905D95002D
REGION 5
Risk Assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Facility (East Liverpool, Ohio)
DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Volume IV:
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION
MODELING OF EMISSIONS
MP-108
JK24I996
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98if
Prepared with the assistance of:
A.T. 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
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT.
It has not been formally released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as
a final document, and should not be construed to represent Agency policy.
It is being circulated for comment on its technical content.
-------
-------
VOLUME IV
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION
AND DEPOSITION MODELING
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Overview 1-1
B. External Peer Review 1-4
C. Project Scope 1-4
II. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF ISC-COMPDEP II-l
A. Basic Equations and Assumptions : . II-l
B. Dispersion Coefficients II-3
C. Plume Rise II-4
D. Building Downwash 11-10
E. Stack-tip Downwash 11-13
F. Dry Deposition of Paniculate Matter . . 11-13
1. Deposition Velocity Calculation 11-13
2. Modified Source Depletion 11-17
G. Wet Deposition 11-29
H. Complex Terrain 11-31
I. Treatment of Calm Wind Conditions 11-34
J. Treatment of Multilevel, Multistation Meteorological Data 11-35
K. Micrometeorological Parameters 11-38
L. Differences Between COMPDEP and ISC-COMPDEP Model
Formulations 11-42
III. MODELING INPUT PARAMETERS III-l
A. Source Data III-l
1. Main Incinerator Stack III-l
2. Routine Fugitive Emission Sources III-2
B. Building Downwash Analysis III-4
C. Meteorological Data Selection and Processing IQ-5
D. Receptor Grid 111-10
E. Geophysical Data HI-11
1. Terrain Elevations III-ll
Volume IV External Review Draft
i Do not cite or quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2. Land Use III-ll
F. Model Options and Switches ffl-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-12
b. Full Year Application of CALPUFF IV-14
6. Terrain Downwash Simulations IV-16
C. Routine Fugitive Emissions Modeling IV-19
D. Uncertainty Analysis IV-20
1. Limitations of the Technical Formulations . IV-20
2. Data Limitations IV-22
V. SUMMARY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS V-1
VI. REFERENCES VI-1
TABLES
Table II-1: Classification of Reported Precipitation
Type/Intensity To Precipitation Code 11-48
Table II-2: Model Type Selected For Situation Depicted
in Figure II-6 11-49
Table II-3: Values of Net Radiation Constants 11-50
Table II-4: Minimum Values of Monin-Obukhov Length
During Stable Conditions for Various Land
Use Types 11-51
Table III-l: 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 III-3: Size Distributions of the Pollutant Mass
Assumed in the WTI Modeling 111-17
Volume IV External Review Draft
ii Do not cite or quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table ffl-4:
Table m-5:
Table III-6:
Table III-7:
Table IV-1:
Table IV-2:
Table IV-3:
Table IV-4:
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 ffl-1:
Figure ffl-2:
Figure III-3:
Figure III-4:
Source Characteristics for Fugitive Emission Sources ffl-18
WTI Building Information ffl-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 111-21
Summary of ISC-COMPDEP Modeling Results for the
WTI Main Incinerator Stack IV-24
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with COMPDEP and
ISC-COMPDEP IV-25
Comparison of CALPUFF and ISC-COMPDEP Modeling
Results IV-26
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with ISC-COMPDEP
Fugitive Emission Sources IV-27
Key Assumptions V-3
FIGURES
Illustration of the initial dilution radius 11-52
Flow near a sharp-edged building in a deep boundary
layer 11-53
Observed deposition velocities as a function of
particle size for 1.5 g/cm density particles 11-54
Wet scavenging coefficient as a function of particle
size II-55
Comparison of predicted scavenging ratio 11-56
Cross-section of terrain illustrating positions of
sources and receptors 11-57
Illustration of temperature interpolation/extrapolation 11-58
Illustration of wind speed interpolation/extrapolation 11-59
Illustration of wind direction interpolation/extrapolation 11-60
Plot of particle mass as a function of particle diameter 111-22
Plot plan of the WTI facility ffl-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
111
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Figure ffl-5: Section from a USGS map that depicts the topography of
the area surrounding the WTI site Ul-26
Figure ffl-6: Section from a USGS map that depicts the topography of
the area surrounding the Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower HI-27
Figure ffl-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 III-8, except that winds less than 2.5 miles
per hour are not included . 111-30
Figure 111-10: Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower 111-31
Figure III-ll: Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station
meteorological tower 111-32
