tion.
TERRAIN - This file will be added to the OMNYMAP modeling data base. It will
contain surface roughness and deposition information as a function of land use
(no terrain height information). The land use data for the OMNYMAP modeling
region will be derived from data obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey.
The deposition values as a function of land use are derived from studies per-
formed by the Argonne National Laboratory (Sheih et al., 1986). These values
are summarized in Table 2-1.
CHEMPARAM - The CHEMPARAM file contains information regarding (1) the
species to be modeled by the UAM; (2) upper and lower bounds on numerical
and steady-state calculations along with species "resistance" to dry deposition;
and (3) the rate constants for the photochemical reactions. Before the CBM-IV
88136rl 2
A- 10
-------
TABLE 2-1. Surface roughness and deposition factors
based on studies by Argonne National Laboratories.
Land Use Surface Roughness Deposition
Category (meters) Factor
Urban 3.00 0.2
Agricultural . 0.25 0.5
Range 0.05 0.4
Deciduous Forest 1.00 0.4
Coniferous Forest 1.00 0.3
including wetland
Mixed Forest 1.00 0.3
Water 0.0001 0.03
Barren land 0.002 0.2
Nonforest Wetlands 0.15 0.3
Mixed Agricultural 0.10 0.5
and range
Rocky (low shrubs) 0.10 0.3
88136 3
A-11
-------
1980 base case simulation is performed, the CHEMPARAM file will be updated
to correspond to the new species simulated with the new mechanism.
S1MCONTROL - The SIMCONTROL file controls the actual simulation parameters of
the UAM run (i.e., simulation time period, minimum time steps, output time
intervals). At this time it is not known when the simulation will be initiated;
however, all other information contained in the file will not change from one
simulation to another.
Assessment of Model Performance for the Base Case
After the modeling inputs have been finalized and rendered consistent with UAM
CBM-IV requirements for the 1980 base case simulation, a new base case simulation
will be run. As noted, it is not certain at this time when the simulation will be
initiated; however, the simulation will be run to 2000 LSI on 8 August. Before using
the updated modeling data base in any future year emission scenario simulations, it is
essential that at least a limited assessment of model performance be undertaken,
even in this low-cost, simplified UAM application. The model's ability to predict the
level and spatial orientation of the observed ozone field will be assessed by compar-
ing the UAM-calculated concentrations with the measured data.
We will compute a limited set of model performance statistics that summarize error,
bias, and the model's ability to calculate the peak ozone concentration. In this appli-
cation, no specific performance criteria will be established, and no strict perform-
ance evaluation will be undertaken. However, if the modeling system shows very
poor performance, we may undertake one (or more as time allows) diagnostic simula-
tion^) to identify a range of alternatives for improving model performance. For
example, a diagnostic simulation may involve changes to the three-dimensional wind
field (within the range of the uncertainty of the data used to prepare the field) if
spatial alignment problems occur in the base case simulation. Future year emission
scenario simulations using the CBM-IV modeling data base will be performed only
after there is agreement from participating technical representatives that perform-
ance in the base case is adequate.
Future Year Emission Inventory Development
Improved Urban Airshed Model performance is achieved when emissions data in a
very specific and detailed format is available. UAM requires a spatially
disaggregated and temporally allocated emissions inventory. Performance is
improved if a chemically speciated emissions inventory is obtained, although
speciation could be achieved by using default speciation profiles, as is customarily
done with EKMA. Meeting these requirements often entails the collection of
additional emissions-related information such as population distribution and
industrial activity data.
88136rl 2 A-12
-------
In this study we will be using the 1985 NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assess-
ment Program) Emissions Inventory as the base year from which all future year emis-
sion scenarios will be developed. The future year selected for use in this study is
1995. The 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory consists of annual county-wide area
source emissions (including mobile sources), and annual emissions for large point
sources along with stack parameters (i.e., stack height, diameter, flow rate, and
temperature). The county-wide area source emissions will be disaggregated onto the
gridded modeling domain using the gridded population distribution. Source categories
will be classified as related to the population distribution, inversely related to the
population distribution, or not related at all to population, and gridded accordingly.
The annual emission rates will be adjusted for each source category to summer
weekday emissions by using scaling factors based upon typical values of monthly
throughputs and weekday factors. Likewise, hourly variations in emissions will be
based upon typical diurnal activity levels for each source category.
The stationary source emissions for the 1995 scenario year will be projected from
1985 NAPAP emissions by utilizing growth factors by source category available from
an EPA-sponsored study (Pechan, 1988). Mobile source emissions will be prepared
using scaling factors provided by the EPA Office of Mobile Sources specifically for
each scenario to be analyzed.
Several emissions inventories will be used for the limited performance evaluation of
the UAM and assessment of the effects of alternative fuel use and SIP control
strategies. The following list describes each of the emission scenarios:
CBM-II 1980 case - the inventory used for the past UAM/CBM-II applications.
CBM-IV 1980 case - a modified version of the CBM-II met case for CBM-IV
species. This inventory will be used to verify that the UAM/CBM-IV is opera-
ting properly and predicts ozone patterns comparable to those predicted by the
UAM/CBM-II. This inventory is valid for 1980. The creation of this inventory
was described in the input preparation section above.
1985 NAPAP - gridding of 1985 NAPAP inventory for CBM-IV species, as is, to
the modeling domain.
1995 base case - this inventory is based on the 1985 NAPAP county inventory.
Stationary source emissions are projected to 1995 using growth factors from
Pechan (1988). Mobile source emissions will be based on values provided by
OMS reflecting fleet turnover and present fuel properties. The emission
scenarios will correspond to different assumptions in the mobile source emis-
sions.
1995 Emission Scenarios - these inventories will reflect changes in VOC, NOX,
and CO due to assumptions of future changes in mobile source emission rates
88136rl 2
A-13
-------
such as changes in Reid vapor pressure (RVP) and use of ethanol-blended
fuels. For New York, EPA/OPPE has defined 6 separate emission scenarios as
follows:
Scenario //I - 1995 base case with mobile emissions at current RVP values
(11.5 psi) with running losses
Scenario #2 - 1995 base case with mobile emissions at low RVP values
(9.0 psi) with running losses
Scenario #3 - 1995 base case with 100 percent ethanol penetration* and
10 percent ethanol blend at low RVP (10.0 psi) plus 1 psi exemption with
running losses
Scenario #4 - 1995 base case with mobile emissions at current RVP values
(11.5 psi) without running losses
Scenario //5 - 1995 base case with 50 percent ethanol penetration at low
RVP (9.0 psi) plus 1 psi exemption with running losses
Scenario #6 - 1995 base case with current RVP and running losses using
alternative speciation methodology
Emission Scenario Simulations
On the basis of emission scenario options outlined in the previous section, a subset
will be chosen for UAM modeling. In addition to changes in the input emissions files,
the initial condition (AIRQUALITY) and boundary condition (BOUNDARY) files will
be changed to reflect general estimates of future year air quality. Estimates for
initial conditions will be changed (increased/decreased) to reflect changes in the
emission inventory for the New York metropolitan area from 1980 to 1995 based on
projected growth and anticipated future emission controls. To calculate a future
year estimate, the urban background estimate will first be subtracted from the
actual meteorological base year concentration for 1980. The resulting concentration
will be changed in proportion to changes in emissions. The background will then be
added to this concentration to arrive at a future year estimate. Similarly, on the
basis of emission changes in upwind areas (for this episode, New Jersey), the upwind
inflow boundary conditions will be changed to reflect forecasted changes in emissions
* In this context, "penetration" is defined as the change from one type of fuel to
another. A 50 percent ethanol penetration scenario is one in which 50 percent of
fuel used in vehicles is converted from gasoline to an ethanol-blended fuel.
88136rl 2 _
-------
between 1980 and 1995. Only one set of future year initial and boundary conditions
will be selected and used for all modeling pertaining to a given future year. We will
not use multiple sets that reflect specific differences in emissions between
scenarios.
The results of the UAM simulations will be presented in the form of ozone difference
plots. These plots are created by subtracting the calculated ozone concentration of
the future year base case (for each grid cell, for each hour) from the concentration
obtained in the emission sensitivity simulations. This results in hourly isopleth maps
that show both the magnitude and spatial extent of differences in ozone concentra-
tions due to changes in emissions. Changes in calculated peak ozone will also be
summarized in tabular format.
A-15
-------
3 EKMA MODELING METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
A recent study used the simple photochemical modeling approach known as EKMA
(Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach) to investigate the possible impacts on urban
ozone formation from the use of ethanol-blended gasoline fuels (Whitten, 1988). The
study addressed the comparative reactivities of the relevant ozone precursor emis-
sions affected by the use of ethanol blends. Atmospheric conditions were varied to
represent those found in seven cities. The key finding of the study was a near
balance between ozone increases from enhanced evaporative emissions of VOC and
ozone decreases from reduced exhaust emissions of CO. This was the first study to
consider mitigation of ozone VOC precursors through CO reductions. When the
chemistry of the individual evaporative emissions species was explicitly treated in
the model, the results always showed a net reduction in ozone associated with the
use of ethanol blends. However, the U.S. EPA recommends simplified treatment of
reactivity in the EKMA, whereby the reactivity of all VOC emissions species is
treated as being equal to the reactivity of overall average VOC. While this simpli-
fied treatment overestimates the reactivity of the increased evaporative emissions,
the EKMA modeling results indicated small net reductions in ozone formation from
the use of ethanol blends in some cases, and in others the simplified reactivity
assumption showed a small net increase in ozone. Although the existing EKMA
model can explicitly treat the chemistry of evaporative automotive emissions, the
simplified treatment of reactivity is more consistent with the overall simplified
philosophy embodied in regulatory applications of EKMA.
The negative or positive direction of the small ozone impacts derived from the
simplified treatment of VOC reactivity and the size of the ozone reductions derived
from the explicit chemical treatment of the affected emissions appear to depend on
the mobile-related fraction of total VOC and the ratio of CO emissions to VOC emis-
sions. Areas with low mobile-related VOC fractions and high CO-to-VOC ratios are
expected to show the largest net ozone reductions if ethanol fuels are used because,
under these conditions, the overall ambient increases in VOC will be smaller, and the
decreases in ambient CO concentrations will be larger. However, it is important to
increase the confidence in the preliminary EKMA analyses thus far carried out. Fur-
ther UAM and EKMA evaluations are thus warranted, and will be carried out as a
part of this study.
A17
88136rl 2
-------
The study by Whitten (1988) used EKMA episodes previously set up for 1982 SIP cal-
culations plus CO estimates based on the CO-to-VOC ratios in the NEDS data base.
Also, RVP changes and volatility increases due to ethanol blends were estimated
from a 1987 RVP impact study by the EPA. Since the release of the Whitten study,
new emissions guidelines for alternate fuels have been released by the EPA (29 Janu-
ary 1988). Therefore, new EKMA simulations, which use the new EPA guidelines for
alternate fuels, and are appropriate to 1995 projections in New York, are needed.
COMPARISON OF EKMA AND UAM
Some factors regarding changes in mobile-related emissions cannot be addressed with
the EKMA. These factors can be treated by UAM. For example, the diurnal timing
and location of evaporative emissions are not always equal to those of exhaust emis-
sions. The UAM is capable of treating cold-start, hot-soak, highway-cruising and
congested-traffic emissions separately depending on local data for hourly tempera-
tures, spatially resolved traffic counts, average speeds, and vehicle miles traveled.
Alternatively, EKMA uses constant grams per mile emissions based on data from
standard federal trip and mileage test procedures (FTP) and estimates of local auto-
mobile populations.
The principal differences between EKMA and UAM stem from the trajectory nature
of EKMA versus the grid nature of UAM. EKMA treats the atmospheric chemistry of
a single parcel of air as representative of one reaching an observed ozone maxi-
mum. The model simulation begins at 0800 hours with an initial loading of precur-
sors, and more emissions are added each hour on the basis of county-wide emission
averages. The UAM treats gridded points throughout the urban region (resolved both
horizontally and vertically) for a day or more preceding an ozone episode. Precur-
sors are emitted and move about within the gridded model region according to the
physical equations governing wind flow, dispersion, and surface deposition. The
secondary pollutants (such as ozone) are formed in both models on the basis of atmo-
spheric chemistry. Hence EKMA provides information at one point in time and space
on the basis of a few hours' highly averaged information, whereas UAM provides
information at all points in time and space on the basis of a day or more of highly
resolved information.
It is possible that the UAM will provide results that are significantly different from
those of the EKMA-based study because of UAM's ability to treat spatially varying
emissions. However, this discussion illustrates the vast differences in complexity
and sophistication between the EKMA and UAM models and the potential for some-
what different results.
PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
The purpose of using EKMA to simulate the same scenarios as those simulated by
UAM is threefold. The first is to use the UAM to support or refute the EKMA results
88136rl 2 A-18
-------
obtained in the previous study on the effects of ethanol fuel use on urban ozone con-
centrations in seven U.S. cities (Whitten, 1988).
The second purpose of the EKMA simulations is to estimate the uncertainties invol-
ved in using a trajectory model like EKMA to examine the effects of different emis-
sion scenarios such as alternative fuel use. Even though the changes in the observed
maximum ozone may be in agreement for both models, the different reactivities,
source configurations, and three-dimensional structure of the UAM may result in the
UAM predicting new hot spots of high ozone concentrations occurring outside of the
EKMA trajectory.
