United States EPA-905-R97-002d
Environmental Protection Agency May 1997
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Risk Assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility (East Liverpool, Ohio)
VOLUME IV:
Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Modeling of Emissions
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 5
Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
\
o
Prepared with the assistance of:
AT. Kearney, Inc. (Prime Contractor; Chicago, IL);
with Subcontract support from:
ENVIRON Corp. (Arlington, VA),
Midwest Research Institute (Kansas City, MO)
and EARTH TECH, Inc. (Concord, MA)
under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0006
-------
VOLUME IV
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION
AND DEPOSITION MODELING
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Overview I-1
B. External Peer Review 1-3
C. Project Scope 1-4
II. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF ISC-COMPDEP II-1
A. Basic Equations and Assumptions II-1
B. Dispersion Coefficients II-3
C. Plume Rise II-4
D. Building Downwash 11-10
E. Stack-tip Downwash 11-12
F. Dry Deposition of Paniculate Matter 11-13
1. Deposition Velocity Calculation 11-13
2. Modified Source Depletion II-16
G. Wet Deposition 11-28
H. Complex Terrain 11-30
I. Treatment of Calm Wind Conditions 11-33
J. Treatment of Multilevel, Multistation Meteorological Data 11-34
K. Micrometeorological Parameters 11-36
L. Differences Between COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP Model
Formulations 11-41
m. MODELING INPUT PARAMETERS III-l
A. Source Data Ill-1
1. Main Incinerator Stack Ill-1
2. Routine Fugitive Emission Sources III-2
B. Building Downwash Analysis III-4
C. Meteorological Data Selection and Processing III-5
D. Receptor Grid Ill-10
E. Geophysical Data Ill-10
1. Terrain Elevations Ill-10
Volume IV
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2. Land Use III-l 1
F. Model Options and Switches Ill-12
IV. DISCUSSION OF MODELING RESULTS IV-1
A. Base Case Simulations of Incinerator Emissions IV-2
B. Sensitivity Simulations of Incinerator Emissions IV-5
1. Overview of Previous Modeling Results IV-5
2. GEP Stack Height Tests IV-7
3. Precipitation Tests IV-7
4. Dispersion Coefficient Tests IV-8
5. Calm Wind and Fumigation Simulations IV-10
a. Meteorological Data Analysis (April 1992 - March 1993) IV-14
b. Full Year Application of INPUFF and CALPUFF IV-16
6. Terrain Downwash Simulations IV-19
C. Routine Fugitive Emissions Modeling IV-21
D. Uncertainty Analysis IV-22
1. Limitations of the Technical Formulations IV-22
2. Data Limitations IV-25
V. SUMMARY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS V-l
VI. REFERENCES VI-1
TABLES
Table II-1: Classification of Reported Precipitation
Type/Intensity To Precipitation Code 11-46
Table II-2: Model Type Selected For Situation Depicted
in Figure II-6 11-47
Table 11-3: Values of Net Radiation Constants 11-48
Table II-4: Minimum Values of Monin-Obukhov Length
During Stable Conditions for Various Land
Use Types 11-49
Table ffl-1: Stack Parameters for the WTI Incinerator Stack Ill-15
Table III-2: Particle Weight Fractions Observed During Run 2
of the WTI Trial Burn Particle Distribution Study
March 17, 1993 111-16
Table HI-3: Size Distributions of the Pollutant Mass
Assumed in the WTI Modeling Ill-17
Volume IV
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table III-4:
Table HI-5:
Table III-6:
Table ffl-7:
Table IV-1:
Table IV-2:
Table IV-3:
Table IV-4:
Table IV-5:
Table V-l:
Figure II-1:
Figure II-2:
Figure II-3:
Figure II-4:
Figure II-5:
Figure II-6:
Figure II-7:
Figure II-8:
Figure II-9:
Figure III-1:
Figure III-2:
Figure III-3:
Figure III-4:
Source Characteristics for Fugitive Emission Sources Ill-18
WTI Building Information 111-19
Direction-Specific Building Dimensions for the WTI
Main Stack 111-20
Geophysical Parameters Assigned to Each Land Use Type
in the Sensitivity Runs of ISC-COMPDEP III-21
Summary of ISC-COMPDEP Modeling Results for the
WTI Main Incinerator Stack IV-27
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with COMPDEP and
ISC-COMPDEP IV-28
Major Features of the CALPUFF Model IV-29
Comparison of CALPUFF and ISC-COMPDEP Modeling
Results IV-31
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with ISC-COMPDEP
Fugitive Emission Sources IV-32
Key Assumptions V-3
FIGURES
Illustration of the initial dilution radius 11-50
Flow near a sharp-edged building in a deep boundary
layer 11-51
Observed deposition velocities as a function of
particle size for 1.5 g/cm density particles 11-52
Wet scavenging coefficient ^s a function of particle
size 11-53
Comparison of predicted scavenging ratio 11-54
Cross-section of terrain illustrating positions of
sources and receptors 11-55
Illustration of temperature interpolation/extrapolation 11-56
Illustration of wind speed interpolation/extrapolation 11-57
Illustration of wind direction interpolation/extrapolation 11-58
Plot of particle mass as a function of particle diameter 111-22
Plot plan of the WTI facility 111-23
Hourly wind rose for WTI Site 2, 30-m data, located on-site 111-24
Hourly wind rose for WTI Site 3, located at the eastern
edge of the property 111-25
Volume IV
ill
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Figure III-5: Section from a USGS map that depicts the topography of
the area surrounding the WTI site 111-26
Figure ni-6: Section from a USGS map that depicts the topography of the area
surrounding the Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower 111-27
Figure ni-7: Cross section of terrain (MSL) at the sites of the BVPSMT
and WTI meteorological towers 111-28
Figure III-8: Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower 111-29
Figure III-9: As in Figure ffl-8, except that winds less than 2.5 miles
per hour are not included 111-30
Figure HI-10: Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower III-31
Figure HI-11: Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower 111-32
Figure III-12: Wind rose at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport 111-33
Figure IV-1: Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator
stack IV-33
Figure IV-2: Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack IV-34
Figure IV-3: Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack IV-35
Figure IV-4: Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack IV-36
Figure IV-5: Distribution of lateral turbulence intensity measured at the
Beaver Valley tower IV-37
Figure IV-6: Frequency of occurrence of calm periods of a given number
of hours per day IV-38
Figure IV-7: Frequency of occurrence of calm conditions by time-of-day IV-39
Figure IV-8: Distribution of receptors used in simulating concentrations
with ISC-COMPDEP and CALPUFF IV-40
Figure IV-9: Annual concentrations (ug/m3) for a unit emission rate
(1 g/s) predicted by applying ISC-COMPDEP with ISC
terrain adjustments for all receptors IV-41
Figure IV-10: Annual concentrations (ug/m3) for a unit emission rate
(1 g/s) predicted by applying CALPUFF IV-42
Figure IV-11: Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA
FMF wind tunnel results for the flat terrain configuration IV-43
Figure IV-12: Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA
FMF wind tunnel results for "SE" winds IV-44
Figure IV-13: Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA
FMF wind tunnel results for "NW" winds IV-45
Volume IV
iv
-------
CONTENTS
(Concluded)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX IV-1: Building Dimension (BPIP) Analysis
APPENDIX IV-2: Additional Wind Data Plots
APPENDIX IV-3: ISC-COMPDEP Model Output Files
APPENDIX IV-4: ISC-COMPDEP Contour Plots
APPENDIX IV-5:
APPENDIX IV-6:
APPENDIX IV-7:
Overview of the CALPUFF Non-Steady-State Dispersion Model
Wind Tunnel Study of Terrain Downwash Effects
Comments on External Peer Review of the following:
Scientific Peer Review of the ISC-COMPDEP model;
Wind-Tunnel Simulation Study of Terrain Downwash Effects;
CALPUFF and INPUFF simulations of Calm Wind and Fumigation
Conditions
Volume IV
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
A preliminary risk assessment entitled, "Preliminary Risk Assessment for the WTI
Incinerator Considering Inhalation Exposures to Stack Emissions" (U.S. EPA 1992a), was
prepared for the WTI hazardous waste incinerator by Region 5 of the U.S. EPA. At the time of
the assessment, both the Industrial Source Complex - Short Term (ISCST) and COMPLEX I
dispersion models were used with off-site meteorological data to assess the potential health risk
due to inhalation exposure to WTI stack emissions.
In accordance with the "Methodology for Assessing Health Risk Associated with Indirect
Exposure to Combustor Emissions" (U.S. EPA 1990), the "WTI Phase n Risk Assessment
Project Plan" (U.S. EPA 1993e) (hereafter referred to as Project Plan) was designed to make
extensive use of on-site data in the calculations of a full multi-pathway assessment of potential
health risks from both stack and fugitive emissions from the WTI facility. In addition, the
Project Plan proposed the use of the COMPDEP model to predict concentrations and deposition
fluxes from stack and fugitive emissions from the WTI facility. COMPDEP is a hybrid model
consisting of a combination of the modeling techniques in the COMPLEX I and ISCST
dispersion models.
On December 8 an,d 9, 1993, a peer review workshop was held in Washington, D.C. to
discuss the Project Plan. Four Work Groups were formed to discuss different areas of the study.
The Meteorology/Air Dispersion Work Group focused on the portions of the plan dealing with
air quality dispersion and deposition modeling. In reviewing the Project Plan, the peer review
panel made several short-term recommendations to refine and improve the air modeling for the
WTI Risk Assessment and long-term recommendations for future studies (U.S. EPA 1993b).
The short-term recommendations for the WTI study are summarized below:
• Combine site-specific meteorological observations at WTI with data collected at the
500-foot Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station meteorological tower in developing an
appropriate meteorological data set for the air dispersion modeling;
• Refine model predictions by the use of additional local meteorological data,
especially precipitation data for wet deposition calculations and turbulence
measurements for dispersion estimation;
• Evaluate the effects of calm wind conditions and fumigation on short- and long-term
concentrations in and beyond the valley;
• Evaluate the short-term concentration increases resulting from process upset
conditions and accidents;
i*'
• Evaluate the impacts of fugitive sources of emissions;
Volume IV
1-1
-------
• Evaluate the effects of terrain-induced downwash effects by conducting a wind tunnel
study of the WTI site;
• Estimate the uncertainty of the model's concentration and deposition predictions by
conducting sensitivity and uncertainty analyses; and,
• Obtain additional peer reviewer comments on the vapor/particle partitioning of
pollutants emitted from the facility and the significance of vapor/particle
transformations.
In addition, the Peer Review Panel made several long-term recommendations including
the development of new guidance to ensure the collection of appropriate atmospheric
measurements to support future risk assessments, the requirement for the use of advanced non-
steady-state models for these types of studies, the collection of additional meteorological data at
WTI to support potential future risk assessments of the facility, and the development of a plan to
improve our understanding of wet deposition processes and to develop improved wet deposition
models.
Concurrent with the development of the Project Plan, a new model (ISC-COMPDEP)
was developed to provide a more refined analysis of dispersion and deposition from a source in
complex terrain such as the WTI facility. The model was based on the latest version of the
ISCST2 model (U.S. EPA 1992b) in order to take advantage of the updated ISCST2 basic
model structure. Among the differences between COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP are the
inclusion in ISC-COMPDEP of a new panicle dry deposition scheme (U.S. EPA 1994), the
option to allow receptor-specific land use parameters in determining dry deposition rates, the
use of a mass-conserving plume depletion algorithm (Horst 1983), the ability to treat effects of
terrain on plume depletion, the inclusion of the Schulman-Scire building downwash algorithm
for short-stack emissions in addition to the Huber-Snyder scheme, a full implementation of the
EPA policy on intermediate terrain (defined as terrain between stack top elevation and plume
height elevation), a generalized wet removal algorithm, an improved area source algorithm
(U.S. EPA 1992c), and the option to compute short-term peak concentrations and deposition
fluxes as well as long-term averages. ISC-COMPDEP has been independently peer reviewed
and is used in the WTI Risk Assessment1.
1 An early version of ISC-COMPDEP served as a starting point for the new ISC3 model. The major differences
between ISC-COMPDEP and ISC3 are: (a) ISC-COMPDEP includes the ability to use measured profiles of winds
and temperatures whereas ISC3 does not; (b) ISC3 uses a different form of the aerodynamic resistance equation in
the calculation of deposition velocities; (c) although ISC3 and ISC-COMPDEP both use the same basic scavenging
coefficient approach to calculate wet deposition, ISC3 adjusts the removal rate for intermittency of the precipitation,
while ISC-COMPDEP applies the observed precipitation rate uniformly through the period during which it was
measured.
Volume IV
1-2
-------
Many of the peer review panel concerns related to the Project Plan are addressed by the
use of ISC-COMPDEP; in fact, additional refinements were made to the model based on their
recommendations. To simulate the complex atmospheric dynamics of windflow in and above the
Ohio River Valley and adjacent hilly terrain, ISC-COMPDEP allows the use of meteorological
data (wind and temperature) measured at various heights in the atmosphere and is executed using
both on-site data from WTI and data from the Beaver Valley meteorological tower. In addition,
a version of the model was developed to replace Pasquill-Gifford horizontal dispersion
coefficients (oy) with values based on observed measurements of turbulence (oe) for calculating
dispersion rates.
To determine the effect of year-to-year variability in precipitation data on wet deposition,
a series of sensitivity test is evaluated using ISC-COMPDEP. In addition, fugitive sources of
emissions and upset or accident-related conditions are assessed to allow the development of a
cumulative assessment of WTI emissions.
Terrain-induced downwash, like building downwash, can affect plume dispersion.
Currently, there are no regulatory models that have the capability of assessing the potential
impacts of terrain on ambient concentrations. To evaluate the effects of terrain induced
downwash at the WTI site, a wind tunnel study was conducted at the Fluid Modeling Facility in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Snyder 1994). The results of the study (see Appendix
IV-6) are discussed and compared to ISC-COMPDEP modeling predictions.
For the case of calm wind and fumigation conditions, the basic steady state assumption
used in ISC-COMPDEP is invalid. Therefore, when assessing the impact of these conditions for
both short term and long term exposures, a limited application of the CALPUFF non-steady-state
model (Scire et al. 1995) is conducted. A second non-steady-state model, INPUFF (Petersen and
Lavdas 1986) is applied in a separate study to examine the effects of calm wind conditions in flat
terrain.
B. External Peer Review
Several components of the WTI modeling application required the use of a non-guideline
model or a physical model. To ensure that Region 5 performed these applications appropriately,
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducted an external peer review. The ORD
requested the assistance of six experts, both within and outside of the United States, to perform
the peer review. The reviewers' primary task was to determine the technical merit of the ISC-
COMPDEP model; to determine the technical merit of the CALPUFF and INPUFF models and
their applications; and to determine whether the goals of the Wind Tunnel Simulation were
achieved. Appendix IV-7 contains the comments of the external peer review. Based on the
review of these comments, Region 5 has incorporated several recommendations into the existing
application.
Volume IV
1-3
-------
C. Project Scope
A dispersion and deposition modeling study of stack emissions and fugitive emissions
from the WTI hazardous waste facility are conducted as part of the risk assessment. A detailed
description of the ISC-COMPDEP model and implementation procedures are contained in
Chapter n. Chapter ffl provides a discussion of the input parameters. Chapter IV discusses the
results of the base case runs, sensitivity tests and uncertainty analysis. Chapter V provides a
summary and discussion of major assumptions.
Volume IV
1-4
-------
H. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF ISC-COMPDEP
A. Basic Equations and Assumptions
The ISC-COMPDEP model is based on the steady-state Gaussian plume equation for
continuous sources as used in the ISC2 model (U.S. EPA 1992b). For receptors in simple
terrain, the plume is assumed to be distributed according to a Gaussian distribution in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. According to the U.S. EPA definition, simple terrain is terrain
at or below the elevation of the stack being modeled. The vertical distribution of the plume is
modified to account for the reflection of the pollutant off the ground and the elevated inversion
lid (if present). It is also modified to account for depletion of plume material due to dry
deposition processes (see Section n.F.2). The effects of plume depletion due to wet deposition is
accounted for by adjusting the source term as a function of downwind distance (see Section n.G).
The basic Gaussian equation is
X = exp
I-D
where Q is the pollutant emission rate (g/s),
/, is the vertical term (1/m) of the distribution,
us is the stack height wind speed (m/s),
ov is the standard deviation (m) of the concentration distribution in the crosswind
direction,
a, is the standard deviation (m) of the concentration distribution in the vertical direction,
and
y is the crosswind distance (m) from the plume centerline to the receptor.
The vertical term of the Gaussian equation accounts for reflection off the ground and the
top of the mixing height. It is computed as:
Volume IV
H-l
-------
/. = exp
-0.5
exp
exp
/
I #1
-0.5 —
\ 2
exp
\ —
-0.5
t
2
+ exp
V21
— 1
0 1
z/ .
1 H
-0-5 M
+ exp
2
f w
\ 2
-0.5 pi
o 1
V ZJ .
(H-2)
where he = hs + A/z
ff, - z, - (2iz, - *.)
»3 - zr - (2fe, - he)
H4=zr + (2iz, - *.)
zr is the height (m) of the receptor above the local ground level (i.e., a "flagpole"
height)
he is the effective height (m) of the plume after accounting for plume rise, stack tip
downwash, and gravitational settling effects,
hs is the height (m) of the stack,
Ah is the rise of the plume (m) above the stack top, and
z, is the mixing height (m).
If the effective height of the plume is greater than the mixing height, the plume is
assumed to be fully above the mixed layer, and the ground-level concentration is set equal to
zero. Under stable atmospheric conditions, the plume is assumed to reflect only off the ground
(i.e., the mixed layer height is considered unlimited). At large downwind distances, and when
reflections off the top of the mixing height are considered, the vertical distribution of the plume
approaches a uniform distribution. When oJz, > 1 -6, the summation in Eqn. (II-2) is eliminated,
and /,/oz is replaced by v^i/z, (Turner 1970).
The calculation of the effective plume height due to momentum and buoyant rise is
discussed in Section E.G. The effect of building downwash on plume rise is described in
Section n.D. The modification of the plume height due to stack tip downwash effects and
gravitational settling effects is discussed in Section HE and HF, respectively.
There are a number of important assumptions implicit in the Gaussian plume formulation.
Among these are the assumptions of steady-state meteorological and environmental conditions.
Volume IV
n-2
-------
The steady-state plume approach does not account for variations in winds, .stability, and other
meteorological variables occurring over the path of the plume's transport. It does not include
plume history or causality effects. That is, it does not allow for a build-up of multiple hours'
emissions (e.g., during a stagnation event) and it does not account for the finite amount of time it
takes for a plume to actually reach a receptor. It assumes that the current meteorological
conditions existed long enough for the plume to reach the receptor, regardless of the source-
receptor distance. The steady-state equation also assumes that the plume is bent over by the
mean wind. With its inverse wind speed dependence, it cannot treat calm wind and very low
wind speed conditions.
The model's treatment of terrain effects is relatively simplistic. For receptors in
"complex terrain" (defined as terrain above the plume centerline height), ISC-COMPDEP uses
the 22.5° sector-averaging approach of the U.S. EPA COMPLEX I model (U.S. EPA 1993a).
For receptors in "intermediate terrain," ISC-COMPDEP follows the U.S. EPA recommendation
of selecting the higher of the simple terrain concentration predicted using Eqn. (II-1) or the
sector-averaged value of COMPLEX I. See Section n.H for additional discussion of terrain
effects in ISC-COMPDEP.
In this study, due to the fundamental limitations of the steady-state approach in calm
wind conditions, during stagnation events, and in inversion breakup-type fumigation situations,
non-steady-state puff modeling has been performed to evaluate dispersion for these conditions
(see Section IV.B.5).
B. Dispersion Coefficients
ISC-COMPDEP contains empirical relationships that describe the variation of ov and o.
as a function of atmospheric stability and source-receptor downwind distance. For rural
environments, the Pasquill-Gifford (PG) curves are used (Turner 1970). The equation used to
calculate ov is:
ay = 465.11628* tan(TH) (rj-3)
where TH = 0.017453293 (c - d ln(x)),
x is the downwind distance (km),
c, d are empirical factors, and
ov is in units of meters.
U.S. EPA (1992b) provides tables of the factors c and d as a function of stability class.
The vertical dispersion parameter, o, is calculated as:
oz = ox* ^ (n-4)
Volume IV
H-3
-------
where a and b are empirical factors that vary with stability class and downwind distance (U.S.
EPA 1992b).
Other relationships are available in ISC-COMPDEP for urban dispersion conditions, but
in the current study only the rural equations are of interest. Building wake effects can affect the
plume dispersion rates if the emissions are released close to buildings or other structures.
Section H.D contains a discussion of the dispersion equations used when building effects are
important.
1. Buoyancy-Induced Dispersion
The effects of plume buoyancy on dispersion are evaluated using the
recommendations of Pasquill (1976).
),1l/2
(H-5)
oM^
1 3.5
1/2
(H-6)
where ow, au are the dispersion coefficients (m) after buoyancy effects have been
included, and
A/z is the plume rise (m), which can be a function of distance.
Buoyancy-induced dispersion is not used when the Schulman-Scire downwash option is
in effect (U.S. EPA 1992b).
C. Plume Rise
When a single level of meteorological data is used, buoyant and momentum plume rise in
ISC-COMPDEP is computed using the same procedures as in ISC2. When multilayer
meteorological data are used, the procedures described in Section ILJ are employed.
The buoyancy flux parameter is defined as:
(H-7)
v "s i
where Fb is the buoyancy flux (m4/s3),
g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2),
w is the exit velocity (m/s),
D is the stack diameter (m),
Volume IV
H-4
-------
Ts is the stack gas exit temperature (K), and
AT is Ts - Ta, where Ta is the ambient air temperature (K).
The momentum flux, Fm (m4/s2) is:
(n-8)
1. Crossover Temperature — Neutral/Unstable Conditions
For cases with a stack gas temperature greater than or equal to ambient
temperature, it must be determined whether the plume rise is dominated by momentum or
buoyancy. The crossover temperature difference, (A7\, is determined by matching the
momentum and buoyant Briggs plume rise equations, and solving for (A7\.
(A 7% = •
...1/3
0.02977 — F, < 55 m4/s3
1D™ b
M (H-9)
0.005757-^— Ft * 55 m4/s3
If the difference between the stack gas and ambient temperatures, A7\ is greater than or
equal to (A7)f, plume rise is assumed to be buoyancy dominated, otherwise plume rise is
assumed to be momentum dominated.
2. Buoyant Rise — Neutral/Unstable Conditions
For situations where AT exceeds (Ar)f as determined above, buoyancy is assumed
to dominate. The distance to final rise, xf, is assumed to be 3.5x, where x is the distance
at which atmospheric turbulence begins to dominate entrainment. The value of xf is
calculated as follows:
(n-io)
49Ffc5'8
U9F™
Fb < 55 m4/s3
Fb * 55 m4/s3
The final effective plume height, he (m), is:
Volume IV
H-5
-------
h. = 1
e
21.425 — Fh < 55 m4/s3
-3/5
38.71 -i- Ffc 2 55 m*/s3
Us
(H-ll)
3. Momentum Rise — Neutral/Unstable Conditions
For situations where the stack gas temperature is less than or equal to the ambient
air temperature or where (AT) < (A7)c, the plume rise is assumed to be dominated by
momentum. The plume height is calculated as:
us
Briggs (1969) indicates that this equation is most applicable when the ratio w/us is greater
than four.
4. Crossover Temperature — Stable Conditions
For cases with a stack gas temperature greater than or equal to ambient
temperature, it must be determined whether the plume rise is dominated by momentum or
buoyancy. The crossover temperature difference under stable conditions is:
(A7)c = 0.0195827>^ (11-13)
where s = g(BQ/dz)/Ta, and dQ/dz is the potential temperature lapse rate (K/m). The
default values for dQ/dz are 0.020 K/m and 0.035 K/m for stability classes E and F,
respectively.
If the difference between the stack gas temperature and the ambient temperature,
A7, is greater than or equal to (A7)r, plume rise is assumed to be buoyancy dominated.
Otherwise, plume rise is assumed to be momentum dominated.
5. Buoyancy Rise — Stable Conditions
For situations where A7 2 (A7)c, buoyancy is assumed to dominate. The distance
to final rise, x} , is determined as:
Volume IV
H-6
-------
x = 2.0715 -i
(11-14)
The final plume height, he, is-
2.6
1/3
6. Momentum Rise — Stable Conditions
Where the stack gas temperature is
temperature or AT < (&TC), the plume rise
\ 1/3
1.5'
he-hs
The equation for unstable-neutral
value of he that is used as the resulting
estimates.
find
the distance to final rise, the plume height
h = h + 1.6
1/3 2/3
fc X
(D-15)
less than or equal to the ambient air
is dominated by momentum.
(11-16)
momentum rise (Eqn. (11-12)) is also evaluated. The
plume height is the lower of the two
7. Transitional Rise — All Conditions
Where gradual or transitional rise is to be estimated for unstable, neutral, or stable
conditions, and if the distance downwind Irom the source to the receptor, x, is less than
is determined as:
This height will be used only for buoyancy dominated conditions. The value of hf from
Eqn. (11-17) is always compared to the final neutral or stable rise, and the lower of the
two values is used.
For momentum-dominated conditions, with neutral or unstable conditions, the
following equations (U.S. EPA 1992b) are used to calculate a distance dependent
momentum plume rise:
Volume IV
H-7
-------
1/3
*• • *' .,22
(D-18)
where x is the downwind distance (m), with a maximum value defined by *max as follows:
4D(w + 3u}2
* «- for F6 = 0
(n-19)
49F
5/8
119F,
2/5
for 0 < Fb <> 55 m4/s3
for F > 55 m4/s3
Under stable conditions,
3F_
1/3
(n-20)
where x is the downwind distance (m), with a maximum value defined by ;tmax as 0.5nus I
The jet entrainment coefficient, $}, is defined as 1/3 + us I w. As with the buoyant
gradual rise, if the distance-dependent momentum rise exceeds the appropriate neutral or
stable final rise, then the final rise is substituted instead.
8. Downwash Effects on Plume Rise
Wind tunnel observations of plume dispersion and plume rise indicate that plume
rise can be significantly reduced by building downwash. Huber and Snyder (1982) found
that during downwash conditions, plume rise was reduced by one-third below the value
obtained in the absence of the building. In an analysis of plume rise observations,
Rittmann (1982) found lower plume rise than predicted by the 2/3 law (a form of Eqn. II-
17) for smaller sources which are most likely to be affected by downwash. Several
studies (e.g., Bowers and Anderson 1981; Scire and Schulman 1981; Thuillier 1982) with
the original version of the ISC building downwash algorithm, which did not account for
the effects of building downwash on plume rise, showed that neglecting building
downwash effects on plume rise can significantly underestimate peak concentrations
during downwash conditions.
The increased mechanical turbulence in the building wake which leads to
enhanced plume dispersion, causes a rapid dilution of the plume. This dilution reduces
Volume IV
H-8
-------
the rate of rise of the plume and leads to lower plume heights. One method of treating the
initially high dilution rate is to assume an initial "dilution radius" for the plume (Scire
and Schulman 1980). This technique is incorporated in the Buoyant Line and Point
Source (BLP) model (Schulman and Scire 1980) and the ISC2 model (U.S. EPA 1992b).
It has been shown to produce more realistic estimates of ground-level concentrations
during building downwash conditions (Schulman and Hanna 1986).
The plume rise of a downwashed plume with oyo & a^ during neutral-unstable
conditions is given by:
/P?K, • K*/(P>/) + 3Ffc*2/(2p,2Wi3)] (11-21)
where R0 is the dilution radius [R0 = (2)1/2ozo], p, is the neutral entrainment coefficient, and
oyo, ozo are the horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients, respectively, at a downwind
distance of 3Hb (see Section n.D). The factor of (2)1/2 in the R0 equation converts the
Gaussian dispersion coefficient into an effective top-hat distribution for the plume rise
calculations. A top hat distribution assumes that a variable (e.g., temperature) has a
constant value within the plume and that a second constant value applies outside the
plume, which leads to a cross wind distribution that resembles the shape of a top hat.
Final stable plume rise is:
(11-22)
where p2 is the stable entrainment coefficient. Transitional plume rise during stable
conditions is computed with Eqn. (11-21) until the final plume height predicted by Eqn.
(11-22) is obtained.
When horizontal mixing of the plume in the building wake causes oyo > ozo, it is
necessary to account for the elongated shape of the plume. The plume can be represented
as a finite line source. The plume rise for a line source of length Le during neutral-
unstable conditions is:
' . +
and, for final stable plume rise:
P, + 6*,V(*P2) + 3*02/P2K =
(H-24)
z*
Volume IV
n-9
-------
The effective line length, I,, is (2it)I/2 (o^ - oro) if o^ > ozo. Otherwise, Lt = 0,
and Eqns. (11-23) and (11-24) reduce to Eqns. (11-21) and (11-22).
As described in Section n.D, the enhanced dispersion coefficients, ozo and oyo,
vary with stack height, momentum rise, and building dimensions. The variation of flc for
several stack heights is illustrated in Figure II-1. The value of R0 varies from R,, = Hh
when hs = Hb to R0 = 0 when hs - 3 Hb. As ozo and oyo approach zero (i.e., building
downwash effects become negligible), Eqns. (11-21) to (11-22) approach the unmodified
Briggs equations. The effect of R0 and Le is always to lower the plume height, thereby
tending to increase the predicted maximum ground-level concentration.
D. Building Downwash
The dispersion and buoyant rise of plumes released from short stacks can be significantly
modified by the presence of buildings or other obstacles to the flow. Hosker (1984) provides a
description of the flow patterns in three regions near buildings. Figure E-2 shows: (1) a
displacement zone upwind of the buildings, where the flow is influenced by the high pressure
along the upwind building face, (2) a cavity zone characterized by recirculating flow, high
turbulence intensity, and low mean wind speed, and (3) a turbulent wake region where the flow
characteristics and turbulence intensity gradually approach the ambient values.
The parameterization of building downwash in ISC-COMPDEP is appropriate for use in
the turbulent wake region and is based on the procedures used in the ISC2 model. ISC2 contains
two building downwash algorithms:
Huber-Snyder model (Huber and Snyder 1976; Huber 1977). In ISC2, this model
is applied when the source height is greater than the building height (Hh) plus one-
half of the lesser (Lb) of the building height or projected width (HJ. It applies
either a full building wake effect or none at all, depending on the effective height
of the emitted plume.
• Schulman-Scire model (Scire and Schulman 1980; Schulman and Hanna 1986).
This model applies a linear decay factor to the building-induced enhancement of
the dispersion coefficients, accounts for the effect of downwash on plume rise,
and uses wind direction-specific building dimensions. It is used in ISC2 and
ISC-COMPDEP for stacks lower in height than Hb + 0.5Lh.
1. Huber-Snyder Downwash Procedure
If the stack height exceeds Hb + 0.5Lft, the Huber-Snyder algorithm is applied.
The first step is to compute the effective plume height, he, due to momentum rise at a
Volume IV
n-io
-------
downwind distance of two building heights. If he exceeds Hb + 1.5Lh (where Hh and Lh
are the wind direction specific values), building downwash effects are assumed to be
negligible. Otherwise, building-induced enhancement of the plume dispersion
coefficients is evaluated. For stack heights, hs, less than l.2Hb, both o, and a. are
enhanced. Only az is enhanced for stack heights above l.2Hb (but below Hh + l.5Lh).
A building is defined as a squat building if the projected building width, Hw.
exceeds the building height (i.e., Hw £ Hb). A tall building is defined as one for which #„
< Hh. Because both the controlling building height and projected width can vary with
wind direction, the classification of a building as squat or tall can also vary by direction.
For a squat building, the enhanced oz is:
a'z = 0.7 Hb + 0.067 (r - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < lOHb (11-25)
where x is the downwind distance (in meters).
For a tall building,
o( = 0.7 Hw + 0.067 If - 3HW) 3HW < x < IOHW (11-26)
If the ratio h/Hb is less than or equal to 1.2, the horizontal dispersion coefficient,
ov, is enhanced. For a squat building with a projected width to height ratio (H^/Hb) less
than 5, the equation for o^ is:
o', = 0.35 Hw + 0.067 (r - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < lQHb (H-27)
For buildings with (H^/Hb) greater than 5, two options are provided for av.
o'. = 0.35 Hb + 0.067 (r - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < WHh (11-28)
or,
o,' = 1.75 Hb + 0.067 (* - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < lOHb (fl-29)
Eqn. (11-28) results in higher centerline concentrations than Eqn. (11-29), and is
considered as an upper bound estimate of the impacts of the source. The ISC2 manual
suggests that Eqn. (11-29) is most appropriate if the source is located within 2.5Hh of the
end of the building. Eqn. (11-28) is a better estimate if the source is located near the
center of the building. However, in practice, the more conservative Eqn. (11-28) is
usually used for regulatory applications regardless of the position of the stack.
For a tall building, the equation for ov is: **
Volume IV
n-n
-------
| = 0.35 Hw + 0.067 (r - 3//H) 3//H < x < 10//B. (H-30)
2. Schulman-Scire Downwash Procedure
The main features of the Schulman-Scire algorithm are that the effects of building
downwash on reducing plume rise are incorporated, and the enhancement of az is a
gradual function of effective plume height rather than a step function. In ISC-
COMPDEP, both schemes use wind direction specific building dimensions.
The plume rise equations incorporating building downwash effects are discussed
in Section E.G. Many studies have shown that plume rise is decreased during downwash
conditions. The increased mechanical turbulence in the building wake leads to enhanced
plume dispersion (reflected in the enhanced dispersion coefficients), which causes a rapid
dilution of the plume. This dilution reduces the rate of rise of the plume and results in
lower plume heights. As discussed in Section II.C, the initially high dilution rate is
modeled by applying an initial "dilution radius" to the plume. The inclusion of
downwash effects in the plume rise equations is a key part of the Schulman-Scire
downwash method.
The second component of the model is the linear decay function which is applied
to the enhancement of or The vertical dispersion coefficient is determined as:
a" = A o'z (D-31)
where o/is determined from Eqns. (11-25) or (11-26), and,
A =
ht , Hb
(Hb - he)/(2 Lb) + 1 Hb
-------
where A/ is the adjusted stack top height,
hs is the physical stack height,
w is the stack gas exit velocity,
us is the stack height wind speed
In ISC-COMPDEP, an option is provided to allow the stack-tip downwash adjustment to
be applied when the ratio w/us is less than 1.5. Stack-tip downwash is not applied when the
Schulman-Scire downwash model is used, even if the stack-tip downwash option is selected.
F. Dry Deposition of Particulate Matter
1. Deposition Velocity Calculation
ISC-COMPDEP uses a resistance model to parameterize dry deposition of
paniculate matter. The deposition velocity is defined as:
v* = 7 (H-34)
AS
where vd is the deposition velocity (m/s)
F is the pollutant deposition flux (g/m2/s), and
Xs is the pollutant concentration (g/m3)
The deposition velocity for particles depends on a larger number of parameters,
including the characteristics of the surface (e.g., surface roughness, vegetation type, and
amount), atmospheric variables, such as stability and turbulence levels in the atmosphere,
and pollutant characteristics, such as the size, shape, and density of the particles. In
Figure n-3, the strong relationship between deposition velocity and particle size is
shown.
In the resistance model, the deposition velocity for particles is expressed as the
inverse of a sum of "resistances" plus gravitational settling terms (Slinn and Slinn 1980;
Pleimetal. 1984):
(n-35)
where ra is the aerodynamic resistance (s/m)
rd is the deposition layer resistance (s/m), and
vg is the gravitational settling velocity (m/s)
Volume IV
H-13
-------
The resistance model used in ISC-COMPDEP is based on that in the ADOM
model (Pleim et al. 1984) and CALPUFF (Scire et al. 1995). In a study comparing
observed and predicted deposition velocities (U.S. EPA 1994), the model was found to be
within a group of the best performing particle deposition models.
a. Aerodynamic Resistance
The resistances represent the opposition to transport of the pollutant
through the atmosphere to the surface. The aerodynamic resistance is used to
parameterize the rate of pollutant transfer in a shallow surface layer near the
ground. This surface layer rapidly adjusts to changes in surface conditions.
Because the vertical fluxes are nearly constant, this layer is also called the
constant-flux layer.
The aerodynamic resistance is obtained by integration of the
micrometeorological flux-gradient relationships (Wesely and Hicks 1977):
r° = TIT, ^r/z°} ~ *J (n-36)
where, zr is the reference height (- 10m),
Z0 is the surface roughness length (m),
k is the von Karman constant (- 0.4),
u. is the friction velocity (m/s),*and
ijjff is a stability correction term.
The stability correction term accounts for the effects of buoyancy on the
eddy diffusivity of the pollutant. It is assumed that the pollutant transfer is similar
to that for heat (Wesely and Hicks 1977).
-5zr IL 0 < zr IL < 1
0 zr IL = 0 (n_37)
exp[o.598 + 0.391n(-z,/L) - 0.090(ln(-zr/L))2] -1 < zr IL < 0
where, L is the Monin-Obukhov length (m) (see Eqn. II-110).
Volume IV
H-14
-------
^ b. Deposition Layer Resistance
Over very smooth surfaces, a thin non-turbulent layer (i.e.. the "deposition
layer") develops just above the surface. For typically rough surfaces, this layer is
constantly changing and is likely to be intermittently turbulent. For this reason.
Hicks (1982) calls this layer the "quasi-laminar" layer. Under many conditions.
the deposition layer resistance, rd, is the dominant resistance controlling the rate
of deposition for paniculate matter.
There are three major mechanisms for the transport of particles across the
deposition layer. Small particles (<0.1 um diameter) are transported through the
laminar deposition layer primarily by Brownian diffusion. This process becomes
less efficient as the particle diameter increases. Particles in the 2- to 20-um
diameter range tend to penetrate the deposition layer by inertial impaction. The
stopping time, r, defined as the settling velocity divided by the acceleration due to
gravity, is a measure of tendency of a particle to impact, and increases with
increasing particle diameter. Particles larger than 20 pm are dominated by
gravitational settling effects. Particles in the range of 0.1- to 2-um diameter range
have very small settling velocities and are not efficiently transported across the
deposition layer by either the Brownian diffusion or the inertial impaction
mechanism. As a result, particles in this size range tend to have the lowest
deposition velocities.
The deposition layer resistance can be parameterized (e.g., Pleim et al.
1984) in terms of the Schmidt number (Sc = u/Z), where u is the viscosity of air,
and D is the Brownian diffusivity of the pollutant in air) and the Stokes number
(St = (v/£)(M.2/u), where vg is the gravitational settling velocity and g is the
acceleration due to gravity).
rd = pc « - 10 "")•«. (11-38)
The diffusivity of a particle in air, Z>, is a function of the particle size.
Smaller particles tend to be more efficiently transported by Brownian motion, and
therefore have higher diffusivities. The Stokes number is a measure of the
likelihood of impaction of the particle. It increases with increasing particle size.
c. Gravitational Settling
The gravitational settling velocity is a function of the particle size, shape,
and density. For spheres, the settling velocity is given by the Stokes equation:
J) * (H-39)
Volume IV
H-15
-------
where, dp is the particle diameter (m)
g is the acceleration due to gravity (-9.8 m/s2),
pp is the particle density (g/m3),
pj, is the air density (g/m3), and,
C is the Cunningham slip correction factor for small particles.
This slip correction factor is given by:
C = 1 + (2 A/dJjfl, + a2exp(-a3^/A)] (11-40)
where, A, is the mean free path of air molecules (6.5 x 10"6 cm), and
a,,a2'a3 arc constants (1.257, 0.40, 0.55, respectively).
Because of the sensitivity of the deposition velocity to particle size, the
effective deposition velocity is computed for a number of individual size
categories, and then weighted by the fraction of mass in each size category. The
particle size distributions used in the modeling of the WTI incinerator are
discussed in Section IE. A. 1.
The particle diameters are usually expressed in terms of aerodynamic
diameters, rather than physical diameters. The aerodynamic diameter is defined
as the diameter of a sphere of unit density (1 g/cm3) that has the same
gravitational settling velocity as the actual particle with its arbitrary shape and
density. Most devices designed to measure particle size distribution (e.g., cascade
impactors) report the particle distribution in terms of aerodynamic rather than
physical sizes. One advantage of using the aerodynamic diameter is that it
implicitly includes the effects of both particle density and shape.
2. Modified Source Depletion
In the absence of any terrain modifications, the deposition flux is modeled as the
product of the deposition velocity (vd) and a near-surface concentration, Cd(zd), where zd is
a near-surface height at which the deposition flux and deposition velocity are estimated.
Cd
The concentration profile Cj(x,z) is a "corrected" form of the concentration profile C0(x,z)
that is determined in the absence of dry deposition. Following Horst (1983), the
crosswind-integrated concentration in the absence of deposition, can be written as
Volume IV
n-i6
-------
C00e,z) = f C(x,y,z)dy = Qo Dfx.z.h) (D-42)
—oo
D(x,z,h) is the vertical distribution factor for a plume whose axis is at an elevation h
above the surface, and is evaluated at an elevation z above the surface.
Deposition of particles will remove mass from the plume, and most of the mass
lost will have been removed from the lower portion of the plume. In Horst's corrected
source-depletion model, the mass emission rate (Q) is reduced to recognize the mass that
is lost from the plume, and the distribution of concentration in the vertical is altered by a
profile factor that recognizes that most of this mass is removed from the lower part of the
plume. Call Q(x)/Q0 (z 1) the depletion factor, and call P(x,z) the profile factor. Then the
"corrected" concentration profile is
CrfCc,z) = Q(x) D(x,z,h) P(x,z)
(n-43)
/•W»A
:) Cg(x.z)
The depletion factor is obtained by integrating the deposition flux over the distance
traveled by the plume:
Cd
(H-44)
= -vd Q(x) D(x,zd,h) Plx,
so that
-£^ = exo - } v D(X' •> h\ Pix' z } dx1 (n-45)
———— — vA^/ I V j *XliA , *. j. /* / i H. ,4.jj LL*. ^ '
This integral is evaluated numerically in the code.
The profile factor is more difficult to obtain. Horst (1983) relates the modified
concentration profile (C^z)) near the surface to the deposition flux by assuming that the
deposition flux is constant with height near the surface. This requires the deposition flux
to be equal to the flux due to turbulence in the layer:
Volume IV
H-17
-------
4 c,(x.z)
(D-46)
where K(z) is the diffusivity (m/s2).
There is also a flux of particles toward zd due to gravitational settling in the layer,
so that a second term involving the settling velocity, vr is added to the right side:
— CAx,z) - v. CAx,z) (H-47)
Note that vd already incorporates the contribution of the settling velocity in depositing
particles to the surface from z = zd- The second term on the right addresses the influence
of vg on determining the shape of Cj(x,z) that is consistent with the constant flux
assumption. Horst solves Eqn. (11-47) for Cj(x,z):
Cd(x,z) =
1
- v.
(l -
(11-48)
where
dz'
(0-49)
R is the atmospheric resistance, a measure of the resistance to pollutant transfer through
the layer from zd to z.
Eqns. (11-48) and (11-43) allow the formulation of a similar expression for P(x,z):
D(x.z.h) P(x,z) =
(n-50)
In the absence of removal at the surface, concentrations in a layer near the surface are
independent of height, so that D(x,z,h) = D(x,Za,h) in Eqn. (11-50), and the approximate
result is:
P(x,z) =
(n-si)
Volume IV
n-is
-------
An additional constraint conserves the mass flux in the plume:
u D(x,z,h) P(x,z) dz = \
(D-52)
which, when combined with Eqn. (11-51), gives
^h) dz
-i
(H-53)
Horst notes once again that deposition is a near-surface process, so that P(x,zd)
may be simplified by replacing D(x,z,K) with D(x,z,0). He argues that P(x,zd} only needs
to be accurate when az is of order h (i.e., the plume is in contact with the surface), and the
switch to ft = 0 is a reasonable approximation for this regime. When this scheme is used
in ISC-COMPDEP, the user should note that concentrations obtained at flagpole
receptors well above the surface may not be accurate when dry depletion is modeled.
With this simplification,
(0-54)
and P(x,z), the profile correction factor, has no dependence on the plume height.
Horst obtained analytic solutions to the integrals for P(x,zd) and R(z,zd) in
Eqns. (11-54) and (11-49) for cases in which v^? is small, for the Briggs expressions for the
rural az(x) functions. A numerical integration was implemented to complete the
description, and placed in ISC-COMPDEP (see U.S. EPA 1994, for details).
Although P(x,zd) is independent of h, the plume height still influences the
deposition flux through D(x,z,h) in Eqn. (EI-43), and so it also influences the depletion
factor in Eqn. (11-45). Therefore, the effect of the settling velocity on the height of the
plume should be addressed. Horst points out that the "tilted-plume" approximation is
typically employed to simulate this settling. Quite simply, h is replaced by an effective
height, he, given by
h = MAX h - -S. x , 0.0
( u }
(H-55)
—. *"
This essentially allows all particles in the plume to fall toward the surface at their
respective settling velocities, regardless of whether the particles are in the center or upper
Volume IV
H-,19
-------
portion of the distribution. As he approaches zero, the lower pan of the plume is
"reflected" at the surface (in D(x,z,h), not necessarily in Q(;t,z)).
a. Deposition/Terrain Interaction
When terrain adjustments are made in either ISC2 (terrain below stack-
top) or COMPLEX I, a second plume height is used. Such terrain adjustments are
strictly local. Adjustments at adjacent receptors are unrelated, being derived
solely on the basis of the elevation of each receptor, relative to the plume height,
stack height, and stack-base elevation. Although the end result on plume height is
similar to the plume tilt used to simulate gravitational settling, the process differs
fundamentally. There is no analogue to the settling flux term in Eqn. (11-47). If
there were, both vd and vg would be increased as a plume traversed the "front" side
of a hill, and decreased as the plume regained its original elevation beyond the
hill. In fact, deposition velocity may decrease through zero on the lee of a hill,
which would give rise to an upward flux of particles from the surface!
Therefore, the terrain adjustments made to the plume centerline elevation
are viewed as a mechanism to enhance the probability that particles may be
transported nearer the surface as a plume travels over terrain, thereby increasing
the likelihood that more particles will reach the deposition layer. The deposition
velocity is not altered in this view, but the deposition flux to the surface of a hill
will increase owing to D(x,z,he). Furthermore, because the depletion factor is
explicitly integrated along the plume trajectory, the "history" of terrain upwind of
a receptor will alter both the concentration and deposition flux predicted at that
receptor. In essence, the mechanics of dry deposition and plume depletion are
transparent to the terrain adjustments, and those terrain adjustments alter the
predicted flux in exactly the same way that they alter the predicted concentrations
in the absence of deposition — through a simple, effective plume height.
Both gravitational settling and terrain adjustments alter the effective height
of a plume. The settling, modeled with the "tilted plume" approximation, is
always computed first. It is viewed as a physical process. Any subsequent terrain
adjustments are applied to the "settled" plume height.
b. Gravitational Settling After Plume "Touchdown"
The total deposition velocity, vrf, includes the flux associated with the
gravitational settling velocity. The total flux of particles to the surface (associated
with the dry deposition) is computed at a near-surface height within an assumed
Volume IV
n-2o
-------
constant flux layer as the product of vd, the concentration predicted in the absence
of deposition (C0), the source depletion factor (Q(x)/Q0), and a profile correction
factor (P(x,zd)) that distributes the loss of material from the plume in a manner
that approximates the results obtained from the surface depletion model for
deposition.
In addition to augmenting the deposition velocity, vg also brings the plume
as a whole nearer the surface thereby influencing C0. Gravitational settling causes
all particles within the plume to fall, relative to the local (turbulent) velocity field.
For an elevated plume, this process causes the center-of-mass to fall (on average)
toward the surface at a rate vr Because the center-of-mass of a Gaussian plume is
the plume centerline (h) when a. is small compared to h, the tilted plume model is
typically used to simulate the settling process. In this model, an effective plume
centerline height is defined
he = h -(vf/u)x (H-56)
where h is the initial height of a plume of uniformly-sized particles, and \'g is the
settling velocity for these particles.
Horst (1983) points out that this approximation is probably appropriate
only for h > or. Certainly, problems of interpretation arise at distances large
enough to drive he negative. In the original formulation of ISC2, Eqn. (11-56) is
used for all distances, even those that produce negative values of he. When partial
reflection coefficients are used, this leads to a "bouncing" plume result in that the
plume centerline appears to fall to the surface, and then rise once again. (The
exponentials that define the vertical distribution of concentration are invariant to a
change in the sign of the plume centerline height.) The revised deposition
algorithms for ISC-COMPDEP avoid this by enforcing Eqn. (11-55), which shuts
off the effect of vg on the center-of-mass when he becomes zero. Because the
deposition process embodied in vd and P(x,z) assumes that gravitational settling is
always active for non-zero vg, this is not a satisfactory solution to the problem
encountered when a tilted plume reaches the surface. Also, note that the tilted
plume approach is immediately canceled when h starts at zero.
The bulk property of the plume that is altered by gravitational settling is
its center-of-rnass. As stated above, this is the plume centerline height when
h » or. For h = 0, the center-of-mass is proportional to fft:
"' (H-57)
Volume IV
H-21
-------
Therefore, we can simulate the effect of gravitational settling on the center-of-
mass of a plume that is on the surface by modifying its depth in the vertical, or o..
In the absence of gravitational settling, the center-of-mass of a surface-based
plume (h = 0) will grow in proportion to o.. With gravitational settling, the rate of
growth is diminished by the settling velocity. Define a modified center-of-mass
as/i '; then
dhL dh
'cm Vg (H-58)
dx dx u
This is similar to a differential form of the tilted plume expression in Eqn. (11-56).
Plumes will continue to grow in the vertical when particles are small
enough that dh'cmldx or d/dx(h'cj is positive in Eqn. (11-58). But for larger
particles, the plume can shrink in the vertical. Rewrite Eqn. (11-58) in terms of o.:
da( _ daz
~d7 ~ ~d7
value oz' is the modified value of oz accounting for the effects of settling.
If oz were a linear function of distance, then the derivatives in Eqn. (11-59)
would yield constants, and a modified growth rate would be fixed for all distances
beyond ;c0. If the growth rate were negative, then o.' would eventually reach
oz = 0. This would represent a singularity in the Gaussian plume formulation,
and so it must be avoided. This is done by setting a minimum value equal to
twice the (small) value used as the deposition reference height, zd.
For those cases in which oz(x) is nonlinear, we note that daJdx typically
decreases with distance. As oz grows larger, its rate-of-growth diminishes. Under
the action of gravitational settling large enough to cause o., to shrink, it is assumed
that the az(x) "curve" is followed backwards. The rate of growth is assumed to be
a local property, depending only on the value of or Therefore, as oz grows
smaller, daz /dx may increase, thereby influencing the value of daz'/dx in Eqn. (II-
_-__ V
59). If da, /dx exceeds Jn/2 — at some value of*, then a balance will be
u
achieved at the corresponding value of or and az will become a constant. The
point of balance is defined by
vj. (n-60)
dx.
Volume IV
11-22
-------
The equation that governs this process is clarified by rewriting Eqn. (11-59) as
dx
/ A do
where Go' = —- expressed in terms of oz, not x.
' ' dx
Integrate Eqn. (fl-61) to obtain:
, /
f
J
G(o't) - i/it
= x + const
(n-62)
and evaluate the constant of integration by demanding that oz'(x = x0) = ozo, the
value of o. at the "touchdown" point. This will yield an equation for distance as a
function of oz' which must be inverted to obtain az'(x -x- x0), where x0 is the
point at which the plume centerline reaches the surface.
Curves of at(x) are expressed as a series of piece-wise continuous
functions of the form axb in ISCST2 for rural locations (the PGT sigmas), and are
expressed as continuous functions for urban locations (the Briggs sigmas).
Because it is necessary to evaluate dojdx = G(az) in Eqn. (11-62), the Briggs
curves are used for both rural and urban locations, as these produce continuous
functions of daJdx. This model is quantitatively the same as ISCST2 for x < x0
because Eqn. (11-62) only applies beyond x0; and for larger x, the difference in
daJdx between the two rural curves is of secondary importance to maintaining the
gravitational settling effect.
The Briggs curves have four generic forms:
Case 1
Rural:
Urban:
Stability A,B
Stability C
az(x) = ax
(O-63)
dx
01-64)
x =
•(-^-
1 43 -
,
+ const = f - — + const (jf = ^/nTI'v / u)
J a - K v '
(11-65)
Volume IV
n-23
-------
Integrate and match oz' = ozo at x - xc, to obtain
a'z(x) = (a - v/TTTI v,/w) (x - xg) + O20
(D-66)
Here it can be seen that oz' is a linear function of x, and oz' either continues to
grow at a reduced rate, or it actually shrinks at a fixed rate if v/u is large enough.
Case 2
Rural:
Stability E,F
bx)
~l
(0-67)
- 1 (a - *oj - G(oz) (0 * az
(D-68)
do.7
const
- K
(K = vTC/2 v /u)
\ • * /
(H-69)
Integrate and match oz' = ozo at x = x0, to obtain
((a - bo'z) - JaK] ((a - fcoj -
-a
In
- bo'z
Invert to obtain
where
t
(<
((a -
- Y
(D-70)
(H-71)
(0-72)
Eqns. (11-71) and (11-72) are more interesting than Eqn. (11-66) in that they allow
oz' to reach equilibrium values where the local turbulent entrainment in the
vertical is in balance with the bulk settling process.
Volume IV
H-24
-------
Case 3
Rural:
Urban:
Stability C,D
Stability D,E,F
o.(jc) = ax (1 + bx)'m
(n-73)
da
z _
1 +
*°.,
dx
bat
2a2
1 +
N
2*
(H-74)
x =
\
_^£
2a
i + —
bo
V ^) _ v
1 +
'\
1 2^2 1
1 uQ 1
const
AT =
(H-75)
Due to the complexity of this integral, an approximate solution to the integral is
developed by solving for large or and small oz separately, and then matching the
two solutions.
Large Limit: G(OZ » 2alb\ = —
2ba
(D-76)
Small Limit: C(o, « 2a/b) =
(n-77)
Note that these two forms of G(oz) match at oz = 2a/b. Plots of G(oz) versus oz
show that Eqns. (11-76) and (11-77) provide a very good representation of Eqn. (II-
74).
Develop the complete solution by solving
Volume IV
H-25
-------
X =
do.
const
(o.
(D-78)
2bo.
- K
X =
da'.
- K
+ const (o. < 2alb\
(11-79)
Then demand that az'(x0) = a^, using the correct form of solution (o20 > 2a/b or
ozo < 2a/b) to determine one of the integration constants. The second integration
constant is found by matching the solutions for oz' at 2a/b.
The result is an implicit equation in oz' for each region:
+ 4 - *.). h
/:/:
i-Mv
(n-80)
o, < 2a/fc:-
= In
Klb
2a
(H-81)
where aa and o^ are constants that depend on the size of ozo relative to 2a/b:
2alb:
= (a/ftf A
2b
2bK
(H-82)
In
(H-83)
and where
Volume IV
n-26
-------
Ao =
2^
'-N-
4K_
i
In
^
M-,
a
•h
M
/
.
(n-84)
Numerical iteration is used to solve these implicit equations for oz'(x - AO). The
method chosen for this iterates directly on:
where F(o/, x - x0) is either a natural logarithm function or an exponential
function, depending on which choice results in the condition for convergence:
dF
da
< 1
(0-86)
Case 4
Urban:
Stability A,B
o (x) = ax(\ + bx}m
(n-87)
The function G(oz) that corresponds to Eqn. (11-87) involves the solution of a
cubic equation, which precludes a simple expression for the integral in Eqn. (II-
62). Because the growth of o, is rapid for this case, the settling velocity will
generally have a small effect on oz'. Therefore, the feedback embodied in Eqn.
(n-62) is neglected, and Eqn. (11-59) is solved instead to obtain
= at(x) -
vs (x - x0)/u
c. Implementation in ISC-COMPDEP
Adjustments to the mass of the plume, its distribution in the vertical, and
the effective oz are characterized in terms of correction factors- This allows the
effects of dry deposition to be calculated for either simple terrain or complex
terrain models in one group of subroutines, controlled by a single call. This group
is isolated from the central commons of ISC-COMPDEP, being passed all needed
information through its argument-list. When complex terrain adjustments are
requested by setting a logical variable in the argument-list, the COMPLEX I
adjustments are made by a subroutine taken directly from COMPLEX I.
Volume IV
H-27
-------
The factor for the effective a. is defined as
o-W
°ZCOR = -TT (H-89)
o.W
Likewise, the source depletion factor is defined as
QCOR = -g| (H-90)
and evaluated by Eqn. (11-45). The profile correction factor was defined in
Eqn. (H-51):
PCOR = 'M (n-9I>
Substantial terrain effects can complicate the integrals needed for QCOR,
because the local terrain elevation must be known at each point in the integral in
order to compute the deposition flax. In the simplest application, the local terrain
elevation is interpolated between that at the source and that at the receptor (the
end-point of the path of integration). Terrain for most applications is not
sufficiently smooth for this type of characterization. For example, both the source
and receptor may be at nearly the same elevation, but the path of integration may
encounter a hill between them.
To better resolve the influence of terrain on the mass depletion due to dry
deposition, a file of gridded terrain elevations may be used in ISC-COMPDEP.
The gridded data are interpolated to obtain the elevation at any point in the
modeling domain (defined as that rectangular region which contains all sources
and receptors in the simulation). The gridded terrain file may be specified on a
new pathway (TG), as described in Section HI.
G. Wet Deposition
A scavenging ratio approach is used to parameterize the wet removal of gases and
particles. In this model, the flux of material to the surface is the product of a scavenging ratio
times the concentration, integrated in the vertical:
Fw(r,y) = J A C(X,y,z) dz 01-92)
Volume IV
H-28
-------
where the scavenging ratio (A) has units of s"1. Across the plume, the total flux to the surface
must equal the mass lost from the plume so that
-— Q(x) = [ Fw(x,y) dy = A Q(x)lu (H-93)
dx J
Solving this equation for Q(x), the source depletion relationship is obtained:
e-» (n-94)
As with dry deposition (Section n.F), the ratio Q(x)/Q0 is computed as a wet depletion factor.
It is assumed in the ISC-COMPDEP model that the plume is subject to wet removal
whenever precipitation is occurring, even when the plume may be above the mixing height.
Even though the plume may be elevated, and the ground level pollutant concentration low or
zero, the plume is assumed to be within or below cloud base, and thus subject to wet scavenging.
The scavenging ratio is computed from a scavenging coefficient and a precipitation rate
(e.g., Scire et al.
1995):
A = A/?/* (D-95)
where the coefficient A, has units s"1, the precipitation rate R has units (mm/hr), and /?, is a
reference precipitation rate of 1 mm/hr. The scavenging coefficient depends on the
characteristics of the pollutant (e.g., solubility and reactivity for gases, size distribution for
particles) as well as the nature of the precipitation (e.g., liquid or frozen). Jindal and Heinold
(1991) have analyzed particle scavenging data reported by Radke et al. (1980), and found that the
linear relationship of Eqn. (13-95) provides a better fit to the data than the nonlinear assumption
A = A/?*. Furthermore, they report best-fit values for A. as a function of particle size. These
values of the scavenging coefficient are displayed in Figure n-4. Jindal and Heinold (1991)
suggest that X should reach a plateau beyond 10 um, which is why the curve is flat beyond 10 um
in Figure n-4. Figure EI-5 shows the correspondence between scavenging ratios computed with
Eqn. (11-95) and those determined by Radke et al. (1980) from observations. The scavenging
coefficients for frozen precipitation are expected to be reduced to about 1/3 of the values in
Figure n-4 based on data for sulfate and nitrate.
National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological stations typically report hourly
precipitation codes describing the type of precipitation. ISC-COMPDEP uses this precipitation
code to determine if the value of A for liquid or frozen precipitation is most appropriate. The
4*
reported precipitation code is related to precipitation type as shown in Table II- 1. The liquid
precipitation values are used for precipitation codes 1-18, and frozen precipitation for
Volume IV
n-29
-------
precipitation codes 19-45. If the precipitation code is missing, the ambient temperature, Ta, is
used as a surrogate (Ta < 32 °F, frozen precipitation is assumed, otherwise liquid precipitation is
assumed).
The approach to specifying the scavenging ratio for particles used in ISC-COMPDEP is
similar to that used in the COMPDEP model (after Bowman et al. 1987). However, Bowman et
al. group A-values into three particle size ranges, and three precipitation rate categories.
Therefore, the linear trend in A with precipitation rate is not resolved as well since all
precipitation rates within a category use one value. Furthermore, the default COMPDEP
scavenging coefficients use a single value of A for all precipitation rates in the largest of the
three particle size classes. See Section ILL for a discussion of the differences between
ISC-COMPDEP and COMPDEP.
H. Complex Terrain
The Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), through its Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards (OAQPS), provides guidance on the application of air quality models for
regulatory purposes. Several dispersion models are considered "Guideline models" by the U.S.
EPA (U.S. EPA 1993a), and results from these models, when properly applied, are accepted for
use in decision-making without a site-specific validation program. Among several classifications
which are used to establish the preferred modeling approaches, one is the classification of the
terrain surrounding a facility that must be modeled. Terrain is considered "simple" if it does not
rise above the height at which pollutant plumes are emitted into the atmosphere (i.e., the stack
height). Terrain is considered "complex" if it rises above the stack height. By this definition, the
terrain may appear "simple" for some sources, and "complex" for others. Because modeling
techniques differ for simple terrain and complex terrain applications, the U.S. EPA has
determined that the use of either model should be decided on a source-by-source and receptor-
by-receptor basis. Receptors located at a height below the stack height for a source are modeled
with the simple terrain model. Those located above the effective plume height after accounting
for momentum and buoyant plume rise are modeled with the complex terrain model. Receptors
that fall between these two heights are characterized as "intermediate," rather than as either
simple or complex, and are modeled with both simple and complex terrain models, and the larger
modeled concentration used in subsequent analyses and decisions.
The result of this approach is that the correct model for a particular source and a
particular receptor during a particular hour depends on the height of the receptor relative to the
stack height of the source and the modeled plume height for that hour. Because plume rise, and
therefore the effective plume height, depends on meteorological conditions, the model selected
may change from hour-to-hour. A further complication: because stack heights vary from source-
to-source, the model selected for one source may not be the model selected for another. An
Volume IV
n-30
-------
illustration of how the definition of terrain varies with source and plume heights is shown in
Figure II-6.
This figure shows a cross-section of terrain downwind of two sources. Ten receptors
located on the terrain are identified, and the centerline of the plume from each source is marked
by a solid line. These plumes are not deflected by the terrain in this figure, because this
schematic only depicts the process of selecting the appropriate model, rather than depicting the
treatment of plumes within a model. Table II-2 summarizes the choice of the appropriate type of
model for each combination of source and receptor. The dotted lines in the figure mark the
height of each of the stacks. Receptors 2, 3,4, and 5 all lie at heights equal to or less than the
shorter stack, so that concentrations at these receptors are always obtained from a simple terrain
model, regardless of the calculated plume heights. Receptors 1 and 6 lie below the top of the
taller stack (Source 1), so that the simple terrain model is used to estimate concentrations at
Receptors 1 and 6 that are the result of emissions from Source 1. But the concentrations that
result from emissions from Source 2 must be estimated by both a simple terrain model and a
complex terrain model, because these receptors lie between stack-top and plume height
(intermediate terrain). The larger concentration modeled at each receptor is retained, and added
to the concentration due to Source 1 to obtain the total concentration estimate at Receptors 1 and
6. Receptors 7 and 10 lie above the plume height for Source 2, and so concentrations due to
Source 2 are estimated by the complex terrain model. These receptors lie between stack-top and
plume height for Source 1, so concentrations due to Source 1 must be estimated by both the
simple and complex terrain models, with the larger concentration retained and added to the
concentration due to Source 2 at each receptor. The remaining two Receptors, 8 and 9, lie above
the height of both plumes, so concentrations at these receptors are estimated by the complex
terrain model.
Note that the simple terrain model is always used for Receptors 2,3,4, and 5; both
simple terrain and complex terrain models are used for Receptors 1, 6, 7, and 10, depending on
which source is being modeled. For the particular plume heights chosen for this illustration,
concentrations at Receptors 8 and 9 are obtained from the complex terrain model alone.
Therefore, it is apparent that the use of just a simple terrain model, or just a complex terrain
model, at a particular receptor cannot be guaranteed. With the exception of those receptors that
lie below height of the shortest stack, or those that lie above the height of the greatest
conceivable plume-height, both models will be needed to implement the procedure for estimating
concentrations at intermediate terrain heights.
To streamline the treatment of terrain, and to broaden the application of the modeling
assumptions, simple terrain and complex terrain modeling algorithms were combined in ISC-
COMPDEP, so that the intermediate terrain processing could be completed in one application of
the model. A Guideline model for simple terrain is ISCST2 and a Guideline complex terrain
Volume IV
n-3i
-------
model is COMPLEX I. ISCST2 serves as the base for ISC-COMPDEP, so its terrain treatment
was already in place. The COMPLEX I model was prepared as a callable module or subroutine
for use in ISC-COMPDEP. The COMPLEX I module in ISC-COMPDEP was implemented in
regulatory default mode. The intermediate terrain processing algorithm was embedded in ISC-
COMPDEP, and one or both terrain algorithms are called as required. The primary differences in
the way these models simulate the effect of terrain on ground-level concentrations are outlined
below.
1. ISCST2 Terrain Treatment
ISC is not intended for use in situations in which receptors are placed on terrain
that exceeds the height of the "stack." Any receptors that are found above this height are
lowered to a height that is 0.005 m below the height of the stack. This is done hourly for
each source in the simulation, and is therefore source-specific. The mixing height is not
adjusted for the presence of any terrain feature, and the result of any downwash
calculations does not modify the stack height used to determine the height of the receptor.
Once the receptor height is determined, the vertical distribution factor contains the
difference in elevation between the centerline of the plume and the receptor. In effect, the
centerline of the plume is lowered by an amount equal to the modified elevation of the
receptor above the base of the stack.
2. COMPLEX I Terrain Treatment
COMPLEX I is a screening model for use in complex terrain. It uses 22.5°
sector-averaging rather than the Gaussian lateral distribution function, and it employs the
partial height correction method to simulate the effect of terrain. The height of the plume
at a receptor depends on the height of the plume over level terrain (which is taken to be
the height of the plume above the elevation at the base of the stack from which the plume
was released), the receptor height (above the base of the stack), and the plume path
coefficient (which depends on the stability class). Values for the plume path coefficient
are typically C = 0.0 for stable (classes E and F), and C = 0.5 for the rest (classes A, B, C,
and D). The "half-height" correction model is equivalent to C = 0.5.
Let zs be the elevation of the base of the stack above sea level, and zr be the
elevation above sea level at the receptor. Furthermore, let hs be the height of the plume at
the source, and h, be the height of the plume at the receptor. If the elevation at the
receptor exceeds the elevation of the centerline of the plume at the source,
hr = hs- C '' (n-96)
Volume IV
D-32
-------
If the elevation at the receptor lies below the centerline of the plume at the source.
hr = *, - k - *,) • (1 - C) (H-97)
In either case, hr is not allowed to be less than some minimum value, which is typically
set at 10m. Note that zr > zf is assumed in the above equation, so that the terrain-
following plume result is obtained (C = 1) if the terrain on which the receptor sits lies
below the elevation of the base of the stack. The mixing height is not altered unless
C = 0.0, in which case the mixing height is reset to 5000 m to simulate unlimited mixing.
When C = 0.0, the full difference between the plume height and the receptor
height is obtained, subject to the specified minimum. This gives the appearance of
keeping the plume level, and is therefore known as the level-plume treatment. It also
results in sending the plume over all terrain greater than plume height, which is not
consistent with the behavior of plumes in stably-stratified flows. Therefore, the "400-m
correction" factor originally used in the Valley model (Burt 1977) is applied. This factor.
which varies linearly from 1.0 at the plume centerline height to 0.0 at 400 m above the
plume centerline height, is applied to the concentration estimate to reduce reported
concentrations to zero on all terrain that lies at least 400 m above the height of the plume.
\
I. Treatment of Calm Wind Conditions
Calm conditions are typically defined as those periods in which the measured wind speed
is less than 1 m/s. U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1993a) on applying plume models suggests
that predicted concentrations become unrealistically large when wind speeds less than 1 m/s are
input to a plume model, and such predictions are not considered valid. Therefore, the procedure
adopted by the U.S. EPA is to "skip" all calm hours in a meteorological record when calculating
hourly average concentrations, and to remove most such hours from multiple-hour averages (e.g.
24-hour averages). When an hour is skipped, all concentrations for the hour remain at their
initial value: zero. If the calm hours were included in multiple-hour averages, these zeros would
artificially reduce the magnitude of the average for the period, since non-zero concentrations are
expected to occur during the calm hours. However, a minimum number of hours is also set for
each averaging period. These are: 18 in a 24-hour period, 6 in an 8-hour period, and 3 in a 3-
hour period. No such minimum number of hours is specified for an annual average, so all calm
hours are ignored when forming the annual average. ISC-COMPDEP implements this U.S.
EPA-recommended procedure.
As an example of this regulatory scheme to deal with calm winds, assume that 2 days in a
non-leap-year have calm hours; Day 113 has calms reported 2 hours, and Day 267 has 23 hours
reported as calm (Hours 1-23). The annual average would be the arithmetic average of all 8735
concentrations calculated for the non-calm hours. However, on Day 113, the 24-hour average
Volume IV
n-33
-------
would consist of the arithmetic average of all 22 concentrations calculated for the non-calm
hours in the day. However, on Day 267, the 24-hour average would consist of the concentration
for Hour 24 divided by 18 (the minimum number of hours required) because only 6 calm hours
in a 24-hour period may be excluded, and the remaining 17 calm hours contribute zero
concentrations to the average.
J. Treatment of Multilevel, Multistation Meteorological Data
In response to peer reviewer's comments, changes made to ISC-COMPDEP allow it to
accept vertical profiles of wind speed, wind direction, and temperature measured at one location.
This is a significant departure from ISC2 and COMPLEX I, the component models of ISC-
COMPDEP, which assume that wind and temperature data are available from only one height
above the surface, at one location. Implementation of the vertical profiles allows the model to
respond to potential "layered" flow situations in that plume rise is calculated iteratively using the
mean wind speed and temperature gradient within the portion of the atmosphere through which
the plume rises. (Prior versions of the model use a stability-class-dependent temperature
gradient, and they extrapolate the wind speed to stack-top to characterize the mean speed for
plume rise calculations, using a stability-class-dependent power law exponent.) Furthermore, the
wind speed used for transport and dilution in the new version is obtained at plume height, rather
than at stack-top.* The direction of transport is obtained at the final (equilibrium) plume height.
However, even with the multilevel capabilities, the plume trajectory in ISC-COMPDEP is still
assumed to be a straight-line (i.e., the plume does not respond to changes in the flow field along
its trajectory).
The changes to ISC-COMPDEP allow vertical layering in the temperature and wind
fields (as resolved by a nearby instrumented tower) to influence plume rise and transport (both
speed and direction). An iterative approach similar to that used in CTDMPLUS (Perry et al.