Figure 111-12: Wind rose at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport 111-33
Figure IV-1: Annual average concentrations (/ig/m3) for the incinerator
stack IV-28
Figure IV-2: Annual wet deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack . . IV-29
Figure IV-3: Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack . . IV-30
Figure IV-4: Annual total deposition fluxes (g/m2) for the incinerator stack . IV-31
Figure IV-5: Distribution of lateral turbulence intensity measured at the
Beaver Valley tower IV-32
Figure IV-6: Frequency of occurrence of calm periods of a given number
of hours per day IV-33
Figure IV-7: Frequency of occurrence of calm conditions by time-of-day . . . IV-34
Figure IV-8: Distribution of receptors used hi simulating concentrations
with ISC-COMPDEP and CALPUFF IV-35
Figure IV-9: Annual concentrations (jig/m3) for a unit emission rate
(1 g/s) predicted by applying ISC-COMPDEP with ISC
terrain adjustments for all receptors IV-36
Figure IV-10: Annual concentrations (^g/m3) for a unit emission rate
(1 g/s) predicted by applying CALPUFF IV-37
Figure IV-11: Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA
* FMF wind tunnel results for the flat terrain configuration .... IV-38
Figure IV-12: Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA
FMF wind tunnel results for "SE" winds IV-39
Figure IV-13: Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA
FMF wind tunnel results for "NW" winds IV-40
Volume IV External Review Draft
iv Do not cite or quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Concluded)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX IV-1: Building Downwash (BPIP) Analysis
APPENDIX IV-2: Wind Data Plots
APPENDIX IV-3: ISC-COMPDEP Output Files
APPENDIX IV-4: ISC-COMPDEP Contour Plots
APPENDIX IV-5: Overview of the CALPUFF Non-Steady-State Dispersion Model
APPENDIX IV-6: Wind Tunnel Study of Terrain Downwash Effects
APPENDIX IV-7:
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
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 II Risk
Assessment Project Plan" (U.S. EPA 1990) (hereafter referred to as Project Plan) was
designed to make extensive use of on-site data hi 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 and 9, 1993, a peer review workshop was held hi 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 hi and beyond the valley;
• Evaluate the short-term concentration increases resulting from process upset
conditions and accidents;
Volume IV External Review Draft
I-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
• Evaluate the impacts of fugitive sources of emissions;
• 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 hi ISC-COMPDEP of a new particle dry deposition scheme (U.S. EPA 1994), the
option to allow receptor-specific land use parameters hi 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 hi 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 External Review Draft
1-2 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 (ay) with values based on observed measurements
of turbulence (ae) for calculating dispersion rates.
To determine the effect of year-to-year variability in precipitation data on wet
deposition, a series of sensitivity test are 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
hi 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 hi 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 hi 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 External Review Draft
1-3 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 II. Chapter HI 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 discussion of summary and conclusions.
Volume IV External Review Draft
I_4 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 19.92b). For receptors in simple
terrain, the plume is assumed to be distributed according to a Gaussian distribution hi 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 ELF.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 II.G).
The basic Gaussian equation is
X =
• vff«
exp
-1/2
(IM)
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),
a is the standard deviation (m) of the concentration distribution hi the crosswind
direction,
az is the standard deviation (m) of the concentration distribution hi 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
II-l
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
/i = exp
-0.5
a.
exp
-0.5
. +
£1
i=r
exp
-0.5
+ exp
r
jj
—
-0.5
r
2
H*
3
+ exp
2
-0.5
+ exp
H
2
-0.5
2
"
ZJ
2
(H-2)
where he = hs + Ah
#2 = Zr + (2&, - A.)
//3 = *r - (2*z,. + h,)
H4=zr + (2izt + A.)
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
zf 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 az/z, > 1.6, the summation hi
Eqn. (II-2) is eliminated, andfl/al is replaced by \/2ir~/z. (Turner 1970).
The calculation of the effective plume height due to momentum and buoyant rise is
discussed hi Section II. C. The effect of building downwash on plume rise is described in
Section II. D. The modification of the plume height due to stack tip downwash effects and
gravitational settling effects is discussed in Section II. E and II. F, respectively.