The third purpose of the EKMA simulations is to study the effects of reactivity of
VOC emissions on ozone formation. EKMA's use of the default and actual reactivity
of the emission scenarios will provide insight into the uncertainties produced by
these assumptions.
EKMA MODELING METHODOLOGY
Two sets of EKMA calculations will be made for each UAM scenario. The first will
be performed in strict accordance with EPA guidelines for using EKMA for post-1987
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) (Hogo and Gery, 1988). The UAM modeling period
will be viewed as a "design day" in setting up the OZIPM simulation. However, in
keeping with EKMA guidance, none of the UAM inputs will be used for creating the
EKMA inputs. County total emissions of NOX, VOC, CO, and other species (correc-
ted for season and MOBILE 3.9) will be used for each emissions scenario. The VOC
emissions will be speciated using the default EKMA reactivity. For the ethanol-
blended fuel cases, these emissions will have higher total VOC and lower CO emis-
sions and will not account for the lower reactivity of ethanol-blended fuels.
The second set of EKMA simulations will be performed in the same manner as the
first set, but the county VOC emissions will be speciated according to the source-
specific speciation profiles for the emission scenario in question. Thus for the etha-
nol fuel cases, there will be a higher VOC emissions rate, but these simulations will
take into account the lower reactivity of emissions from ethanol-blended fuels.
A-19
88136rl 2
-------
References
Benkley, C. W., and L. L. Schulman. 1979. Estimating hourly mixing depths from
historical meteorological data. 3. Appl. Meteorol., 18:772.
Burton, C. S. 1988. Comments on "Ozone Air Quality Models." To be published in 3.
Air Pollut. Control Assoc.
Douglas, S., and R. Kessler. 1988. "User's Guide to the Diagnostic Wind Model.
Version 1.0." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Emison, G. A. 1988. Memo to William G. Laxton, EPA-OAQPS. May 1988.
Garrett, A. 3. 1981. Comparison of observed mixed-layer depths to model estimates
using observed temperatures and wind and MUS forecasts. 3. Appl. Meteorol.,
20:1277.
Gery, M. W., G. Z. Whitten, and 3. P. Killus. 1988. "Development and Testing of the
CBM-IV for Urban and Regional Modeling." Systems Applications, Inc., San
Rafael, California (SYSAPP-88/002).
Hogo, H., and M. W. Gery. 1988. "Guidelines for Using OZIPM-4 with CBM-IV or
Optional Mechanisms, Volume 1: Description of the Ozone Isopleth Plotting
Package, Version 4." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California
(SYSAPP-88/001).
Morris, R. E., R. C. Kessler, S. G. Douglas, and K. R. Styles. 1987. "Rocky Mountain
Acid Deposition Model Assessment: Evaluation of Mesoscale Models for Use in
Complex Terrain." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-600/3-87-013;
NTIS PB87-180584-AS).
Pechan, E. H., and Associates. 1988. "National Assessment of VOC, CO, and NOX
Emissions and Costs for Attainment of the Ozone and CO Standards."
Rao, S. T. 1987. "Application of the Urban Airshed Model to the New York Metro-
politan Area." Bureau of Air Research, Division of Air Resources, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York (CA No.
CX811945-01-0; EPA-450/4-87-011).
A-21
88136rl i+
-------
Seinfeld, J. H. 1988. Ozone air quality models. A critical review. 3. Air Pollut.
Control Assoc., 38(5):616.
Sheih, B. F., N. L. Wesely, and C. J. Walcek. 1986. The Dry Deposition Module
for Regional Acid Deposition Models." Argonne National Laboratories
(DW89930060-01).
Whitten, G. Z. 1988. "Evaluation of the Impact of Ethanol/Gasoline Blends on Urban
Ozone Formation." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California (SYSAPP-
88/029.
A-22
-------
Appendix B
PROTOCOL DOCUMENT FOR URBAN AIRSHED
AND EKMA MODELING IN THE
ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA
88139 1
-------
Final Report
PROTOCOL DOCUMENT FOR URBAN AIRSHED
AND EKMA MODELING IN THE
ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA
SYSAPP-88/150
September 1988
Prepared for
Mr. John Chamberlin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
Washington, DC 20460
and
Mr. Richard Scheffe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by
Systems Applications, Inc.
101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415)472-4011
Q9510 88139rl
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Four offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are involved in a joint
EPA-sponsored research study to investigate urban ozone air quality in a number of
U.S. cities. The offices involved are the following: Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of
Mobile Sources (OMS), and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE).
The urban areas to be studied include New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Dallas, and
Atlanta. A photochemical modeling analysis will be conducted in each of these urban
areas. This protocol addresses the St. Louis application in particular.
Over 60 urban areas in the United States have failed to meet the legislated deadline
(31 December 1987) for ozone attainment. Possible reasons for this include one or
more of the following: the failure to actually reduce emissions or enforce emission
control requirements, the underestimation of actual urban hydrocarbon emissions,
and/or reliance on overly simplistic modeling approaches for calculating emission
control requirements. In the past, many air quality planners have relied on the
EKMA procedure (Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach) to provide control
requirements for ozone attainment purposes. The EKMA procedure uses a trajectory
model (OZIPM) to simulate ozone formation of an observed design value concentra-
tion at a downwind monitor. An ozone isopleth diagram is created (from multiple
simulations) that depicts ozone concentrations as a function of initial NOX and VOC
concentration. The diagram can be used to equate emission control requirements to
the required percentage change between the observed ozone design value isopleth
and the isopleth of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (0.12 ppm).
An approach to estimating the effectiveness of alternative ozone attainment strate-
gies uses grid models such as the Urban Airshed Model (UAM). The UAM numerically
simulates the effects of emissions, interurban transport of ozone and precursors,
advection, diffusion, chemistry, and surface removal processes on pollutant concen-
trations in a three-dimensional grid covering an urban area. The UAM has been
applied in a number of urban areas across the United States, Europe, and the Far
East, but some air quality planners have been reluctant to use the model in other
urban areas mainly because of the time and costs involved in collecting input data
and undertaking extensive performance evaluations. However, depending on the
complexity of the ozone problem of the urban area and the particular needs of
the air quality planners, extensive data bases and model evaluations may not be
88139rl 2 E
-------
necessary for an application of UAM. Indeed, no other air quality model currently in
use is subject to this level of performance evaluation. Moreover, even a "simplified"
or less stringent application of UAM appears desirable because it incorporates a rea-
sonably complete mathematical treatment of the physical and chemical processes
believed to govern ozone formation. Furthermore, because this treatment appears to
be capable of reliably reproducing peak ozone concentrations and ozone concentra-
tions under episode conditions, the UAM provides more useful air quality planning
information than does EKMA (Seinfeld, 1988; Burton, 1988). As one aspect of this
study, the application of UAM will follow the simplified approach for the five urban
areas to demonstrate and test the utility of such an approach for air quality planning
purposes and future applications in other urban areas.
In recent years, air quality regulators have found it increasingly difficult to identify
additional urban hydrocarbon emissions that can be controlled in an effort to reduce
ozone concentrations. Yet at the same time there has been interest in using renew-
able fuels such as ethanol, which increase the evaporative emissions from light duty
vehicles while reducing exhaust CO emissions. Automobiles can be operated without
modification using 10 percent ethanol blended into gasoline. Substantial utilization
of ethanol can reduce the need for imported oil, the trade deficit, and farm sub-
sidies, but concern over increased evaporative emissions has hindered its widespread
use, especially in nonattainment areas. A recent EKMA modeling study of ethanol-
blended gasoline in seven urban areas showed a near balance in ozone increases due
to increased evaporative volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and ozone
decreases from reduced exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO). When the
chemistry of the evaporative emissions was explicitly treated in the model, the
results always showed a net reduction in ozone associated with the use of ethanol
blends (Whitten, 1988). The results of this study have been questioned recently by
the EPA (Emison, 1988).
Because there is considerable interest nationwide in the potential benefits from the
expanded use of ethanol as an automotive fuel, more studies are needed to support or
refute the findings of the initial EKMA study. Such studies will provide guidance for
other urban areas. The current effort will use the Urban Airshed Model and EKMA
to examine the effects of using ethanol fuels in the five urban areas. A comparison
of results will be performed to test the reliability of EKMA for such evaluations. In
addition to the ethanol emission sensitivity work, the effects of VOC reactivity in
control strategy evaluation will be examined, and future year control strategy simu-
lations will be performed for the five urban areas.
The version of the UAM used in this project (UAM CBM-IV) contains several
improvements: (1) a new chemical mechanism of ozone formation that is further
extended here to treat ethanol and methanol explicitly; (2) a new numerical integra-
tion scheme for horizontal advection and transport; and (3) revised estimates of dry
deposition.
88139rl 2
B-2
-------
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The five key objectives to be accomplished in the overall 5-city study are as follows:
1. Demonstrate the simplified, limited-data application of UAM for air
quality planning;
2. Determine the effects of Reid vapor pressure (RVP) and ethanol blended
gasoline on urban ozone concentrations in a number of urban areas, and
compare UAM results with those obtained with EKMA;
3. Investigate and clarify the effects of VOC reactivity potential in emis-
sion control strategy evaluation;
4. Perform SIP control strategy simulations with UAM and EKMA for air
quality planning and comparison of the two modeling approaches;
5. Transfer the UAM modeling data bases and application technology to the
5 states and EPA.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY PROTOCOL
This protocol is intended to serve as the basis for the performance and successful
completion of a photochemical modeling analysis of the St. Louis metropolitan area
(separate protocols will be prepared for each of the 5 urban areas in the overall
study). The purpose of this protocol is to describe the methodologies to be followed
throughout the study. It should be viewed as a set of general guidelines that provide
focus, consistency, and a basis for consensus for all parties involved in the study. It
will be reviewed and approved by all participants at the beginning of the study.
At this time, some portions of the modeling analysis have not been finalized in this
document (e.g., the specific emission sensitivity scenarios). For those items that
have not been finalized, we provide lists of options that may be followed. For some
items, it will be up to the study participants to choose from the list of options as the
study evolves.
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The ozone air quality study in the St. Louis metropolitan area comprises the follow-
ing tasks:
88139rl 2
-------
1. Prepare a protocol document (this document) that describes the back-
ground, purpose, and objectives of the study, and the procedures to be
followed in the remainder of the study. A draft protocol will be prepared
and sent to all participants for consensus and approval before the bulk of
the technical work is initiated.
2. Select a modeling episode from a set of four days simulated in a previous
application of UAM using data collected during the Regional Air Pollution
Study (RAPS) in 1975 and 1976.
3. Prepare future base year and ethanol-use sensitivity inventories for the
application of UAM for St. Louis that will use the latest version of the
model containing the Carbon-Bond IV chemical mechanism. The future
year inventories will be prepared for 1995 and will be projected from the
existing 1985 NAPAP inventory.
4. Perform an EKMA analysis for the St. Louis area, following the 1987 EPA
modeling guidelines, using the future year base case and ethanol-use
sensitivity inventories.
5. Perform an application of UAM for the future year base case and etha-
nol-use scenarios. Examine the results and compare with those obtained
in the EKMA analysis.
6. Prepare an interim report that will summarize the ethanol sensitivity
studies for EKMA and UAM, and provide an overview of the current
understanding of the factors that influence the effectiveness of precursor
control, such as VOC reactivity, NOX emissions character, timing, and
spatial emission source distribution.
7. Perform SIP control strategy simulations using both UAM and EKMA for
air quality planning and comparison of the two modeling approaches.
88139rl 2 B-4
-------
2 UAM MODELING METHODOLOGY
This section of the protocol provides details of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)
application in the St. Louis area including episode selection, input preparation
procedures, base case simulations, and preparation of future year emission scenario
inventories. The results of these simulations will be compared to the results of the
EKMA modeling described in Section 3 of this protocol.
EPISODE SELECTION
This section provides a summary of the procedures that will be used to select the
ozone episode for the CBM-IV UAM modeling. Time constraints do not permit
identification of new ozone episodes or development of additional modeling data
bases for this project. Instead, an ozone episode day will be chosen from a set of
episode days that were developed as part of the original St. Louis Ozone Modeling
Project (EPA, 1983). These days are the following:
Thursday, May 22, 1975
Saturday, July 26, 1975
Tuesday, July 13, 1976
Friday, October 1, 1976
The following referenced reports will be used to perform the episode selection:
1. Regional Air Monitoring System Flow and Procedures Manual (Rockwell,
1977).
2. Final Evaluation of Urban-Scale Photochemical Air Quality Simulation
Models (ESRL, 1982).
3. The St. Louis Ozone Modeling Project (EPA, 1983).
4. The Surface Ozone Record for the Regional Air Pollution Study, 1975-
1976 (Atmospheric Environment, 1982).
Data bases containing hourly ozone concentrations are not available for review
during the selection process. Some ozone data was plotted for selected stations in
various reports; however, only peak ozone concentrations for these days are known.
88139rl 2 B-5
-------
Observed wind data used to create the original three-dimensional wind fields for
UAM will be used to create interpolated surface wind fields with a distance-weighted
interpolation algorithm. Surface wind fields will be created to determine the hourly
flow patterns for each episode day. These surface wind fields will be used to track
air parcels released at various times and locations to determine (a) the timing of the
"flushing" of initial conditions from the modeling domain, (b) the general area of
origin of material affecting peak observed ozone concentrations, and (c) the
influence of boundary conditions on calculated ozone concentrations.