1989) allows the plume rise equations of ISC2 to make use of the average wind speed and
temperature gradient across the region through which the plume rises. The iteration is done as
follows:
- Interpolate wind speed at stack-top (assign to new variable, UST)
- Set new variable UMEAN equal to UST (for now)
- Calculate final plume height (final rise) using stack-top wind speed and the
default temperature gradient
- Perform iteration
• Calculate a layer-average speed between stack-top and final rise
(assign to UMEAN)
• Interpolate T at current estimate of final plume height
Volume IV
H-34
-------
• Calculate the mean dQ/dz from stack-top to final plume height
(impose a minimum value of 0.01 deg/m)
• Recalculate final plume height
• Average new and old plume height estimates to obtain final rise
• Calculate a layer-average speed between stack-top and final rise
(assign to UMEAN)
• Interpolate T at current estimate of final rise
• Calculate the mean dQ/dz from stack-top to final plume height
(impose a minimum value of 0.01 deg/m)
• Recalculate final plume height and compare with previous value
• Repeat all steps again until the change in plume height is less than
1% (i.e., until the mean wind speed and temperature gradient are
consistent with the plume rise)
If the iteration fails to find a plume height consistent with the temperature and wind speed
profiles, an "information" message is sent to the error log, and UMEAN is set equal to UST, but
the mean temperature gradient from the last iteration is retained (and the final plume height is
recalculated). Once the process is completed, the wind direction is interpolated at final plume
height (DIRS). The transport wind speed (US) is interpolated to plume height (transitional or
final).
The wind at stack-top (UST) is used for stack-tip downwash and building downwash
calculations, and for computing transitional rise. The average wind in the layer over which the
plume rises (UMEAN) is only used in computing the distance to final rise and the final rise
height (which also limits the transitional rise height). The wind direction at final rise determines
the plume transport direction (the wind direction in the file of surface meteorological data is used
in the direction-specific building downwash calculations). The wind speed (US) at transitional or
final plume height, depending on the receptor location (i.e., downwind distance), is used in the
remainder of the code for transport and dilution. There is no attempt to segment the plume,
allowing it to track changes in wind direction as it rises. Furthermore, integrations over distance
from the source to a receptor, which are required for plume depletion due to dry deposition, use
the plume height and wind speed (US) that are appropriate for the receptor location for all
distances in the integral. This is consistent with the intuitive expectation that dry deposition is
negligible while the "lower edge" of the plume remains elevated above the surface, as it
generally does during transitional rise.
Volume IV
n-35
-------
1. Interpolation Methods
The methods used by ISC-COMPDEP to interpolate and extrapolate temperature
data obtained from the observed profile is illustrated in Figure D-7. Within the range of
observed data points (indicated by the asterisks in the figure), the temperature is
interpolated linearly. Beyond the range of the observed points (e.g., below 20 m and
above 150 m in the illustration), the temperature gradient (dT/dz) is extrapolated using a
straight line fit through the nearest two points. In the figure, the solid lines show the
region of interpolation, and the dashed lines show the extrapolated region.
The wind speed is handled in the same way as temperature (linear interpolation
within the range of data points, and extrapolation of the rate of change outside the range
of data), except for heights less than 10 m (see Figure n-8). Following the convention in
the regulatory model ISC2, wind speeds extrapolated to heights less than 10 meters are
assigned the 10-meter wind speed value. That is, the wind speed at heights below 10
meters is assumed constant at the value measured at 10 meters or extrapolated down to 10
meters from a higher anemometer height.
Figure n-9 shows the extrapolation of wind direction data. Within the vertical
range of the observed data, the wind direction is interpolated linearly between the
observed data points. Above the top observational point and below the lowest
observational point, the wind directions are persistent at their "edge" values.
K. Micrometeorological Parameters
Applications of ISC-COMPDEP that do not involve either wet or dry deposition may use
meteorological data files described in the ISC2 users guide. For dry deposition, additional
parameters such as the surface friction velocity (u.), Monin-Obukhov length (L), and surface
roughness length (z0) must be added to the meteorological data file; also, wet deposition requires
an hourly precipitation code, and a precipitation rate (mm/hr). These can be provided by the
meteorological processor called DEPMET. Note that the hourly precipitation rate is obtained
from running the PMERGE program, which is part of the CALPUFF system of processors (Scire
et al. 1995).
DEPMET combines a file of standard meteorological data (for ISCST2) in either binary
or ASCII form with cloud data (either CD 144 format or free format) and precipitation data
(either binary or ASCII from the PMERGE processor) to estimate the surface heat flux, and to
provide precipitation rates. The methods of Holtslag and van Ulden (1983) are used to estimate
solar radiation and surface sensible heat flux from these routinely-available meteorological data
and surface (land use) data. The Holtslag-van Ulden scheme has been implemented into the
HPDM model (Hanna and Chang 1991), extensively compared and tested with field data (e.g.,
Hanna and Chang 1992), and has been shown to produce reasonable results. Therefore, the
Volume IV
H-36
-------
techniques used in the HPDM meteorological preprocessor are used to produce the
micrometeorological variables required in ISC-COMPDEP.
1. Unstable/Neutral Conditions
The energy balance at the surface can be written as:
G. «• Qf = Qh + Qe + Qg (11-98)
where Q. is the net all-wave radiation (Watts/Meter2 or W/m2),
Qfis the anthropogenic heat flux (W/m2),
Qh is the sensible heat flux (W/m2),
Qe is the latent heat flux (W/m2), and
Qg is the ground/storage heat flux (W/m2).
Holtslag and van Ulden (1983) provide the following parameterization of the net
radiation term:
Q. = ™ ^c ' (H-99)
Qm = (a,sin(t) + a2)(l + b}Nb2) (11-100)
Cj = 0.38 (1"")^) + 1 (n-ioi)
where T is the measured air temperature (K),
A is the albedo,
o is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10"8 W/m2/K4),
N is the fraction of the sky covered by clouds,
4> is the solar elevation angle (deg.),
a is an empirical surface moisture parameter, and,
S is the slope of the saturation enthalpy curve [5 = j/y], where
s = d(q,Vd(T) and Y = cJL,
qs is the saturation specific humidity, and,
cp is the specific heat at constant pressure (996 m2/(s2 K)).
The four terms in the numerator of Eqn. (11-99) account for absorption of
short-wave radiation at the surface, incoming long-wave radiation from gaseous
components of the atmosphere (e.g., water vapor and carbon dioxide), incoming
Volume IV
H-37
-------
long-wave radiation due to clouds, and outgoing long-wave radiation from the surface,
respectively. The factor in the denominator (1 + c3), results from the use of air
temperature rather than the more difficult-to-determine surface radiation temperature in
the equation. The term in the first set of parentheses in Eqn. (11-100) represents
short-wave solar radiation in the absence of clouds. The second term (1 + &,A*2).
accounts for the reduction of incoming solar radiation due to clouds (bl is negative). The
values for the empirical constants c,, c2, a,, a2, b}, and b2 suggested by Holtslag and van
Ulden (1983) are shown in Table H-3.
The flux of heat into the ground or storage in surface materials, Qg, is usually
parameterized during the daytime as a fraction of the net radiation (e.g., DeBruin and
Holtslag, 1982; Oke, 1978).
Qg = cgQ- (H-102)
where cg is an empirical coefficient which depends on the properties of the surface.
Holtslag and van Ulden (1983) obtained a value of cg of 0.1 for a grass covered surface in
the Netherlands. Oke (1982) indicates that typical ranges for cg are 0.05 to 0.25 in rural
areas, 0.20 to 0.25 in suburban areas, and 0.25 to 0.30 in urban regions and suggests that
typical values of cg are 0.15, 0.22, and 0.27 for rural, suburban, and urban areas,
respectively. The anthropogenic heat flux, Qp can usually be neglected, except in highly
urbanized areas.
The sensible heat flux, Qh, and latent heat flux are determined by Holtslag and van
Ulden (1983) as:
(0-103)
(n-104)
where P' is an empirical coefficient (- 20 W/m2).
Typical values of a, based on empirical data of Holtslag and van Ulden and
summarized by Hanna and Chang (1991) are:
a = 0.2 (arid rural areas)
a = 0.5 (urban areas, some parks, crops and fields during mid-summer
when rain has not fallen for several days)
a = 0.8 (crops, fields, or forest with sufficient moisture).
a = 1.0 (normal wet grass in a moderate climate)
Volume IV
n-38
-------
In neutral and unstable conditions, the following relationship developed by Wang
and Chen (1980) is used in HPDM and other models such as MESOPUFFII to compute
the friction velocity.
where
0.128 + 0.005 In (z0/z) z0/z z 0.01
0.107 zJz > 0.01
d2 = 1.95 + 32.6(z0/z)°'45 (H-108)
The term d,ln(l + djd3) represents the correction due to instability, «.„ = ku/[\n(z - d)/z0],
k is the von Karman constant (-0.4), and d is the displacement height (m).
Hanna and Chang (1990, 1992) tested the analytical formula against values
produced by the iterative solution of «. and L. They found that the Wang and Chen
(1980) expression produced values within 10% of the results determined by the iterative
solution for z = 10 m, d = 0, z0 = 1 m, and a large value of Qh (400 W/m2). Better
agreement was found for smaller roughness elements and smaller sensible heat fluxes. In
addition, the analytical solution was computationally significantly faster.
The Monin-Obukhov length can then be computed directly from its definition
once u. is determined from Eqn. (11-105) and Qh from Eqn. (11-103).
2. Stable Conditions
The Weil and Brower (1983) method for estimating u. is used in ISC-COMPDEP
/•'•
during stable conditions. A first estimate of the scaling temperature, 0., is calculated
using Holtslag and Van Ulden's (1983) equation:
Volume IV
E-39
-------
6., = 0.09(l - 0.5N2)
(D-lll)
where N is the total fractional cloud cover and 6. has units of K. Another estimate of 6.
is made from the profile equation for temperature:
6
•2
(D-112)
where the neutral drag coefficient C& is defined as k/\n[(z - d)/z0], and 6. is set equal to
the smaller of 6., and 6.2.
The sensible heat flux, Qh, is defined during stable conditions as:
Qh = -PS"-6- (n-113)
For large values of u (or «.), 6., (which depends only on cloud cover) is smaller than 6.2,
but an additional check on the product u.0. must be made, since Qh does not keep
increasing indefinitely with higher wind speeds. In HPDM, the value of 6. is not allowed
to exceed 0.05/u., where the numerator has units of K m/s and the denominator has units
of m/s. This limit is estimated from observations of heat fluxes during high-wind, stable
conditions.
The friction velocity, «., can be calculated from:
u =
<*«
2
1 +
/
1
2uo }
~ 1/2
cdn «J
2
1/2
(H-114)
where «o = (4.1zgQ,/T)
1/2
Because 6. is set equal to the smaller of 6., and 6.2, the following condition is always
met:
2u
1/2
(H-115)
During stable conditions, Hanna and Chang (1992) suggest a lower limit on L in
recognition of the fact that the atmosphere is less stable over urban areas than over rural
surfaces. Their suggested values for use for the various land use categories defined in the
Auer (1978) scheme are shown in Table n-4.
Volume IV
n-40
-------
L. Differences Between the COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP Model Formulations
The original project plan called for the use of the COMPDEP model to evaluate
concentration and deposition fluxes due to emissions from the WTI facility. However, ISC-
COMPDEP has been developed in a parallel effort, and contains more refined algorithms for
treating advection, dispersion, and deposition processes. Therefore, ISC-COMPDEP has
replaced COMPDEP in this risk assessment. A discussion of the most significant differences in
the models is contained in Schwede and Scire (1994). Since that paper was written, however,
addition enhancements have been made tc ISC-COMPDEP to address the points raised by the
peer review panel. In this section, a brief overview of the differences in the current versions of
the COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP models is provided.
COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP contain many similarities because they were both
developed to implement U.S. EPA's policy on simple, intermediate, and complex terrain. Both
models use the basic algorithms in the ISC2 model to evaluate impacts in simple terrain. Both
models use the algorithms in COMPLEX I for complex terrain receptors, and they both select the
higher of the ISC2 or COMPLEX I estimates for intermediate terrain receptors on a hour-by-
hour, receptor-by-receptor, and source-by-source basis. COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP both
contain reasonable sophisticated (but different) dry deposition and plume depletion models.
They also both contain a wet removal scheme based on a scavenging coefficient approach
(although it is implemented differently).
COMPDEP was developed using the COMPLEX I model code as a starting point, and a
module reproducing the main features of ISC2 was added. ISC-COMPDEP, however, used the
latest version of the ISC2 model as a starting point. This was done to take advantage of the
features available in ISC2 but not in COMPLEX I. Included in this list are:
• urban and rural dispersion coefficients,
• volume sources,
• new area source algorithm,
• flexible output options, including short-term averaging capabilities,
• revised building downwash procedures, and
• new dry deposition module for particulate matter.
As a result of the developmental history of the models, some of the technical algorithms
contain differences. These are summarized below.
1. Building Downwash
COMPDEP contains a building downwash algorithm th&t was used in an older
version of ISC (Bowers et al. 1979). It is based of the work of Huber and Snyder (1976).
Volume IV
H-41
-------
A few years ago, U.S. EPA modified ISC to include the Schulman-Scire downwash
algorithm for short stacks. (ISC was later re-coded to develop ISC2). The Huber-Snyder
scheme is still used for taller (but still sub-Good Engineering Practice (GEP) height)
stacks. COMPDEP does not contain the Schulman-Scire downwash algorithm, but rather
uses the Huber-Snyder scheme for all downwash cases. ISC-COMPDEP contains a full
implementation of the currently-recommended building downwash algorithms. See
Section n.D for details. This difference in the models can result in possible
underprediction of the effect of building downwash by COMPDEP for short stacks.
Based on the building analysis, it appears that the WTI incinerator would not be affected
by this difference in the models. It is high enough to use the Huber-Snyder method.
However, some of the fugitive emission sources at WTI are affected by building
downwash, and they are short enough that current U.S. EPA guidance calls for the use of
the Schulman-Scire method. The impacts from these sources could be underestimated
with COMPDEP.
Another difference in COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP is that COMPDEP allows
only one set of building dimensions to be entered. Because they are used for all wind
directions, usually the worst-case building dimensions are used. ISC-COMPDEP allows
direction-specific building dimensions to be entered. The lack of a direction-specific
building dimension option in COMPDEP is a conservative feature of the model, which
could lead to an overprediction of building effects under some conditions.
2. Dry Deposition
COMPDEP contains a dry deposition module for paniculate matter based on the
work of Sehmel and Hodgson (1978) and Sehmel (1980). This scheme was coded by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and is sometimes known as the CARB scheme.
The basis for the model is a set of wind tunnel deposition measurements of
monodispersed particles to a variety of low-roughness length surfaces. The deposition
equations are empirical curve fits of the data, and express the deposition velocity as a
function of particle size, particle density, surface roughness length, and friction velocity.
The plume depletion scheme in COMPDEP is a K-theory method based on Rao
(1981). It accounts for the removal of the pollutant from the plume at the surface, and
computes the remaining pollutant mass as a function of upwind removal. It can account
for particle settling due to gravitational effects. One of the assumptions necessary to
solve the gradient transfer equation in this method is that the dispersion coefficients vary
as a function of \m. Since this is not necessarily consistent with the empirical dispersion
*"
coefficients in the COMPDEP model, the K-theory scheme does not always conserve
mass exactly. However, in practice for many combustion sources such as the WTI
Volume IV
n-42
-------
incinerator, mass conservation problems in the COMPDEP plume depletion scheme are
likely to be small.
ISC-COMPDEP uses a resistance-based particle deposition module derived from
the Acid Deposition and Oxidant Model (ADOM) (Pleim et al. 1984) and modified for
the CALPUFF model. It computes gravitational settling, inertia! impaction, and
Brownian motion effects (see Section HF.l). The deposition velocities are functions of
the particle size, density, surface roughness, friction velocity, and atmospheric stability.
Both the COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP deposition schemes produce qualitatively
similar deposition curves as a function of particle diameter (see Schwede and Scire 1994).
However, their quantitative predictions can be different. Generally (but not always), the
COMPDEP scheme produces higher deposition velocities in the intermediate size range
(0.1 urn diameter up to 10 urn diameter). ISC-COMPDEP can produce higher values for
very small particles (< -0.05 um diameter). The deposition velocities from both models
approach the gravitational settling velocity as the particle size becomes large.
The ISC-COMPDEP model uses the modified source depletion method of Horst
(1983) to compute plume depletion effects. The Horst equations were extended for use in
ISC-COMPDEP for stability classes A and B (which were not solved in his paper). The
modified source depletion method, described in detail in Section II.F.2, uses a profile
correction factor to adjust the vertical distribution of the pollutant for removal at the
surface. The resulting vertical pollutant distribution takes on a non-Gaussian shape. The
Horst scheme conserves mass exactly. It was found by Doran and Horst (1985) to
compare very well with the reference surface depletion method (Horst 1977), but requires
only a small fraction of the computational time of the surface depletion scheme.
One feature of ISC-COMPDEP that is not in COMPDEP is the ability to specify a
detailed, gridded field of terrain heights. This allows ISC-COMPDEP to compute the
effects of enhanced deposition due to the interaction of terrain features with the plume.
The terrain data are specified independently of the receptor field, and the depletion effect
is evaluated regardless of whether receptors are placed on the terrain. This is done
because the depletion effect is cumulative, and it will influence concentrations at
receptors further downwind.
3. Micrometeorological Parameters
The COMPDEP model internally estimates the surface friction velocity (u.) and
Monin-Obukhov length (L) from meteorological information already provided to the
model. The Monin-Obukhov length is approximated as a function of the stability class
and surface roughness length using Golder (1972). The friction velocity is then computed
Volume IV
n-43
-------
from the wind speed, surface roughness length, and Monin-Obukhov length using the
integral form for the flux profile relationship (McRae 1981).
ISC-COMPDEP relies on externally-computed values of u. and L that are
supplied to it in the hourly meteorological file. The DEPMET processor (see Section
n.K) is provided with ISC-COMPDEP for this purpose. DEPMET uses the energy
balance method of Holtslag and van Ulden (1983) to compute sensible heat fluxes at the
surface. An empirical method of Wang and Chen (1980) is used to compute the friction
velocity. Once the heat flux and deposition velocity is known, L can be computed
directly from its definition. The algorithms in DEPMET are derived from the HPDM
model (Hanna and Chang 1990). They found that the friction velocities computed from
the Wang and Chen method were generally within 10% of the results determined by a
fully iterative solution of the u. and L equations. The best agreement was found for
smaller roughness elements and smaller sensible heat fluxes. Overall, Hanna and Chang
found good agreement of the predicted values of the friction velocity and heat fluxes with
observational data.
In comparing the values of u. predicted by the COMPDEP and the
ISC-COMPDEP (DEPMET) methods, Schwede and Scire (1994) noted that the
COMPDEP scheme tended to produce smaller values of u. than those from DEPMET.
Since the deposition models in COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP are both sensitive to the
value of u., the COMPDEP meteorological technique is likely to lead to smaller values of
deposition velocity, with other factors being held constant.
4. Wet Deposition
Both COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP use a scavenging coefficient approach to
estimate wet removal. However, COMPDEP divides the scavenging coefficients into a
matrix of values as a function of a particle size category and precipitation intensity
category. COMPDEP uses an intermittence (F) factor which reduces the wet flux to
account for unsteady precipitation. F serves as a multiplier of the wet flux estimates. The
values for F in the COMPDEP Overview Document provided by U.S. EPA recommend F
= 1.0 (steady precipitation), 0.5 (showers) and 0.25 (thunderstorms or squalls).
ISC-COMPDEP computes the scavenging ratio as a continuous function of the
precipitation rate. The scavenging coefficient for each particle size category is specified
separately in ISC-COMPDEP. ISC-COMPDEP does not explicitly include intermittency
effects, but rather uses the cumulative precipitation measured during the hour to compute
the scavenging ratio. It allows different sc wenging coefficients for liquid and frozen
f *
precipitation. It is suggested that the values of the scavenging coefficients for frozen
Volume IV
O-44
-------
precipitation are about one-third of those for liquid precipitation, although this is based
on very limited data for sulfate and nitrate (Scire et al. 1984).
The scavenging coefficient method in both models allows only a rough
parameterization of the complex processes involved in wet scavenging. It is likely that
the technique significantly overestimates wet deposition fluxes in the near field of the
source. The reasons for this are discussed in Section IV.D. 1.
5. Plume Rise and Transport
One of the enhancements made to the ISC-COMPDEP model in response to the
peer review was the introduction of multilayered meteorological data (winds and
temperatures). This is discussed in detail in Section H.J. This feature allows, for
example, plumes from low-level fugitive sources released within the valley to be
channelled with the valley flow, while the incinerator plume, that may have risen above
the valley walls, to be transported with the gradient, or above-valley winds. In the
multilayer mode, ISC-COMPDEP uses measured temperature gradients in the valley to
determine the inversion strength and plume rise. The plume rise algorithm in ISC-
COMPDEP, based on the CTDM algorithm (Perry et al. 1989), makes use of the vertical
profile of winds to account for wind shear effects in a more refined manner than
COMPDEP. In general, ISC-COMPDEP should provide a better representation of plume
transport and plume rise than COMPDEP. However, both models suffer from the
fundamental limitation of the steady-state approach in that they do not allow the plume
trajectories to deviate from a straight line. Especially in complex terrain situations, this is
likely to produce errors in the predicted concentration and deposition fields.
Volume IV
H-45
-------
Table D-l
Classification of Reported Precipitation Type/Intensity To Precipitation Code
Precipitation Code
Liquid Precipitation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Frozen Precipitation
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Type
Rain
Rain
Rain
Rain Showers
Rain Showers
Rain Showers
Freezing Rain
Freezing Rain
Freezing Rain
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Drizzle
Drizzle
Drizzle
Freezing Drizzle
Freezing Drizzle
Freezing Drizzle
Snow
Snow
Snow
Snow Pellets
Snow Pellets
Snow Pellets
Not Used
Ice Crystals
Not Used
Snow Showers
Snow Showers
Snow Showers
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Snow Grains
Snow Grains
Snow Grains
Ice Pellets
Ice Pellets
Ice Pellets
Not Used
Hail
Not Used
Not Used
Small Hail
Not Used
Intensity
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
.
_
.
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
.
*
.
Light
Moderate
Heavy
-
_
.
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
-
*
.
.
*
-
* Intensity not currently reported for ice crystals, hail, and small hail.
Volume IV
n-46
-------
Table U-2
Model Type Selected For Situation Depicted in Figure II-6
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Source 1
simple
simple
simple
simple
simple
simple
simple & complex
complex
complex
simple & complex
Source 2
simple & complex
simple
simple
simple
simple
simple & complex
complex
complex
complex
complex
Volume IV
H-47
-------
Table n-3
Values of Net Radiation Constants
(Holtslag and van Ulden 1983)
Constant
Value
b,
c.
990 W/m2
-30 W/m2
-0.75
3.4
5.31 x 10-'3W/m2/deg. K6
60 W/m2
Volume IV
U-48
-------
Table B-4
Minimum Values of Monin-Obukhov Length
During Stable Conditions
for Various Land Use Types
(From Hanna and Chang 1992)
Auer (1978)
Category
Cl
11,12
R3
R1.R2
A
Class
Commercial
Industrial
Compact Residential
Residential
Agricultural
Description
> 40-story buildings
10- to 40-story buildings
10-story buildings
-
-
-
-
Minimum L
150m
100m
50m
50m
50m
25m
2m
Volume IV
H-49
-------
suck = HB
Suck = 2HB
Stack = 3HB
Figure II-1. Illustration of the initial dilution radius, R0, as a function of stack height for a squat
building (from Schulman and Scire (1981)). Momentum plume rise is neglected in
the figure. Initial dilution radius varies from zero when Hs = 3 Hb to Hb when Hs =
Hb-
Volume IV
n-so
-------
INCIDENT WIND
PROFILE
-SEPARATED ZONES
ON ROOF AND SIDES
-REATTACHMENT LINES
ON ROOF AND SIDES
LATERAL EDGE AND
ELEVATED VORTEX PAIR
MEAN CAVITY
REATTACHMENT LINE
HORSESHOE VORTEX
SYSTEM AND MEAN
SEPARATION LINES
TURBULENT
WAKE
Figure II-2. Flow near a sharp-edged building in a deep boundary layef. [From Hosker, (1984)]
Volume IV
U-51
-------
10
a.
k^j
Q
10
-2 -
u» zo u i~10cm)
(cm s" I (cm) (m s'l)
11 a002 2.2*
— 44 0.02 7.2*
-O 117 ai 13.8*
: x 40 ~dQ5 -8**
*SEHM£L AND SUTTER (1974)
**MOLLER AND SHUMANN (1970)
10
-2
10
-1
10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, urn
Figure II-3. Observed deposition velocities as a function of particle size for 1.5 g/cm density
particles. Measured by Sehmel and Sutter (1974) and MoUer and Schumann (1970).
Figure from Slinn et al. (1978).
Volume IV
n-52
-------
Wet Scavenging Rate Coefficient (ICT'V'Vmm-h
1 10
Particle Diameter (microns)
100
Figure n-4. Wet scavenging coefficient as a function of particle sizefJindal and Heinold, 1991).
Volume IV
H-53
-------
-4 -1.
Wet Scavenging Ratio (10~ s~ )
100-1
-a
-------
Figure II-6. Cross-section of terrain illustrating positions of sources^and receptors.
Volume IV
n-ss
-------
200-1
150-
100-
50-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
024
Temperature (C)
8 10 12
Figure E-7. Illustration of temperature interpolation/extrapolation.
Volume IV
H-56
-------
200-i
150-
100-
50-
(power law)
(power law) ^
\ (WS constant below 10m)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ri 1 1 1 1 1 1
23
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3456
Wind Speed (m/s)
Figure II-8. Dlustration of wind speed interpolation/extrapolation.
Volume IV
H-57
-------
200-1
150-
100-
0)
X
50-
I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I
50 100
1 I '
150
Wind Direction (deg)
200
Figure n-9. Illustration of wind direction interpolation/extrapolation.
Volume IV
H-58
-------
IE. MODELING INPUT PARAMETERS
A. Source Data
1. Main Incinerator Stack
The source and emission parameters required for the air quality modeling include
the physical stack dimensions (i.e., stack height and stack diameter) and stack gas
parameters such as the exit velocity and exit temperature. Table IH-1 contains a listing of
the stack parameters for the main incinerator stack. The physical stack characteristics are
based on site drawings submitted by WTI to U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 1992a). The stack gas
parameters were derived by U.S. EPA from measurements made at the WTI facility
during a trial burn conducted in March 1993 and performance testing conducted in
August 1993 (U.S. EPA 1993f).
The fraction of the paniculate matter by weight in various particle diameter size
categories is shown in Table ffl-2 which is obtained from a report on the trial burn tests
(U.S. EPA 1993 f). The particle distribution data for the test run is plotted in Figure ffl-1,
where six categories, 2.97, 1.89, 0.93, 0.55, 0.40, and <0.40-um diameter are defined. In
order to resolve the particle distribution in the size range less than 0.40-|im diameter, a
best-fit curve that passes through the observed data points is drawn (solid line) and
extrapolated to smaller particle diameters. The extrapolated segment produces five
additional particles sizes. These are 0.27, 0.18, 0.12, 0.062, and 0.03 urn diameter. From
Figure ffl-1, their corresponding weight fractions are determined graphically as 11.91%,
10.0%, 5.0%, 4.0%, and 1.0%, respectively. These fractions sum up to 31.91%, which is
the fraction listed in Table III-2 in the <0.4-um diameter size category. The particle
diameters are expressed in terms of aerodynamic diameter, defined as the effective
diameter of a sphere of unit density which has the same settling velocity as the actual
particle. Thus, the aerodynamic diameter takes into account both particle shape factors
and particle density effects. In order to be consistent with the definition of aerodynamic
diameter, a particle density of 1 g/cm3 is used in the modeling.
The size distribution of the paniculate matter is appropriate to characterize the
distribution of pollutants bound throughout the volume of the emitted particles, such as
non-volatile metals, and is referred to as the volume or mass-weighted distribution. It is
^
Volume IV
ffl-1
-------
derived directly from the stack test measurements of the particle size distribution. A
second pollutant distribution, called the surface area distribution, assumes that the
pollutant is distributed on the surface of the particles, and therefore is apponioned among
the particles according to the relative surface area of the paniculate matter. This
distribution is appropriate for pollutants, such as semi-volatile organics, which adsorb
onto the outer surface of the particles (U.S. EPA 1993d). It is computed by determining
the percentage of the total surface area of all of the particles that is contained in particles
of a particular size category. For example, if 50% of the surface area of all particles is in
size category i, then the surface area weighting for that size category is 50%. Because
smaller particles have a higher surface area (Ss) to volume (Vj) ratio (S, / V, = uD,2 /
(TiDj3/^) = 67 Dj), the surface area distribution will tend toward higher weightings for the
smaller particle size categories. The surface area weighting is computed from the particle
sizes and the mass-weighting factors as follows:
• Compute the product of the mass-weighted fraction with the surface area
to volume ratio for category i: R^ = 6Wt/ D,, where Wj is the fraction of
mass in size category i, and D, is the diameter of size category i;
• Sum the values of R, for all size categories (R, = S R,); and
• Compute the surface area-weighted fraction for size category i as: R, / R,.
Table HI-3 summarizes the observed mass-weighted distribution and the
computed surface area-weighted pollutant distributions used in the base case WTI
simulations. Note that, as expected, the surface area distribution has a higher fraction of
the pollutant associated with smaller particles than the mass-weighted distribution.
2. Routine Fugitive Emission Sources
The U.S. EPA conducted an analysis of fugitive emissions from the WTI facility,
and has compiled an inventory of the type, location, characteristics, and magnitude of
fugitive emissions for modeling purposes. Five locations were identified where fugitive
emissions may be released on a routine basis. These are described by as (U.S. EPA
1995):
CARBON ADSORPTION BED. The carbon adsorption bed consists of 4
units open to the atmosphere. The estimated size of the units together is 20
ft by 30 ft. The emissions are vented through a single 92 ft stack. The
carbon adsorption bed is modeled as a point source It is subject to building
downwash effects.
Volume IV
m-2
-------
OPEN WASTEWATER TANK. This tank is located on the plot plan
(Figure ffl-2) as the "C" water tank. It has a diameter of 10.1 m and is
open to the atmosphere. The average liquid surface height is 25 ft. The top
of the tank is approximately 35 ft above the ground level. The wastewater
tank is modeled as a volume source because of the rapid vertical mixing
expected due to flow of air around and over the tank structure itself.
ORGANIC WASTE TANK FARM. The organic waste tank farm is
enclosed in a building that has four vents to the atmosphere. The vents are
located on the top of the building. Each vent is about 5 ft tall. It can be
assumed that each vent handles an equal amount of emissions. The
fugitive emissions from the organic waste tank farm are modeled as four
point sources, corresponding to the four vents at the top of the building.
• TRUCK WASH. The truck wash is a building enclosed on two sides and
open to the atmosphere on the ends in such a way as to allow trucks to
drive through. The truck wash building is 25 ft by 70 ft. The truck wash
emissions are modeled as a volume source. As with the wastewater tank,
there is expected to be rapid mixing of the emissions due to building-
induced turbulence and flow perturbations.
• ASH HANDLING. The source for fugitive emissions from ash handling
operations is a stack located at the top of the southeast comer of the steam
plant building. The steam plant building is 50 ft by 80 ft. The top of the
building is 22 ft above the ground. The ash handling stack is modeled as a
point source subject to building downwash effects.
The fugitive emission sources are modeled using an unit emission rate (1 g/s for
each point and volume sources, and 1 g/m2/s for the area source). Source-specific
concentrations and deposition fluxes can be obtained by scaling the modeling results
obtained with the unit emissions by the actual emission rates. The base elevation of all
fugitive emission sources is 212.1 m MSL. Other source characteristics for the fugitive
emission sources are listed in Table 10-4. All of the fugitive emissions are assumed to be
at ambient temperature, so buoyant plume rise is not a factor. For the point sources, the
diameter and exit velocity is set to arbitrarily small values to produce negligible plume
**
rise estimates while avoiding numerical problems associated with zero values for the
stack parameters in the model.
Volume IV
m-3
-------
B. Building Downwash Analysis
Because stack heights associated with point source emissions at WTI are less than Good
Engineering Practice (GEP) height, the effects of building downwash must be considered in the
modeling. As part of a building downwash analysis conducted by Region 5 (U.S. EPA 1992a),
the dimensions and location of each structure in the vicinity of the WTI stack were collected.
This information has been supplemented and revised with building information provided by
WTI, and re-analyzed using the U.S. EPA Building Profile Input Program (BPIP). BPIP (U.S.
EPA 1993c) was developed by U.S. EPA to incorporate its guidance on GEP and building
downwash (U.S. EPA 1985; U.S. EPA 1988; U.S. EPA 1989; U.S. EPA 1993c), including
recently clarified rules for assessing the complimentary effects of buildings which are
sufficiently close to each other to have interacting wakes. Table ffl-5 contains a list of the
buildings at the plant that have been evaluated for possible downwash effects. The building
locations are shown on the plot plan of the WTI facility (Figure ffl-2).
According to the U.S. EPA guidance, a stack which is within a distance 5L,, of a building,
where Lb is the lesser of the building height (Hb) and the projected building width (HK.) may be
influenced by building downwash effects, if the stack height is also less than Hb + 1.5L,,. Since
Lb cannot be greater than the building height, a minimum building height for consideration in the
downwash analysis is h/2.5. In the case of the main (150 ft) incinerator stack, there are five
structures shown which could influence the dispersion from the plume: the incinerator feed,
scrubber, precipitator, spray dryer, and boiler structures. In addition, there are three structures
potentially affecting the fugitive emissions from other point sources at the facility: the container
processing building, steam plant, and water treatment building. The other structures in Table HI-
5 are beyond the 5Lb distance to the stack, or are lower, non-controlling structures. Detailed
building information (location, height, orientation) is provided in the BPIP output files contained
in Appendix IV-1. In the BPIP analysis, the origin of the coordinate system is defined at the
main incinerator stack location, and the coordinates are listed in terms of plant north, rather than
true north. As shown on the plot plan, plant north is rotated by BPIP counter-clockwise from
true north by 22° 47' 12".
The ISC-COMPDEP model allows the use of direction-specific building dimensions.
The BPIP program produces a set of effective building dimensions (height and width) at 10°
direction intervals which are directly compatible with the ISC-COMPDEP input requirements
and format. The building dimensions produced by the latest version of BPIP (Version 94074) for
the main incinerator stack are shown in Table EQ-6. For some directions, the buildings are
sufficiently close to result in a combination of the buildings in accordance with the U.S. EPA
complimentary structure guidelines. The GEP height determined by BPJP is 72.69 m, based on
the combined effects of the scrubber and spray dryer structures. The direction-specific building
dimensions for the fugitive point source emissions are shown in Appendix IV-1.
Volume IV
m-4
-------
C. Meteorological Data Selection and Processing
Meteorological data in the vicinity of the East Liverpool Area that are available for use in
the air quality modeling of the WTI facility include the following:
• Observations of wind and temperature made at three sites on or near the WTI
property. Data from two 10-m towers and one 30-m tower are available for the time
period April 1992 through March 1993.
• Standard meteorological observations of wind, temperature, cloud cover, ceiling
height, and precipitation made at the National Weather Service (NWS) station at the
Greater Pittsburgh International Airport. The Pittsburgh Airport is located
approximately 25 miles southeast of East Liverpool.
• Wind, temperature, precipitation, and turbulence measurements made at three heights
on the 500-ft Beaver Valley Power Station meteorological tower (BVPSMT). The
BVPSMT is located near Shippingport, Pennsylvania, approximately 8 miles east of
the WTI site.
One of the recommendations of the Peer Review Panel was to use data from multiple
meteorological stations and at multiple heights in order to better characterize the flow and
temperature structure both within and above the Ohio River valley. The ISC-COMPDEP model
has been modified to allow vertical profiles of winds, temperatures, and turbulence, derived from
the BVPSMT and the WTI onsite towers, to be used in determining atmospheric stability, plume
transport, and dispersion. The vertical temperature gradient data from the BVPSMT have been
incorporated into the model in order to provide an improved representation of stability conditions
at plume height during stable atmospheric conditions (i.e., inversions), which are common in the
area. Meteorological parameters that may be required for the modeling, but are not available on-
site or at the BVPSMT, such as cloud cover and ceiling height estimates, are extracted from the
Pittsburgh Airport data set. In the remainder of this section, a discussion and analysis of the
meteorological data are provided. The modifications to the ISC-COMPDEP model to allow the
use of wind and temperature data at multiple levels are discussed in Section II.J.
1. WTI Site Data
Wind data are available from two sites at the WTI source location and a third site
nearby (at the East End School). Due to interference from nearby structures at the other
sites/levels, the most representative wind observations are from the 30-m level of the Site
2 meteorological tower and the 10-m level of the Site 3 meteorological tower. Site 2 is
located near the stack, while Site 3 is situated near the eastern extreme of WTI's property.
One year of wind data (April 1992 through March 1993) frornthese sites are analyzed.
The results, presented in Figures ni-3 and ni-4, show obvious channeling along the axis
Volume IV
m-5
-------
of the Ohio River Valley at the source. At the point where the WTI facility is located and
for some distance up river (to the east) the river valley is angled at about 70° from north.
Just down river (to the southwest) the angle changes to about 40° from north. The vast
majority of reported wind directions reflect the 70° orientation, being from the southwest
or the northeast with a maximum along the axis. Cross-axis winds are rare, with hardly
any winds from the southeast. There is a steep cliff across the river to the southeast. It is
likely that the data from the low-level WTI meteorological sites are not representative of
conditions on the hills on top of the valley where elevations generally are some 500 to
600 ft higher than river level. Figure JH-5 shows the terrain surrounding the WTI site.
2. Beaver Valley Power Station Meteorological Tower Data
Wind data are available at three levels (35,150 and 500 ft) from the
meteorological tower associated with the Beaver Valley Power Station near Shippingport,
Pennsylvania. An analysis is conducted to investigate whether one or more of the levels
at this tower might be more representative of conditions atop the valley. According to
information provided by Duquesne Light (1993), the tower is operated in accordance with
NRC regulations and includes primary and backup instrument systems. The tower is
located midway between the Beaver Valley and Bruce Mansfield Power Stations, on the
southern side of the Ohio River at about river mile 34.5, and is at 735 ft above sea level
(ASL). Thus, the 500-ft level of the tower, at 1235 ft ASL, is at or above the terrain
surrounding the river valley. Figure ni-6 shows the topography in the vicinity of the
tower. The tower is located at a bend in the river valley. Just down river to the west, at
the bend, the valley is somewhat wider and bends nearly east-west for about 1.5 miles
before turning NW-SE further downstream. Up river from the tower the river valley
becomes narrower and runs at an angle of 30° to 40° from North for about 1.5 miles
before changing to about 70° from north. The BVPSMT tower is about eight miles east
of the WTI site. There are several tributary valleys that feed into the main valley between
the WTI and BVPSMT sites and the river bends several times in the intervening distance.
Figure IJI-7 is a cross-sectional plot of the terrain through the Ohio River valley at the
locations of the BVPSMT and WTI meteorological towers. The cross sections are taken
in a line roughly perpendicular to the river at each site. Also shown are the heights of the
various levels of the meteorological towers. The plot shows that the lower tower levels
are well within the valley, while the 500-ft (1235 ft MSL) level of the BVPSMT extends
above the valley walls.
Hourly-average tower data for six years: 1986-1990 and 1992 are used. At each
level, data capture is over 99 percent. The annual data are combined to construct a six-
year wind rose for each level. Figures IJ3-8 and ffl-9 show the wind rose for the 35-ft
Volume IV
m-6
-------
level. Winds are reported from all points of the compass but the vast majority of winds
from the east and south are very light. Most stronger winds are from the southwest,
which is the only direction for which there is a relatively long fetch and is also the
direction most likely to experience synoptic flow. The surface level winds appear to
show the effects of drainage winds.
Figure ffl-10 shows the wind rose for the 150-ft level. Valley channeling effects
are more evident at this level than at 35 ft. Along-valley winds predominate over cross-
valley flow. Again, southeast winds are least common. The location of the tower closer
to the river bend compared to WTI seems to allow a larger range in the direction of
westerly winds with synoptic winds having more influence.
The pattern at 500 ft (Figure ffl-11) is different from that seen at the other two
levels. The most predominant winds are from the west and southwest, similar to the 150-
ft level, but the other sectors are more evenly represented and, in contrast to the 150-ft
level, the wind comes from the northeast less often than from other directions. To see
whether the 500-ft data are more representative of the synoptic conditions likely to
influence sites above the valley, data from the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport are
examined as well.
The wind roses for each year are analyzed separately to see if there were any
significant changes in the wind patterns from year to year. These plots are included in the
Appendix IV-2. The annual analysis suggested that the variation from year to year is
relatively small compared to differences among the three levels for the period examined.
3. Pittsburgh Data
Hourly surface wind speed and direction data from the Pittsburgh Airport are from
the U.S. EPA SCRAM electronic bulletin board for the six year period corresponding to
the BVPSMT data. These data are free from the valley effects seen at WTI and
BVPSMT. These are processed into a wind rose for comparison to the BVPSMT data
(Figure HI-12). The Pittsburgh wind rose is very similar to the 500-ft level BVPSMT
wind rose, with westerly winds predominating, and northeast winds the least common.
There are more southerly winds at Pittsburgh relative to BVPSMT and, perhaps showing
the influence of the valley, BVPSMT has more southwest winds. The Pittsburgh pattern
is different from that seen at the BVPSMT 35- and 150-ft levels.
Two years of rawinsonde data (1988 and 1989) from the Pittsburgh airport are
also examined. These data also reflect the prevailing westerly winds and are similar to
the 500-ft tower data. The plots of the rawinsonde observations at both 00 and 12 GMT
r
(Greenwich Mean Time) are presented for several heights in the Appendix IV-2.
Volume IV
ffl-7
-------
4. Use of Meteorological Data in ISC-COMPDEP Modeling of WTI
The discussion of the wind roses indicates that the 500-ft level winds at BVPSMT
reflects a different flow regime than the winds at the lower levels of the tower. The 500-
ft winds are very similar in behavior to the conditions that are seen at Pittsburgh and thus
are representative of the synoptic flow that is more likely to influence the higher
elevations surrounding East Liverpool. The 500-ft winds are mostly free of influence
from valley topography. The lower level winds at BVPSMT are greatly influenced by
valley topography, and show channeling and drainage flow effects. The BVPSMT data
include a vertical temperature data set which may give a better picture of stability
conditions in the valley at WTI than surface data or default assumptions in the model.
Therefore, a modeling approach that uses wind data from WTI and the 150 ft level
of BVPSMT to represent within-valley flow and the 500-ft BVPSMT tower data to
represent flow above the valley walls may give a more accurate representation of the
impacts of the WTI facility than extrapolation of the 30-meter WTI onsite tower winds to
elevations above the top of the valley. The ISC-COMPDEP model has been modified to
allow a profile of wind to allow differential transport of plumes at different heights.
Although there are several bends of the river valley between the WTI site and the
BVPSMT, the direction of the axis of the valley at the locations of the meteorological
towers is nearly the same (within approximately 10°). The effect of this small difference
is considered negligible, and it is concluded that the BVPSMT 150-ft level probably
reflects the in-valley flow at the 150-ft height in the vicinity of the WTI facility
reasonably well.
If the 500-ft winds reflect the synoptic flow, and the 150-ft winds reflect the
valley flow, there must be a shear zone between these two levels when the flows are
different. Through this zone, the wind and temperature change from being valley-
dominated to synoptic wind-dominated. The topographical maps of the areas
surrounding the WTI site and BVPSMT indicate that the 1000-ft contours generally
depict the sides of the valley wall. At 1100 ft, the contour loses much of its relationship
to the shape of the lower valley. Therefore, it is likely that the shear zone is around the
1000-1100 levels. With the ground elevation at about 750 ft, the shear zone is assumed
to be in the region 265 to 365 ft above the ground. In preparing the wind data for input
into ISC-COMPDEP, five levels of winds are used: 30 m (98.4 ft), 45.7 m (150 ft), 80.8
m (265 ft), 111.3 m (365 ft), and 152.4 m (500 ft). The 30 m, 45.7 m, and 152.4 m levels
correspond to measurement heights of the BVPSMT or WTI towers. The 80.8 m and
111.3m levels correspond to the bottom and top of the assumed shear zone. The bottom
of the shear zone is assumed to have the same wind as the 45.7 m level of the BVPSMT,
and the top of the shear zone is assumed to have the same winds as the 152.4 m level of
Volume IV
m-s
-------
the BVPSMT. The shear zone concept is necessary to avoid the effects of above-valley
winds being interpolated downward into the valley where they do not apply.
Because the main incinerator stack height is 150 ft, the 500-150 ft temperature
gradient observations at the BVPSMT are used to improve the characterization of
stability conditions at plume height. ISC-COMPDEP was modified to allow hourly
values of potential temperature gradient from the BVPSMT for the 150-500 ft layer to
replace the default temperature gradients provided in the ISC-COMPDEP model. This
provides a more direct measure of the frequency and intensity of temperature inversions
within the Ohio River Valley to be represented within the model.
Observations of cloud cover and ceiling height are needed for computation of the
stability class. Since these observations are not made onsite, cloud data from the
Pittsburgh Airport are used. Morning and afternoon mixing heights for the period are
computed using upper air soundings from Pittsburgh, PA and surface temperatures from
the same site, in accordance with U.S. EPA modeling guidance. Pittsburgh is the closest
available upper air station to East Liverpool.
A modified version of the U.S. EPA meteorological preprocessor RAMMET is
used to conduct the meteorological modeling. The program allows the use of different
measurements for stability and transport calculations, and will substitute for missing data
from user-selected backup measurements. A calm threshold of 1 m/s is used in the
analysis. Thus, wind speeds less than 1 m/s are reset to 1 m/s, in accordance with U.S.
EPA guidance, and the hour is treated as a calm hour. RAMMET produces hourly
estimates of stability class, wind vector, wind speed, temperature, and also interpolates
the twice-daily mixing heights to hourly values.
The dry deposition algorithm in ISC-COMPDEP requires hourly values of the
surface friction velocity (u.) and Monin-Obukhov length (L). The friction velocity is a
measure of the momentum flux to the surface, and is a function of the surface roughness
length (z0), wind speed, and atmospheric stability. The Monin-Obukhov length is a
measure of the relative importance of mechanical and buoyant production of turbulence
in the atmospheric boundary layer. It ranges from small positive values for highly stable
conditions to infinity for neutral conditions to small negative values for highly convective
conditions.
ISC-COMPDEP requires the computation of u. and L externally. The DEPMET
meteorological processor, described in Section H.L., is used to compute these variables
for the ISC-COMPDEP simulations. DEPMET uses standard meteorological
observations and surface characteristics to compute u. and L based on the energy balance
method of Holtslag and van Ulden (1983). '*
Volume IV
m-9
-------
Hourly precipitation data is from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
The data consists of two types: hourly precipitation amounts (in NCDC's TD-3240
format), and hourly precipitation type codes (in CD-144 format). The precipitation
amount is used in determining the magnitude of the scavenging ratio. The precipitation
type code (e.g., rain, drizzle, showers, snow, hail, etc.) is used to distinguish liquid from
frozen forms of precipitation. The scavenging coefficient has different values for liquid
precipitation than frozen precipitation.
D. Receptor Grid
A radial grid of receptors is developed for the air dispersion and deposition modeling.
The modeling domain extended out to 50 km from the WTI stack. Receptors are placed in rings
at distances of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,0.5, 0.6,0.7, 0.8,0.9, 1.0, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.0, 2.25, 2.5, 3.0,
4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 30.0,40.0, and 50.0 km from the WTI stack. The polar grid is
centered at the WTI stack. Each receptor ring consists of 36 receptors located at 10° intervals.
All of the receptors are located at local ground level. The terrain elevation of each receptor is
specified as the maximum terrain height located within a sector defined as ±5° on either side of
the receptor and including the area from the receptor ring out to the next distant receptor ring.
E. Geophysical Data
1. Terrain Elevations
Two types of geophysical data are used in the dispersion and deposition
modeling: terrain elevations and land use/land cover information. Digitized, fine-
resolution gridded terrain data of the area surrounding East Liverpool is from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) by U.S. EPA and provided for use in the modeling. In
addition, 1:24000 scale terrain maps of the area are also used to determine the radial
receptor terrain elevations required by the models.
A gridded terrain data base is required by the ISC-COMPDEP model in order to
track the cumulative effects of upwind plume depletion resulting from terrain variations.
ISC-COMPDEP reads the gridded terrain data and internally calculates the terrain heights
that a plume encounters along its trajectory for any wind direction. The appropriate
adjustments are made to the vertical term of the Gaussian plume equation for each step in
the integration of the modified source depletion equations (see Section II.F.2). For
example, the presence of a hill upwind of a receptor may cause enhanced dry deposition
onto the hill surface, which will result in a greater degree of plume depletion at the
Volume IV
m-io
-------
receptor than if the hill did not exist. ISC-COMPDEP includes an option to account for
this effect.
2. Land Use
ISC-COMPDEP allows the user to specify domain-average values of land use and
surface roughness length, or receptor-specific values. The domain average values
represent the average or typical values of the variables over the entire 100 km x 100 km
modeling domain. The receptor-specific option allows different values to be specified for
each receptor or group of receptors. The base case simulations of ISC-COMPDEP uses
domain-average values in order to allow an assessment of the importance of plume
depletion effects. However, sensitivity runs are also made using receptor-specific values
of land use. For the sensitivity runs, the land use category for each receptor is derived
from USGS land use/land cover data for the modeling domain. The data for a 1 ° latitude
by 2° longitude area (40° - 41 ° N) x (80° - 82° W) are provided in GIRAS format, which
uses polygon maps to define areas of equal land use type. The land use category at each
of the radial receptors used in the modeling is determined by U.S. EPA using the ARC-
INFO GIS software package. Of the 936 receptors in the grid, there are 12 receptors
along the 50 km receptor ring which are outside the area covered by the land use data. As
a result, the land use category for those receptors is assigned to be the value at the closest
boundary of the land use coverage area.
The use of receptor-specific surface characteristics required multiple runs of
DEPMET (one for each land use category). The receptors are split into five groups,
based on their land use type (urban/suburban, agricultural, forest land, water, and barren).
The geophysical parameters shown in Table ni-7 are assigned to each land use type.
DEPMET is run for each land use type, and the output meteorological file is used to drive
the ISC-COMPDEP model. Only receptors of the same land use type are modeled in a
single run of ISC-COMPDEP. After all of the land use categories are considered, the
results from all receptors are then merged to reconstruct the original 936-receptor polar
grid.
The tradeoff in using receptor-specific land use data is that plume depletion
effects due to dry deposition should not be significant, since in receptor-specific land use
mode, plume depletion effects due to dry deposition are not included (depletion due to
wet removal is included in receptor-specific land use mode). Plume depletion due to dry
deposition must be turned off when receptor-specific land use is used because the dry
deposition plume depletion scheme assumes a uniform deposition velocity over the
^,\
trajectory of the plume, which is not the case when the surface characteristics vary.
Typically, with combustion sources emitting small particles from elevated stacks (such as
Volume IV
-------
the WTI facility), the variation in dry deposition due to land use variations is much more
significant than plume depletion effects, especially near the source where the maximum
concentration and deposition flux is expected. The receptor-specific land use sensitivity
test is designed to quantify this effect.
COMPDEP simulations were performed in a previous phase of the study, and the
COMPDEP results are presented in Section IV.B.1 for comparison to the
ISC-COMPDEP results. The COMPDEP model uses a domain averaged value of surface
roughness in the deposition velocity calculations. A roughness length of 30 cm was
estimated (Hjelmfelt 1982) for the domain, based on typical values for suburban
residential and agricultural land, which are important land uses for the risk assessment.
In the base case ISC-COMPDEP simulations, the same 30 cm roughness length is
assumed.
F. Model Options and Switches
ISC-COMPDEP is derived from the ISC2 model code. Unfortunately, one of the
limitations of the method used to allocate arrays in ISC2 that exists in ISC-COMPDEP as well, is
that only one type of output field may be generated in a single run. That is, it is possible to
produce concentrations, wet deposition fluxes, dry deposition fluxes, or total deposition fluxes,
but only one in a single run. The model evaluates the effects of wet and dry deposition and
plume depletion simultaneously, but one set of arrays is available for output purposes.
Therefore, the two base case paniculate runs require a total of four runs each (one for each type
of output). The base case vapor simulation, because it does not include deposition effects,
required only one additional run.
Each of the base case simulations use the following model options. These options affect
only the simple terrain calculations; the complex terrain modeling options are independent and
are automatically set to use regulatory default mode
• Used regulatory default options:
- final plume rise (except for downwash conditions),
- stack tip downwash (except with the Schulman-Scire downwash
algorithm),
- buoyancy-induced dispersion,
- U.S. EPA calm processing algorithm,
- default wind profile exponents (0.07,0.07, 0.10, 0.15, 0.35, 0.55 for
stability classes A-F, respectively),
*'*•
- default potential temperature lapse rates (0.02 °K/m, 0.035 °K/m for
stability classes E and F, respectively).
Volume IV
m-i2
-------
• Used receptor-specific terrain elevations
• Rural dispersion option (PG dispersion curves)
• Multilayer meteorological tower data used:
- 3 levels of temperature data - 30 m, 45.7 m, 152.4 m
- 5 levels of wind data - 30 m, 45.7 m, 80.8 m, 111.3 m, 152.4 m
(80.8 m and 111.3 m are pseudo-levels defining the bottom and top of
the transition zone from valley flow to gradient, above-valley flow).
• Building downwash evaluated
• Unit emission rate (1 g/s) used
For the base case paniculate matter runs, the following deposition and depletion inputs
are specified.
• Dry deposition and depletion modeled
• Wet deposition and depletion modeled
• Gridded terrain data used for depletion calculations
• Particle density: 1 g/cm3
• Particle categories: 10
Particle diameters (urn):
2.97, 1.89,
0.27, 0.18,
0.93,
0.12,
Size distribution - mass-weighted distribution:
0.04260, 0.08510, 0.17020,
0.11910, 0.10000, 0.05000,
0.55,
0.062,
0.19150,
0.04000,
0.40,
0.030
0.19150,
0.01000
Size distribution - surface area-weighted distribution:
0.00414, 0.01301, 0.05288, 0.10060, 0.13832,
0.12745, 0.16051, 0.12038, 0.18640, 0.09631
Volume IV
Wet scavenging coefficients - liquid precipitation:
0.2LC10'3, 0.14;clO-3, O.SOxlO"4,
m-i3
-------
0.90x10", O.DxlO'3, O.lSxlO'3, 0.20xlO'3, 0.22X10'3
• Wet scavenging coefficients - frozen precipitation:
0.70x10", 0.47x10", 0.17x10", 0.17x10", 0.20x10",
0.30x10", 0.43x10", 0.50x10", 0.67x10", 0.73x10"
In the vapor base case runs, the dry deposition, wet deposition, and plume depletion
options are all turned off. The multilayer meteorological data are used, as with the particle runs.
A listing of the model input parameters is shown in the list file outputs in Appendix IV-3.
Volume IV
m-14
-------
Table ffl-1
Stack Parameters for the WTI Incinerator Stack
Variable
Stack height
Stack diameter
Exit velocity
Exit gas temperature
Stack base elevation
UTM Zone 17 coordinates:
X
Y
Value
45.7m
1.83m
17.74 m/s
367.0 °K
212.1m
538,460 m
4,497,750 m
(150ft)
(6ft)
(58.2 ft/s)
(201°F)
(696 ft)
—
Volume IV
m-i5
-------
Table HI-2
Particle Weight Fractions Observed During Run 2 of the
WTI Trial Burn Particle Distribution Study
March 17,1993
(From U.S. EPA, 1993f)
Median Diameter (pm)
8.88
6.48
4.38
2.97
1.89
0.93
0.55
0.40
<0.40
Weight Fraction
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.26
8.51
17.02
19.15
19.15
31.91
Volume IV
m-ie
-------
Table m-3
Size Distributions of the Pollutant Mass
Assumed in the WTI Modeling
Pollutant Mass Fraction (%)
Base Particle Size Distribution
Diameter (urn)
2.970
1.890
0.930
0.550
0.400
0.270
0.180
0.120
0.062
0.030
Mass-Weighted
Pollutant Distribution
4.26
8.51
17.02
19.15
19.15
11.91
10.00
5.00
4.00
1.00
Surface Area- Weighted
Pollutant Distribution
0.4144
1.3009
5.2876
10.0597
13.8321
12.7447
16.0512
12.0384
18.6401
9.6307
Volume IV
m-i7
-------
Table HI-4
Source Characteristics for Fugitive Emission Sources
Point Sources
Description
Ash Handling
Organic Wastetank Farm
Vent#l
Vent #2
Vent #3
Vent #4
Carbon Adsorption Bed
r
(m)
23.89
173.47
193.12
199.30
179.65
61.02
Y
(m)
48.98
108.45
1 16.90
102.31
93.99
42.83
Stack
Height
(m)
6.706
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
28.04
Temperature
(dee. K)
310.
310.
310.
310.
310.
250.
Exit Velocity
(m/s)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
31.05
Diameter
(m)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.762
Volume Sources
Description
Open Wastewater Tank
Truck Wash
AT
(m)
177.06
100.16
y
(m)
204.76
170.91
Height
(m)
5.3
3.048
Initial
o\
2.35
1.77
Initial
o.
4.96
2.84
' Coordinates are relative to the origin (0.0. 0.0) located at main incinerator stack. Coordinates
are oriented relative to true north.
Volume IV
ffl-18
-------
Table m-5
WII Building Information
(From U.S. EPA, 1992a)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Description
Maintenance
Administration
Truck Holding
Steam Plant
Container Hold
Incinerator Feed
Container Processing
Waste Tank Farm
Truck Unloading
Water Treatment
Scrubber
Precipitator
Spray Dryer
Boiler
Building Height CH«)
15.24 m (50 ft)
8.84 m (29 ft)
6. 10m (20 ft)
6.7 1m (22 ft)
6.10m (20 ft)
25.76 m (84.5 ft)
14.94 m (49 ft)
15.24 m (50 ft)
6. 10m (20 ft)
7.62 m (25 ft)
29.08 m (95.4 ft)
24.38 m (80 ft)
32.31m (106 ft)
2 1.34m (70 ft)
Volume IV
m-i9
-------
Table III-6
Direction-Specific Building Dimensions
for the WTI Main Stack
Produced by the BPIP Program
Direction
(degrees)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Building
Height
(m)
29.08
29.08
29.08
25.76
24.38
24.38
24.38
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
Building
Width
(m)
26.88
24.72
21.81
27.61
27.01
24.64
25.97
22.57
25.75
28.77
30.90
32.10
32.33
31.85
30.86
29.63
29.30
28.21
Direction
(degrees)
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
Building
Height
(m)
29.08
29.08
29.08
25.76
25.76
25.76
24.38
25.76
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
Building
Width
(m)
26.88
24.72
21.81
27.61
26.08
23.77
25.97
24.81
25.75
28.77
30.90
32.10
32.33
31.85
30.86
29.63
29.30
28.21
Volume IV
m-20
-------
Table ffl-7
Geophysical Parameters Assigned to Each Land Use Type
in the Sensitivity Runs of ISC-COMPDEP
Land Use
Category
Urban/suburban
Agricultural
Forest land
Water
Barren
Number of
Receptors
371
147
275
141
2
Surface
Roughness
(m)
1.00
0.25
1.00
0.0001
0.002
Albedo
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.10
0.30
Minimum
Value of I
(m)
25
2
25
2
2
Soil Moisture
Parameter
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.2
0.3
Volume IV
m-2i
-------
JUBJ
| -J-
ss $ 1
— 1
1
5
1
0.1
al
•-i i
. CumuaNe \Mttgnr %GrMterThvt
1 B B K B B70BS040X2D
^*>M1 JSCT«
: • i . i . . ;
1
I
1 ' 1 j 1
i '
i 1 1
1 1
i j ^
M
/
if
/
/
j
1 I j
! * 1
/
t 1
^
i
+
1 i
1
-ft. .) i i i i i i i i 1 i ! '
/ ' ! i 1 - . — —
i
I 1 I
OL1O2 OS 1 2 5 tO 2DB40UB7DV
Cumulative Wwgnt % Less Than Staad Sia
Figure ffl-1. Plot of particle mass as a function of particle diameter. Data for particle sizes greater
than 0.4-um diameter are from the Trial Burn test results of March 17,1993 (U.S. EPA,
1993f). The points below 0.4-um diameter are based on an extrapolation of a best-fit
line through the observed data points.
Volume IV
m-22
-------
Figure III-2. Plot plan of the WTI facility. ;~
and are in the units of feet. '~r
ci.iission sources are indicate rs"
i a
7 if
1TASTE TECHNOLOGIES INDUSTRIES
MXflTUU. WAS1S JUMAO«HT fACajTT
UST
I""
PLOT PLAN
JD avnno 1
1
111
-------
WNW
WSW
NNV
ssw
U-U
U-11.0
iO-3-S
ft 11J)
N
NNE
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
WTI Site 2
"Winds at 30 meters
April 1, 1992 - March 31, 1993
Figure ffl-3. Hourly wind rose for WTI Site 2, 30-m data, located on-site.
Volume IV
m-24
-------
N
NNW
STT
SSW
U-U
U-11.0
NNE
20%
NE
ESE
SE
ft llJO
SSE
WTI Site 3
Winds at 10 meters
April 1, 1992 - March 31, 1993
Figure ni-4. Hourly wind rose for WTI Site 3, located at the eastern edge of the property.
Volume IV
m-25
-------
iisH^ v i '/& is*' \ \\-\- '. '••'-'•
fWJvTi^Y HUP ^
i rt^vifN.a. ',0v. •*
A..' ^/.x/W-^ JMTAVBJT' ^ :, ,
^>- W ». ;:-'.^
'^''1/i f -^ ; r.«P « • • v%-
'^'M^&\;V\(I'~. ' itiWy » W
Figure ffl-5. Section from a USGS map that depicts the topography of the area surrounding the WTI
site. The cross indicates the location of the facility and the wind measurements. The
1200-ft contour line is highlighted. The BVPSMT 500-ft level is at 1235 ft ASL.
Volume IV m_26
-------
Figure m-6.
Section from a USGS map that depicts the topography of the area surrounding the Beaver
Valley Power Station meteorological tower. The cross indicates the location of the tower.
The 1200-ft contour line is highlighted. The BVPSMT 500-ft level is at 1235 feet ASL.
Volume IV
m-27
-------
BVDSM"
WT1 Section
nnnnc 3V°SM i Siciior
VVTl Station
200-1
~1
-i
-j
100^
1
000 :
-J
900
SOO -J
/D
600 ;iii
4
Cross
istance
19
0 mi e
Figure ffl-7. Cross section of terrain (MSL) at the sites of the BVPSMT and WTI meteorological
towers. Also shown are the elevations of the various levels of the meteorological
towers.
Volume IV
m-28
-------
N
NNW
NNE
20%
NE
WNW
wsw
ENE
ESE
sw
SE
ssw
WIND SPEED CUSSES
5.0-7.5
10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-90,1992 35 Foot Level
Figure ffl-8. Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station meteprological tower 35-ft level
for 1986-1990, 1992 (six years).
Volume IV
m-29
-------
N
NNW
NNE
20%
NW
NE
WNW
W
wsw
ENE
ESE
sw
SE
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
7.5-10.0 «* 15'°
10.0-15.0
(mph)
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-1990,1992 35 Foot Level
Figure IQ-9. As in Figure ffl-8, except that winds less than 2.5 miles per hour are not included in
the wind rose.
Volume IV
ffl-30
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 150
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-90,1992 150 Foot Level
Figure HI-10. Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley power Station meteorological tower 150-ft level
for 1986-1990, 1992 (six years).
Volume IV
m-si
-------
N
NNW
NNE
20%
NW
NE
WNW
W
wsw
ENE
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-90,1992 500 Foot Level
Figure HI-11. Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station meteorological tower 500-ft level
for 1986-1990, 1992 (six years).
Volume IV
m-32
-------
NNW
WNW
W
wsw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10-0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh NWS Surface Data
1986-19^0, 1992 (6 years)
Figure HI-12. Wind rose at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, based on hourly observations
at the surface, covering 1986-1990 plus 1992.
Volume IV
m-33
-------
IV. DISCUSSION OF MODELING RESULTS
Modeling simulations are conducted with the ISC-COMPDEP model, as described in
Chapter n, to predict the peak and spatially-averaged concentrations and deposition fluxes due
to the emissions from the WTI incinerator. A set of "base case" simulations are used to predict
the impacts of the different forms that the pollutants may take. For example, the base case
simulations include the following runs: (1) pollutants assumed to be distributed throughout the
paniculate matter leaving the stack (i.e., the "mass" pollutant distribution), which is appropriate
for non-volatile metals; (2) pollutants assumed to be distributed on the outside surface of the
paniculate matter (i.e., the "surface area" pollutant distribution), which is appropriate for semi-
volatile organics; and (3) pollutants emitted as a vapor.
The base case simulations constitute the best estimate of the actual impacts from the
facility. The base case results are described in Section FV.A. In addition, however, a set of
sensitivity simulations (see Section IV.B) are conducted to determine the variation in the
predicted results to various types of data inputs, and to assess the impact of alternative source
configurations (e.g., a Good Engineering Practice (GEP) height stack rather than the present
sub-GEP height stack). The model input sensitivity tests mat are conducted include simulations
using nine-year high and low annual precipitation amounts, and the use of turbulence-based
horizontal dispersion coefficients utilizing the B VPSMT measurements of horizontal wind
fluctuations (oe).
Additional model sensitivity tests are conducted with an earlier version of the ISC-
COMPDEP model and the COMPDEP model, prior to the peer review. The results of these
simulations are also presented, because they offer insight into the model's sensitivity (or lack
thereof) to alternative assumptions regarding the particle size distribution, the effects of plume
depletion, and the sensitivity to assumptions regarding land use. The COMPDEP simulations,
with its different deposition and dispersion (i.e., building downwash) algorithms, provide a
reference point for assessing the ISC-COMPDEP results that is useful in the uncertainty
analysis.
Because the steady-state plume model is ill-suited to evaluate impacts during calm wind
conditions and during fumigation events, modeling is conducted with the CALPUFF non-
steady-state dispersion model (Section IV.B.5). The CALPUFF simulations are designed to
isolate the effects of the calm wind and fumigation conditions to the extent possible. Other than
taking advantage of the inherent features of the non-steady-state approach, the CALPUFF is run
in a mode that otherwise was similar to the ISC-COMPDEP run. Additional simulations with
the INPUFF non-steady-state model, conducted by the U.S. EPA are also summarized. The
Volume IV
IV-1
-------
INPUFF simulations assess the effects of calm wind conditions for a WTI-like stack in a
hypothetical flat terrain setting.
The effects of terrain-induced downwash cannot be adequately modeled with the current
generation of regulatory models. Therefore, in order to evaluate the effects of terrain
downwash, the U.S. EPA conducted a set of wind tunnel simulations of the WTI site and the
surrounding terrain. In Section FV.B.6, the results of the physical modeling performed in the
wind tunnel study are summarized along with mathematical modeling with ISC-COMPDEP for
the conditions studied in the wind tunnel.
The impacts of routine fugitive emission sources are also evaluated (Section IV.C). The
fugitive sources modeled include the carbon bed adsorption system, ash handling activities, the
open wastewater tank, the organic waste tank farm, and the truck wash.
An analysis of the uncertainty in the modeling is also conducted (see Section FV.D). The
uncertainty analysis is categorized into two types: limitations of the technical algorithms in the
models, and limitations in the amount and quality of the data available to the model.
A. Base Case Simulations of Incinerator Emissions
A total of thirteen sets of simulations of the main incinerator stack are conducted with a
version of the ISC-COMPDEP model modified to address the peer reviewer comments. Three
base case sets of runs are conducted, corresponding to the three different pollutant distributions:
mass-weighted (particle), surface area-weighted (particle), and vapor distributions. Wet and dry
deposition effects are computed for the distributions involving paniculate matter. The vapor
simulations are conducted assuming no deposition. Ten sets of sensitivity tests are conducted to
evaluate the response of the model to various input assumptions and model options. Each
simulation involving paniculate matter requires four runs of the model: one to generate
predicted concentrations, and three to output wet deposition fluxes, dry deposition fluxes, and
total deposition. This is required due to the structure of ISC-COMPDEP's parent model, ISC2,
which allows the output of only one field per run.
The matrix of simulations and a summary of the model output statistics are shown in
Table IV-1. Contour plots for the base case simulations are presented in Appendix IV-4. In
general, the model is executed in a regulatory mode, i.e., using those options and switches which
are recommended for regulatory use in the Guideline on Air Quality Models for ISCST2 and
COMPLEX I (see Section m.F). However, enhanced features of ISC-COMPDEP, which are
not part of the ISCST2 and COMPLEX I models, are also used in the simulations. These
enhancements include the use of multi-layer meteorological data, a scavenging coefficient
model for wet deposition, a resistance-based model for dry deposition, and multi-layer plume
rise. A partial listing of the model output files generated by ISC-COMPDEP for the base case
Volume IV
IV-2
-------
simulations is shown in Appendix IV-3. Version 94227 of ISC-COMPDEP is used in all of the
simulations.
Table IV-1 shows the maximum annual concentration and total deposition flux predicted
by the model for any of the 936 receptors. The total deposition flux is the sum of the wet and
dry fluxes. In addition, the following spatially-averaged variables are shown:
• Receptor average concentration, %:
x - ± £ x, (iv-i)
N ,-i
where Xi is the concentration at receptor i, and
N is the number of receptors (i.e., 936).
• Receptor average total deposition flux, Ft :
' N %
where (F,)j is the total (wet + dry) deposition flux at receptor i, and
Tt is the receptor average deposition flux
"Total" average deposition velocity, (vd)t :
(*„), = Ft I x
Note that the "total" deposition velocity, as it is defined here, includes the effects of both
wet and dry deposition. It is useful as a convenient reference point for comparing the bulk
removal rates for the base application with those from the other sensitivity runs as well as those
in other studies. However, this variable should be applied only on a bulk basis, and not on a
receptor-by-receptor basis because it is not necessarily well-behaved at all receptors. For
example, in the near-field where the plume is elevated and not interacting with the ground, the
ground-level concentration will approach zero, but the total flux (due to wet removal) will be
non-zero. Thus, the "total" deposition velocity can approach infinity. However, as applied here,
the "total" deposition velocity is a useful bulk measure of the average rate of deposition per unit
of concentration.
As shown in Table IV-1, the base case simulations show relatively little sensitivity of
the concentration to the pollutant distribution. The maximum concentrations are within 1% for
Volume IV
IV-3
-------
all three pollutant distributions, and are predicted to occur at the same receptor (1 km from the
stack, to the east (100°)) on the West Virginia side of the Ohio River. The terrain height at this
receptor is 1,080 ft (329.2 m), or 234 ft above the elevation of the top of the stack. Thus,
complex terrain effects are involved in producing the peak concentration, as well as a relatively
high frequency of winds from the west and west-northwest directions. The concentration
averaged over all receptors is also insensitive to the pollutant distribution. The predicted
deposition fluxes show a 40% increase with the surface area-weighted distribution over the
mass-weighted distribution.
