Corrections to 2018 Projections and O 3 sensitivities Talat Odman (GT), Yongtao Hu (GT), Zac Adelman (UNC), Uma Shankar (UNC) and Jim Boylan (GA EPD) SEMAP Air Quality Modeling Workgroup Call September 17, 2014

2 Outline Error found in 2018 MANE-VU on-road MOVES emissions Corrected 2018 O 3, PM 2.5 and Regional Haze Projections Corrected 2018 O 3 sensitivities to NO x emissions Assessment of influence on remaining (uncorrected) sensitivities

Error Found in Emissions In investigating the differences between SEMAP’s and OTC’s 2018 ozone projections, an error was discovered in the MANE-VU future year on-road MOVES emissions. The OTC state projection factors were mistakenly applied to the 2018 gridded MOVES data, instead of the 2007 data, effectively double counting the projection. UNC corrected this error in version B of the SEMAP 2018 emissions simulation. 3

Modified QA Procedure The emissions QA procedure was reviewed to find the reason for the failure to detect this error. Original QA included daily/monthly totals and daily/monthly difference plots Daily/monthly percent difference plots are now added to the QA process 4

Percent Difference Plots New QA would have caught the error before air quality modeling 5

Future Year Rerun The 2018 annual simulation was rerun using corrected MANE-VU on-road MOVES emissions. All future year products were regenerated. 6

Change in 2018 Ozone DV 7

2018 DVFs: 3  3 RRF & 2007 DVC 8 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 1x1 RRF & 2007 DVC 9 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 3  3 RRF & DVC 10 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 1  1 RRF & DVC 11 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

Ozone “Nonattainment” DVF > 75 ppb based on DVC After Correction Before Correction

Ozone “Nonattainment” (Continued) After Correction Before Correction

Ozone “Maintenance” DVF < 75 ppb based DVC DVF > 75 ppb based 2007 DV After Correction Before Correction

Ozone “Maintenance” (Continued) After Correction Before Correction

Influence on 2018 Annual PM 2.5 DV 16

2007 Annual PM 2.5 DVC We discovered a mistake in 2007 DVCs used before correction. 17 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 3  3 RRF & 2007 DVC 18 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2007 vs. 5-year weighted DVC Before correction, DVFs using 2007 DVCs were wrong. 19 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 1x1 RRF & 2007 DVC 20 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 3  3 RRF & DVC 21 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 1  1 RRF & DVC 22 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

Influence on 2018 Daily PM 2.5 DV 23

2007 Daily PM 2.5 DVC We discovered a mistake in 2007 DVCs used before correction. 24 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 3  3 RRF & 2007 DVC 25 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2007 vs. 5-year weighted DVC Before correction, DVFs using 2007 DVC were wrong. 26 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 1x1 RRF & 2007 DVC 27 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 3  3 RRF & DVC 28 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

2018 DVFs: 1  1 RRF & DVC 29 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

30 Before Correction

31 After Correction

32 Before Correction

33 After Correction

34 Before Correction

35 After Correction

36 Before Correction

37 After Correction

38 Before Correction

39 After Correction

40 Before Correction

41 After Correction

42 Before Correction

43 After Correction

44 Before Correction

45 After Correction

46 Before Correction

47 After Correction

48 Before Correction

49 After Correction

50 Before Correction

51 After Correction

52 Before Correction

53 After Correction

54 Before Correction

55 After Correction

56 Before Correction

57 After Correction

58 Before Correction

59 After Correction

60 Before Correction

61 After Correction

62 Before Correction

63 After Correction

64 Before Correction

65 After Correction

66 Before Correction

67 After Correction

68 Before Correction

69 After Correction

Influence on Regional Haze 70

71 Before Correction

72 After Correction (SWAN will be added)

73 Before Correction

74 After Correction (SWAN will be added)

Worst Visibility DVF: 3×3 vs. 1×1 Deciviews before; total extinction (Mm -1 ) now 75 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

Best Visibility DVF: 3×3 vs. 1×1 Deciviews before; total extinction (Mm -1 ) now 76 Before CorrectionAfter Correction

Sensitivity Reruns The following sensitivities were rerun using corrected 2018 emissions: –Sensitivities to NO x emissions (2018 B - 30% NO x ) from: Maryland Virginia Northeast (MANE-VU) Sensitivity of Northeast w/o Maryland was calculated by subtraction, as before. 77

Influence on O 3 Sensitivities Relative sensitivity (  DVF) was calculated for days above 70 ppb in The lists of days are different for 2018 simulations with version A (erroneous) and version B (corrected) of MANE-VU on-road MOVES emissions. To see the influence of correcting emissions on chemical response to NO x reductions, O 3 sensitivities must be compared on the same days. For this reason, we will compare absolute sensitivities for days above 75 ppb in 2007 (typical). 78

2018 Ozone difference: DVF vs. average of days with 2007 typical O 3 > 75 ppb 79

2018 O 3 : B vs. A (average of days with 2007 typical O 3 > 75 ppb) 80

Sensitivity to NE w/o MD NO x difference: DVF vs. average of days with 2007 typical O 3 > 75 ppb 81

2018 O 3 Sensitivity to NE w/o MD (MANE-VU except MD) NO x : B vs. A 82

2018 O 3 Sensitivity to NE w/o MD NO x : B vs. A (blowup) 83

Sensitivity to MD NO x difference: DVF vs. average of days with 2007 typical O 3 > 75 ppb 84

2018 O 3 Sensitivity to MD NO x : B vs. A 85

2018 O 3 Sensitivity to MD NO x : B vs. A (blowup) 86

Sensitivity to VA NO x difference: DVF vs. average of days with 2007 typical O 3 > 75 ppb 87

2018 O 3 Sensitivity to VA NO x : B vs. A 88

2018 O 3 Sensitivity to VA NO x : B vs. A (blowup) 89

Sensitivity Difference vs. O 3 Difference There is no correlation between the difference in sensitivity due to correcting emissions and the difference in baseline ozone. 90

Sensitivity Difference vs. Sensitivity But, there is correlation between the difference in sensitivity due to correcting emissions and the (uncorrected) sensitivity. 91

Sensitivity Difference vs. Product of Sensitivity with O 3 Difference And, there is strong correlation between the difference in sensitivity and the sensitivity multiplied by difference in ozone. 92

Sensitivity Difference by Region 93

Findings The correction increased NO x emissions in MANE-VU. –Now, 30% of MANE-VU NO x emissions is a larger reduction Sensitivity to Northeast (and MD) NO x emission reductions generally became more negative, implying larger O 3 decreases. –Several exceptions to this, especially in NY and NJ Sensitivity to VA NO x emission reductions generally became less negative, implying smaller O 3 decreases. This change is about 0.02 ppb outside of MANE-VU per ppb of (uncorrected) sensitivity per ppb of 2018 O 3 increase due to correcting emissions. 94

Sensitivity × O 3 Difference in WV 95

Sensitivity × O 3 Difference in LADCO 96

Concluding Remarks MANE-VU sites would benefit the most from correcting other sensitivities Outside of MANE-VU –WV NO x sensitivities would change by less than 0.1 ppb, except at Martinsburg, WV ( ) –LADCO NO x sensitivities would change by less than 0.1 ppb, except at TCSEC, Trumbull Co., OH ( ) If deemed necessary, Georgia Tech can rerun NO x sensitivities for WV and LADCO and, to see if the influence on VOC sensitivities are small as expected, VOC sensitivities for MANE- VU and MD (or VA) MATS has to be rerun for all sensitivities, corrected or uncorrected, since the list of days with 2018 O 3 > 70 ppb has changed. 97