The episode will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:
High and widespread ozone concentrations
Minimal effects of boundary conditions
Organized transport conditions
No atypical meteorological conditions
The episode selection will be performed immediately following the completion of the
protocol. The episode selection will be summarized in a technical memorandum and
sent to all participating members for review.
UAM INPUT PREPARATION PROCEDURES
As summarized in the previous section, one of the modeling days formulated in the
previous EPA UAM study will be used in this study. The latest version of the UAM
containing the Carbon-Bond IV (CBM-IV) chemical mechanism (Gery et al., 1988) will
be applied in this study. To ensure that the modeling data base for the episode
selected has been properly converted on our in-house computer system, a base case
simulation will be re-run using the Carbon-Bond II version of UAM. All subsequent
modeling will involve the CBM-IV version of UAM.
UAM Modeling Grid Specification
The modeling will be performed on the original St. Louis modeling grid, which con-
sists of 17 by 22 grid cells with a horizontal dimension of 4 km, covering an area 68
by 88 km. The modeling grid is depicted in Figure 2-1. It covers parts of Missouri
and Illinois, encompassing the majority of the smaller, outlying urban areas
surrounding metropolitan St. Louis. The grid is located in UTM zone 15 with the
origin set at 706,000. m Easting and 4,326,000. m Northing.
The following 13 input files are required for UAM modeling analyses:
DIFFBREAK This file contains the daytime mixing height or nighttime inversion
height for each column of cells at the beginning and end of each
hour of the simulation.
-------
FIGURE 2-1. The St. Louis metropolitan area UAM modeling grid and RAPS station
locations. (Grid cells are 4 x 4 km). (Source: EPA, 1983).
B81 39
B-7
-------
REGIONTOP
WIND
METSCALARS
AIRQUALITY
BOUNDARY
TOPCONC
This file contains the height of each column of cells at the begin-
ning and end of each hour of the simulation. If this height is
greater than the mixing height, the cell or cells above the mixing
height are assumed to be within an inversion.
This file contains the x and y components of the wind velocity for
every grid cell for each hour of the simulation. Also the maximum
wind speed for the entire grid and average wind speeds at each
boundary for each hour are included in this file.
This file contains the hourly values of the meteorological
parameters that do not vary spatially. These scalars are the NC>2
photolysis rate constant, the concentration of water vapor, the
temperature gradient above and below the inversion base, the
atmospheric pressure, and the exposure class.
This file contains the initial concentrations of each species for
each grid cell at the start of the simulation.
This file contains the location of the modeling region boundaries.
This file also contains the concentration of each species that is
used as the boundary condition along each boundary segment at
each vertical level.
This file contains the concentration of each species for the area
above the modeling region. These concentrations are the boundary
conditions for vertical integration.
TEMPERATURE This file contains the hourly temperature for each surface layer
grid cell.
EMISSIONS
PTSOURCE
TERRAIN
This file contains the ground-level emissions of NO, NO2, seven
carbon bond categories, and CO for each grid square for each hour
of the simulation.
This file contains the point source information, including the stack
height, temperature and flow rate, the plume rise, the grid cell
into which the emissions are emitted, and the emissions rates for
NO, NO2> seven carbon bond categories, and CO for each point
source for each hour.
This file contains the value of the surface roughness and deposition
factor for each grid square.
88139rl 2
B-8
-------
CHEMPARAM This file contains information regarding the chemical species to be
simulated including reaction rate constants, upper and lower
bounds, activation energy, and reference temperature.
SIMCONTROL This file contains the simulation control information such as the
time of the simulation, file option information, default informa-
tion, and information on integration and chemistry time steps.
The majority of the input files used in the previous St. Louis application of UAM will
be used "as is" in this application. However, the WIND file will be recreated using a
new technique, and other files affected by the change to CBM-IV will also be
updated. The recommended procedures for preparing those files that will be changed
in the St. Louis application are summarized in the following subsections.
REGIONTOP - The original St. Louis application used a temporally varying height for
the top of the region that was situated 400 m above the hourly mixing height
(DIFFBREAK) value. For the current study, we will use a constant value for
the top of the region, tentatively chosen to be 1600 m. The final selection for
the top of the region will be based on the maximum mixing height used in the
modeling day selected.
WIND - The wind fields created for the original St. Louis application used the
WINDSET preprocessor algorithm. The three-dimensional wind fields created
for a number of the modeling days, however, did not always replicate the
measured data well. In the new application, we recommend using a wind model
along with the measured data to derive new wind fields in an attempt to avoid
problems encountered in the past. Hourly wind speed and direction data will be
used along with the Hybrid Diagnostic Wind Model (HDWM) (Douglas and
Kessler, 1988; Morris et al., 1987) to create new three-dimensional modeling
wind fields.
METSCALARS - The parameters contained in this file will be examined and reviewed
to determine whether they are to be changed/updated. Available
meteorological data collected in the modeling region will be used to complete
this file for those parameters that are changed. The spatially constant,
temporally varying parameters include estimates for NC>2 photolysis rate,
water concentration, exposure class, atmospheric pressure, and temperature
gradients above and below the mixing height. Because of changes in the CBM-
IV chemistry, the NC^ photolysis rate constants may need updating. Because
of changes to the REGIONTOP file, the temperature gradients above the
mixing height will have to be updated.
AIRQUALITY - The species initial concentration field, the AIRQUALITY file, will be
created by using air quality data collected at monitors in the modeling
88 I39r I 2
B- 9
-------
domain. The values will correspond to the specific initial hour of the simula-
tion, which is not known at this time. The upper-layer initial field will use
values specified in the TOPCONC file. The AIRQUALITY file will be updated
with the new CBM-IV species.
BOUNDARY - The new CBM-IV species will be added to the BOUNDARY file for the
CBM-IV simulations.
TOPCONC - New CBM-IV species will be added to this file before the UAM CBM-IV
is exercised.
EMISSIONS - The original inventory used in the previous St. Louis application
containing information on the CBM-II species will be updated to correspond to
a CBM-IV inventory. This will be accomplished by splitting total aromatics
(ARO) into the new CBM-IV species toluene (TOL) and xylene (XYL), and
splitting total carbonyls (CARB) into the new CBM-IV species formaldehyde
(FORM) and other aldehydes (ALD2). The splitting factors for the new CBM-IV
species will be taken from the recently published EKMA guidelines for CBM-IV
(Hogo and Gery, 1988). This new base year CBM-IV inventory is needed for a
new CBM-IV base case simulation to ensure that the changes made to all of the
other input files have been correctly implemented. The methodology for creat-
ing the future year emission scenario inventories is presented in the next sec-
tion.
PTSOURCE - The CBM-II input file containing point source information will be up-
dated for the new CBM-IV base case simulation following the procedure per-
formed for the low level emissions. Methodology for deriving the future year
base case and emission scenario point source files is presented in the next sec-
tion.
TERRAIN - This file will be updated using land-use information. It will contain
surface roughness and deposition information as a function of land use (no
terrain height information). The deposition values as a function of land use are
derived from studies performed by the Argonne National Laboratory (Sheih et
al., 1986). These values are summarized in Table 2-1.
CHEMPARAM - The CHEMPARAM file contains information regarding (1) the
species to be modeled by the UAM; (2) upper and lower bounds on numerical
and steady-state calculations along with species "resistance" to dry deposition;
and (3) the rate constants for the photochemical reactions. Before the CBM-IV
base case simulation is performed, the CHEMPARAM file will be updated to
correspond to the new species simulated with the new mechanism.
SIMCONTROL - The SIMCONTROL file controls the actual simulation parameters of
the UAM run (i.e., simulation time period, minimum time steps, output time
intervals). At this time it is not known when the simulation will be initiated;
88139rl 2
B- 10
-------
TABLE 2-1. Surface roughness and deposition factors
based on studies by Argonne National Laboratories.
Land Use Surface Roughness Deposition
Category (meters) Factor
Urban
Agricultural
Range
Deciduous Forest
Coniferous Forest
including wetland
Mixed Forest
Water
Barren land
Nonforest Wetlands
Mixed Agricultural
and range
Rocky (low shrubs)
3.00
0.25
0.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.0001
0.002
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
88139rl 3 B- 11
-------
however, all other information contained in the file will not change from one
simulation to another.
Assessment of Model Performance for the Base Case
After the modeling inputs have been finalized and rendered consistent with UAM
CBM-IV requirements, a new base case simulation will be run. Before using the
updated modeling data base in any future year emission scenario simulations, it is
essential that at least a limited assessment of model performance be undertaken,
even in this low-cost, simplified UAM application. The model's ability to predict the
level and spatial orientation of the observed ozone field will be assessed by compar-
ing the UAM-calcuiated concentrations with the measured data.
If we can locate the observed hourly data, we will compute a limited set of model
performance statistics that summarize error, bias, and the model's ability to
calculate the peak ozone concentration. In this application, no specific performance
criteria will be established, and no strict performance evaluation will be
undertaken. However, if the modeling system shows very poor performance, we may
undertake one (or more as time allows) diagnostic simulation(s) to identify a range of
alternatives for improving model performance. For example, a diagnostic simulation
may involve changes to the three-dimensional wind field (within the range of the
uncertainty of the data used to prepare the field) if spatial alignment problems occur
in the base case simulation. If necessary, these diagnostic simulations will only be
undertaken after consultation with the project's technical representative. Future
year emission scenario simulations using the CBM-IV modeling data base will be
performed only after there is agreement from participating technical representatives
that performance in the base case is adequate.
Future Year Emission Inventory Development
Improved Urban Airshed Model performance is achieved when emissions data in a
very specific and detailed format is available. UAM requires a spatially
disaggregated and temporally allocated emissions inventory. Performance is
improved if a chemically speciated emissions inventory is obtained, although
speciation could be achieved by using default speciation profiles, as is customarily
done with EKMA. Meeting these requirements often entails the collection of
additional emissions-related information such as population distribution and
industrial activity data.
In this study we will be using the 1985 NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assess-
ment Program) Emissions Inventory as the base year from which all future year emis-
sion scenarios will be developed. The future year selected for use in this study is
1995. The 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory consists of annual county-wide area
source emissions (including mobile sources), and annual emissions for large point
88139rl 2
-------
sources along with stack parameters (i.e., stack height, diameter, flow rate, and
temperature). The county-wide area source emissions will be disaggregated onto the
gridded modeling domain using the gridded population distribution. Source categories
will be classified as related to the population distribution, inversely related to the
population distribution, or not related at all to population, and gridded accordingly.
The annual emission rates will be adjusted for each source category to summer
weekday emissions by using scaling factors based upon typical values of monthly
throughputs and weekday factors. Likewise, hourly variations in emissions will be
based upon typical diurnal activity levels for each source category.
The stationary source emissions for the 1995 scenario year will be projected from
1985 NAPAP emissions by utilizing growth factors by source category available from
an EPA-sponsored study (Pechan, 1988). Mobile source emissions will be prepared
using scaling factors provided by the EPA Office of Mobile Sources specifically for
each scenario to be analyzed.
Several emissions inventories will be used for the limited performance evaluation of
the UAM and assessment of the effects of alternative fuel use and SIP control
strategies. The following list describes each of the emission scenarios:
CBM-II 1975 or 1976 case - the inventory used for the past UAM/CBM-II appli-
cations. This emissions scenario will be used to verify that the UAM inputs are
set up correctly on the Systems Applications' computer. This inventory is valid
for 1975 or 1976.
CBM-IV 1975 or 1976 case - a modified version of the CBM-II meteorological
case for CBM-IV species. This inventory will be used to verify that the
UAM/CBM-IV is operating properly and predicts ozone patterns comparable to
those predicted by the UAM/CBM-II. This inventory is valid for 1975 or 1976.
The creation of this inventory was described in the input preparation section
above.
1985 NAPAP - gridding of 1985 NAPAP inventory for CBM-IV species, as is, to
the modeling domain.
1995 base case - this inventory is based on the 1985 NAPAP county inventory.
Stationary source emissions are projected to 1995 using growth factors from
EPA (Pechan, 1988). Mobile source emissions will be based on values provided
by OMS. The emission scenarios will correspond to different assumptions in the
mobile source emissions.
1995 Emission Scenarios - these inventories will reflect changes in VOC, NO ,
and CO due to assumptions of future changes in mobile source emission rates
such as changes in Reid vapor pressure (RVP) and use of ethanol blended fuels.
For St. Louis, EPA/OPPE has defined 4 separate emission scenarios as follows:
88139rl 2 B-13
-------
Scenario #1 - 1995 base case with mobile emissions at current RVP values
(11.5 psi) with running losses
Scenario #2 - 1995 base case with mobile emissions at low RVP values
(9.0 psi) with running losses
Scenario #5 - 1995 base case with 50 percent ethanol penetration* and a
10 percent ethanol blend at low RVP (9.0 psi) plus 1 psi exemption with
running losses
Scenario #7 - 1995 base case with 100 percent penetration and enough
Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) to produce 2 percent oxygenated fuels
with running losses
SO? Inventory Development
In addition to the ethanol blended fuels inventories prepared to determine ozone sen-
sitivity information, an inventory reflecting SIP information for the St. Louis area
will be prepared based on the 1985 NAPAP inventory. This inventory will be
developed in consultation with representatives from the State of Missouri, the State
of Illinois, EPA Region VII, and EPA OAQPS.