The spatial patterns of the predicted concentrations, wet fluxes, dry fluxes, and total
fluxes are shown in Figures IV-1 through IV-4. The effects of terrain channeling of the wind
flow can be seen in the orientation of the concentration and deposition isopleths. The
dominance of wet deposition over dry deposition is also evident from the contour plots.
Additional detailed plots of near-field concentrations and deposition isopleths are provided in
Appendix IV-4.
The peak base case deposition fluxes are predicted to occur at a receptor 100 m from the
stack to the east (80°). Detailed plots of the wet and dry deposition fluxes for the base case run
la are provided on Pages IV-4-5 and IV-4-7, respectively, of Appendix FV-4. Note the
similarity of the dry deposition flux pattern with the ground-level concentration pattern (Page
IV-4-3). This is due to the direct proportionality of the dry fluxes with ground-level
concentrations (i.e., dry flux is the product of the concentration and the deposition velocity).
The same factors that contribute to elevated concentration predictions will also produce higher
dry deposition fluxes. However, also note the large differences between the wet deposition
pattern and the dry deposition/concentration patterns. Wet removal is modeled as being
proportional to the vertically integrated concentration, so its peak occurs at the closest receptor
ring where the plume depth is the smallest. (As discussed in Section IV.D.l.a, this formulation
may tend to overestimate wet fluxes in the near field). The wet flux peak is in an area where the
ground-level concentrations are small. Because the model assumes that the precipitation falls
through the plume, even if the plume is elevated, it is not necessary for the plume to have
dispersed down to the ground for wet removal to occur. A comparison of the wet and dry
deposition values in the plots shows the dominance of wet removal at the point of peak
predicted total deposition flux.
Volume IV
IV-4
-------
B. Sensitivity Simulations of Incinerator Emissions
1. Overview of Previous Modeling Results
Based on the initial work plan and a version of ISC-COMPDEP developed before
the peer review workshop, some initial simulations were conducted with the WTI
incinerator stack. Although the ISC-COMPDEP model has been revised, as discussed in
Section n.A, the sensitivity results of the previous modeling offers some insight into the
model's response to certain input variables. An overview of the previous modeling
results is presented here.
A total of sixteen simulations are conducted with the COMPDEP and ISC-
COMPDEP models to evaluate a set of base case assumptions and to test the sensitivity
of the model to various input assumptions and model options. The matrix of simulations
are shown in Table IV-2 along with a summary of model output statistics. Version
93340 of COMPDEP and Version 93349 of ISC-COMPDEP are used in the simulations
discussed in this subsection.
Table FV-2 contains the maximum annual concentration and total (wet + dry)
deposition flux predicted by each model for any receptor, as well as the receptor-average
concentration and total deposition flux averaged over all 936 receptors, and the effective
total (wet -i- dry) "deposition velocity."
In comparing the base case COMPDEP simulations with the base case ISC-
COMPDEP simulations, it is apparent that the models produce similar results. The ISC-
COMPDEP produces receptor-averaged deposition fluxes which are 30-40% higher than
COMPDEP. The corresponding receptor-averaged concentrations are approximately 15-
17% lower with ISC-COMPDEP than COMPDEP. The rate of removal, with the new
dry deposition scheme in ISC-COMPDEP and the differences
in the wet removal technique, is about 50%-70% higher than in COMPDEP, based on
the magnitude of the total deposition velocities. In the vapor base case simulations,
which does not include any deposition or depletion effects, ISC-COMPDEP predicts a
receptor-averaged concentration about 15% lower than that with COMPDEP. However,
the predicted peak concentration is slightly higher with ISC-COMPDEP. These
differences can be attributed to the differences in the treatment of building downwash in
the models. As discussed in Section ILL, COMPDEP uses the Huber-Snyder algorithm
for all sub-GEP stack heights, and uses a single set of worst-case building dimensions
for all wind directions. ISC-COMPDEP has both the Huber-Snyder and Schulman-Scire
algorithms implemented as in ISCST2, and uses direction-specific building dimensions
with both algorithms. The building height used in the initial runs of ISC-COMPDEP
Volume IV
IV-5
-------
have since been revised based on new information so that the stack will use the Huber-
Snyder downwash model. In the results presented here, about half of the directions (16
out of 36) use the Huber-Snyder model, and the others use the Schulman-Scire model.
The results suggest that the use of a single worst-case set of building dimensions
in COMPDEP is contributing to the higher receptor-average values predicted with the
model. Therefore, it appears that the lack of the Schulman-Scire algorithm in
COMPDEP tends to result in lower concentrations in COMPDEP, but a compensating
factor (and in the case of the receptor-average concentrations, a dominating factor) is the
use of conservative building dimensions for all direction, which tends to overestimate
the impacts with COMPDEP for those directions where the controlling building
dimensions are less favorable for downwash than the worst-case dimensions. These
conclusions are strongly dependent on the specific source and building configuration
input into the model.
Both ISC-COMPDEP and COMPDEP show only a weak sensitivity of area-
averaged concentrations and deposition fluxes to the assumption of mass-weighted or
surface area weighted pollutant distributions. For COMPDEP, the receptor-averaged
deposition fluxes are only about 1 % higher for the surface area-weighted distribution,
and for ISC-COMPDEP, the deposition flux for surface area distribution is less than
10% higher than for the mass-weighted distribution. Even in the sensitivity runs with all
of the pollutant mass on particles less than 0.4 um diameter assigned to very small 0.03
um diameter particles (i.e., sensitivity runs C-2a, C-2b, I-2a, and I-2b), the receptor-
average deposition flux is within 30% of the base case values. The receptor-average
concentrations are within 5% of the base case values for both models. The average
concentrations are also insensitive (within 7% of the base case values) to the assumption
of the vapor pollutant depositing at the same rate as 0.03 um diameter particles. These
results suggest that plume depletion is not a large factor in determining the ambient air
concentrations. It should be noted, however, that the receptor-average statistics are
weighted more heavily to the near-field impacts because the density of receptors
decreases as the distance from the stack increases. The peak deposition flux is somewhat
more sensitive to the pollutant size distribution. The maximum deposition flux with the
small particles is about 30% higher than the base case for the mass-weighted distribution
(Run I-2a) and about 60% higher for the surface area distribution (Run I-2b). Again,
these conclusions are likely to be a strong function of the particular WTI particle size
distributions used in the tests, and may not be universally applicable.
The final set of sensitivity tests involves the application of ISC-COMPDEP with
receptor-specific land use and surface characteristics. Runs are made for both the mass-
weighted and surface area-weighted pollutant distributions. The deposition fluxes show
Volume IV
rv-6
-------
more sensitivity to assumptions about land use than some of the other variables. The
receptor-specific land use runs with ISC-COMPDEP produce receptor-average
deposition fluxes about twice as high for the mass-weighted distribution and about 509c
higher for the surface area-weighted distribution than the base case simulations with a
constant, area-wide average land use characterization.
The general lack of sensitivity to many of the assumptions regarding the pollutant
distribution from the WTI incinerator suggests that the uncertainties associated with the
emission variables are not likely to dominate the results of the modeling analysis, at least
for the specific particle distribution identified at the WTI facility. The sensitivity results
also suggest that efforts to characterize the geophysical variables (e.g., land use) as well
as possible are worth the effort, since the model is more sensitive to these variables.
2. GEP Stack Height Tests
A set of ISC-COMPDEP simulations is conducted to evaluate the effect of a GEP
height stack on predicted concentration and deposition fluxes. The actual WTI
incinerator stack, at 45.7 meters, is less than GEP height of 72.1 meters (see Section
ffl.B). The peak and average ground-level concentrations decrease by approximately 11-
13% and 19%, respectively, with the higher GEP height stack. This is due to the effects
of a higher plume and the absence of enhanced dispersion due to building downwash
with the GEP height stack. The deposition fluxes, on the average, are insensitive to the
stack height. This is due to the dominance of wet deposition over dry deposition in the
model for the WTI pollutant distribution. Because wet deposition is a function of the
vertically integrated concentration and is nearly independent of plume height, the wet
flux patterns do not show much variation with stack height.
3. Precipitation Tests
The effect of the year-to-year variability in precipitation is evaluated in a series
of sensitivity tests with ISC-COMPDEP. In the base simulations, precipitation data
observed at the Pittsburgh Airport and obtained from the National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC) are used in the calculation of wet fluxes. For the annual period modeled, April
1992 through March 1993, the Pittsburgh precipitation was 39.3 inches, as compared to a
30-year climatological average at the Pittsburgh Airport of 36.3 inches (NOAA 1983).
Precipitation data from the BVPSMT for the period 1986 through May 1994 are
analyzed. The average annual precipitation at the BVPSMT is 33.7 inches for this
period, with a low of 27.1 inches (1991) and a high of 47.34 inches (1990). The annual
amounts at the BVPSMT for 1986 through 1994 are 26.51, 39.79, 27.41, 30.50, 47.34,
27.10, 33.62,34.55, and 36.22 (annualized).
Volume IV
rv-7
-------
In the precipitation sensitivity tests, the base precipitation file (from the
Pittsburgh Airport), is scaled by the ratio of the highest annual B VPSMT precipitation to
the base amount (i.e., 47.34/39.3 = 1.20) and the ratio of the lowest annual B VPSMT
precipitation to the base amount (i.e., 27.1/39.3 = 0.69). All of the other meteorological
variables are kept unchanged. This allows the effect of precipitation amounts to be
isolated from other factors.
The results, presented in Table IV- 1, show that the peak and average
concentrations are insensitive to the precipitation amount. This is due to the fact that
only a very small fraction of the mass emitted is actually depleted from the plume within
the modeling domain. Therefore, a change in precipitation will only weakly influence
the concentrations (other factors being equal) through the small change in the amount of
mass depleted from the plume. The average deposition shows a roughly proportional
relationship with the precipitation amount. The percentage change in total deposition
flux is only slightly less than the change in the precipitation amount. Although wet
deposition is predicted to dominate the deposition flux for the WTI pollutant
distribution, the effect of dry deposition, which is insensitive to precipitation amount,
results in a slightly lower percentage change in deposition than a direct proportionality
with the precipitation amount.
4. Dispersion Coefficient Tests
A special version of ISC-COMPDEP was developed to allow the use of
measured turbulence data from the B VPSMT in the calculation of the dispersion rates
used in the model. Measured values of oe are available from the B VPSMT at the 150-ft
and 500-ft levels of the tower. The model computes o, from the measured wind
fluctuations, rather than on surface stability class. The relationship between o, and oe
can be written as:
°y =
aex
~T
J \
where ov is in meters,
oe is in radians,
x is the downwind distance (m), and
the function, /v, is given by Draxler (1976):
//*) = 1 - 0.9 (0.001 x/w)05 ^ (IV-5)
where u is the wind speed (m/s).
Volume IV
rv-8
-------
In the first equation above, the approximate equivalence of the turbulence
intensity iy and ae is used (i.e., /, = oe, for small values of oe, expressed in radians).
Missing values of oe are filled by taking the slope of the initial (small x) portion of the
rural Briggs curves for o, (as reported by Gifford 1976). For small x, the growth in o, is
nearly linear, so that oe = o,/x. These values vary by stability class:
Stability class: A B C D E F
oe (radians): 0.22 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04
The influence of using measured wind fluctuation data on the size of oe, relative
to the base case runs which use the PG sigmas, can be seen by comparing the distribution
of the measured turbulence intensity with the values in the table above inferred from the
Briggs curves. Figure IV-5 shows that the median turbulence intensities observed at
45.7 m (150 ft) exceed the corresponding "Briggs" values by about 0.2 radians for
stability classes 2 through 7, while median values measured at 152.4 m (500 ft) exceed
the "Briggs" values by about 0.1 radians for classes 4 through 7, and 0.2 radians for
classes 2 and 3 (the observed median is roughly twice the size of the "Briggs" value at
500 ft). For the rare occurrences of stability class 1 (highly convective), the observed
turbulence intensity exceeds the "Briggs" value by a substantially larger margin. In the
sensitivity tests, oe from the 150-ft level of the BVPSMT is used in the calculation of ov
because this level is closest to the plume height under most conditions.
The modeling results, presented earlier, show little sensitivity of the average
concentrations and deposition fluxes to the use of the turbulence-based dispersion
coefficients. The average concentrations and deposition fluxes are both nearly the same
as the base case simulations (within 3%). The maximum annual deposition fluxes are
about 22% lower using the turbulence-based dispersion coefficients. The maximum
annual concentrations are insensitive to the use of the turbulence-based dispersion
coefficients.
Much of this lack of sensitivity to fluctuations in the wind direction is related to
the treatment of receptors at elevations greater than stack-height. These receptors
comprise about 2/3 of all receptors used in the simulation. The lateral plume parameter
ov is only used in the ISC module of ISC-COMPDEP, because the COMPLEX I module
uses a 22.5° sector-average description for the lateral distribution. For receptors
between stack-top and the plume centerline height at final rise, concentrations are
computed by both modules, and the larger concentration determines the module used to
simulate concentrations and deposition at that receptor. If o is larger when the oe data
are used, peak concentrations from the ISC module are smaller, which would foster the
Volume IV
rv-9
-------
selection of the COMPLEX I module results. Therefore, it is expected that modeling
results at receptors already "controlled" by the COMPLEX I module do not change.
The reduction in the peak annual deposition flux may be related to the joint
occurrence of precipitation events and larger values of oe. Wet deposition dominates the
annual deposition rate and is greatest near the source where the lateral plume distribution
is smallest. This is also the region where most receptors lie below the top of the stack,
so that the ISC module determines the distribution. With larger values of a, calculated
from the turbulence data, the wet flux decreases. Hence the reduction in the peak annual
deposition flux is expected.
5. Calm Wind and Fumigation Simulations
The peer reviewers identified the need to improve the treatment of transport and
dispersion during low wind speed conditions and plume fumigation events in the
modeling of the WTI facility. Because COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP are both
steady-state Gaussian plume models, they are not well-suited to handle non-steady-state
phenomena such as light wind speed dispersion and plume fumigation in valley
situations. The steady-state plume equation breaks down as the wind speed approaches
zero (i.e., they predict infinite concentrations), because it contains an inverse wind speed
dependency. For this reason, COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP use the U.S. EPA calm
wind procedures for light wind speed events. In these procedures, winds below the
instrument detection limit are considered calm. Hours with calm winds are ignored in
the calculation of multi-hour average concentrations and deposition fluxes. For example,
annual average concentrations are computed as the sum of concentrations during non-
calm hours divided by the number of non-calm hours. Short-term average
concentrations are computed as the sum of concentrations during non-calm hours during
the averaging period divided by the greater of the number of non-calm hours or 75% of
the number of hours in the averaging time (i.e., 18 for a 24-hour average). For hours
with winds less than 1 m/s but greater than the instrument detection threshold, the U.S.
EPA procedure is to reset the wind speed to 1 m/s for modeling purposes, but to include
the hour in the modeling as a non-calm hour.
At the WTI facility, a large number of hours (-22%) during the one year period
from April 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993 are determined to be calm for modeling
purposes. In this analysis, a threshold wind speed of 1 m/s is assumed. The location of
the WTI facility within a well-defined river valley is conducive to the development of
strong nocturnal temperature inversions with light winds and stable temperature lapse
rates within the valley. A typical diurnal pattern involves the accumulation of pollutants
in the stable layer during nighttime hours with poor dispersion conditions, followed by
Volume IV
IV-10
-------
the breakup of the inversion during the following morning. The breakup of the inversion
results in a situation where the elevated emissions of the previous night may mix rapidly
down to the ground (fumigating), resulting in elevated ground-level concentrations and
deposition fluxes within the valley. The comments of the Peer Review Panel ask that a
more realistic treatment of both the calm wind conditions and plume fumigation events
be considered in the WTI modeling.
Straight-line Gaussian plume models are fundamentally ill-suited to treat such
non-steady phenomena. A basic assumption of the plume approach is that along-wind
diffusion is negligible in comparison to plume advection. This is clearly not the case for
calm wind conditions. Additionally, the plume model ignores plume history and
causality effects. Each hour in the simulation is assumed to have reached a steady-state
situation, which requires that the source-receptor distances be small relative to the
transport wind speed, and that the winds and other meteorological conditions are
constant during the period. These conditions are not satisfied during light wind speed
events. Also, the plume model cannot easily accumulate emissions from nighttime hours
for later impact during the morning inversion breakup period. Although a plume model
can be manipulated (through the use of virtual sources) to simulate a quasi-steady
fumigation situation such as encountered in coastal fumigation, valley fumigation is
quite different and impractical to treat properly within the framework of a steady-state
plume model. Modification of the steady-state model to treat calm wind conditions is
difficult as well.
To respond to the peer reviewers request, the Agency agreed to assess the calm
wind and fumigation impacts within the context of an uncertainty analysis. In order to
help quantify the model uncertainty due to near calm conditions, U.S. EPA's Applied
Modeling Research Branch performed a study (Petersen and Schwede 1994) using the
Lagrangian puff model, INPUFF in flat terrain. In addition, a non-steady-state puff
model (CALPUFF) is used to simulate a typical calm wind and plume fumigation event.
INPUFF (Petersen and Lavdas 1986) is a Gaussian Integrated PUFF model with
a wide range of applications. The implied modeling scale is from tens of meters to tens
of kilometers. The model is capable of addressing the accidental release of a substance
over several minutes, or of modeling the more typical continuous plume from a stack.
Computations in INPUFF can be made for multiple point sources for a user specified
number of receptor locations. In practice, however, the number of receptor locations
should be kept to a minimum.
Three dispersion algorithms are used within INPUFF for dispersion downwind
&•
of the source. The user may use the Pasquill-Gifford (P-G) scheme (Turner 1970) or the
on-site scheme (Irwin 1983) for short travel time dispersion. The on-site scheme, so
Volume IV
rv-ii
-------
named because it requires specification of the variances of the vertical and lateral wind
direction, is a synthesis of work performed by Draxler (1976) and Cramer (1976). The
third dispersion scheme is for long travel times in which the growth of the puff becomes
proportional to the square root of time. Optionally the user can incorporate his own
subroutine for estimating atmospheric dispersion. For this analysis the (P-G) scheme
was used to characterize dispersion.
CALPUFF is a non-steady state Gaussian puff model that has several features
that make it better suited for simulation of calm wind, inversion conditions. Rather than
using a steady-state plume assumption, the CALPUFF model treats a continuous plume
as a number of discrete circular or elongated puffs. Diffusion in the along wind
direction is parameterized explicitly. Low wind or calm wind conditions do not present
numerical difficulties as they do in the steady-state plume approach. Instead, the puff is
allowed to diffuse without advection in the calm wind condition. Each puff is modeled
independently, so the effects of time- and space-varying meteorological conditions on
pollutant transport, dispersion, and deposition can be simulated.
Table IV-3 lists the major features of the CALPUFF model (Scire et al., 1995).
For this application, the important characteristics of the model include the calm wind
algorithm, treatment of building downwash effects, buoyant plume rise, the ability to
accumulate emissions, and the treatment of plume fumigation. The basic equation for
determining the contribution of an individual puff to the concentration at a receptor is:
C =
exp
-d:/2o
(IV-6)
g =
(27t)"V n~
exp[-(He
(IV-7)
where, C is the ground-level concentration (g/m3),
Q is the pollutant mass (g) in the puff,
ox is the standard deviation (m) of the Gaussian distribution in the
along-wind direction,
oy is the standard deviation (m) of the Gaussian distribution in the
cross-wind direction,
oz is the standard deviation (m) of the Gaussian distribution in the
vertical direction,
da is the distance (m) from the puff center td'the receptor in the
along-wind direction,
Volume IV
FV-12
-------
dc is the distance (m) from the puff center to the receptor in the
cross-wind direction,
g is the vertical term (m) of the Gaussian equation,
H is the effective height (m) above the ground of the puff center.
and,
h is the mixed-layer height (m).
The summation in the vertical term, g, accounts for multiple reflections off the
mixing lid and the ground. It reduces to the uniformly mixed limit of 1/h for o2 > 1 .6 h.
CALPUFF assumes the along-wind dispersion coefficient, ox, is equal to the
crosswind dispersion term, oy. Note that there is no inverse wind speed term in the
equation, as there is in the plume equation. Under calm wind conditions, the puff
location remains unchanged, but the puff is allowed to grow through diffusion.
CALPUFF contains several options for determining the dispersion coefficients,
oy and oz. In this study, the regulatory Pasquill-Gifford (PG) dispersion coefficients
were used. These are the same dispersion curves used in the ISC-COMPDEP model.
However, because the PG dispersion coefficients are expressed as functions of distance
rather than time, the PG curves predict no plume growth under calm conditions.
Therefore, under low wind speed and calm conditions, CALPUFF switches to time-
dependent dispersion curves. This calm wind algorithm is triggered whenever the puffs
transport wind speed falls below a critical calm-threshold (Wc). The default value of Wc
is 1.0 m/s, which was used in this study. The time-dependent dispersion curves are:
a - a r/r/r (IV-8)
,
o, =oK,r/c(r/rfe) (IV-9)
where, ov is the standard deviation (m/s) of the horizontal crosswind
component of the wind,
ow is the standard deviation (m/s) of the vertical component of the
wind,
t is the travel time (s) of the plume to the receptor, and,
t,y,tlz are the horizontal and vertical Lagrangian time scales (s).
Minimum values of ov and ow apply to Equations (IV-8) and (IV-9). Hanna et
al. (1986) recommend a minimum one-hour value of ov of 0.5 m/s. A minimum value
of ow of 0.016 m/s, based on the PG F stability curve, is used'by CALPUFF.
Volume IV
IV-13
-------
The building downwash algorithms in CALPUFF are identical to those in the
ISC-COMPDEP model (see Section n.D). Wind direction-specific building dimensions
are used, and either the Huber-Snyder or Schulman-Scire downwash schemes are
selected by the model, depending on the stack height and building dimensions.
The plume rise equations in CALPUFF are based on Briggs (1985). except if the
Schulman-Scire downwash algorithm or if vertical wind shear above stack top options
are used. The treatment of plume rise in CALPUFF is consistent with EPA-approved
regulatory modeling techniques.
Because CALPUFF uses a method different than that used in ISC-COMPDEP
for characterizing the particle size distribution (i.e., using a geometric mean and
standard deviation rather than discrete size bins), a direct comparison of deposition
fluxes between the CALPUFF and ISC-COMPDEP is difficult. Therefore, this analysis
was restricted to ground-level concentrations.
The-remaining sections describe the methods used in this study and the results
obtained. An analysis of the type, frequency, and length of low wind speed and
potential fumigation conditions in the river valley near WTI is described in
Section FV.B.S.a. In Section IV.B.S.b, the frequency and type of events occurring
during an historical annual period are addressed by applying CALPUFF to the full year
of meteorological data. Information gained from the application of INPUFF by the U.S.
EPA (Petersen and Schwede 1994) is also reviewed and incorporated.
a. Meteorological Data Analysis (April 1992 - March 1993)
Meteorological data from the tower located on-site, and from the Beaver
Valley Power Station meteorological tower (BVPSMT) are used to identify days
in which "calm" conditions, coupled with a strong temperature inversion aloft
(air temperature increases with height), would likely allow emissions to build
over the valley during the night, only to mix rapidly to the surface (fumigate)
during the following morning. In the morning, solar heating of the ground
warms the air, causing the atmospheric surface layer to overturn, entrain air from
above, and grow in depth. During this period, any pollutants emitted earlier
above the surface layer would be entrained into the surface layer, and mix to the
ground.
Calm conditions (wind speed less than or equal to 1.0 m/s) are
determined from the wind speed measurements made 30 m above the ground at
the on-site meteorological tower. These data are listed in the file of processed
meteorological data (DEPBIN.MET) used in the ISC-COMPDEP model. The
RAMMET meteorological processor is used to prepare the initial data file from
Volume IV
IV-14
-------
on-site data. The DEPMET processor revises this file to include surface layer
parameters required by the ISC-COMPDEP dispersion model. All hours in
which wind speeds are less than 1.0 m/s are defined as calm, and RAMMET
assigns a wind speed of 1.0 m/s to these while persisting the wind direction from
the previous hour. In the DEPMET stage of processing, the format of the
meteorological data file is changed from the RAMMET "binary" form to the
ISCST2 " ASCII" form. Calm hours in the latter case are denoted by a wind
speed of 0.0 m/s. As a result, no measured speeds between 0.0 and 1.0 m/s are
passed to the dispersion model.
Temperature inversions are determined from temperature difference
("delta-T") measurements made between 45.7 m (150 ft) and 10.7 m (35 ft) at
the BVPSMT. The temperature difference between 152.4 m (500 ft) and 10.7 m
(35 ft) is also available from the BVPSMT, but is less representative of
conditions within the valley, as the upper temperature measurements sample the
flow well above the top of the valley. Duplicate delta-T measurements are
reported — a primary and a backup. However, no distinction is made in the
instrumentation or in their calibration and service schedules, so they are
considered equivalent. Recognizing this, the average delta-T is used in this
analysis whenever both systems report valid data.
Wind speed data are also available from the 45.7 m (150 ft) level of the
BVPSMT. These are reported as "calm" whenever the indicated speed is less
than 0.27 m/s (0.6 mph). Duplicate anemometers are used, so the average speed
is computed here when both report valid data, as with the temperatures. Only
4 hours in the year-long period are characterized as "calm" using the 0.27 m/s
cut-off. Also note that all data received from the BVPSMT are 15-minute
averages, reported once per hour.
Figure FV-6 illustrates the frequency of occurrence (number of days per
year) of calm periods of a given number of hours per day, as determined from
these data. Three definitions of "calm" are used:
• Delta-T greater than or equal to 1.0 °C, with wind speed at the WTI
tower less than 1.0 m/s (model wind speed equal to 0.0 m/s) or wind
speed at 45.7 m (150 ft) less than or equal to 1.0 m/s.
Delta-T greater than or equal to 1.5 °C, with wind speed at the WTI
tower less than 1.0 m/s (model wind speed equal to 0.0 m/s) or wind
speed at 45.7 m (150 ft) less than or equal to 1*0 m/s.
Volume IV
rv-15
-------
• Wind speed at the WTI tower less than 1.0 m/s (model wind speed equal
to 0.0 m/s).
The first definition combines the occurrence of a "modeling" calm hour
with a substantial temperature inversion in the valley, while the second
definition applies a more stringent measure of the temperature inversion. The
third definition removes the temperature inversion requirement altogether. With
definition 3, we see that as many as 18 calm hours occur within a single day
(midnight-to-midnight). A total of 44 days during the year have 12 or more
calm hours. With definitions 1 and 2, as many as 15 hours in one day are found
to be associated with calm winds and a strong temperature inversion, but it is far
more common to find fewer than 8 such hours in one day. The total number of
hours found to be calm are:
Definition 1 — 866
Definition 2 — 479
Definitions— 1942
Within a day, the distribution of calm hours has a strong diurnal pattern,
being largely associated with stable nighttime periods. Figure IV-7, the
frequency of occurrence (number of days per year) of calm hours at a particular
time of day, shows this. On the basis of wind speed alone (definition 3) we see
that comparatively few calms are found between 1000 and 1700 (133 out of
1942 calm hours, or less than 7%). The most likely period for calms is between
2000 and 0800. When the delta-T measure is added to signal the presence of an
inversion (definitions 1 and 2), calms between 1100 and 1600 are dropped, and
few remain between 0800 and 1800. The separation between the curve for
definition 3 and those for definitions 1 and 2 for the morning hours just after
sunrise defines a period in which fumigation is likely to produce the largest
ground-level concentrations. The worst such events are expected to be those in
which the overnight hours are calm and stably-stratified, with calm conditions
persisting into the morning as the convective mixing reaches and exceeds the
plume height.
b. Full Year Application of INPUFF and CALPUFF
The intent of the INPUFF analysis was to provide insight into the effect
of low wind speed conditions on the annual average concentration and the
Volume IV
rv-16
-------
maximum 24-hour average concentration for elevated buoyant plumes in flat
terrain. For the analysis, two meteorological data files were used, one with the
calm hours deleted and one with the calm hours included. Wind speed and
direction were randomized such that wind components fell between 1.0 and -1.0
for the purpose of uniformity. The source was centered with receptors placed on
radial intervals at distances of 0.4, 0.6,0.8, 1.0, 3.0, 5.0 7.0 and 10 kilometers
for a total of 128 receptors in flat terrain.
The INPUFF analysis included several simulations which highlight the
spatial distribution and percent differences of the annual average concentrations
when ignoring calms and including calms respectively. When assessing the
impact of calms on the annual average concentration, the results show that
estimates in high impact areas may increase 10%-25% when calms are included.
In addition, a COMPDEP simulation was performed for the same meteorological
data with calms deleted for comparison to the INPUFF simulation. The results
show that the peak annual average concentrations were similar in magnitude and
location, but the areal coverage of the isopleths from INPUFF was broader,
leading to a factor of 3-5 increase in concentration at receptors in the lower
impact areas. Perhaps the random assignment of "low" wind speeds and
directions during calm hours spread out the puffs, thereby increasing the cross-
valley impacts as well as the along-valley impacts.
In order to address the maximum impact of calms on daily averages, a
day with the maximum number of calm hours was chosen from the year of
meteorological data and analyzed with calms deleted and included. The results
of the simulation show that the effect of including calms has a much greater
impact on the 24-hour average for days with a significant number of calms.
In order to evaluate the effects of calm wind conditions and fumigation
events, CALPUFF is applied to the full year of meteorological data. CALPUFF
is applied using a unit emission rate of a gas-phase pollutant from the stack.
Concentrations are simulated at all receptors located at elevations below 260 m
(MSL), which is approximately the elevation of the top of the WTI stack. These
receptors, numbering 320, are confined to the river basin. Their distribution is
plotted in Figure IV-8. CALPUFF employs the ISC terrain treatment,
transitional rise, and included stack-tip downwash and buoyancy enhancement of
the sigmas. Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients are used during non-calm
wind hours. During calm wind conditions (wind speed < 1.0 m/s), the plume
growth rates are based on an application of the turbulence-based dispersion
coefficients with minimum values of o^ of 0.16 m/s and ou of 0.5 m/s. Wet and
Volume IV
IV-17
-------
dry deposition are not modeled. Meteorological data from the 30-meter level of
the WTI tower is used in the simulations to characterize the flow field. This is
not a preferred method for applying CALPUFF because it does not take
advantage of the full three-dimensional wind field capabilities of the model.
However, using CALPUFF in an ISC mode will serve the intended purpose of
this sensitivity analysis, which is to isolate, to the extent possible, the effects of
calm winds and fumigation conditions. Also note that in this application.
CALPUFF employs the ISCST2 terrain adjustment procedures that are most
relevant to receptors below stack-top. (The ISCST2 terrain method holds the
plume at a constant elevation, while limiting receptor elevation to be at or below
the stack top elevation). To facilitate comparisons, ISC-COMPDEP is run with
the NOCMPL option specified, so that it too uses the ISCST2 terrain adjustment
for all receptors. Hence, results from these simulations are only relevant to this
sensitivity analysis. Peak concentrations are summarized in Table IV-4.
The peak 1 -hour, 24-hour, and annual average concentrations predicted
by CALPUFF in this ISC2 mode sensitivity test are similar in magnitude to the
values predicted by ISC-COMPDEP (see Table IV-4). This suggests that the
inclusion of calm wind dispersion and fumigation does not have a significant
effect on the peak predicted concentrations from the elevated WTI stack.
Although CALPUFF is run in a mode as close as possible to ISC-COMPDEP,
some of the inherent features of the puff model (e.g., causality effects, time-
variability to the fields, curved trajectories over multiple hours, etc.) also play a
role in the concentration predictions by CALPUFF.
Figure IV-9 shows the annual average concentrations simulated by ISC-
COMPDEP. This has the characteristic distribution found in the regular ISC-
COMPDEP results presented earlier. There is some along-river channeling, but
the peak value lies on the hillside to the east of the stack. Concentrations at the
receptors nearest to the stack are less than the first isopleth (.05 ug/m?). In
contrast, the CALPUFF results shown in Figure IV-10 shows larger
concentrations just down-river from the stack, and also at greater distances to the
east-northeast and west-southwest. Clearly, those concentrations nearest the
stack result from some pooling of emissions near the release during calm
conditions. The elongation of the pattern "along" the river's axis is probably due
to a combination of the sole use of wind directions from the 30-m level of the
tower at WTI in these CALPUFF simulations, and completely accounting for all
f
of the mass released. Note that winds above the valley measured at the Beaver
Valley tower are available to ISC-COMPDEP for use when the plume height is
Volume IV
IV-18
-------
well above the WTI stack. Without this supplementary wind information, puffs
in CALPUFF are expected to follow a more channeled flow, even when they rise
out of the valley.
The results of both the INPUFF and CALPUFF simulations suggest that
calm wind conditions will not produce the controlling concentrations for the
WTI stack emissions. The inclusion of plume fumigation effects in CALPUFF
does not result in significantly different peak ground-level concentrations in the
valley. The purpose of the sensitivity tests with CALPUFF run in ISC2 mode is
to isolate and thereby assess the importance of calm wind conditions and
fumigation events rather than to exercise the full three-dimensional transport and
dispersion features in CALPUFF.
6. Terrain Downwash Simulations
The peer reviewers also identified the need to consider terrain-induced
downwash, which they considered a potentially serious problem at the site, at least for
moderate-to-high wind speeds. In response to this concern, the U.S. EPA Fluid
Modeling Facility conducted a series of wind-tunnel simulations to investigate the
potential for terrain downwash at the site, and to characterize the resulting peak ground-
level concentrations (Snyder 1994). A copy of this report is included as Appendix IV-6.
To provide a context for their findings relative to the dispersion modeling program, ISC-
COMPDEP simulations are performed that parallel the configurations studied in the
wind runnel. These are discussed in the following section.
In the wind tunnel study, a 1:480 scale model was constructed which represented
a full-scale region approximately 1 mile wide by 3 miles long. The wind tunnel
simulations explored three terrain configurations: flat terrain (a base case), wind flow
from the east-southeast (125 degrees), and wind from the west-northwest (305 degrees).
The most prominent nearby terrain feature that may promote downwash is located about
1 km to the east-southeast of the WTI stack. Therefore, wind directions of 125/305
place this terrain upwind/downwind of the facility, respectively. Following the naming
conventions used by Snyder (1994), the 125 degree simulations are referred to as "SE",
and the 305 degree simulations as "NW". Three stack heights were used in the
simulations: 45.7 m (existing stack), 72.7 m (GEP stack), and 120 m. The stated
findings include:
Volume IV
IV-19
-------
• A small recirculation region is found at the base of the SE hill (for SE
winds). The stack lies beyond this region, but is itself in an area of
downward-directed mean flow.
• All terrain configurations employ the same set of free-stream wind
speeds (at 500 ft, or 152 m). Because of the terrain, however, the wind
speed at stack-top is considerably smaller in the presence of the actual
terrain, when compared to the corresponding flat terrain simulation.
• Maximum ground-level concentrations clearly decrease as the stack-
height is increased for all three terrain configurations. Furthermore,
differences due to changes in the stack-height are much more significant
than changes in the terrain configuration.
• High intensity, large-scale turbulence is generated by the presence of the
terrain in concert with the changes in the mean streamline patterns.
These findings do indeed indicate that terrain-induced perturbations to the flow are
expected to occur at the WTI site.
Are these perturbations likely to lead to concentrations larger than those
estimated with ISC-COMPDEP? The configurations studied in the wind tunnel are
simulated with ISC-COMPDEP to find out. The terrain and receptor data used in the
base case ISC-COMPDEP simulations discussed in Section IV.A are used here as well.
but only those receptors that coincide with the wind tunnel configuration are included.
Furthermore, since the receptor radials are spaced at even increments of 10 degrees,
wind directions of 130/310 degrees replace the 125/305 pair used in the wind tunnel
simulation. Anemometer height is set at 152.4 m, and a wind profile exponent of 0.21 is
specified to match that reported for the wind tunnel boundary layer with flat terrain.
The results are compared in Figures IV-11 through IV-13.
Figure IV-11 compares the modeled peak concentrations as a function of wind
speed with the corresponding peak concentrations from the wind tunnel simulations.
For each stack-height, the wind tunnel simulations produce larger concentrations,
generally by at least a factor of two. Over the range of wind speeds modeled,
concentrations resulting from emissions from the lowest stack increase with wind speed.
With the presence of actual terrain, however, Figures IV-12 and IV-13 demonstrate
significantly different behavior. Even though terrain downwash effects are not modeled
in ISC-COMPDEP, the treatment of terrain in the model produces concentrations that
Volume IV
rv-20
-------
exceed those obtained in the wind tunnel simulations. The structure of the curves is also
different in that concentrations do not always decrease as the stack is raised. This is
particularly the case in Figure IV-13 in which winds from the "NW" are simulated. The
re-ordering of peak concentration and stack-height for the 9 m/s wind speed is probably
related to the use of two dissimilar models in implementing the intermediate terrain
procedure. Under certain circumstances, the ISC and COMPLEX I treatments can
produce markedly different concentration estimates. Because the larger estimate is
chosen within the intermediate terrain regime, and an abrupt switch to the Complex I
result is made in the complex terrain regime (i.e., receptors above stack top) and because
the regime is itself a function of stack height, plume height, and receptor height.
concentration predictions from the model do not always show a decrease with increasing
stack height. This behavior is a result of the intermediate/complex terrain procedures
rather than any physical process.
These comparisons suggest that concentrations produced by the methods used to
treat terrain in ISC-COMPDEP are sufficiently conservative, and that the changes in
peak concentrations attributed to terrain downwash on the basis of the wind tunnel
simulations are sufficiently minor, that the ISC-COMPDEP modeling performed for the
WTI facility does not need any modifications related to terrain downwash.
C. Routine Fugitive Emissions Modeling
The fugitive source of emissions include the carbon bed adsorption system, ash handling
activities, the open wastewater tank, the organic waste tank farm, and the truck wash. The ash
handling, organic waste farm, and carbon bed adsorption system emissions are vented through
stacks, and therefore are modeled as point sources. (The organic waste farm emissions are
vented through four stacks). The other two sources (the open wastewater tank and truck wash)
are treated as volume sources. (See Section II1.A.2 for a discussion of the sources and emission
parameters).
Each of the fugitive emission sources is modeled with a unit emission factor. For both
the point and volume sources, the unit emission rate is 1 g/s in the modeling. Pollutant-specific
modeling results can be obtained by multiplying the unit-emission rate results by the pollutant's
emission rate. Note that each of the four stacks in the organic waste farm emission run has an
emission rate of 1 g/s, for a total emission rate of 4 g/s. Therefore, pollutant-specific scaling of
these results must be based on an average, per stack, emission rate. The emissions for these
sources is assumed to be in the vapor form, except for the ash handling facility, which is
assumed to include both vapor and paniculate matter emissions. It is not possible to obtain
specific size distribution data for the paniculate matter emissions from the ash handling facility.
Volume IV
IV-21
-------
so the same size distribution used in the base case simulations of the incinerator stack are used
for the ash handling facility.
Table IV-5 summarizes the results of the fugitive emission modeling. Because of the
very small pollutant emission rates expected from these sources, the large unit emission-based
concentrations will actually produce relatively small, localized concentrations. Therefore, the
summary lists only the maximum concentrations rather than the domain average concentrations
over all receptors. Contour plots of the spatial distributions of the concentration fields, and in
the case of the ash handling facility, the wet, dry, and total deposition fluxes, are presented in
Appendix IV-4.
The contour plots of the fugitive emission concentrations all show peak concentrations
in the immediate vicinity of the source, except for the carbon adsorption bed stack. This
reflects the low release heights and the lack of significant buoyancy or momentum of the
emissions. The carbon adsorption bed emissions have significant momentum (although no
buoyancy) and are released at a height of 28 in. The resulting concentration isopleths show a
near-field peak a few hundred meters from the stack. The general shape of the contour of
concentrations show these strong channeling effects of the terrain on the low-level winds used
for advecting the fugitive emissions. This pattern is in contrast to that of the incinerator stack.
which reflects the influence of upper level winds during the periods when the plume rises out of
the valley.
D. Uncertainty Analysis
1. Limitations of the Technical Formulations
Recognition of the uncertainties of dispersion and deposition model predictions
is important in conducting a health risk assessment. In this analysis, the uncertainties
are categorized into two types: limitations of the technical algorithms in the model, and
limitations in the amount and type of data available for the modeling (discussed in
Section IV.D.2). The principal areas of uncertainty in the model are discussed below.
a. Wet Deposition
The wet deposition algorithm used in ISC-COMPDEP is a simple,
empirically-based scavenging coefficient scheme. The scavenging coefficients
are used by the model to determine the amount of pollutant removed from the
plume. The scavenging coefficients are specified as a function of the particle
size categories and precipitation type. The scavenging coefficients are derived
from limited observational studies with a relatively small number of data points.
i'
The data in these studies do not allow the identification and parameterization of
individual wet removal processes, such as in-cloud nucleation and below cloud
Volume IV
IV-22
-------
interception. Instead, all wet removal mechanisms are included implicitly in the
empirical scavenging coefficients. Non-steady-state effects and saturation
effects are not included in the model. ISC-COMPDEP assumes that no changes
in the size distribution of the particles occurs, as can happen due to aerosol
growth in high humidity environments.
The scavenging coefficient scheme predicts deposition fluxes that depend
on the vertically-integrated pollutant concentration, which increases rapidly as
one approaches the source. It is likely that the wet deposition algorithm is
biased to overpredict rather than underpredict near-field wet deposition fluxes
because certain processes such as nucleation, which are important in enhancing
the rate of wet removal, are probably not active near the stack. (Near the stack,
only below cloud processes are active, whereas the empirical scavenging
coefficients include the effects of all (below cloud and within-cloud) processes).
Because wet deposition is a dominant component of the total deposition and
because the peak predicted wet deposition fluxes occur near the stack, it is likely
that this uncertainty results in the model overestimating the peak wet deposition
flux (and therefore overestimating the estimated risk) of the facility.
b. Complex Terrain
The location of the WTI site in the steep-walled Ohio River valley
presents challenges for the dispersion and deposition modeling. The
meteorological data measured in the valley indicate that there is strong
channeling of the flow at lower heights in the valley. At higher elevations above
the valley walls, the channeling is not present. This indicates that there is the
potential for significant wind shear just above stack top. In fact, the flow in the
two zones can be completely decoupled in some circumstances. Thus,
depending on exactly where the plume is predicted to be (i.e., within or above
the valley), different plume trajectories can result. Although the ISC-
COMPDEP model has been modified to allow for a characterization of the flow
at different levels, the modeling approach still represents a simple approximation
to the actual flow fields that are likely to be quite complex. In addition, the
COMPLEX I terrain algorithm in ISC-COMPDEP is considered a simple
screening approach for evaluating complex terrain effects.
Another limitation is that the steady-state plume modeling approach does
not allow the plume trajectory to deviate from a straight line. Especially in
complex terrain such as near the WTI facility, this assumption is questionable,
and is likely to lead to errors in plume trajectories. However, over long
Volume IV
IV-23
-------
averaging times such as the annual averages presented in Section IV. some of the
errors will likely average out. However, the model is not expected to be able to
accurately predict an individual plume's behavior well for an individual hour.
As noted by the peer reviewers, the model does not contain algorithms
for treating terrain-induced downwash effects. However, a comparison of wind
tunnel simulations of the WTI area with the ISC-COMPDEP model suggest that
there is sufficient conservatism in the formulation of the complex terrain
treatment in the model, so that the lack of terrain downwash will not lead to
underpredictions of the predicted concentrations. In contrast, the comparison
suggests that the model will overpredict concentrations at higher elevations in
the domain (see Section IV.B.6).
c. Calm Winds and Fumigation
The meteorological observations in the valley indicate a high frequency
of occurrence of low wind speed conditions and inversion conditions. The
steady-state plume approach used in the ISC-COMPDEP model cannot treat
calm conditions or fumigation associated with inversion break-up events.
Therefore, the ISC-COMPDEP predictions are likely to be very uncertain during
these types of conditions. However, a limited application of a non-steady-state
model has been applied to the WTI incinerator stack to help quantify the effects
of calm winds and fumigation events (see Section IV.B.5). The results suggest
that for the main WTI stack emissions, calm wind and fumigation conditions are
not likely to significantly affect the peak concentration impacts.
d. Dry Deposition
Comparisons of dry deposition velocity observations and predictions
generally show a significant amount of scatter (e.g., U.S. EPA 1993). The
prediction of deposition velocities is a strong function of meteorological
variables and the size characteristics of the pollutant, both of which represent
sources of uncertainty, even with a perfect deposition model. The split of
pollutants between the vapor and particle phases is also an area of uncertainty.
As pointed out by the peer reviewers, the significance of transformations
between the vapor and particle phases during plume transport is unknown. In
this study, wet deposition fluxes are found to dominate the total deposition from
the WTI incinerator. Therefore, it is believed that the wet removal algorithms
represent a larger source of uncertainty than the dry deposition model in the
current study. For example, the sensitivity tests discussed in Section IV.B do ^
Volume IV
IV-24
-------
not show significant variability of the total deposition flux for the particular size
distributions tested. This conclusion may not be transferable to other sites or
other pollutant distributions, but appears to be accurate for the WTI situation.
2. Data Limitations
a. Meteorological Data
The wind fields and turbulence fields in the Ohio River valley are likely
to have a great deal of fine scale structure. As a result of the peer reviewer's
comments, improvements were made in the model's ability to handle wind
variations in the vertical, local temperature gradient data were used in the
calculation of inversion strengths, and tests were conducted using local measures
of the horizontal wind direction fluctuations (ae). Even with these
improvements, the steady-state plume modeling approach, necessarily results in
a significant simplification of the meteorological conditions in the valley.
However, with the focus on long-term average concentrations and deposition
fluxes, the errors associated with the use of simplified meteorological
approximations is likely to be mitigated somewhat.
The results of using local precipitation data from the Beaver Valley
meteorological station rather than Pittsburgh precipitation data are discussed in
Section IV.B.3. It was found that year-to-year variability in precipitation
amounts can produce a nearly linear response in the deposition flux estimates,
but that concentration predictions were only a very weak function of the
precipitation data. The precipitation amounts for the base period modeled are
close to the longer term average precipitation amounts recorded at the Beaver
Valley station.
b. Particle Size Distribution
The rate of removal of particulate matter from the atmosphere (and
therefore, the magnitude of the predicted pollutant dry deposition fluxes from the
model) is a strong function of the size distribution of the particulate matter. For
example, Sehmel (1980) shows curves of deposition velocities as a function of
particle size which vary over several orders of magnitude. Dry deposition
velocities tend to show a minimum for particles with diameters near 0.1 pm to
1.0 um. Particles smaller than this range tend to exhibit larger deposition
velocities due to the Brownian motion effects. Because particles in the 0.1 -1.0
um diameter size range are not transported across the quasi-laminar layer in the
vicinity of the surface very effectively by any of these processes, they have the
Volume IV
IV-25
-------
smallest dry deposition velocities. In the stacks tests conducted at the WTI
facility about one-third of the paniculate matter was found to be less than 0.4
in diameter. Due to limitations of the testing equipment, the shape of the size
distribution below 0.4 urn diameter is not known. Because of the potential
sensitivity of dry deposition rates on particle size, sensitivity tests of the model
are made with different assumptions of the distribution (see Section IV.B. 1).
Probably because the wet deposition fluxes are predicted to dominate the
deposition flux estimates, the model did not show significant variability as a
function of the size distribution used. Although wet deposition also depends on
the particle size, it does not appear to be as strong a function as the dry
deposition (at least as modeled).
Volume IV
IV-26
-------
Table IV-1
Summary of ISC-COMPDEP Modeling Results for the WTI Main Incinerator Stack
Annual Simulation (April 1,1992 to March 31,1993)
All Results Are Based on Unit Emission Rate (1 g/s)
Run No.
la
Ih
Ic
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
5c
Model
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
Run Description
Base Case
Base Case
Base Case
GEPHl Stack
GEPHt Stack
CEP III Stack
9-yr High
Precipitation
9-yr Low
Precipitation
Turbulence-
based
Sigmas
Pollutant
Distribution
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor
Mass
Surface Area
Mass
Surface Area
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor
Maximum
Concentration
(Mg/m1)
.9128(1 km, 100°)
.9111 (1 km, 100")
9144(1 km, 100")
.8077(1 km, 100°)
8057(1 km, 100")
.8098(1 km, 100")
.9126(1 km, 100°)
.9108(1 km, 100°)
.9131 (1 km, 100°)
.9115(1 km, 100°)
.9207(1 km, 100°)
.9190(1 km, 100°)
.9223(1 km, 100°)
Maximum
Deposition Flux
(g/m2/yr)
.2213(0.1 km, 80°)
.3052(0.1 km, 80")
-
.1655(0.1 km, 80°)
.2254(0.1 km, 80°)
--
.2653(0.1 km, 80°)
.3653(0.1 km, 80°)
.1505(0.1 km, 80°)
.2080(0.1 km, 80°)
.1733 (O.I km, 100")
.2394(0.1 km, 90")
--
Receptor
Average
Concentration
(ug/m1)
.1018
.1013
.1024
.0830
.0826
.0836
.1017
.1012
.1019
.1014
.1018
.1014
.1024
Receptor
Average
Deposition
Flux (g/mVyr)
.0123
.0168
-
.0121
.0164
-
.0145
.0196
.0087
.0120
.0121
.0164
—
Total (Wet and
Dry) Average
Deposition
Velocity (cm/s)
.38
.53
-
.46
.63
--
.45
.62
.27
.38
.38
.51
--
Volume IV
IV-27
-------
Table IV-2
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP
(Before Peer Review to ISC-COMPDEP)
Annual Simulation (April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993)
All Results Are Based on Unit Emission Rate (1 g/s)
Run
No.
C-la
C-lh
C-lc
C-2a
C-2b
C-3
-la
-Ib
-lc
-2a
-2b
1-3
I-4a
I-4b
I-5a
I-5b
Model
COMPDEP
COMPDEP
COMPDEP
COMPDEP
COMPDEP
COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISOCOMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
Run Description
Base Case
Base Case
Base Case
Mass < .4 pm
At 0.03pm
Vapor Modeled as
0.03 pm particle
Base Case
Base Case
Base Case
Mass < .4 pm
At 0.03 pm
Vapor Modeled as
0.03 (jm particle
No Depletion
No Depletion
Receptor-Specific
Land Use
Pollutant
Distribution
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor/Parlicle
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor/Particle
Mass
Surface Area
Mass
Surface Area
Maximum Concentration
(Mg/m3)
.9 174 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9144 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9454 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9012 (1.25 km, 250°)
.8752 (1.25 km, 250°)
.8705 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9404 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9443(1.25 km, 250°)
.9534(1.25 km, 250°)
.9381 (1.25km, 250°)
.9392 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9388 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9534 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9534 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9534 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9534 (1.25 km, 250°)
Maximum
Deposition Flux
(g/mVyr)
.3377(0.1 km, 60°)
.3372(0.1 km, 60°)
-
.3539(0.1 km, 60°)
.3774(0.1 km, 60°)
.3820(0.1 km, 60°)
.4205(0.1 km, 70°)
.5762(0.1 km, 70°)
-
.5444(0.1 km, 70°)
.9128(0.1 km, 70°)
.9764(0.1 km, 70°)
.4344(0.1 km, 70°)
.6004(0.1 km, 70°)
.5840 (1.0 km, 60")
.6029(0.1 km, 70")
Domain
Average
Concentration
(Mg/m1)
.0978
.0976
.1002
.0965
.0944
.0941
.0813
.0830
.0852
.0810
.0824
.0825
.0852
.0852
.0852
.0852
Domain
Average
Deposition
Flux (g/rrr/yr)
.0178
.0180
-
.0193
.0216
.0220
.0229
.0250
--
.0273
.0317
.0381
.0285
.0309
.0462
.0366
Total (Wet
and Dry)
Average
Deposition
Velocity
(cm/s)
.58
.58
--
.63
.73
.74
.89
.96
—
1.07
1.22
1.46
1 .06
1.15
1.72
1.36
Volume/''1'
-------
Table IV-3
Major Features of the CALPUFF Model
(from Scire et al., 1995)
Source types
• Point sources (constant or variable emissions)
• Line sources (constant emissions)
• Volume sources (constant or variable emissions)
• Area sources (constant or variable emissions)
Non-steady-state emissions and meteorological conditions
• Gridded 3-D fields of meteorological variables (winds, temperature)
• Spatially-variable fields of mixing height, friction velocity, convective velocity scale. Monin-
Obukhov length, precipitation rate
• Vertically and horizontally-varying turbulence and dispersion rates
• Time-dependent source and emissions data
• Cam wind algorithms
Efficient sampling functions
• Integrated puff formulation
• Elongated puff (slug) formulation
Dispersion coefficient (oy, o,) options
• Direct measurements of o\ and ow
• Estimated values of ov and ow based on similarity theory
• Pasquill-Gifford (PG) dispersion coefficients (rural areas)
• McElroy-Pooler (MP) dispersion coefficients (urban areas)
Vertical wind shear
• Puff splitting
• Differential advection and dispersion
Plume rise
• Partial penetration
• Buoyant and momentum rise
• Stack tip effects
• Vertical wind shear
• Building downwash effects
Building downwash
• Huber-Snyder method
• Schulman-Scire method
(Continued)
Volume IV
IV-29
-------
Table IV-3 (Concluded)
Major Features of the CALPUFF Model
(from Scire et a!., 1995)
Subgrid scale complex terrain
• Dividing streamline, Hd:
- Above Hd, puff flows over the hill and experiences altered diffusion rates
- Below Hd, puff deflects around the hill, splits, and wraps around the hill
Interface to the Emissions Production Model (EPM)
• Time-varying heat flux and emissions from controlled burns and wildfires
Dry Deposition
• Gases and paniculate matter
• Three options:
- Full treatment of space and time variations of deposition with a resistance model
- User-specified diurnal cycles for each pollutant
- No dry deposition
Overwater and coastal interaction effects
• Overwater boundary layer parameters
• Abrupt change in meteorological conditions, plume dispersion at coastal boundary
• Plume fumigation
Chemical transformation options
• Pseudo-first-order chemical mechanism for SO,, SO^, NO,, HNO,, and NO;
(MESOPUFFII method)
• User-specified diurnal cycles of transformation rates
• No chemical conversion
Wet Removal
• Scavenging coefficient approach
• Removal rate a function of precipitation intensity
and precipitation type
Graphical User Interface
• Point-and-click model setup and data input
• Enhanced error checking of model inputs
• On-line Help files
Volume IV
IV-30
-------
Table IV-4
Comparison of CALPUFF and ISC-COMPDEP
Modeling Results
ISC-COMPDEP
CALPUFF
Concentration (ug/mj)
Largest 1-hr
Average
18.67
19.46
Largest 24-hr
Average
6.62
4.48
Largest
Annual
0.37
0.38
Volume IV
IV-31
-------
Table IV-5
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with ISC-COMPDEP
Fugitive Emission Sources
Annual Simulation (April 1,1992 to March 31,1993)
All Results Are Based on Unit Emission Rate (1 g/s or 1 g/m2/s)
Run No.
8c
9c
lOc
lie
12c
Fugitive Emission Source
Carbon Bed Adsorption
System (one stack)
Ash Handling
(one stack)
Open Wastewater Tank
(volume source)
Organic Wastetank Farm
(four stacks)
Truck Wash
Pollutant Distribution
Vapor
Vapor
PM — Mass
PM — Surface Area
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Maximum Annual
Concentration
(ue/m3)
3.801- (0.8 km. 200°)
148.97" (0.1 km. 50°)
148.71 (0.1 km. 50°)
148.32(0.1 km, 50°)
298.68a (0.3 km, 40°)
143.56" (0.1 km, 40°)
288.70J (0.2 km, 40°)
J Based on an emission rate of 1 g/s.
h Based on an emission rate of 1 g/s per stack (four stacks in run)
Volume IV
IV-32
-------
Annual Concentrations (/ig/m3)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
30000-1
20000-J
10000-'
X
O
z
-10000--'
-20000-
I
-30000-
-40000-
0.005
0.005
LOCK
o.sa
0.201
0.10J
0.07i
0.05J
— 0.02C
0.01C
0.00*
L- - o.ooi
-50000-t -- - i - "i - -| - -i - ' M -| ' r ' ' 'I • i "" "
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-1. Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib (ISC-
COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
IV-33
-------
50000-
40000^
30000-i
20000
10000-
£
X
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m2 )
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
—T~
j
o
.- 0.'
.00
-10000-
-20000 ;
-30000-i
-40000-
-50000--J - i - • i -- - i i i i-- - T— T T " ' \
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST(m)
O.t0£
0.05J
0.02J
O.OK
O.OOJ
o.oo;
o.oo-
io.oot
i
|0.00(
io.oo«
I
'• 0.00«
Figure IV-2. Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib (ISC-
COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
IV-34
-------
50000-1
40000-
30000-
20000-j
10000-
i !
-10000-i
-20000-
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m '
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
•\
OJ
-40000
-50000-^ j ' " i \--\--\- \ i
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
EAST (m)
.. - — ,_^
\
•
I? i
C5-
E
1
"""
— j 0.1 OCX
j
—
— I
0.0501
0.0201
0.0101
0.0051
0.0021
0.0011
O.OCOI
o.ooo:
•0.000
0.0001
0.0001
Figure IV-3. Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib (ISC-
COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
IV-55
-------
50000-r
40000
30000^
20000-
a:
o
Total Annual Deposition (g/m2 )
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
-10000-
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-1
-50000- , - --T -- | , , - --, r r •- -~~r- -
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
0.1 OOC
0.050C
0.020C
0.010Q
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
EAGT (HI)
Figure IV-4. Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib (ISC-
COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
IV-36
-------
Mm WS152=1.0 m/s (PercentUes: 1 5 35 50 75 95 99)
4567
STABIIJTY CUSS
Min WS152 1.0 m/s (PercentUes: 1 5 25 50 75 95 99)
Figure IV-5. Distribution of lateral turbulence intensity measured at the Beaver Valley tower. The
solid line identifies the corresponding turbulence intensity inferred from oy functions
developed by Briggs.
Volume IV
IV-37
-------
Daily Duration of Calms/Inversions
50-n
05
fc
8
40-
ws(Wn)=Q; dT(150-35ft)GE1.0C
ws(WTl)=0; dT(150-35ft) GE 1.5C
- e - ws(WTl)=0
30-
20-
10-
T M M
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
# Calm Hours per Day
Figure FV-6. Frequency of occurrence of calm periods of a given number of hours per day. Calm
hours are determined from the measured wind speed at the WTI tower (30 m), and
inversion conditions are determined from temperatures measured at the Beaver Valley
tower.
Volume IV
IV-38
-------
-------
3—,
2 —
1 —
0 —
-1 —
_2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
KM
Figure IV-8. Distribution of receptors, centered on the WTI stack, used in simulating
concentrations with ISC-COMPDEP and CALPUFF during May 11 to May 12.
These 320 receptors lie at or below the elevation of the top of the stack.
Volume IV
IV-40
-------
ISC-COMPDEP (NOCMPL)
-10 -8 -6-4-20 2 4
10
8 'f
2 r
r
-2 h
-! -2
-4 I—
I
-4
-6
-8
-6
-8 r-
-10
-10
-10 -8 -6 -4
-2
10
Figure IV-9. Annual concentrations (ug/m3) for a unit emission rate (1 g/s) predicted by
applying ISC-COMPDEP with ISC terrain adjustments for all receptors. The
WTI stack is located at (0,0) and distances marked are in kilometers.
Volume IV
rv-41
-------
CALPUFF (Slug)
-10 -8-6-4-2 0
8 10
-10
8 10
Figure IV-10. Annual concentrations (ug/m3) for a unit emission rate (1 g/s) predicted by applying
CALPUFF. The WTI stack is located at (0,0) and distances are in kilometers.
Volume IV
IV-42
-------
Terrain Down wash Tests: Flat Terrain
o
lQ
b
8
20-,
18
16
14
12
10
8-
6 -
4 —
2-
I ' I ' I
0246
\—i—r
Hs=45.7m (tunnel)
Hs=45.7m(modeO
Hs=72.7m (tunnel)
Hs=72.7m (model)
Hs=120m (tunnel)
Hs=120m (model)
I I I I I I I I I
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Wind Speed @500 ft (rrVs)
Figure TV-11. Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA FMF wind tunnel results for
the flat terrain configuration.
Volume IV
IV-43
-------
Terrain Down wash Tests: Wind From SE
o
^^
I
20
18
16
14
12 -
10-
8-
6 -
4 —
2 —
0 -
Hs=45.7 m (tunnel)
Hs=45.7 m (model)
Hs=72.7 m (tunnel)
Hs=72.7m(moctel)
Hs=120m (tunnel)
Hs=120 m (model)
I!!!!
I I I
I I I I I
I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Wind Speed @500 ft (nVs)
Figure IV-12. Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA FMF wind tunnel results for
"SE" winds.
Volume IV
IV-44
-------
Terrain Down wash Tests: Wind From NW
r—^
0)
o
la
b
8
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10 —
8 —
6 —
4 —
2 —
^-— Hs=45.7 m (tunnel)
^— Hs=45.7m (model)
^— Hs=72.7 m (tunnel)
Hs=72.7m (model)
Hs=120m (tunnel)
Hs=120m(mode!)
T—i—i—i—i—r
0246
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Wind Speed @500 ft (rrVs)
Figure IV-13. Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA FMF wind tunnel results for
"NW" winds.
Volume IV
IV-45
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Volume IV
IV-46
-------
V. SUMMARY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
A revised dispersion and deposition modeling study of stack emissions and fugitive
emissions from the WTI hazardous waste facility is conducted as part of the WTI Risk
Assessment of the facility. Modifications and enhancements were made to the Project Plan to
reflect the comments of a peer review group convened in Washington, D.C. on December 8 and
9, 1993. The Meteorology/Air Dispersion Work Group of the Peer Reviewer Panel made a set of
short-term recommendations to refine and improve the air modeling for the WTI Risk
Assessment Study and several long-term recommendations for future studies. Among the
comments were recommendations to use additional meteorological data from a nearby
meteorological tower and local precipitation and turbulence data, evaluation of calm wind
conditions and fumigation in the valley, evaluation of terrain-induced downwash effects,
modeling of fugitive emission sources, inclusion of short-term average concentration estimates
for use in evaluating concentration increases from upset conditions, and an analysis of the
sources of uncertainty in the study.
Concurrent with the development of the original Project Plan, a new model
(ISC-COMPDEP) was developed to provide a more refined analysis of dispersion and deposition
from a source in complex terrain such as the WTI facility. The model has been peer reviewed
and is applied to the WTI Risk Assessment. It is described in detail in Section II of this report.
Many of the peer review panel concerns are addressed by the use of ISC-COMPDEP; in fact
additional refinements were made to the model in response to specific peer review comments.
Specifically, ISC-COMPDEP was modified to allow the use of meteorological data (wind and
temperature) measured at various heights in the atmosphere, and it was executed using both on-
site data from WTI and data from the Beaver Valley meteorological tower. A version of the
model was developed that replaced Pasquill-Gifford horizontal dispersion coefficients (ay) with
values based on observed measurements of turbulence (oe). ISC-COMPDEP simulations are
conducted using local precipitation data, short-term concentration estimates are produced for
evaluating upset or accident-related increases in emissions, fugitive sources of emissions are
modeled, and a series of sensitivity tests are conducted and uncertainty evaluated. In addition, a
separate wind tunnel study (Snyder 1994) is conducted of the WTI site, and the results compared
to ISC-COMPDEP modeling predictions. Associated modeling work of the wind tunnel
scenarios suggested that the ISC-COMPDEP model, although not capable of describing terrain
downwash conditions, does appear to produce conservative estimates of the concentrations
*!•'
during these conditions.
Volume IV
V-l
-------
For the case of calm wind and fumigation conditions, the basic steady-state assumption
used in ISC-COMPDEP is invalid. Therefore, for assessing the impact of these conditions, a
limited application of the CALPUFF non-steady-state model (Scire et al. 1995) is conducted. A
second non-steady-state model, INPUFF (Petersen and Lavdas 1986), is applied in a separate
study to examine the effects of calm wind conditions in flat terrain. The results indicated that for
the elevated emissions from the main WTI stack, simulation of calm wind and fumigation
conditions with the puff models does not lead to significantly higher predicted peak
concentrations. This conclusion may not apply to other source configurations, especially short-
stack emissions and fugitive releases.
The model output files are partially reproduced in the Appendices to this volume. A set
of tables, plots and files of predicted concentrations and deposition fluxes are presented. Three
base case simulations of the WTI incinerator stack are prepared for use in the risk assessment
analysis. These consist of runs with mass-weighted pollutant distributions (for use with matrix
pollutants bound to the particle material), pollutant area-weighted pollutant distribution (for
pollutants that may adsorb onto the outside surface of the particle), and vapor-phase pollutants.
Wet and dry deposition effects are modeled for the paniculate matter. Pollutants in the vapor
phase are assumed not to be subject to deposition processes, but rather part of the inhalation
exposure route only.
Five different sources of fugitive emissions are evaluated as part of the WTI Risk
Assessment. These include emissions from the carbon adsorption bed, ash handling operations,
the open waste water tank, the organic waste tank farm, and truck washing operations. The
impacts from these sources are localized, and given the expected emission rates associated with
these sources are much smaller than those from the incinerator. (All of the modeling conducted
in this volume are presented based on an unit (1 g/s) emission rate).
A discussion of the key assumptions and limitations of the modeling approach is provided
in Section IV.D, and is summarized in Table V-1. The formulation of the wet deposition
algorithm is viewed as one of the most significant limitations of the model. It is likely that the
wet flux estimates are overpredicted in the near field of the stack because of the inability of the
technique to distinguish between in-cloud and below-cloud scavenging processes. Another
limitation is the inability of the steady-state ISC-COMPDEP model to simulate the spatially-
variable plume trajectories that are expected in the valley. Ideally, it would be desirable to have
additional meteorological data, including turbulence measurements at plume height to use in the
modeling. However, the modeling results appear to be reasonably robust estimators of the long
term average concentration and deposition fluxes expected from the facility.
Volume IV
V-2
-------
TABLE V-l
Key Assumptions
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude
of Effect
Direction of
Effect
Pollutants are distributed
according to a steady-state,
straight-line Gaussian
distribution.
Straight-line Gaussian plume dispersion models are the most
widely-used type of model in regulatory applications such as
risk assessments. Although they cannot reproduce the
effects of complex flow fields and non-steady-state behavior,
they are generally considered to provide robust, reasonably
conservative estimates of plume impacts.
medium
probably
overestimate
Low-wind speed stagnation
events and plume fumigation are
neglected.
The steady-state plume model cannot treat calm conditions
or plume fumigation during inversion break-up conditions.
Sensitivity tests with two non-steady-state puff models
(INPUFF and CALPUFF) were conducted that indicate these
conditions do not have a significant effect on the peak
impacts from the WTI incinerator.
low
underestimate
Wet removal is a linear process
p.oportional to the vertically-
integrated plume concentration.
The scavenging coefficient wet removal algorithm is a
widely-used approach in regulatory modeling. More
sophisticated techniques would require a significantly more
complex base model than the Gaussian plume model. The
use of the scavenging coefficient method is likely to
overestimate rather than underestimate peak near-field wet
deposition.
medium to
high
overestimate (in
near-field)
underestimate
(in far-field)
Terrain downwash effects are
neglected.
A wind tunnel study has been conducted that quantifies
terrain downwash effects on emissions from the WTI
incinerator stack. A comparison of modeling predictions
with the wind tunnel results suggests that the model contains
sufficient conservatism to compensate for the lack of an
explicit terrain downwash algorithm in evaluating the peak
impacts from the WTI stack.
low
underestimate
Volume IV
V-3
-------
TABLE V-l (Concluded)
Key Assumptions
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude
of Effect
Direction of
Effect
Meteorological conditions and
flows within the valley can be
characterized by the available
meteorological measurements.
The use of the Beaver Valley Power Station meteorological
data to supplement meteorological measurements made by
WTI was recommended by the Peer Peview Panel. These
data sources represent the best available meteorological
observations within the valley.
low to
medium
unknown
Terrain effects are adequately
represented by the ISC2 and
COMPLEX I terrain algorithms.
The intermediate terrain and complex terrain algorithms and
procedures in ISC2 and COMPLEX I are considered
screening techniques that are likely to provide conservative
estimates of plume concentrations.
medium
overestimate
Volume IV
-------
VI. REFERENCES
Auer, A.H. Jr., 1978: Correlation of land use and cover with meteorological anomalies. J. Appl.
Meteor., 17, 636-643.
Bowers, J.F., J.R. Bjorklund and C.S. Cheney, 1979: Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide. Volume I, EPA-450/4-79-030, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Bowers, J.F. and A.J. Anderson, 1981: An evaluation study for the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) dispersion model. EPA 450/4-81-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
Bowman, C.R., H.V. Geary, Jr., G.J. Schewe, 1987. Incorporation of Wet Deposition in the
Industrial Source Complex Model. Paper 87-73.6., Proc. of the 80th Annual Meeting of
APCA, New York, NY, June 21-26, 1987.
Briggs, G.A., 1969: Plume Rise, USAEC Critical Review Series, TID-25075, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Briggs, G.A., 1973: Diffusion estimates for small emissions (Draft). Air Resources
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory. ATOL No. 79.
Burt, E.W., 1977: Valley Model User's Guide. EPA-450/2-77-018. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Cramer, H.E., 1976: Improved Techniques for Modeling the Dispersion of Tall Stack Plume.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling
and its Application, No. 51. NATO/CCMS, pp. 731-780 (NTIS PB 270-799).
DeBruin, H.A.R. and A.A.M. Holtslag, 1982: A simple parameterization of the surface fluxes of
sensible and latent heat during daytime compared with the Penman-Monteith concept. J.
Clint. Appl. Meteor., 21, 1610-1621.
Doran, J.C. and T.W. Horst, 1985: An evaluation of Gaussian plume-depletion models with
dual-tracer field measurements. Atmos. Environ., 19, 939-951.
Draxler, R.R., 1976: Determination of atmospheric diffusion parameters. Atmospheric
Environment, 10, 99-105.
Volume IV
VI-1
-------
Duquesne Light, 1993: Letter dated 16 September 1993 from Stephen F. Lavie to Karl E.
Bremer that describes the site characteristics and the format of the meteorological data
from the site.
Gifford, F.A., 1976: Turbulent Diffusion-Typing Schemes: A Review. Nuclear Safen-. 17. 68-
86.
Golder, D., 1972: Relations among stability parameters in the surface layer. Bound. Layer
Meteor. 3, 47-58.
Hanna, S.R. and J.C. Chang, 1990: Modification of the Hybrid Plume Dispersion Model
(HPDM) for urban conditions and its evaluation using the Indianapolis data set. Vol. III.
Analysis of urban boundary layer data. Sigma Research Corp., Concord, MA.