Emission Scenario Simulations
On the basis of emission scenario options outlined in the previous section, a subset
will be chosen for UAM modeling. In addition to changes in the input emissions files,
the initial condition (AIRQUALITY) and boundary condition (BOUNDARY) files will
be changed to reflect general estimates of future year air quality. Estimates for
initial conditions will be changed (increased/decreased) to reflect changes in the
emission inventory for the St. Louis metropolitan area from 1975 to 1995 based on
projected growth and anticipated future emission controls. To calculate a future
year estimate, the urban background estimate will first be subtracted from the
actual meteorological base year concentration for 1975 or 1976. The resulting con-
centration will be changed in proportion to changes in emissions. The background
will then be added to this concentration to arrive at a future year estimate. Simi-
larly, on the basis of emission changes in the St. Louis area, the upwind inflow boun-
dary conditions will be changed to reflect forecasted changes in emissions between
* In this context, "penetration" is defined as the change from one type of fuel to
another. A 50 percent ethanol penetration scenario is one in which 50 percent
of fuel used in vehicles is converted from gasoline to an ethanol-blended fuel.
88139rl 2 - ,.
-------
1975 and 1995. Only one set of future year initial and boundary conditions will be
selected and used for all modeling pertaining to a given future year. We will not use
multiple sets that reflect specific differences in emissions between scenarios.
The results of the UAM simulations will be presented in the form of ozone difference
plots. These plots are created by subtracting the calculated ozone concentration of
the future year base case (for each grid cell, for each hour) from the concentration
obtained in the emission sensitivity simulations. This results in hourly isopleth maps
that show both the magnitude and spatial extent of differences in ozone concentra-
tions due to changes in emissions. Changes in calculated peak ozone will also be
summarized in tabular format.
SIP Emission Scenario UAM Simulation
After a SIP modeling inventory has been prepared and approved by all affected
participants, at least one future year SIP simulation will be undertaken. It is antici-
pated that the initial and boundary condition values may have to be changed to
reflect the forecasted changes in the inventory from 1985 to some future year.
Initial and boundary conditions will be changed in the same manner as described
above for the future year ethanol sensitivity simulations. The results of this SIP
simulation will be compared to results obtained with EKMA.
88139rl 2 B-15
-------
3 EKMA MODELING METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
A recent study used the simple photochemical modeling approach known as EKMA
(Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach) to investigate the possible impacts on urban
ozone formation from the use of ethanol-blended gasoline fuels (Whitten, 1988). The
study addressed the comparative reactivities of the relevant ozone precursor emis-
sions affected by the use of ethanol blends. Atmospheric conditions were varied to
represent those found in seven cities. The key finding of the study was a near
balance between ozone increases from enhanced evaporative emissions of VOC and
ozone decreases from reduced exhaust emissions of CO. This was the first study to
consider mitigation of ozone VOC precursors through CO reductions. When the
chemistry of the individual evaporative emissions species was explicitly treated in
the model, the results always showed a net reduction in ozone associated with the
use of ethanol blends. However, the U.S. EPA recommends simplified treatment of
reactivity in the EKMA, whereby the reactivity of all VOC emissions species is
treated as being equal to the reactivity of overall average VOC. While this simpli-
fied treatment overestimates the reactivity of the increased evaporative emissions,
the EKMA modeling results indicated small net reductions in ozone formation from
the use of ethanol blends in some cases, and in others the simplified reactivity
assumption showed a small net increase in ozone. Although the existing EKMA
model can explicitly treat the chemistry of evaporative automotive emissions, the
simplified treatment of reactivity is more consistent with the overall simplified
philosophy embodied in regulatory applications of EKMA.
The negative or positive direction of the small ozone impacts derived from the
simplified treatment of VOC reactivity and the size of the ozone reductions derived
from the explicit chemical treatment of the affected emissions appear to depend on
the mobile-related fraction of total VOC and the ratio of CO emissions to VOC emis-
sions. Areas with low mobile-related VOC fractions and high CO-to-VOC ratios are
expected to show the largest net ozone reductions if ethanol fuels are used because,
under these conditions, the overall ambient increases in VOC will be smaller, and the
decreases in ambient CO concentrations will be larger. However, it is important to
increase the confidence in the preliminary EKMA analyses thus far carried out.
Further UAM and EKMA evaluations are thus warranted, and will be carried out as a
part of this study.
B-17
-------
The study by Whitten (1988) used EKMA episodes previously set up for 1982 SIP cal-
culations plus CO estimates based on the CO-to-VOC ratios in the NEDS data base.
Also, RVP changes and volatility increases due to ethanol blends were estimated
from a 1987 RVP impact study by the EPA. Since the release of the Whitten study,
new emissions guidelines for alternate fuels have been released by the EPA (29 Janu-
ary 1988). Therefore, new EKMA simulations, which use the new EPA guidelines for
alternate fuels, and are appropriate to 1995 projections in St. Louis, are needed.
COMPARISON OF EKMA AND UAM
Some factors regarding changes in mobile-related emissions cannot be addressed with
the EKMA. These factors can be treated by UAM. For example, the diurnal timing
and location of evaporative emissions are not always equal to those of exhaust emis-
sions. The UAM is capable of treating cold-start, hot-soak, highway-cruising and
congested-traffic emissions separately depending on local data for hourly tempera-
tures, spatially resolved traffic counts, average speeds, and vehicle miles traveled.
Alternatively, EKMA uses constant grams per mile emissions based on data from
standard federal trip and mileage test procedures (FTP) and estimates of local auto-
mobile populations.
The principal differences between EKMA and UAM stem from the trajectory nature
of EKMA versus the grid nature of UAM. EKMA treats the atmospheric chemistry of
a single parcel of air as representative of one reaching an observed ozone maxi-
mum. The model simulation begins at 0800 hours with an initial loading of precur-
sors, and more emissions are added each hour on the basis of county-wide emission
averages. The UAM treats gridded points throughout the urban region (resolved both
horizontally and vertically) for a day or more preceding an ozone episode. Precur-
sors are emitted and move about within the gridded model region according to the
physical equations governing wind flow, dispersion, and surface deposition. The
secondary pollutants (such as ozone) are formed in both models on the basis of atmo-
spheric chemistry. Hence EKMA provides information at one point in time and space
on the basis of a few hours' highly averaged information, whereas UAM provides
information at all points in time and space on the basis of a day or more of highly
resolved information.
It is possible that the UAM will provide results that are significantly different from
those of the EKMA-based study because of UAM's ability to treat spatially varying
emissions. However, this discussion illustrates the vast differences in complexity
and sophistication between the EKMA and UAM models and the potential for some-
what different results.
PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
The purpose of using EKMA to simulate the same scenarios as those simulated by
UAM is threefold. The first is to use the UAM to support or refute the EKMA
88139rl 2 B-18
-------
results obtained in the previous study on the effects of ethanol fuel use on urban
ozone concentrations in seven U.S. cities (Whitten, 1988).
The second purpose of the EKMA simulations is to estimate the uncertainties invol-
ved in using a trajectory model like EKMA to examine the effects of different emis-
sion scenarios such as alternative fuel use. Even though the changes in the observed
maximum ozone may be in agreement for both models, the different reactivities,
source configurations, and three-dimensional structure of the UAM may result in the
UAM predicting new hot spots of high ozone concentrations occurring outside of the
EKMA trajectory.
The third purpose of the EKMA simulations is to study the effects of reactivity of
VOC emissions on ozone formation. EKMA's use of the default and actual reactivity
of the emission scenarios will provide insight into the uncertainties produced by
these assumptions.
EKMA MODELING METHODOLOGY
Two sets of EKMA calculations will be made for each UAM scenario. The first will
be performed in strict accordance with EPA guidelines for using EKMA for post-1987
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) (Hogo and Gery, 1988). The UAM modeling period
will be viewed as a "design day" in setting up the OZIPM simulation. However, in
keeping with EKMA guidance, none of the UAM inputs will be used for creating the
EKMA inputs. County total emissions of NOX, VOC, CO, and other species (correc-
ted for season and MOBILE 3.9) will be used for each emissions scenario. The VOC
emissions will be speciated using the default EKMA reactivity. For the ethanol-
blended fuel cases, these emissions will have higher total VOC and lower CO emis-
sions and will not account for the lower reactivity of ethanol-blended fuels.
The second set of EKMA simulations will be performed in the same manner as the
first set, but the county VOC emissions will be speciated according to the source-
specific speciation profiles for the emission scenario in question. Thus for the etha-
nol fuel cases, there will be a higher VOC emissions rate, but these simulations will
take into account the lower reactivity of emissions from ethanol-blended fuels.
SIP Emission Scenario EKMA Simulation
In addition to the ethanol fuel sensitivity simulation using EKMA, a SIP simulation
will also be performed. Emission inventory information derived from the UAM grid-
ded SIP inventory will be used to supply information for the application of EKMA.
The results of this analysis will be compared to the information derived from the
UAM SIP simulation for St. Louis.
88139rl 2 B-19
-------
References
Benkley, C. W., and L. L. Schulman. 1979. Estimating hourly mixing depths from
historical meteorological data. 3. Appl. Meteorol., 18:772.
Burton, C. S. 1988. Comments on "Ozone Air Quality Models." Submitted to 3. Air
Pollut. Control Assoc.
Cole, H. S., D. E. Layland, G. K. Moss, and C. F. Newberry. 1983. "The St. Louis
Ozone Modeling Project." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle Park, North Carolina (EPA-450/4-83-019).
Douglas, S., and R. Kessler. 1988. "User's Guide to the Diagnostic Wind Model.
Version 1.0." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Emison, G. A. 1988. Memo to William G. Laxton, EPA-OAQPS, May 1988.
Gery, M. W., G. Z. Whitten, and J. P. Killus. 1988. "Development and Testing of the
CBM-IV for Urban and Regional Modeling." Systems Applications, Inc., San
Rafael, California (SYSAPP-88/002).
Hogo, H., and M. W. Gery. 1988. "Guidelines for Using OZIPM-f with CBM-IV or
Optional Mechanisms, Volume 1: Description of the Ozone Isopleth Plotting
Package, Version 4." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California
(SYSAPP-88/001).
Morris, R. E., R. C. Kessler, S. G. Douglas, and K. R. Styles. 1987. "Rocky Mountain
Acid Deposition Model Assessment: Evaluation of Mesoscale Models for Use in
Complex Terrain." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-600/3-87-013;
NTIS PB87-180584-AS).
Pechan, E. H., and Associates. 1988. "National Assessment of VOC, CO, and NOX
Emissions and Costs for Attainment of the Ozone and CO Standards."
Rao, S. T. 1987. "Application of the Urban Airshed Model to the New York Metro-
politan Area." Bureau of Air Research, Division of Air Resources, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York (CA No.
CX811945-01 -0; EPA-450/4-87-011).
-------
Seinfeld, J. H. 1988. Ozone air quality models. A critical review. 3. Air Pollut.
Control Assoc., 38(5):616.
Sheih, B. F., N. L. Wesely, and C. J. Walcek. 1986. "The Dry Deposition Module
for Regional Acid Deposition Models." Argonne National Laboratories
(DW89930060-01).
Whitten, G. Z. 1988. "Evaluation of the Impact of Ethanol/Gasoline Blends on Urban
Ozone Formation." Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, California (SYSAPP-
88/029.
a OT
88139rl "t
-------
Appendix C
EPISODE SELECTION FOR ST. LOUIS UAM MODELING
88151
-------
Appendix C
EPISODE SELECTION FOR ST. LOUIS UAM MODELING
INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides a summary of the procedures that were used to select an
ozone episode for the CBM-IV UAM modeling of St. Louis for the EPA Five Cities
modeling project. Time constraints did not permit identification of new ozone epi-
sodes or development of additional modeling data bases for this project. Instead, an
ozone episode day was chosen from a set of four episode days that were developed as
part of the original St. Louis Ozone Modeling Project (EPA, 1983). The modeling
data bases for these days were obtained from EPA. The raw data from which the
inputs were created were not available for review. The modeling days include the
following:
Thursday, 22 May 1975
Saturday, 26 July 1975
Tuesday, 13 July 1976
Friday, 1 October 1976
The episode selection was based on the UAM input files and information that could
be derived from the following reports:
1. Regional Air Monitoring System Flow and Procedures Manual (Rockwell,
1977).
2. Final Evaluation of Urban-Scale Photochemical Air Quality Simulation
Models (ESRL, 1982).
3. The St. Louis Ozone Modeling Project (EPA, 1983).
4. The Surface Ozone Record for the Regional Air Pollution Study, 1975-
1976 (Atmospheric Environment, 1982).
88151 14 C-l
-------
SELECTION METHODOLOGY
The episode-selection process in which candidate days are chosen for UAM modeling
usually involves an intense review of all available meteorological and air quality
data. Air quality data are examined to determine days with high and widespread
ozone concentrations. Meteorological data are examined to determine the specific
factors causing the high observed ozone (e.g., temperatures, winds, sky cover).
Urban areas located in complex geographical locations may observe high ozone con-
centrations resulting from different meteorological mechanisms. For these loca-
tions, a number of episodes should be chosen to include all of the meteorological
regimes that cause high ozone in the urban area. In this study, we were constrained
to choosing only one modeling day, and only a limited amount of data were
examined. Data bases containing hourly ozone concentrations were not available for
review during the selection process. Some ozone data were plotted for selected sta-
tions in various reports; however, only peak ozone concentrations for these days are
known. Table C-l presents a summary of the meteorological and air quality
parameters for the episode days.
TABLE C-1. Summary of meteorological and air quality parameters
observed for selected days in St. Louis.
Date
5/22/75
7/26/75
7/13/76
10/1/76
WS
(m/s)
1.1
1.0
2.3
0.6
WD
(deg)
224 '
139
1H5
222
Temp
(ฐC)
29
26
28
22
Solar
(ly/min)
1.12
0.98
1.02
0.78
Max MH
(m)
1504
1477
1853
527
Max Oo
(pphm)
19.5
18.5
22.3
24.6
The modeling episode was selected on the basis of the following criteria:
High and widespread ozone concentrations
Minimal effects of boundary conditions
Organized transport conditions
No atypical meteorological conditions
Because the 1 October 1976 day was an atypical ozone event that occurred outside
the normal ozone season and was characterized by unusually low mixing heights, cool
temperatures, and stagnation conditions, it was not considered further in the
selection process. Although it is an interesting event, it is not reflective of a normal
summertime ozone event in St. Louis.
88151
C-2
-------
Data from the remaining days were examined further to determine differences in the
flow fields and effects of boundary and initial conditions on modeled concentra-
tions. The wind files for each of the modeling days were used to track air parcels
released at various times and locations to determine (1) the timing of the "flushing"
of initial conditions from the modeling domain, (2) the general area of origin of
material affecting peak observed ozone concentrations, and (3) the influence of
boundary conditions on calculated ozone concentrations.
Three sets of surface air parcel trajectories were performed for each of the three
modeling days. These trajectories include the following:
1. Forward trajectories starting at 0500 LST in the center of, and surround-
ing, the city of St. Louis. These trajectories were tracked until the end
of the day or until they moved out of the modeling domain. They were
released to determine the fate of the initial condition field in the center
of the city.
2. A backward trajectory from the site and time of the observed ozone
maximum. This trajectory was run to determine the general origin of the
parcel affecting the monitor showing peak observed ozone concentra-
tions.
3. Forward trajectories from the edges of the inflow boundaries starting at
0500 LST, with additional releases every two hours until 1900 LST. These
trajectories were released to determine the extent and influence of the
boundary conditions on the calculated ozone concentrations. The inflow
boundaries were determined after examination of the plotted surface
wind fields.
Figures C-l, C-2, and C-3 present these three types of trajectories, respectively, for
22 May 1975, 26 July 1975, and 13 July 1976.
Thursday, 22 May 1975
The relatively slow southwesterly flow on this day has transported the 0500 LST
initial condition field north and east, and only the northern portions of the initial
conditions have been transported out of the region by the time of the peak observed
ozone (1500 LST). The peak observed ozone was measured at RAPS station 101,
located in downtown St. Louis along the Mississippi River. The back trajectory shows
the general origin of the parcel to be south of the city. Boundary conditions from
the southern and western boundaries are not transported near the location of the
peak observed ozone concentration.
C-3
88151 li*
-------
Saturday, 26 July 1975
Because of the light southeasterly winds, the 0500 LSI initial condition field for this
day is transported northwestward and not flushed from the modeling region by the
time of the observed peak (1500 LSI). The peak observed ozone was measured at
RAPS station 113, located just north of downtown St. Louis. The backward trajec-
tory shows the origin of the parcel to be located near the southern edge of the St.
Louis metropolitan area at 0500 LST. Inflow boundary conditions from the east and
south do not influence the area of the observed peak ozone.
Tuesday, 13 July 1976
The relatively strong southerly flow on this day has transported a large portion of the
0500 LST initial condition field to the north and west, out of the modeling domain by
the time of the observed peak ozone (1600 LST). Peak ozone was observed at RAPS
station 114, located north of downtown St. Louis. The back trajectory shows that the
parcel arriving at this station at the time of the peak originated just north of Belle-
ville, Illinois. Because of higher wind speeds (compared to the other two days) for
this day, the boundary conditions influence a larger portion of the modeling domain
by the time of the peak; however, the area of the peak is free from the influence of
boundary conditions.
Given the selection criteria and the results of the trajectory analysis, it appears that
any of these three episodes would be suitable for (JAM modeling. The 13 July 1976
day is attractive because it (1) has the largest observed ozone of the three days, (2)
has well-organized transport conditions, and (3) is relatively free of the effects of
initial conditions. However, the 13 July 1976 day also is the most influenced by
boundary conditions of the three candidate days, although the boundary conditions do
not appear to influence the region of maximum ozone concentrations. Stagnant
meteorological conditions are prevalent on both 22 May and 26 July 1975. Initial
conditions for both of the 1975 days may affect concentrations in the region of the
maximum ozone concentrations. The 26 July day is a Saturday, when atypical
emission characteristics exist. The 22 May day occurs fairly early in the ozone
season; however, it appears to have meteorological conditions fairly typical of an
ozone episode. Since the 13 July 1976 day contains the highest observed ozone of the
candidate days, has well-organized transport conditions, and is minimally affected by
initial and boundary conditions, it was chosen as the episode day for the PLANR use
of the UAM (CB-IV) for St. Louis.
88151 11
C-4
-------
FIGURE 1
AIR PARCEL TRAJECTORIES FOR
ST. LOUIS FOR THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1975
88 15 1 1>*
-------
NORTH
706
20
10
J I
756
10
SOUTH
j I
1;>00
4286
4236
Initialized on
0 500 ON 5/22/75
(f) 500 ON 5/22/75
(5) 500 ON 5/22/75
0 500 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 500 ON 5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Far-ward Trajectories
C-6
-------
NORTH
106 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
<ฃฃ
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(
I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1
_
-
-
- -
-
-
>-
200
~
-
-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
SOUTH
Initialized on
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
,ฃ236
l&OO ON 5/22/7S Backward Trajectories
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
C-7
-------
NORTH
706
20
756
10
2400
4286
X2400
0
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized
7) 500 ON
f) 500 ON
g) 500 ON
0 500 ON
gl 500 ON
rS\ OK
on
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-8
-------
NORTH
706
756
20
10
2400
4286
2400
1800
0
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized on
0 700 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 700 ON 5/22/75
(5) 700 ON 5/22/75
0 700 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 700 ON 5/22/75
fa TOO OH 5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Fonrard Trajectories
C-9
-------
NORTH
706
20
756
10
2400
4836
laoo
1200
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized on
7)
D
[5)
5)
ง)
^
900
900
900
900
900
ooo
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
CM
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-10
-------
NORTH
706
756
20
10
0.
2400
4286
2400
X2400
2400
1SOO
1800
iaoo
0
10
4236
SOUTH
Unitialized on
0 1100 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 1100 ON 5/22/75
(|) 1100 ON 5/22/75
0 1100 ON 5/22/75
(5) 1100 ON 5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-ll
-------
NORTH
706
756
20
10
2400
1800
4286
2400
<2400
2400
1800
1800
1800
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized
0
(ง)
(D
0
(D
rtfN
1300
1SOO
1300
1300
1300
1OOO
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
on
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-12
-------
NORTH
706
20
10
2400
1800
2400
1800
756
2400
1800
10
4286
2400 -
1800
4236
SOUTH
Initialized on
0 1500 ON 5/22/75
(2) 1500 ON 5/22/75
(5) 1500 ON 5/22/75
0 15OO ON 5/22/75
(5) 1500 ON 5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-13
-------
706
20
10
X2400
2400
1800
1800
I I
CD 2400
y
NORTH
2400
1800
756
10
SOUTH
4286
2400
1800
Initialized on
0 1700 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 1700 ON 5/22/75
(f) 1700 ON 5/22/75
0 1700 ON 5/22/75
(5) 1700 ON 5/22/75
/*\ 17OO ON
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Fox-ward Trajectories
014
-------
NORTH
706
756
20
13
10
4286
(D2400
X2400
2400
j i I I i
i t i
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized on
0 1900 ON 5/22/75
(2) 1900 ON 5/22/75
(5) 1900 ON 5/22/75
0 1900 ON 5/22/75
0 1900 ON 5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-15
-------
706
20
10
X2400
[D2400
2400
2400
NORTH
756
2400
I I
10
SOUTH
4286
2400
1 I I
4236
Initialized on
0 2100 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 2100 ON 5/22/75
(3) 2100 ON 5/22/75
0 2100 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 2100 ON 5/22/75
^ ftlOO OK 5/22/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-16
-------
NORTH
706
20
756
10
o
4286
2400
. E2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized on
0 2300 ON 5/22/75
(f) 2300 ON 5/22/75
(3) 2300 ON 5/22/75
0 2300 ON 5/22/75
(ง) 2300 ON 5/22/75
fii\ aaoo ON 5/22/7S
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-17
-------
FIGURE 2
AIR PARCEL TRAJECTORIES FOR
ST. LOUIS FOR SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1975
C-19
88151 It
-------
706
20
10
NORTH
756
800
4 2400
2400
I I
I I I I I I
'600
10
SOUTH
4286
i i i
4236
Initialized on
0 500 ON 7/26/75
(2) 500 ON 7/26/75
(3) 500 ON 7/26/75
0 500 ON 7/26/75
(ง) 500 ON 7/26/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-20
-------
NORTH
106 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
ซฃฃ
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
w^
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
(
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I
- -
-
-
-
~
Q ~
V
(D 1200
IS) 600
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
_
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
7*236
Initialized on
) 1500 ON 7/26/76
SOUTH
Backward Trajectories
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
C-21
-------
NORTH
106 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
- 4321
I i I I I I I I I I I I
1200 W600
I I I I I I I I
III
23456
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
Initialized on
Q 500 ON 7/26/75
(ง) soo ON 7/26/75
(ง) 500 ON 7/26/75
0 500 ON 7/26/75
(S) 500 ON 7/26/75
ฎ 500 ON 7/26/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Fonrard Trajectories
022
-------
NORTH
?06 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I I I I I I
I I I i
22400
i i
1800
1200
X2400
42400
120(3
I I I I
01234
Initialized on
0 700 ON 7/26/75
(5) 700 ON 7/26/75
0 700 ON 7/26/75
0 700 ON 7/26/75
0 700 ON 7/26/75
0 700 ON 7/26/75
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
For-wrard Trajectories
C-23
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281!
I
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
7*236
-------
ฃ
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
NORTH
O6 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
II!)
T
I I I I
2400
T
_ 0)2400
X2400
1800
120C
I I I I I I
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281!
4
(
4276
oo
4271
4266
4261
4256
4246
4241
01234
Initialized on
0 900 ON 7/26/75
(2) 900 ON 7/26/75
(3) 900 ON 7/26/75
0 900 ON 7/26/75
0 900 ON 7/26/75
0 900 ON 7/26/75
1 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-24
236
-------
NORTH
tt>6 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1 1 I I
X24OO
ฉ2400
X2400
2400
1800
01234
Initialized on
0 1100 ON 7/26/75
(ง) 1100 ON 7/26/75
(3) 1100 ON 7/26/75
0 1100 ON 7/26/75
(S) 1100 ON 7/26/75
(D 1100 ON 7/26/75
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-25
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
1200
4286
4281!
i
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
7*236
-------
NORTH
toe 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
e
5
4
3
2
1
I I
I I II
(
- 4321
-------
NORTH
206 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
<ฃฃ
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
- -
-
- -
~
; <*-
- -
ฉ -
ฉ 2400
"
\ 0 "
TS1800
Q ฎ ฎ
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
^236
Initialized on
0 1SOO ON 7/26/75
(|) 1500 ON 7/26/75
(5) 1500 ON 7/26/75
0 1500 ON 7/26/75
(5) 1500 ON 7/26/75
(S) 1500 ON 7/26/75
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
For-ward Trajectories
C-27
-------
NORTH
711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
<& 2400 x 2400 A 2400 __
\> V \
\ \ \
V V ฉ V^ฎ
^wtsoo ^^-Tisoo ^-ifiaoo
i i i t w i i i i i i i i i i i i
3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
SOUTH
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
.4241
^236
Initialized on
0 1700 ON 7/26/75
(ง) 1700 ON 7/26/7S
(5) 1700 ON 7/26/75
0 1700 ON 7/26/75
(6) 1700 ON 7/26/75
(5) 1700 ON 7/26/75
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-28
-------
NORTH
711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
ฃฃ
21
20
19
16
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
ฐ<
I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I
_
~
X 2400
-
y
012400
-
v
\D -
-------
FIGURE 3
AIR PARCEL TRAJECTORIES FOR
ST. LOUIS FOR TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976
C-31
88151 11
-------
NORTH
706
756
20
10
4286
0
10
4236
SOUTH
Initialized on
0 500 ON 7/13/76
(S) 500 ON 7/13/76
(5) 500 ON 7/13/76
0 500 ON 7/13/76
(S) 500 ON 7/13/76
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-32
-------
NORTH
106 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
iSS
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
-
~
-
- -
X~
-
-
_
600
- -
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
SOUTH
Initialized on
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
^236
1600 ON 7/13/76 Backward Trajectories
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
C-33
-------
NORTH
206 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
i i i i i i i i i i i
I I i ~ i I I I I I ~ i i I i i ~ i I
0
2345
Initialized on
0 500 ON 7/13/76
(f) 500 ON 7/13/76
(5) 500 ON 7/13/76
0 SOO ON 7/13/76
(6) 500 ON 7/13/76
(?) 500 ON 7/13/76
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-34
-------
NORTH
106 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
- Q 1200
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281!
i
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
01234
Initialized on
0 700 ON 7/13/76
(ง) 700 ON 7/13/76
(3) 700 ON 7/13/76
0 700 ON 7/13/76
(5) 700 ON 7/13/76
(ซ) 700 ON 7/13/76
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Fonrard Trajectories
C-35
#23
6
-------
NORTH
ฃ06 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
13
21-
20-
19-
18-
17-
16-
15-
14-
13-
12-
11-
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
I I II I I I \ I I I I r
2400
1800
1200
2400
1800
1200
1200
I I
I I I I I
1 1 I I v I I
Initialized on
0 9OO ON 7/13/76
(ง) 900 ON 7/13/76
(3) 900 ON 7/13/76
0 900 ON 7/13/76
(ง) 900 ON 7/13/76
(?) 900 ON 7/13/76
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSE
Forward Trajectories
C-36
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281!
i
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
7*236
-------
NORTH
106 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I 1 I I I I I I I T I I I
I I
2400
2400
1800
180C
1200 J
I I II I I I I
1200
18)'
L20C
180
I I
4321
4316
4286
4281!