Hanna, S.R. and J.C. Chang, 1991: Modification of the Hybrid Plume Dispersion Model
(HPDM) for urban conditions and its evaluation using the Indianapolis data set. Vol. I.
User's guide for HPDM-Urban. Sigma Research Corp., Concord, MA.
Hanna, S.R. and J.C. Chang, 1992: Boundary-layer parameterizations for applied dispersion
modeling over urban areas. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 58, 229-259.
Hanna, S.R. and J.C. Weil and R.J. Paine, 1986: Plume model development and evaluation.
Report Number D034-500. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Hicks, B.B., 1982: In: Critical Assessment Document on Acid Deposition (Chapter VII-Dry
Deposition). ATDL Contribution File No. 81/24. Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion
Laboratory, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN.
Hjelmfelt, 1982: Numerical simulations of the effects of St. Louis on mesoscale boundary-layer
airflow and vertical air motion: Simulations of urban vs. non-urban effects. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 21, 1239-1257.
Holtslag A.A.M. and A.P. van Ulden, 1983: A simple scheme for daytime estimates of the
surface fluxes from routine weather data. J. dim. andAppl. Meteor., 22, 517-529.
Horst, T.W., 1977: A Surface depletion model for deposition from a Gaussian plume. Atmos.
Environ., 11, 41-46.
Horst, T.W., 1983: A correction to the Gaussian source-depletion model. In Precipitation
Scavenging, Dry Deposition, and Resuspension, H.R. Pruppacher, R.G. Semonin,
W.G.N. Slinn, eds., Elsevier, NY.
Hosker, R.P., 1984: Flow and diffusion near obstacles. In: Atmospheric Science and Power
Production. R. Randerson, Ed., DOE/TIC-27601, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
Volume IV
VI-2
-------
Huber, A.H. and W.H. Snyder, 1976: Building Wake Effects on Short Stack Effluents. Preprint
Volume for the Third Symposium on Atmospheric Diffusion and Air Quality, American
Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.
Huber, A.H., 1977: Incorporating Building/Terrain Wake Effects on Stack Effluents. Preprint
Volume for the Joint Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology. American
Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.
Huber, A.H. and W.H. Snyder, 1982: Wind tunnel investigation of the effects of a rectangular-
shaped building on dispersion of effluents from short adjacent stacks. Atmos. Environ..
176, 2837-2848.
Irwin, J.S., 1983: Estimating Plume Dispersion - A comparison of Several Sigma Schemes.
J. Climate Applied MeteoroL, 22; 92-114.
Jindal, M. and D. Heinold, 1991: Development of Paniculate Scavenging Coefficients to Model
Wet Deposition from Industrial Combustion Sources, 84th AWMA Annual Modeling and
Exhibition, Vancouver, Canada, June 16-21, 1991.
McRae, G.J., 1981: Mathematical Modeling of Photochemical Air Pollution, Ph.D. Thesis, Env.
Engr. Sci. Dept., California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Moller U. and G. Shumann, 1970: Mechanisms of transport from the atmosphere to the earth's
surface. J. Geophy. Res., 75, 3013-3019.
NOAA, 1983: Comparative Climatic Data for the United States. National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC.
Oke, T.R., 1978: Boundary Layer Climates. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Oke, T.R., 1982: The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Quart. J.R. Meteor. Soc., 108,
1-24.
Pasquill, F., 1976: Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume Modeling. Part II.
Possible Requirements for Change in the Turner Workbook Values. EPA-600/4-76-
030b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Perry, S.G., D.J. Burns, L.H. Adams, R.J. Paine, M.G. Dennis, M.T. Mills, D.G. Strimaitis, R.J.
Yamartino, E.M. Insley, 1989: User's Guide to the Complex Terrain Dispersion Mode!
Plus Algorithms for Unstable Situations (CTDMPLUS) Volume 1: Model Description
and User Instructions. EPA/600/8-89/041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
Volume IV
VI-3
-------
Petersen, W.B. and L.G. Lavdas, 1986: INPUFF2.0 — A Multiple Source Gaussian Puff
Dispersion Algorighm. User's Guide. EPA/600/8-86/024, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Petersen, W. and D.B. Schwede, 1994: Effects of Near Calms on Air Concentrations and
Deposition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Pleim, J., A. Venkatram and R.J. Yamartino, 1984: ADOM/TADAP model development
program. Volume 4. The dry deposition model. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Radke, L.F., P.V. Hobbs, M.W. Eltgroth, 1980. Scavenging of Aerosol Panicles by
Precipitation. J. Applied Meteor., 19, 715-722.
Rao, K.S., 1981: Analytical solutions of a gradient-transfer model for plume deposition and
sedimentation. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ARL-109, Air Resources Laboratory, Silver
Spring, MD.
Rittmann, B.E., 1982: Application of the two-thirds law to plume rise from industrial-sized
sources. Atmospheric Environ., 16, 2575-2579.
Schulman. L.L. and J.S. Scire, 1980: Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) dispersion model
user's guide. Document P-7304-B, Environmental Research & Technology, Inc..
Concord, MA.
Schulman, L.L. and J.S. Scire, 1981: The development and capabilities of the BLP model.
In: Proc. APCA Speciality Conf. on Dispersion Modeling from Complex Sources. St.
Louis, MO.
Schulman, L.L. and S.R. Hanna, 1986: Evaluation of downwash modifications to the Industrial
Source Complex Model. JAPCA, 36, 258-264.
Schwede, D.B. and J.S. Scire, 1994: Improvements in Indirect Exposure Assessment Modeling:
A Model for Estimating Air Concentrations and Deposition, 87th AWMA Annual
Meeting and Exhibition, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 19-24, 1994.
Scire, J.S. and L.L. Schulman, 1980: Modeling plume rise from low-level buoyant line and point
sources. Proceedings Second Point Conference on Applications of Air Pollution
Meteorology, 24-28 March, New Orleans, LA, 133-139.
Scire, J.S., and L.L. Schulman, 1981: Evaluations of the BLP and ISC Models with SF6 Tracer
Data and SO2 Measurements at Aluminum Reduction Plants. In: Proc. APCA Specialty-
Conf. on Dispersion Modeling from Complex Sources. St. Louis, MO.
Volume IV
VI-4
-------
Scire, J.S., F.W. Lurmann, A. Bass and S.R. Hanna. 1984: User's guide to the MESOPUFFII
model and related processor programs. EPA-600/8-84-013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, R.J. Yamartino, and Xiaoming Zhang, 1995: A Users Guide for the
CALPUFF dispersion model. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Cadillac. MI by
EARTH TECH, Inc., Concord, MA.
Sehmel, G.A. and S.L. Sutter, 1974: Particle deposition rates on a water surface as a function of
particle diameter and air velocity. J. Rechs Atmos., Ill, 911-918.
Sehmel, G.A. and W.H. Hodgson, 1978: A model for predicting dry deposition of particles and
gases to environmental surfaces. PNL-SA-6721, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Sehmel, G.A., 1980: Particle and gas dry deposition - a review. Atmospheric Environ.. 14. 983-
1011.
Slinn, S.A. and W.G.N. Slinn, 1980: Predictions for particle deposition on natural waters.
Atmospheric Environ., 14, 1013-1016.
Slinn, W.G.N., L. Hasse, B.B. Hicks, A.W. Hogan, D. Lai, P.S. Liss, K.O. Munnich, G.A.
Sehmel and O. Vittori, 1978: Some aspects of the transfer of atmospheric trace
constituents past the air-sea interface. Atmospheric Environ., 12, 2055-2087.
Snyder, W., 1994: Report on Results of Wind Tunnel Modeling of Terrain Downwash. Fluid
Modeling Facility, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Thuillier, R.H., 1982: Dispersion characteristics in the lee of complex structures. JAPCA, 32,
526-532.
Turner, D.B., 1970: Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. PHS Publication No. 999-
AP-26. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985: Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height - Revised. EPA-450/4-80-023R. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988: Stack-structure relationships. Memorandum from
J. Tikvart to Richard Daye, May 11, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989: Clarification of stack-structure relationships.
Memorandum from J. Tikvart to Regional Modeling Contacts, Regions I-X, June 28,
1989.
Volume IV
VI-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions, Interim Final. Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-90/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a: Preliminary risk assessment for the WTI
incinerator considering inhalation exposures to stack emissions. Prepared by A.T.
Kearney, Inc., Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b: User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC2) Dispersion Models. Volume I. EPA/450/4-92-008a. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992c: Comparisons of a Revised Area Source
Algorithm for the Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model and Wind Tunnel Data.
EPA-454/R-92-014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.
NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993a: Guideline on Air Quality' Models (Revised).
EPA-450/2-78-027R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993b: Report on the Technical Workshop on WTI
Incinerator Risk Issues, EPA/630/R-94/001, Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993c: User's Guide to the Building Profile Input
Program (draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993d: Addendum to Meteorology for Assessing Health
Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustion Emissions. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993e: WTI phase II risk assessment project plan, EPA
ID number OHD980613541. Region V, Chicago, Illinois. EPA Contract No. 68-W9-
0040, Work Assignment No. R05-06-15. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993f: Test report for particle size distribution
study conducted at Waste Technologies Industries, Inc. in East Liverpool, Ohio during
March 15-17, 1993. Prepared by A.T. Kearney, Inc., Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994: Development and testing of dry deposition
algorithms, (Revised). EPA-454/R-94-015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
Volume IV
VI-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995: Risk Assessment for the Waste Technologies
Industries (WTI) Hazardous Waste Incinerator Facility (East Liverpool. Ohio). U.S. EPA
Region 5, Chicago, IL.
Wang, I.T. and P.C. Chen, 1980: Estimations of heat and momentum fluxes near the ground.
Proc. 2nd Joint Conf. on Applications of Air Poll. Meteor., American Meteorological
Society, Boston, MA, 764-769.
Weil, J.C. and R.P. Brower, 1983: Estimating Convective Boundary Layer Parameters for
Diffusion Application. Draft Report prepared by Environmental Center, Martin Marietta
Corp., for Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources.
Wesely, M.L. and B.B. Hicks, 1977: Some factors that affect the deposition rates of sulfur
dioxide and similar gases on vegetation. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 27, 1110-1116.
Volume IV
VI-7
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Volume IV
VI-8
-------
APPENDIX IV-1
Building Dimension Analysis
Building Profile Input Program (BPEP) Output Files
WTIBPIP3.OUT -
WTOPIP3.SUM -
BPIP summary output file containing wind direction-specific
building heights and widths for the main incinerator stack,
organic waste tank farm stacks, and the ash handling stack.
Detailed BPIP output file, including building input information
for the main incinerator stack, organic waste tank farm stacks,
and the ash handling stack.
CADBPIP.OUT -
BPIP summary output file containing wind direction-specific
building heights and widths for the carbon bed adsorption
stack.
CADBPIP.SUM -
Detailed BPIP output file, containing building input and output
information for the carbon adsorption bed stack.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-2
-------
wtibpip3.out
DATE : 12/23/94
TIME : 16:56:52.99
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
BPIP PROCESSING INFORMATION:
The ST flag has been set for processing for an ISCST2 run.
Inputs entered in FEET will be converted to meters using
a conversion factor of 0.3048. Output will be in meters.
UTMP is set to UTMN. The input is assumed to be in a local
X-Y coordinate system as opposed to a UTM coordinate system.
True North is in the positive Y direction.
.Plant north is set to 337.21 degrees with respect to True North.
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
PRELIMINARY* GEP STACK HEIGHT RESULTS TABLE
(Output Units: meters)
Stack-Building
Stack Stack Base Elevation GEP**
Name Height Differences EQN1
Preliminary*
GEP Stack
Height Value
WTI1
wastel
waste2
waste3
waste4
steam
45.72
16.76
16.76
16.76
16.76
6.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
72.69
38.10
38.10
38.10
38.10
68.00
72.69
65.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
68.00
* Results are based on Determinants 1 & 2 on pages 1 & 2 of the GEP
Technical Support Document. Determinant 3 may be investigated for
additional stack height credit. Final values result after
Determinant 3 has been taken into consideration.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-3
-------
wtibpipS.out
** Results were derived from Equation 1 on page 6 of GEP Technical
Support Document. Values have been adjusted for any stack-building
base elevation differences.
Note: Criteria for determining stack heights for modeling emission
limitations for a source can be found in Table 3.1 of the
GEP Technical Support Document.
DATE : 12/23/94
TIME : 16:56:52.99
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
BPIP output is in meters
SO BUILDHGT WTI1
SO BUILDHGT WTI1
SO BUILDHGT WTI1
SO BUILDHGT WTI1
SO BUILDHGT WTI1
SO BUILDHGT WTI1
SO BUILDWID WTI1
SO BUILDWID WTI1
SO BUILDWID WTI1
SO BUILDWID WTI1
SO BUILDWID WTI1
SO BUILDWID WTI1
SO BUILDHGT wastel
SO BUILDHGT wastel
SO BUILDHGT wastel
SO BUILDHGT wastel
SO BUILDHGT wastel
SO BUILDHGT wastel
SO BUILDWID wastel
SO BUILDWID wastel
SO BUILDWID wastel
SO BUILDWID wastel
SO BUILDWID wastel
SO BUILDWID wastel
29.
24.
29.
29.
24.
29.
26.
25.
32.
26.
25.
32.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
50.
18.
51.
50.
18.
51.
08
38
08
08
38
08
88
97
33
88
97
33
24
24
24
24
24
24
09
23
16
09
23
16
29
29
29
29
25
29
24
22
31
24
24
31
15
15
15
15
15
15
47
26
51
47
26
51
.08
.08
.08
.08
. 76
.08
.72
.57
.85
.72
.81
.85
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.00
.39
.86
.00
.39
.86
29
29
29
29
29
29
21
25
30
21
25
30
15
15
15
15
15
15
42
33
50
42
33
50
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.81
.75
.86
.81
.75
.86
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.49
.74
.98
.49
.74
.98
25
29
29
25
29
29
27
28
29
27
28
29
15
15
15
15
15
15
36
40
50
36
40
50
.76
.08
.08
.76
.08
.08
.61
.77
.63
.61
.77
.63
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.68
.06
.09
.68
.06
.09
24
29
29
25
29
29
27
30
29
26
30
29
15
15
15
15
15
15
29
45
51
29
45
51
.38
.08
.08
.76
.08
.08
.01
.90
.30
.08
.90
.30
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.75
.17
.66
.75
.17
.66
24
29
29
25
29
29
24
32
28
23
32
28
15
15
15
15
15
15
21
48
51
21
48
51
.38
.08
.08
.76
.08
.08
.64
.10
.21
.77
.10
.21
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.92
.91
.66
.92
.91
.66
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-4
-------
wtibpip3.out
SO BUILDHGT waste2
SO BUILDHGT waste2
SO BUILDHGT waste2
SO BUILDHGT waste2
SO BUILDHGT waste2
SO BUILDHGT waste2
SO BUILDWID waste2
SO BUILDWID waste2
SO BUILDWID waste2
SO BUILDWID waste2
SO BUILDWID waste2
SO BUILDWID waste2
SO BUILDHGT waste3
SO BUILDHGT waste3
SO BUILDHGT waste3
SO BUILDHGT waste3
SO BUILDHGT waste3
SO BUILDHGT waste3
SO BUILDWID waste3
SO BUILDWID waste3
SO BUILDWID waste3
SO BUILDWID wastes
SO BUILDWID wasteS
SO BUILDWID waste3
SO BUILDHGT waste4
SO BUILDHGT waste4
SO BUILDHGT waste4
SO BUILDHGT waste4
SO BUILDHGT waste4
SO BUILDHGT waste4
SO BUILDWID waste4
SO BUILDWID waste4
SO BUILDWID waste4
SO BUILDWID waste4
SO BUILDWID waste4
SO BUILDWID waste4
SO BUILDHGT steam
SO BUILDHGT steam
SO BUILDHGT steam
SO BUILDHGT steam
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
50.09
18.23
51.16
50.09
18.23
51.16
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
50.09
18.23
51.16
50.09
18.23
51.16
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
50.09
18.23
51.16
50.09
18.23
51.16
29.08
6.71
25.76
29.08
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
47.00
26.39
51.86
47.00
26.39
51.86
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
47.00
26.39
51.86
47.00
26.39
51.86
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
47.00
26.39
51.86
47.00
26.39
51.86
29.08
25.76
25.76
29.08
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
42.49
33.74
50.98
42.49
33.74
50.98
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
42.49
33.74
50.98
42.49
33.74
50.98
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
42.49
33.74
50.98
42.49
33.74
50.98
29.08
25.76
25.76
29.08
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
36.68
40.06
50.09
36.68
40.06
50.09
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
36.68
40.06
50.09
36.68
40.06
50.09
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
36.68
40.06
50.09
36.68
40.06
50.09
24.38
25.76
29.08
24.38
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
29.75
45.17
51.66
29.75
45.17
51.66
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
29.75
45.17
51.66
29.75
45.17
51.66
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
29.75
45.17
51.66
29.75
45.17
51.66
24.38
25.76
29.08
24.38
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
21.92
48.91
51.66
21.92
48.91
51.66
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
21.92
48.91
51.66
21.92
48.91
51.66
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
21.92
48.91
51.66
21.92
48.91
51.66
24.38
25.76
29.08
24.38
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-5
-------
wtibpip3.out
SO BUILDHGT steam 14.94 25.76 25.76 25.76 25.76 25.76
SO BUILDHGT steam 25.76 25.76 25.76 29.08 29.08 29.08
SO BUILDWID steam 25.95 24.72 21.81 28.86 27.01 24.64
SO BUILDWID steam 16.41 24.81 26.44 27.27 27.27 26.44
SO BUILDWID steam 24.80 22.42 20.13 25.95 25.95 25.95
SO BUILDWID steam 25.95 24.72 21.81 28.86 27.01 24.64
SO BUILDWID steam 65.31 24.81 26.44 27.27 27.27 26.44
SO BUILDWID steam 24.80 22.42 20.13 25.95 25.95 25.95
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-6
-------
wtibpipS.sum
DATE : 12/23/94
TIME : 16:56:52.99
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
BPIP PROCESSING INFORMATION:
The ST flag has been set for processing for an I3CST2 run.
Inputs entered in FEET will be converted to meters using
a conversion factor of 0.3048. Output will be in meters.
UTMP is set to UTMN. The input is assumed to be in a local
X-Y coordinate system as opposed to a UTM coordinate system.
True North is in the positive Y direction.
Plant north is set to 337.21 degrees with respect to True North.
The plant coordinates will appear as entered in the Summary output
file and they will be adjusted to True North prior to processing.
The True North oriented coordinates appear below between
the square brackets.
INPUT SUMMARY:
Number of buildings to be processed : 8
SCRUBBER has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of 0.00 FEET
( 0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF CORNER COORDINATES
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS X Y
SCRUBBER 1 1 95.40 8
29.08 meters
-15.00 19.00 FEET
-4.57 5.79 meters
Volume IV * External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-7 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
PRECIP has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
PRECIP
80.00 4
24.38 meters
-6.46
-15.00
-4.57
-12.01
14.00
4.27
-3.86
14.00
4.27
-2.79
24.00
7.32
0.02
24.00
7.32
2.85
14.00
4.27
0.04
14.00
4.27
1.69
if 0.00
( 0.00)
3.57] meters
66.00 FEET
20.12 meters
16.78] meters
66.00 FEET
20.12 meters
20.20] meters
57.00 FEET
17.37 meters
17.67] meters
57.00 FEET
17.37 meters
18.85] meters
33.00 FEET
10.06 meters
12.11] meters
33.00 FEET
10.06 meters
10.93] meters
19.00 FEET
5.79 meters
6.99] meters
FEET
meters
CORNER COORDINATES
X
17.00
5.18
1.35
52.00
15.85
11.19
52.00
15.85
15.32
17.00
5.18
5.49
Y
29.00 FEET
8.84 meters
10.16] meters
29.00 FEET
8.84 meters
14.29] meters
-6.00 FEET
-1.83 meters
4.45] meters
-6.00 FEET
-1.83 meters
0.32] meters
SPRAY D has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of 0.00 FEET
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-8
-------
wtibpip3.sum
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
SPRAY D
106.00 8
32.31 meters
BOILER has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
BOILER
13 70.00 6
21.34 meters
CORNER
X
64.00
19.51
8.89
77.00
23.47
13.14
82.00
24.99
16.08
77.00
23.47
16.21
64.00
19.51
13.14
51.00
15.54
8.90
46.00
14.02
5.96
51.00
15.54
5.83
if 0.
( 0.
CORNER
X
80.00
24.38
18.94
143.00
43.59
36.64
COORDINATES
y
77.00 FEET
23.47 meters
29.19] meters
72.00 FEET
21.95 meters
29.32] meters
59.00 FEET
17.98 meters
26.26] meters
46.00 FEET
14 . 02 meters
22.02] meters
41.00 FEET
12.50 meters
19.08] meters
46.00 FEET
14 . 02 meters
18.95] meters
59.00 FEET
17.98 meters
22.01] meters
72.00 FEET
21.95 meters
26.25] meters
00 FEET
00) meters
COORDINATES
Y
30.00 FEET
9 . 14 meters
17.87] meters
30.00 FEET
9 . 14 meters
25.31] meters
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
F/-1-9
-------
wtibpip3.sum
143.00
43.59
[ 41.48
121.00
36.88
[ 35.30
121.00
36.88
[ 33.18
80.00
24.38
[ 21.65
-11.00 FEET
-3.35 meters
13.79] meters
-11.00 FEET
-3.35 meters
11.19] meters
7.00 FEET
2.13 meters
16.25] meters
7.00 FEET
2.13 meters
11.41] meters
INCIN FD has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
INCIN FD
17 84.50 6
25.76 meters
CORNER
X
COORDINATES
Y
179.00
54.56
44.16
239.00
72.85
61.02
239.00
72.85
69.40
184.00
56.08
53.95
184.00
56.08
51.71
179.00
54.56
50.30
52.00 FEET
15.85 meters
35.74] meters
52.00 FEET
15.85 meters
42.83] meters
-19.00 FEET
-5.79 meters
22.87] meters
-19.00 FEET
-5.79 meters
16.38] meters
0.00 FEET
0.00 meters
21.72] meters
0.00 FEET
0.00 meters
21.13] meters
steamplt has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
CORNER COORDINATES
X Y
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-10
-------
wtibpip3.sum
steamplt
21 22.00 4
6.71 meters
contain has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
contain
25 49.00 4
14.94 meters
52.00
15.85
-5.22
132.00
40.23
17.26
132.00
40.23
23.16
52.00
15.85
0.68
if 0.
( 0.
CORNER
X
338.00
103.02
67.00
575.00
175.26
133.60
575.00
175.26
157.57
338.00
103.02
90.97
168.00 FEET
51.21 meters
53.35] meters
168.00 FEET
51.21 meters
62.79] meters
118.00 FEET
35.97 meters
48.74] meters
118.00 FEET
35.97 meters
39.30] meters
00 FEET
00) meters
COORDINATES
Y
237.00 FEET
72.24 meters
106.50] meters
237.00 FEET
72.24 meters
134.48] meters
34.00 FEET
10.36 meters
77.43] meters
34.00 FEET
10.36 meters
49.46] meters
wastefrm has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
wastefrm
29 50.00 4
15.24 meters
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
CORNER COORDINATES
X Y
617.00
106.00 FEET
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
rv-i-ii
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Number
of stacks to
'
t
be processed : 6
STACK STACK
STACK
WTI1
wastel
waste2
waste3
waste4
steam
NAME BASE
0.00
{ 0.00
0.00
( 0.00
0.00
( 0.00
0.00
( 0.00
0.00
( 0.00
0.00
( 0.00
HEIGHT X
150.00 FEET
45.72) meters
0.00
( 0.00
[ 0.00
55.00 FEET
16.76) meters
663.00
( 202.08
[ 173.80
55.00 FEET
16.76) meters
733.00
( 223.42
[ 193.47
55.00 FEET
16.76) meters
733.00
( 223.42
[ 199.61
55.00 FEET
16.76) meters
663.00
( 202.08
[ 179.94
22.00 FEET
6.71) meters
132.00
( 40.23
[ 23,16
188.06 32.31 meters
160.87 102.62] meters
779.00 106.00 FEET
237.44 32.31 meters
206.39 121.75] meters
779.00 54.00 FEET
237.44 16.46 meters
212.53 107.14] meters
617.00 54.00 FEET
188.06 16.46 meters
167.01 88.01] meters
COORDINATES
Y
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
0.00] meters
106.00 FEET
32.31) meters
108.05] meters
106.00 FEET
32.31) meters
116.32] meters
54.00 FEET
16.46) meters
101.71] meters
54.00 FEET
16.46) meters
93.44] meters
118.00 FEET
35.97) meters
48.74] meters
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-12
-------
wtibpip3.sum
The number of stack-tier combinations entered, where each stack is at least
5L
in from at least one of the edges of their respective tier roofs, is: 0
Overall GEP Summary Table
(Units: meters)
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stk Ht: 45.72 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Eqnl Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2 Direction occurred: 172.50
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stk Ht: 16.76 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 65.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eqnl Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 1 Direction occurred: 67.25
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 29
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stk Ht: 16.76 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 65.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eqnl Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 1 Direction occurred: 67.25
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 29
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stk Ht: 16.76 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 65.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Egnl Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 1 Direction occurred: 67.25
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 29
StkNo: 5. Stk Name:waste4 Stk Ht: 16.76 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 65.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eqnl Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 1 Direction occurred: 67.25
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 29
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stk Ht: 6.71 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 68.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-13
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Eqnl Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2 Direction occurred: 14.75
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 1 9
Summary By Direction Table
(Units: meters)
Dominate stand alone tiers:
Drtcn: 10.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 15.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 52.24
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name-.wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastef rm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
-*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 22.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-14
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Drtcn: 20.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.22 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.22 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 30.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
•Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.21
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
Volume IV **
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-15
-------
wtibpipS.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Namerwastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.21
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 40.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIW FD TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name-.wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Ecjuation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
^adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
f •
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 F/-1-16
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.78 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.25
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 50.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.30 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.53
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.38 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.30 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.53
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 60.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 15.32 *Wake Effect Ht: 52.06
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1 -17
-------
wtibpipS.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: I
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 6.71 PBW: 18.18 'Wake Effect Ht: 16.76
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 6 Bid Name:steamplt TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 70.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 14.74 'Wake Effect Ht: 51.19
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation I Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
-•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation I Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Volume IV
Appendix FV-1 P/-1-18
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW. 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 6.71 PBW: 16.41 *Wake Effect Ht: 16.76
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 6 Bid Name:steamplt TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 80.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 15.93 *Wake Effect Ht: 52.97
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 'Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 90.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.63 'Wake Effect Ht: 54.02
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-19
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 100.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.83 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.32
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
X*
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-20
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 110.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.57 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.94
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name .-steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:lNCIN FD TierNo: 1
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-2!
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Drtcn: 120.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.47 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.79
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 130.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 15.87 *Wake Effect Ht: 52.88
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name-.wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
t>'
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-22
-------
wtibpipB.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Nametwastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 StK Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 140.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 14.78 *Wake Effect Ht: 51.25
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name.-wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-23
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 'Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: I
Drtcn: 150.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 13.25 *Wake Effect Ht: 48.95
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 'Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 160.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 12.36 'Wake Effect Ht: 47.62
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*'H
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-24
-------
wtibpipS.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 19.79 *Wake Effect Ht: 51.02
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 170.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 13.82 *Wake Effect Ht: 49.81
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
-'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV. i_25
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 21.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 180.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 14.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 51.36
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrut TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 22.54 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 190.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 15.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 52.24
-t *
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-26
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Namerwastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Bui?,ding elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastef rm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 22.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 200.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.22 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
"•adjusted for a Stack-BuilJing elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Ecfuation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-27
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 22.58 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 210.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.21
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name-.wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 32.31 PBW: 11.10 'Wake Effect Ht: 48.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 3 Bid Name-.SPRAY D TierNo: 1
Volume FV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-28
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Drtcn: 220.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name-.steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: °BH: 32.31 PBW: 10.67 *Wake Effect Ht: 48.32
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 3 Bid Name:SPRAY D TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 230.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-29
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 14.94 PBW: 80.48 *Wake Effect Ht: 37.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 240.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 23.77 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INClN FD TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
»•"
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-30
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 14.94 PBW: 70.45 *Wake Effect Ht: 37.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name: contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 250.00
StkNo: I Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.43 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: I
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 14.94 PBW: 65.31 *Wake Effect Ht: 37.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 260.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-31
-------
wtibpip3. siim
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 270.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.63 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.02
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name-.wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
-*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 BidNName:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
i'
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-32
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack-Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 280.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.83 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.32
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 'Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 290.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.57 'Wake Effect Ht: 53.94
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-33
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 300.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 16.47 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.79
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
"•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
*"
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-34
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 310.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 15.87 *Wake Effect Ht: 52.88
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name .-steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-35
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Drtcn: 320.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 14.78 *Wake Effect Ht: 51.25
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: I
Drtcn: 330.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name-.WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 13.25 *Wake Effect Ht: 48.95
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
* '
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-36
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 *Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 340.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 12.36 *Wake Effect Ht: 47.62
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
-*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-37
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 19.79 *Wake Effect Ht: 51.02
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 350.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 13.82 *Wake Effect Ht: 49.81
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 21.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 360.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 14.86 'Wake Effect Ht: 51.36
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 1 Bid Name:SCRUBBER TierNo: 1
StkNo: 2 Stk Name-.wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
>•'
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 FV-i-38
-------
wtibpipS.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 StK Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 21.34 PBW: 22.54 *Wake Effect Ht: 53.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBK: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 4 Bid Name:BOILER TierNo: 1
Dominate combined buildings:
Drtcn: 10.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 26.88 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name.-wastel
24 PBW: 50.09
24 PBW: 15.88
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3- Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
this stack for
24 PBW: 50.09
,24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24
,24
PBW:
PBW:
50.09
15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
Stack Ht
*Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
Stack Ht
*Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
Stack Ht
*Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
45.72
69.39
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
Volume IV
Appendix F/-1
IV-1-39
-------
wtibpip3.sum
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 20.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 24.72 *Wake Effect Ht: 66.16
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
s'tkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 24.72 *Wake Effect Ht: 66.16
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
Drtcn: 30.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 21.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.80
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-40
-------
wtibpip3.sum
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: , 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 21.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.80
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
Drtcn: 40.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-41
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 36.68 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name-.steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 28.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 50.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 27.01 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack-Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 27.01 'Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 60.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 24.64 'Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
/ *
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-42
-------
wtibpipB.sum
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 5
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 24
GEP: BH: 29
24 PBW: 21.92
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 21.92
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 6.71
*Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
•Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
0.00
38 PBW: 24.64
08 PBW: 25.95
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 70.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 25.97 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
24 PBW: 18.23
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24
24 PBW: 18.23
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 18.23
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for'
PBW: 18.23
Stack Ht:
•Wake Effect Ht:
•Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
•Wake Effect Ht:
•Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
•Wake Effect Ht:
•Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
•Wake Effect Ht:
45.72
60.96
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-43
-------
wtibpipS.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 ^Equation 1 Ht:
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6
Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 6.71 PBW: 16.41
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95
No combined tiers affect this stack for
Drtcn: 80.00
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
38.10
6.71
16.76
68.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name.-WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 22.57 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
24 PBW: 26.39
24 PBW: 15.88
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25
GEP: BH: 29
No combined tiers affect
Drtcn: 90.00
this stack for
,24 PBW: 26.39
,24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 26.39
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 26.39
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
76 PBW: 24.81
08 PBW: 25.95
this stack for
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Eguation 1 Ht:
this direction
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW:
•adjusted for a Stack-Building
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX:
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW:
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW:
Stack Ht:
25.75 *Wake Effect Ht:
29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
elevation difference of
Stack Ht:
33.74 *Wake Effect Ht:
15.88 *Equation 1 Ht:
45.72
62.93
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
62.98
68.00
45.72
67.71
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-44
-------
wtibpip3.sum
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15,
GEP: BH: 15,
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15.
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15.
GEP: BH: 15 _.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25.
GEP: BH: 29.
No combined tiers affect
this stack for
24 PBW: 33.74
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 F3W: 33.74
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 33.74
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
76 PBW: 26.44
08 PBW: 25.95
this stack for
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht.: 38.10
•Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
•Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
•Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 6.71
*Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
•Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
this direction
Drtcn: 100.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 28.77 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
•adjusted for a Stack-Buildirg elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name.-wastel
24 PBW: 40.06
24 PBW: 15.88
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25
GEP: BH: 29
No combined tiers affect
this stack for
,24 PBW: 40.06
.24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 40.06
,24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
,24 PBW: 40.06
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
.76 PBW: 27.27
,08 PBW: 25.95
this stack for
Stack Ht
•Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
Stack Ht
•Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
Stack Ht
•Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
Stack Ht
•Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
Stack Ht
•Wake Effect Ht
•Equation 1 Ht
this direction
45.72
72.23
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
64.39
68.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-45
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Drtcn: 110.00
StkNo: 1 Stk NamerWTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 30.90 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *E
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 130.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 32.33 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Eguation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 140.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 31.85 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-47
-------
wtibpipB.sum
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wasted
Directional MAX: BH: 15,
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affecc
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15,
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15.
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15.
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25.
GEP: BH: 29.
No combined tiers affect
to MAX: 1 9
24 PBW: 51.86
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 51.86
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 51.86
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 51.86
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
76 PBW: 22.42
08 PBW: 25.95
this stack for
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 16.76
*Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
*Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
this direction
Stack Ht: 6.71
*Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
*Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
this direction
Drtcn: 150.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 30.86 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
24 PBW: 50.98
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
24 PBW: 50.98
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 50.98
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
,24 PBW: 50.98
,24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
45.72
72.69
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-48
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 *Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 160.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.63 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation I Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 170.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht.- 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.30 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-49
-------
wtibpipS.sum
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Eguation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 180.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 28.21 *Wake Effect Ht: 71.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name.-wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Ecjuation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5- Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-50
-------
wtibpipS.sum
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 190.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 26.88 *Wake Effect Ht: 69.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 200.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 24.72 *Wake Effect Ht: 66.16
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
-'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-51
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 24.72 *Wake Effect Ht: 66.16
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
Drtcn: 210.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 21.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.80
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 42.49 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 21.81 'Wake Effect Ht: 61.80
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Kt: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
P*
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-52
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
Drtcn: 220.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
24 PBW: 36.68
24 PBW: 15.88
stack for
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect this
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 24
GEP: BH: 29
24 PBW: 36.68
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 36.68
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 36.68
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
•Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
•Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
*Equation 1 Ht:
38 PBW: 28.86
08 PBW: 25.95
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 230.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht:
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
•Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
•Wake Effect Ht:
45.72
64.39
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
60.96
68.00
0.00
45.72
64.39
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-53
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 29.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 27.01 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 240.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 23.77 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 21.92 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 24.64 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-54
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Drtcn: 250.00
StkNo: 1 Stk NamerWTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 25.97 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 18.23 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 14.94 PBW: 65.31 *Wake Effect Ht: 37.34
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 260.00
StkNo: 1 Stk NamerWTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Nameiwastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-55
-------
wtibpipS.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 26.39 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.0"
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 270.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.75 *Wake Effect Ht: 67.71
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:wastes Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 33.74 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 280.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 28.77 'Wake Effect Ht: 72.23
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
*"
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-56
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Nameiwastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW:. 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 40.06 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 290.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 30.90 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 45.17 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-57
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 300.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 32.10 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 48.91 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 310.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 32.33 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Nametwastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
t'
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-58
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 320.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 31.85 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6- Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 330.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-59
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 30.86 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht:
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
24 PBW:
24 PBW:
50.98
15.88
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.98
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25
GEP: BH: 29
No combined tiers affect
.24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
.24 PBW: 50.98
.24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
.24 PBW: 50.98
.24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
.76 PBW: 20.13
.08 PBW: 25.95
this stack for
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
*Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
'Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
'Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
'Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
72.69
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
55.96
68.00
Drtcn: 340.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.63 'Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht:
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
.24 PBW: 50.09
.24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
• Directional MAX: BH: 15,
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15.
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15.
GEP: BH: 15.
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
24 PBW: 50.09
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
24 PBW: 50.09
24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Stack Ht:
'Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
'Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
'Wake Effect Ht:
'Equation 1 Ht:
this direction
Stack Ht:
45.72
72.69
72.69
0.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-60
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 350.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.30 *Wake Effect Ht: 72.69
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Ti-er nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 360.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 28.21 *Wake Effect Ht: 71.40
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 'Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
f
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-61
-------
wtibpip3.sum
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
StkNo: 2 Stk Namerwastel Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.66 *Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name-.steam Stack Ht: 6.71
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht: 68.00
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-62
-------
CADBPIP.OUT
DATE : 02/14/95
TIME : 17:54:22.75
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
BPIP PROCESSING INFORMATION:
The ST flag has been set for processing for an ISCST2 run.
Inputs entered in FEET will be converted to meters using
a conversion factor of 0.3048. Output will be in meters.
UTMP is set to UTMN. The input is assumed to be in a local
X-Y coordinate system as opposed to a UTM coordinate system.
True North is in the positive Y direction.
Plant north is set to 337.21 degrees with respect to True North.
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
PRELIMINARY* GEP STACK HEIGHT RESULTS TABLE
(Output Units: meters)
Stack-Building Preliminary*
Stack Stack Base Elevation GEP** GEP Stack
Name Height Differences EQN1 Height Value
cadbed 28.80 0.00 64.39 65.00
* Results are based on Determinants 1 & 2 on pages 1 & 2 of the GEP
Technical Support Document. Determinant 3 may be investigated for
additional stack height credit. Final values result after
Determinant 3 has been taken into consideration.
** Results were derived from Equation 1 on page 6 of GEP Technical
Support Document. Values have been adjusted for any stack-building
base elevation differences.
Note: Criteria for determining stack heights for modeling emission
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-63
-------
CADBPIP.OUT
limitations for a source can be found in Table 3.1 of the
GEP Technical Support Document.
DATE : 02/14/95
TIME : 17:54:22.75
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
BPIP output is in meters
SO BUILDHGT cadbed
SO BUILDHGT cadbed
SO BUILDHGT cadbed
SO BUILDHGT cadbed
SO BUILDHGT cadbed
SO BUILDHGT cadbed
SO BUILDWID cadbed
SO BUILDWID cadbed
SO BUILDWID cadbed
SO BUILDWID cadbed
SO BUILDWID cadbed
SO BUILDWID cadbed
25.76
24.38
25.76
25.76
24.38
25.76
27.09
25.97
24.80
27.09
25.97
24.80
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
28.12
24.81
22.42
28.12
24.81
22.42
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
28.29
26.44
20.13
28.29
26.44
20.13
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
27.61
27.27
19.32
27.61
27.27
19.32
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
26.08
27.27
22.62
26.08
27.27
22.62
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
25.76
23.77
26.44
25.24
23.77
26.44
25.24
Volume IV
Appendix FV-1
IV-1-64
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
DATE : 02/14/95
TIME : 17:54:22.75
A363 - WTI Downwash Analysis
BPIP PROCESSING INFORMATION:
The ST flag has been set for processing for an ISCST2 run.
Inputs entered in FEET will be converted to meters using
a conversion factor of 0.3048. Output will be in meters.
UTMP is set to UTMN. The input is assumed to be in a local
X-Y coordinate system as opposed to a UTM coordinate system.
True North is in the positive Y direction.
Plant north is set to 337.21 degrees with respect to True North.
The plant coordinates will appear as entered in the Summary output
file and they will be adjusted to True North prior to processing.
The True North oriented coordinates appear below between
the square brackets.
INPUT SUMMARY:
Number of buildings to be processed : 8
SCRUBBER has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
CORNER COORDINATES
X Y
SCRUBBER
95.40 8
29.08 meters
-15.00 19.00 FEET
-4.57 5.79 meters
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-65
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
PRECIP has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
PRECIP
80.00 4
24.38 meters
-6.46
-15.00
-4.57
-12.01
14.00
4.27
-3.86
14.00
4.27
-2.79
24.00
7.32
0.02
24.00
7.32
2.85
14.00
4.27
0.04
14.00
4.27
1.69
>f 0.00
( 0.00)
3.57] meters
66.00 FEET
20.12 meters
16.78] meters
66.00 FEET
20.12 meters
20.20] meters
57.00 FEET
17.37 meters
17.67] meters
57.00 FEET
17.37 meters
18.85] meters
33.00 FEET
10.06 meters
12.11] meters
33.00 FEET
10.06 meters
10.93] meters
19.00 FEET
5.79 meters
6.99] meters
FEET
meters
CORNER COORDINATES
X
17.00
5.18
1.35
52.00
15.85
11.19
52.00
15.85
15.32
17.00
5.18
5.49
Y
29.00 FEET
8.84 meters
10.16] meters
29.00 FEET
8 . 84 meters
14.29] meters
-6.00 FEET
-1.83 meters
4.45] meters
-6.00 FEET
-1.83 meters
0.32] meters
SPRAY D has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
0.00 FEET
Volume IV
Appendix FV-1
IV-1-66
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
SPRAY D
106.00 8
32.31 meters
CORNER
X
COORDINATES
Y
64.00
19.51
8.89
77.00
23.47
13.14
82.00
24.99
16.08
77.00
23.47
16.21
64.00
19.51
13.14
51.00
15.54
8.90
46.00
14.02
5.96
51.00
15.54
5.83
77.
23.
29.
72.
21.
29.
59.
17.
26.
46.
14.
22.
41.
12.
19.
46.
14.
18.
59.
17.
22.
72.
21.
26.
00 FEET
47 meters
19] meters
00 FEET
95 meters
32] meters
00 FEET
98 meters
26] meters
00 FEET
02 meters
02] meters
00 FEET
50 meters
08] meters
00 FEET
02 meters
95] meters
00 FEET
98 meters
01] meters
00 FEET
95 meters
25] meters
BOILER has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BOILER
13 70.00 6
21.34 meters
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF CORNER
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS X
80.00
24.38
18.94
143.00
43.59
36.64
COORDINATES
Y
30.00 FEET
9.14 meters
17.87] meters
30.00 FEET
9.14 meters
25.31] meters
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-67
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
143.00
43.59
41.48
121.00
36.88
35.30
121.00
36.88
33.18
80.00
24.38
21.65
-11.00
-3.35
13.79]
-11.00
-3.35
11.19]
7.00
2.13
16.25]
7.00
2.13
11.41]
FEET
meters
meters
FEET
meters
meters
FEET
meters
meters
FEET
meters
meters
INCIN FD has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF CORNER
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS X
COORDINATES
Y
INCIN FD
17 84.50 6
25.76 meters
179.00
54.56
44.16
239.00
72.85
61.02
239.00
72.85
69.40
184.00
56.08
53.95
184.00
56.08
51.71
179.00
54.56
50.30
52.00 FEET
15.85 meters
35.74] meters
52.00 FEET
15.85 meters
42.83] meters
-19.00 FEET
-5.79 meters
22.87] meters
-19.00 FEET
-5.79 meters
16.38] meters
0.00 FEET
0.00 meters
21.72] meters
0.00 FEET
0.00 meters
21.13] meters
steamplt has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF CORNER
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS X
COORDINATES
Y
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-68
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
steamplt
21 22.00 4
6.71 meters
contain has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
contain
25 49.00 4
14.94 meters
52.00
15.85
-5.22
132.00
40.23
17.26
132.00
40.23
23.16
52.00
15.85
0.68
,f 0.
( 0.
CORNER
X
338.00
103.02
67.00
575.00
175.26
133.60
575.00
175.26
157.57
338.00
103.02
90.97
168.00 FEET
51.21 meters
53.35] meters
168.00 FEET
51.21 meters
62.79] meters
118.00 FEET
35.97 meters
48.74] meters
118.00 FEET
35.97 meters
39.30] meters
00 FEET
00) meters
COORDINATES
Y
237.00 FEET
72.24 meters
106.50] meters
237.00 FEET
72.24 meters
134.48] meters
34.00 FEET
10.36 meters
77.43] meters
34.00 FEET
10.36 meters
49.46] meters
wastefrm has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
wastefrm
29 50.00 4
15.24 meters
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
CORNER COORDINATES
X Y
617.00
106.00 FEET
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-69
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
188.06
160.87
779.00
237.44
206.39
779.00
237.44
212.53
617.00
188.06
167.01
32.31 meters
102.62] meters
106.00 FEET
32.31 meters
121.75] meters
54.00 FEET
16.46 meters
107.14] meters
54.00 FEET
16.46 meters
88.01] meters
Number of stacks to be processed :
STACK NAME
STACK
BASE HEIGHT
STACK
X
COORDINATES
Y
cadbed
0.00 94.50 FEET
0.00 28.80) meters
239.00
72.85
61.02
52.00 FEET
15.85) meters
42.83] meters
The number of stack-tier combinations entered, where each stack is at least
5L
in from at least one of the edges of their respective tier roofs, is: 0
Overall GEP Summary Table
(Units: meters)
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stk Ht: 28.80 Prelim. GEP Stk.Ht: 65.00
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Eqnl Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 1 Direction occurred: 124.75
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to GEP: 17
Summary By Direction Table
(Units: meters)
Dominate stand alone tiers:
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-70
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
Drtcn: 10.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 20.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.12 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 30.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.29 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 40.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 50.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 60.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: '28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 23.77 *Wake Effect Kt: 61.40
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
f
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-71
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 70.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.43 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.40
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 80.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 90.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
"*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 100.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 110.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
-*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 120.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-72
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 130.00
StkNo: I Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 140.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 150.00
StkNo: I Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 *Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 160.00
StkNo: I Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 FBW: 19.32 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.73
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 170.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.62 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.69
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 180.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.24 *Wake Effect Ht: 63.62
y-
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-73
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 190.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 200.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.12 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP:' BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: I
Drtcn: 210.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.29 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Eguation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: I
Drtcn: 220.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 230.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 240.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
*•*
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-74
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 23.77 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.40
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adiusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 250.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.43 *Wake Effect Ht: 59 40
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 260.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 270.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 280.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name.-cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 290.00
StkNo: 1- Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 300.00
Volume IV
Appendix TsM IV-1-75
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 310.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 320.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 'Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 330.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 *Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 340.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 19.32 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.73
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 'Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: I
Drtcn: 350.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.62 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.69
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 'Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Drtcn: 360.00
»••
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-76
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.24 *Wake Effect Ht: 63.62
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 7 Bid Name:contain TierNo: 1
Dominate combined buildings:
Drtcn: 10.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 20.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.12 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 'Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 30.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.29 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 'Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 40.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 'Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 50.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-77
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 60.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 23.77 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.40
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *E
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 110.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 120.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 130.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 140.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 150.00
StkNo: I Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 *Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-79
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX:
17 13
Drtcn: 160.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name.-cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 19.32 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.73
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 170.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.62 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht:
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 180.00
28.80
59.69
64.39
0.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.24 *Wake Effect Ht: 63.62
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 190.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.09 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 200.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.12 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-80
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
Drtcn: 210.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 28.29 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
"adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 220.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 230.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 240.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 23.77 *Wake Effect Ht: 61.40
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 "Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 250.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 25.97 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 "Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
"adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 260.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-81
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 3
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 159
Drtcn: 270.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 280.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 290.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.27 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 300.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.44 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 310.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.96
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-82
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Eguation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 320.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.38
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 330.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed - Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 20.13 *Wake Effect Ht: 55.96
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 340.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 19.32 *Wake Effect Ht: 54.73
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 350.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.62 *Wake Effect Ht: 59.69
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Eguation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Drtcn: 360.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.24 *Wake Effect Ht: 63.62
GEP: BH: 25.76 PBW: 25.76 *Equation 1 Ht: 64.39
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-83
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-84
-------
APPENDIX IV-2
Additional Wind Data Plots
Figures IV-2-1 thru IV-2-21. Beaver Valley Power Station Meteorological Tower (BVPSMT) wind
data for each level for 1986-1990, 1992, Jan. - Apr. 1993.
Figures IV-2-22 thru IV-2-29. Greater Pittsburgh International Airport sounding data for 1988 and
1989 at 0 GMT at various heights.
Figures IV-2-30 thru IV-2-37. Greater Pittsburgh International Airport sounding data for 1988 and
1989 at 12 GMT at various heights.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2 IV-2-1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2 TV-2-2
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986 — 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-1. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1986, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
FV-2-3
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-75 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1987 — 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-2. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1987, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-4
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7-5-10-0 gt 15.0
(mph)
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1988 — 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-3. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1988, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-5
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1989 — 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-4. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1989, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-6
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1990 — 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-5. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1990, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-7
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1992 — 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-6. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1992, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-8
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
ssw
SSE
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1993 (Jan-Apr) 35 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-7. Four-month (Jan.-Apr.) wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1993, 35-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix FV-2
IV-2-9
-------
NNW
WNW
W
WSW
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986 — 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-8. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1986, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-10
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1987 — ISO Foot Level
Figure IV-2-9. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1987, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-11
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSW
SSE
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1988 — 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-10. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1988, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-12
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
N
NNE
20%
NE
SSE
ENE
ESE
SE
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1989 — 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-11. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1989, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-13
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1990 — 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-12. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1990, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
FV-2-14
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1992 — 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-13. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1992, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix FV-2
IV-2-15
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7-5-10-0 gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
, ValfeyN PS Tower Data
1993 (Jan-Apr) 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-14. Four-month (Jan.-Apr.) wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1993, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-16
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986 -- 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-15. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1986, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-17
-------
NNV
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1987 — 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-16. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1987, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-18
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
ssw
06-2.5
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1988 — 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-17. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1988, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-19
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1989 -- 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-18. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1989, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-20
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1990 — 500 Foot Level
Figure FV-2-19. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1990, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-21
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1992 — 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-20. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1992, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-22
-------
NNV
NW
WNW
W -
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7'5-10-0 gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1993 (Jan-Apr) 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-21. Four-month (Jan.-Apr.) wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1993, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-23
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 0 GMT Surface
Figure IV-2-22. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, surface level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-24
-------
NNW
WNW
WSW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
2.5-5-0 7.5.10.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 0 GMT Surface Layer
Figure IV-2-23. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, surface level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-25
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988
-------
N
NNW
WNW
WSW
SW
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0
gt 15.0
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
- E
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
2.5—5.0 7 «;_m n
7.5-10.0
gt 150
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 (J GMT 900 mb
Figure IV-2-26. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, 900 mb level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-28
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
W -
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 (J GMT 900 mb
Figure IV-2-27. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, 900 mb level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-29
-------
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
N
NNW
NNE
20%
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
0 6-2
(mph)
gt 15.0
S
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 (f GMT 850 mb
Figure IV-2-28. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, 850 mb level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-30
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 12 GMT Surface Layer
Figure IV-2-30. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, surface level, 1988.
Volume IV
* r-pendix IV-2
FV-2-32
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSW
SSE
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 12 GMT Surface Data
Figure IV-2-31. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, surface level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-33
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 12 GMT 950 mb
Figure IV-2-32. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, 950 mb level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
fV-2-34
-------
NNW
WNW
W
WSW
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 12 GMT 950 mb
Figure IV-2-33. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, 950 mb level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix FV-2
IV-2-35
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 12 GMT 900 mb
Figure IV-2-34. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, 900 mb level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-36
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
2.5-5.0
7.5-10.0
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 12 GMT 850 mb
Figure IV-2-36. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, 850 mb level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-38
-------
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
N
NNW
NNE
20%
SSW
SSE
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
10.0-15.0
7.5-10.0 gt 15Q
(mph)
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 12 GMT 850 mb
Figure IV-2-37. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, 850 mb level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-39
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2 IV-2-40
-------
APPENDIX IV-3
ISC-COMPDEP Model Output Files
(Partial Listings Showing Model Inputs)
Main Incinerator Stack - Base Case Simulations
BASEA.PRT - Mass-weighted pollutant distribution.
BASEB.PRT - Surface area-weighted pollutant distribution.
BASEC.PRT - Vapor pollutant.
Fugitive Emission Sources
TRUCKWSH.OUT - Truck wash
WASTE.OUT - Organic waste tank farm stacks
TANK.OUT - Open wastewater tank
CADSTACK.OUT - Carbon adsorption bed stack
ASHx_y.OUT - Ash Handling stack
x = A for mass-weighted pollutant distribution
B for surface area-weighted pollutant
distribution
C for vapor pollutant
y = C for concentration output
W for wet flux output
D for dry flux output
2 for total (wet+dry) flux output
(e.g., ASHA_W.OUT is the mass-weighted distribution
run generating wet flux output).
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-2
-------
baaea.prt
*** ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 *** *** WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Caae *•• 08/25/94
••• One source; 936 receptor! up to 50KM any; Mass wt. ••• 17:37:03
PAGE 1
•" MODELING OPTIONS USED: COMC RURAL ELZV DPAULT DRYDPL NETDPL
••• MODEL SETOP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Processing i» Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE • T
••Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWCAS,LWPART « F T
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dowwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4 . Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Hind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound' Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels . 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45 7000
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
Im AGL) 80.8000
Im AGL) 111.300
(m AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Averagela) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Sourcels); 1 Source Groupls); and 936 Receptorls)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: LEAD
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLB Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting IPLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. Im) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef. • 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
Emission Units * GRAMS/SEC , Emission Kate Unit Factor • 0.10000B+07
Output Units - KXCHOGRAHS/M**3
••Input Runstream File: bases.inc , "Output Print File: bases.con
••Detailed Error/Message File: ERRORS.ODT
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-3
-------
baaea.prt
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •*• *** WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Sue Case *•• 08/25/94
**• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt. ••• 17:37:03
PAGE 2
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RuSAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL KETDPL
••• POMT SOURCE DATA •*•
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE ' PART (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEH*. EXIT VSL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
WTISTACK 10 0.10000E+01 0.0 0.0 212.1 45.70 367.00 17.74 1.83 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-4
-------
baaea.prt
••• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 *•• •" WTI »t«ck nodeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Ba«e Cue ••• 08/25/94
**• One aource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; MaM we. ••• 17:37:03
PAGE 3
•"• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
••* SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-5
-------
basea.prt
ISCOMDEF VERSION 94227 *•• ••* WTI stack model ins, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bate Case ••• 08/25/94
*** Oa« source; 936 receptors up to 50ICM away; Mass vt. ••• 17:37:03
PAGE 4
HODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFMILT DRYDFL WETDPL
*•• SODRCE PARTICDLATE/GAS DATA •»•
*** SOURCE ID • WTISTACK; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS FRACTION >
0.04260, 0.08510, 0.17020, 0.19150, 0.19150, 0.11910, 0.10000, 0.05000, 0.04000, 0.01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) «
2.97000. 1.89000, 0.93000, O.S5000, 0.40000. 0.270U0, 0.18000, 0.12000, 0.06200, 0.03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM"3) •
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEP tLIQ] 1/IS-MM/HR)-
0.21E-03,0.14E-03,0.50E-04.0.50E-04,0.60E-04,0.90E-04.0.13E-a3.0.1SE-03,0.20E-03,0.22B-03,
SCAV COEF (ICE) 1/(S-MK/HR)»
0.70E-04, 0.47E-04,0.17E*04.0.17E-04,0.20E-04,0.30E-04,0.43E-04,0.50E-04,0.67E-04,0.73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-6
-------
••• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •••
•*• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCNC
baaea.prt
••• NTI atack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Baae Caae
••• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mu< wt.
RURAL ELEV DPADLT
• •• DIMCTIOM SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS —
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 5
SOURCE ID: WTISTACK
IPV BH BW HAK
1 29.1, 26.9, 0
7 24.4, 26.0, 0
13 29.1, 32.3, 0
19 29.1, 26.9, 0
25 24.4, 26.0, 0
31 29.1, 32.3, 0
IPV BH
2 29.1,
8 29.1,
14 29.1,
20 29.1,
26 25.8,
32 29.1,
BW WAK
24.7 0
22.6 0
31.8 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
31.8 0
IPV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH
29.1,
29.1.
29.1.
29.1,
29.1,
29.1,
BW HAK
21.8 0
25.8 0
30.9 0
21.8 0
25.8 0
30.9 0
IPV BH
4 25.8,
10 29.1,
16 29.1,
22 25.8,
28 29.1,
34 29.1.
BW WAK
27.6, 0
28.8, 0
29.6, 0
27.6. 0
28.8, 0
29.6, 0
IPV BH
5 24.4,
11 29.1,
17 29.1,
23 25.8,
29 29.1.
35 29.1.
BW WAK
27.0, 0
30.9, 0
29.3, 0
26.1, 0
30.9, 0
29.3, 0
IPV BH
6 24.4,
12 29.1,
18 29.1,
24 25.8,
30 29.1,
36 29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
32.1, 0
28.2, 0
23.8. 0
32.1, 0
28.2, 0
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-7
-------
bases..prt
ISCQKDBP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WT1 stack modeling, BPA Region V. Project 1363. B*»* Cue
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM sway; Mass vt.
COHC KDRU. ELEV
DFXOLT
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PACE 6
• •• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAG)
(METERS)
17.4,
52.1,
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
868.2,
( 1736.5,
( 3473.0,
( 6945.9,
( 34.2,
( 102.6,
( 171.0,
( 239.4,
( 307.8,
( 427.5,
( 598.5,
( 769.5.
( 1026.1,
( 1710.1,
( 3420.2,
( 6840.4,
I 13680.8,
( 50.0,
( 150.0,
I 250.0,
( 350.0,
450.0.
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
64.3,
192.8,
321.4,
450.0,
578.5,
803.5,
98.5,
295.4,
492.4.
689.4.
886.3.
1231.0,
1723.4,
2215.8,
2954.4,
4924.0,
9848.1,
19696.2,
39392.3,
94.0,
281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
845.7,
1174.6,
1644.5,
2114.3,
2819.1,
4698.5,
9396.9,
18793.9,
37587.7,
86.6,
259.8,
433.0,
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5,
1948.6,
2598.1,
4330.1,
8660.3,
17320.5,
34641.0,
76.6,
229.8,
383.0,
536.2,
689.4,
957.6,
213.4.
225.6,
225.6.
243.8,
280.4,
353.6,
310.9,
353.6.
347.5,
341.4.
360.0,
340.0,
350.0,
213.4.
225.6,
225.6,
237.7,
256.0,
329.2,
335.3,
353.6,
362.4,
359.7,
385.9.
340.0.
380.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6.
225.6.
243.8.
225.6,
359.7,
353.6,
323.1,
366 7,
396.2,
360.0,
370.0,
213.4,
225.6.
225.6,
225.6,
225.6,
280.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.01;
0.0),
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.01 ,
0 0),
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ,
0.01;
0.0) ,
0.0) .
0.01 ,
0.01 ;
0.01 ,
( 34.7,
I 69.5,
( 104.2.
( 138.9.
( 173.6,
( 260.5,
( 347.3,
( 434.1.
( 694.6.
( 1302.4,
( 2604.7.
( 5209.4,
( 8682.4,
( 68.4,
( 136.8,
( 205.2,
( 273.6,
I 342.0,
( 513.0,
( 684.0,
( 855.1,
1 1368.1,
I 2565.2,
( 5130.3,
( 10260.6,
( 17101.0.
1 100.0.
( 200.0,
( 300.0,
( 400.0,
( 500.0.
( 750.0.
( 1000.0,
1 1250.0.
( 2000.0.
( 3750.0,
( 7500.0,
{ 15000.0,
1 25000.0,
( 128.6,
( 257.1,
( 385 7,
1 514.2,
( 642.8,
( 964.2.
197.0.
393.9,
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29S44.2,
49240.4.
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095.4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.3,
153.2,
306 4,
459.6,
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1,
225.6.
225.6.
225.6,
256.0,
286.5,
353.6,
347.5,
359.7.
341.4,
365.8,
340.0,
360.0.
360.0,
225.6.
225.6,
225.6.
243.8,
286.5,
347.5,
347.5.
359.7,
329.2,
369.7,
340.0,
360.0.
390.0,
219.5,
225.6,
225.6,
231.6,
262.1,
347.5,
353.6,
329.2,
361.2.
378.0.
320.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8,
353.6,
0.0):
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-8
-------
basea.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
••• *•• WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
• •* one source; 936 receptors up to 50XM away; Mass wt.
COHC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 7
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEiTORS *•
(X-COORD. Y-COORO, ZELEV, ZFIAS)
(METERS)
( 1124.9,
( 1446.3.
( 1928.4,
( 3213.9,
I 6427.9,
{ 12855.8,
( 25711.5,
( 76.6,
( 229.8,
( 383.0.
( 536.2,
I 689.4,
( 957.6,
1 1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1,
3830.2.
7660.4.
15320.9,
30641.8,
86.6,
259.8,
433.0,
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5.
1948.6,
2598.1,
4330.1,
8660.3,
17320.5,
34641.0,
94.0,
281.9,
469.8.
657.8,
845.7,
1174.6,
1644.5,
2114.3.
2819.1,
4698.5.
9396.9,
18793.9,
1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1.
3830.2,
7660.4,
15320.9.
30641.8,
64.3,
192.8,
321.4,
450.0,
578.5,
803.5,
1124.9.
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9,
6427.9.
12855.8.
25711.5.
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
34.2.
102.6.
171.0,
239.4.
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1.
3420.2,
6840.4,
361.5,
353.6,
335.3,
353.0,
398.4,
380.0,
420.0,
213.4,
213.4.
219.5,
219.5,
22S.6.
219.5,
353.6,
335.3,
347.5,
335.3,
396.2,
380.0.
420.0,
213.4,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.8,
310.9,
317.0,
359.7,
408.7,
360.0,
380.0,
207.3,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
231.6,
384.0,
370.3,
380.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820. ,
9641. ,
19283. ,
32139. ,
153. ,
306. ,
459. ,
612. .
766.0,
1149.1,
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2.
5745.3,
( 11490.7,
( 22981.3,
( 38302.2,
( 173.2,
( 346.4,
( 519.6,
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8.
43301.3,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2.
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095.4,
28190.8,
1532.1,
1915.1.
3064.2.
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3,
38302.2,
128.6.
257.1,
385.7,
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283.6,
32139.4,
100.0,
200.0,
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2,
273.6.
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855.1,
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6,
353.6,
353.6.
353.9,
378.0,
376.0,
360.0,
420.0,
207.3,
219.5.
219.5,
219.5,
219.5.
323.1,
353.6,
347.5.
341.4,
373.1,
360.0,
380.0,
420.0,
207.3,
201.2,
213.4,
213.4,
219.5.
219.5.
292.6,
323.1,
323.1,
378.9,
380.0.
380.0,
420.0,
201.2,
202.7,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
231.6,
310.9,
384.0,
360.0,
400.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-9
-------
buea .prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
OTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Ca
One lource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass vt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DPADLT
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 8
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
37587.7,
98.5,
295.4,
492.4.
689.4,
886.3.
1231.0,
1723.4,
( 2215.8,
( 2954.4,
4924.0.
{ 9848.1,
( 19696.2,
( 39392.3,
( 100.0,
( 300.0,
( 500.0.
I 700.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1750.0,
I 2250.0,
( 3000.0,
( 5000.0,
( 10000.0.
20000.0,
( 40000.0,
( 98.5,
295.4,
( 492.4,
( 689.4,
( 886.3,
( 1231.0,
I 1723.4,
( 2215.8,
( 2954.4,
1 4924.0.
{ 9848.1,
( 19696.2,
( 39392.3,
94.0,
( 281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
( 845.7,
13680.8,
17.4,
52.1,
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9.
390.7,
520.9,
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6,
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-520.9,
-868.2.
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9.
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
-239.4,
-307.8,
360.0,
207.3.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
207.3,
304.8,
365.8,
371.9,
360.0,
380.0,
207.3.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
243.8,
323.1,
304.8,
310.9,
402.3,
380.1,
360.0.
•00.0,
207.3.
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
225.6,
347.5,
323.1,
341.4.
347.5,
386.5,
360.0,
380.0,
380.0.
207.3,
202.7,
202.7.
256.0.
286.5,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0,0);
0.01;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01 ; r
0.0);
0.01;
0.0),
0.0);
0.0) ,
46984.6.
197.0,
393.9.
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
1477J.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
200.0,
400.0,
600.0.
800.0,
1000.0,
1500.0.
2000.0,
2500.0,
4000.0,
7500.0,
15000.0.
30000.0,
50000.0,
197.0,
393.9,
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2.
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
187.9,
( 375.9.
1 563.8,
( 751.8,
( 939 7,
17101.0,
34.7,
69.5,
104.2.
138.9.
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
1302.4,
2604.7,
5209.4,
8682.4.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2,
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.4.
-8682.4,
-68.4.
-136.8,
-205. 2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
231.6,
346.6,
384.0,
320.0.
380.0,
400.0.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
341.4,
341.4,
292.6,
359.7,
347.5,
360.0,
380.0,
360.0.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
329.2,
353.6,
341.4,
323.1,
353.6,
353.6,
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
298.7,
323.1,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01 ;
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-10
-------
baaea.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
••• WTI atack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Ca
•" One aource; 936 receptora up to 50KM away; Maaa vt.
CONC RURAL EUSV
DPAULT
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 9
DRYDPL WETOPL
*•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
1174.6.
1644.5,
2114.1,
2819.1,
4698.5,
9396.9,
18793.9,
37587.7,
86.6.
259.8,
431.0,
606.2.
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5,
1948.6,
2598.1,
4110.1,
8660.1,
17120.5,
34641.0,
76.6.
229.8,
183.0,
536.2,
689.4,
957.6,
1140.6.
1721.6.
2298.1,
1810.2,
7660.4,
15320.9,
10641.8.
64.3,
192.8.
321.4.
450 0,
578.5,
803.5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9,
6427.9,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6S40.4,
-11680.8,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0,
-150.0,
-450.0,
-625.0.
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0.
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-64.1,
-192.8,
-121.4,
-450.0.
-578.5,
-801.5,
-1124.9,
-1446.1,
-1928.4,
-1211.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-76.6,
-229.8,
-183.0,
-536.2.
-689.4.
-957.6,
-1340.6,
-1721.6,
-2298.1,
-3830.2,
-7660.4,
347.5,
310.9.
150.2,
347.5.
371.9.
408.4,
360.0.
160.0,
207.1,
202.7,
211.4,
317.0,
353.6,
310.9,
315.1,
159.7,
165.8,
151.6,
196.2,
180.0,
160.0,
207.3,
202.7,
243.8,
323.1,
353.6.
353.6,
341.4,
353.6,
359.7,
359.7,
408.4,
360.0,
360.0,
207.3,
202.7,
268.2,
310.9,
329.2,
347.5,
329.2,
353.6,
408.4,
371.9,
390.1,
0.0),
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0),
1409. 5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095. ,
28190. ,
46984. ,
173. ,
346. ,
519. ,
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1.
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4.
25980.8,
43301.3,
153.2,
306.4,
459. 6,
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1.
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3.
38302.2,
128.6,
257.1.
385.7,
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1,
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-100.0,
-200.0.
-300.0.
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-25000.0.
'-128.6,
-257.1.
-385.7,
-514.2.
-642.8,
-964.2.
-1285.6,
-1607.0.
-2571.2,
-4820.9,
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-153.2,
-306.4,
-459.6,
-612.8,
-766.0,
-1149.1.
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2.
-5745.3,
-11490.7,
347.5,
353.6,
347.5.
345.9,
365.8,
380.0.
160.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
268.2,
347.5,
347.5,
159. 7,
359.7,
147.5,
359.7,
402.3.
180.0,
360.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
298.7,
353.6,
151. 6,
359.7,
353.6,
141.4,
359.7,
408.4.
380.0.
360.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
304.8,
323.1,
323.1.
359.7,
359.7,
359.7,
420.6,
392.0.
140.0.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-11
-------
buea.prt
ISCCKDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI atacfc modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bue Ca
One lource; 936 receptor! up to SOKH away; Ma» we.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DFADLT
08/25/94
17:37-03
PAGE 10
DRTOPt, WETOTL
*•* DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •'
(X-COORD, V-COORD, ZELBV, ZPLAG)
(METERS)
12855.6,
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0.
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2.
6840.4.
13680.8,
17.4.
52.1,
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
( 303.9,
390.7,
( 520.9,
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0.
6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
-15320.9,
-30641.8,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5.
-1515.5,
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1.
-8660.3,
-17320.5,
-34641.0,
-94.0,
-281.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1644.5,
-2114.3,
-2819.1,
-4698.5,
-9396.9,
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-98.5,
-295.4.
-492.4,
-689.4.
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8.
-2954.4,
-4924.0,
-9843.1,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-100.0,
-300.0,
-500.0,
-700.0,
380.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
268.2.
310.9,
323.1,
298.7.
341.4,
365.8,
408.4,
408.4,
396.2.
360.0,
400.0.
207.3,
202.7,
268.2.
304.8.
286.5,
304.8,
304.8,
359.7,
396.2,
411.5,
408.1,
360.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
249.9,
280.4,
286.5,
298.7,
304.8,
298.7,
402.3,
414.5.
398.1,
360.0,
400.0.
207.3,
202.7,
219.5,
280.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
( 19283.6,
( 32139.4,
100.0.
200.0,
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
68.4.
136.8.
205.2.
273.6,
342.0,
513.0.
684.0,
855.1,
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3.
10260.6,
17101.0,
34.7,
69. S,
104.2.
138.9,
173.6.
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
1302.4,
2604.7,
5209.4.
8682.4,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
-22981.3,
-38302.2,
-173.2.
-346.4.
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1,
-216S.1,
-3464.1,
-6495.2,
-12990.4.
-25980.8.
-43301.3.
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8,
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8.
-46984.6,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-990.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0.
-3939.2.
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
•49240.4,
-200.0,
-400.0,
-600.0,
-800.0.
400.0,
380.0,
202.7,
213.4,
298.7,
323.1,
329.2,
341.4,
359.7,
371.9,
420.6,
408.4,
340.0,
420.0,
400.0,
202.7,
207.3,
292.6,
304.8,
286. S,
310.9,
33S.3,
378.0,
402.3,
402.3,
360.0.
420.0,
420.0,
202.7,
202.7,
286.5.
274.3,
286.5,
304.8,
298.7,
365.8,
390.1,
408.4,
380.0,
400.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3,
274.3,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-12
-------
basea.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
HTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 11
" DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD. Y-COORD, ZELEV. ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( o.o.
( 0.0,
( 0.0.
{ 0.0.
( 0.0.
( 0.0.
( -17.4,
( -52.1,
( -86.8.
( -121.6,
( -156.3.
( -217.1.
( -303.9.
( -390.7.
( -520.9,
( -868.2.
( -1736.5.
( -3473.0.
1 -6945.9.
( -34.2.
( -102.6,
( -171.0,
( -239.4,
( -307.8,
( -427.5,
( -598.5,
( -769.5,
( -1026.1,
( -1710.1,
( -3420.2,
( -6840.4,
( -13680.8.
( -50.0,
( -150.0,
( -250.0,
( -350.0,
1 -450.0,
( -625.0,
( -875.0,
( -1125.0,
( -1500.0,
( -2500.0,
-900.0,
-1250.0,
-1750.0,
-2250.0,
-3000.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0.
-40000.0,
-98.5,
-295.4,
-492.4,
-689.4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4.
-2215.8,
-2954.4,
-4924.0.
-9848.1,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-94.0,
-281.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1644.5,
-2114.3,
-2819.1,
-4698.5,
-9396.9,
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5,
-1515.5,
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
243.8,
304.8,
304.8.
298.7,
406.3,
396.2,
396.2,
360.0.
380.0.
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3,
237.7,
304.8,
292.6,
304.8,
384.0.