}4266
4261
4246
4241
01234
Initialized on
0 1100 ON 7/13/76
(f) 1100 ON 7/13/76
(5) 1100 ON 7/13/76
0 1100 ON 7/13/76
(6) 1100 ON 7/13/76
(e) 1100 ON 7/13/76
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Fonrard. Trajectories
C-37
7*236
-------
NORTH
ฃ06 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
i
r
ii I i IT IIIFI
640 >
2400
2400
1600
I I I I I
I I I II I
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4286
4281!
Initialized on
0 1300 ON 7/13/76
(|) 1300 ON 7/13/76
0 1300 ON 7/13/76
0 1300 ON 7/13/76
0 1300 ON 7/13/76
0 1300 ON 7/13/76
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-38
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
236
-------
NORTH
t06 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
16
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
T
T
T I I 1 I I I I I I
2400
2400
I I I I
1800
I I
I I
4321
4316
4311
4306
4301
4296
4291
4266
428 li
BOO |
4276
yd1271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
Initialized on
0 1500 ON 7/13/76
(ง) 1500 ON 7/13/76
(5) 1500 ON 7/13/76
0 1500 ON 7/13/76
(6) 1500 ON 7/13/76
(S) 1500 ON 7/13/76
5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-39
V
236
-------
NORTH
lOe 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
21
20
19
13
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 I 1 1 1 1
1
I 1 I I I I
i i i
3400
18C
u
i 1 1 1
1800
I 1 1 1 II
4321
4316
4306
4301
4296
4291
0
4286
42811
i
4276
.00
4271
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SOUTH
1236
Initialized on
0 1700 ON 7/13/76
ฎ 1700 ON 7/13/76
(5) 1700 ON 7/13/76
0 1700 ON 7/13/76
(6) 1700 ON 7/13/76
(5) 1700 ON 7/13/76
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-40
-------
NORTH
&
21
20
19
ia
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
ฐ<
)6 711 716 721 726 731 736 741 746 751 756 761 766 771
I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1
- -
- r
/ -
_ ซ
1 F2'
- 1
i
I "
1 -
-
J) 2400 X 2400 * 2AOQ
' / I li-
'- -
1 1 1
(y ฉ ฉ
1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 ls^l 1
) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
4321
4316
4311
44806
4301
4296
00
4291
4286
4281
4276
4271
4266
4261
4256
4251
4246
4241
7*236
Initialized on
0 1900 ON 7/13/76
(D 1900 ON 7/13/76
(3) 1SOO ON 7/13/76
0 1900 ON 7/13/76
(?) 1900 ON 7/13/76
(5) 1900 ON 7/13/76
SOUTH
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OZONE ANALYSIS
Forward Trajectories
C-41
-------
Appendix D
ISOPLETHS OF HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (PPHM)
AND HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATION DIFFERENCES (PPB)
BETWEEN SCENARIOS FOR THE NEW YORK APPLICATION OF
THE UAM ON THE AFTERNOON OF 8 AUGUST 1980
FIGURE D-h Scenario 1
FIGURE D-2: Scenario 2
FIGURE D-3: Differences between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
FIGURE D-4: Scenario 3
FIGURE D-3: Differences between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3
FIGURE D-6: Scenario 4
FIGURE D-7: Differences between Scenario 4 and Scenario 1
88151 Ap
-------
00
9
2
888S
8
8
I ?
a
s:ง
5 2
o
o
O
o
K)
a>
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I t i | I I i | I I I |
o
cs
ง
~ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i jj! r
\ i
1S3M
o
GO
cn
<ป
^
in
II
I 5
>ฐl
If
X =
o .ฃ
i
-------
XiTJ
-t 1 I I I ! I f I I I I I i I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I i 1 i I I I I I f
t i i I t i i i i i i i t 1 i ฃ i* i F11 i i i
*
10
o
ฃ
R
?
o
CM
IV
I
O
s
o
s
o
ป
o
CM
'P'i- t'>->'^
1S3M
cc
CD
-------
4.3 TJ
i I I I I I j I I I I i I I | I i I ) I I t I I I I | I 1 ! | I I I | I I
ism
ISV3
11 I 11 t {i i 11 i 11 I 11 i 11 t 11 11 i 11 i i | i
1S3M
.2
M
g
g
H
s
8
u
.-I
i
S
oo
CO
D-2
-------
i I i i i g i i i j i ! i 1 i i i f i i i I f i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^
1S3M
1SV3
o
o> ซ
f q
*~ -^
II
o
-------
1S3M
1SV3
I I [ I 1 I j t I I I I I t 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I M t Q
1S3M
CO
CO
D-4
-------
13TJ
?O Q O O O O O
CM O 03
-------
o
*~ 9
^ i
ii H
| J
> >
| ฃ
i 1
o ^
2 5
z
f
O
O
1
o
2
o>
P
<
d
0
ซ *
\ vi
-
'ซ \
*> *
', \
\ 1
-
_
-
-
_
~
~
~ ! 1 1 1 f t 1 1 1 i 1 1 I I i 1 1 ! 1 t ! i i
0 0
CM ซ-
<
ซ
-
_
-
-
"
_
**
-
M*
"
-
_
..
'*'
-
|
c
i
u
r
%
s
o
3
: ^
in
1S3M
o
00
2
<
00
h
CN
-2
o
fv. (N
O 1
11 n
ง 0)
3 "o
^
ii
t F
.^ L.
o .5
2 s
I
^~
1
L
O
0
2
1
8
(N
u>
E
\=
a
CM
in
d
d
^
O
O
+
^
o
CM
o
o
o
s
o
ID
o
*
o
CM
(D
O
0}
in
o
in
1
o
CM
~ ! 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 i 1 1 I I 1 f 1 ! 1 t ! i i i
O O C
CM ซ-
1S3M
1SV3
?ogoooogoe
CMOO>UJ
" / / \ \ HO
r ( ' ,. '-A 4 < vO
* * \ "*"
_ c>. j i
: ^b. ''--'"' ' , 3
!T ^ N \ -.
- "i v\ ' \ *"
"* Vs ^ V>
* Vx^*' ' i
r \\ 5
i ' ~
\s fi ~"
^
wป ^
M. -*
- -
^ '
*
~r t t i 1 t i i t i t iii$ t i i t t i i r ซ"
o O
3 -H
U
C
8
CO
G
3 $
h ' fi
*" ซ
o -2
8
ง
^
CD
IH
M-l
H
T)
C
o
r-% T-l
8 -D
(0
s
f S
D g
8 ง
i
0 N
0
^
i
tyj
P
H
0 fa
CO
oo
D-6
-------
O
1 ฐ
IE
2 3
J E
s:s
S 2
I
z
ง
1
8
U")
^~
Q>
F
<
<
1
S
O
CM
O
0
o
s
o
?CMOงง*CMOซJ<
3ป op
^ (si
" I
" II
J!
x =
1 1
S $ R 8 S S
O Q
CM O
o
"
"
3.
-
H
"*'.
""ri it 1 i -*l'i r i t t i iปi i* i i t \ i
1 M^
ป*
-
^.
ซ
-
**
I
~*
*
--
**
-r
-
ซ
*
i i
ง
m
1S3M .
o
oo
4J
CO
00
(N
.2
o
w
'H
(0
.3
8
en
Jl
8
s
0)
H
T3
ง
H
4J
(0
iJ
8
1
m
i
fr.
CO
03
D-7
-------
10 *
tO _j
ซ~ 1
11 II
Is
> ฃ
II
o c
2 5
f
ง
i
O
o
00
1
8
ix
*~
p
o
8
ฃ
3
_?
O
00
-------
CT>
^ m
in o
ง
-------
4.C3TJ
JLS3AA
*
o
oo
1SV3
1S3M
CO
CO
D-tn
-------
-LiVJ
1S3M
1SV3
8 8 ง
1S3M
O
00
un
TI
oo
D-ll
-------
3?
I 5
>I
If
X =
o .E
2 2
*
ซ +
* ซ
O
O
K)
-t I I I I 1 I I I t I 1 t I I I I I I I I t
o
N
1S3M
1SV3
+ ** + * + * + *
1, I
3 ป
-i -2 0
-P o +
^ ^^
23 CSI
1 .i
o .E o
22 0
fN
O
8
o
ll
0
-------
O
I
I s
If
X =
o .S
2 2
I
in
* ?
O
CM
O CO ป
0
in
in
CM
in
3 8
5 $
o
CO
I I
O
03
m
o
-------
o
I
It
z:s
2 2
O
o
00
o
o
(V
i
-------
o?
J!
x =
o .5
5 2
o
o
o
in
8
" S
p -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I 1 I i I I
-1 I I I I I < I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
ฃ
ง
S(NI
. X
I?
IE
X =
a .E
2 2
1S3M
1SVG
ง
ง g
ir>inir>in + -*-
********^-**
o
o
en
O
O
00
0)
1=
I | II I | I I I | I 1 I [ I I I I J I I ] I M J I II J I I t | t I
-------
X3TJ
K)
ซ> 10
in o
S88S8SS8
i j 11 i
" a . o _
~ i ( i i I i i l l l l l iiliฃtii"ttii
D
s
1S3M
iSVG
?o o o o o o o
(M o 00 ป * N O
?
-------
JLSTJ
I I I I I 1 I i I ! I i t i 1 1
1S3M
o
00
-------
J.STJ
8 ง S 3
ซซซซ
I I I I I t I I I i i ! I I I I I I I I ! 1 1 I t I I I I j I I I I I I I
tii iiii i i i t i i 1 t S i t K11 i i i
1S3M
a
O
CO
o>
1SV3
i i i { i i i | i i t | t i i } i t t | i i i | i i i | i t i g i i t
i ป I i ป i i i: i :r i" i \ i S i* ป r i i
<
00
.3
I
-p
ง
8
8
Q)
O
O
VD
EM
1S3M
00
03
D-18
-------
J.3TJ
| E
JE3
s:ง
2 2
I
g
o
O
^
1
o
K)
^"
I
pt
Is*
o ฐ"
- i
it
" ll
imum Value
mum Value
X =
o .ฃ
2 2
I
|
O
o
rO
1
Q
O
r-
a>
P
S
<
1
O
*
fv
o
CM
ง
rv
o
g
o
M
^
-
-
-1 1 1
g 9
?^
^
-4 I 1 | I
r
ZL
^
nr
MH
^
I.
i**
-
ป
pปP*
1
I
*"*"
I
**v
***^"
MW
*ป
ooooooooc
cN<5ooi '
v> \ \ \
x- " ' \ *"
'\ N-*; ;
w>
ป i.
o -
CS)
\ I
*
^
^
ซ*
_
-
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 f 1 I I I I i t I 1 I
O 0 <
1S3M
iSVG
oggg^oooj
ซtT)mirt*'
t r 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 ) 1 1 i
O
^. ^
/x /""N.\ <;i$
/ ,-"xA\ pro
ฐ / ,-, \\\ ^0
1 O ; ]'' \ \V\ "
i O i \ '. ',_^
\ ' *~O ป \
Vv1's S\ ' 'i
'V1-'1- \\
i \
^s x i *
\j :
-P
-*
**
-*
^
f
^
a,
&
*****
0
00
o
0 ^
N +J
ง
Frt
j a
ง co
*.
T
O
0 -H
ง
U
CO
^"J
c
,_(
o ง
s ^
ง
w
c:
ซ
a 3
t S
^ J-J
O Q)
in u
M
(U
4-1
m
H
t3
ง
H
rt -P
CM "5
il
ง
5 B
ง ง
3J
C
8
o 0
m
r-
i
H
5
t5
M
b
IS3M
co
co
D-19
-------
J.SFJ
. ro
oo m
i -
" H
0> Q,
3 -*
| E
IE3
x =
o .5
2 2
I
|
Q
0
(O
1
o
o
m
0)
E
i-
O> r-
^ *
II
" II
3 ป
_r _2
| E
H
o ^
2 2
NORTH
Q
O
in
i
o
o
*
0>
E
<
i
O
s
o
o
tv
O
0
o
oo
ID
o
*> ^ \
m> O' \
^ C^ ^'
>^ ^
\ \ *
I.
^
ซ*hv
w
^
r
'
^^
IV>.
^
M*
ป
งe
(
} ;
^ '
It j 11^
-
~
ป
^
~
-
^
~
-
i i i
c
03 <
* '
i i | 1 I 1
~ "
*
-
"
^
-
*
*.