415.4,
392.0,
340.0,
360.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
219.5,
280.4,
280.4,
298.7,
371.9,
397.2,
384.0,
340.0,
380.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
213.4,
231.6,
359.7,
414.5,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0.
0.0.
0.0.
0.0,
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2,
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434. ,
-694. ,
-1302. ,
-2604. ,
-5209. ,
-8682. ,
-68. ,
-136.8,
-205.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1,
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0,
-1000.0,
-1500.0,
-2000.0,
-2500.0,
-4000.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-30000.0,
-50000.0,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8,
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8,
-46984.6,
-173.2,
-346.4,
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1.
-2165.1.
-3464.1,
-6495.2,
298.7,
304.8,
292.6,
365.8,
402.3.
390.1.
380.0,
380.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
22S.6,
274.3,
292.6,
286.5,
280.4,
353.6.
396.2,
390.1,
360.0,
340.0,
380.0.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
249.9,
280.4,
280.4,
262.1,
353.6,
402.3,
384.0.
340.0,
360.0,
380.0.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
213.4,
231.6,
292.6,
396.2,
396.2,
0.0);
0.0) i :
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-13
-------
basea.prt
XSCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
... ... vm stack modeling. EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base caae
*** One source; 936 receptors up to 50XM away; Mass wt.
CCNC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
DRYDPL HETOPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PACE 12
•* DISCRETE CARTESIAW RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORE, Y-COORD. ZELEV. ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( -5000.0,
( -10000.0.
( -20000.0,
( -64.3,
( -192.8.
( -321.4.
< -450.0,
( -578.5,
( -803.5,
( -1124.9,
( -1446.3,
( -1928.4,
( -3213.9,
( -6427.9,
( -12855.8,
( -25711.5,
( -76.6,
1 -229.8,
I -383.0.
1 -536.2.
( -689.4,
I -957.6,
( -1340.6.
1 -1723.6,
( -2298.1,
( -3830.2,
( -7660.4,
( -15320.9,
I -30641.8,
( -86.6,
( -259.8,
( -433.0,
1 ,-606.2,
( -779.4,
( -1082.5,
I -1515.5,
( -1948.6,
( -2598.1,
( -4330.1,
( -8660.3,
< -17320.5,
( -34641.0,
( -94.0,
( -281.9,
t -469.8,
-8660.3,
-17320.5,
-34641.0,
-76.6,
-229.8,
-383.0,
-536.2,
-689.4,
-957.6.
-1340.6.
-1723.6.
-2298.1,
-3830.2,
-7660.4,
-15320.9,
-30641.8,
-64.3.
-192.8,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5,
-803.5,
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0,
-350.0,
-450.0,
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0.
-5000.0,
-10000.0.
-20000.0,
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
392.6,
380.0,
360.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
213.4,
371.9,
396.2,
378.0,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
323.1,
384.0,
378.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4.
225.6,
329.2.
286.5,
243.8,
372.5,
402.3.
380.0,
400.0,
213.4.
213.4.
213.4.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0):
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0 0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
( -7500.0,
( -15000.0.
( -25000.0.
( -12S.S,
( -257.1,
I -385.7,
( -514.2,
( -642.8,
( -964.2,
( -1285.6,
( -1607.0,
( -2571.2,
( -4820.9,
( -9641.8.
( -19283.6,
( -32139.4,
( -153. J,
( -306. 4.
( -459.6,
( -612.8,
( -766.0,
( -1149.1,
( -1532.1,
( -1915.1,
( -3064.2.
( -5745.3,
1 -11490.7,
( -22981.3.
1 -38302.2.
( -173.2,
( -346.4,
( -519.6.
1 -692.8.
( -866.0,
1 -1299.0,
( -1732.1,
t -2165.1.
( -3464.1,
( -6495.2.
( -12990.4.
( -25980.8,
( -43301.3,
( -187.9,
( -375.9,
1 -563.8,
-12990.4.
-25980.8,
-43301.3,
-153.2,
-306.4,
-459.6.
-612.8,
-766.0,
-1149.1.
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2,
-5745.3.
-11490.7,
-22981.3,
-38302.2,
-128.6,
-257.1,
-385.7.
-514.2,
-642.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6,
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9,
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4.
-100.0,
-200.0.
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0.
-750.0,
-1000.0.
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0.
-25000.0,
-68.4,
-136.8.
-205.2,
360.0,
360.0,
380.0.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
378.0,
396.2,
349.0,
360.0,
360.0,
201.2.
207.3.
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4.
256.0,
359.7,
378.0,
360.0,
400.0,
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4.
274.3.
310.9,
256.0.
365.8,
378.0,
360.0.
380.0.
360.0.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-14
-------
basea.prt
ISCCMDEF VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI *tack modeling, EPA Region V. Project 1363. Baae Ca«e
One source; 936 receptor* up to SOKX away; Mas* wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 13
DRYDPL HETDPL
• •• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAQ)
(METERS)
( -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6,
I -1644.5,
I -2114.3,
( -2819.1,
-4698.5,
-9396.9.
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-98.5,
-295.4,
-492.4,
-689.4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4.
-2215.8,
-2954.4,
( -4924.0,
( -9848.1,
( -19696.2,
( -39392.3,
( -100.0,
( -300.0,
( -500.0.
( -700.0,
( -900.0,
( -1250.0,
( -1750.0.
( -2250.0,
( -3000.0,
( -5000.0,
( -10000.0,
( -20000.0,
( -40000.0,
( -98.5.
( -295.4,
( -492.4,
( -689.4,
{ -886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8,
( -2954.4,
-239.4.
-307.8,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5.
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6840.4,
-13680.8,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6,
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-520.9,
-868.2.
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
17.4,
52.1.
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1.
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
213.4,
219.5,
353.6,
341.4,
353.6,
243.8,
359.7,
402.3,
400.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
359.7,
365.8,
353.6,
353.6.
365.8,
339.9,
380.0,
400.0,
213. ,
213. ,
213. ,
213. ,
243. .
304. ,
335. ,
371.9,
371.9,
371.9,
360.0,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.8.
317.0,
298.7,
371.9,
365.8,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-751.8.
-939.7,
-1409.5.
-1879.4,
-2349.2.
-3758.8.
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8,
-46984. 6,
-197.0.
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8.
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1.
-29544.2.
-49240.4,
-200.0,
-400.0,
-600.0,
-800.0,
-1000.0.
-1500.0,
-2000.0,
-2500.0,
-4000.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-30000.0,
-50000.0,
( -197.0.
( -393.9,
( -590.9,
( -787.8,
I -984.8,
( -1477.2,
( -1969.6,
( -2462.0,
( -3939.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1,
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-34.7,
-69.5.
-104.2.
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4.
-2604.7,
-5209.4,
-8682.4,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
34.7,
69.5,
104.2,
138.9,
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
219.5,
213.4.
353.6,
335.3,
304.8,
298.7,
365.8,
380.0,
380.0,
360.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
310.9,
359.7,
371.9,
371.9,
365.8.
390.1,
360.0,
420.0.
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
298.7,
304.8.
341.4,
371.9,
378.0,
371.9,
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6.
237.7,
280.4,
304.8,
341.4.
353.6,
353.6,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-15
-------
buea.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
MTI *e«ck modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bue Ca*e
one aource; 936 receptors up to SOKM away; Mac* wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 14
DRYDPL WETDPL
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZSLEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( -4924.0.
( -9848.1,
( -19696.2,
( -39392.3,
< -94.0,
( -281.9,
( -469.8.
( -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6.
( -1644.5.
( -2114.3,
( -2819.1.
( -4698.5.
( -9396.9,
( -18793.9,
( -37587.7,
( -86.6,
( -259.8,
( -433.0,
( -606.2,
( -779.4,
( -1082.5,
{ -1515.5,
( -1948.6,
( -2598.1,
( -4330.1,
I -8660.3.
( -17320.5,
( -34641.0.
( -76.6,
( -229.8,
( -383.0,
( -536.2,
( -689.4,
{ -957.6.
I -1340.6,
( -1723.6,
( -2298.1,
( -3830.2,
( -7660.4,
( -15320.9,
( -30641.8,
( -64.3,
1 -192.8.
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9,
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5.
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2.
6840.4,
13680.8,
50.0,
150.0.
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0.
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0.
5000.0.
10000.0.
20000.0,
64.3,
192.8.
321.4,
450.0.
578.5,
803.5.
1124.9,
1446.3.
1928.4,
3213.9.
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711 5,
76.6,
229.8,
378.0,
389.2,
420.0,
380.0,
213. .
213. ,
225. ,
243. ,
286. ,
317.0,
298.7,
384.0,
378.0,
378.0,
424.9,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
219.5,
225.6.
268.2,
310.9,
292.6,
359.7,
371.9,
378.0,
384.0,
426.7,
400.0,
400.0,
213.4,
225.6.
225.6.
268.2.
316.4,
304.8,
353.6,
371.9,
384.0,
384.0,
379.2,
400.0.
400.0,
213.4,
231.6,
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.01
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.01
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
( -7386.1, 1302
( -14772.1, 2S04
I -29544.2, 5209
( -49240.4, 8682
( -187.9, 68
[ -375.
( -563.
( -751.
( -939.
( -1409.
( -1879.
( -2349.
( -375*.
( -7047 .
( -14095.
( -28190.
( -46984.
( -173.
( -346.
( -519.
( -692 .
136
205
273
342
513
684
855
1368
2565
5130
10260
17101
100
200
300
400
( -866.0, 500
( -1299 0, 750
[ -1732.1, 1000
( -2165.1, 1250
1 -3464.1. 2000
( -6495.2, 3750
( -12990.4, 7500
( -25980.8, 15000
I -43301.3, 25000
( -153.2, 128
( -306.4, 257
I -459.6, 385
( -612.8, 514
( -766.0, 642
1 -1149.1, 964
4,
7,
4,
4,
4,
a.
2,
6.
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
2,
3,
6,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
6,
1,
7,
2,
8,
2,
( -1532.1, 1285.6,
( -1915.1. 1607
( -3064.2, 2571
1 -5745.3, 4820
( -11490.7, 9641
< -22981.3, 19283
1 -38302.2, 32139
( -128.6, 153
1 -257.1. 306
0,
2.
9,
8,
6,
4,
2.
4,
384
400
380
400
213
219
225
274
298
298
359
378
378
371
420
400
400
213
231
231
304
304
323
371
378
0,
0,
0,
0,
4,
t.
6.
3,
7,
7,
7,
0,
0,
9,
0,
0,
0,
4.
6,
£,
8.
8,
1,
9.
0.
378.0.
384
400
420
350
213
231
231
304
317
341
365
378
359
378
360
400
370
225
231
0.
0,
0,
0,
4,
6.
6.
B.
0.
t,
a.
0,
7,
0,
0,
0,
0.
6,
6,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
1
;
0);
0)
0)
0)
0)
01
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
;
•
;
«
;
•
;
;
;
;
;
;
j
.
•
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-16
-------
bs«ea.prt
*• ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227
• • MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI stsck modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Bese ca
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM mway; Mass vt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
OFADLT
DKXDtt. WZTOPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 15
••• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD. ZELEV, ZFIJ>G)
(METERS)
( -321-.4,
( -450.0,
( -578.5,
( -803.5,
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0,
-350.0,
-450.0,
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
-239.4,
-307.8,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1.
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6840 4,
-13680.8,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86. e.
-121.6,
-156 3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
383.0,
536.2,
689.4,
957.6,
1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1,
3830.2.
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
86.6,
259. 8,
433.0.
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5,
1948.6,
2598.1,
4330.1,
8660.3,
17320.5,
34641.0.
94.0.
281.9.
469.8,
657.8,
845.7,
1174.6,
1644.5,
2114.3.
2819.1,
4698.5,
9396.9,
18793 9.
37587.7.
98.5,
295.4.
492.4,
689.4.
886.3.
1231.0.
1723.4.
2215.8,
225.6,
274.3,
310.9,
317.0,
353.6,
359.7,
384.0,
378.0,
378.0,
400.0,
360.0,
213.4,
231.6,
225.6,
249.9,
304.8,
286.5,
347.5,
353.6,
384.0,
378.0.
371.9,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4.
225.6,
225.6,
262.1,
280.4.
323.1,
359.7,
329.2,
378.0,
371.9.
349.0,
360.0.
370.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
262.1,
298.7,
335.3,
359 7,
341.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
,0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0) ,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ,
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0 0) ;
0.0),
0.0);
0.0) .-
0.0) ;
0 0) ,
-385.7,
-514.2,
-6.2.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6,
-1607.0.
-2571.2,
-4820.9.
-9641.8.
-19283.6.
-32139.4.
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0.
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
( -2000.0,
( -3750.0,
( -7500.0,
( -15000.0,
( -25000.0,
( -68.4,
1 -136.8,
( -205.2,
-273.6,
-342.0.
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1.
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2.
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434.1,
459.6,
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1,
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2.
5745.3,
11490.7.
22981.3,
38302.2,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.3,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047 7,
14095.4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
197.0,
393.9,
590 9,
787.8,
984 8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
231.6,
304.8,
310.9,
347.5,
353.6,
365.8,
384.0.
378.0,
380.0.
400.0,
360.0.
22S.6,
231.6,
243.8.
243.8,
304.8,
329.2.
353.6,
384.0,
384.0.
365.8.
360.0.
340.0,
350.0,
225.6.
225.6,
243.8,
286.5,
292.6.
353.6,
359.7,
347.5,
385.0,
329.2,
360.0,
340.0,
350.0.
225.6,
225.6.
243.8,
292.6.
298.7,
365.8,
359.7,
378.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-17
-------
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
basea.prt
HTI «t«ck nodaling, EPA Region v. Project 1363, But Cue
One aource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM awey; MM« vt.
CONC RORAL ELEV
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 16
DRTOFL NETDPL
••• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS "
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAS)
(METERS)
-520.9,
-868.2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
2954.4,
4924.0,
9848.1,
19696.2.
39392.3.
100.0,
300.0.
500.0,
700.0.
900.0,
1250.0,
1750.0,
2250.0,
3000.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0.
40000.0,
384.0,
365.8.
339.9,
360.0,
330.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
256.0.
298.7,
353.6,
341.4,
359.7,
378.0,
359.7,
380.1,
340.0,
350.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.01;
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.5,
-8682.4,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
200.0,
400.0,
600.0,
800.0,
1000.0,
1500.0.
2000.0.
2500.0,
4000.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
30000.0,
50000.0,
378.0,
341.4,
340.0,
340.0,
320.0,
225.6,
225.6,
237.7,
280.4,
292. «,
323.1,
317.0,
359.7,
383.4,
37r.9,
360.0,
380.0,
350.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-18
-------
bases.prt
•" ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
WTI stack modeling. EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Cue
One source; 936 receptors up to 50XM away; Mass wt.
•" MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 17
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1-YES; 0-NOI
1
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
••• UPPER BOUND OP PIRST THROUGH PIPTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
**• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.1SOOOE+00
.35000E*00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E*00
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E»00
.55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000B*00
.15000E»00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E»00
.35000E+00
.55000EtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
. lOOOOE-fOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.looooE+ao
.15000E»00
.35000E*00
.55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOEi-00
. OOOOOE.OO
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
,OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE-t-00
OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.000008*00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
-20000E-01
35000E-01
.OOOOOF+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE-fOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
-OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-i-00
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-19
-------
ISCOHDBP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
buea. pr t
WTI 0.3000
-999.0 0.3000
-999.
) 0.3000
-999.0 0.3000
-999.
) 0.3000
-999.0 0.3000
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
Zd IPCODE
IM)
1.5 13
1.5 0
1.5 0
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 0
1.5 28
1.5 0
1.5 28
PRATE
(nm/HF)
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1»A. 2.B, 3-C, 4-D. 5-E AND 6-P.
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-20
-------
baseb.prt
• •« ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• •" WTI «t«ek modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Sue Case ••• 08/25/94
••• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KK nay; Surface vt. *•• 17:50:05
PAGE 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
*•• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *••
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup Por Calculation of Average Concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE ' T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWOAS.LWPART - P T
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plune Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4 . Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. "Upper Bound* Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
Im AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(m AGL) 80.8000
(m AGL) 111.300
{m AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: LEAD
* "Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Pile(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE. The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values, c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef • 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
Emission Units - GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor - 0.10000E»07
Output Units • MICROGRAMS/M*-3
••Input Runstream File: baseb.inc , "Output Print File: baseb.con
••Detailed Error/Message File: ERRORS.OUT
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-21
-------
bueb.prt
••• ISCONDEP VERSION 94227 ••• •*• MTI lt«ck modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Hue Cue ••• 08/25/94
••• One «ourc«! 938 receptors up to SOKM away; Surface wt. *•• 17:50:05
PAGE 2
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCNC RURAL ELEV D?XULT DRYDPL HETDPL
•*• POINT SOURCE DATA *•*
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (H/SEC) (METERS) BY
HTISTACK 10 0.10000E»01 0.0 0.0 212.1 45.70 367.00 17.74 1.83 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-22
-------
baseb.prt
"*• ISCOMDEP VERSION 91227 •" **• KTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Cue ••* 08/25/94
*•• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface tit. ••• 17:50:05
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RT'SAL ELEV DFAOLT DRYDPL WETDPL
••* SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-23
-------
baseb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•• **• HTI • tacit modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case ••• 08/25/94
••* One -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEP [LIQ] 1/(S-MM/HR)«
0.21E-Q3.a.l.4B-Q3,0.50E-04,0.50E-04.0.60E-04,0.90E-04,0.13E-03,0.15E-03,0.20B-03,0.22E-03,
SCAV COEP [ICE] 1/IS-MM/HE).
0.70E-04,0.47E-04,0.17E-04,0.17E-04,0.20E-04,0.30E-04,0.43E-04,0.50E-04,0.67E-04, 0.73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-24
-------
••• WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V. Project 1363, Base Case
••• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KN away; Surface wt.
baseb.prt
••• ISCOHDBP VERSION 94227 •••
••• One source; 936
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
•" DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS "
SOURCE ID: WTISTACK
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 5
DRYDPL WETDPL
UU1U,£ Afc»: n
IPV BH
1 29.1,
7 24.4,
13 29.1,
19 29.1,
25 24.4,
31 29.1,
i.kAlnk.A
BH WAX
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
IPV BH
2 29.1
8 29.1
14 29.1
20 29.1
26 25.8
32 29.1
BW WAK
24.7 0
22.6 0
31.8 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
31.8 0
IPV BH
3 29.1,
9 29.1,
15 29.1,
21 29.1,
27 29.1,
33 29.1.
BW WAX
21. 8, 0
25.8, 0
30.9, 0
21.8, 0
25.8, 0
30.9, 0
IPV BH
4 25.8,
10 29.1,
16 29.1,
22 25.8,
28 29.1,
34 29.1,
BW WAK
27.6 0
28.8 0
29.6 0
27.6 0
28.8 0
29.6 0
IPV BH
5 24.4,
11 29.1,
17 29.1,
23 25.8,
29 29.1,
35 29.1,
BW WAK
27.0, 0
30.9, 0
29.3, 0
26.1, 0
30.9, 0
29.3, 0
IPV BH
6 24.4.
12 29.1,
18 29.1,
24 25.8,
30 29.1.
36 29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
32.1. 0
28.2, 0
23.8, 0
32.1, 0
28.2. 0
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-25
-------
baeeb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
••• vm
-------
baseb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI itack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Baae Ca
One source; 936 receptors up Co 50KM away; Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
11:50:05
PAGE 7
*• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
U-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 1124-.9,
( 1446.3,
I 1928.4,
( 3213.9,
( 6427 9,
1 12855.8.
( 25711.5,
( 76.6,
1 229.8.
( 383.0,
( 536.2,
( 689.4,
( 957.6,
( 1340.6,
( 1723.6,
1 2298.1.
( 3830.2,
( 7660.4,
( 15320.9,
( 30641.8.
( 86.6.
( 259.8.
( 433.0,
( 606.2,
( 779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5,
( 1948.6,
1 2598.1,
( 4330.1,
I 8660.3,
( 17320.5,
( 34641.0,
( 94.0,
281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
845 7,
1174.6,
1644.5,
2114.3,
2819.1,
4698.5,
( 9396.9,
( 18793.9,
1340.6.
1723.6,
2298.1.
3830.2.
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
64.3,
192.8,
321.4,
450.0,
578.5,
803.5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9,
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0.
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
34.2.
102.6.
171.0,
239 4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5.
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2,
6840.4,
361.5,
353.6,
335.3.
353.0,
398.4,
380.0,
420.0.
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
219.5,
225.6,
219.5,
353.6.
335.3,
347.5,
335.3,
396.2,
380.0,
420.0,
213.4,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.8,
310.9,
317.0,
359.7,
408.7,
360.0,
380.0.
207.3,
202.7.
207.3,
207.3,
213. ,
213. ,
213. ,
213. ,
231. ,
384.0,
370.3,
380.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283. ,
32139. ,
153. ,
306. ,
459. ,
612. ,
766.0,
1149.1.
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
( 11490.7,
( 22981.3.
( 38302.2,
I 173.2,
I 346.4,
1 519.6.
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1.
6495.2.
12990.4.
25980.8,
43301.3,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095.4,
28190 8,
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3,
38302.2,
128.6,
257.1,
385.7,
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283.6,
32139.4,
100.0,
200.0.
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2,
273.6,
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855.1,
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6.
353.6,
353.6,
353.9,
378.0,
376.0,
360.0,
420.0,
207.3,
219.5,
219.5,
219.5,
219.5,
323.1,
353.6,
347.5.
341.4,
373.1,
360.0,
380.0,
420.0,
207.3,
201.2,
213.4.
213.4,
219.5,
219.5,
292.6,
323.1,
323.1,
378.9,
380.0.
380.0,
420.0,
201.2,
202.7,
207. ,
213. ,
213. .
213. ,
213. ,
231.6,
310.9,
384.0,
360.0,
400.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) , •
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-27
-------
baseb.prt
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELINt: OPTIONS USED:
WTI «t*ck modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Sue Cue
On* lource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away. Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ELBV
08/25/94
17:50:05
PACE 8
DRTOPL WETDPL
••• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •«
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAC)
(METERS)
( 37587.7,
98.5,
295.4.
492.4,
689.4,
886.3,
1231.0,
1723.4,
2215.8,
2954.4,
4924.0,
9848.1.
19696.2.
39392.3,
100.0,
300.0,
500.0,
700.0,
900.0,
1250.0,
1750.0,
2250.0,
3000.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
40000.0,
98.5,
295. ,
492. .
689. ,
886. ,
1231. ,
1723. ,
2215. ,
2954. .
4924.0,
9848.1,
19696.2,
39392.3.
94.0,
281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
845.7,
13680.8.
17.4.
52.1,
86.8.
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6,
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-520.9,
-868.2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0.
-6945.9,
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
-239.4,
-307.8,
360.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213. ,
207. ,
304. ,
365. ,
371. ,
360. ,
380.0,
207.3.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
243.8.
323.1,
304.8.
310.9,
402.3,
380.1,
360.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
225.6,
347.5,
323.1,
341.4,
347.5,
386.5,
360.0,
380.0,
380.0.
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
256.0,
286.5,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
( 46984.6,
( 197.0,
< 393.9,
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
200.0,
400.0,
600.0,
800.0,
1000.0,
1500.0,
2000.0,
2500.0.
4000.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
30000.0.
50000.0,
197.0,
393.9,
590.9,
787.8.
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
187.9,
375.9.
563.8.
751.8.
939.7,
17101.0.
34.7,
69.5,
104.2,
138.9.
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
1302.4,
2604.7,
5209.4,
8682.4.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0.
o.o.
0.0.
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2,
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.4.
-8682.4,
-68.4,
-136.8,
-205.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
231.6.
346.6,
384.0,
320.0,
380.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
341.4.
341.4,
292.6,
359.7,
347.5,
360.0,
380.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
329.2,
353.6.
341.4,
323.1,
3S3.6,
353.6,
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4.
298.7,
323.1,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-28
-------
baseb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI stack modelina, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 9
DRTOPL WETDPL
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS "
(X-COORD, y-COORE, ZELEV, ZF1AGI
(METERS)
1174
1644
2114
2819
4698
9396
( 18793
37587
{ 86
{ 259
( 433
6,
5,
3,
1,
5,
9,
9,
7,
6,
a.
0,
{ 606.2,
( 779
( 1082
( 1515
( 1948
( 2598
( 4330
1 8660
( 17320
1 34641
( 76
( 229
( 383
( 536
( 689
( 957
( 1340
1723
2298
3830
7660
15320
30641
64
192
321
450
578
803
1124
1446
( 1928
3213
6427
4,
5,
5,
6,
1,
1,
3,
5,
0,
6.
8.
0.
2 1
4,
6,
g(
6,
1,
2 (
4,
9,
8,
3 (
8,
4,
0 (
5,
5,
9,
3,
4,
9,
9,
-427.5,
-598.5.
-769.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6840.4,
-13680.8,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0,
-350.0,
-450.0,
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-64 3,
-192 8,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5,
-803.5.
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-76.6,
-229.8.
-383.0.
-536.2,
-689.4,
-957.6,
-1340.6,
-1723.6,
-2298.1,
-3830.2.
-7660.4,
347
310
350
347
371
408
360
360
207
202
213
317
353
310
335
359
365
353
396
380
360
207
202
243
323
353
353
341
353
359
359
408
360
360
207
202
268
310
329
347
329
353
408
371
390
5,
9,
2,
5,
9,
4,
0,
0,
3,
7,
4,
0,
6,
9,
3,
7,
8,
6,
2,
0,
0,
3,
7,
8,
1,
6,
6,
4,
6,
7,
7,
4.
0,
0,
3,
7,
2,
9,
2,
5,
2,
6,
4,
9,
1,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
01
01
0)
0)
01
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
01
0)
0)
0),
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095.4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.3,
153.2,
306.4,
459.6,
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1,
1532.1,
1915.1.
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3.
38302.2,
128.6,
257.1,
385.7.
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2.
4820.9,
9641.8,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1,
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0.
-1250.0,
-2000.0.
-3750.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-25000.0,
-128.6,
-257.1,
-385.7,
-514.2,
-642.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6,
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9,
-9641.8,
-19283.6.
-32139.4,
-153.2,
-306.4,
-459.6,
-612.8,
-766 0,
-1149 1,
-1532.1,
-1915 1,
-3064.2.
-5745.3.
-11490.7.
347.5,
353.6,
347.5,
345.9,
365.8,
380.0,
360.0,
360.0.
202.7,
202.7,
268.2.
347.5.
347.5,
359.7,
359.7.
347.5,
359.7.
402.3,
380.0,
360.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
298.7,
353.6,
353.6,
359.7,
3S3.6,
341.4,
359.7,
408.4,
380.0,
360.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
304.8,
323.1,
323.1,
359.7,
359.7,
359.7,
420.6,
392.0,
340.0.
0.0);
0.0).
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ; r
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-29
-------
bueb .prt
••• ISCCNDEP VERSION 94227
••* MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI atack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 136], Bale Ca
One «ouree; 936 receptor! up to 50KM away; Surface wt.
COHC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 10
" DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAGI
(METERS)
I 12855.8.
( 25711.5.
50.0,
150.0.
250.0.
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
5000.0,
( 10000.0,
I 20000.0,
( 34.2,
( 102.6,
( 171.0,
( 239.4,
I 307.8,
( 427.5,
( 598.5,
( 769.5,
( 1026.1,
( 1710.1,
( 3420.2,
I 6840.4,
( 13680.8,
( 17.4,
( 52.1,
( 86.8,
121.6,
( 156.3.
( 217.1,
( 303.9,
( 390.7,
520.9,
I 868.2,
( 1736.5.
3473.0.
6945.9,
0.0,
( 0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-15320.9,
-30641.8,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5,
-1515.5,
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
-8660.3.
-17320.5,
-34641.0,
-94.0,
-281. ,
-469. ,
-657. ,
-845. ,
-1174. ,
-1644. .
-2114.3.
-2819.1,
-4698.5,
-9396.9,
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-98.5,
-295.4,
-492.4,
-685. 4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8,
-2954.4,
-4924.0,
-9848.1,
-19696.2.
-39392.3,
-100.0,
-300.0,
-500.0,
-700.0,
380.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
268.2,
310.9,
323.1,
298.7,
341.4,
365.8,
408.4,
408.4,
396.2.
360.0,
400.0.
207.3.
202.7,
268.2,
304.8,
286.5,
304.8.
304.8,
359.7,
396.2,
411.5,
408.1,
360.0.
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
249.9,
280.4,
286.5,
298.7,
304.8,
298.7,
402.3,
414.5,
398.1,
360.0,
400.0.
207.3,
202.7,
219.5,
280.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.6);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
I 19283.6,
( 32139.4,
100.:,
200.0,
300.0.
400.0.
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2,
273.6.
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855. 1.
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6.
17101.0,
34.7,
69.5,
104.2,
138.9,
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
1302.4,
2604.7,
5209.4,
8682.4.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-22981.3,
-38302.2,
-173.2.
-346.4,
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1,
-2165.1.
-3464.1,
-6495.2.
-12990.4.
-25980.8,
-43301.3,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8,
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-1879.4,
-2349.2.
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8.
-46984.6,
-197.0,
-393.9.
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-.14772.1.
-29544.2,
-49240.4.
-200.0,
-400.0.
-600.0,
-800.0,
400.0.
380.0,
202.7,
213.4.
298.7,
323.1.
329.2,
341.4,
359.7,
371.9.
420. «,
408.4,
340.0,
420.0,
400.0,
202.7,
207.3,
292.6.
304.8.
286.5.
310.9,
335.3,
378.0,
402.3,
402.3,
360.0.
420.0.
420.0,
202.7,
202.7,
286.5,
274.3.
286.5,
304.8.
298.7,
365.8,
390.1,
408.4.
380.0,
400.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3,
274.3,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-30
-------
baseb.prt
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
... ... vrn stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Cas
••• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
08/25/94
17:50-05
PAGE 11
DRYDPL WETDPL
•* DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
1 -17.4,
( -52.1,
{ -86.8,
I -121.6,
{ -156.3,
( -217.1,
( -303.9,
( -390.7,
( -520.9,
1 -868.2,
I -1736.5,
( -3473.0,
( -6945.9,
( -34.2,
( -102.6,
( -171.0.
( -239.4.
( -307.8,
( -427.5.
( -598.5,
( -769.5,
( -1026.1,
( -1710.1,
{ -3420.2,
( -6840.4,
-13680.8,
( -50 0,
( -150.0,
( -250.0,
( -350.0,
( -450.0,
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0,
-900.0,
-1250.0,
-1750.0,
-2250.0,
-3000.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-40000.0,
-98.5,
-295.4,
-492.4,
-689.4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8,
-2954.4,
-4924.0,
-9848.1,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-94.0,
-281.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1644.5,
-2114.3,
-2819.1,
-4698.5,
-9396.9,
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5,
-1515.5,
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
243.8.
304.8,
304.8,
298.7,
406.3.
396.2.
396.2,
360.0,
380.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3,
237.7,
304.8,
292.6,
304.8,
384.0,
415.4,
392.0,
340.0,
360.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
219.5,
280.4,
280.4,
298.7,
371.9,
397.2,
384.0,
340.0.
380.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
213.4,
231.6,
359.7,
414.5,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0] ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01 ;
0.0) ,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
{ 0.0.
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2,
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-S209.4,
-8682.4,
-68.4,
-136.8,
-205.2,
-273.6,
-342.0.
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1,
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101. 0,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0.
-1000.0,
-1500.0,
-2000.0,
-2500.0,
-4000.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-30000.0,
-50000.0,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8.
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8.
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4.
-28190.8.
-46984.6,
-173.2,
-346.4,
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299 0,
-1732.1,
-2165.1,
-3464.1,
-6495.2,
298.7.
304.8,
292.6,
365.8,
402.3,
390.1,
380.0,
380.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
225.6.
274.3,
292.6.
286.5,
280.4,
353.6.
396.2,
390.1.
360.0,
340.0.
380.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
249.9,
280.4,
280.4,
262.1.
353.6,
402.3,
384.0,
340.0,
360.0.
380.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
213.4,
231.6,
292.6,
396.2,
396.2,
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) , •
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-31
-------
bueb.prt
ISCCMDEF VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI it*cK modalo-ng, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Sue Caie
On* source,• 936 receptor* up to 50KM any; Surface wt.
COHC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/9*
17:50:05
PAGE 12
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAO)
(METERS)
( -5000.0,
( -10000.0,
( -20000.0,
( -64.3,
( -192.8,
( -321.4,
( -450.0,
( -578.5,
( -803. ,
( -1124. ,
( -1446. ,
( -1928. ,
( -3213. ,
f -6427. ,
( -12855. ,
( -25711.5,
( -76.6,
( -229.8,
( -383.0,
I -536.2,
( -689.4,
( -957.6,
( -1340.6,
( -1723.6,
( -2298.1,
( -3830.2,
( -7660.4,
1 -15320.9,
( -30641.8,
( -86.6.
( -259. a.
( -433.0,
( -606.2,
( -779.4,
( -1082.5,
-1515.5.
( -1948.6,
( -2598.1,
-4330.1,
( -8660.3,
-17320.5.
-34641.0,
-94.0.
-281 9,
-469. a,
-8660.3.
-17320.5,
-34641.0,
-76.6,
-229. B,
-383.0,
-536.2,
-689.4.
-957.6,
-1340.6,
-1723.6,
-2298.1.
-3830.2,
-7660.4,
-15320.9,
-30641.8,
-64.3,
-192.8,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5,
-B03.5,
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0,
-350.0,
-450.0,
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-3500.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
392.6,
380. 0,
360.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
213.4,
371. 9t
396.2,
378.0,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
323.1,
384.0,
378.0,
380.0,
400.0.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4.
213.4,
213.4.
225.6,
329.2,
286.5,
243.8,
372.5,
402.3,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0 0);
0.0);
0.0);
( -7500.0.
( -15000.0,
( -25000.0,
( -128.6,
( -257.1,
( -385.7,
( -514.2,
( -642.8,
( -964.2,
( -1285.6,
( -1607.0,
( -2571.2,
( -4820. ,
( -9641. ,
( -19283. ,
( -32139. .
( -153. ,
( -306. ,
( -459. ,
( -612. ,
( -766.0.
( -1149.1,
( -1532.1,
( -1415.1,
( -3064.2,
( -5745.3,
( -11490.7,
( -22981.3,
( -38302.2,
( -173.2,
( -346.4,
( -519.6,
( -692.8,
( -866.0.
( -1299.0.
( -1732.1,
I -2165.1,
( -3464.1,
( -6495.2,
1 -12990.4,
( -25980.8,
( -43301.3,
( -187,9,
( -375.9,
{ -563.8,
-12990.4.
-25980. B,
-43301.3,
-153.2,
-306.4,
-459.6,
-612.8.
-766.0.
-1149.1,
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2,
-5745.3,
-11490.7,
-22981.3,
-38302.2,
-128.6,
-257.1,
-385.7,
-514.2,
-642.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6,
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9,
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-25000.0.
-68.4.
-136.8.
-205.2,
360.0,
360.0,
380.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
378.0,
396.2,
349.0,
360.0,
360.0,
201.2,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
256.0,
359.7,
378.0,
360.0,
400.0,
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
274.3,
310.9,
256.0,
365.8,
378.0,
360.0,
380.0,
360.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0):
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-32
-------
baseb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED-
WTI stack modeling. EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt
CONC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 13
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS "
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAGI
(METERS)
( -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6,
( -1644.5,
( -2114.3,
( -2819.1,
( -4698.5,
( -9396.9,
( -18793.9,
( -37587.7,
( -98.5,
( -295.4,
( -492.4,
1 -689.4,
( -886.3,
( -1231.0,
( -1723.4,
( -2215.8,
( -2954.4,
{ -4924.0,
( -9848.1,
( -19696.2,
( -39392.3.
( -100.0,
( -300.0,
( -500.0,
( -700.0,
( -900.0,
( -1250.0,
( -1750.0,
( -2250.0.
( -3000.0,
( -5000.0,
( -10000 0,
( -20000.0,
( -40000.0,
( -98.5.
( -295.4,
( -492.4,
( -689.4.
( -886 3,
( -1231.0,
( -1723.4,
( -2215.8,
( -2954.4,
-239.4,
-307.8,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6840.4.
-13680.8,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6,
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-520.9,
-868 2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0 0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
17.4,
52.1,
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390 7,
520.9,
213.4,
219.5,
353.6,
341.4,
353.6,
243.8,
359.7,
402.3,
400.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
359.7,
365.8.
353.6,
353.6,
365.8,
339.9,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
243.8,
304.8,
335.3,
371.9,
371.9,
371.9,
360.0,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.8.
317.0,
298.7,
371.9,
365.8,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0 0) ;
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5.
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8,
-46984.6,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-200.0,
-400.0,
-600.0,
-800.0,
-1000.0,
-1500.0,
-2000.0,
-2500.0,
-4000.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-30000.0,
-50000.0,
-197.0,
-393.9.
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8.
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1,
-1368.1,
-2565.2.
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2,
-138.9,
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434 1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.4,
-8682.4,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
34 7,
69.5,
104.2,
138 9,
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1.
694.6,
219.5,
213.4,
353.6,
335.3,
304.8,
298.7,
365.8,
380.0,
380.0,
360.0,
213.4.
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
310.9,
359.7,
371.9,
371.9,
365.8,
390.1,
360.0,
420.0.
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4.
213.4,
298.7,
304.8,
341.4,
371.9,
378.0,
371.9.
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4.
225.6,
237.7,
280.4,
304.8,
341.4,
353.6,
353.6,
0.0);
0.0) ; r
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-33
-------
baseb.prt
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227
KODELIHG OPTIONS USED:
HTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base c«
One cource; 936 receptor* up to SOKM away; Surface vt.
CONC RURAL ELZV
DFADLT
DPTOPt, WETDPL
06/25/94
17:50:05
PACE 14
** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAG)
(METERS)
( -4924.0,
( -9848'.!,
( -19696.2,
( -39392.3,
1 -94.0,
( -281.9,
( -469.8,
( -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6,
1 -1644.5,
I -2114.3,
( -2819.1,
( -4698.5,
( -9396.9,
( -18793.9,
( -37587.7,
( -86.6,
( -259.8,
1 -433.0,
1 -606.2,
( -779.4,
( -1082.5,
( -1515.5,
( -1948.6,
( -2598.1,
( -4330.1,
{ -8660.3,
( -17320.5,
( -34641.0,
( -76.6,
( -229.8,
I -383.0,
( -536.2,
( -689.4,
( -957.6.
( -1340.6,
( -1723.6,
( -2298.1,
( -3830.2,
( -7660.4,
( -15320.9.
( -30641.8.
( -64.3,
{ -192 8.
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9,
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2,
6840.4,
13680.8,
50.0,
150.0.
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
64.3,
192.8,
321.4,
450.0,
578.5,
803.5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9,
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5,
76.6,
229.8,
378.0,
389.2,
420.0,
380.0,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.8,
286.5,
317.0,
298.7,
384.0,
378.0,
378.0,
424.9,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
219.5.
225.6,
268.2,
310.9,
292.6,
359.7,
371.9,
378.0,
384.0,
426.7,
400.0,
400.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
268.2.
316.4.
304.8,
353.6,
371.9,
384.0,
384.0,
379.2,
400.0,
400.0,
213.4,
231.6,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) i ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ; r
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ; i
0.0);
0.0) ,
( -7386.1.
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8,
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8,
-46984.6,
-173.2,
-346.4,
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1,
-2165.1,
-3464.1,
-6495.2.
-12990. ,
-25980. ,
-43301. ,
-153. ,
-306. ,
-459. ,
-612. ,
-766.0,
-1149.1,
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2.
-5745.3,
-11490.7,
-22981.3,
-38302.2,
-128.6,
-257.1,
1302.4,
2604.7.
5209.4,
8682.4,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2,
213.6,
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855.1,
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6,
17101.0.
100.0.
200.0,
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
128.6,
257.1.
385.7,
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283.6,
32139.4,
153 .2,
306.4,
384.0.
400.0,
380.0,
400.0.
213.4,
219.5.
225. 6,
274.3,
298.7,
298.7,
359.7,
378.0,
378.0,
371.9,
420.0,
400.0.
400.0,
213.4,
231.6,
231.6,
304.8,
304.8,
323.1,
371.9,
378.0,
378.0,
384.0,
400.0,
420.0,
350.0,
213.4.
231.6,
231.6,
304.8,
317.0,
341.4,
365.8,
378.0,
359.7.
378.0.
360.0,
400.0,
370.0,
225.6,
231.6.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
O.C);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-34
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
baseb.prt
WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up Co 50KM away; Surface vt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DPADLT
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 15
" DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV,
(METERS)
( -321
{ -450
( -578
( -803
( -1124
( -1446
1 -1928
( -3213
( -6427
1 -12855
( -25711
( -50
( -150
( -250
( -350
( -450
( -625
( -875
( -1125
( -1500
( -2500
( -5000
( -10000
( -20000
( -34
( -102
I -171
( -239
( -307
( -427
( -598
( -769
( -1026
( -1710
( -3420
-6840
-13680
-17
( -52
I -86
( -121
-156
-217
-303
-390
4,
0,
5,
5.
9,
3,
4,
9,
9,
a.
5,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
2,
6,
0,
4,
8,
5,
5,
5,
1,
1,
2,
4,
8.
4,
1,
8.
3i
^
9!
7,
383
536
689
957
1340
1723
2298
3830
7660
15320
30641
86
259
433
606
779
1082
1515
1948
2598
4330
8660
17320
34641
94
281
469
657
845
1174
1644
2114
2819
4698
9396
18793
37587
98
295
492
689
886
1231
1723
2215
0,
2,
4,
6,
6,
6,
1,
2,
4,
9,
8,
6,
8,
0,
2,
4,
5,
5,
6,
1,
1,
3,
5,
0,
0.
9 r
8,
8,
7,
6.
5,
3,
1 (
5,
9,
9,
7,
5,
4 (
4'
4,
3,
0,
4,
8.
225
274
310
317
353
359
384
378
378
400
360
213
231
225
249
304
286
347
353
384
378
371
360
380
213
225
225
262
280
323
359
329
378
371
349
360
370
213
225
225
262
298
335
359
341
6,
3,
9,
0,
6,
7,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
4,
6,
6,
9,
8,
5,
5,
6,
0,
0,
9,
0.
0,
4,
6,
6,
1,
4,
1,
7.
2,
0,
9,
0,
0,
0,
4,
6,
6,
1,
7,
3,
7,
4,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
01
0)
0)
0) ,
01 ,
0) ,
( -385.7,
( -514.2,
( -642.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6,
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9.
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
( -500.0,
( -750.0.
( -1000.0,
( -1250.0,
I -2000.0,
-3750.0,
( -7500.0,
-ISOrO.O,
-25000.0.
-68.4,
-136.8,
-205.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1.
-1368.1.
-2565.2,
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101 0,
-34 7,
-69.5,
-104.2,
-138.9,
-173.6.
-260.5,
-347.3,
-434.1,
459.6.
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1,
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7.
22981.3,
38302.2,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0.
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1.
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.3,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8.
7047 7,
14095.4.
28190.8,
46984.6,
197.0,
393.9,
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0.
231.6,
304.8,
310.9,
347".5,
353.6,
365.8,
384.0,
378.0,
380.0,
400.0,
360.0,
225.6,
231.6,
243.8,
243.8,
304.8,
329.2,
353. 6,
384.0,
384.0,
365.8,
360.0,
340.0,
350.0,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8.
286.5,
292.6,
353.6,
359.7,
347.5,
385.0,
329.2,
360.0,
340.0,
350.0,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8,
292.6,
298.7,
365.8,
359.7,
378.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ,
0.0) i
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0 0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-35
-------
ISCOKDBP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
bueb.prt
HTI (tack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bue Cue
One •ource; 936 receptor! up to 50KM away; Surface wt.
COHC RC3AL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 16
•• DISCRETE CAKTESIMI RECEPTORS •«
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( -520.9,
{ -868.2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
1 0.0,
2954.4.
4924.0.
9848.1,
19696.2,
39392.3,
100.0,
300.0.
500.0,
700.0,
900.0,
1250.0,
1750.0.
2250.0.
3000.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
40000.0,
384.0.
365.8,
339.9,
360.0,
330.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6.
256.0,
298.7,
353.6,
341.4,
359.7,
378.0,
359.7,
380.1,
340.0,
350.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-694.6.
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.5,
-8682.4,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
o.o.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29S44.2,
49240.4.
200.0,
400.0.
600.0,
800.0,
1000.0,
1500.0,
2000.0,
2500.0,
4000.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
30000.0,
50000.0,
378.0,
341.4,
340.0,
340.0,
320.0,
225.6,
225.6,
237.7,
280.4,
292.6,
323.1,
317.0,
359.7,
383.4,
371.9.
360.0,
380.0,
350.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-36
-------
baseb.prt
••• ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227
WTI (tack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up to SOKM away; Surface wt.
••• MODELIW3 OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 17
DRVDPL WETDPL
**• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING •••
(1-YES; O.NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1'111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
NOTE:
METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
••• UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *•«
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY WIND SPEED CATEGORY
CATEGORY 123456
A .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 -70000E-01
B .70000E-01 .70000E-01 70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01
C .lOOOOEoOO .10000E»00 .lOOOOEtOO .10000E+00 .lOOOOEi-00 .10000E»00
D .15000E»00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E»00 .ISOOOE-fOO .15000E»00
E .35000E»00 .35000E»00 .35000E4-00 .35000E4-00 .35000E»00 -35000E»00
F .55000E»00 .SSOOOEfOO .55000E»00 .55000E+00 .55000E*00 .S5000E-fOO
••• VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS *«*
{DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE-00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
-35000E-01
-OOOOOE»00
,OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
,OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOQOEtOO
.OOOQOE»00
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE-t-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEi-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-37
-------
bucb.prt
... ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MTI *t*cfc modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bue Cue
One source; 936 receptors up to SOXM away; surface vt.
"• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCNC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL HETDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 18
••* THE FIRST 24 HOOKS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •*•
FILE: depbin.mec
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (4I2.2P9.4.P6.1,I2,2F7 .1, f9 .4, flO.l. t
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
.4. £5.1, i4, £7 .2)
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 .47
112.0 .36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 5.36
107.0 4.92
120.0 4.92
119.0 4.47
118.0 3.58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113 . 0 3 . 13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP sn
(X) CLJ
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
IB MIXING
ISS RURAL
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
""51.3
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
HEIGHT (M)
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649. 5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
0.3366
0.4269
0.3363
0.3363
0.2874
0.4266
0.3820
0.3819
0.3355
0.3534
0.3534
0.3926
0.4712
0.4319
0.3817
0.3354
0.2310
0.1178
0.1178
0.0982
0.1178
0.1374
0.1374
0.1178
M-O LENG1
{Ml
176.
283.
175.
175.
128.
281.
225.
224.
172.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
m z-o zd IPCODE
(N) (M)
i 0.3000 1.5 13
7 0.3000 1.5 0
5 0.3000 1.5 0
I 0.3000 1.5 28
L 0.3000 1.5 28
3 0.3000 1.5 28
1 0.3000 1.5 28
I 0.3000 1.5 28
» 0.3000 1.5 28
) 0.3000 1.5 28
J 0.3000 1.5 28
) 0.3000 1.5 28
> 0.3000 1.5 28
} 0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 0
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 0
0.3000 1.5 28
PRATE
IOT/HRI
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1-A. 2«B, 3-C. 4-D, 5-E AND 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH HIND IS BLOWUJ3.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-38
-------
baaec.prt
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•• **• WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
**• One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
••* MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
08/29/94
"* 10:56:41
PAGE 1
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - F
"Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - F
••NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uses GRIDCED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3 Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
6. 'Upper Bound' Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels 3
-------
baiec.prt
••* ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 *•• ••• vm «tack modeling, EPA Region '-, Project 1363, Bale Cue ••• 06/29/94
••* One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. *** 10:56:41
PAGE 2
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
••• POINT SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION KATE
SOURCE FART. (SRAKS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (MITERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
HTISTACK 0 0.10000E-.01 0.0 0.0 212.1 45.70 367.00 17.74 1.83 YES
Volume IV
Aopendix IV-3 IV-3-40
-------
basec .prt
• •• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case ••• 08/29/94
••* One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. *•• 10:56:41
PACE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• SOURCE IDs DEFINIHG SOURCE GROUPS
GROUP ID SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-41
-------
baMc.prt
ISCOMDEF VERSION 94221 ••* *** WTI *tack nudeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bale Cue ••* 08/29/94
••• One aource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM •way; Vapor. ••• 10:56:41
PACK 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COHC RURAL ELEV DFAOLT
••• SOURCE PARTICDLATB/GAS DATA •••
••• SOURCE ID « WTISTACK; SOURCE TYPE
SCAV COEF [LIQ] l/IS-MM/HRI-
O.OOE»00,
SCAV COEP (ICB) 1/IS-MM/HR)-
O.OOE»00,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-42
-------
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
basec.prt
WTI stack modeling. EPA Region V. Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
•** MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 5
SOURCE ID: WTISTACK
DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS •••
IFV
1
7
13
19
25
31
BH
29.1,
24.4,
29.1,
29.1,
24.4,
29.1,
BH WAX
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
25.8
29.1
BW WAX
24.7, 0
22.6, 0
31.8, 0
24.7, 0
24.8. 0
31.8, 0
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH
29.1,
29.1,
29.1,
29.1.
29.1,
29.1,
BW WAK
21.8, 0
25.8, 0
30.9, 0
21.8, 0
25.8. 0
30.9, 0
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH
2S.8,
29.1,
29.1,
25.8,
29.1,
29.1,
BW WAK
27.6, 0
28.8, 0
29.6, 0
27.6, 0
28.8, 0
29.6, 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
24.4,
29.1.
29.1,
25.8,
29.1,
29.1,
BW WAX
27.0. 0
30.9, 0
29.3, 0
26.1, 0
30.9, 0
29.3. 0
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
24.4,
29.1,
29.1,
25.8.
29.1,
29.1,
BW WAX
24.6, 0
32.1. 0
28.2, 0
23.8, 0
32.1, 0
28.2, 0
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-43
-------
b»««c .prt
ISCOKDEF VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI stack Modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Cue
On* source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
*•*
• **
08/29/94
10:56:41
PACE 6
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAQ)
(METERS)
( 1T.4,
( 52.1,
I 86.8,
( 121.6.
( 156.3,
( 217.1,
( 303.9,
( 390.7,
I 520.9,
( 868.2,
( 1736.5,
( 3473.0,
( 6945.9,
I 34.2,
( 102.6.
( 171.0.
( 239.4,
( 307.8,
I 427.5,
( 598.5,
( 769.5.
I 1026.1,
( 1710.1,
( 3420.2,
( 6840.4,
( 13680.8,
( 50.0,
( 150.0,
( 250.0,
( 350.0,
( 450.0,
I 625.0.
( 875.0,
I 1125.0,
I 1500.0,
I 2500.0.
( 5000.0,
( 10000.0,
( 20000.0,
I 64.3,
I 192.8,
( 321.4,
I 450.0,
( 578.5,
( 803.5,
98.5,
295.4,
492.4,
689.4,
886.3,
1231.0,
1723.4,
2215.8,
2954.4,
4924.0,
9848.1.
19696.2,
39392.3.
94.0,
281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
845.7,
1174.6,
1644.5,
2114.3,
2819.1,
4698.5,
9396.9,
18793.9,
37587.7,
86.6,
259.8,
433.0,
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5.
1948.6.
2598.1.
4330.1,
8660.3.
17320.5,
34341.0,
76.6,
229.8,
383.0,
536.2,
689.4,
957.6,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8,
280.4,
353.6.
310.9,
353.6,
347.5,
341.4,
360.0,
340.0.
350.0,
213.4,
225.6.
225.6,
237.7,
256.0,
329.2,
335.3,
353.6,
362.4.
359.7,
385.9,
340.0,
380.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
225.6.
243.8,
225.6,
359.7,
353.6,
323.1,
366.7.
396.2,
360.0,
370.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
225.6,
225.6,
280.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) , •
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0 0);
0.0) ,
0.01 ,
0.0) ,
0.0);
0.01 ,
0.0),
0.0) ,
0.0) ,
0.0).
0.01;
0 0),
( 34.7,
69.5,
104.2.
138.9,
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694. ,
1302. ,
2604. .
5209. ,
8682. ,
68. ,
136. .
205.2,
273.6,
I 342.0.
I 513.0,
684.0,
855.1,
( 1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6.
17101.0,
100.0,
200.0,
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0.
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0.
25000.0,
128.6,
257.1.
385.7,
514.2,
642 8,
964.2,
197.0,
393.9,
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2.
49240.4,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2.
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095.4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0.
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.3,
153.2.
306.4,
459.6,
612.8.
766 0,
1149.1,
225.6,
225.6,
225.6,
256.0,
286.5.
353.6,
347.5,
359.7,
341.4,
365.8,
340.0,
360.0,
360.0,
225.6.
225.6,
225.6,
243.8,
286.5,
347.5,
347.5,
359.7,
329.2,
369.7,
340.0,
360.0,
390.0.
219.5,
225.6,
225.6,
231.6.
262.1,
347.5,
353.6,
329.2,
361.2.
378.0,
320.0,
380.0.
400.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8.
353.6.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
00);
0.0);
0.0) ;
Volume IV
Appendix P/-3
IV-3-44
-------
basec.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI stack modelms, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Ca«e
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DPAULT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 7
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 1124.9,
( 1446.3,
( 1928.4,
( 3213.9,
( 6427.9,
( 12855.8,
( 25711.5,
( 76.6.
( 229.8,
( 383.0,
( 536.2,
I 689.4,
( 957.6,
( 1340.6,
( 1723.6,
I 2298.1,
( 3830.2,
1 7660.4,
( 15320.9,
I 30641.8,
( 86.6,
{ 259.8,
( 433.0,
1 606.2,
( 779.4,
( 1082.5,
( 1515.5,
( 1948.6,
I 2598.1,
( 4330.1.
( 8660.3,
( 17320.5.
I 34641 0,
I 94.0,
( 281.9,
( 469.8,
( 657 8,
( 845.7,
( 1174.6,
1 1644.5,
( 2114 3,
I 2819.1,
I 4698.5.
( 9396.9,
( 18793.9,
1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1,
3830.2,
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
64.3,
192.8.
321.4,
450.0,
578.5,
803.5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9,
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
34.2,
102.6.
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2,
6840.4,
361.5,
353.6,
335.3,
353.0,
398.4,
380.0,
420.0,
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
219.5.
225.6,
219.5,
353.6,
335.3,
347.5.
335.3,
396.2,
380.0,
420.0.
213.4,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6.
243.8,
310.9,
317.0,
359.7,
408.7,
360.0.
380.0,
207.3,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
231.6,
384.0,
370.3,
380.0,
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
0.01
0.0)
0.0)
0.0)
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283.6,
32139.4,
153.2,
306.4,
459.6,
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1,
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
S745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3,
38302.2,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1.
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.1,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
( 1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2.
3758.8,
7047.7.
14095.4,
28190.8,
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3,
38302.2,
128.6,
257.1,
385.7,
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6.
1607.0.
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8.
19283.6.
32139.4,
100.0,
200.0,
300.0.
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0,
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2.
273.6,
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855.1,
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6,
353.6,
353.6,
353.9,
378.0,
376.0,
360.0.
420.0,
207.3.
219.5.
219. 5.
219.5,
219.5,
323.1,
353. 6,
347.5,
341.4,
373.1,
360.0.
380.0,
420.0.
207.3,
201.2,
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
219.5,
292.6,
323.1,
323.1,
378.9,
380.0,
380.0,
420.0,
201.2,
202.7,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
231.6,
310.9,
384.0,
360.0,
400.0,
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-45
-------
basec.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MDDELHXS OPTIONS USED:
HTI stack mdeluig, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
Caae
CQNC RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 8
•* DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, y-COORD, ZELSV, ZFLAO)
(METERS)
( 37587.7,
t 98.5,
( 295.4,
( 492.4,
( 689.4,
( 886.3,
( 1231.0,
( 1723.4,
( 2215.8,
( 2954.4,
( 4924.0.
( 9848.1,
{ 19696.2.
( 39392.3,
( 100.0,
( 300.0.
( 500.0,
( 700.0,
( 900.0,
{ 1250.0,
( 1750.0,
{ 2250.0,
( 3000.0,
( 5000.0,
( 10000.0,
( 20000.0,
( 40000.0,
( 98.5,
( 295.4,
( 492.4,
1 G89.4,
( 886.3.
( 1231.0,
I 1723.4,
( 2215.8.
( 2954.4,
1 4924.0,
( 9848.1,
1 19696.2,
I 39392.3,
1 94.0,
( 281.9,
( 469.8,
( 657.8,
( 845.7,
13680.8,
17.4.
52.1.
86.8,
121.6.
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390.7.
520.9,
868.2.
1736.5.
3473.0,
6945.9.
0.0.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6,
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-520.9,
-868.2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9,
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
-239.4,
-307.8,
360.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
207.3,
304.8.
365.8,
371.9,
360.0,
380.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7.
243.8.
323.1,
304.8.
310.9,
402.3.
380.1,
360.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
225.6,
347.5,
323.1,
341.4,
347.5,
386.5,
360.0.
380.0,
380.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
256.0,
286.5,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ; r
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.01;
0.0);
0.01 ,
0.01 ;
{ 46984.6.
( 197.0,
( 393.9,
590.*,
787.8,
984.8.
1477.2.
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
7386.1.
14772.1,
29544.2.
49240.4.
200.0,
400.0,
600.0.
800.0,
1000.0,
1500.0.
2000.0,
2500.0,
4000.0,
7500.0,
15000.0.
30000.0,
50000.0,
197.0.
393.9,
590.9,
787.8,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2.
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2.
49240 4,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8.
751.8,
939 7,
17101.0,
34.7,
69.5,
104.2,
138.9,
173.6,
260. 5,
347.3,
434.1.
694.6,
1302.4.
2604.7,
5209.4,
8682.4.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
-34 7,
-69.5,
-104.2.
-138.9,
-173.6.
-260.5,
-347.3.
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.4.
-8682.4,
-68.4,
-136.8,
-205.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7.
207.3,
231.6,
346.6,
384.0,
320.0,
380.0,
400.0.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
341.4,
341.4,
292. C,
359.7,
347.5,
360.0,
380.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5.
329.2,
353.6,
341.4,
323.1,
353.6,
353.6.
340.0,
380.0,
400.0.
202.7,
202.7,
213.4.
298.7,
323.1,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-46
-------
basec. prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 9
*•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAC)
(HETERS)
( 1174.6,
{ 1644.5,
( 2114.3,
( 2819.1,
( 4698.5,
( 9396.9,
I 18793.9,
( 37587.7,
( 86.6,
( 259.8,
433.0.
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5,
1948.6,
2598.1,
4330.1.
{ 8660.3,
( 17320.5,
I 34641.0,
( 76.6,
( 229.8,
( 383.0,
536.2,
689.4,
957.6.
1340.6,
1723.6,
( 2298.1.
( 3830.2,
I 7660.4,
( 15320.9,
( 30641.8,
( 64.3,
192.8.
321.4,
450 0,
578.5,
803 5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9,
6427.9,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1.
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6840.4,
-13680.8,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0.
-350.0,
-450.0.
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0,
-5000 0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-64.3,
-192.8,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5,
-803.5.
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711 5,
-76 6,
-229.8,
-383.0,
-536.2,
-689.4,
-957.6,
-1340.6,
-1723.6,
-2298.1,
-3830 2,
-7660.4,
347.5,
310.9,
350.2,
347.5,
371.9,
408.4.
360.0.
360.0.
207.3,
202.7.
213.4,
317.0,
353.6,
310.9,
335.3,
359.7,
365.8,
353.6,
396.2,
380.0,
360.0,
207.3,
202.7,
243.8,
323.1,
353.6,
353.6,
341.4,
353.6,
359.7,
359.7,
408.4,
360.0,
360.0,
207.3,
202.7,
268.2,
310.9,
329.2,
347.5,
329.2,
353.6,
408.4,
371.9,
390.1,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
00);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0 0);
00);
0.01;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
3,409. 5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047.7,
1409S.4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
173.2,
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0.
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495. 2,
12990.4.
25980.8,
43301.3,
153.2,
306.4,
459.6,
612.8,
766.0,
1149.1.
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7.
22981.3,
38302.2,
128.6.
257.1,
385.7,
514.2.
642.8,
964.2.
1285.6,
1607.0,
2571.2.
4820.9,
9641.8.
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1.
-1368.1,
-2565.2,
-5130.3.
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-25000.0,
-128.6,
-257.1,
-385.7,
-514.2,
-642.8,
-964.2.
-1285.6,
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9,
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-153.2,
-306.4,
-459.6,
-612.8,
-766.0.
-1149.1,
-1532.1,
-1915 1,
-3064 2,
-5745.3,
-11490 7,
347.5,
3S3.6,
347.5,
345.9,
365.8,
380.0,
360.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
268.2.
347.5,
347.5.
359.7,
359.7,
347.5,
359. 7,
402.3.
380.0.
360.0,
360.0.
202.7,
202.7,
296.7,
353.6.
353.6,
359.7,
353.6,
341.4,
359.7,
408.4,
380.0,
360.0,
360.0,
202.7,
202.7,
304.8,
323.1.
323.1,
359.7,
359.7,
359.7.
420.6.
392.0,
340.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-47
-------
baMc.prt
ISCOMDEP VZKSICN 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
HTI itaek modeling, EPA Region v. Project 1363, Bue Can
On* source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DFADLT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 10
••* DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZPLAG)
(METERS)
12855.8.
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
€25.0.
875.0,
1125.0.
1500.0,
2500.0.
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0.
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2.
6840.4,
13680.8.
17.4,
52.1,
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0 0,
0.0,
-15320.9,
-30641.8,
-86.6,
-259.8.
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5.
-1515.5,
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
-8660.3.
-17320.5,
-34641.0,
-94.0.
-281.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1644.5,
-2114.3,
-2819.1.
-4698.5,
-9396.9,
-18793.9.
-37587.7,
-98.5,
-295.4,
-492.4,
-689.4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8.
-2954.4,
-4924.0,
-9848.1,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-100.0,
-300.0,
-500.0,
-700.0,
380.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
268.2,
310.9,
323.1,
298.7,
341.4.
365.8,
408.4,
408.4,
396.2,
360.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
268.2,
304.8,
286.5,
304.8,
304.8,
359.7,
396.2,
411.5,
408.1,
360.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7.
249.9,
280.4,
286.5.
298.7,
304.8,
298.7,
402.3,
414.5,
398.1,
360.0,
400.0,
207.3,
202.7,
219.5.
280.4.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
19283.6,
32139.4,
100.0,
200.0,
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
7SO.O,
1000.0,
1250. 0.
2000.0,
37SO.O,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2,
273.6,
342.0,
513.0,
6S4.0,
855.1,
1368.1,
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6,
17101.0,
34.7,
69.5,
104.2,
138.9,
173.6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
1302.4,
2604.7,
5209.4,
8682.4.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-22981.3,
-38302.2.
-173.2,
-346.4,
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1,
-2165.1.
-3464.1,
-6495.2,
-12990.4,
-25980.8,
-43301.3,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8,
-751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8.
-46984.6,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2.
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-200.0,
-400.0,
-600.0.
-800.0,
400.0,
380.0,
202.7,
213.4.
298.7,
323.1,
329.2,
341.4,
359.7,
371.9,
420.6,
408.4,
340.0,
420.0,
400.0,
202.7,
207.3,
292.6,
304.8,
286. S,
310.9,
335.3,
378.0,
402.3,
402.3,
360.0,
420.0.
420.0,
202.7,
202.7,
286.5,
274.3,
286.5,
304.8,
298.7,
365.8,
390.1,
408.4,
380.0,
400.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3,
274.3,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0,0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-48
-------
basec.prt
•• ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227
•• MODELING OPTIONS USED:
CTI «tack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Sue
One source; 936 recepton up to 50KM away; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
06/29/94
10:56:41
PACE 11
*•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZEUT7, ZPLAC)
IMETERS)
1 0.0,
( 0.0.
0.0.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6.
-156.3.
-217.1,
( -303.9.
( -390.7.
( -520.9,
( -868.2,
( -1736.5,
( -3473.0,
( -6945.9,
( -34.2,
( -102.6,
( -171.0,
( -239.4,
( -307.8,
( -427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1,
( -1710.1.
( -3420.2,
-6840.4,
1 -13680.8,
I -50.0,
( -150.0,
-250.0,
I -350.0,
{ -450.0,
( -625.0,
( -875.0,
1 -1125.0,
-1500.0,
( -2500.0,
-900.0,
-1250.0,
-1750.0,
-2250.0,
-3000.0,
-5000.0.
-10000.0.
-20000.0.
-40000.0,
-98.5.
-295.4,
-492.4,
-689.4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8,
-2954.4,
-4924.0.
-9848.1,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-94.0,
-281.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1644.5,
-2114.3,
-2819.1,
-4698.5.
-9396.9.
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5,
-1515.5,
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
243.8,
304.8,
304.8,
298.7,
406.3,
396.2,
396.2,
360.0,
380.0,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3,
237.7,
304.8,
292.6,
304.8,
384.0,
415.4,
392.0,
340.0,
360.0,
213.4.
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
219.5,
280.4,
280.4,
298.7,
371.9,
397.2,
384.0,
340.0,
380.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
213.4,
231.6,
359.7,
414.5,
0.0),
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
( -34.7,
( -69.5,
( -104.2.
( -138.9,
( -173.6,
( -260.5,
( -347.3,
( -434.1,
{ -694.6,
( -1302.4,
< -2604.7,
( -5209.4,
( -8682.4,
( -68.4.
( -136.8,
( -205.2.
( -273.6,
( -342.0,
( -513.0,
( -684.0,
( -855.1.
( -1368.1,
( -2565.2.
( -5130.3,
I -10260.6.
( -17101.0.
( -100.0.
I -200.0,
< -300.0.
( -400.0.
( -500.0,
( -750.0.
( -1000.0.
1 -1250.0,
( -2000.0,
( -3750.0,
-1000.0,
-1500.0,
-2000.0,
-2500.0,
-4000.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-30000.0.
-50000.0,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6.
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8.
-751.8,
-939.7.
-1409.5.
-1879.4,
-2349.2.
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8,
-46984.6,
-173.2,
-346.4.
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1,
-2165.1,
-3464.1,
-6495.2,
298.7.
304.8.
292.6,
365.8,
402.3,
390.1,
380.0,
380.0,
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
225.6.
274.3,
292.6,
286.5,
280.4,
353.6,
396.2,
390.1,
360.0.
340.0,
380.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
249.9,
280.4,
280.4.
262.1.
353.6,
402.3,
384.0,
340.0,
360.0,
380.0,
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
219.5,
213.4,
231.6,
292.6,
396.2,
396.2,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-49
-------
basac.prt
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Ca
One aource; 936 receptora up to 501QC away; Vapor.
DFAULT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 12
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAK RECEPTORS •••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD. ZELEV. ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( -5000.0,
( -10000.0.
( -20000.0,
I -64.3.
( -192.8,
( -321.4,
1 -450.0,
( -578.5,
( -803.5,
( -1124.9,
( -1446.3,
( -1928.4,
( -3213.9,
( -6427.9.
( -12855.8,
( -25711.5.
( -76.6,
( -229.8,
( -383.0,
( -536.2,
( -689.4,
1 -957.6,
( -1340.6,
t -1723.6.
( -2298.1,
( -3830.2.
( -7660.4,
( -15320.9,
I -30641.8,
1 -86.6,
I -259.8,
( -433.0,
( -606.2,
( -779.4,
( -1082.5,
( -1515.5.
i -1948.6,
( -2598.1,
t -4330.1,
1 -8660.3,
( -17325.5,
( -34641 0,
( -94,0,
( -281.9.
1 -469.8,
-8660.3.
-17320.5,
-34641.0,
-76.6,
-229.8.
-383.0.
-536.2,
-689.4,
-957.6,
-1340.6,
-1723.6,
-2298.1.
-3830.2,
-7660.4.
-15320.9,
-30641.8,
-64.3,
-192.8,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5.
-803.5,
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-250.0,
-350.0,
-450.0,
-625.0,
-875.0,
-1125.0,
-1500.0.
-2500.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.5,
-34.2,
-102.6.
-171,0,
392.6.
380.0,
360.0,
213.4,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
213.4.
371.9,
396.2.
378.0,
360.0.
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
323.1.
384.0,
378.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4.
213.4,
225.6,
329.2,
286.5,
243.8,
372.5,
402.3.
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4.
213.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) , •
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-25000.0,
-128.6,
-257.1,
-385.7,
-514.2,
-642.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6,
-1607.0.
-2571.2,
-4820.9.
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-153.2,
-30C.4,
-459.6,
-612.8,
-766.0.
-1149.1,
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2.
-5745.3,
-11490.7,
-22981.3,
-38302.2,
-173.2,
-346.4.
-519.6,
-692. 8,
-866.0,
-1299.0,
-1732.1,
-2165.1,
-3464.1,
-6495.2,
( -12990.4,
( -25980.8.
( -43301.3.
( -187.9,
( -375.9,
-563.8,
-12990.4,
-25980.8.
-43301.3,
-153.2,
-306.4,
-459.6,
-612.8,
-7««.0,
-1149.1,
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2,
-5745.3,
-11490.7,
-22981.3.
-38302.2,
-128.6,
-257.1,
-385.7,
-514.2,
-642.8,
-964.2,
-1285.6.
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9.
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-300.0,
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0,
-2000.0,
-3750.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0.
-25000.0,
-68.4,
-136.8,
-205.2,
360.0,
360.0,
380.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
378.0,
396.2,
349.0,
360.0,
360.0,
201.2,
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4,
256.0,
359.7,
378.0,
360.0,
400.0,
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
274.3,
310.9,
256.0,
365.8.
378.0,
360.0,
380.0,
360.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-50
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
HTX itack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Baae Ca
One lource,- 936 receptor! up to 50KH away; Vapor.
COHC RURAL ELEV
DPAULT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 13
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS "
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFIAS)
(METERS)
( -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6,
( -1644.5,
( -2114.3,
-2819.1,
< -4698.5.
( -9396.9,
( -18793.9,
( -37587.7,
-98.5,
-295. ,
-492. ,
-689. ,
-886. ,
-1231. ,
-1723. ,
-2215. ,
-2954. ,
-4924.0,
-9848.1.
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-100.0.
-300.0,
-500.0,
-700.0,
-900.0,
-1250.0,
-1750 0,
-2250.0,
-3000.0,
-5000.0,
-10000.0,
-20000.0,
-40000.0,
-98.5.
-295.4,
-492.4,
-689.4,
-886.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4.
-2215.8,
-2954.4,
-239.4,
-307.8,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2.
-6840.4,
-13680.8,
-17.4,
-52.1,
-86.8,
-121.6,
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-520.9,
-868.2.
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
17.4,
52.1,
86.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9.
?90 7,
520.9,
213.4,
219.5,
353.6,
341.4,
353.6,
243.8,
359.7,
402.3,
400.0,
400.0.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6.
359.7,
365.8,
353.6,
353.6,
365.8.
339.9,
380.0.