-
M
<*
"*
>
R
O
CO
S nH
vN
4J
JQ
S D^
3
s ^
CO
^
"O-
o O
- -H
fo
^
O
rj
CO
T3
ง
M
o O
-H
ง
C
5 jy
: ^
^
10 Q)
C
^
H
''O
c
o
8 3
(0
, i
5 y
8 ง
QJ
>?
2 g
f9
i
B
e
1S3M
oo
CO
D-20
-------
-LSTJ
00
0 ฃ
rg |
ป II
0) ai
3 -j
> >
| E
.!ง
S'J
2 2
f
O
O
o
00
^-
I
8
r^
^""
Q>
ฃ
(O
(N 00
ป II
_ D
-ฐ "5
-* >
c ^
| |
o .ฃ
2 2
ฃ
|
o
O
f-
1
8
5
<
o
inm>n<
-i t i i { i i i t i t i t t i i t i i i \ t i i i i i i i i i t t i i i i
r u
" Z2
~ i "SiS
"" | C )
r ' ^
" . \
IT ' '
^^ *"
_
-
^
"
"
^
_ซ,
r
~ ! 1 1 1 i 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 ป I 1 i ป t 1 1 1 1 1
O O
CM >-
1S3M
1SV3
g?S8SS?S8S
????$$!5!5I5!$
-1 1 I | M I | t 1 1 | ! I f | I ! ! j f 1 1 J 1 I I | t 1 I J 1 M | I
" Vx^ f' r^^"
"B- "-' ^_^F
-------
00
Is; fsj
"~ |
11 II
8 a)
.3 3
> ฐ
1]
1 'i
I
8
2
0
o
0
(N
1
8
o>
^
E
P
(0
9 ^
C\l 1
11 II
cimum Value
imum Value
o .5
2 5
I
Z
o
o
1
o
o
00
E
P
<
ซ
>
o
in
Q
CO
m
o
^
o
CM
in
iouiiDu')*'<
-1 t 1 | 1 I I | 1 t t | 1 M | f 1 1 | 1 I 1 | t 1 I | 1 t 1 | 1 i 1 | ! 1 1
" # ^ ""
r 1 i
r (1)
1
i!
U-l
M-i
H
T3
C
O
8 3
(0
U
ฃ ง
o
^ 8
8
o
2 g
p.*.
i
ง
Q
E
>
1S3M
D-22
03
CO
-------
Appendix E
ISOPLETHS OF HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (PPHM)
AND HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATION DIFFERENCES (PPB)
BETWEEN SCENARIOS FOR THE ST. LOUIS APPLICATION OF THE
UAM ON THE AFTERNOON OF 13 JULY 1976
FIGURE E-l:
FIGURE E-2:
FIGURE E-3:
FIGURE E-4:
FIGURE E-5:
FIGURE E-6:
FIGURE E-7:
FIGURE E-8:
FIGURE E-9:
FIGURE E-10:
FIGURE E-l 1:
FIGURE E-12:
FIGURE E-13:
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Differences between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
Scenario 5
Scenario 6
Differences between Scenario 2 and Scenario 5
Differences between Scenario 2 and Scenario 6
Scenario 7
Differences between Scenario 1 and Scenario 8
SIP Scenario A
SIP Scenario B
Differences between Scenario 1 and SIP Scenario A
Differences between Scenario 1 and SIP Scenario B
88151 Ap
-------
to
1SV3
3 "
II
x =
D .E
2 2
o
o
!
I!
X =
o .E
I/)'
O
O
O
0>
p
i i f
ซ>
I
8
CO
I
-p
8
ง
(0
!~H
w
H
t I i t . i . . > . i i t t i
t i t > t t
1S3M
E-l
CO
00
-------
1SV3
IN
* CT1
CD
-------
1SV3
T r
l
IS
in-
o
o
o
33
O
O
<7I
I
t I
i I i i i i i i i t
1S3M
VD
r~
-------
< CM
IN CM
1SV3
ID
I
i i r
i T r
II
gc
2 5
o
o
ง
21
i
I i t i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i
o
CM
1S3M
rH
>i
rH
0>[
T
J ! I } I I 1 I I 1 i I t I I i t t I
CO
00
1SV3
ซ O
"
J 8
II
tn
o
o
o
o
o
CM
CN
.a
.1
-M
$
0)
B
8
ง
N
O
1S3M
CO
oo
E-4
-------
If)
N oa
<* oq
"" in
II
1SV3
u
o
o
ID
E
!=
I I I | I I I ) I I I | I I I
o
CM
I I I I I t I I I t I I I t 1
1S3M
cr>
r-\
>1
1SV3
ป S
< I i -r
(/I
O
o
o
in
o
o
IT [ 1
O
-------
a)
2
o
E
3
"x
o
10
O
O
O
03
O
O
i I I
o
CM
ii > i i
1S3M
CO
CD
E-6
-------
1SV3
0 ^
Moximum Value =
Minimum Value =
1 41
X
O
o
0
i *~
8
'V o^ ,.. ,, Q".-'----". :;;;;::-'' *
-
o o <
CM ซ-
1S3M
1SV3
<
W * CM *
| 1 1 I | i 1 1 ] 1 t 1 | 1 i i
- '" . _2 CK N -
..- --- -30- -. ';.
S ,-"""" ,_. \ *. N* v
ฐ '-"...-' / : v --4.0'_..-- ...> ; *
--' * ,',- \v
\\ \\i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
8 ^
01
rH
O rH
=> f>
O_|
CN
O
H
ง
CO
rH
ซ n
u(
ce between Scenaric
10
:entration differen
ฃ c
i 8
&
8
o
(0
n
i
H
>
1S3M
E-7
CD
CO
-------
1SV3
to
in csi
2?
H I,
-" * _
>l *
E E
II
s:?
2 2
CM
i
_0
1z
o
o
o
(O
8
in
Q)
J
0.
1
- .^ \
^~-' "-.. -' _
^
^
-
uป
1 i 1 I 1 1 I I 1 t I 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
o o c
1S3M
1SV3
0
* * * *
ป * CM *
I ( 1 t 1 [ i 1 t | I 1 | ] 1 I )
-.
^ ' N'-.
~
., " -x /'.x-'vPj/X /"'?/
f -*' ^ '"'' /e\/'*\*> ?**'''' \ '^ i
- j C'~\::^''3'i !'-:'^::
-------
1SV3
rO in
3;
" H
J s -
5 o ?
> >
1 ง
1 I
S 'E
2 2
ซ
CM
ฃ
sl
v )
o
o
o
\ \
* t'~ ' \ ', ** '
v--/;.ฐr""> / -'' /
wc* * ^ .---
^-C ---:::: ^
~
^
-
-
~
i i i i i i i i i i i t i t i i i t i i
o o <
CM *-
1S3M
1SV3
d
***
ป * CM *
| 1 1 I | I 1 1 j 1 1 t | 1 I t
-
\
'x,
o> "--.,
"x -----o-i-...
\
\ 'v
*-''' * ^
...-;.. -/.jflo ,N ,''".,\\ -
ฐ.(\ * ').' ',- : \
' - ' [-4 ซ - ' \ ' i' '
^ >--.-'' / /
" ",,-% N....--'0^-:;'' ...
" * ''
ป
-
ซ*
^
i i i t ป t t it i 1 i i i 11 ti t t
S 2 e
1S3M
e
l
"1
^**
VD
r~
CTi
i~H
>,
0 ,H
3
5 ^
3 ro
8 ^
CN
.2
&
8
m
w J
f3
rH
^^ ^
=ฐ -S
^
W
C
j J8
0)
a!
S
iw
^
g
H
4J
2
1
2 ง
ฃ 8
i ง
ซ
ง
8
O
<_>
ro
1
W
. _
g
R
0 S
5ฐ fa
i i
u~>
CO
00
E-9
-------
00
"> ro
r i CN
*" (O
11
f
o
o
to
E
-------
1SV3
03
"J -
Ji
s:?
2 2
CM
I
(ft
o
o
o
o
o
I I I I I
r\
I '
i r
O
CM
O
I
1S3M
5
3 oj
I | ^
ฃ E
I E
1/1 '
O
o
O
O
1SV3
-------
II
II
5 o>
M
II
SI
2 2
o
o
1C
j I
1SV3
I I
I l I
CM
W
7
t I i i r
I
ง
i i t t r i
j i
1S3M
I
s
2
CJ
o
o
o
ฃ>
O
c
OJ
u
I/!
C
C
r
-------
1SV3
T 10
rj CM
IS
S :E
2 2
JX
~>
o
c
0)
u
00
0
(D
C
o
r j
(0
in
pi
1S3M
E-13
H
En
00
00
-------
t CO
-f 5 _
ii
S.E
S 2
in-
o
o
o
to
o
o
ID
1SV3
I I I II
J I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O
CM
1S3M
r i
t
-t
1SV3
(0
(O
7
IE
.i E
SI
S 2
O
o
\fj
a
o
' I
' ^ I
r
I I T T
O
i i i i i
O
tsl
t i i i
I i i t
i i i i i
C
f-
CL.
OJ
g
^.
O
V
U
'Jl
C
0>
a;
c
o
W
1S3M
E-14
ao
CO
-------
1SV3
0
r-} *
II
S :?
2 2
o
o
00
>
i E
I I
x =
2 2
O
O
o
1 T
o
CM
I I i t i I i t I i I i I
1S3M
o
I/I
jx
3
_g
L_
C
0!
U
00
r
(U
r
0
o;
r
5
U
in
r-^
6
H
Cn
oo
03
E-15
-------
1SV3
2? S $ S . 7
11 ii
3 1>
-2 3
ฐ 0 *
> >
ii
s:i
2 S
^
W
ฃ
C/)
o
o
o
! *
| E
11
X =
o .E
2 2
^
CM
X
h V
(/^
o
o
o
rO
r-
, v"
1
O
o
rsj
0)
E
i
Ol
i I 1 t I | 1 i 1 | 1 1 t | I 1 1
ป
* ""
^^ "
-
_
-
***" '^
-
^
r+
M-
"*
kn
*
ป
i 1 i { i r f i i i 1 t i i t f i i i \ i
c
u
M
Q)
M-l
M-l
.,_)
T3
g
H
4J
(0
t!
O C
* d)
I i
S
o
N
O
(t)
vo
1
w
w
g
H
ซ*ป t-1
1 O O O
CM -
1S3M
CO
CO
E-16
-------
1SV3
to ^- ... ;:
So s $ a
ii
" H
* 0>
3 -.
| E
.i 1
x ?
o .ฑ
2 2
CM
J
CJ
O
o
<ฃ>
1 "-
8
ฃ
111
J
l~
o>
i I i i i I i i t | i i i I i i i
B
^
_ ^
_
..
_^
-
C "^)
^^.^ ^s ~
~
_
-
**
~
i 1 i i i i t i i t t 1 i i i i i i i i i
^N
a
^Q.
^D
p^.
CTi
rH
O iH
^ ro
*"
in
.2
S
8
CO
"S
(0
CN
ซ r>
1 O O O -H
CM ซ- J_]
1S3W g
-P
I-SV3 flj
eป *
ง2 s * a * T a)
ป H
ง
1 1
11
,_
X
in z
o
o
o
i *~
8
^
Q)
E
91
1
i 1 i i i 1 i i i 1 i t t 1 i i i
*pป ^ซi
.
-
-
O :
^
-.
A ""
^
^
! f J t I r t I i 1 I 1 I i I i i i i i I
P 0 <
g
-------
1SV3
00 .
ฃ* o . . Jฃ
6 0 ซ ? ซN ซ |
II n
S t
_ _r _
ll *
SI
2 2
_
X "
^
o
0
o
l *
ii
E c
"x =
2 2
N
J
ง
!/i 2
u
O
O
r-
i *"
g
^
V
E
i
i i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i t
" ~
-
-
~ '
^ *ซ^
i
r~~\
V * j>
^- -^ ป
pi*
_ -
-
' .~
_
ป
r 1 i i t i ii t i i ] i i i ii it i i
0 0 <
ง
o;
M-l
M-l
"d
c
o
^
nl
o c
O
ฃ c
8 8
in
C
M
O
0
1
w
H
P
o t.
1S3M
rt
JO
CO
co
E-18
-------
1SV3
I/) ^
ซ ^-
II H
^ V
3 _
>ฐl *
Jf
X =
o .5
2 2
_
CM
I
j_|
O
o
0
"
1
o
o
IK
J
Ol
1
(N
<0 -t
f\J
11 II
- QJ
H '
II
X =
o .5
2 2
CM
t*-
Qฃ
ฃZ
(J
0
Q
1-
1 *~
8
tN
^
V
E
Ol
i
ซ
W ? CM *
1 | 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 | I I 1
^" ^
I
,
^.
/---..- '0.5 --' '.-, /'
i " ---',''
'' " ป*"
*-, ^ *~~ *'
^
*
-
*
i 1 i I i t i i I t i 1 I t < i i I i i i
0 O <
CM ป-
1S3M
1SV3
<
VD
O
H
1
W
T3
3
CN
O /"s
3ฐ .3
1-1
I
1
g
VJ
^1
0)
4-1
H
C
.2
-p
(0
8 1
E 8
f- C
D 0
8 8
ง
N
O
(C
f"^
1
w
i
H
^* r*Tj
>
1S3M
CO
co
E-19
-------
1SV3
(O
0 0
to
d 7
:imum Value =
mum Value = -
41
5 E
2 2
CM
I
K
ฃ*
O
O
o
1
o r
(O
o T
11 H
S ป
M *
If
X =
o .E
3 2
^
CM
X.