400.0,
213.4.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
243.8,
304.8,
335.3,
371.9,
371.9,
371.9,
360.0,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
213.4.
213.4,
225.6,
243.8,
317.0,
298.7,
371.9,
365.8,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
( -751.8,
-939.7,
-1409.5,
-187S.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-14095.4,
-28190.8,
-46984.6,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-100. 0,
-400.0,
-600.0,
-800.0,
-1000.0,
-1500.0,
-2000.0,
-2500.0,
-4000.0,
-7500.0,
-15000.0.
-30000.0,
-50000.0,
-197.0,
-393.9,
-590.9,
-787.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0,
-3939.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
-513.0,
-684.0,
-855.1.
-1368.1.
-2565.2.
-5130.3,
-10260.6,
-17101.0,
-34.7,
-69.5.
-104.2,
-138.9.
-173.6,
-260.5.
-347.3,
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.4,
-8682.4,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
34.7,
69.5,
104.2,
138.9,
173 6,
260.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
219.5,
213.4,
353.6.
335.3,
304.8,
298.7,
365.8.
380.0,
380.0,
360.0,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
310.9,
359.7,
371.9,
371.9,
365.8,
390.1,
360.0,
420.0,
400.0,
213.4.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
298.7,
304.8,
341.4,
371.9,
378.0,
371.9,
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
225. 6,
237.7,
280.4,
304.8,
341.4,
353.6,
353.6,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-51
-------
baaec .prt
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227
MOOELOR OPTIONS OSED:
HTI atack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Baae Cue
On« source; 936 receptor* up to 50KX away; Vapor.
COHC RURAL ELEV
OB/29/94
10:56:41
PXGI 14
•* DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *•
(X-COQRD, Y-COORD, ZELBV, ZfUC)
(METERS)
I -4924.0.
( -9848.1,
( -19696.2,
( -39392.3,
( -94.0.
( -281.9,
( -469.8,
1 -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6,
( -1644.5.
( -2114.3,
( -2819.1.
( -4698.5.
( -9396.9,
( -18793.9.
i -37587.7,
( -86.6,
1 -259.8,
( -433.0,
( -606.2,
( -779.4.
( -1082.5,
( -1515.5,
( -1948.6,
( -2598.1,
( -4330.1.
( -8660.3,
( -17320.5,
( -34641.0,
( -76.6.
( -229.8.
( -383.0,
( -536.2,
( -689.4.
( -957.6,
( -1340.6.
( -1723.6.
( -2298.1,
( -3830.2,
( -7660.4,
( -15320.9,
( -30641.8,
( -64.3,
( -192.8,
868.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9,
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
427.5,
598.5,
769.5,
1026.1,
1710.1,
3420.2,
6840.4,
13680.8,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0.
64.3,
192.8,
321.4,
450.0,
578.5,
803.5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4.
3213.9,
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5,
76.6,
229.8,
378.0,
389.2.
420.0,
380.0.
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.8,
286.5,
317.0,
298.7,
384.0,
378.0,
378.0,
424.9,
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
219.5,
225.6,
268.2,
310.9,
292.6,
359.7,
371.9,
378.0,
384.0,
426.7,
400.0,
400.0,
213. .
225. .
225. ,
268. .
316. ,
304. ,
353. ,
371.9.
384.0,
384.0,
379.2,
400.0,
400.0,
213.4,
231.6.
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.01 ;
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0),
0.0);
( -7386.1,
( -14772.1,
( -29544.2.
( -49240.4,
( -187.9,
( -375.9,
( -563.8.
( -751.8,
( -939.7,
( -1409.5,
I -1879.4,
( -2349.2,
( -3758.8,
( -7047.7,
( -14095.4,
( -28190.8,
( -46984.6,
( -173.2,
( -346.4,
1 -519.6,
( -692.8,
1 -866.0,
( -1299.0,
I -1732.1,
( -2165.1,
( -3464.1,
( -6495.2,
( -12990.4,
< -25980.8.
( -43301.3,
i -153.2,
( -306.4,
1 -459.6,
( -612.8.
( -766.0,
1 -1149.1.
( -1532.1,
( -1915.1,
( -3064.2.
( -5745.3,
( -11490.7.
( -22981.3.
1 -38302.2.
( -128.6,
( -257.1,
1302.4.
2604.7.
5209.4,
8682.4,
68.4.
136.8,
205.2,
273.6.
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855.1,
1368.1.
2565.2,
5130.3,
10260.6,
17101.0,
100.0,
200.0,
300.0,
400.0,
500.0,
750.0,
1000.0,
1250.0,
2000.0.
3750.0,
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
128.6,
257.1,
385.7,
514.2,
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6.
1607.0,
2571.2,
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283.6.
32139.4,
153.2,
306.4,
384.0,
400.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
219.5,
225.6,
274.3,
298.7,
298.7,
359.7,
378.0.
378.0,
371.9,
420.0,
400.0.
400.0,
213. ,
231. ,
231. ,
304. ,
304. ,
323. ,
371. ,
378.0,
378.0,
384.0,
400.0,
420.0,
350.0,
213. ,
231. ,
231. ,
304. ,
317. ,
341. ,
365. .
378.0,
359.7,
378.0,
360.0,
400.0,
370.0.
225.6.
231.6,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-52
-------
basec.prt
•• ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227
•• MODELING OPTIONS USED:
••• WTI stack oodeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Ca
*** One source; 936 receptors up to SOKM away; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DPADLT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE IS
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELZV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( -321.4,
( -450.0,
( -578.5,
( -803.5,
-1124.9,
' -1446.3,
-1928.4.
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12855.8,
-25711.5,
-50.0,
( -150.0,
( -250.0,
( -350.0,
( -450.0.
( -625.0,
( -875.0,
( -1125,0,
( -1500.0,
( -2500.0,
( -5000.0,
I -10000.0,
1 -20000.0,
I -34.2,
( -102.6,
( -171.0,
( -239.4.
( -307.8,
1 -427.5,
( -598.5,
( -769.5.
( -1026.1,
( -1710.1.
( -3420.2,
-6840.4.
( -13680.8,
-17.4.
( -52.1.
( -86.8.
( -121 6,
( -156.3,
I -217 1,
-303.9.
( -390 7,
383.0.
536.2,
689.4.
957.6,
1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1,
3830.2,
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
86.6,
259.8,
433.0,
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
1515.5,
1948.6,
2598.1.
4330.1,
8660.3.
17320.5,
34641.0,
94.0,
281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
845.7,
1174.6,
1644.5,
2114.3,
2819.1,
4698.5,
9396.9,
18793.9,
37587.7,
98.5
295.4
492.4
689.4
885.3
1231.0,
1723.4,
2215.8,
225.6,
274.3,
310.9,
317.0,
353.6,
359.7,
384.0,
378.0,
378.0.
400.0.
360.0.
213.4.
231.6,
225.6.
249.9,
304.8,
286.5,
347.5,
353.6.
384.0,
378.0,
371.9,
360.0,
380.0.
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
262.1.
280.4,
323.1,
359.7,
329.2,
378.0,
371.9.
349.0,
360.0,
370.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
262.1,
298.7,
335.3,
359.7,
341.4,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.01 ;
0.0) ;
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0) ,
0 01 ;
0 0);
0.0);
0.0),
0 0) ;
0 0) ;
0 0) ,
0.0) ,
00);
0.0) ,
0.0);
( -385.7,
( -514.2,
( -642.8,
I -964.2,
( -1285.6,
( -1607.0,
( -2571.2,
( -4820.9,
( -9641.8,
< -19283.6,
( -32139.4,
( -100.0,
( -200.0,
( -300.0,
I -400.0,
( -500.0,
( -750.0,
( -1000.0,
( -1250.0,
1 -2000.0,
( -3750.0,
( -7500.0,
( -ISOOO.O,
1 -25000.0,
( -68.4,
1 -136.8,
1 -205.2,
( -273.6.
( -342.0,
( -513.0,
1 -684.0,
( -855.1,
( -1368.1,
( -2565.2,
( -5130.3,
1 -10260.6,
I -17101.0,
( -34.7,
1 -69.5,
( -104.2,
( -138.9,
( -173.6,
1 -260.5,
( -347.3,
1 -434.1,
459.6,
612.8,
766.0.
1149.1.
1532.1,
1915.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3,
38302.2.
173.2.
346.4,
519.6,
692.8,
866.0.
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
25980.8,
43301.3,
187.9,
375.9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
1409.5.
1879.4.
2349.2.
3758.8.
7047.7,
14095 4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
197.0,
393.9,
590 9,
787 8,
984 8,
1477.2,
1969 6,
2462.0,
231.6,
304.8,
310.9,
347.5,
353.6,
365.8,
384.0,
378.0.
380.0,
400.0,
360.0,
225.6,
231.6,
243.8,
243.8,
304.8.
329.2,
353.6,
384.0,
384.0,
365.8,
360.0.
340.0,
350.0,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8,
284.5,
292.6,
353.6,
359.7,
347.5,
385.0.
329.2,
360.0,
340.0,
350.0,
225.6,
225.6,
243.8,
292.6,
298.7,
365.8,
359.7,
378.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) , •
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ; ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0);
0 0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-53
-------
ISCOHDEP VERSION $4227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
baaec.prt
vm *tae)c modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Cue
One louree; 936 receptor* up to SOKM ••ray; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
OFAOLT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 16
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD. ZELEV. ZFLAC)
(METERS)
( -520.9,
-868.2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-6945.9,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
( 0.0,
2954.4,
4924.0,
9848.1,
19696.2,
39392.3,
100.0,
300.0,
500.0,
700.0,
900.0,
1250.0,
1750.0,
2250.0,
3000.0,
5000.0,
10000.0,
20000.0,
40000.0,
384.0,
365.8,
339.9,
360.0,
330.0,
213.4,
225.6,
225.6,
256.0.
298.7,
353.6,
341.4,
359.7,
378.0,
359.7,
380.1,
340.0,
350.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
( -694.6.
( -1302.4,
( -2604.7.
( -5209.5,
( -8682.4.
0.0.
C.O.
0.0.
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0.
0.0.
0.0.
< 0.0,
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
200.0,
400.0,
600.0,
800.0.
1000.0,
1500.0,
2000.0,
2500.0,
4000.0.
7500.0,
15000.0.
30000.0,
50000.0,
378.0,
341.4,
340.0.
340.0,
320.0,
225.6.
225.6,
237.7,
280.4,
292.6,
323.1,
317.0,
359.7,
383.4,
371.9,
360.0,
380.0.
350.0,
0.0);
0.0);
0.01 ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-54
-------
buec.prt
•" ISCOKDEP VERSION
••• MODELWB OPTIONS USED:
*•• HTI stack modeling, EPA. Region V, Project 1363, Base Case
*•* One source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ELEV
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 17
••* METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSORS •••
ll-YES; O'NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
l :
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
»•• UPPER BOUND OP FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES "•
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09. 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
•** WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
T
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.IDOOOEfOO
.ISOOOEfOO
.3SOOOEfOO
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.ISOOOEfOO
.35000E1-00
.SSOOOEfOO
. 70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.ISOOOEfOO
.35000E*00
.55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
. 15000E*00
.35000E4-00
. 55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOE-fOO
.15000E4-00
.35000E*00
.SSOOOE-rOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
. 10000E»00
. 15000E-00
. 35000E»00
. 55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
0
E
P
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OODOOE+00
.OOOOOE.OO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE-rOO
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEi-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE.OO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEFOO
.OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOB-rOO
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE.OO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-55
-------
basec.prt
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 *•*
NTI stack modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Basi
One source; 936 receptors up to 50m away; vapor.
ie Case
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
OS/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 18
**• THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •••
PILE: depbin.net
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1,12,2F7.1,f9.4,flO.1, £8.4,£5 I,i4,£7 21
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW
VECTOR
104.0
112.0
106.0
115.0
120.0
123.0
130.0
124.0
115.0
107.0
113.0
108.0
114.0
107.0
120.0
119.0
118.0
124.0
124.0
113.0
97.0
113.0
117.0
152.0
SPEED
(M/S)
4.47
5.36
4.47
4.47
4.02
5.36
4.92
4.92
4.47
4.02
4.02
4.47
5.36
4.92
4.92
4.47
3.58
2.68
2.68
2.23
2.68
3.13
3.13
2.68
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
(K) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
269.
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.
681.
697.
713.
729.
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
601.6
617.6
633. 5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR M-O LENGTH Z-0
(M/S) (M) (M)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 0000
0.0000
0.0000
Zd IPCODE PRATE
(M) dm/HR)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1»A. 2»B, 3-C. 4-D, 5>E AND 6»F
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-56
-------
TRUCKHSH.OUT
**• XSCGMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - TRUCK WASH •** 12/23/94
•*• One Volune source; 936 receptO"S up to 50XM away; vapor. *•• 18:28:17
PAGE 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
•*• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY **•
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
"Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC --
••Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE > F
••Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - P
••NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Dsta Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound* Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(m AOL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
Im AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(m AGL) 80.8000
(m AGL) 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor IRECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Kissing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) " 30.00 ; Decay Coef. • 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
Emission Units « GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor « 0.10000B+07
Output Units - MICROGRAMS/M--3
••Input Runstream File: truckvsh. inc ,• "Output Print File: truckwsh.out
••Detailed Error/Message File: TRUCKHSH.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-57
-------
TKLKJKMSH. OUT
— ISCOMDEP VERSION 942Z7 ••• ••• WIT Fugitive source modeling - TRUCK HASH ... 12/23/94
••• On* Volume lource,- 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor. >•• 18:28:17
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT PACE 2
••• VOLUME SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE BUT. DOT. EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY
1C CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
TRUCK 0 O.lOOOOEfOl 100.2 170.9 212.1 3.OS 1.77 2.84
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-58
-------
TRUCKHSH.OUT
*•• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94327 *•• ••• WTI Punitive source BOdeling - TROCK WASH ••• 12/23/34
*** One Volume source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. •*" 18:28.17
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-59
-------
TKDCKWSH.OOT
• ** ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *** WTI fugitive source modeling - TROCK HASH ••• 12/23/94
*•• One Voluoe source; 936 receptors up Co 5CKM way; Vapor. ••• 18:28:17
PAGE 4
•«« WJDEL1HG OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• SOURCE PARTICtnATE/GAS DATA •••
*•* SOURCE ID » TRUCK ; SOURCE TYPE • "OLOME
SCAV COEF ILIQJ I/IS-HM/RRI*
O.OOE»OO,
SCAV COEF (ICE) l/IS-KX/HRj-
O.OOE»00,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-60
-------
TROCKMSK.OUT
*•• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - TRUCK HASH ... 12/23/94
**• One Volume source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 16:28:17
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT PAGE 16
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3'ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
TROCK 100.0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-61
-------
TRUCKMSH. OUT
ISCONDEP VERSION 94237 *••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
•** WTI Fugitive gouree modeling - TRUCK HASH
*** On* Volune aource; 936 receptor* up to 50XM away; Vapor.
12/23/94
18:28:17
PAGE 17
•" METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSOR
U-YES; O.NO)
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
*" UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09. 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
*•• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •*•
STABILITY WIND SPEED CATEGORY
CATEGORY 123456
A .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01
B .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01 .70000E-01
C .10000E*00 .lOOOOEtOO .lOOOOEtOO .10000E*00 .lOOOOE-t-QO . 10000E*00
D .15000E*00 .15000E+00 .15000E»00 .15000E+00 .ISOOOE-cOO . ISOOOEtOO
E . 35000E»00 .35000E»00 .35000E»00 .35000E+00 .35000E-rOO . 35000E<-00
P .SSOOOEi-00 .55000E4-00 .55000E»00 .55000E»00 .55000E1-00 .55000E*00
••• VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS •••
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE-fOO
.000008*00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOSfOO
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.000008*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE<-00
.OOOOOE»00
. OOOOOE<-00
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE-fOO
.oooooe-foo
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE-cOO
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.350COE-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-62
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELIMS OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELBV
TRUCKWSH.OUT
••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - TRUCK MASH
••• One Volune source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
12/23/94
18:28:17
PAGE 18
DFAULT
THE FIRST 24 HOURS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA
PILE: depbin.met
SURFACE STATION NO.:
NAME:
YEAR:
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
94823
WTI
1993
FLOW SPEED
HOUR VECTOR (M/S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 .58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
FORMAT: (4I2.2P9.4,F6.1.I2,2P7
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
IK) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
601.6 601.6
617.6 617.6
633.5 633.5
649.5 649.5
66S.4 665.4
681.4 681.4
697.3 697.3
713.3 713.3
729.2 729.2
745.2 745.2
761.1 761.1
777.1 777.1
793.0 793.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
I,f9.4.£
USTAR
(M/S)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
L0.1,£8.4.f!
M-O LENGTH
(M)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.1,14, £7. 2)
Z-0 Zd
(M) (M)
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
IPCODE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PRATE
lOB/HR)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' NOTES:
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, 5-E AND 6-P.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-63
-------
••• ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source model ins - ORGANIC WASTE TANK FARM ••• 12/27/94
"• Four Point source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor. *•• 16:48:17
PAGE 1
• •• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
"• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •*•
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average Concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - F
••Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. HDPLETE > F
••NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model uses Regulatory DEFAULT options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3 . Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Cains Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Hind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. "Upper Bound* Values for Supersqust Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
In AGL) 30.0000
Im AOL) 45.7000
(n AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL I 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
Im AGL) 80.8000
(m AGL) 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of. 1-HR
and calculates PERIOD Average*
••This Run Includes: 4 Source(si; 1 Source Groupts), and 93f Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Kighest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values IMAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
•"NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0 0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
Emission Units • GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor - 0.10000E»07
Output Units - MICROGRAMS/M"3
••Input Runstream File: WASTE.INC . "Output Print File: WASTE.OUT
••Detailed Error/Message File: WASTE.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-64
-------
WASTE.OUT
••* ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ORGANIC WASTE TANK PARK ••» 12/27/54
*** Pour Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKM away; Vapor. *** 16:48:17
PAGE 2
••* MODELING OPTIONS USED: COMC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
• »• POINT SOURCE DATA "•
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEKP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SECI (METERS) BY
WASTE1 0 0.10000E+01 173.5 108.6 212.1 18.90 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
WASTE2 0 0.10000E+01 193.1 116.9 212.1 18.90 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
HASTE3 0 0.10000E+01 199.3 102.3 212.1 18.90 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
WASTE* 0 O.lOOOOEfOl 179.7 94.0 212.1 18.90 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-65
-------
WASTE.OUT
•*• ISCOHDKP VEKSICN 94227 ••• *•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ORGANIC HASTE TANK FARM *** 12/27/94
•*• Four Foiat source; 936 receptors up to 50KM sway; Vapor. ••* 16:48:17
PAGE 3
••* HODELUR OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
WASTE1 , WASTE2 , WASTE3 , HASTE4
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-66
-------
ISCCMDEF VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive louree nodeling - ORGANIC WASTE TANK PARN ••• 12/27/94
•*• Four Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 16:48:17
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELZV DFAULT
••* SOURCE PARTICOLATE/GAS DATA •••
*•* SOURCE ID - WASTE1 ; SOURCE TYPE • POINT
SCAV COEF [LIQ] I/(S-MM/HR)-
O.OOEtOO,
SCAV COEF [ICE) I/ (S-MM/HR) -
O.OOE+00.
**• SOURCE ID - HASTE2 ; SOURCE TYPE • POINT
SCAV COEF ILIQ] I/(S-MM/HR)-
O.OOE+00,
SCAV COEF [ICEJ I/(S-MM/HR)«
O.OOE+00.
••• SOURCE ID « WASTE3 ; SOURCE TYPE
SCAV COEF [LIQ] 1/(S-HM/HR>-
O.OOE+00,
SCAV COEF [ICE] I/(S-MM/HR)-
O.OOE+00,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-67
-------
WASTE. DOT
ISCOMDEP VERSIOH 9*221 «•• *** WTI Fugitive lource modeling - ORGANIC HASTE TANK FARM ••• 12/27/94
*•• Four Point xource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 16:48:17
PAGE 5
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COBC RDRAL ELEV DFADLT
••* SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA •••
••• SOURCE ID - HASTE4 ; SOURCE TCTE • POINT
SCAV COEF [LIQ] 1/(S-MH/HR)»
O.OOE*00,
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/(S-MM/HR)«
O.QOEfOO,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-68
-------
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION
•*• MODELING OPTIONS
SOURCE ID:
IFV BH
1 15.2
7 15.2
13 15.2
19 15.2
25 15.2
31 15.2
SOURCE ID:
IFV BH
1 15.2
1 15.2
13 15.2
19 15.2
25 15.2
31 15.2,
SOURCE ID:
IFV BH
1 15.2,
7 15.2,
13 15.2,
19 15.2,
25 15.2,
31 15.2.
SOURCE ID.
IFV BH
1 15.2,
7 15.2,
13 15.2,
19 15.2,
25 15.2,
31 15.2,
WASTE1
BW
, 50.1
, 18.2
, 51.2
, 50.1
, 18.2,
, 51.2,
WASTE2
BW
, 50.1,
. 18.2,
, 51.2,
, 50.1,
, 18.2.
, 51.2,
WASTES
BW
50.1,
18.2,
51.2,
50.1,
18.2,
51,2.
WASTE4
BW
50.1,
18 2,
51.2,
50.1,
18.2,
51.2,
WAX
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
WAK
0
0
0
0
0
0
WAX
0
0
0
0
0
0
WAK
0
0
0
0
0
0
94227 •••
USED: CONC
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ORGANIC WASTE TANK FARM "•
*•• Four Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. •••
RURAL ELEV DFAULT
*•* DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS ***
BW WAK
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
BW WAK
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
BW WAK
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
BW WAK
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BW
42.5
33.7
51.0
42.5
33.7
51.0
BW
42.5
33.7
51.0
42.5
33.7
51.0
BW
42.5
33.7
51.0
42.5
33.7
51.0
BW
42.5
33.7
51.0,
42.5,
33.7,
51.0,
WAK
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
WAK
, 0
, 0
. 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
WAK
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
WAK
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
, 0
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BW WAK
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
BW WAK
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
BW WAK
36 7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
BW WAK
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BW WAK
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
BW WAK
29.8. 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
29.8. 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
BW WAK
29.8. 0
45.2. 0
51.7. 0
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
BW WAK
29.8. 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
12/27/94
16:48.17
PAGE 6
BH
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
BH
15.2.
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15 2,
15.2,
BW WAK
21.9, 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
21.9, 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
BW WAK
21.9. 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
21.9, 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
BW WAK
21.9, 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
21.9, 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
BW WAK
21.9, 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
21.9, 0
48.9. 0
51.7, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-69
-------
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •*• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ORGANIC WASTE TANK FARM ••* 12/27/94
••• Pour Point tource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 16:48:17
PAGE 18
*•* MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE
ID
WASTE1
HASTE1
HASTE1
WASTE2
WASTE2
HASTE3
WASTE3
HASTE4
WASTE4
WASTE*
- - RECEPTOR LOC
XR (METERS) Y1
153.2
173.2
187.9
153.2
173.2
173.2
187.9
153.2
173.2
187.9
:ATION - -
t (METERS)
128.6
100.0
68.4
128.6
100.0
100.0
68.4
128.6
100.0
68.4
DISTANCE
(METERS)
28.45
8.58
42.70
41.58
26.12
26.20
35.76
43.52
8.81
26.89
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-70
-------
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 ••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ORGANIC HASTE TANK FARM
••• Four Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
12/27/94
16:48:17
PAGE 19
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
*•• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1-YES; 0«NOI
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
NOTE: HETEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
••• UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS *••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000B-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
-lOOOOE-fOO
.15000E*00
.35000E»00
.55000E*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOEtOO
. OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
.000008*00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
35000E-01
OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOEtOO
OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
20000E-01
35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-71
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
•" HTI Fugitive louree nodeling - ORGANIC HASTE TANK FARM
*•• Four Point icurce; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
RURAL ELEV DFAULT
12/27/94
16:48:17
PAGE 20
••• THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •«
FILE: dspbin.net
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1,12,2F7.1,f9.4,f10.1,IB.4,£5.1,14,£7 .2]
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2i
23
24
FLOW
VECTOR
104.0
112.0
106.0
115.0
120.0
123.0
130.0
124.0
115.0
107.0
113.0
108.0
114.0
107.0
120.0
119.0
118.0
124.0
124.0
113.0
97.0
113.0
117.0
152.0
SPEED
(M/S)
4.47
5.36
4.47
4.47
4.02
5.36
4.92
4.92
4.47
4.02
4.02
4.47
5.36
4.92
4.92
4.47
3.58
2.68
2.68
2.23
2.68
3.13
3.13
2.68
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (Ml
(K) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
270.4 4 809.0
269.9 4 809.0
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR M-O LENGTH Z-0
(M/S) (M) (M)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Zd IPCODE PRATE
IM) Inm/KR)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0. 00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1«A, 2-B, 3>C, 4-D, 5>E AND 6-P
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-72
-------
**• ISCOMDEF VERSION 94227 *•• **• WTI Fugitive source modeling - OPEN WASTEKATER TASK • •• 12/23/S4
**• One Volume source; 936 receptors up to 50KM sway; Vapor. ••• 17:14:24
PAGE 1
• •• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
"• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
"Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Se'tup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC ~
••Model Uses HO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - V
••Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE • P
••NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downvash.
3 . Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Cains Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Daea Processing Routine.
6. Default wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. "Upper Bound' Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(a AGL! 45.7000
In AGL) 152.400
"Model Accepting wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGLI 30.0000
(m AGLI 45.7000
(m AGL) 80.8000
(m AGLI 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Averagers} of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected-
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor IRECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Mmriimim Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword I
Model Outputs External Filels) of High Values for Plotting (FLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
a for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anein. Hgt. (m) « 30.00 ; Decay Coef « 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
Emission Units * GRAMS/SEC , Emission Rttte Unit Factor « 0 10000E+07
Output Units » MICROGRAMS/M**3
••Input Runstream File: tank.inc ; "Output Print File: tank.out
••Detailed Error/Message File: TANK.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 F/-3-73
-------
*•* ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• "• WTI Fugitive source mode ling - OPES HASTEHATER TANK ••• 12/23/94
••• One Volume source; 936 receptors up Co 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 17:14:24
PACE 2
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCHC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• VOLUME SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE HUT. INIT. EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
TANK 0 0.10000E-01 177.1 204.8 212.1 5.30 2.35 4.96
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-74
-------
TANK.OUT
V y
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive source modeling - OPEN WASTEWATBR TANK ••• 12/23/94
•** One Volune source; 936 receptors up to 50KK away; Vapor. *** 17:14-24
••* HODELING OPTIONS USED: COKC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
GROUP ID SOURCE IDs
Ali TANK
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-75
-------
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTT Fugitive source modeling - OPEN WASTEWMER TANK ••• 12/23/94
*•• One Volume source; 936 receptors up to 50KH my; Vapor. ••• 17:14:24
PACE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COMC RURAL BLEV OFAULT
••• SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA ***
••• SOURCE ID « TAJIK ; SOURCE TYPE
SCAV COEF [LIQ1 1/IS-MM/HR)-
O.OOEfOO,
SCAV COEF [ICE) 1/(S-MM/HR>-
O.OOEfOO,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-76
-------
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - OPEN KASTEWATER TANK
*** One Volume source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
12/23/94
17:14:24
PAGE 16
••• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED POR PROCESSING •••
(1'YES; 0-NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1-111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
"• UPPER BOUND OP PIRST THROUGH FIPTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••• MIND PROFILE EXPONENTS ««
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
. 15000E»00
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E+00
.35000E1-00
.SSOOOE-cOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E»00
.35000E+00
.55000E1-00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.IOOOOE+00
.15000E*00
.3SOOOE-I-00
.SSOOOE-fOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E+00
.SSOOOEfOO
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIEWTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE+00
-OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE-.00
.20000E-OI
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE.OO
OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOEfOO
OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-77
-------
ISCOMDCC VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CQNC RURAL ELEV
••• MTI Fugitive source modeling - OPEN WASTEWATER TANK
*•• One Volume lource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
12/23/94
17:14:24
PAGE 17
**• THE FIRST 24 HODRS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •*•
FILE: depbin.oet
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (4I2,2P9.4,P6.1,I2.2P7.1,£9.4.£10.1,£8.4,£5.1,14,£7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
HONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 .58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEKP STJ
IK) CLJ
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
U MIXING
kSS RURAL
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
HEIGHT (M)
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
609.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
M-O LENGTH Z-0 Zd
(Ml (M) (H)
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0 0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
0.0 0.0000 0.0
IPCODE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PRATE
imn/KR)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1'A, 2-B, 3«C, 4-D, 5"E AND 6-F.
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-78
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
v----x • •• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •*• *** WTI Fugitive source modeling - CARBON VENT STACK ••• 02/16/95
**• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 17:13:30
PAGE 1
••* MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *••
**Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE » F
••Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - F
••NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. stack-tip Downwasb.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Hissing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8- 'Upper Bound* Values for Supersgjuat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGLI 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(m AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
Im ACL) 80.8000
(m AGL) 111.300
/~ ~~~-, (m AGL) 152.400
I
\ , **Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of 1-HR t
^ y and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes- 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor IRECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
ra for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
"Misc. Inputs- Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef • 0.0000 ,- Rot. Angle - 0.0
Emission Units - GRAMS/SEC , Emission Rate Unit Factor - 0.10000E*07
Output Units - MICROGHAKS/M**3
••Input Runstream File: cadstack.inc ; "Output Print File: cadstacfc.out
••Detailed Error/Message File: CADSTACK.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-79
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 MTI Fugitive source modeling - CARBON VENT STACK ... 02/16/95
•*• On« Point »ourc«; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ... 17:13:30
... MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT PAGE 2
... POIMT SOURCE DATA »••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X V ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEO.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) ^BY
CADSTACK 0 0.10000E+01 61.0 42.8 212.1 28.04 250.00 31.05 0.76 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-80
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •*• ••* WTI Fugitive source modeling - CARBON VENT STACK «-- 02/16/95
*** One Point source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor. *** 17-13-30
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: COHC RURAL ELEV DPADLT
•*• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix F/-3 IV-3-81
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 9«227 ••« ••• WTI Fugitive lource nodeling - CARBON VENT STACK ••• 02/16/95
**• One Point vource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. •** 17:13:30
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
"• SOURCE PARTICU1ATE/OAS DATA •••
••* SOURCE ID > CADSTACK; SOURCE TYPE - POr-TT
SCAV COEF [LIQJ 1/IS-HM/HRI-
O.OOE4-00,
SCAV COEP [ICE] 1/(S-MM/KR)»
O.OOEtOO,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-82
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
"• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 *••
WTI Fugitive source modeling - CARBON VENT STACK
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
02/16/95
17.13.30
PAGE 5
•*• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS "*
SOURCE ID:
IFV BH
1 25.8,
7 24.4,
13 25.8,
19 25.8,
25 24.4,
31 25.8,
CADSTACK
BW WAK
27.1, 0
26.0, 0
24.8. 0
27.1, 0
26.0, 0
24.8, 0
IFV BH
2 25.8,
8 25.8,
14 25.8,
20 25.8,
26 25.8,
32 25.8.
BW WAK
28.1, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
28.1, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
IFV BH
3 25.8,
9 25.8,
15 25.8,
21 25.8.
27 25.8,
33 25.8,
BW WAK
28.3, 0
26. 4, 0
20.1, 0
28.3, 0
26.4, 0
20.1. 0
IFV BH
4 25.8,
10 25.8,
16 25.8,
22 25.8,
28 25.8,
34 25.8,
BW WAK
27.6 0
27.3 0
19.3 0
27.6 0
27.3 0
19.3 0
IFV BH
5 25.8
11 25.8
17 25.8
23 25.8
29 25.8
35 25.8
BW WAK
26.1, 0
27.3, 0
22.6, 0
26.1, 0
27.3, 0
22.6, 0
IFV BH
6 25.8,
12 25.8,
18 25.8,
24 25.8,
30 25.8,
36 25.8,
BW WAK
23.8. 0
26.4, 0
25.2, 0
23.8, 0
26.4, 0
25.2, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-83
-------
CADSTACK.DOT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
HTI Fugitive source modeling - CARBON VENT STACK
One Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKK away; Vapor.
«*« MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
02/16/95
17:13:30
PAGE 17
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
m DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE
ID
- - RECEPTOR LOCATION - -
XR (METERS) YR {METERS)
DISTANCE
(METERS)
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
CADSTACK
34.2
50.0
64.3
76.6
86.6
94.0
98.5
100.0
94.0
86.6
76.6
64.3
50.0
34.2
17.4
0.0
57.74
45.14
33.93
26.51
2S.57
34.06
45.30
57.91
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-84
-------
CADSTACK.OOT
ISCOKDEF VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
WTI Fugitive source modeling - CARBON VENT STACK
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
02/16/95
17:13:30
PAGE 18
"• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING •••
(1-YES; 0«NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1X11111111 1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111 111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
••• UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *•*
(METERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
•" WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E+00
.SSOOOEtOO
-700QOE-01
.70000E-01
.1000024-00
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E-fOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOBtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOBtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E.OO
.550008*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E»00
.35000E.OO
.55000EfOO
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
a
c
D
E
F
WZNB SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE4-00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
OOOOOETOO
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
OOOOOEtOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-85
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 «*•
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COHC
**• WTI Fugitive lource modeling - CARBON VENT STACK
••* One Point louree; 936 receptors up to 5OHM away; Vapor.
RURAL ELEV DPAULT
02/16/95
17:13:30
PAGE 19
**• THE FIRST 24 BOORS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ••*
FILE: depbiii.met
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
HAKE: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1.12,2F7.1,f9.4.£10.1.£8.4,f5.1,14,£7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR MONTR
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (Ml USTAR M-0 LENGTH Z-0 Zd IPCODE PRATE
VECTOR (M/S) (Kl CLASS RURAL URBAN (M/S) (M) (M) (M) (rrm/HRl
104.0 .47 275.4 601.6 601.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
112.0 .36 274.8 617.6 617.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
106.0 .47 274.0 633.5 633.5 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
115.0 .47 273.9 649.5 649. 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
120.0 .02 273.8 665.4 66S. 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
123.0 .36 273 3 681.4 681. 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
130.0 .92 272.5 697.3 697. 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0 00
124.0 .92 271.9 713.3 713. 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
115.0 .47 271.0 729.2 729.2 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
107.0 .02 270.9 745.2 745.2 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
113.0 .02 270.6 761.1 761.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
108.0 .47 270.9 777.1 777.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
114.0 .36 271.1 793.0 793.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
107.0 .92 271.0 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
120.0 .92 270.8 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0 00
119.0 .47 270.5 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
118.0 .58 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
124.0 2.68 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
124.0 2.68 270.1 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
113.0 2.23 270.3 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
97.0 2.68 270.3 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
113.0 3.13 270.3 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
117.0 3.13 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
152.0 2.68 269.9 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1«A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, 5-E AND 6-P
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
W-3-86
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
••* ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •*• •" WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM SLUG ••• 01/25/95
••* One Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKM awsy; Mass Ht. *** 18:00:36
PAGE 1
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
*•• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ***
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE » T
••Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWGAS.LWFART » F T
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound1 Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(m AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL) 30.0000
Im AGL) 45.7000
(m AGL) 80.8000
(m AGL) 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Averaged) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source Is); 1 Source Group(s), and 936 Receptor Is)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected-
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values IMAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filed) of High Values for Plotting JPLOTPILE Keyword)
••NOTE The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs- Anem Hgt. (m) • 30.00 , Decay Coef « 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle « 0.0
Emission units * GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor - 0.10000B+07
Output Units - MICROGRAMS/M** 3
••Input Runstream File: steama c.inc , ••C-cput Print File: at
••Detailed Error/Message File. STEAM_C.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-87
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
*•• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• "* WTI Fujitive lource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOG •«• 01/25/95
••• On* Point source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; MM* Wt. ••• 18:00:36
PAGE 2
•*• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPI,
••• POINT SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X V ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. [UTTERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (OEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 0.10000E+01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-88
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
"• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source nodelino. - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/25/95
*** One Point Bource; 936 receptors up to 50KH away; Mass Wt. ••• 18:00:36
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RDPAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WEIDPL
••• SOORCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
ALL STEAM
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-89
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
ISCQKDEP VERSION 94227 •>• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDO • •• 01/25/95
•** One Point source,- 936 receptor* up to SOKM away; Mu> wt. ••• 18:00:36
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV OFADLT DRYDPL HETDPL
••• SOURCE PARTICUIATE/CAS DATA •••
•** SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS FRACTION «
0.04260, 0,08510, 0.17020, 0.19150, 0.19150, 0.11910, 0.10000, 0.05000, 0.04000. 0.01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, 0.93000, 0.55000, 0.40000, 0.27000, 0.18000, 0.12000, 0.06200, 0.03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM**3) -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COBF [LIQ] 1/(S-MM/HR)«
0.21E-03.0.14E-03,0.50E-04,0.50E-04,0.60E-04.0.90E-04.0.13E-03,0.15E-03.0.20E-03,0.22E-03.
SCAV COEF [ICE] l/IS-MM/HRI-
0.70E-04,0.47E-04,0.17E-04,0.17E-04,0.20E-04,0.30E-04,0.43E-04.0.50E-0«,0.67E-04,0.73S-04.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-90
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COKC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
*•• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS
••• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
*•* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KH away; Mass Wt.
DRYDPL METDPL
01/25/95
18:00:36
PAGE 5
SOURCE ID: STEAM
IFV
1
7
13
19
25
31
BH
29.1,
6.7,
25.8,
29.1,
14.9,
25.8,
BW WAK
25.9, 0
16.4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
BW WAK
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH BW WAK
29.1 21.8, 0
25.8
25.3
29.1
25.8
25.8
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
28.9. 0
27.3, 0
25.9. 0
28.9, 0
27.3. 0
25.9, 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1.
BW WAK
27.0. 0
27.3. 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3. 0
25.9. 0
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
3E
BH
24 4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-91
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
••• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG **• 01/25/95
*•* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass Wt. •»* 18:00-36
PAGE 17
... MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPADLT DRYDPL WBTDPL
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS' (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM 0.0 100.0 56.34
Volume FV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-92
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *••
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKH away; Mass Wt.
•*• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
01/25/95
18:00:36
PAGE IS
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING **
(1-YES; 0-NO)
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
•** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES ***
IMETERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••* WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
-55000E+00
.70000E-01
70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E-fOO
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E*00
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E*00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
10000E»00
.15000E*00
.35000E*00
.S5000E+00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
I DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
f
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.20QOOE-01
.35000E-01
OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
OOOOOEtOO
OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-93
-------
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
ASHA_C.OOT
NTI Fugitive «ource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDC
One Pouit aource; 936 receptors up to SOro away; Masa wt.
DRYDPL NETDPL
01/25/95
18:00.36
PAGE 19
••• THE FIRST 24 BOORS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •••
FILE: depbin.net
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1.12,2F7.1.£9.4,£10.1.£8.4,K.1,14, ft .2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR MONTH
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M) USTAR M-O LENGTH Z-0 Zd IPCODE PRATE
VECTOR (M/S) (K) CLASS RURAL URBAN (M/S) (M) IM) IM) Imn/HR)
104.0 4.47 275.4 601.6 601.6 0.3366 176.8 0.3000 1.5 13 0.00
112.0 5.36 274.8 617.6 617.6 0.4269 283.7 0.3000 1.5 0 0.25
106.0
115.0
120.0
123.0
130.0
124.0
115.0
107.0
113.0
108.0
114.0
107.0 <
120.0
.47 274.0 633.5 633.5 0.3363 175.6 0.3000 1.5 0 0.00
.47 273.9 649.5 649.5 0.3363 175.4 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
.02 273.8 665.4 665.4 0.2874 128.1 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
.36 273.3 661. 4 681.4 0.4266 281.8 0.3000 1 5 28 0 00
.92 272.5 697.3 697.3 0.3820 225.3 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
.92 271.9 713.3 713.3 0.3819 224.6 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
.47 271.0 729.2 729.2 0.3355 172.9 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
.02 270.9 745.2 745.2 0.3534 -999.0 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
.02 270.6 761.1 761.1 0.3534 -999.0 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
1.47 270.9 777.1 777.1 0.3926 -999.0 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
j.36 271.1 793.0 793.0 0.4712 -999.0 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
1.92 271.0 809.0 809.0 0.4319 -999.0 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
1.92 270.8 809.0 809.0 0.3817 223. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
119.0 4.47 270.5 809.0 809.0 0.3354 172. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
118.0
124.0 :
.58 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.2310 81. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
i.68 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
124.0 2.68 270.1 809.0 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
113.0 :
97.0 :
113.0
.23 270.3 809.0 809.0 0.0982 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
1.68 270.3 809.0 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.300: 1.5 0 0.00
.13 270.3 809.0 809.0 0.1374 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
117.0 3.13 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.1374 29. 0.3000 1.5 0 0.00
152.0 2.68 269.9 809.0 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B. 3-C, 4-D, 5-E AND 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-94
-------
ASKJV.H.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *** **• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ***
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away/ Mass Wt. *** 23:53:23
PAGE 1
••* MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
•*• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ••*
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
*"Model Is Setup For Calculation of Wet DEPosition Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE * T
-•Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE * T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWGAS,LWPART -FT
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
'•Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dowxwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion,
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound* Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL) 30 0
(m AGL) 45 7
(m AGL) 80.8
(m AGL) 111.3
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of- 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source(s), 1 Source Group(s); and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFXLE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following DEPO Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anexn. Hgt. (m) « 30.00 ; Decay Coef * OOOOE+00 ; Rot Angle « .0
Emission Units « GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor * 3600.0
Output Units - GRAMS/M**2
••Input Runscream File• steama_w.ind , •'Output Print Pile: steama_w.out
••Detailed Error/Message File:
STEAMA_W.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-95
-------
ASKA_H.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTX Fugitive «ource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
•" One Point lource; 936 receptors up to 50XM away; Has* wt. ••• 23:53.23
•••*• MODELIHS OPTIOHS USED: WDEP ROHM. ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
•*• POINT SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE . PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) I METERS I (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .lOOOOEi-01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 F/-3-96
-------
ASHA_W.OCT
•" ISCOMDBP VERSION 94227 *" *** WTI fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••*
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KH away; Haas wt. ••• 23:53.23
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
••• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
ALL STEAM
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-97
-------
ASHA_W.OUT
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •" ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH KANDLINO/STEAM BLDG •••
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt. ••• 23.53:23
PAGE 4
* MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
*•• SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA •••
••• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS FRACTION «
.04260, .08510, .17020, .19150, .19150, .11910, .10000, .05000, .04000, .01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER I MICRONS) '
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM"3) -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEF [UQI 1/IS-MM/HR1"
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .50E-04, .60E-04, .90E-04, .13E-03. .15E-03, .20E-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEP [ICE! 1/IS-MM/HR)-
70E-04, .47E-04, .17E-04, .17E-04, .20E-04, .30E-04, .43E-04, .50E-04, .67E-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-98
-------
ASHA_W.OUT
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •*•
* MODELING OPTIONS USED: HDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT
**• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS "•
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point source; 936 receptors up Co SOKM away; Mass Ht.
DRYDPL WETDPL
23-53:23
PAGE 5
SOURCE ID: STEAM
IFV BH
1 29.1,
7 6.7,
13 25.8,
19 29.1,
25 14.9,
31 25.8,
BW WAK
25.9, 0
16.4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
BW WAX
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
IFV BH
3 29.1,
9 25.8,
15 25.8,
21 29.1,
27 25.8.
33 25.8,
BW WAK
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV BH
4 24.4,
10 25.8.
16 29.1,
22 24.4,
28 25.8,
34 29.1,
BW WAX
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
27 0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
24 4,
25 8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-99
-------
ASKA_W.OUT
*•• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 «•• ••• tm Fugitive (ource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDO •••
••• One Point source; 936 receptor! up to 50KM away; Mass Wt. •*• 23:53:23
PACE 17
•*• MODELING OPTIONS USED: MDEF RURAL ELEV DPAULT ORYDPL WETDPL
• SOORCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3-ZLB *
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS HAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
1C XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-100
-------
ASHA_W.OUT
"* ISCOKDE1P VERSION 94227
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50FM away; Mass Wt.
••• MODELDK5 OPTIONS DSED: WDEP RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
DRYDPL WETDPL
23:53:23
PAGE 16
•" METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING ••
(1=YES; 0>ND)
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES **
(METERS/SEC]
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS "«
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.ISOOOEfOO
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
70000E-01
.lOOOOEfOO
15000EfOO
35000E-00
.SSOOOEfOO
.70000B-01
.70000E-01
.10000E1-00
.ISOOOEfOO
.35000E*00
,55000E*00
70000E-01
70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E1-00
.35000E*00
.SSOOOE-fOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E+00
-35000E+00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E*00
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E»00
.55000E-fOO
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE4-00
.OOOOOE+00
. OOOOOE-fOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
OOOOOE-fOO
OOOOOE.OO
.OOOOOE-cOO
20000B-01
35000E-01
OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE*00
OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
OOOOOE-fOO
OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-lOl
-------
ISCOMDBP VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV
ASHA_W.OUT
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASK HANDLING/STEAM BLOC
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50m away; Mass Wt.
23:53:23
PAGE 19
DRYDPL WETDPL
••• THE FIRST 24 HOURS OP HETEOROLOGICAL DATA *••
FILE: depHin.net
SURFACE STATION HO.: 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1,12,2F7.1,£9.4,f10.1,£8.4,f5.1,14.£7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED TEMP STAB MIXING
VECTOR (M/S) (R) CLASS RURAL
104.0 4.47 275.4
112.0
106.0
115.0
120.0
123.0
130.0
124.0
115.0
107.0
113.0
108.0
114.0 !
.36 274.8
.47 274.0
.47 273.9
.02 273.8
.36 2~3.3
.92 272.5
.92 271.9
.47 271.0
.02 270.9
.02 270.6
.47 270.9
.36 271.1
107.0 4.92 271.0
120.0 <
119.0 <
.92 270.8
.47 270.5
118.0 3.58 270.4
124.0 :
124.0 ;
113.0 ;
.68 270.4
.68 270.1
.23 270.3
91.0 2.68 270.3
113.0 3
117.0 3
.13 270.3
.13 270.4
152.0 2.68 269.9
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
HEIGHT (M)
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2874
.4266
.3820
.3819
.3355
.3534
3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3817
.3354
.2310
,1178
.1178
.0982
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
M-0 LEM3TH Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) 1M) (M)
176.8 .3000 1.5 13
283.
175.
7 .3000 1.5 0
5 .3000 1.5 0
175.4 .3000 1.5 28
128.
281.
225.
224.
L .3000 1.5 28
8 .3000 1.5 28
J .3000 1.5 28
5 .3000 1.5 28
172.9 .3000 1.5 28
-999.
3 .3000 1 5 28
-999.0 .3000 1.5 28
-999.
-999.
3 .3000 1.5 28
3 .3000 1.5 28
-999.0 .3000 1.5 28
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1 5 28
3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 2B
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 0
29.4 .3000 1.5 28
PRATE
Inm/KR)
.00
.25
.00
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B. 3-C, 4«D, 5-E AND 6-P.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume TV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-102
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• •*• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/26/95
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt •«• 00:18:55
PAGE 1
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
*•• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
"Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Dry DEPosition Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC --
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
"Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE • T
"SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWGAS.LHPART -FT
••Model Uses CRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7 Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8 "Upper Bound" values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGLI 45.7000
(m AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data
Number of Levels 5
1m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGLI 45.7000
(m AGL) 80.8000
(m AGL) 111.300
(m AGL) 152.400
••Kodel Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of- 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes 1 Sourcels); 1 Source Group(s); and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum short Term values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filels) of High Values for Plotting IPLOTFILE Keyword!
••NOTE- The Following Flags May Appear Following DEPO Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Input*: Anem. Hgt. (m) * 30.00 ; Decay Coef. • 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
Emission Units « GRAMS/SEC , Emission Rate Unit Factor « 3600 0
Output Units * GRAMS/M"2
••Input Runstream File: steama_d.ind . *•<> ".put Print File: steama_d out
••Detailed Error/Message File: STEAMA_D.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-103
-------
AHSA_D.OOT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•* *•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/26/95
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50MS away; MASS Wt. **• 00:18:55
PACE 2
•" MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL HETDPL
••• POINT SOURCE DATA "•
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC! X V ELEV. HEIGHT TEHP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
IP CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 0.10000E+01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-104
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
••* ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/26/95
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass Wt. •** 00.18:55
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
**• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
ALL STEAM
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 FV-3-105
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Pujitive source nodelina - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG *•• 01/26/95
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50XM away; Mass Wt. *** 00:18:55
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETOPL
••• SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA *••
••• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS FRACTION -
0.04260, 0.08510. 0.17020, 0.19150. 0.19150, 0.11910, 0.10000, 0.05000, 0.04000, 0.01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) •
2.97000, 1.89000, 0.93000, 0.55000, 0.40000, 0.27000, 0.19000, 0.12000. 0.06200, 0.03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM"3) -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEF [LIQJ l/IS-MM/HRI-
0.21E-03,0.14E-03,0.50E-04,0.50E-04,0.60E-04,0.90E-04,0.13E-03,0.15E-03,0.20E-03,0.22E-03,
SCAV COEP [ICE] 1/IS-MM/HR)-
0.70E-04,0.47E-04.0.17E-04,0.17E-04,0.20E-04,0.30E-04,0.43E-04,0.50E-04,0.67E-04,0.73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-106
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• •*• WTI Fugitive lource modeling - ASH KAMDLINO/STEAM BLOC ••• 01/26/95
*•* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM sway; Msss Wt. ••* 00:18:55
PAGE 5
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL METDPL
"• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS •*•
SOURCE ID: STEAM
IPV
1
7
13
19
25
31
BH
29.1,
6.7,
25. S,
29.1,
14.9,
25.8,
BW MAX
25.9, 0
16.4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH BW WAK
29.1 24.7, 0
25.8
25.8
29.1
25.8
25.8
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
BW WAX
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
28.9. 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9, 0
27.3. 0
25.9. 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1.
24.4,
25.8.
29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9. 0
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 FV-3-107
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•• *" HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG "• 01/26/95
**• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM sway; Mass Wt. *•• 00:18:55
PAGE 17
"* MODELING OPTIOKS USED: DOEP RURAL ELEV DFADLT DRTOPL WETDPL
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAK 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM 0.0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-108
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
••• ISCOHDEP VERSIOK 94227
•• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt.
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
01/26/95
00:18:55
PAGE 18
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
<1»YES; 0-NO)
MOTE:
METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
"• UPPER BOUND OP FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES ***
(KETERS/SECI
1.54. 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
•" HIND PROFILE EXPONENTS
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000B-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
. 55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.5SOOOE+00
.70000E-01
70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E»00
.35000E4-00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOE-cOO
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOE-fOO
.15000E*00
.35000E*00
.55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
000006*00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
SPEED CATEGORY
3
OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
20000E-01
35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
20000E-01
35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-109
-------
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV
AHSA_D.OUT
HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDC
One Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKX away; Mass wt.
01/26/95
00:18:55
PAGE 19
ORYDPL WETDPL
*•* THE FIRST 24 HOURS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA
SURPACE STATION NO. :
NAME:
YEAR:
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
1 10
1 11
1 12
1 13
1 14
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
94823
WTI
1993
PLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 .58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
(Kl CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4 4 601.6
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665. 4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
0.3366
0.4269
0.3363
0.3363
0.2874
0.4266
0.3820
0.3819
0.3355
0.3534
0.3534
0.3926
0.4712
0.4319
0.3817
0.3354
0.2310
0.1178
0.1178
0.0982
0.1178
0.1374
0.1374
0.1178
M-0 LENGTH
(M)
176.8
283.7
175.6
175.4
128.1
281.8
225.3
224.6
172.9
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
Z-0
(M)
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
o.;ooo
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
Zd IPCODE
(M)
1.5 13
1.5 0
1.5 0
l.S 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
l.S 28
1.5 28
1.5 0
1.5 28
1.5 0
1.5 28
PRATE
(nm/HR)
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B. 3-C, 4-D. 5-E AND 6-P.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-110
-------
ASHA_2.OUT
••• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •*• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
*•* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass Wt. ••• 10:57:13
••• HODELIW! OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPLPAGE *
••• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
**Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Total DEPOSition Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model Uses WET DEPLETION. HDPLETE • T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWOAS. LHPART -FT
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dovnvash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
6. 'Upper Bound' Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 80.8
(m AGL) 111.3
Im AGL) 152.3999
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes- 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s), and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of. FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values IMAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External File Is) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE- The Following Flags May Appear Following DEPO Values. c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Hissing Hours
••Misc. Inputs- Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - . OOOOE-tOO ; Rot. Angle - .0
Emission Units • GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor - 3600.0
Output Units - GRAMS/M**2
••Input Runstream File: steama_dw.ind , "Output Print File: steama_dw out
••Detailed Error/Message File:
STEAMA_DW.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-111
-------
ASHA_2.00T
*** ISCOMJEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC •••
•** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt. *•• 10:57:13
PACE 2
•*• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DPADLT DRYDPL WZTDPL
• •• POINT SOORCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) IOEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .10000E+01 23.9 49.0 212.1 £-71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 TV-3-112
-------
ASHA_2.OUT
•" ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 **• ••• WTI fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
•** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass Wt. ••* 10-57-13
•** MODSLDK3 OPTIONS USED: DBPOS RURAL ELZV DPADLT DRYTPL WETDPL *°E 3
*•• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-113
-------
ASH»_2.OUT
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WIT Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
••• One Point «ource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Ma*j wt. ••• 10:57:13
PAGE 4
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL BLEV DFADLT DRYDPL WETDPL
••« SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA •**
**• SOURCE ID » STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - PODK •••
MASS FRACTION -
.04260, .08510. .17020. .19150, .19150. .11910. .10000, .05000, .04000, .01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS I -
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000. .18000. .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM**3) •
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEP [LIQJ 1/(S-MM/HR).
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .50E-04, .60E-04, .90E-04, .13E-03, .15E-03, .20E-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/(S-MM/HR)»
.70E-04, .47E-04, .17E-04, .17E-04, .20E-04, .30E-04, .43E-04, .50E-04, .67E-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-114
-------
ASHA_2.00T
ISCOMDEP VBRSIOH 94227 •"
* MODELDK! OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DFABLT
••• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS ••»
••• WTI fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC
*** One Point *ouree; 936 receptor* up to SOKM away; Mass wt.
DRTOPL WETDPL
10:57:13
PAGE 5
SOURCE ID:
IPV BH
1 29.1,
7 67
13 25.8,
19 29.1,
25 14.9,
31 25.8,
STEAM
BW WAR
25.9, 0
IS. 4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IPV BH
2 29.1,
8 25.8,
14 25.8,
20 29.1,
26 25.8.
32 25.8,
BH HAK
24.7 0
24.8 0
22.4 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
22.4 0
IFV BH
3 29.1,
9 25. 8,
15 25. S,
21 29.1,
27 25.8,
33 25.8,
BW HAK
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV BH
4 24.4
10 25.8
16 29.1
22 24.4
28 25.8
34 29.1
BW HAK
28.9. 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9. 0
27.3. 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
5 24.4,
11 25.8.
17 2S.1,
23 24.4,
29 25.8,
35 29.1,
BW HAK
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3. 0
25.9. 0
IFV BH
6 24.4.
12 25.8,
18 29.1,
24 24.4,
30 25.8,
36 29.1,
BW WAK
24. 6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume TV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-115
-------
ASHA_2.OUT
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BUG •••
*•• One Point source; 936 receptor*-up to 50KM away; Mass Wt. *•• 10:57:13
PAGE 17
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELBV DPADLT DRTOFL WETDPL
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB *
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 96.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-116
-------
ASHA_2.0UT
•• ISCOMDBP VERSION 94227 **«
••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
**• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Mass wt.
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDPL
10:57:13
PAGE 18
••* METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING •**
(1-YES; 0-NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 lllllillll 1111111111
1111111111 lllllillll lllllillll lllllillll lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
111111
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll
lllllillll lllllillll lllllillll
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
••• UPPER BOUND OP FIRST THROUGH FIFTH HIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14. 8.23, 10.80,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •*•
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.3SOOOE*00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
-70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.15000E+00
.35000E1-00
.550«OEi-00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOE-rOO
. 15000E+00
.35000E*00
.55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E»00
.35000E»00
.5SOOOE+00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOB-00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOEfOO
OOOOOE-cOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
. OOOOOE-.00
.OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOEi-00
. OOOOOB-.00
OOOOOE-fOO
.20000E-01
35000B-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
-OOOOOEfOO
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE-t-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-117
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV
ASHA_2.0CT
HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point aource; 936 receptors up to SOKM away; Mua wt.
DRYDPL WETDFL
10:57:13
PAGE 19
•" THE FIRST 24 HOURS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA •••
FILE
SURF;
depbin
ICE STAT
met
[ON
N
NO. :
AME:
YEAR:
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
94823
WTI
1993
FLOW SPEED
HOUR VECTOR IM/S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 4.47
115.0 4.47
120.0 4.02
123.0 5.36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 .58
124.0 .68
124.0 .68
113.0 .23
97.0 .68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9 .4, F6 . 1. 12, 2F7
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
IK) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273 3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
601.6 601. 6
617.6 617.6
633.5 633.5
649.5 649.5
665.4 665.4
681.4 681.4
697.3 697.3
713.3 713.3
729.2 729.2
745.2 745.2
761.1 761.1
777.1 777.1
793.0 793.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
269.9 4 809.0 809.0
1, £9. 4, £10.1
USTAR M-O
(M/S)
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2874
.4266
.3820
.3819
.3355
.3534
.3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3817
.3354
.2310
.1178
.1178
.0982
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
,£8. 4, £5
LENGTH
(M)
176.8
283.7
175.6
175.4
128.1
281.8
225.3
224.6
172.9
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
I,i4.£7.2)
Z-0 Zd
(M) (Ml
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
.3000 1.5
IPCODE
13
0
0
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
0
28
0
28
PRATE
(nm/HR)
.00
.25
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
.00
.00
.00
NOTES' STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2«B, 3-C, 4-D, 5-E AND 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-118
-------
ASHB_C.OOT
*•• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•* ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt. •*• 02:23:06
PAGE 1
• •• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCNC RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL HETDPL
*•• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •«•
"Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model IB Setup Por Calculation of Average Concentration Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model Uses WET DEPLETION. HDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWGAS.LWPART -FT
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound' Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels 5
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 80.8
(m ACL) 111.3
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(sI; and 936 Receptor(s)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Teating.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values {MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Piled) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTPILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs. Anem. Hgt. (m) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - .OOOOE+00 ; Rot. Angle - .0
Emission Units « GRAKS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor » .10000E+07
Output Units " KICROGRAXS/M--3
••Input Runstream File- steamb_c.inc ; ••Outriut Print File: steamb c.out
••Detailed Error/Message File:
STEAKB_C. ERR
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-119
-------
ASHB_C.OUT
•• ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227 *•* *•• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC *••
•*• One Point source: 936 receptors up to 50KK away; Surface Wt. *•• 02:23:06
PAGE 2
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL KETDPL
•** POINT SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDDC EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. I CRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .10000E+01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-120
-------
ASHB_C.OUT
••• ISCOMDEF VERSION 94227 •" "• WTI Fugitive source nodeling - ASH HANDLING /STEAM BLDG •••
•** One Point aource; 936 recepcors up to SOKM away; Surface Wt. *•• 02:23:06
PAGE 3
••• HODELUK; OPTIONS USED: cone RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL METDPL
*** SOURCE IDs DEFIKIMG SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-121
-------
ASHB.C.OUT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 "• ••• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •»
*•• One Point aource; 936 receptors up to 501CM sway; Surface wt. ••• 02:23:06
PAGE 4
• MODELDC OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
••• SOURCE FARTICOIATE/GAS DATA «•
"• SOURCE ID « STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE » POIHT **•
MASS FRACTION '
.00414, .01301, .05288, .10060, .13832, .12745. .16051, .12038, .18640, .09631,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) >
2.97000, 1.89000. .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM"3> -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEP [LIQi 1/IS-MM/KR)*
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .50E-04, .60E-04, .90E-04, .13E-03. .15E-03, .20E-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/IS-MM/HRI-
.70E-04, .47E-04, .17E-04, .17E-04, .20E-04, .30E-04, .43B-04, .50E-04, .67E-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-122
-------
••• ISCOHDEP VXRSION 94227 •••
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
SOURCE ID: STEAM
ASHB_C.OUT
•• WTI Fugitiv* lource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC
**• On* Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM avay; Surface Wt.
RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS •••
02:23:0e
PAGE 5
DRYDPL WETDPL
IFV BH
1 29.1,
7 6.7,
13 25.8.
19 29.1,
25 14.9,
31 25.8,
BW WAK
25.9, 0
16.4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV BH
2 29.1,
8 25.8,
14 25.8,
20 29.1,
26 25.8,
32 25.8,
BW WAK
24.7 0
24.8 0
22.4 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
22.4 0
IFV BH
3 29.1,
9 25.8,
15 25.8,.
21 29.1,
27 25.8,
33 25.8,
BW WAK
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1. 0
21.8. 0
26.4. 0
20.1. 0
IFV BH
4 24.4
10 25.8
16 29.1
22 24.4
28 25.8
34 29.1
BW WAK
28.9. 0
27.3, 0
25.9. 0
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
5 24.4,
11 25.8,
17 29.1,
23 24.4.
29 25.8,
35 29.1,
BW WAK
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
6 24.4.
12 25.8,
18 29.1,
24 24.4,
30 25.8,
36 29.1.
BW WAK
24.6. 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-123
-------
ASHB.C.OUT
•*• ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 *•• ••* WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG **•
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Ht. •*• 02:23.06
PAGE 17
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS HAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 9-.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 «2.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 rV-3-114
-------
ISCOMDBP VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
ASHB_C.OUT
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM any; Surface Wt.
OFAULT
DRYDPL WETDPL
02:23:06
PAGE 18
»•• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING •*•
(1-YES; O'NO)
11111
11111
i 1 1 1 1
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS IHCLDDED IN THE DATA FILE.
•*• UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
.70000E-01 70000E-01
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
10000B+00 .lOOOOE+00
. 15000E+00 .15000E+00
. 35000B+00 . 35000B+00
.55000E+00 .55000E+00
4
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
10000E+00
. 15000E+00
.35000E+00
. 55000E4-00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOBtOO
.3SOOOEfOO
,55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E*00
.15000E+00
.35000E4-00
.55000E»00
••• VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS •••
{DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY WIND SPEED CATEGORY
CATEGORY 123456
A .OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE-fOO OOOOOE-cOO . OOOOOE*00 .OOOOOE*00 .OOOOOE4-00
B . OOOOOE-fOO .OOOOOBi-00 OOOOOE»00 . OOOOOE»00 . OOOOOEtOO . OOOOOEtOO
C .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE-t-00 OOOOOE-fOO OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE-*-00 .OOOOOE+00
O .OOOOOE-t-00 OOOOOE-t-00 .OOOOOE-t-00 OOOOOB+00 .OOOOOE-fOO .OOOOOB-t-00
E 20000E-01 20000E-01 .20000E-0'. -20000E-01 .20000E-01 -20000E-01
P .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-0' 35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-125
-------
ASHB_C.OUT
ISCOKDEF VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
HTI Fugitive lource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point aource; 936 receptors up to 50KH away; Surface Wt.
RUFAL ELEV
DFAULT
02.23:06
PACE 19
DRYDPL WETDFL
*•• THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •••
FILE: depbin.met
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTO
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412.2F9.4,F6.1,12,2P7.1,f9.4,£10.1,£8.4,£5.1.14,£7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 94823
HAHE: HTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 4.47
112.0 S.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113 . 0 . 02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 4.47
118.0 3.58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP STAB MHCIHS HEIGHT (Ml
(Kl CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
601. «
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
309.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2874
.4266
.3820
.3819
.3355
.3534
.3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3817
.3354
.2310
.1178
.1178
.0982
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
M-0 LENGTH Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(Ml (HI (Ml
176.8 .3000 1.5 13
283.7 .3000 1.5 0
175.
6 .3000 1.5 0
175.4 .3000 1.5 28
128.
281.
1 .3000 1.5 28
3 .3000 1.5 28
225.3 .3000 1.5 28
224.
172.
-999.
i .3000 1.5 28
9 .3000 1.5 28
3 .3000 1.5 28
-999.0 .3000 1.5 28
-999.
-999.
3 .3000 1.5 28
3 .3000 1.5 28
-999.0 .3000 1.5 28
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
PRATE
B, 3«C, 4-D, 5-E AND 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-126
-------
ASHB_W.OOT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••* •*• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLIM3/STEAM BLDG ••*
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface we. ••* 20:43:21
PAGE I
'•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: HDEP RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDFL HETDPL
•*• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ••*
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Wet DEPosition Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model Uses MET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LHGAS.LWPAKT -FT
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dovnwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calais Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound* Values for Supersguat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levela : 3
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45 7
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels . 5 v
(m AGLI 30.0 }
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 80.8
(m AGL) 111.3
(m AGL) 152.3999
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes. 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s): and 936 Keceptorls}
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected.
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following DEPO Values: c for Caljn Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coe£. - OOOOE»00 ; Rot. Angle « .0
Emission Units « GRAMS/SEC , Emission Rate Unit Factor - 3600 0
Output Units - CRAMS/M**2
••Input Runstreaa File: steamb.w.ind . "Output Print File: steamb w out
••Detailed Error/Message File:
STEAMB W.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-?-127
-------
ASHB_W.OUT
•*• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••* WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM ELDS •*•
*" One Point *ource; 936 receptors up to SGKM away; Surface Wt. ••• 20:43:21
PAGE 2
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL HETDPL
•*• POINT SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION KATE
SOURCE - PART. (GRAMS/SECI X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. [METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SECI (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .10000E»01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-128
-------
ASHB_W.OUT
••• XSCONDEP VERSION 94227 ••* *•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDO •••
**• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt. *•* 20:43:21
PAGE 3
••* MODELING OPTIONS USED: HDEF RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
*•• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-129
-------
ASHB_W.OUT
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••* WTI Fugitive lource modeling - ASH HAKDLINS/STEAK 8LDO •«•
••• One Point lource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt. *•* 20:43:21
PAGE 4
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELFV DPAOLT DRYDPL WETDFL
•" SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA **«
*•• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TVPE • POUJT ••*
MASS FRACTION -
.00414, .01301, .05288, .10060. .13832, .12745, .16051, .12038, .18640, .09631,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000.
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CH—3) -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEF [LIQJ 1/(S-«M/HR).
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .50E-04, .60E-04, .90E-04, .13E-03, .15E-03, .20E-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEF (ICE] 1/IS-MK/HR)-
.70E-04, .47E-04, .17E-04, .17E-04. .20E-04, .30E-04, .43E-04, .50E-04, .67E-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-130
-------
ASHB.W.OUT
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •••
••* One Point source
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT
*** DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS ••*
•• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
••* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt.
DRTOPL WETDPL
20:43:21
PAGE 5
SOURCE ID: STEAM
IFV
1
7
13
19
25
31
BH
29.1.
6.7.
25.8,
29.1,
14.9,
25.8,
BW WAX
25.9, 0
16.4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
BW HAK
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH
29.1.
25.8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8.
BW HAK
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1. 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH BW WAK
24.4 28.9, 0
25.8
29.1
24.4
25.8
29.1
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9. 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
27.0, 0
27.3. 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3. 0
25.9, 0
IFV
6
12
IS
24
30
36
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1.
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
26 4, 0
25.9. 0
24.6. 0
26.4. 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix F/-3
IV-3-131
-------
ASKB_H.OUT
••* ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •*• •*• WTI Fugitive aouree mode ling - ASH HANDLBIS/STEAM BLDG • ••
•*• One Point source; 936 receptor« up to 50KM away; Surface wt. ••• 20:43:21
PAGE 17
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRVDPL WETDPL
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
Hi DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS HAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE RECEPTOR LOCATION DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YK (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 96.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-132
-------
ASHB_W.OUT
•• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt.
•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
DRYDPL WETDPL
20-43:21
PAGE 18
••• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELFCTED FOR PROCESSING •••
II-YES; 0>HO)
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
•" UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
**• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS ••*
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.ISOOOEfOO
.35000E»00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E»00
35000E»00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E+00
,35000E*00
.55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E*00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOE-cOO
.150002*00
.35000E-TOO
. 55000E»00
.70000B-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E»00
.350008*00
.55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
.OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE-rOO
OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
234
OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE»00 .OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00 OOOOOB+00 OOOOOB+00
OOOOOE»00 OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE*00 OOOOOE»00 000008*00
.20000E-01 20000E-01 20000E-01
.35000E-01
35000E-01
.35000E-01
. OOOOOEi-00
. OOOOOE»00
.000008*00
.OOOOOE-i-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-133
-------
ISCOHDBP VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDBP RURAL ELBV
ASHB_W.OUT
'•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING /STEAM BLDG
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt.
20:43:21
FACE 19
DPAULT
DRYDPL WETDPL
•• THE FIRST 24 HOOKS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA ••*
FILE: depbin.met
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.t.fS.l.I2.2P7.1,f9.4,flO.l.£8.4,fS.l.i4, f! .2}
UPPER AIR STATION MO.: 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR MOUTH
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
DAY HOUR
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
1 10
1 11
1 12
1 13
1 14
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
FLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 4.47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 3.58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113 .0 3 . 13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
(K) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270,4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
601.6
617.6
S33.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809 0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2874
.4266
.3820
.3819
.3355
.3534
.3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3817
.3354
.2310
.1178
.1178
.0982
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
M-0 LENGTH
(M)
176.8
283.7
175.6
175.4
128.1
281.8
225.3
224.6
172.9
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.4
172.4
81.7
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
Z-0
(M)
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
.3000
Zd
(M)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1 5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1 5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
IPCODE
13
0
0
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
0
28
0
28
PRATE
(nm/KR!
.00
.25
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
.00
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
*•• NOTES.
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, 5»E AND 6-F.
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WUJD IS BLOWHK
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-134
-------
ASHB_D.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/25/95
*** One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt. ••• 18:55:36
• •• MODELDIO OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
••• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
*• Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Dry DEPosition Values.
~ SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWBAS.LWPART -FT
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. "Upper Bound" Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9 No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(m AGL} 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels . 5
Im AGL) 30.0000
[m AGL) 45.7000
Im AGL) 80.8000
Im AGL) 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Sourcels); 1 Source Group(s), and 936 Receptorls)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (HAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Pile(s) of High Values for Plotting IPLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE. The Following Flags May Appear Following DEPO Values: c for Calm Houra
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) « 30.00 , Decay Coef « 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
Emission Units » GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor « 3600.0
Output Units • GRAMS/M**2
••Input Runstream File: steamb.d.ind ; **0ucput Print File: steamb d out
••Detailed Error/Message File: STEAHB_D.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-135
-------
ASHB_D.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WTI Fugitive aource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG **• 01/25/95
••• One Point aource; 936 receptor! up to 50KM away; Surface Ht. ••• 18:55:36
PAGE 2
••' MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL HETOPL
••• POINT SOURCE DATA **•
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (CRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DBS.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 0.10000E+01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3 IV-3-136
-------
ASHB_O.OUT
• •• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •*• *•• WTI Puaitive source nodelina - ASH HANDLIHG/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/25/1'i
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt. ••• 18-55-3!
«•• MODELING OPTIOHS USED: DDEF RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRVDPL WETDPLPAGE 3
*** SOURCE IDs DEPUTING SOURCE GROUPS •••
GROUP ID SOURCE IDs
ALL STEAM
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-137
-------
ASHB_D.ODT
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/25/95
*•* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt. ••• 18:55:36
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELZV DFADLT DRYDFL WETDPLI>*GE *
••• SOURCE PARTICOLATE/GAS DATA •••
*•• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS FRACTION -
0.00414, 0.01301, 0.05288, 0.10060, 0.13832, 0.12745, 0.16051, 0.12038, 0.18640, 0.09631,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, 0.93000, 0.55000, 0.40000, 0.27000, 0.18000, 0.12000, 0.06200. 0.03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM**3) -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEF [LIQ] 1/IS-MM/HR).
0.21E-03,0.14E-03,0.50E-04,0.50E-04,0.60E-04,0.90E-04,0.13E-03,0.15E-03.0.20E-03,0.22E-03,
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/IS-MM/HRI-
0.70E-04,0.47E-04,0.17E-04,0.17E-04,0.20E-04,0.30E-04,0.43E-04.0.50E-04,0.67E-04, 0.73B-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-138
-------
• HTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLDG
* One Point lource; 936 receptors up to 50m away; Surface wt.
ASHB_D.OUT
••• ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 **•
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT
•*• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS
SOURCE ID: STEAM
01/25/95
18:55:36
PACE 5
DRVDPL WETDPL
IFV BH
1 29.1.
1 6.7.
13 25.8,
19 29.1,
25 14.9.
31 25.8,
BW MAX
25.9, 0
16 4. 0
24.8, 0
25.9, 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV BH
2 29.1,
8 25.8,
14 25.8,
20 29.1.
26 25.8,
32 25.8,
BW HAK
24.7 0
24.8 0
22.4 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
22.4 0
IFV BH
3 29.1.
9 25.8,
15 25.8,
21 29.1.
27 25.8.
33 25.8.
BW WAX
21.8 0
26.4 0
20.1 0
21.8 0
26.4 0
20.1 0
IFV BH
4 24.4.
10 25.8,
16 29.1,
22 24.4,
28 25.8,
34 29.1,
BW WAX
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9. 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
5 24.4,
11 25.8,
17 29.1,
23 24.4,
29 25.8,
35 29.1,
BW WAK
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
6 24.4,
12 25.8,
18 29.1,
24 24.4,
30 25.8,
36 29.1,
BW WAK
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25 9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-139
-------
ASHB_D.OOT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• •*• HTI Fugitive lource modeling - ASH HANDLIHS/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/25/95
••• One Point (ouree; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt. ••• 18:55:36
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYD
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3'ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS KAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) VR I METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM 0.0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-140
-------
ASHB_D.OUT
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •••
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC
One Point lource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Surface wt.
*•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL WETDFL
01/25/95
18:55:36
PAGE 18
•• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1-YES; O'NOI
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
1111111
1111111
1111111
1111111
1111111
1111111
1111111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
... UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23. 10.80,
•" WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOE-t-00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
-lOOOOE+00 .10000E+00
. 15000E+00 . 15000E+00
.35000E+00 .35000E+00
. 55000E+00 . 55000E»00
4
. 70000E-01
. 70000S-01
. 10000B-00
.150008*00
.35000E+00
.550008+00
.70000E-01
.70000H-01
.10000E»00
.15000E-00
.35000E+00
.55000EfOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E»00
.3SOOOE1-00
. 55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE«00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
3
.000005*00
.OOOOOE'OO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE'OO
.20000E-0]
.35000E-01
.OOOOOB-fOO
.OOOOOE*00
OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOEi-00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE-cOO
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOBfOO
OOOOOE-fOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix FV-3
IV-3-141
-------
ASHB_D.OUT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELZV
WI Fugitive source mod* ling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOG
One Point source; 938 receptors up to SOKM away; Surface Wt.
DFAULT
DRYDFL WETOFL
01/25/95
18:55:36
PAGE 19
•" THE FIRST 24 HOOKS O? METEOROLOGICAL DATA •••
FILE: depbin.net
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1,12,2P7.1,f9.4,£10.1,f8.4,£5.1.i4,£7.21
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY HOUR
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
1 10
1 11
I 12
1 13
1 14
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 IB
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
FLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 3.58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2.68
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
(K) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4 601.6
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
£81.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
0.3366
0.4269
0.3363
0.3363
0.2874
0.4266
0.3820
0.3819
0.3355
0.3534
0.3534
0.3926
0.4712
0.4319
0.3817
0.3354
0.2310
0.1178
0.1178
0.0982
0.1178
0.1374
0.1374
0.1178
M-0 LENGTH Z-0
(M)
176.
9 0.3000
283.7 0.3000
175.
175.
i 0.3000
1 0.3000
128.1 0.3000
281.
i 0.3000
225.3 0.3000
224. <
172.
-999.
> 0.3000
» 0.3000
) 0.3000
-999.0 0.3000
-999.
-999.
> 0.3000
) 0.3000
-999.0 0.3000
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
0.3000
Zd IPCODE
(K)
1.5 13
1.5 0
1.5 0
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 28
1.5 0
1.5 28
1.5 0
1.5 28
PRATE
Una/HR)
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NOTES: STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D. 5-Z AND 6«F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix F/-3
IV-3-142
-------
ASHB_2.0UT
••* ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *** ••• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG **•
**" One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface Wt. *** 16:37:51
PAGE 1
*** MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY "*
"Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
**Model Is Setup For Calculation of Total DEPOSiti^n Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
**Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE » T
*-Model Uses WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
"SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWGAS.LWPART » FT
"Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
"Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1 Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound" Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
"Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain
-•Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
"•Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels . 3
(m AGL) 30.0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 152.3999
"•Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels . 5
(m AGL) 30 0
(m AGL) 45.7
(m AGL} 80.8
(m AGL) 111 3
(m AGL) 152.3999
"Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average (s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes- 1 Source(a), 1 Source Group(s), and 936 Receptor(a)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword}
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE. The Following Flags May Appear Following DEPO Values- c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
"Misc Inputs Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 , Decay Coef. » .OOOOE+00 ; Rot. Angle - .0
Emission Units « GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor - 3600.0
Output Units * GRAMS/M" 2
"•Input Runstream File- steamb_dw.ind ; ••Output Print File: steamb dw.out
"Detailed Error/Message Pile: ~
STEAMB_DW.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-143
-------
ASKB_2.OOT
•** ISCOMDEP VERSIOH 94227 •" *•* MTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
••• One Point aourcei 936 receptor! up to SOKM away; Surface Wt. *•• 16.37:51
PAGE 2
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DFAOLT DRYDPL WETDPL
... POINT SOURCE DATA •**
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BOILDIMG EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAKETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .10000E»01 23.9 49.0 212.1 S.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-144
-------
ASHB_2.0UT
••* ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •" •" WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••*
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KK away; Surface wt. ••• 16:37:51
PAGE 3
••* MODELING OPTIOBS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDPL
••• SOURCE IDs DEPINnJG SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
ALL STEAM
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-145
-------
ASHB_2.0UT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 "* ••• WTI Fugitive *ource mode lino - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG • ••
••• One Point louree; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Surface wt. *•• 16:37:51
PAGE 4
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DPAOLT DRYDPL WETDPL
••• SOURCE PARTICULATE/GAS DATA •*•
*** SOURCE ID * STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE » POINT •••
MASS FRACTION -
.00414, .01301, .05288, .10060. .13832. .12745, .16051, .12038. .18640, .09631,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/CM"3) -
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000. 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000,
SCAV COEP [LIQ] 1/IS-MM/HRI-
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .50E-04, -60E-04, .90E-04, .13E-03, .15E-03, .20E-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEP (ICE] 1/IS-HM/HR).
.70E-04, .47E-04, .17E-04, .17E-04, .20E-04, .30E-04. .43E-04, .50E-04, .67E-04. .73E-04,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-146
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV
ASHB_2.OUT
HIT Fugitive lource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point Bource; 936 receptors up Co SOKM avay; Surface wt.
••• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BOILDDC DDOMSIONS •••
SOURCE ID: STEAM
DRYDPL WETDPL
16:37:51
PAGE 5
IFV BH
1 29.1.
7 6.7,
13 25. 8,
19 29.1,
25 14.9,
31 25.8,
BW WAK
25.9, 0
16.4, 0
24.8, 0
25.9. 0
65.3, 0
24.8, 0
IFV BH
2 29.1,
8 25.8,
14 25.8,
20 29.1,
26 25.8,
32 25.8,
BW WAK
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
24.7, 0
24.8, 0
22.4, 0
IFV BH
3 29.1
9 25.8
15 25.8
21 29.1
27 25.8
33 25.8
BW WAK
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV BH
4 24.4,
10 25.8,
16 29.1,
22 24.4,
28 25.8,
34 29.1,
BH WAK
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
5 24.4
11 25.8
17 29.1
23 24.4
29 25.8
35 29.1
BW WAX
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV BH
6 24.4,
12 25.8,
18 29.1,
24 24.4,
30 25.8.
36 29.1.
BW WAK
24 6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
F/-3-147
-------
ASHB_2.0OT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive »ource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG *••
""" One Point source; 936 receptor! up to 5QKH away; Surface Wt. *" 16:37:51
PAGE 17
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRYDPL WETDFL
* SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAU 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS HAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM . -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-148
-------
ASHB_2.OUT
1SCOKDEP VERSION 94227 *••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV
••* WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
•*• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Surface wt.
DRYDPL WETDPL
IS 37:51
PAGE 18
KETEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1*YES. 0-NOI
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
•" UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •**
(METERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •*•
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.ISOOOE-fOO
.35000E»00
.SSOOOE-fOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E«00
.15000E+00
.35000E-00
.SSOOOE-fOO
.70000E-01
.70000B-01
.10000E»00
.15000E«00
.35000E+00
. SSOOOE-fOO
.70000E-01
70000E-01
.1DOOOE+00
.15000E»00
.35000E»00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E+00
.35000E»00
. 5SOOOE4-00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
. 10000E»00
. 15000E»00
.35000EfOO
.55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
T
. OOOOOE«-00
OOOOOE+00
.0000021-00
.OOOOOE-fOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
OOOOOE*00
.OOOQOE*00
.OOOOOE»00
,OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
3
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE»00
OOOOOEfOO
.20000E-01
35000E-01
OOOOOEi-00
OOOOOEi-00
.OOOOOE»00
OOOOOE-fOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOEfOO
OOOOOE-fOO
20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.OOOOOE-fOO
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-149
-------
ASHB_2.0DT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••*
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV
•• WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/1 STEAM BLDG
••* One Point source; 936 receptm up to 50KM away; Surface Wt.
16:37-51
PACE 19
DFAULT
DRYDPL WETDPL
... THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FILE: depbin.met
SURFACE STATION NO.: 91B23
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,P6.1,12,2P7.1,f9.4,f10.1,£8.4,£5.1.a4,£7.21
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
MONTH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
DAY HOUR
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
1 10
1 11
1 12
1 13
1 14
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
PLOW SPEED
VECTOR (M/S)
104.0 4.47
112.0 S.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
120.0 .02
123.0 .36
130.0 .92
124.0 .92
115.0 .47
107.0 .02
113.0 .02
108.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 3.58
124.0 2.68
124.0 2. 66
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.68
113 . 0 3 . 13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP STJ
(K) CIJ
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
IB MIXING
ISS RURAL
1 601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
7«1.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
HEIGHT (M)
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/SI
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2874
.4266
.3820
.3819
.3355
.3534
.3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3817
.3354
.2310
.1178
.1178
.0982
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
M-0 LENCT
(Ml
176.
283.
175.1
175.
128.
281.
225.
224.
172.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999. <
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
m z-o zd
(M) (Ml
! .3000 1.
t .3000 1.
> .3000 1.
1 .3000 1.
L .3000 1.
i .3000 1.
1 .3000 1.
» .3000 1.
) .3000 1.
) .3000 1.
) .3000 1.
) .3000 1.
) .3000 1.
) .3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
.3000 1.
1PCODE
5 13
5 0
5 0
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 28
5 0
5 28
5 0
5 28
PRATE
(mn/HR)
00
.25
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4»D, 5»E AND 6»P.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-150
-------
"• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 "• ••* WT1 Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDO •" 12/27/94
••* One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM nay; Vapor. •" 17:14:25
PAGE 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
"• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •*•
"•Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
"Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - F
"Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - F
••NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
"Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4 . Use Calms Processing Routine.
S. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound* Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
Im AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45 7000
(m AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
Im AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
Im AGL) 80.8000
Im AGL) 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Averagels) of: 1-KR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes. 1 Sourcels); 1 Source Group(s): and 936 Receptor(s)
"The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Maximum Short Term values (MMCTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filets) of High Values for Plotting IPLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE. The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values, c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (a) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef • 0.0000 , Rot. Angle • 0.0
Qussion Units « GRAMS/SEC . Emission Rate Unit Factor * 0-10000E+07
Output Units - MICROGRAMS/M"3
••Input Runstream File- steam.me . "Output Print File: steam.out
••Detailed Error/Message File: STEAM.ERR
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 PV-3-151
-------
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •*• ••• mi Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLIM3/STEAM ELDS *•• 12/27/94
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. *•• 17:14:25
PAGE 2
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELZV DFAULT
*•• POINT SOURCE DATA •"
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X f ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 0 O.lOOOOEtOl 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 F/-3-152
-------
••• ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 ••* *** WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG *** 12/27/94
••• One Point lource; 936 receptorj up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 17.14:25
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS OSED: CONC RDFAI. ELEV DPADLT
•*• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE IDs
ALL STEAM
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-153
-------
ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 ••• •*• WTI Fugitive gource modeling - ASH HAKDI.IM3/STEAM BLDG ••• 12/27/94
••• On* Point source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 17 14:25
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT
••• SODRCE PARTICUIATE/OAS DATA •*•
*«* SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SODRCE TYPE
SCAV COEP [LIQ] 1/IS-MM/HR).
O.OOEfOO,
SCAV COEP tICE] 1/IS-MM/HR).
O.OOE*00,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-154
-------
ASHC.OOT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••* WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 12/27/94
*** On* Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. *•* 17:14:25
PAGE S
•*« MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
••• DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS •«*
SOURCE ID: STEAK
IFV
1
7
13
19
25
31
BH
29.1,
6.7,
25.8,
29.1,
14.9,
25.8,
BW WAX
25.9 0
16.4
24.8
25.9
65.3
24.8
0
0
0
0
0
IFV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
29.1,
25. 8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
BW HAK
24.7, 0
24 8, 0
22.4, 0
24.7, 0
24.8. 0
22.4. 0
IFV
3
9
15
21
27
33
BH
29.1.
25.8,
25.8,
29.1,
25.8,
25.8,
BW HAK
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
21.8, 0
26.4, 0
20.1, 0
IFV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW HAK
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
28.9, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW WAX
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9. 0
27.0, 0
27.3, 0
25.9, 0
IFV
6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
24.4,
25.8,
29.1,
BW HAK
24.6, 0
26 4, 0
25.9, 0
24.6, 0
26.4, 0
25.9, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-15*
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 WTI Fugitive lource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BUS «• 12/27/94
••• One Point lource; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 17-14-25
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT ?AGE 17
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB *
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS KAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) TO (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 Si.O 46 16
STEAM 50.0 86.6 45 80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48 93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62 72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM 0.0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-1
-------
ASHC.OUT
•*• ISCOKDEP VERSION 94227 •••
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
i MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL BLEV
12/27/94
17:14:25
PAGE 18
«•• METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1-YES; 0-NO)
1
1
1
1
1
a i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
111
111
111
111
i
i
i
i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
111
111
111
i
i
i
i
1111
i i a i
1111
1111
i
i
i
i
1111
1111
1111
1111
111
111
111
111
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
l i
111
111
111
111
111
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
«•• UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
**• HIND PROFILE EXPONENTS
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
70000E-01 .70000E-01
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
. 10000E+00 . 10000E+00
.15000E+00 .15000E+00
.35000E+00 .35000E+00
. 55000E+00 . 55000E+00
4
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
. 15000E+00
.3SOOOE+00
.55000E+00
70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.350008*00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
*•• VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS *•*
{DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY WIND SPEED CATEGORY
CATEGORY 123456
A .OOOOOE*00 .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE»00 OOOOOE»00 .OOOOOE*00 .OOOOOE*00
B .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+OO OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00
C .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00
D .OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00 OOOOOE+00
E .20000E-01 .20000E-01 20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01
f .35000E-01 .35000E-01 35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-157
-------
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELIM3 OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
WTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HMIDLINC/STEAN BUG
One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor.
DFAULT
12/27/9*
17:14:25
PACE 19
"• THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF HETEOROLOCICAL DATA
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FLOW
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR VECTOR
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
* NOTES • STAI
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ILTTV
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CLASS
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
104.0
112.0
106.0
115.0
120.0
123.0
130.0
124.0
115.0
107.0
113.0
108.0
114.0
107.0
120.0
119.0
118.0
124.0
124.0
113.0
97.0
113.0
117.0
152.0
SPEED
(M/S)
4.47
5.36
4.47
4.47
4.02
5.36
.92
.92
.47
.02
.02
.47
.36
.92
.92
.47
.58
2.68
2.68
2.23
2.68
3.13
3.13
2 68
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
(K! CLASS RURAL URBAN
275. 4 601.6
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
272.5
271.9
271.0
270.9
270.6
270.9
271.1
271.0
270.8
270.5
270.4
270.4
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
»wn fi»p
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
909.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
609.0
809.0
USTAR M-O LENGTH Z-0
(M/S) IN) (M)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 . 0000
0.0000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Zd IPCODE PRATE
(Ml {DBl/HRI
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWD«3.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-158
-------
APPENDIX IV-4
ISC-COMPDEP Contour Plots
Main Incinerator Stack - Base Case Simulations
IV-4-1 to IV-4-8 - Mass-weighted pollutant distribution.
IV-4-9 to IV-4-16 - Surface area-weighted pollutant distribution.
IV-4-17 to IV-4-18 - Vapor pollutant.
Fugitive Emission Sources
IV-4-19 to IV-4-20 - Truck wash
IV-4-21 to IV-4-22 - Organic waste tank farm stacks
IV-4-23 to IV-4-24 - Open wastewater tank
IV-4-25 to IV-4-26 - Carbon adsorption bed stack
IV-4-27 to IV-4-44 - Ash handling stack
IV-4-27 to IV-4-34: mass-weighted pollutant distribution
IV-4-35 to IV-4-42: surface area-weighted distribution
IV-4-43 to IV-4-44: vapor distribution
Volume IV
Appendix FV-4 IV-4-1
-------
50000-
40000-
30000
20000-
10000-
£
o
-10000-
Annual Concentrations Og/m3)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
:0,005
/.;::;v::;•:,.,::;:;, yo:O.Q05
-20000-1 /
-30000-
-40000-
-50000
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
O.OC
O.OC
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-1. Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-2
-------
Annual Concentrations (juig/m
WTJ Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000
500
I
tr
o
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-2. Annual average concentrations lug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-3
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
50000
40000
(•' ' :;:"::-::.:i:::::";if:::
30000-f •-•;r;|i
20000-i::
10000
a:
o
-10000-f;;;i
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
-50000-
0.100
0.050'
0.020I
0.0101
0.0051
0.0021
0.001 (
O.OOOi
o.ooo;
0.0001
o.oooc
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-3. Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-4
-------
OL
O
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
100CH
500
-1000-
0.0001
0.0000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-4. Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-5
-------
50000-
X
H-
o:
o
40000-
30000-
20000
10000-
0-
-10000-
I
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2 )
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.01
O.OC
O.OC
O.OC
O.OC
O.OC
O.OC
O.OC
O.OC
-50000^
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-5. Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-6
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2 )
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000-
500-
o:
O
-500-
-1000-
-1500
0.100
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-6. Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run 1 a
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-1
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
50000
40000-
30000-
20000
1 , • '"r^r-'-r
I 1
- }
0.10<
o:
o
, I V I IS ,»! I . »|l-
' - - 1 -- - r' - ' = , !' , .
-40000
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-7. Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-8
-------
1500-R
1000-1
500-1
£
I
H
tr
o
-500-
-1000-
Total Annual Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-8. Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run la
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain
out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-9
-------
Annual Concentrations (A^g/ni)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000-
I
o
z
-10000-
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
-50000
1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-9. Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-10
-------
1500
1000-
500-
£
I
K
O
-500
Annual Concentrations (jag/m 3 )
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
-1000-
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-10.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-11
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
50000-
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000
e,
X
on
o
-10000- .;
-20000J
-30000-
-40000
-50000
(Hii-::./:--:••:•:
0. iOOC
0.050C
0.020C
0.010C
0.005C
0.002C
O.OOK
o.oooe
o.ooo:
0.0001
o.oooe
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-11.
Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-12
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2 )
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
1500-
0.100(
1000-
500-
X
f-
cr
O
-500
-1000-
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-12.
Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-13
-------
50000
QL
O
40000
30000-
20000-
10000-
0-j
-10000-^
-20000J
-30000-i
-40000-
-50000-
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
•nrtl t-~- \\*tf WftiV V -..•r-'S-. «' T.V*r+J.J>J-^*S';v.'v-»Plk*
0.10000
0.05000
0.02000
0.01000
0.00500
0.00200
0.00100
0.00050
0.00020
0.00010
0.00005
0.00000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-13.
Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-14
-------
oc
a
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2 )
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000-
500-
-1000
-1500
-500-H
0.0001
0.0000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-14.
Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-15
-------
50000
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000-
ce
o
-10000-
-20000--
-30000
-40000-
Total Annual Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
-50000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0
EAST (m)
i r
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure IV-4-15.
Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-16
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
1500
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
EAST (m)
0.1 OOC
0.050C
0.020C
0.010C
0.005C
0.002C
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
1000
1500
Figure IV-4-16.
Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack - Run Ib
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution).
Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-17
-------
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m)
WTI Stack (Vapor)
50000-
40000-
30000-
20000
10000-
-10000-
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
-50000-—
0.006
1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 6 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-17.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run Ic
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 50 km
is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-18
-------
1500
1000-
500-
X
a:
o
z
-soa
Annual Concentrations (jig/m 3)
WTI Stack (Vapor)
-1000-
-1500
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.00
J0.00i
-1500
Figure IV-4-18.
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the incinerator stack - Run Ic
(ISC-COMPDEP, base case, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km
is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-19
-------
50000
40000-
30000-
20000-
100CX>
I
OL
O
-10000-
-2000CH
-30000-
-40000-
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m 3 )
Truck Wash
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-19. Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the truck wash (ISC-COMPDEP,
vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-20
-------
Annual Concentrations (jag/m3)
Truck Wash
1500
1000-
500
I
o:
o
z
-500-
-1000-
-1500-
m
20.00
10.0O
5.000
1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
0.050
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-20.
Annual average concentrations (ng/m3) for the truck wash (ISC-COMPDEP,
vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
-------
Annual Concentrations (jug/m 3)
Organic Waste Tank Farm
50000
40000-
30000-
20000-\
10000-
-10000-
-20000
-30000-
-40000-
1.000
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-21.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the organic waste tank farm
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 50 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-22
-------
Annual Concentrations
Organic Waste Tank Farm
cr
o
z
-T; x fp.
-500
-1000-
-1500-
-1500
-1000
0.100
0.075
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-22.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the organic waste tank farm
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-23
-------
50000
40000-
30000-
X
or
o
Annual Concentrations (|ng/m3)
Open Wastewater Tank
m
O.f
0.2
0.1
O.C
O.C
O.C
O.C
O.C
O.C
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-23.
Annual average concentrations (u,g/m3) for the open wastewater tank
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 50 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-24
-------
Annual Concentrations (jj,g/m "
Open Wastewater Tank
1500
1000-
500-
£
I
QL
O
-500-i
-1000-
-1500
20.00(
10.00(
5.000
1.000
Of
o.:
0.100
0.075
o.c
0.010
0.005
0.000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-24.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the open wastewater tank
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-25
-------
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m 3)
Carbon Adsorption Bed
50000
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000--
X
-10000-
-20000-
-30000-
-40000
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-25.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the carbon adsorption bed
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 50 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-26
-------
Annual Concentrations (Mg/ni)
Carbon Adsorption Bed
a:
o
z
-1000-
-1500-
1.00C
0.50C
0.20C
0.1 OC
0.07J
0.05C
0.02(
O.OK
O.OOi
0.00(
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-26.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the carbon adsorption bed
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-27
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m 3)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
1500
20.00!
1000-
500-
E,
I
a:
O
-500
-1000-
0.075
-15004*
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-28.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-2f>
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
50000
40000
30000-
20000
10000
E,
I
tr
o
2
-10000-
-20000-
-30000
-40000-
-50000-
.
&i3
0.1001
0.0501
0.0201
0.0101
0.0051
0.0021
0.001 (
0.000!
o.ooo;
o.ooo-
o.oooc
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure IV-4-29.
EAST(m)
Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-30
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m2 )
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000-
500-
E.
-500-
-1000-
-1500
0.300!
0.100
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000,
0.000
0.000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-30.
Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-31
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2 )
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
50000-
40000-
30000
20000-i
I
10000-)
a:
o
-10000H
-20000
-30000
-40000
II
0.1000
o.c
o.<
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-31.
Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-32
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000-
500
0.1CK
o.oa
0.02(
E,
I
a.
o
z
-500
-1000-
-150O
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-32.
Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-33
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m2 )
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
50000-
4000
30000
20000
10000
I
I-
QL
O
-10000-
-20000-
-30000-
-4000G
-50000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0100
0.0050
0.0010
0.0005
0.0001
0.0000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-33. Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-24
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
I
or
o
-1000-
0.10CX
0.050C
0.02CX
0.01CX
0.005(
0.002(
-150O
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-34.
Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, mass-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-35
-------
Annual Concentrations (jag/m3)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000
30000-
20000-
10000-
I
o:
o
z
-10000-
-20000-
-30000-
-40000
-50000
0.50C
0.20C
0.10C
0.07J
0.05C
0.02C
0.01C
O.OOJ
O.OOC
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-35. Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed. v
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-36
-------
Annual Concentrations (/ig/m3 )
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000-
500
i
o
-500-
-1000-
-1500
•;• -^«<.'^-'-r^ti^i5;^^
-t . J?*^,- ^-l~**l£'3$J*
kN^^^j^^r^fc^Kff*** ^iH^'.i.isr^BV-^'.^ ^ v,. v* s i j-i^^. ;~i •1.*1.fri.:*;
i*a®&i5^iffi«S^;';S!i',Si'^
w*f^.s-.*r,*^.-f*'#t$fS'f<-f
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2 )
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000
o:
o
-10000
-20000-
-30000
-40000-
-50000-
0.1 OC
0.05C
0.02C
0.01C
O.OOf
0.002
0.001
o.ooc
o.ooc
o.ooc
o.ooc
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-37.
Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-38
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m2 )
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000-
500-
I
cr
o
-500-
-1000-
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
NORTH (m)
Figure IV-4-38.
Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-39
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000-
30000H
20000-j
10000-
£
I
I—
ce
o
-10000
-20000-
-30000-;
-4000QJ
-50000
0.1000
0.0500
I
I
i—i 0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure IV-4-39.
EAST (m)
Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-40
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000
500
§
I
o:
o
H 0.100
I
-10.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.002
0.001
-1000
N o.ooo
o.ooo
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-40.
Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-41
-------
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
I
h-
o:
o
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
-50000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
— 0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-41.
Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 50 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-42
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500-
1000
500
I
-500
-1000-"
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
EAST (m)
I0.3I
• O.Oi
io.o:
I o.o-
o.oc
o.oc
1500
Figure IV-4-42.
Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the ash handling stack
(ISC-COMPDEP, surface area-weighted pollutant distribution). Modeling
domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-43
-------
50000-r
40000
30000-
20000-
10000-
or
o
z
-10000-
-2000CH
-30000-
-40000H
Annual Concentrations (jug/m J
Ash Handling (Vapor)
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-43.
Annual average concentrations (pg/m3) for the ash handling stack - Run Ic
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 50 km is
displayed.
1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.000
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-44
-------
Annual Concentrations (/xg/m
Ash Handling (Vapor)
1500
1000-
I
or
o
z
-1000-
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-44.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) for the ash handling stack - Run Ic
(ISC-COMPDEP, vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is
displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-4f
-------
APPENDIX IV-5
Overview of the CALPUFF Non-Steady-State Dispersion Model
Volume IV
Appendix IV-5 IV-5-1
-------
For Presentation at the Seventl
Joint AMS-AWMA Conference on
Application of Air Pollution
Meteorology, New Orleans, LA
January 13-17, 1991.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CALPUFF NON-STEADY-STATE MODELING SYSTEM
Joseph S. Scire
David G. Strimaitis
Robert J. Yamartino
Sigma Research Corporation
234 Littleton Road. Suite 2E, Westford, MA
01886
1.
INTRODUCTION
Due to Increased concerns over the effects
of toxic pollutants, the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) has sponsored the development of a
generalized non-steady-state modeling system for
toxic air pollutants. The model was intended for
application to individual sources or entire air
basins. The design criteria of the Modeling
system specified the following capabilities: (1)
modeling of relevant processes on scales from tens
of meters to hundreds of kilometers, (2)
applicability to rough or complex terrain
situations. (3) predictions for averaging times
from one hour to one year, (4) point and area
source capabilities, and (5) applicability to
inert pollutants or those subject to-linear
conversion mechanisms.
In order to meet these objectives, a
modeling system was designed which consists of
three basic components: a meteorological modeling
package with both diagnostic and prognostic wind
field generators, a Gaussian puff dispersion model
containing algorithms for building downwash,
subgrid scale complex terrain, overwater transport
and coastal Interaction effects, chemical
transformation, wet removal, and dry deposition,
and postprocessing programs for the manipulation,
time-averaging, and display of the meteorological
data, concentrations, and deposition fluxes
produced by the models.
The CALPUFF modeling system consists of a
total of twelve models and processor programs. In
this abstract, an overview of the modeling system
is presented with a brief description of the major
components of the dispersion model, CALPUFF. The
meteorological and postprocessing components of
the modeling system are also compatible with a new
photochemical model, CALGRID. developed for ARB
under a separate contract (Yamartino et al., 1989;
Scire et al. , 1989).
2.
METEOROLOGICAL MODELING
The meteorological component of the
modeling system consists of several meteorological
data preprocessing programs, a diagnostic wind
field and boundary layer model (CALMET), and a
version of the Colorado State University Mesoscale
Meteorological Model (CSUHM).
The meteorological preprocessors extract
and process surface meteorological data, upper air
observations and precipitation data In the
standard formats available from the National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC) (I.e., CD144 for
surface data. TD-5600 or TD-6201 for upper air
data, and TD-3240 formats for precipitation data).
The programs perform selected quality
assurance/missing value checks and prepare the
data Inputs for the meteorological models. These
programs allow large periods of routinely
available data to be used by the modeling system.
Alternative data formats, more convenient for short
simulations or for use with specialized data sets,
are also allowed.
The diagnostic wind field module of CALMET
was developed by Douglas and Kessler (1988). It
computes three-dimensional grldded fields of
horizontal and vertical wind components. The
model contains parameterizations of slope flow
effects, kinematic terrain influences, terrain
blocking effects, three-dimensional divergence
minimization, and an objective analysis scheme for
Including observational data In the generation of
the wind fields.
The diagnostic model uses a two-step
approach In developing the wind fields. In the
first step, a domain-mean wind field Is adjusted
to account for the effects of terrain and Is
subjected to a divergence minimization procedure
to produce a diagnostic Step 1 wind field. As an
alternative, CALMET provides the option to use ar.
externally generated grldded wind field (e.g., as
produced by a prognostic wind field model) as a
replacement for the diagnostic Step 1 winds. The
replacement grldded field need not use the sane
grid resolution as the CALMET simulation. The
Step 2 procedure Involves the introduction of
observations into the Step 1 wind field (either
diagnostic or prognostic) through an objective
analysis procedure followed by smoothing, and
re-mlnlmizatlon of divergence. Observational data
are weighted heavily by the objective analysis
scheme in data rich areas of the modeling domain.
In data sparse areas, the final wind field is
determined primarily by the Step 1 wind field.
The option to use the prognostic wind field
as the Step 1 winds provides a mechanism for
introducing some of the features of the prognostic
model simulations, such as a lake or sea breeze
circulation with the return flow aloft, without
the need for expensive fine grid execution of the
prognostic model. In addition, it provides a
simple method for adjusting the prognostic wind
field predictions to reflect observations.
CALMET also contains boundary layer modules
which compute surface heat and momentum fluxes
over land and water surfaces. The overland
boundary layer module is based on the energy
balance method of Ho Us lag and van Ulden (1983).
The aerodynamic and thermal properties of water
-------
surfaces require that different methods b« used In
the marine environment. Over water, a profile
method, using air-sea temperature differences, Is
used to compute the •icrometeorologlcal parameters
In the marine boundary layer. A detailed
description of CALMET is provided in Scire et al.
(1990).
The prognostic wind field model Included In
the CALPUFF modeling system is the version of the
CSUMM model most recently modified by Kessler
(1989). CSUMM Is a three-dimensional, hydro-
static, incompressible primitive equation model
originally developed by Plelke (1974). CSUMM can
simulate mesoscale wind flow patterns with
horizontal scales of 10 to 300 k» generated by
differential surface heating such as sea breeze
circulations as well as terrain Influences such as
slope flows and terrain blocking effects (Kessler,
1989). The model contains parameterlzatlons for
the atmospheric surface layer, planetary boundary
layer, and a soil layer.
3.
CALPUFF DISPERSION MODEL
CALPUFF is a multi-layer. «ultl-species
non-steady-state puff dispersion model which can
simulate the effects of time- and space-varying
meteorological conditions on pollutant transport,
chemical transformation, and plume depletion.
CALPUFF contains algorithms for near-source
effects such as building downwash. transitional
plume rise, subgrld scale terrain interactions as
well as processes important on larger scales such
as pollutant removal (wet scavenging and dry
deposition), chemical transformation, overvater
transport and coastal interaction effects. It can
accommodate arbitrarily-varying emissions from
point sources and grldded or discrete area
sources. Most of the algorithms contain options
to treat the phys'lcal processes at different
levels of detail depending on the model
application. Sclre et al. (1990) contains a
complete description of the formulation, options
and data requirements of CALPUFF.
3. 1 CALPUFF Sampling Functions
Puff models represent a continuous plume as
a number of discrete packets of pollutant material
which can be Independently subjected to advectlon,
dispersion, transformation, and depletion. Many
puff models evaluate the contribution of a puff to
the concentration at a receptor by a snapshot
approach. Each puff is frozen »t particular time
intervals (sampling steps) and the concentration
due to the frozen puff Is computed (or sampled).
The puff Is then allowed to move, evolving In
size, strength, etc., until the next sampling
step. The total concentration at a receptor Is
the sum of the contributions of all nearby puffs
averaged over all sampling steps within the basic
time step.
A traditional drawback of the puff approach-
has been the need for the release of many puffs to
adequately represent a continuous plume close to a
source. Ludwig et al. (1977) have shown that If
the distance between adjacent puffs exceeds about
2
-------
are constrained to remain connected, which ensures
continuity of a simulated plume without the gaps
or duplicate overlap which can occur with
segmented plume models. The factor (u/u' ) allows
low wind speed and calm conditions to be properly
treated.
To Illustrate the slug sampling function.
the Isopleths of the Instantaneous concentrations
of a slug at two times are plotted In Figure 1.
The distribution at the left represents the slug
at the beginning of a time step, whereas the
distribution on the right Is at the end of the
time step. The slug sampling function Integrates
the concentrations over the time step to produce
the time averaged concentration shown In Figure 2.
which is smooth and free of spurious gaps or
peaks.
3.1.2 Integrated Puff Sampling Function
As a slug grows, the Initial along-wind
stretching of the slug becomes less Important.
Eventually, when f » u AT, the slug can be
replaced with a circular puff. For puffs, CALPUFF
employs the Integrated sampling function used in
the MESOPUFF II model (Scire et ml., 1984):
s + As
o
Q(s)
g(s) exp
-R2(s)
2 «ry2(s)
ds (3)
where Q is the pollutant mass In the puff, R is
the distance from the puff center to the receptor, s
is the distance traveled by the puff, s is the value
o
of s at the beginning of the time step, and As is the
distance traveled during the time step.
If it is assumed that the most significant s
dependencies during the sampling step are in the R(s)
and Q(s) tanas, an analytic solution to the integral
can be obtained in terms of exponentials and error
functions. In evaluating Eqn. (3), the horizontal
dispersion coefficient, a- , and the vertical tem, g.
are evaluated at the receptor and held constant over
the sampling step.
Results of tests with the integrated puff
sampling function show the ability to reproduce
continuous plume results under steady-state
conditions without gaps or peaks in the distribution.
Because the Integrated puff equations can be solved
analytically. Its solution tends to be more efficient
than numerical Integration of the slug equations.
However, the slug sampling can be more efficient in
handling complex situations such as advectlon of a
plume segment perpendicular Its long axis (e.g., as
produced by a 90* wind shift from one hour to the
next — see Fig. 1 and 2). Therefore, CALPUFF
contains the option to perform slug sampling in the
near-field of a source, with an Internal transition
to the integrated puff approach as the puff size
grows Into a more circular shape.
Current Wind Direction
Fig. 1. Illustration of the transport and growth
of a slug after a 90* shift in wind direction.
Shown are the Instantaneous concentration
Isopleths of the slug at the beginning and ending
of a time step. The slug on the left represents
the distribution of time, t. The slug on the
right is the distribution at time t + At. During
the time step, the slug experienced advection.
diffusion, and some along-slug stretching due to
wind shear.
Current Wind Direction
Fig. 2. Time averaged concentration resulting
from the transport and evolution of the slug
depicted In Figure 1.
-------
3.2 Dispersion Coefficients
CALPUFT contains several options for computing
the dispersion coefficients,
-------
3. 4 Overvrater and Coastal Dispersion
There are important differences in the
structure of the Marine and continental boundary
layers which can have significant effects on plume
dispersion. The sensible heat flux over water is
typically more than an order of magnitude less
than over land. The absence of a strong sensible
heat flux to drive the marine mixed-layer and the
snail surface roughness of the water surface
result in relatively low mixing heights that offer
potential for significant plume trapping effects.
Another difference is that diurnal and annual
variations of stability over water are completely
unrelated to the typical overland behavior. For
example, temperature Inversions persisting most of
the day can occur during the summer, while unstable
conditions may persist all day in the winter months.
During other periods, the overwater diurnal stability
cycle can be out of phase with the overland cycle
(i.e., stable over water during the day and unstable
at night). The CALHET meteorological model contains
separate boundary layer modules for computing
stability and turbulence levels in the overland and
overwater boundary layers.
CALPUFF allows rapid changes in the
dispersion characteristics along the coastal
boundary. The land-sea interface is resolved on
the scale of the computational grid in the model.
CALMET provides the turbulence and dispersion
characteristics of the overwater as well as
overland boundary layers. The transition from
marine to continental dispersion rates is assumed
to occur at the coastal boundary determined from a
gridded field of land use data entered into the
model. Once a puff embedded in a marine layer
encounters the overland boundary layer height, the
puff growth is changed from that appropriate for
the marine layer 'to that for the overland boundary
layer.
3.5 Dry Deposition
CALPUFF provides three options for treating
dry deposition of gases and particulate matter In
the model.
(1) Full treatment of spatially and temporally
varying gas/particle deposition rates predicted by a
detailed resistance-based deposition model.
(2) Usei—specified 24-hour cycles of deposition
velocities for each pollutant. This option allows
the diurnal time variation of deposition to be
incorporated, but does not allow any spatial
dependenc1es.
(3) No dry deposition. A switch Is provided to
bypass all dry deposition and dry flux calculations
in order to provide for faster model execution for
screening runs or for pollutants not experiencing
significant deposition.
3.6 Wet Removal
Wet scavenging of soluble or reactive
pollutants can lead to high depletion rates ( of
the order of tens of percent per hour) during
precipitation events (e.g., Barrie, 1981; SI inn et
al., 1978). Gaseous pollutants are scavenged by
dissolution into cloud droplets and precipitation.
For SO., aqueous phase oxidation can be an
Important removal pathway. Over source-receptor
distances of tens of kilometers, wet scavenging
can deplete a significant fraction of the
pollutant material from a puff.
CALPUFF uses the simple, empirically-based
scavenging coefficient approach to estimate wet
deposition and wet removal effects. The depletion of
a pollutant is represented as:
*t exp I-AAtl
(6)
(7)
where x is the concentration at time t and t+At, A Is
the scavenging ratio, X is the scavenging
coefficient, R is the precipitation rate, and Rj is a
reference precipitation rate of 1 mm/hr. The user may
specify different values X as a function of
precipitation type (I.e. liquid vs. frozen
precipitation) for each pollutant. The precipitation
rate used to compute depletion for a particular puff
Is based on the value at the nearest grid point to
the puff. CALMET produces gridded fields of
precipitation rates using routinely-available
observations of hourly precipitation rates.
3.7 Chemical Transformation
One of the design criteria of the CALPUFF
model required the capability to model linear
chemical transformation effects in a manner
consistent with the puff formulation of the model.
The CALPUFF chemical module contains three options
for dealing with chemical processes:
(1) A pseudo-first order reaction mechanism for
the conversion of S02 to sulfate and N0x (NO + N02)
to HMO. and particulate nitrate. This mechanism
NO
x'
allows for up to five pollutants (SO.. 504>
HNO_, and N0~). It is based on the transformation
scheme used in the MESOPUFF II model and
Incorporates the most significant spatially and
temporally varying environmental variables on the
transformation rates.
(2) User-specified 24-hour cycles of trans-
formation rates. This option allows simulation
of the diurnal, time-dependent variation In the
chemical transformation rates, but precludes any
spatial variability.
(3) No chemical transformation. The model will
bypass the chemical transformation calculations If
Inert pollutants are being modeled.
4.
POSTPROCESSING CAPABILITIES
The CALPUFF modeling system contains two
postprocessing programs, PRTMET and POSTPRO. The
PRTMET program reads the meteorological data file
produced by the CALMET model and displays
user-selected portions of the various wind,
stability, micrometeorologlcal fields, and
geophysical fields in the file. The POSTPRO
program computes time averaged concentrations and
wet/dry deposition fluxes at gridded and discrete
receptors, lists peak concentrations, and performs
linear scaling operations.
-------
Acknowledgement: The development of the CALPUFF
modeling system was sponsored by the California Air
Resources Board under contract A5-194-74. Systems
Applications, Inc. served as a subcontractor In the
project and developed the wind field components of
the modeling system.
REFERENCES
Barrle, L.A., 1981: The prediction of rain
acidity and S0_ scavenging In eastern North
America. Atmas. Environ., 15, 31-41.
Brlggs, G.A., 1985: Analytical parameterizations
of diffusion: The convectlve boundary layer.
J. dim. and Appl. Meteor.. 24, 1167-1186.
Douglas, S. and R. Kessler, 1988: User's guide to
the diagnostic wind model. California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
Hanna. S.R. , G. A. Brlggs. J. Deardorff. B. A. Egan,
F. A. Glfford and F. Paso^iill. 1977: AMS
workshop on stability classification schemes
and sigma curves - Summary of recommendations.
Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 58, 1305-1309.
Heffter, J.L.. 1965: The variations of horizontal
diffusion parameters with time for travel
periods of one hour or longer. J. Appl.
Meteor., 4, 153-156.
Holtslag, A.A.M. and A.P. van Ulden, 1983: A
simple scheme for daytime estimates of the
surface fluxes from routine weather data.
J. Cllm. and Appl. Meteor.. 22, 517-529.
Irwln, J.S., 1983: Estimating plume dispersion -
A comparison of several sigma schemes.
J. dim. &nd Appl. Meteor., 22, 92-114.
Kessler, R. C., 1989: User's guide to the SAI
version of the Colorado State University
Hesoscale Model. California Air Resources
Board, Sacramento, CA.
Ludwlg, F. L., L. S. Gasiorek and R. E. Ruff. 1977:
Simplification of a Gaussian puff model for
real-time minicomputer use. Atmos. Environ.,
11, 431-436.
Pasquill. F., 1976: Atmospheric dispersion
parameters in Gaussian plume Modeling: Part
II. Possible requirements for change in the
Turner workbook values. EPA-600/4-76-003b,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Plelke, R.A.. 1974: A three dimensional numerical
model of the sea breezes over surface Florida.
Mon. tfea. Rev., 102. 115-139.
Sclre. J.S., E. Insley and R.J. Yamartino, 1990:
Model formulation and user's guide for the
CALMET meteorological model. Prepared for the
California Air Resources Board. Sigma Research
Corporation, Westford, MA.
Scire, J.S., D.G. Strlmaltis and R. J. Yamartino.
1990: Model formulation and user's guide for
the CALPUFF dispersion model. Prepared for the
California Air Resources Board. Sigma Research
Corporation, Hestford, MA.
SI inn, W. G.N. . L. Hasse. B.B. Hicks, A.U. Hogan,
D. Lai, P. S. Liss, K.O. Munnlch, G.A. Sehmel
and 0. Vlttori. 1978: Some aspects of the
transfer of atmospheric trace constituents past
the air-sea interface. Ataos. Environ.. 12.
2055-2087.
Well. J.C., 1985: Updating applied diffusion
models. J. dim. Appl. Meteor.. 24, 1111-1130.
Yamartino, R.J., J.S. Sclre. S.R. Hanna, G.R.
Carmlchael and Y.S. Chang, 1989: CALGRID: A
•esoscale photochemical grid model. Volume I:
Model formulation document. California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
Scire. J.S., F.U. Lursann, A. Bass and S.R. Hanna,
1984: User's guide to the MESOPUFF II model
and related processor programs.
EPA-600/8-84-013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Scire. J.S., R.J. Yamartino, G.R. Carmlchael and
Y.S. Chang. 1989: CALGRID: A mesoscale
photochemical/grid model. Volume II: User's
guide. California Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA.
-------
APPENDIX IV-6
Wind Tunnel Study of Terrain Downwash Effects
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6 IV-6-1
-------
WTIEXEC WP6
Wind-Tunnel Simulation to Assess Terrain Downwash Effects
at the WTI Hazardous Waste Incinerator: Project Summary
William H. Snyder1"
Chief, Fluid Modeling Branch
Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
and
Roger S. Thompson
Engineer
Atmospheric Characterization and Modeling Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
December 1994
On assignment to the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY »
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
A peer-review workshop organized by EPA's Risk Assessment Forum was held in
Washington, DC on December 8 and 9, 1993, for the purpose of evaluating a draft project plan
prepared by EPA Region 5 for assessing risk at an incinerator operated by Waste Technologies
Industries (WTI) in East Liverpool, Ohio. One of the concerns of the peer-review panel was
expressed: "terrain-induced downwash is expected to be a serious problem at the WTI site (at least
for moderate- and high-wind cases)", and "none of the EPA Guideline dispersion models is able to
simulate these effects". This panel recommended that "a wind-tunnel study... be undertaken for this
purpose in the case of the WTI risk assessment." It further cited "additional benefits of such
modeling are the quantification of the near- and mid-field three-dimensional wind flow within and
downwind of the river valley and the quantification of the combined effects of terrain and buildings
on the near-field dispersion." As a result of these recommendations, EPA Region 5 and the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response requested that the Fluid Modeling Facility conduct such a
wind-tunnel study. This report summarizes that wind-tunnel study — conducted to examine possible
terrain-downwash effects and to assess the resulting values and patterns of ground-level
concentration.
We took as our primary charge the recommendation of the peer-review panel, that is, to
conduct a wind-tunnel study to examine terrain effects at the WTI site under moderate and high-wind
conditions. With regard to the additional benefits, we did make measurements to quantify the wind
field within the river valley, but we did not perform a full assessment of building-downwash effects.
Proper wind-tunnel modeling procedures, even in a relatively large tunnel, require that terrain-
downwash and building-dov/nv/zsh studies be conducted at quite different scales.
A model of the terrain was constructed at a scale ratio of 1:480, representing a full-scale
section approximately 1 mile wide and 3 miles long. The wind direction chosen was that expected
to produce the most severe terrain-downwash effects, i.e., with the most prominent hill directly
upwind of the stack. This model, centered on the incinerator stack, was placed in the meteorological
wind tunnel, with a simulated atmospheric boundary layer approaching it. The flow structure of the
approaching boundary layer and that within the valley was measured with hot-wire and pulsed-wire
anemometry.
Methane was metered from the model stack as a tracer to simulate the buoyant effluent, and
flame ionization detectors were used to measure time-averaged concentrations, primarily ground-level
values, downwind. Three stack heights were examined, including the existing stack height of 45.7m,
the calculated "good-engineering-practice" (GEP) stack height of 72.7m, and an arbitrarily chosen
"tall" stack height of 120m. (This tall stack was approximately 80% of the valley depth.) At each
stack height, ground-level concentration (glc) patterns were measured over a range of wind speeds
to ascertain the maximum possible glc's. The model was then turned around by 180° and a similar
set of measurements was performed. Finally, we replaced the terrain model by a flat-terrain model
with equivalent surface roughness in order that terrain effects could be determined with reference to
those in flat terrain.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
A companion data report provides a full description of the experimental details and compiles
the data collected. A five-minute videotape provides an overview of the project.
2. DESIGN DETAILS
The WTI Site and Climatology
The WTI hazardous waste incinerator is located adjacent to the Ohio River in East Liverpool,
Ohio. It is across-river from West Virginia and down-river (by I'/a miles or 2.5km) from
Pennsylvania. A topographical map of the site is shown in Figure 1. The area in the immediate
vicinity of the facility is mixed residential and commercial with light industrial activity. The terrain
is quite rugged, and in the immediate vicinity of the site, the south bank of the river rises quite steeply
to 520ft (155m) above the river level.
Meteorological data are collected by WTI at three sites on or near the facility grounds. Wind
roses from these sites clearly show strong channeling by the river valley, and are clearly not
representative of the transport conditions in the terrain above and adjacent to the WTI site.
Fortunately, more appropriate wind data were available from a 500ft (152m) meteorological tower
at the Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), which is located near Shippingport, PA, about 8 miles
east of the WTI site. The terrain surrounding this site is very similar to that at the WTI site, with
comparable hill heights, valley depth, and river orientation. The 500-ft level of the tower, 1235ft
(376m) above sea level, is at or above the terrain surrounding the river valley. Measurements from
the 500-ft level at this tower are mostly free of channeling effects and were used to represent
transport conditions above and adjacent to the Ohio River Valley at East Liverpool.
Since our primary goal was to examine terrain-downwash effects, we chose the wind direction
(125°) that put the most prominent hill upwind of the stack. Fortuitously, this direction resulted in
the most prominent hill in the opposite direction being directly downwind from the stack. We rotated
the model by 180° and thereby also studied terrain-downwash effects at a wind direction of 305°.
Because model construction to enable simulations at other wind directions would have required
substantial additional effort and because we believed other wind directions would result in less severe
downwash effects, only the 125° and 305° simulations were conducted. In future discussions, these
wind directions will frequently be referred to as SE (from 125°) and NW (from 305°) winds.
Analysis of the wind speeds in 20° sectors surrounding 125° and 305° at the BVPS (5-year
record) suggested that SE winds occur a total of 4% of the time, with speeds between 9 and lOm/s
being quite rare (0.01% of the time). NW winds were observed 6.4% of the time, with speeds
between 12 and 15m/s being observed 0.03% of the time. Of these two sets of directionally specific
winds, the 98th percentile values were 8m/s for SE wind and lOm/s for NW winds.
Similarity Criteria
Because of the large scale reduction required to fit the terrain model into the wind tunnel as
well as the requirement to simulate the buoyancy of the exhaust gas from the WTI stack, some
compromises had to be made in order to insure a realistic simulation. We chose to exaggerate the
stack diameter and the density difference between the exhaust gas and ambient air in such a manner
VohunelV
Appendix IV-6
-------
as to match momentum and buoyancy length scales of the exhaust; this assures that the full-scale
trajectory of the plume will be matched in the wind-tunnel model. This "distorted scaling" is a
compromise that allowed us to proceed with a realistic simulation, but it is not without sacrifice. The
stack diameter was doubled, so that the plume width at the stack exit was also doubled, and the
requirement of geometric similarity was clearly violated close to the stack. Thus, we cannot expect
to match the concentration pattern in the near field but, beyond a few tens of stack diameters, where
ambient turbulence dominates the dispersion process, we may expect a reasonable simulation of the
concentration fields.
As will be shown later, building influences were clearly observed with the existing stack at
the higher wind speeds, but we do not claim to have done a full and proper simulation of building-
downwash effects; those results should perhaps be viewed as qualitatively but not quantitatively
correct. A proper simulation of building-downwash effects would have been conducted at a much
larger scale, perhaps in the neighborhood of 1:100. At the scale of the present study, 1:480, building
influences cannot be expected to be simulated correctly. Therefore, concentration measurements at
distances less than about lOf^, (250m) from the stack should not be considered as truly representative
of those that would occur under building downwash conditions.
A simulated neutral (high wind speed) atmospheric boundary layer was generated using spires
at the entrance to the test section and roughness on the floor of the tunnel. The boundary-layer depth
was scaled down from the full-scale value (600m) using the geometrical scale ratio of 1:480. The
wind profile approaching the model terrain was chosen to match that typical over forested terrain,
and sufficient upwind terrain was included in the model to properly shape the approach-flow profile.
Research Plan
As mentioned above, our primary goal was to simulate worst-case terrain-downwash effects.
First, we chose the area to be modeled such that the largest and most prominent hill was directly
upstream of the stack. It was not known a priori what wind speed would produce the maximum
ground-level concentration. At low wind speed the buoyancy and momentum of the exhaust will
carry the plume to high elevations, so that the location of the maximum glc will be far downwind and
its value will be relatively small. At some intermediate wind speed, the plume will be strongly bent
over so that effluent will diffuse to ground level a short distance downwind, with a higher maximum
glc. At even larger wind speeds, the plume cannot be bent over much farther; thus the wind stretches
the plume farther and farther, with greater dilution at the source and a smaller maximum glc. Hence,
a critical wind speed exists at which the glc is an absolute maximum. The worst terrain-downwash
effects will occur at the critical wind speed, which may vary with stack height and wind direction.
Because the critical wind speeds were not known a priori, each model simulation was done
over a range of wind speeds in an attempt to ascertain the critical value. The overall plan, then, was
to run the simulations with the terrain model at the two wind directions of 125° and 305°. At each
of these wind directions, we measured glc patterns for each of the 3 stack heights. For each stack
height, we made measurements over a range of wind speeds in an attempt to ascertain the critical
wind speed and, hence, the maximum terrain-downwash effect. We then removed the terrain model
from the wind tunnel and replaced it with flat terrain with equivalent roughness characteristics.
Measurements were again made of the glc patterns resulting from the same three stacks and over
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
ranges of wind speeds to ascertain the critical values. The purpose of these latter measurements was,
of course, to establish a flat-terrain basis with which the complex-terrain measurements could be
compared — so that effects of the surrounding terrain could be isolated and quantified.
Various supplemental measurements were made to verify the adequacy of our simulation and
to aid in understanding of the transport and dispersion processes. These included:
(1) Hot-wire anemometry measurements to characterize the flow structure of the boundary
layer in terms of mean velocity and turbulence intensities,
(2) Pulsed-wire anemometry measurements to characterize the three-dimensional, highly
turbulent and recirculating flow within the Ohio River valley.
(3) Vertical profiles of concentration at various downwind distances in both flat and complex
terrain and at various wind speeds to characterize the plume rise and structure, and
(4) Concentration measurements from a "point source" in our flat-terrain boundary layer to
show that the dispersion properties match those of a comparable full-scale atmospheric
boundary layer.
3. APPARATUS AND INSTRUMENTATION
Wind Tunnel and Model Construction
Figure 2 provides a schematic diagram of the wind-tunnel setup. Because of the large height
of the model, blockage of the test section was too large; we therefore modified the wind tunnel by
lowering a large section of the floor by 7in (18cm) to accommodate the river valley. Even so, ramps
were necessary to provide smooth transitions from the flat wind-tunnel floor to the terrain at the
upwind edge of the model.
A simulated atmospheric boundary layer was generated using a system of "spires" and
roughness on the floor downwind. For the terrain models, the block roughness covered the tunnel
floor from the spires to the edge of the terrain model. For the flat-terrain model, the block roughness
covered the entire floor of the test section of the tunnel. This roughness was intended to match the
roughness of the full-scale terrain, which is densely forested over a large majority of the model area.
A terraced model was constructed from V2 in plywood sheets, with each thickness of plywood
corresponding to a 20ft elevation interval of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
The overall size of the model in the tunnel was 12 * 38ft, corresponding to 1.1 x 3.5mi at full scale.
A photograph of the model installed in the tunnel is provided in Figure 3. Note that the terrain steps
were not smoothed, but were purposely left terraced. These steps plus the house/building blocks
distributed over the model surface, provided an adequate simulation of the full-scale roughness.
A site map of the WTI facility was also enlarged appropriately and cemented onto the terrain
model. Major structures on the facility grounds were reproduced to scale. Dimensions of other
major buildings in the vicinity of the site were estimated from aerial photographs. A group of six
prominent buildings nearest the stack was removed for some measurements with northwest winds to
examine possible building-downwash effects. This same group of buildings was included in the flat-
Voiume IV 4
Appendix IV-6
-------
terrain model (and also removed for examination of building-downwash effects).
Velocity and Concentration Measurements
A hot-wire anemometer was used to measure the mean wind and turbulence intensities at
various positions over the model terrain as well as over the flat terrain. These were supplemented
with pulsed-wire measurements within the highly turbulent, reversing flows within the river valley.
High purity methane was emitted from the model stack. It served as a tracer so that
concentration fields downwind could be measured with flame ionization detectors; its low density
permitted the simulation of the buoyancy of the full-scale exhaust. The prescribed stack/effluent
conditions for the WTI incinerator were an effluent speed of 15.8m/s, temperature of 361°K, and
stack diameter of 1.83m. Concentration measurements were made by drawing samples through sets
of small brass tubes comprising sampling rakes.
The results are presented in terms of normalized full-scale units, C/Qf (/^sec/m3), where Cf
is the full-scale concentration of the contaminant (A
-------
As a demonstration of how well dispersion in the atmospheric boundary layer is simulated in
the wind-tunnel, concentration measurements were made downwind of a non-buoyant, low-
momentum release from a point source. These measurements showed that the dispersion
characteristics of the flat-terrain boundary layer were representative of a neutral atmospheric flow
over a surface with a roughness length of approximately 60cm.
Concentration Measurements
The concentration measurements were conducted in three phases. The process proceeded
as follows. First, the model was installed at a wind direction of 125° (SE). The existing stack was
installed, the wind speed corresponding to the full-scale value at the 500-ft level was set to a
particular value (e.g., 6.8m/s), and surface concentration measurements were made, with the primary
emphasis being to determine the location and value of the maximum ground-level concentration (glc).
The wind speed was then increased and/or decreased in steps, each time measuring the surface
concentrations to ascertain the location and value of the maximum glc. The maximum value at each
wind speed was then plotted to determine the critical wind speed, as discussed in Section 2.
Having determined the critical wind speed (and, of course, the location and value of the
maximum glc at this critical wind speed), the stack height was then raised to the good-engineering-
practice (GEP) value, and a similar procedure was followed to obtain another value for the critical
wind speed - at the GEP stack height. A similar procedure was followed for each terrain
configuration (including the wind direction of northwest or 305° and flat terrain) and for each stack
height. A large number (461) of concentration files was collected, the majority of which represent
surface concentrations.
Each surface concentration map was given a case identifier consisting of two letters and a
number. The first letter indicates the terrain setup: S for Southeast winds, N for Northwest winds,
or F for Flat terrain. The second letter indicates the stack height: E for Existing stack height
(45.7m), G for Good-engineering-practice stack height (72.7m), or H for Highest stack height
(120m). The number indicates the SOOft-level wind speed in m/s. An example is case SE6.8,
indicating the terrain model with winds from the southeast, existing stack height, and 500ft wind
speed of 6.8m/s.
Southeast wind direction
Table 1 provides an example list of all relevant full-scale and model parameters used in the
tests to ascertain the critical wind speeds and values and locations of the maximum concentrations
on the surface of the terrain, in this case, with the existing stack (45.7m) and winds from the
southeast (125°). A total of 18 cases was studied at this wind direction, including 7 cases (7 different
wind speeds) with the existing stack, 6 with the GEP stack, and 5 with the highest stack.
Some explanations are in order concerning the values in Table 1. It is a printout of a
spreadsheet file in which were entered values of the full-scale parameters such as effluent speed and
temperature, pertinent dimensions, and the wind speed at the 500ft elevation. The spreadsheet was
programmed to calculate the momentum and buoyancy length scales and wind speeds at other
Volume IV
Appendix FV-6
-------
Table 1. Test Parameters for Concentration Measurements over Terrain with SE Winds.
03-Oct-94 Pg. 1: 45.7m STACK WTI-SCL1 .WB1
CASE SE3.4 SE5.0 SE6.8 SE9.0 SE10.4 SE12.0 SE13.5
FULL SCALE VALUES
Stk top wind spd (m/s) =
Temp, ambient (oK) =
Temp, stack (oK)=
Stack diameter (m) =
Effluent speed (m/s) =
Gravity (m/s**2)
Bldg height (m) =
Stk den/amb den =
Lm(m) =
Lb (m) =
Froude No. (based on Ta) =
Stack height (m) =
500-ft wind speed (m/s) =
Free-strm wind spd (m/s) =
Wndspd@10m(m/s) =
MODEL SCALE VALUES
Scale ratio =
Exaggeration
Lm (cm) =
Lb (cm) =
Stack exagg. factor =
Stack diameter (cm) =
Stack height (cm)=
Stk den / amb den =
Density exagg. factor =
Stk top wind spd (m/s) =
Effluent speed (m/s) =
Effl. spd/Wind spd =
Volume flow (cc/min) =
Froude No. (based on Ta) =
Effl. viscosity (cm2/s) =
Stk Reynolds no. =
For 45.7-m stack:
500-ft wind speed (m/s) =
Free-strm wind spd (m/s) =
Wndspd© 10m (m/s) =
Tach
Bldg height (cm) =
Bldg ht wnd spd (m/s) =
Bldg Reynolds no. =
Note Properties of methane: rhos/rhoa=0 561 & nu=0 1654 cm2/s.
7
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
2.84
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
4.58
1.063
60.0
45.7
3.40
5.07
2.64
480
Dens&D
0.95
0.221
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
0.31
1.01
3.21
2984
16.7
0.165
483
0.37
0.56
0.29
66
5.4
0.30
1087
4.18
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
3.12
0.334
60.0
457
5.00
7.46
3.88
480
Dens&D
0.65
0.070
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
0.46
1.01
2.19
2984
16.7
0.165
483
0.55
0.82
0.43
92
5.4
0.44
1598
5.64
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
2.31
0.136
60.0
45.7
6.75
10.07
5.24
480
Dens&D
0.48
0.028
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
0.62
1.01
1.62
2984
16.7
0.165
483
0.74
1.11
0.58
121
5.4
0.60
2158
7.53
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
1.73
0.057
60.0
45.7
9.00
13.43
6.99
480
Dens&D
0.36
0.012
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
0.83
1.01
1.21
2984
16.7
0.165
483
0.99
1.48
0.77
158
5.4
0.80
2877
8.70
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
1.50
0.037
60.0
45.7
10.40
15.52
8.07
480
Dens & D
0.31
0.008
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
0.96
1.01
1.05
2984
16.7
0.165
483
1.15
1.71
0.89
181
5.4
0.92
*324
10.03
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
1.30
0.024
60.0
45.7
12.00
17.91
9.31
480
Dens&D
0.27
0.005
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
1.11
1.01
0.91
2984
16.7
0.165
483
1.32
1.97
1.03
208
5.4
1.07
3836
11.29
293
361
1.83
15.8
9.8
25.9
0.812
1.15
0.017
60.0
45.7
13.50
20.15
10.48
480
Dens&D
0.24
0.004
2.08
0.793
9.5
0.561
2.33
1.24
1.01
0.81
2984
16.7
0.165
483
1.49
2.22
1.16
232
5.4
1.20
4315
-------
pertinent elevations such as at the stack top, the 10m elevation, the building elevation, and in the
freestream above the boundary layer. These various speeds were calculated on the basis of the
assumption that the full-scale wind profile matched the measured model profile.
The model values of momentum and buoyancy length scales were matched to the full-scale
values, i.e., the model values were set equal to the full-scale values divided by the geometric scaling
ratio of 480. Recall that we chose to exaggerate the stack diameter (by a factor of 2.08) and the
density difference ratio (by a factor of 2.33) in order to satisfy minimum Reynolds-number
requirements. With all these considerations in mind, the spreadsheet was programmed to calculate
the various model-scale values for each case, including the volume flow rate of methane from the
stack, the required fan speed (TACH), the model wind speeds at the various elevations, and several
nondimensional parameters.
A typical surface concentration map is shown in Figure 5. We have underlined the values of
the maximum glc at each downwind distance and circled the overall maximum. In this case (SE6.8),
the maximum glc is located at the upwind base of the first hill directly downwind of the stack. It has
a value (Cf/Qf) of 5.17Aisec/m3. We have drawn isoconcentration lines so that the set of
measurements is more readily understood. There is a slight indication of the plume being diverted
around the south side of this first hill.
A complete set of these surface glc maps for the southeast wind direction is provided in the
data report. From each of these surface maps, we picked off the maximum glcs at each downwind
location (e.g., the underlined values on Figures 5). These data were then plotted graphically, a hand-
drawn curve was faired through the data points, and the location x^ and value of the maximum glc
was determined from this hand-drawn curve. Figure 6 shows a typical example; in this case, the
maximum concentration was determined to be 5.65^sec/m3, and its location was 500m downwind
of the source. Note that the C,^ and x^ values are not measured values per se; we believe this
method to be the most reasonable in view of the inherent variability in the data and the finite distance
between measurement points. The C^ and x^ values were determined for each wind speed and
entered into files so that critical wind speeds and locations of absolute maximum concentrations (at
the critical wind speeds could be determined.
is plotted as a function of wind speed in Figure 7. Critical wind speeds (those
resulting in the highest glcs) are observed for the GEP and highest stacks, but not for the existing
stack. For the highest stack, the critical wind speed (500ft level) is in the neighborhood of 7m/s. For
the GEP stack, it is around 1 Im/s. A critical wind speed certainly exists for the shortest stack height
(45.7m), but it" exceeds the highest speed tested (13.5m/s); testing at even higher wind speeds was
deemed pointless, as such are very rarely, if ever, observed at this site (cf., Sect. 2). The values of
the maximum concentrations at the critical wind speeds are 2.0 at the highest stack height, 4.2 at the
GEP stack height, and greater than 10.5 at the existing stack height. Hence, very considerable
reductions in maximum glcs are observed as the stack height is increased.
Figure 8 shows the location x^ of the maximum glc as a function of wind speed. As
expected, the distance to the maximum glc increases as the stack height increases, and decreases as
the wind speed increases.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
As an aid to further understanding transport and dispersion of the plumes in this complex
terrain, two series of vertical concentration profiles were measured downwind of the stacks. In the
first series, the stack height was maintained constant and vertical profiles were measured at each of
6 downwind positions (x = 240, 480, 960, 1440, 1920 and 2400m) at each of 3 wind speeds (4.5, 9.0
and 15.0m/s). In the second series, the wind speed was maintained constant at 9m/s, and profiles
were measured at each of the 6 downwind positions for each of the 3 stack heights. The interested
reader should consult the full data report for more details and results.
Northwest -wind direction
A total of 16 cases was studied at the northwest wind direction, including 6 cases (6 different
wind speeds) with the existing stack and 5 each with the GEP and highest stacks. Two additional
cases included measurements with the buildings removed.
The results are summarized in Figure 9, which shows (Cf/Qf),,^ plotted as a function of wind
speed for the northwest wind direction. As for the southeast wind case, critical wind speeds were
observed for the GEP and highest stacks, but, within the range of observed winds near the site, not
for the existing stack. As a matter of academic interest, we extended the wind speed range to verify
that one did indeed exist; it was found to be in the neighborhood of 18m/s, a value far in excess of
the highest value observed at the 500ft levd during the 5-year period analyzed (cf., Sect. 2). For the
GEP and highest stacks, the critical wind speeds were approximately 7 and 6m/s, respectively,
although the maximum glcs vary little as the wind speed ranges between about 5 and lOm/s. The
values of the maximum glcs at the critical wind speeds are about 7.5 with the existing stack, 3.0 with
the GEP stack, and 1.9 with the highest stack. These values are somewhat smaller than observed
with southeast winds, presumably because with southeast winds the higher hill is upwind.
Notice also from Figure 9 that we have plotted two points labelled "no buildings". Because
we felt the tallest buildings in the vicinity of the stack were exerting substantial downwash influence
on the plumes, we removed them and remeasured the surface concentrations (at one wind speed only,
13.5m/s). The maximum value in the presence of the buildings was found to be substantially higher
than that in the absence of the buildings (CB/CNB =1.57) with the existing stack. With the GEP
stack, the maximum was marginally higher (Cg/C^ =1.14). (Note that a GEP stack height study
would establish the GEP stack height as that which resulted in an excessive concentration of 40%,
or CB/CNB = 1.40.) As mentioned in Section 2, a proper building downwash study would have been
done at a much larger scale. Hence, we believe the building-downwash observations are indicative
of problems at full scale, but are perhaps not quantitatively valid.
The downwash distances x,^ to the maximum glcs (not shown) increased as the stack height
increased, of course, and decreased as the wind speed increased. The x^ values for the two cases
without the buildings were substantially larger than those in the absence of the buildings, again
indicating serious building-downwash effects. ^ ??c fact-
Flat terrain
The flat-terrain measurements were made to form the basis witK which the measurements in
the presence of the terrain could be compared. A total of 14 cases with buildings was studied,
Volume IV 9
Appendix IV-6
-------
including 5 cases each with the existing and GEP stacks, and 4 cases with the highest stack. Three
cases were done without buildings, FE9.0N, FE13.5N and FG13.5N (the suffix N indicates No
buildings). The "building" model used for most of the flat-terrain measurements consisted of the
group of six buildings closest to the stack.
A note on matching of wind speeds: the conceptual design of this study included
measurements in flat terrain, and the question to be answered was phrased as "what is the effect of
the terrain on the plume behavior and resulting concentration patterns?" or, asked another way, u if
the terrain were flat, how would the concentration patterns differ?" The question that arose
immediately was what wind speed should be used in the fiat-terrain simulations. Obviously, the wind
speed at the stack top should not be set equal to its value in the presence of the terrain; the shielding
by the upwind terrain greatly reduces the speed at the stack top from what would have existed had
the upwind terrain been flat. Even the SOOft-level wind speed is influence by the terrain, as this
elevation is just above the tops of the hills surrounding the river valley. We chose instead to match
the wind speed above the boundary layer — the freestream wind speed. In other words, we will
compare concentration patterns measured in the presence of the complex terrain with those measured
in flat terrain where the freestream wind speeds are the scone in both cases.