J
o
o
o
in
^
i
o
o
*
111
E
~f
at
^
I
ซ
* ^ * *
1
5
\D
f^.
cn
H
s
3
i ^
o m
8 ^
vo
.2
C/}
"p
(3
CN
Q O
> .8
c
0
c
5
> ^J
1 8
^
rtl
vu
IM
CO
E-20
-------
1SV3
in *
2 o ป $ N * 7
II n
3 ปป
>ฐI *
][
s:i
2 2
N
E
*S
o
o
o
00
1 *~
r-
Q>
.E
*~
^
i | i i i | i t i [ i t i | i i i
~
ซ
_
^v ^M
1
*
~
-
-
~
t 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t t I 1 ] 1 1 i 1
.
3
&
i~
(Ti
0 i-H
f ^
D n
^ M
*
Vฃ!
-g
s
1
TJ
3
CN
-i n
10 O 0 -H
CM ซ- J,
1S3M |
CO
K>ฃ iSV3 -S
ฃ 0 S $ N * "?)
II n
ป>
13 ^
"o ^
"* > *
II
2 '1
r-
CM
|
o
o
o
r-
i *"
8
to
I
h-
O)
1
1 t 1 I 1 f 1 1 ! | 1 t 1 { 1 1 t
~
^ ^
:
-
_ '
* '-'
^
~
. -
_
**"
^
i ! i i i i i i i t t ) t t i i i i i i i
o o <
ง
M
-------
1SV3
in
9
t CN;
*~ '6
11
CM
(O
I
E
2 2
CM
.
1/1
o
o
o
*
' I '' 'I
I
o
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I
o
CM
1S3M
1SV3
CM
to
I
JI
CM
1
O
o
o
I I I I I I I I J T I I j
I I I
O
in
I r t i t i t t i- i f t t t i i t t tt
O
CM
ro
o
H
I
-P
(0
8
oo
H
1S3M
E-22
CD
CD
-------
r-i
<ฐ. r-
Jl
s:ง
2 2
to-
o
o
to
o
o
in
s $
~iiiiir
1SV3
T 1 i r
I r
1
I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I t I I I I I I
o
CM
1S3M
CTi
r-H
>1
CM
*
in
ID
2 ,_
E
1
in
o
o
o
o
S
* I
1SV3
r ] i
-------
1SV3
i I t
i l l
l l i
If
s:ง
S 2
o
o
03
O
CM
J I I I I I i i i r i
1S3M
VD
en
">
1SV3
i i 7 r
J I t ;t I l I 1 I l t 1 t i.... i i i t . t.. t '. I.
1S3M
co
co
E-24
-------
o
o
J ง
2 2
w
fr.
1S3M
CD
CD
E-25
-------
vo
n
.2
O
o
\f>
i i i i i i i i
1 1 i I I i I I I 1 1
.2
1S3M
Ol
II
j? _2
I!
SI
2 2
o
o
in
1 I T
1SV3
-i
0)
4-1
M-l
H
13
d
.2
4->
nj
8
ง
N
O
o
o
1 1 i I I t I It
o
CM
ja
-------
en
O
o
>
E
I
2 2
8'
o
o
CO
1SV3
I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I
-------
1SV3
1S3M
1SV3
1S3M
OD
CD
E-28
-------
o
lf> ,_
(0 03
"~ i/S
11 II
II
\\
s:ง
2 S
1SV3
o
o
UD
(O
i ซ i f I I
-------
1SV3
1S3M
J.SV3
1S3M
E-30
03
co
-------
1SV3
^ o
^5 _
g;s
2 2
CM
in-
u
o
o
o>
T I T
CM
1 ' '
I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 t I t 1
1S3M
n
^ O
II
X =
o .t
o
o
o
1SV3
CM
-------
1SV3
IV
in
x =
o .E
J
o
o
o
o
in
iir
{ I I 1 I I I t 1 t I t I t I I t I t I
1S3M
CTi
.-I
ฃ
3
ro
. co
T- m
^ in
II
X =
(J
o
o
in
1SV3
O
t t t i
I t I t t l t i I _t_
OQ
-S
1-1
en
I
-P
8
1S3M
E-32
CD
oo
-------
1SV3
T J 1 T
I ป
CM
2 2
o
o
00
I i i 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I
I I I
I
vo
CTi
1S3M
n
3 *
I!
in-
o
o
o
ID
v-
I
I I I J I 1
I I I
I I I
m
o
H
w
ft
w
I
JJ
fl
8
1
o
O
1 i 1 t 1 II I I til
o
CM
1S3M
1 111 i I
E-33
CO
CO
-------
1SV3
q 2
11 ii
? ป
2 r _
-งo 5
> >
ii
X =
o .E
2 2
f_
CM
X
ง5
H- 2
0
o
o
^
8
iO
0)
J
p
0>
1
r~
>f>
S ^
o T
ii
11 H
ป ซ,
3 *
Si ?
I!
x =
o .E
2 2
^
CN
ฃ
rv
_1
w z
O
O
o
f)
1 '"
CM
ID
E
^
<7t
*
i
_ '
ซ.
-
-
*"*
_
**
*
ซ
-
^
i
i
M.
ป-
"*
~
**
"*
III*
^
#
!ซ
1
* -t *
o-/ / -
'"'ฃ$'''
*
^_
-
i i i i i i i i i i i i t f i i t i i i
o o c
CM ^
1S3M
1SV3
4
^ ^ ^ *
0 * CJ *
1 i 1 I 1 1 i 1 I I I t { 1 i i
-
"
-
-
"""
e, 0-
"" s
.--' ....^',0.0^
' '""' \ '^
... .-1'"^ 3 x,
f } .--'"' .-'"
I - -\5.0 .'' ....'' _,
' - .- ' J ---' f\*"
ft--' *>
ซn.O . ^J
^ > --'
*
'" ^,
--'
1 i ii 11 i i ii i i t i i i ri i i
o o <
CM *-
1S3M
ซ
^*
vo
r~
CTป
O iH
T >l
i d
8 ^
(0
m
r^
^
<
Oj
H
CO
g
rH
O
H
^ fo
u
CO
JS
2 8
ง
M
0)
14-1
14-1
H
O
s
H
+J
S
4J
ง
0 O
c
5 8
^
0 OJ
ID C
8
0
t
(C
CN
,{
j
w
w
s
g
H
CM
Q
LT
-------
1SV3
m
M x
o Jฃ
r-j 7
11 ii
S Qj
|E
2 3
.i ฃ
x -
o .E
2 2
^_
CM
X
^5
0
0
o
T-
1 "
01
.ฃ
*~
2
i
ft oi
w Y
ii
11 ii
d)
ฃป
1 o ?
It
g c
2 2
_
CM
X
Or
Kง
O
Q
O
m
o
2
^
^
2
i
i
-
-
-
-
i
i
ซ.
-
*
** *
_
-
-
-
i
n
^ ^* ^ *
-.. o.
/ '^ '^- \^* i i
/'' "^-.....x / \ |
'"- ., ,,''"/-- -10. 0--V.V.'-'' \
- ._ y ; \ ""--._.--'
''0 $$)*
-
_
1 i i i i i i t t i 1 i i i i r i i i i
0 O <
CM ซ-
1S3M
Tซ OC
0
_
r-
o S
5 2?
0 1?
ro
, i
*
ป=C
fX
H
1
iH
O
^^ "
n3
5
1
O
Q)
^l
(jj
^^
M-J
H
I
-P
(0
ii
c
O o
'5 ง
3
o a)
s
o
4
3
i
w
H
O
LO
oo
co
-------
1SV3
to
o T
11 II
D "
E E
1 1
S :E
2 2
ซ-
CM
X
O
o
ID
1 "
8
p-
JE
*~
oป
1
en
03 *7
CM "^
11 II
J S
> > *
1!
x =
0 .E
2 2
CM
crt 2
O
o
0
r-
r
| *~
s
2
HI
E
*~
at
T
a
S * 3 * '
^ i i i t i t i i i i i i i i i i i
\ -
"" ฃ)_
, "
w '"-.^
\
. ''
'N-o-s- -- ''
"
-ป
*"
-
-
_^
^^
"
t f i 1 1 1 t i i i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t t t
O O C
CM ^
1S3M
1SV3
d
* * * '
(O * CM ^~
1 j 1 1 1 j I 1 1 | ! 1 < ) I ( 1
***
-IW
~ -X \
ฐ'c
' \
..'"' ฐ-
""* l r," ^ \> ซ
9 ,'""-% ' x!
( ^ 10.0:''' /
wป
"
m- -
~*
_
"
"*
t i ii t it r t i fir t i t r l if i
0 0 t
CM ป-
1S3M
E-3fi
2
^
S
^-i1
vo
S^
O H
"s ^
5 S
1-1
^
o
Tl
ง
rH
O
H
O S-f
3 (5
I
g
1
ป w
s
S
m
H
1
Id
ii
o O
^ ฃ*
E 8
ง I
O
O
cs
1
W
&
D
H
Q
IT)
oo
CO
-------
i*>
ซฐS
- " -
>l *
11
S.E
2 2
CM
I
!/ir
o
0.
o
rO
1 *~
O
o
rg
^-
1C
^
91
1
1
-
-
^
-
w
_
.
Mป
|
I
ป
-
-
*
M-
^
-
1
1SV3
q
5 $ S *
| 1 t 1 | i t 1 ( I 1 1 | 1 i I
-
.'"~~\
/
s ^
-~^ -.-,,-"" 'v..;::--^
. ., n ' / ฐ\
... ,-100 ;.;;;-.;-_- ij:o -::::.-.-'::.- :- - b.s.
/';V^"io|?"--".-25.6::::-':-y''--'.jN;>>; '^ o, \
/""'" -''"^ ! \ <'*,' N. \ 'l
' ' ***.'/ / r * "/- * X " * " '*' '
' '- "/ .' / "-. /yO".'K.Q---'.'.V --"...-'
_...-. LtejtfH^V" "'
v'---;;:.''^;?.'."-5.o':''
*
*' ซi
t I i l i l l t t I ! i i i i i l i i i
S 2
1S3M
1SV3
a
* * *
ฎ * CM *
( 1 t ( [ 1 1 I | 1 1 t | 1 I 1
^
-
M
-
'""""----SO -.x
- v.O'.QL.- ^ '.,
X -^.ฐ_20.0 V- ::"~ ->, \ \ \
^"' '-"'.'.--'-.. -2^-ฐ""" } : ''. X' \
-' /'.-''' . "--"-6'-"'---'' '
' / ---' """ ; .' .--&.". --'
'' '' '' ^^0o-oo'o-''::'-^
; ' ^ JP --^ '' '
--"----'-"-;"6.ฐ'.--'
\ s' *'' -'* -^^ .
'' ^' ' 'l **
/'' -'' ,' * - '
,' t* * *f '""
1 1 i 1 1 f t 1 t I 1 t 1 I j 1 I t I 1
0 O C
CM -
1S3M
0
1
S
js
IQ
vw
c^
o 2
*_ rn
5 $
3 ซ
0 ^
IS> J
oo
r 1
^
ffl
(^
H
w
1
ป0
rH
0 -3
w
C
E
a a)
"" B
rti
S
rH
-------
1SV3
r-
CTi
m
PJ
H
1S3W
1SV3
1S3M
E-38
-------
00
1SV3
II
g IE
2 2
C/5
O
O
O
00
O
O
s $
~T ' i 'I r
ซ
CM
T
|
1
'c
2
rg
X
1
ss
o
o
o
r-~
i *~
o
o
10
V
p:
O)
1
d
S $ A *
1 [ 1 t I 1 f 1 t ) t 1 1 1 I 1 1
_
\
^^ X.^
** \ "~-ป. .'- n*
x. ฐsv
2 .^^;:::?-VX I
.x' i'" r"^--. l'--.^ ij ' \ 'N
H- 1"-'1' *. '' " "*'N'^ ' O V *"
i i 'V^-0"* /^ ,/
_ "x- \ \ '*"' P- e\ -' 1 '
----- , \ - -.^s-Q.;;.. ,,'
.-,"----'o""ป"- ''
-
*
"
*'
1 t i t 1 1 1 i t 1 t I 1 t f 1 I ( 1 It
S 2
0
1
o
Q
1
1S3M
1C
r^
CTi
ro
CQ
'O
s
,8
0)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 450/4-90-006E
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE URBAN AIRSHED MODEL STUDY OF FIVE
CITIES - A Low Cost Application of the Urban Airshed
Model to the New York Metropolitan Area and the City of
St. Louis EPA 450/4-90-006E
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ralph E. Morris, Thomas C. Myers, Henry Hogo, Lyle R.
Chinkin, LuAnn Gardner, Robert G. Johnson
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Systems Applications, Inc.
101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
April 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE
REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
This document presents Urban Airshed Modeling results for New York and St.
Included are a series of emissions strategies based on Reid Vapor Pressure
reduction and alcohol/gasoline blended fuels.
Louis.
(RVP)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Ozone
Urban Airshed Model
Photochemistry
Ethanol
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page )
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
319
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Sot subtitle, it' used, in smulicr
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.),
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, efc.J. List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number. ~~
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
74. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of. Presented a) conference of,
To be published in. Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief ^200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains u
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authori/ed terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI HELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment^) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Held/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. &20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, il any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) (Reverse)
-------