The wind speed profile in flat terrain was markedly different from the in-terrain profiles,
having much higher speeds at the lower levels. Note that, for the same freestream wind speeds, the
stack-top wind speeds are substantially higher than those in the complex terrain.
is plotted as a function of wind speed in the flat-terrain case in Figure 10. Again,
critical wind speeds are found for the GEP and highest stacks, but not for the existing stack. For the
GEP stack the critical wind speed is approximately lOm/s; for the highest stack, the glc is practically
independent of wind speed over the range tested, but a very slight maximum appears around 7m/s.
The data for the existing stack appear to be leveling off at the higher wind speeds tested, and we may
speculate that the critical wind speed is around 16m/s, with a maximum glc around 10^sec/m .
Hence, the maximum concentrations at the critical wind speeds are -10 with the existing stack, 3.2
with the GEP stack, and 1.2 with the highest stack; very considerable reductions are observed as the
stack height is increased.
Three additional data points are included on Figure 10; these represent measurements in the
absence of the buildings. Comparisons with the measurements in the presence of the buildings show
very strong building-downwash effects - more so than were observed in the presence of terrain;
presumably, this is because the higher wind speed at stack top in the flat-terrain case reduced the
plume rise — the plume was therefore more readily downwashed into the building wake. Also, the
data suggest (and other studies support) that building downwash is less severe at the lower wind
speeds — the plume rise is much more substantial, so that the plume escapes the building wake. Note
finally that the data of Figure 10 (also Fig. 9 for northwest winds) suggest that critical wind speeds
are increased by the presence of the buildings.
Finally as an aid to further understanding, we measured four sets of vertical concentration
profiles at each of six downwind positions in the flat-terrain case. The interested reader is referred
to the data report.
Volume IV
Appendix FV-6
-------
Analysis of Terrain Effects
In this section, we compare and contrast the plume behavior, patterns, critical wind speeds,
and locations and values of the maximum glcs, with the primary goal being to deduce the effects of
the terrain. (C/Qf),^ is plotted as a function of wind speed in Figure 1 1 for both wind directions in
complex terrain as well as for flat terrain. In all cases shown in this figure, all buildings on the WTI
site were present. In spite of all the extra measurements that were made, we find it difficult to
provide satisfactory explanations for some of the detailed results shown in this figure. The broad
features shown are understandable:
(1) Maximum glcs clearly and substantially decrease as the stack height increases in each of
the three terrain types; this is also generally true when taken by groups, i.e., the curves in the
short-stack group are generally above the curves in the GEP-stack group, which are generally
above the curves in the highest stack group. Hence, the differences due to changes in stack
height are much more significant than changes in terrain type or wind direction.
(2) Critical wind speeds are observed with the GEP and highest stacks, but are not observed
for the shortest stack within the normal range of wind speeds observed near the site. These
critical wind speeds consistently decrease as the stack height is increased.
When trying to differentiate between the three terrain types, however, the results appear
somewhat inconsistent and are, perhaps, indefinable. The curve for the short stack in flat terrain is
quite similar to that for the southeast wind direction, but both these curves show substantially higher
glcs than observed with the northwest wind. Perhaps most surprising, at first, is that neither complex
terrain case exhibits higher glcs than does flat terrain. This may be partially explained as a result of
the increased plume rise in the complex terrain; recall that we matched freestream wind speeds, so
that the complex terrain provided a shielding or reduction of wind speeds at the stack top, which
would enhance the plume rise and reduce the glcs. As is well known from previous studies, however,
the centerline of a plume may approach the surface of a three-dimensional hill much more closely than
it may a two-dimensional hill; and, of course, the same plume will approach the surface of a two-
dimensional hill more closely than it will a flat underlying surface. Hence, the effect of the larger
plume rise in the complex terrain (smaller glcs) may be counteracted by the effect of the closer
approach of the plume centeriine to the surface in complex terrain (larger glcs). In the present case,
we may speculate that these counteracting effects were balanced with the short stack and southeast
winds, resulting in glcs approximately equal to those in flat terrain.
Many other factors are involved in the transport and dispersion process, however, and the
above explanation is a gross oversimplification. Two other very important factors include the high-
intensity, large-scale turbulence generated by the terrain features and, especially, the distorted mean
streamline patterns. The primary factor causing the glcs with the southeast winds to be higher than
those with the northwest winds is almost certainly the more strongly descending streamlines in the
southeast wind case. Our pulsed-wire and hot-wire measurements in this case showed strong
downwash from the higher, more nearly two-dimensional hill upwind of the stack. We did not make
such measurements under northwest winds, but streamline descent would surely be less steep; the
upwind hill in this case is substantially lower and substantially narrower in the crosswind direction
("less two-dimensional"). Hence, we might expect glcs to be lower with northwest winds, which was,
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
in fact, observed.
Critical wind speeds and maximum glcs observed at those critical wind speeds for each terrain
configuration and stack height are collected in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. Critical wind speed, m/s.
Configuration
125°
305°
Flat
Stack height, m
45.7 72.7
>13.5 11
18 7
-16 10
120
7
6
7
Table 3. Maximum concentrations
, ^usec/m3, at critical wind speeds.
Configuration
125°
305°
Flat
Stack height, m
45.7 72.7
>10.5 4.2
7.5 3
-10 3.2
120
2.0
1.9
1.2
Figure 12 shows the location x^ of the maximum glc as a function of wind speed for both
wind directions in complex terrain and in flat terrain. Again, the broad features are understandable:
(1) the distances to the maximum glcs increase as the stack height increases in each of the
three terrain types. This is also true, at least for the higher wind speeds, when taken by
groups, i.e., the curves in the high-stack group are above those of the GEP-stack group,
which are above those of the existing-stack group. Again, the differences due to changes in
stack height appear to be more significant than the changes in terrain type or wind direction.
(2) the largest distances to the maximum glcs occur by wide margins with the highest stack
in the flat terrain. The shortest distances occur consistently with the existing stack in complex
terrain; of the two wind directions, the southeast one (largest hill upwind) results in the
maximum glcs closest to the source.
Comparisons of the vertical concentration profiles in the presence of terrain with those over
Sat terrain suggest that our earlier arguments concerning the differences in plume rise because of the
shielding by the complex terrain are highly oversimplified; the data, in fact', suggested that the plume-
rise values a short distance downwind were virtually identical with the two taller stacks. These data
suggest that the higher level of turbulence induced by the terrain increases the lateral and vertical
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
12
-------
widths of the plumes by substantial amounts (25 to 35%) and decreases the maximum concentrations
within the plumes (by about 30%). On the other hand, it is exceedingly difficult to interpret these
observations and show how they translate to the observations of Figure 11. For example, the two
plumes from the lowest stack were of different elevation (7m out of 45.7m), yet resulted in virtually
the same maximum glcs. The plumes from the taller stacks were at essentially identical elevations at
x= 240m, yet the maximum glcs were substantially different in the two cases.
We must conclude that the terrain effects are so complex as to defy satisfactory detailed
explanations. The distortion of mean streamline patterns by the terrain, enhancement of turbulence,
shielding and reduction of wind speeds, and plume rise and building-downwash effects combine in
what appear to be mysterious ways — a large number of additional measurements would be required
to fully understand and interpret the results. Nevertheless, the broad features of the results are
reasonably consistent and understandable.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A wind-tunnel study of transport and dispersion of plumes from the Waste Technologies
Industries smokestack was performed in the EPA Meteorological Wind Tunnel to examine terrain
downwash effects and to assess the resulting values and patterns of ground-level concentrations. An
atmospheric boundary layer that simulated the velocity and dispersion characteristics in a forested,
hilly region was generated using spires and roughness blocks. A 1:480 scale model of the area
surrounding the WTI facility was installed in the wind tunnel for two wind directions, 125° and 3 05 °;
these directions put the largest nearby hills directly upwind and downwind of the stack, with the wind
blowing across the river valley. This scale is suitable for the terrain-downwash study, and uses
distorted stack diameter modeling. Dispersion near the buildings, in particular building-downwash
effects, are not strictly modeled. Building-downwash observations are therefore regarded as
qualitatively indicative of problems at the full-scale site, but are not to be taken as strictly valid
quantitatively.
For each wind direction, three stack heights were used; the existing stack (45.7m), the good-
engineering-practice stack (72.7m) and a higher stack (120m). For each stack and wind direction,
ground-level concentrations (glcs) of the tracer released from the stack were measured at distances
from 240 to 2400m downwind for a range of wind speeds. The terrain model was replaced with a
suitably-roughened flat surface and the glcs for conditions equivalent to those with the terrain were
measured. For several cases, vertical profiles of concentration were obtained at six downwind
distances. In addition, for the 125° wind direction, all three components of the wind vector were
measured in the centerplane of the valley with a pulsed-wire anemometer.
Based upon the velocity measurements and observations using a smoke tracer, a small
recirculation region was found at the base of the upwind hill. The stack, located farther downwind,
was in an area of downward-directed mean flow. The equivalent approach flow for flat-terrain
comparisons was based on matching the freestream speeds. At a given freestream speed, the wind
speeds at stack-top elevation were considerably lower with the complex terrain present.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
For each combination of wind direction ( or flat terrain), stack height, and wind speed, a map
of the measured glcs was drawn. By plotting the maximum concentration at each distance against
the distance from the source and hand-fitting a smooth curve, the maximum expected concentration
and its distance from the source was determined for each case. Comparison of these maxima for the
actual site with those in flat terrain enabled evaluation of the influence of the nearby terrain on
dispersion from the stack.
Many interacting factors contribute to the differences in the glc patterns observed as a result
of emissions from the WIT site and those observed from the same source in flat terrain. For the two
wind directions studied, large hills reach their peak elevations approximately 1000m upwind and
1000m downwind of the stack. An upwind hill tends to reduce the wind speed at stack top, which
should increase the plume rise and reduce the maximum ground-level concentrations. On the other
hand, the upwind hill tends to produce a downward component of wind velocity at stack top and to
increase the intensity of the ambient turbulence; both these effects tend to bring the plume to ground
level more rapidly and to increase the ground-level concentrations. A downwind hill will also tend
to increase glcs, the degree of which depends upon the hill shape; maximum glcs on three-dimensional
hills tend to be larger than those on two-dimensional hills when the sources are upstream. In the
present case, one of the hills might be classified as ridge (very roughly two-dimensional), whereas the
other is more of a knob (fully three-dimensional). Further complicating our understanding is the
presence of building influences for the shorter stacks and higher wind speeds. The concentrations as
measured and presented herein are influenced by all these factors; to quantify the influences of each
factor would require many additional measurements.
In spite of our inability to isolate and describe in detail the specific causes of the results, the
broad picture is understood and the concentration patterns and values should be eminently usable for
the intended purpose. Given emission rates of passive containments from the WTI stack, the user
may simply and easily apply the surface maps contained herein to calculate concentration levels and
areas of exposure for each of the wind speeds, directions, and stack heights tested. With some
interpolation, he may use the results for wide ranges of wind speeds and stack heights under what we
believe to be the most serious terrain-downwash conditions.
This data set should be complemented by a meteorological analysis that assesses the relative
frequencies of occurrence of those conditions which result in the maximum glcs. A further risk
assessment must be made by health specialists as to whether those values of concentration and
frequencies of occurrence are acceptable. These results will assist EPA's Regional Office in assessing
the impacts of the surrounding topography as it relates to the overall risks associated with operation
of the WTI hazardous waste incinerator.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to Ms. Donna Schwede, Atmospheric Sciences
Modeling Division (ASMD), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for her
help in processing the wind records from the Beaver Valley Power Station/to Messrs. G. Leonard
Marsh, Mantech Environmental Technology (MET), and GuWei Zhu, North Carolina State
University, for their help in collecting the wind-tunnel data, to the latter two plus Messrs. Paul
Volume IV } 4
Appendix IV-6
-------
Bookman, MET, Van Hursey, MET, and Lewis A. Knight, ASMD, NOAA, for help in preparing the
wind tunnel and constructing and installing the terrain model, to Mr. Michael S. Shipman, MET, for
developing specialized software, to Mr. Robert E. Lawson, Jr., ASMD, NOAA for help with the
pulsed-wire measurements, and to Ms. Pamela Bagley, ASMD, NOAA, for typing this report We
also wish to thank Mr. Virgil Reynolds, East Liverpool, OH, for supplying numerous aerial
photographs and videotapes of the site and surrounding areas; these were especially useful in
construction of the model. Finally we thank Ms. Pamela Blakley, Region 5, EPA, who supplied many
maps, facts, and figures useful to the study.
DISCLAIMER
This document is intended for internal Agency use only. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
2
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
Figure 1. Topographical map showing terrain surrounding WTI site. Rectangle shows boundaries of wind-tunnel
model, x is location of stack. WTI buildings not shown.
-------
FIG 2. DRW
ENTRANCE
CONTRACTION
CEILING
WINDOWS
HEIGHT
2.1m
DIFFUSER
SECTION
TEST SECTION LENGTH
18.3m
WIDTH
3.7m
SPIRES BLOCK M°DEL
ROUGHNESS
SOUNDPROOF ENCLOSURE
FOR FAN AND MOTOR
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the EPA Meteorological Wind Tunnel
-------
Figure 3. View of WTI terrain model in meteorological wind tunnel - looking upstream
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
s.
Valley axis
Figure 4. Flow vectors in centerplane of river valley
-------
Figure 5. Surface concentration map for case SE6.8V,HS = 45.7m, wind
direction = 125°, U500 = 6.8m/s.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
— SE5-8MX 001 (1 2- Max gic vs down* no aistance WD=i25deo U=6 8m/s Hs=-J5 7rr
06-25-94
4.5
"3
0
X
g
o
3 •
1.5 -
A
= 500
= 5.65
\
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
x, m
Figure 6. Maximum concentration versus downwind distance for case
SE6.8. Hs = 45.7m, wind direction = 125°, U500 = 6.8m/s.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
£A WTISEMX 001 (1,2) Max concentration ana distance vs wma speed. WD=125aeg. Hs=45 7m
06-15-94
LJ WTISGMX 001 (1.2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed. WD=125deg. Hs=72 7m
06-16-94
O WTISHMX 001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed, WD=125deg Hs=l20m
06-20-94
0)
CO
x
g
o
12
10
4 •
2 -
Stack Height, m
-A- 45.7
-D 72.7
O 120
A
A
A
-I-
8
U, m/s
10
12
14
16
Figure 7. Maximum glc versus wind speed for SE wind direction.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
A WTISEMX OO1 0 3) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed WD=i25deg Hs=45 7m
06-15-94
HI WTISGMX 001 n 3) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed, WD=l25deg. Hs=72 7m
06-16-94
O WTISHMX 001 (1.3) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed. WD=125deg, Hs=l20m
06-20-94
1800
X
E
1600 .-
1400 -.
1200 • •
1000 .-
800 -•
600 -•
400 ••
200 .-
O
Stack Height, m
^r 45.7
-D 72.7
O 120
A
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
U, m/s
*'*
Figure 8. Distance to maximum glc versus wind speed for SE wind direction.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
A WTINEMX.001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance v* wmd speed, WD»305deg, Hs*45 7m
07-13-94
G WTINGMX 001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wmd speed, WD»305deg. H«-72 7m
07-13-94
O WTINHMX001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wmd speed, WD"305deg, Hs-120m
07-13-94
A WTINENM.001 (1,2) Max conceKiaUuri and distance vs wmd speed, WD«305deg, Hs«45.7m
07-13-94 wfebldee
• WTINGNM.001 (1,2) Max cancelaiaOcm and distance vs wmd speed, WD-305deg, Hs»72.7m
07-13*4 Mfobtdgs
n
%
(D
CO
3
O
o
8
3 •
2 •
1 •
•+•
-f
+
•i—r
D
o-o—o
0
D
0
Stack Height, m
45.7
-Q 72.7
O- 120
— No buildings
No buildings
12
16
20
24
28
U, m/s
Figure 9. Maximum glc versus wind speed for NW wind direction.
Volume IV
Appendix FV-6
-------
Zl V/TIFEMX.001 (1.2) Max concentration and distance vs wind soeed for flat terrai" w/ bids
07-26-94 Hs=45 7m
3 WTIFGMX 001 (1.2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed for flat terrain w/ bids
07-26-94 Hs=72 7m
O WTIFHMX.001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed for flat terrain w/ bids
07-27-94 Hs=120m
A WTIFENMX.001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed for flat terrain w/o bids
07-27-94 Hs=45.7m
• WTIFGNMX.001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed for flat terrain, w/o bids
07-27-94 Ms=72.7m
10
0)
w
x
O
O
7 •-
5 -
4 •
3 .
2 •
.1 -
Stack Height, m
A 45.7
D 72.7
O 120
Filled symbols, without buildings
O
10
15
U, m/s
Figure 10. Maximum glc versus wind speed in flat terrain.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
12
I
X
g
o
10 .-
8 ..
6 •
4 .
2 -
A H$ = 45.7m
D Hs = 72.7 m
O H,=120 m
OPEN SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 305°
FILLED SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 125°
HALF-FILLED SYMBOLS: FLAT TERRAIN
8
U, m/s
12
16
Figure 11. Maximum glc versus wind speed for all configurations with buildings.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
-------
3000
2500
2000
-x 1500
£
1000 .
500 -
t
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 . , T-
A H, = 45.7 m
k D Ha = 72.7 m
\ O Ht=120m
\ OPEN SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 305°
3 FILLED SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 125°
HALF-FILLED SYMBOLS: FLAT TERRAIN
12
16
. U, m/s
Figure 12. Distance to maximum glc versus wind speed for all configurations
with buildings.
Volume rv
Appendix IV-6
-------
APPENDIX IV-7
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
Appendix IV-7
-------
COMMENTS
D. Bruce Turner, C.C.M.
Appendix IV-7
-------
From the desk of D. Bruce Turner, C. C. M.
P O Box 2099, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2099
June 27,1995
Review of the ISC-COMPDEP Model
Background
A review of the ISC-COMPDEP Model was made based upon the following materials:
In hard copy:
"Development of the ISC-COMPDEP and User Instructions" Submitted by: A. T.
Kearney, Inc.; Submitted to: Bemie Orenstein, US EPA, Region V. In response to : EPA
Contract No. 68-W9-0040, Work Assignment No. R05-32-01. December 1993.
"Summary of ISC-COMPDEP Model" Submitted by: A. T. Kearney, Inc.; Submitted to
Pam Blakley, EPA Region V. EPA Work Assignment No. R05001, Contract No.
68-W4-0006. August 16, 1994.
"User Instructions for a New Area Source Algorithm" U. S. EPA, August 1993.
"Appendix A, Integration Approach" (no further identification)
In electronic form:
ISC2 Users Guide (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Appendices)
ISCOMDEP executable code and test data.
Action Taken
The furnished materials were reviewed. (Some pages that were missing from one of the
documents were sent to me by fax.) The tests included with the materials furnished were run and
verified to produce proper results. A number of additional tests were devised and run to examine
specific features of the model. These are described and discussed in the last section of this
review.
Comments on the Appropriateness of the Methods Used to Develop the Model
The EPA undertook a multi-million dollar effort to develop a refined model for use in complex
terrain. The CTDMPLUS is a result of that effort and is designated by EPA as a refined model
for use in complex terrain.
The CTDMPLUS, however, does not include effects of building downwash, the calculation of
wet/dry deposition, or the ability to calculate concentration or deposition from an area source.
-------
Review - ISC-COMPDEP
page 2 - June 27, 1995
Therefore if a given source configuration includes both considerations of complex terrain, as well
as some of the features mentioned in the above paragraph, to analyze impacts for this source it
must be determined if there are dominant features to be considered that make selection of an
existing model possible in spite of limitations or if it necessary to create a new model that will
have the necessary features combined that will allow the proper analysis of the situation.
Apparently, the decision was made to create a new model with the desired features.
It would seem that if complex terrain were of significant importance that the CTDMPLUS would
be the base model with which to start and to add necessary features to that model. In this case
this was not done. There is no information in the material furnished as to whether this was
considered or not. Also there is no information furnished to determine the importance of
complex terrain in relation to other desired modeling features.
The screening procedure for complex terrain situations that includes use of both ISCST2 and
COMPLEX! that was in common use as a screening technique prior to the adoption of
CTDMPLUS as a refined model for complex terrain has formed the basis of handling complex
terrain for the model being reviewed. The way in which the results from these two models are
combined is as follows: ISCST2 is used for receptors below stack top elevation; COMPLEX! is
used for receptors above plume centerhne; both models are evaluated for receptors whose
elevations are between stack top and plume centerline and the larger value chosen as the
appropriate concentration.
Appropriateness of Dispersion Modeling Algorithms and Techniques to Regulatory
Modeling
1) Treatment of Terrain
The treatment of terrain for receptor elevations that are between stack-top elevation and plume
centerline elevation by using the largest value from the two techniques COMPLEX! or ISCST2
with chopped terrain are following regulatory guidance issued by EPA. Each of these techniques
have little technical basis and are not compatible with each other. The COMPLEX-I is a 22.5°
sector averaged technique which may be quite reasonable for long-term (monthly to annual or
longer) concentration but has little relevance to one-hour plumes to which it is being applied here.
One-hour plumes are much more likely to have higher concentrations near the centerline of the
plume and drop to lower concentrations to the side. They may not have an exact Gaussian or
normal distribution crosswind but are more likely to have a distribution not greatly differing from
Gaussian than they are to have a uniform distribution crosswind across a 22.5° width.
The chopped ISCST2 calculations although assuming a normal distribution crosswind (and thus
not very compatible with the COMPLEX-I technique) drops the elevation of the receptor
regardless of its actual elevation to that of the stack top. This procedure is likely to underestimate
the concentration at the receptor due to removing the receptor vertically away from the plume
centerline. This underestimation of concentrations is probably compensated for by the dispersion
parameters (av and OT, the spreading parameters in the horizontal and the vertical) that are used.
The parameters used as functions of the Pasquill stability class and downwind distance from the
source are those commonly used over flat or rolling terrain. These are likely to be smaller than
the dispersion that actually takes place m a terrain situation primarily due to the additional
roughness of the terrain situation and the consequent generation of additional mechanical
turbulence which increases the spreading. The effects of this additional spreading in the
horizontal are easily understood as the additional spreading will reduce concentrations at all
downwind locations. The effect of additional vertical spreading is not as easily explained as it
will cause additional parts of the plume to be spread to a receptor beneath the plume centerline
position and will increase concentrations. At greater distances the additional vertical spreading
D. Brace Turner. CCM • P. O. Box 2099. Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2099 U.S.A. • Voice and Fax: (919)967-0325
-------
Review • ISC-COMPDEP
page 3 - June 27, 1995
will decrease concentrations just as is done in the horizontal. In summary, the chopped ISCST2
treatment likely causes the underestimation by the treatment of the vertical receptor position to be
compensated, at least partially, by the overestimation resulting from using dispersion parameter
values that are likely to be too small.
Since the larger value from the two techniques is chosen, this value frequently comes from the
ISCST2 because of its narrower plume.
The preceding paragraphs are just commenting on the technical aspects of the two techniques
adopted by guidance of EPA. It is expedient to include in ISC-COMPDEP those techniques
which previously have been approved. Deviation from these techniques would need to be
accompanied by considerable volumes of evaluation data: data which is not readily available.
2) Use of Wind and Temperature Data for Multiple Levels
The use of available onsite data is to encouraged. In fact, the use of multiple-level
meteorological data is required by EPA in order to use the CTDMPLUS, the only refined
complex terrain model approved (by Supplement fi to the Guidelines) for regulatory use. The
approximation of the direction of flow of the plume by the wind direction for the height of the
leveled-off plume is much more likely to result in the plume being oriented toward the proper
direction.
The calculation of the rise of the plume (and its resulting final height) is also likely to be more
correct by considering the wind speed and temperature structure of the air through which the
plume rises.
However, the model uses the wind speed at final plume height for dilution. This is incorrect
since the dilution by the wind or stretching of the plume in the downwind direction is something
that takes place by the horizontal wind as the effluent exits the stack. Therefore, the wind speed
estimated to occur at stack top is the correct wind speed to use as a dilution wind.
3) The Building Downwash Techniques
Here as in the treatment of terrain the standard treatment m guidance is adopted in the model.
This is appropriate since without substantiating data there is little basis to propose alternate
techniques.
However, it needs to be pointed out that the current techniques make the assumptions that the size
of the zone and the effects of down wash are not altered by either wind speed or stability. This
results in the highest concentrations occurring downwind of buildings occurring with light winds
and stable conditions. One expects the maximum sized zone of building generated turbulence to
occur with moderate to strong wind speeds when the maximum degree of mechanically
turbulence is generated. Under such wind speeds the atmosphere is driven to neutral. The actual
effects that would be expected under light-wind stable conditions would be the drift of winds
around buildings without the generation of much additional turbulence, thus having considerably
less distortion of the flow and effect upon emissions from roof-top and higher heights. The use of
the current downwash techniques endorsed by guidelines will tend to greatly overestimate the
close-to-the-source concentrations that are calculated under light-wind stable conditions for
sources that are calculated to be affected by building downwash.
D. Brace Turner. CCM • P.O. Box 2099. Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2099 U.S.A. • Voice and Fax: (919)967-0325
-------
Review - ISC-COMPDEP
page 4 - June 27.1995
4) The Area Source Algorithm
Although not particularly important for assessing effects from a hazardous waste incinerator, the
inclusion of an improved area source algorithm is a welcome substitution to the base model. The
problems of the simulation of an area source by a single finite line source that is located too close
to the upwind side of the source (the technique used by ISC2) has been known for some time.
Some calculations using the area source algorithm have been included in the examination of the
model for this review (see 8) and 9) below). On the plus side the addition of the substitute
algorithm not only allows much better calculation of concentrations at receptor distances at
downwind locations near the source, but also allows more appropriate calculation of
concentrations for receptors within the area source. The capabilities of this algorithm to properly
estimate concentrations are especially important for the use of these concentrations to calculate
deposition such as from an area source with paniculate emissions raised by the movement of
vehicles and the loading, unloading, and redistributing of paniculate material throughout the area.
On the negative side, the proper calculation of effects from area sources using this technique is
very consuming of computer time and will lengthen the time significantly for simulations
involving area sources. This could be reduced by using the exacting procedures of this area-
source algorithm only for receptor positions near or within the area, and using more approximate
techniques as the source-receptor downwind distance increases.
5) Dry Deposition, Depletion of Particles, Wet Scavangmg
Specific runs of the model (see 15) through 18) below) were made to examine deposition and
depletion. The directions of change for both concentrations and deposition were as expected for
the modifications made to the input for each run. ,
It is not possible with the limited time allowed for this review to do as complete an analysis as is
desired of the features of the deposition and depletion that is now included in the model. From
the description in the text, there is a good attempt to meld the features of treatment of terrain and
deposition and depletion. A comparison that would be useful would be to examine deposition
and depletion with this model and the FDM (Fugitive Dust Model) for both point and area
sources.
Comments on Use of Model for Evaluation of Impact of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator in a
Valley
It is my opinion that the use of this model for the evaluation of the impact of a hazardous waste
incinerator in a valley is likely to result in estimates of concentration and deposition that more
closely simulate what occurs in the atmosphere than the use of a model such as ISCST2.
The use of onsite data should result in improved results. If data from a nearby location but not
onsite are used, it is likely that the topographic influences may be slightly altered resulting in
increased simulation of cross-valley flow which will result in high calculated impacts. The use of
onsite data will be expected to more properly simulate the frequencies of wind direction that
actually occur which will probably include high frequencies of along-valley flow but not very
high frequencies of cross-valley flow.
If sufficient data are available to apply the CTDMPLUS model, that model may better simulate
the resulting concentrations. Of course, since deposition and depletion are not addressed by the
CTDMPLUS, it could not do any of the simulation of the behaviour of paniculate matter that
would be different from assumptions that the parrcles are transported and dispersed similar to a
gas.
D. Bruce Turner. CCM • P. O. Box 2099. Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2099 U.S.A. • Voice and Fax: (919)967-0325
-------
Review - ISC-COMPDEP
page 5 - June 27,1995
Modeling Runs to Examine Features of Model and Results
The following modeling runs were accomplished with the indicated results.
1) The test input for both concentration and deposition runs were executed with results as
expected.
2) Abbreviated data for MET, WND, and TMP were created consisting of only two days and a
runstream TEMP.INC to execute for just one day was formulated and executed. Results given in
the plot file appeared to be OK.
3) Remove access to the special terrain file WTI100K.OUT creating input runstream TEMl.INC
and run again. Output in the plot file appears reasonable.
4) Create new .met, .wnd, and .tmp files called area.xxx with same hourly data repeated for each
of 48 hours. Create new receptor array, access new files TEM2.INC. and run for flat terrain.
Output in die plot file appears reasonable.
5) Remove building dimensions TEM3.INC and run again. Concentrations are considerably less
as they should be.
6) Change from ten particle size fractions to three particle size fractions TEM4.INC and run
again. Concentrations given in the plot file are very slightly greater.
7) Lower stack height, decrease diameter, exit velocity, and exit temperature TEM5.INC and run.
Concentrations are greatly increased.
8) Create 100 meter by 100 meter area source of height 0.5 meters TEM6.INC and run.
Concentrations increase widi downwind distance to downwind edge of area source. Behaviour
appears to be reasonable.
9) Create a runstream YEM6.IND for the area source for deposition and run. Output appears
reasonable.
10) Create new vertical wind data AREA2.WND with no change of wind speed with height.
Run TEM7.FNC and examine output. Expected concentrations to change because of different
plume rise and dilution. Output is same as for TEM5.INC. It is questionable as to whether the
calculation of plume rise considering the wind with height is working!!
11) Create runstream TEM8.INC with higher source. Run with same met files as TEM7.INC
(step above). Output is same as running TEM4.INC. Would have expected plume rise to change.
12) Create a new temperature widi height data set AREA2.TMP widi temperature increasing
with height. Create a runstream TEM9.INC to use this data and run. Widi use of this data there
is no change in concentrations from the previous run. This may be due to the temperatures not
being used since the stability is 4.
13) Create a new temperature with height data set AREAS .TMP widi the temperatures the same
as in AREA2.TMP except that they are in units of Kelvin. Create runstream TEM10.INC and
run. Concentration output is unchanged.
14) A new met set AREAl.met with stability 5 substituted for stability 4- for all hours was
created. A new runstream TEM1 l.INC which is a duplicate of TEM9.INC with the exception
that AREA2.MET is accessed. The expectation was that the concentrations would change due to
a variation in the plume rise and due to changed dispersion parameters. The concentrations
D. Bnice Turner. CCM • P.O. Box 2099. Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2099 U.S.A. • Voice and Fax: (919) 967-0325
-------
Review - ISC-COMPDEP
page 6 - June 27,1995
decreased greatly, probably due to the decreased az values that do not allow very much influence
of the plume upon the ground.
Eight additional runs of the model were made to see how changes in inputs related to the
deposition affect concentration and deposition. Description of these runs follow:
15) Using the stack that was pan of the TEM5. run (a shorter stack) particles of just one size. 2
um, were assumed. The runstream for concentration is TEM12.INC; the runstream for deposition
is TEM12.IND.
16) A change in particle density from 1 to 2 was made. Runstreams are TEM13.INC and
TEM13.IND. Results for concentrations are barely perceptible. Maximum deposition is about
1.8 times as high as previously. Deposition at the farthest downwind distance, 5000 m. is also
higher (the exact fraction can not be determined as there is only one significant digit given in the
results).
17) The panicle size is increased from 2 to 20 u.m. Runstreams are TEM14.INC and
TEM14.IND. Peak concentration is decreased to 0.79 of that for 2 u,m panicle sizes.
Concentration at 5000 m, the farthest distance calculated, is decreased to 0.23 of that for 2 u.m
particle sizes. Maximum deposition is 299 times that for 2 urn particle sizes. Deposition at 5000
m is 94 times that at this distance for 2 u.m panicle sizes.
18) Runs for 15) through 17) were over flat terrain. Terrain was added to the runstreams of 17)
resulting in TEM15.INC and TEM15.IND. Both concentrations and deposition were increased
close in and were less at 5000 m. This is the direction of change that would be expected.
D. Bruce Turner, CCM
Senior Consultant
* Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Enclosures: Listings of: Computer Input Runstreams; Output Plot Files; Data Files
Diskette with Test Runstreams, Data, and List files.
D. Bruce Turner. CCM • P. O. Box 2099. Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2099 U.S.A. • Voice and Fax: (919) 967-0325
-------
COMMENTS
Rayford P. Hosker, Jr., Ph.D.
Appendix IV-7
-------
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division
456 South Illinois Avenue
P. O. Box 2456
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-245
May 11, 1995
Mr. Daniel A. Vallero
Mr. Tom McCurdy
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Human Exposure and Field Research Division (MD-56)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear Sirs:
The following summarizes my review of two documents by W. H. Snyder and R. S. Thompson,
"Wind-Tunnel Simulation to Assess Terrain Downwash Effects at the WTI Hazardous Waste
Incinerator Project Summary", and "Data Report: Wind-Tunnel Simulation to Assess Terrain
Downwash Effects at the WTI Hazardous Waste Incinerator". The first of these documents is just
an abbreviated version of the second, and seems to include all the pertinent materials from the
main (data) report. I believe it is a very clear and complete summary. I have therefore discussed
the two reports together rather than separately; the comments below apply to both reports
unless stated otherwise.
You asked me to address the following scientific issues (paraphrased for brevity):
(a) Are the project goals clearly stated and met? Could the project have been modified to meet
any unmet goals? The primary goal, to simulate worst-case terrain-induced downwash effects,
is clearly stated. The December 1993 peer-review panel convened to evaluate the draft EPA plan
for assessing risk at the WTI facility is quoted as also being interested in "quantification of the
near- and mid-field three-dimensional wind flow within and downwind of the river valley and the
quantification of the combined effects of terrain and buildings on the near-field dispersion". The
project mentions these secondary goals, and points out that the technical requirements for wind
tunnel modeling of such a physically large area preclude a strict quantification of near-field
phenomena because of necessary scaling distortions. However, the modeling effort is able to
provide a qualitative picture of these secondary points of interest. Given the size of the present
EPA wind tunnel (already a large facility), it would be impossible to improve this situation. The
local scale flows presumably could be studied separately, using an appropriate building complex
and stack model, although it would be difficult in my opinion to establish an approach flow that
simulates the mean wind field distortions and turbulence effects of the upwind terrain obstacles.
(b) Are state-of-the-art wind tunnel simulation practices used? The authors are very well aware
of the scaling requirements for successful wind tunnel simulations (Dr. Snyder has helped "write
the book" in this area), and have spent considerable effort in meeting these requirements. Their
procedures are well documented in the report, and I see no problems with their effort.
Telephone:
FAX:
(61 S) 576-1233
(615)576-1327
-------
(c) Are the QA/QC practices described in the report? Were scientifically adequate QA/QC
practices followed during the experiment?! work? Equipment calibration procedures are
described at length, and samples of typical calibration runs are included. The measurement
procedures are documented in great detail. The computer files are described in detail, so that
interested parties could utilize the files without difficulty. Overall, this is one of the best
documented wind tunnel studies I have ever read; the level of detail provided inspires a good
deal of confidence in the results. The procedures followed are pretty much standard (or should
be) in the field. The only possible improvement would be for the authors to demonstrate NIST
or similar traceability in their laboratory standards.
(d) Do the data meet adequate precision and accuracy requirements? Yes. Accuracy and
precision of the measurements are described, along with the methods used to evaluate them.
The accuracy and precision achieved are adequate, in my opinion, to determine the flow and
concentration fields of interest.
(e) Do the summary and conclusion follow logically from the data, and are they scientifically
valid? Yes. In fact, the authors seem to be making an effort to avoid "overselling" the
significance of their results. They clearly state the limitations of their work, identify continued
areas of uncertainty, and describe the additional work needed to turn this wind tunnel study into
a risk assessment.
(f) Are the documents clear and concise, complete, and logically organized? Yes.
Condensation of the text would be possible, but at the expense of the detailed description of the
calibrations and experimental procedures that provide extra credibility for the work. This is a
judgement call. I'd leave it alone.
You also asked me to address the following points (paraphrased for brevity) relating to the wind
tunnel simulation of the WTI facility:
(a) Are the limitations of the project clearly stated? Are the limitations of sufficient magnitude that
they severely reduce the usefulness of the simulations? If so, what mitigative measures should
be taken to improve the situation? The authors clearly and explicitly state the limitations of the
experimental work. I think the most important limitations are: scaling distortions leading to
improper scaling in the near field, the restriction to only two wind directions, and - possibly -
the restriction to windy neutral conditions. As noted above, the scaling distortions are driven by
the size of the existing EPA wind tunnel, the extent of the terrain to be modeled, and the need
to model buoyant discharges. This distortion prevents quantitative interpretation of the near field.
If this near field flow and dispersion behavior is important (e.g., for questions related to employee
exposures), then a separate study should be done at a lesser scale reduction. But, as stated
earlier, this study will be difficult because of the need to somehow simulate the terrain-influenced
approach flow and turbulence. I think the restriction to only two wind directions is probably the
main shortcoming of the work. Given the complexity of the terrain to the west of the site
(multiple hills), I would have liked to see additional wind directions with a westerly component,
in case streamline curvatures around these hills lead to unexpected regions of deflection and
downwash. But this is perhaps more of a completeness issue than a practical one; I think it is
likely that the authors have captured the main downwash effects with their choice of the 125°
and 305° wind directions because these cover the largest and closest terrain obstacles. Given
the width of the EPA tunnel and the extent of the terrain to be modeled, additional wind
directions would probably require the construction and testing of additional site models, at
-------
considerable additional expense. The restriction to the windy neutral stability case is addressed
below.
(b) Do the simulations capture the important factors that are expected to generate maximum
ground-level concentrations near WTl? The simulations were performed for the windy neutral
case; are there other meteorological conditions or wind directions which could lead to higher
ground-level concentrations? I think the windy neutral terrain downwash case has been covered
reasonably well by the present study, although I mention again that additional westerly wind
directions would probably have been beneficial. But there are other atmospheric stability
conditions that are known to occasionally generate very high ground-level concentrations, and
these are not explored in the present study. First, light wind unstable conditions can generate
very large scale eddies that can transport even very buoyant elevated plumes down to ground
level quite close to the source; this results in very high concentrations. This case is very difficult
to simulate in the .laboratory. Also, the high concentrations are of short duration because of the
nature of convective turbulence, so the actual dose to humans or vegetation is generally small.
This highly convective case is probably important only if the stack effluent concentrations are
very large and the toxictty of the material is high, so that significant dosage can be accumulated
over very short time scales. Second, stable nocturnal conditions in complex terrain can give rise
to some very interesting and complicated flow and dispersion phenomena. Terrain-induced flow
disturbances (lee waves; hydraulic jumps) can result in significant downward motions in valleys
behind obstacles; these could transport a normally elevated plume down close to the surface.
Because the nocturnal turbulence levels will usually be rather low, the plume concentrations can
be high. Another possibility might be the transport of an elevated plume in the cold air drainage
within a deep valley at night; the minimally diluted plume may travel long distances before
contacting terrain, if the nocturnal winds are very light and the airshed is not well drained (not
clear from the terrain map given) then the effluent may collect within a kind of cold air pool, and
produce high ground-level concentrations whenever the pool is mixed by a nocturnal turbulence
outbreak, or during the morning fumigation and breakup of the valley inversion. These nighttime
cases may or may not produce ground-level concentrations greater than the direct downwash
case; the only thing I am sure of is that the surface concentration patterns will be different than
for the windy neutral case. The nocturnal cases can be studied to some extent in a stratified tow
tank, but the cases involving cold air drainages and pooling will be very difficult to simulate. This
is one of the main reasons why people continue to perform field studies in complex terrain,
rather than always resorting to laboratory simulations. In fact, it may take a field study (both
meteorological fields and tracers) to fully evaluate the nocturnal case at WTI.
Finally, you asked me to:
(a) Evaluate the appropriateness of the approach. If attention is confined just to the terrain-
induced downwash case, then the approach and methods used by the authors are appropriate.
If strongly convective light wind conditions occur frequently at WTI, and/or if the nocturnal flow
patterns can lead to plume impaction, or to plume trapping in the river valley with subsequent
fumigation, then additional studies are needed. There is not enough information provided to
determine if any of these cases warrant attention.
(b) Evaluate the technical and scientific quality of the work and data. This is high quality work,
suitable for publication in the scientific literature. What has been done is done well. What has
not been dune can only be the subject of speculation; the authors' opinions as to the benefits
and necessary breadth of additional studies would be a useful addition to the report.
-------
(c) Evaluate the clarity of the presentation. First rate. Few journal articles are as clear and well-
written as these reports. I found only one minor discrepancy: in the main (data) report, on p. 49,
the fifth line from the bottom refers to case SG9.0 in Appendix E; I could only find case NG9.0.
Actually, this sentence would be clearer if the actual Rgure numbers were cited instaad.
If you have any questions about my comments and opinions, please contact me.
Sincerely, ^
Rayford P. Hosker, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division
-------
COMMENTS
Michael Schatzmann
Appendix IV-7
-------
Review on
W. H. Snyder an R. S. Thomson (1994)
'Wind Tunnel Simulation to Assess Terrain Downwash
Effects at the WTI Hazardous Waste Incinerator'
by
Michael Schatzmann
Meteorological Institute
University of Hamburg
Bundesstrasse 55
D-20146 Hamburg
Germany
June 1995
-------
Work content:
The objective of the study was to examine terrain-downwash effects on the ground level
concentration field caused by releases from the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in East
Liverpool, Ohio.
To achieve the objective, a wind tunnel study was carried out at scale 1:480, under neutral
atmospheric stability conditions, for moderate to high wind speeds, for two wind directions and
for three stack nights. The experiments have been carried out with and without terrain in order
to isolate terrain effects and to better understand the effects of the topography on plume
dispersion.
In modeling the small scale plume, methane was used to produce the buoyancy. The momentum
and buoyancy length scales of the exhaust gas were matched.
Comments:
To study plume dispersion in complex terrain, physical modeling (i. e. the simulation in a wind
tunnel or water tank) is presently the most appropriate way to understand the processes involved
and to achieve reliable data.
The practices used in the study are common and are applied in fluid modeling facilities all over
the world.
Similarity concept:
For exact similarity the densimetnc Froude number, the velocity ratio, the density ratio, several
Reynolds numbers and some non-dimensional boundary layer parameters must be matched (see
Data Report, chapter 2.3). Since not all of the similarity requirements can be achieved
simultaneously in a small scale simulation, certain compromises have to be made.
The compromise the authors of the study chose was to distort the densimetric Froude number,
the density ratio and the velocity ratio and to match instead of them two bulk parameters, i. e.
the momentum length scale and the buoyancy length scale. Although the referee follows in his
own work alternative lines of approximate scaling, the authors approach is certainly a possible
solution to the similarity problem. The authors themselves discuss their choice critically and in
detail. They are aware of the fact that they will have discrepancies between model and
prototype in the near field of the plume but get the benefit of obtaining larger Reynolds
numbers and manageable tunnel speeds.
-------
Wind tunnel boundary layer:
The wind tunnel boundary layer was generated using a combination of vortex generators and
roughness elements. This is a common and recognized procedure. The boundary layer
parameters were measured and compared with field data. The efforts described to adjust the
ceiling above the terrain model give evidence on the care and thoughtfulness with which the
authors prepared their experiments.
Data collection;
The authors used state of the art equipment to measure velocities, turbulence intensities and
mean concentrations. The methods applied have proven to be reliable and accurate.
Quality control;
The authors made intercomparisons with field data whereever it appeared to be possible
(vertical velocity and turbulence intensity profiles, dispersion parameters downwind from a
point source etc.) Much more care has been taken to assure the quality of the work as is usually
commen in contract work.
Data processing;
The collection and processing of data has been automated to a high degree. Under such
conditions, errors in data handling are unlikely to occur. The documentation of the data is very
clear and sets standards for other wind tunnel laboratories
Experimental nrogrnm:
The number of experiments had to be limited by the authors to a reasonable amount. The
decision by the authors, to concentrate on two wind directions seems to be justified. Although
not proven through further experiments, the assumption of the authors that the wind directions
125° and 305° would lead to the largest increase in ground level concentration maxima due to
terrain effects is quite convincing and in line with the referees experience. The maximum mean
concentration increase due to building effects (likely to be important for the smallest stack)
might be found at another wind direction, but building effects were not the main objective of the
study.
The variation of wind speed (in order to find the worst case wind velocity) leads to plausible
results.
The flat terrain experiments carried out to isolate the terrain effects were done in an adequate
manner. Although not all of the results from these experiments allowe'd a clear interpretation of
the findings, the broad features of the results were plausible.
-------
Stability effects:
The study was carried out under neutral ambient stability conditions only. In view of the fact
that the ground level concentration maxima were found in the velocity range (500 feet level)
between 7 m/s (tallest stack) and more than 13.5 m/s (smallest stack), this seems to be justified.
A stability statistic of the WTT site would most likely show that these large wind speeds occur
only in combination with neutral or near-neutral stability classes.
Summary of statements and conclusions:
The conclusions drawn in the summary statement are convincing and a logical interpretation of
the experimental observations.
Written document:
The document is well organised and written in a clear and concise manner.
Limitations:
There are only minor limitations of the study and these are discussed by the authors themselves.
They result mainly from the fact that the whole study was focussed on the quantification of
terrain effects. The investigation of building effects was given only second priority when the
experimental program was designed. This is in line with the objective of the project but leads to
some difficulties in interpreting the results. This does, however, not significantly limit the
usefulness of the study.
Conclusion:
The goal of the study was to assess the terrain effects on plume dispersion under the specific
conditions of the WTI-site in East Liverpool, Ohio. The objective of the study has been met.
-------
COMMENTS
Dr. R.E. Britter
Appendix IV-7
-------
Scientific Peer Review
of Two Documents
which report the results of
AREAL's Wind Tunnel Simulation Study
of Terrain Down wash Effects
at the Wn Harardous Waste Incinerator
Review by
Dr R. E. Britter
Cambridge
England
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Small Purchase Unit (3803 F)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
U.S.A.
June IS, 199S
-------
1. Introduction
The Purpose. Background and Statement of Work of this review are reprinted below.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this statement of work is to provide assistance to the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) in requesting the services of two experts to review two
reports describing wind-tunnel simulation experiments (the Study) conducted at the
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL). These reports
are entitled: 1) Wind-Tunnel Simulation to Assess Terrain Downwash Effects at the
WTI Hazardous Waste Incinerator: Project Summary (William H. Snyder and Roger S.
Thompson. December 1994), and 2) Data Report: Wind-Tunnel Simulation to Assess
Terrain Downwash Effects at the WTI Hazardous Waste Incinerator (William H. Snyder
and Roger S. Thompson. December 1994).
1.2 Background
In a December 1993 workshop, a panel of experts reviewed a project plan lor conducting
an assessment of the potential risks associated with an incinerator operated by Waste
Technologies Industries (WTI) Inc. The panel stated that terrain-induced downwash
effects are likely to be a serious problem at the WTI site and recommended that a
wind-tunnel study should be conducted to investigate these effects.
The goal of the Study was to address this recommendation by simulating worst-case
terrain-downwash effects at the WTI incinerator and determining what meteorological
conditions lead to high ground-level pollutant concentrations.
The Study's design is principally defined by the following experimental conditions:
a. The Study focused on examining terrain effects at the WTI site under moderate
and high-wind conditions. The Study did not examine building downwash effects.
b. Due to the physical and mechanical configuration of the wind-tunnel, only two
wind directions were simulated, rather than all-possible wind directions.
c. The Study applied scale-reduction parameters, such as exaggerating the stack
diameter and increasing the difference in density between exhaust gas and ambient
air.
d. Methane was used as a tracer gas in the simulations.
1.3 Statement of Work
In accordance with guidance provided by the project manager, the contractor, hereafter
called the reviewer, shall review the reports listed above. The reviewer shall specifically
address the following scientific issues in his or her review.
a. The goals of the Study were to examine possible terrain-induced downwash effects
and to assess the resulting values and patterns of ground-level concentration.
Please discuss to what extent these objectives have been met.
b. The experimental conditions used are intended to simulate those that occur m the
vicinity of the WTI incinerator site. Provide comments on whether the conditions
1
-------
used in the wind-tunnel experiments are appropriate to simulate conditions at the
site. These comments should address the following points:
* The appropriateness of the wind-tunnel simulation practices that are used
in the study.
* The adequacy of the quality assurance /quality control practices that are
described in the report.
* The precision and accuracy of data collected during the study, and
* The extent to which the simulations capture important factors that are
expected to lead to maximum ground-level concentrations in the vicinity
of the WTI plant due to terrain downwash.
c. The wind-tunnel simulations were performed for neutral atmospheric stability
conditions. Please comment on the appropriateness of these conditions.
d. Evaluate whether the summary statements and conclusions flow logically from the
data obtained and observations made during the Study. Also, provide suggestions
as to how they might be improved to better represent the experimental results.
e. Provide an evaluation of the written documents. Please address whether they are
complete, logically organized, and written in a clear and concise manner.
f. Describe any significant and relevant limitations of the Study that are not ad-
equately described in the documents. Please comment on whether any of the
Study's limitations (whether described in the document or not) significantly limit
its usefulness in simulating upwind terrain-induced downwash from the WTI in-
cinerator.
Each of the points within the Statement of Work is addressed in the following sections.
2. The goals of the Study were to examine possible terrain-induced down-
wash effects and to assess the resulting values and patterns of ground-level
concentration. Please discuss to what extent these objectives have been met.
In general the objectives of the study have been met but. as in most scientific investiga-
tions of complex problems, the final conclusions are not completely unqualified.
The logical development of the study was
(i) To recognize the possible importance of terrain-induced downwash at the WTI Haz-
ardous Waste site.
(ii) To note that the importance will be most evident at higher wind speeds when the
plume rise due to momentum and buoyancy effects is reduced, and that these wind speeds
are likely to be met under neutral or near-neutral atmospheric stability conditions.
(iii) To note that the importance will be most evident with two specific wind directions
for which the local terrain is most influential.
(iv) To recognize that a neutrally stratified wind tunnel was an appropriate tool with
which to undertake an investigation.
(v) The investigation was undertaken and the resulting patterns of ground-level concen-
tration presented. These were broadly consistent (qualitatively) with expectations and
-------
with additional experiments taken to determine the velocity and turbulence fields of the
flow m the complex terrain.
(vi) Two summary graphs (reproduced here as Figures 1 and 2) were presented to show
the magnitude and position of the iraxinium ground-level concentration as a function
of wind speed, chimney stack height and wind direction. Figure 1 shows the expected
effects of wind speed and chimney stack height.
The results also show a substantial effect of the complex terrain, producing changes up
to a factor of two in the maximum ground-level concentration compared with flat terrain.
An alternative view of the same data might be that
(a) if the stack height of 45.7m is considered the maximum, ground-level concentra-
tions were uninfluenced or reduced by the complex terrain:
(b) if the stack height of 72.7m is considered the maximum, ground-level concentra-
tion at the critical wind speed of about lOm/s is increased by about 20% for
complex terrain with the worst wind direction over the flat terrain. This may
(with hindsight) not be considered significant.
More detailed analysis of the data is difficult. The authors have correctly noted that
there are several competing physical phenomena involved and it is not obvious which
phenomenon, if any, is most important in which scenario. The authors' interpretations
are plausible but further work would be required to provide definitive interpretation of
the observations.
(vii) A specific difficulty was encountered and discussed in the reports.
Large buildings close to the chimney stack are able to deflect the plume towards the
ground and thereby produce increases in the maximum ground-level concentrations. This
effect was shown to be present for the stack heights of 45.7m where it was significant, and
72.7m where it was slight (particularly in the complex terrain scenario). It is unlikely
to be of significance for stacks of height 120m. This further physical phenomenon need
not of itself be a difficulty.
However a difficulty does arise because the modelling of the flow around the building
• leading to the building downwash may not be adequately modelled. The possibly inad-
equate modelling, acknowledged by the authors, arises because of a building Reynolds
number limitation and because of the distortion of geometrical scaling in the near field
and the interaction of this distortion with the velocity field near the building.
3. The experimental conditions used are intended to simulate those that oc-
cur in the vicinity of the WTI incinerator site. Provide comments on whether
the conditions used in the wind-tunnel experiments are appropriate to sim-
ulate conditions at the site. These comments should address the following
points:
3.1 The appropriateness of the wind-tunnel simulation practices that are used
in the study.
The wind-tunnel simulation practices used in the Fluid Modeling Branch for this study
are. in general, appropriate to the study.
-------
12
1
0)
(0
a
o
10 ••
5 ..
4 . .
2 ••
A H, = 45.7 m
G H, = 72.7 m
O H, = 120m
OPEN SYMBOLS: WIND D!R. - 305°
FILLED SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 125°
HALF-FILLED SYMBOLS; FLAT TERRAIN
8
U, m/s
12
18
Rgure 11. Maximum glc versus wind speed for all configurations with buildings.
Figure 1
-------
2000
2500 • •
2000 •>
•x 1500 ..
E
1000 ••
500 ..
A H,« 45.7m
1 -3 H, = 72.7 m
\ O H,«l20m
\ OPEN SYMBOLS: WIND D!R. = 305°
3 RULED SYMBOLS. WIND DIR. = 125«
HALF-FILLED SYMBOLS. FLAT TERRAIN
8
U. m/s
12
16
Figure 1Z Distance to maximum gic versus wind speed for all configurations
with buildings.
Figure 2
-------
The relevant dimensionless parameters are noted and where possible these are modelled
correctly. It is noted in the study that some dimensionless parameters cannot be modelled
and when this is the case arguments are produced to allow relaxation of strict modelling
conditions provided certain criteria are met. It is then shown that either those criteria
are ma; or, if not, some further distortion of strict modelling is argued for. following
accepted modelling procedures.
Points which require further explanation follow.
(i) I found the discussion on p. 20 of the Data Report concerning the approach
boundary layers a little unclear.
I would prefer an explicit statement of what u./C/oo or u./t/io, and ZQ is expected
or measured at full scale (with ranges), then an explicit statement of what was
obtained in the model and how it was obtained. This could be followed by a
statement that the physical modelling was deemed to be satisfactory.
Two minor points on the same page are: On what basis was the 'somewhat
arbitrary1 choice of d = -13mm made? u,/U is used rather than u./C/oo, and d
is given as metres rather than mm.
(ii) I found a similar difficulty in the discussion on pp. 24 and 25 of the Data Report
concerning the concentration measurements for flat terrain and a comparison of
these results with atmospheric dispersion correlations. It is not clear what the goal
is and whether it is attained. The difficulty is most apparent in the concluding -
two sentences of section 5.2.
v
These begin "Overall, if the roughness correction method of HGS is used...", but
it is not explicitly stated that the authors believe this technique to be superior to
the conventional PG technique. I believe what has been done is appropriate but
it is incumbent on the authors to say explicitly why they have chosen a particular
correlation for comparison rather than another more commonly used correlation.
(iii) The implications of the observed importance of building downwash and the sig-
nificance of the inability to correctly model it requires further comment. As does
any additional complication arising due to the near field geometrical distortion
and density distortion. What, qualitatively, will be the effect of these matters?
If no guidance can be offered due to the complexity of the problem, a specific
statement should be made that no qualitative guidance can be offered.
(iv) The adequacy of the physical modelling in capturing the marginal separation in
the valley near the upwind topography must be explicitly addressed. This may
be of importance for the conclusions of the study.
3.2 The adequacy of the quality assurance/quality control practices that are
described in the report.
I am uncertain what is meant by the quality assurance/quality control procedures that
are described in the report. However, my observations that may be relevant are:
(i) The laboratory has obviously gone to considerable effort to provide an infras-
tructure to ensure that all the data are available, are documented and have been v
archived in a readilv accessible wav.
-------
(ii) The laboratory undertaking the study is internationally recognised as one in which
great care is taken in developing formalised procedures in order to ensure the
quality of the work coming from the laboratory. Mention is made in the report
of Snyder (1979) which describes the wind tunnel, and of Snyder (1981) which
addresses the scientific basis and appropriate procedures for physical modelling.
The latter reference is internationally recognised as the definitive document jn
this subject.
Mention is also made of Lawson (1984) which describes the Standard Operating
Procedures for the EPA Fluid Modeling Faculty and to Shipman (1990) which
describes the Fluid Modeling Facility Computer User's Guide.
The existence of these documents reflects a serious concern by the laboratory
for an assurance of quality and accountability in its activities. I know of no
comparable laboratories that operate with this level of concern.
(iii) The instruments and the calibration procedures used are described and appear
adequate and appropriate to the study.
3.3 The precision and accuracy of data collected during the study.
The instruments and calibration procedures used are adequate and appropriate to the
study.
I am uncertain as what is the distinction being drawn between precision and accuracy
in the measurement.
I was unable to find a concise, explicit statement of the accuracy of the observations
made. Of course this is not a simple matter and discussions on accuracy require a
careful statement of the goals.
The question of natural variability and the choice of averaging time is addressed. The
discussion here and the conclusions are appropriate. For example, a roughly 10% 'error'
(or expected variability) in the concentration measurements is accepted and this allows
for an operational useful averaging time.
However, an explicit statement that this is the only 'error' and that such an error is
of no consequence for the conclusions that are drawn from the study would have been
helpful to this reviewer.
3.4 The extent to which the simulations capture important factors that are
expected to lead to maximum ground-level concentrations in the vicinity of
the WTI plant due to terrain downwash.
The simulations capture most of the important factors but this reviewer would welcome
(justified) reassurance that
(i) the inadequacy (or not) of the physical modelling of the flow around the buildings
would not influence the conclusions drawn from the study. Of course this is easier
if the critical aspects of the real problem under study were more openly specified;
/••
(ii) the simulation correctly captured the marginally separating flow in the valley near
the upwind terrain or that the exact capture of this feature of the flow was not
critical to the conclusions of the study.
-------
4. The wind-tunnel simulations were performed for neutral atmospheric sta-
bility conditions. Please comment on the appropriateness of these conditions.
The wind-tunnel simulations were intended to model neutral atmospheric conditions.
The simulations have shown that the critical wind speeds (providing the maximum, with
wind speed, of the maximum ground-level concentration) are above 6m/s. At these wind
speeds the atmosphere will be neutrally or near-neutrally stratified. Thus the choice to
simulate neutral atmospheric conditions was appropriate, particularly when considering
the difficulties of modelling non-neutral atmospheric conditions.
These comments relate to the objectives of the study: to consider the influence of terrain
downwash. They specifically do not relate to any alternate mechanisms of obtaining high
ground-level concentrations, e.g. plume impingement under highly stable atmospheric
conditions.
5. Evaluate whether the summary statements and conclusions now logically
from the data obtained and observations made during the Study. Also, pro-
vide suggestions as to how they might be improved to better represent the
experimental results.
5.1 Data Report
The Summary and Conclusions section of the Data Report follow logically from the data
obtained and observations made.
5.2 Project Summary
The Project Summary is an adequate summary of the Data Report. The Summary and
Conclusions section of the Project Summary are the same as those in the Data Report.
and logically follow from the data obtained and observations made.
6. Provide an evaluation of the written documents. Please address whether
they are complete, logically organized, and written in a clear and concise
manner.
The documents, in the main, are logically organized and written in a clear and concise
manner.
There are, however, some specific points for which more explanation would be of assis-
tance. These are listed below.
(i) Very little useful information is provided on the background of the specific prob-
lem being addressed. It may be intentional to decouple the scientific investigation
from the decision-making process. This approach does present difficulties in that
it is not clear to the reviewer what particular issues are critical. No scientific
investigation of a complex problem is completely definitive and various pragmatic
assumptions and approximations are introduced. When trying to assess the im-
portance of these approximations/assumptions, some guidance is required as to
what use is to be made of the results, e.g. is the downwind extent of certain con-
centrations the dominant issue or is the ground area/population exposed? what
-------
accuracy is required of the data when applied to the real problem? and many
similar questions which arise in this reviewers mind.
There is little point in addressing in great detail issues that are irrelevant for the
problem under study. Similarly, if certain issues are critical then they warrant
detailed scrutiny.
(ii) On p. 5 of the Data Report the geometrical and density distortion issue is raised.
Appeal to 'previous experience7 is made. A more specific reference or argument
is required on this important issue.
(iii) On p. 9 of the Data Report it is stated that "These steps...we believe, provided
an adequate simulation of the full-scale roughness". Some additional support for
this statement is appropriate.
(iv) On p. 8 of the Data Report it is stated that ''However this adjustment appeared
to result in an unnaturally large dip in the ceiling over the river valley. After
considerable debate, this dip in the ceiling was removed..." This action should be
supported by explicit argument.
Poinrs (ii), (iii) and (iv) are not intended to question the correctness of what has been
stated but are requests for explicit information.
(v) Sometimes the wind direction is given as 305° and sometimes as NW. Only one
form of description is necessary.
(vi) The units of C/Q are given as ^sec/m3 in the text, and as usec/m3 in several
graphs. Both seem clumsy.
(vii) An important issue that needs to be raised in the documents is the adequacy or
otherwise of the physical modelling of the •marginally separating' flow that occurs
in the valley near the upwind topography.
It would appear that the ground-level concentrations could be quite dependent on
the precise nature of this flow: steady/unsteady, mean streamline pattern, turbu-
lence changes etc. If this is the case then the ground-level concentrations could be
sensitive to the nature of the marginal flow separation. It is not obvious that the
non-dimensional parameters selected for physical modelling have captured those
that may be relevant for marginally separating flow over 'gently sloping' topog-
raphy. If my point is not correct then explicitly addressing this point will limit
further argument.
7. Describe any significant and relevant limitations of the Study that are not
adequately described in the documents. Please comment on whether any of
the Study's limitations (whether described in the document or not) signif-
icantly limit its usefulness in simulating upwind terrain-induced downwash
from the WT1 incinerator.
The principal limitation of the study that was not adequately described in the document
concerns the adequacy or not of the physical modelling of the marginally separating flow
in the valley near the upstream terrain. This aspect of the flow should be explicitly
addressed.
-------
This aspect, and the implications of the inadequacy of the modelling of building down-
wash, may limit the usefulness of the study in simulating upwind terrain-induced down-
wash from the WTI incinerator.
The authors of the study are in a position to address both these points.
-------
COMMENTS
J.V. Ramsdell, Jr.
Appendix IV-7
-------
Oeaneiie
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Battelle Boulevard
P.O. Box999 K9-30
Richlana. Washington 99352
Telephone (509) 372-6316
June 15,1995
Tom McCurdy
HEFRD/AREAL/ORD
USEPA MD-56
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear Tom:
My peer review of the reports sent to me related to dispersion under low wind speed and
calm conditions is enclosed. I found that both models are technically adequate to evaluate
dispersion under low wind speed and calm conditions. However, I do have some
reservations about the manner in which the models were applied and conclusions drawn
from the model results. These concerns are listed in the enclosed review.
If you have any questions, please call.
/^\ ^
M^
, Jr. fj
-------
Scientific Peer Review of Studies to Simulate Air Concentrations
and Deposition in the Vicinity of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator under
Calm Wind Conditions
J.V. Ramsdell, Jr.
Senior Research Scientist
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington 99352
June 15, 1995
I have examined the material related to diffusion in low wind speed and calm conditions provided by
the EPA Project Manager. This material included:
1) pages 4
-------
6) The results of the INPUFF model are probably correct qualitatively, but the increases in the
lower 1-yr average concentrations associated with low wind speed diffusion may be
overestimated due to the use of the P-G diffusion coefficient parameterization rather than a
time-based parameterization.
7) Similarly, the increased deposition may be overestimated due to the combination of
overestimated concentrations and overestimated deposition velocities.
General Comments
1) Gaussian puff models are one appropriate means of addressing atmospheric dispersion under
low wind speed conditions. However, the models must be used with appropriate diffusion
coefficient parameterizations. Use of diffusion coefficient parameterizations that are based on
distance travelled is not appropriate for examination of dispersion under low wind speed
conditions; the diffusion coefficients must be based on time since release.
2) If Gaussian puff models are used to evaluate dispersion under low wind speed conditions and
Gaussian plume models are used to evaluate dispersion under windy conditions, a great deal
of care must be exercised to ensure that the models produce consistent results. Given a
common diffusion coefficient parameterization and steady-state, horizontally homogeneous
meteorological conditions, puff and plume models should give the nearly identical
concentration estimates. If different parameterizations are used for puff and plume models,
the diffusion parameterization for the puff model should be adjusted to give results that are
the same as the plume model under some standard set of conditions, for example neutral
stability and 8 m/s wind.
Specific Comments on CALPUFF model
1) The CALPUFF model treats diffusion in manner that is suitable for evaluation of potential
concentrations during low wind speed conditions.
2) Concentrations during fumigation are calculated realistically in the CALPUFF model because
of the Lagrangian nature of the model.
3) The use of the usual PG curves to estimate erv and az is inconsistent with the intent of the
study, i.e. calculation of diffusion under low wind speed conditions.
4) The use of time-based diffusion coefficients is appropriate. However, it is not clear from die
draft report whether the time-based diffusion coefficients were corrected for initial buoyancy-
enhanced diffusion... they should have been according to the CALPUFF User's Guide. It is
also not clear whether the combination of puff movement, puff dimensions and diffusion
coefficients during low wind speed conditions are sufficiently large to ensure that the
concentration in the air at any location (summation over all puffs) is always less than the
concentration in the stack.
-------
5) What is the purpose of the model? Is it to estimate an ensemble average estimate of the
concentrations under specific sets of meteorological conditions and find the highest of those
averages, or is it to estimate the upper bound for concentrations under specific sets of
meteorological conditions and find the highest upper bound? Most models seek the highest of
the ensemble averages rather than the highest upper bound. If the purpose of the model is to
seek the highest ensemble average, the minimum values used for av and
-------
In the long run deposition flux during transient periods such as fumigation is a minor factor in
total deposition over period longer than a few hours. I am not sure what the relevance of a
short-duration high deposition flux is.
Comments on the INPUFF model
1) The INPUFF model is an appropriate tool for investigating effects of calm and low wind
speeds on concentrations.
2) Concentrations during periods that include fumigation are calculated naturally in the INPUFF
model if realistic meteorological data sets are used as model input.
3) The generation of random wind components for hours with wind speeds of 1 m/s or less
appears to be a more reasonable treatment of low wind speed conditions than neglecting those
periods or assuming wind direction persistence during low wind speed conditions. I'm not
convinced that the procedure used for the randomization is better than or more justifiable than
any other procedure, but the differences are probably more of academic interest than of
practical interest.
4) The treatment of receptors and wind fields in INPUFF is appropriate for the intended
application.
5) The use of PG diffusion coefficient parameterization seems inconsistent with the intended
model application. This choice would appear to bias the outcome of the analysis toward high
concentrations during low wind speed conditions. There is sufficient information in the
literature, including experimental data, that would indicate that calms and low winds might
not be associated with high concentrations that it would be important not to bias the outcome
of the analysis by selecting the P-G parameterization. The onsite scheme or some other
scheme based on time would appear to have been more appropriate.
6) The model comparison statistic called percent difference is misleading. If A is 100% less
than B then A = 0.
7) Figure 4 is much more informative than Figure 3. Figure 4 indicates that the effects of
including calms are greater where the annual average concentrations are low than where the
concentrations are high. It also shows that the highest annual average concentrations with
calms included are no higher than those without calms included. I suspect that had a time-
based diffusion coefficient parameterization been used there would have been less increase in
the low concentrations than shown in Figure 4.
8) I am not comfortable with the conclusions drawn with respect to deposition. My first concern
is related to the estimates of air concentrations and the choice of diffusion coefficient
parameterizations. If, in fact, the choice of diffusion coefficient parameterizations causes the
concentrations to be biased to the high side, then much of the increase in area may be
associated widi the concentration bias. The second concern is related to the unspecified
relationship between air concentration and deposition assumed in generating Figures 5 and 6.
It appears that a constant deposition velocity has been used to estimate deposition from air
concentration. More current models of deposition velocity indicate' that deposition velocity
-------
should be directly related to wind speed. In other words, the low speed conditions that are
supposed to be associated with the increase in air concentrations should also be associated
with reduced deposition velocities. If this is the case, the 500% increase in deposition is
probably overestimated, even if the air concentrations are correct.
9) A slightly modified version of the INPUFF model could be used to evaluate the effect of
calms on the maximum 1-hr and 24 hr concentrations using the two meteorological data sets.
Comparisons of concentrations computed with the two data sets would be more enlightening
than comparison of the results of two different models with the same data set.
NOTE ON MODELING DIFFUSION IN LOW WIND SPEED CONDITIONS
Gaussian puff models are not the only approach to evaluation of dispersion under low wind
speed and calm conditions. The assumptions made in the usual derivation of the Gaussian
plume model eliminates the low wind speed/calm portion of the solution of the diffusion
equation. Heat conduction, which is described by the diffusion equation, doesn't depend on
advection. Thus, clearly there should be plume models that can estimate concentrations under
all wind conditions, and there are.
Frenkiel (1953) derived a plume model that describes low wind speed dispersion as well as
dispersion under windy conditions. Frenkiel's model is discussed Kao (1984) in Equations
(6.259) and (6.260) et seq. This model is based on the assumption that the turbulence
responsible for atmospheric dispersion doesn't become zero when the mean wind vector
becomes zero.
Frenkiel's model has the following characteristics. Under calm conditions, the concentration
is a function of the turbulence conditions and the distance between the source and receptor.
The calm wind concentration is a local minimum relative to wind speed. As the wind speed
increases; the concentration increases; for wind speeds of a few tenths of a meter per second,
the concentration is directly proportional to wind speed. Finally, at high wind speeds, the
concentration is proportional to 1/U as in the usual Gaussian plume model. In fact, with
appropriate assumptions, Frenkiel's model for dispersion under windy conditions becomes
identical to the usual Gaussian plume model. Thus, there is a wind speed, which we have
found to be of the order of 1 m/s, that gives the maximum concentration. This maximum is
significantly (factor of 2 to 10) lower than the concentration predicted by the usual Gaussian
plume model for the same wind speed. In general, the concentrations predicted by Frenkiel's
model are lower than those predicted by the Gaussian plume model until the wind speed
approaches 7 or 8 m/s.
Similar behavior can be induced in the usual Gaussian plume model for wind speeds greater
than about 0.1 m/s by using time-based diffusion coefficients provided that the turbulence
statistics are not permitted to approach zero as the resultant wind speed approaches zero. One
alternative along this line is to set a lower limit to av, avo> and combine the lower limit with
formulations for av proportional to wind speed in a in an interpolation scheme such as
where bv is related to surface roughness and stability. A similar relationship can be used for
5
-------
ffw.
References
Frenkiel, F. N. 1953. "Turbulent Diffusion: Mean Conconcentration Distribution in a Flow Field of
Homogeneous Turbutlence." Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. UL, Academic Press, Inc., New
York.
Hanna, S.R. 1990. "Lateral Dispersion in Light-Wind Stable Conditions." 77 Nuovo Gmento
13(6):889-894.
Hanna, S.R., L.L. Schulman, R.J. Paine, I.E. Pleim, and M. Baer. 1985. "Development and
Evaluation of the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model." J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.
35(10): 1039-1047.
Kao. S. K. 1984. "Theories of Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion." in Atmospheric Science and
Power Production, DOE/TIC-27601. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
------- |