Volume IV
II-2
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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. The steady-state plume approach does not account for variations
hi 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 tune it takes for a plume to actually reach a receptor. It
assumes that the current meteorologicai 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-l) or the sector-averaged value of COMPLEX I. See Section II.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 ay and
oz 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 ay is:
a = 465.11628 x tan(TH) (H-3)
where TH = 0.017453293 (c - d ln(x)),
x is the downwind distance (km),
c, d are empirical factors, and
ay 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, az is calculated as:
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-3 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2),
w is the exit velocity (m/s),
D is the stack diameter (m),
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:
F = w2D2 L (II-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)c, is determined
by matching the momentum and buoyant Briggs plume rise equations, and solving for
(A7)c.
...1/3
0.02977 _ R < 55 m4/s3
...2/3
0.005757 _ F. > 55 m4/s3
' £>l/3 *
If the difference between the stack gas and ambient temperatures, Ar, is greater than
or equal to (AI)C, 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 (&T)C as determined above, buoyancy is
assumed to dominate. The distance to final rise, xf, is assumed to be 3.5**, where x*
is the distance at which atmospheric turbulence begins to dominate entrainment. The
value of xfis calculated as follows:
Fb < 55 m«/s>
119F2'5 Fb > 55 m4/s3
(IMO)
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-5 Do not cite or quote
-------
The final effective plume height, he (m), is:
k = i
e
h + 21.425— Fb < 55 m4/s3
F
ls ' -'"•'x ~~r~ * b
F
h + 38.71 — Fh > 55 m4/s3
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:
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:
(AT)C = 0.0195827>v/7 (n'
where s = g(d6/dz)/Ta, and 86 Idz is the potential temperature lapse rate (K/m). The
default values for 80/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, AT, is greater than or equal to (A7)c, 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 AT > (AT)C, buoyancy is assumed to dominate. The
distance to final rise, xf , is determined as:
Volume IV External Review Draft
H_6 Do not cite or quote
-------
xf = 2.0715 _1
The final plume height, he, is:
he = hs + 2.6
1/3
(11-15)
6. Momentum Rise — Stable Conditions
Where the stack gas temperature is less than or equal to the ambient air
temperature or AT < (ATC), the plume rise is dominated by momentum.
1.5
ujs-
1/3
(11-16)
The equation for unstable-neutral momentum rise (Eqn. (11-12)) is also evaluated.
The value of he that is used as the resulting final plume height is the lower of the two
estimates.
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 from the source to the receptor, *, is
less than the distance to final rise, the plume height is determined as:
he = ht
1.6
1/3 2/3
b X
u.
(IM7)
This height will be used only for buoyancy dominated conditions. The value of he
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
II-7
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
1/3
(IMS)
where x is the downwind distance (m), with a maximum value defined by x,^ as
follows:
4D(
w
49F,
wu.
5/8
119F,
2/5
for Fb = 0
for 0 < Fb < 55 m4/s3
for FB > 55 m4/s3
(11-19)
Under stable conditions,
3F_
1/3
(11-20)
where x is the downwind distance (m), with a maximum value defined by x^ as
Q.5irus/Vs.
The jet entrainment coefficient, fy, 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. 11-17) for smaller sources which are most likely to be affected by
v
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.
Volume IV
II-8
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
The increased mechanical turbulence in the building wake which leads to
enhanced plume dispersion, causes a rapid dilution of the plume. This dilution
reduces 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 hi 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 ayo < aro during neutral-unstable
conditions is given by:
where R0 is the dilution radius [R0 = (2)1/2aJ, ft is the neutral entrainment
coefficient, and oyo, o^ are the horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients,
respectively, at a downwind distance of 3Hb (see Section II. D). The factor of (2)1/2 hi
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 crosswind distribution that
resembles the shape of a top hat.
Final stable plume rise is:
3Rz
0d
6F
b
where ft 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 ayo > am, 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:
z] + [3Le/(Tft)]^ + [stf^/ft + 6R£e/(v$ + 3Rll\
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-9 Do not cite or quote
-------
and, for final stable plume rise:
The effective line length, Le, is (27r)1/2 (ayo - a^) if ayo > a^,. Otherwise, Le =
0, and Eqns. (11-23) and (11-24) reduce to Eqns. (11-21) and (11-22).
As described in Section II. D, the enhanced dispersion coefficients, a^ and
-------
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 + 0.5Lb.
1. Huber-Snyder Downwash Procedure
If the stack height exceeds Hb + Q.5Lb, the Huber-Snyder algorithm is applied.
The first step is to compute the effective plume height, he, due to momentum rise at a
downwind distance of two building heights. If he exceeds Hb + 1.5Lb (where Hb and
Lb 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 1.2Hb, both ay and az are
enhanced. Only az is enhanced for stack heights above l.2Hb (but below Hb +
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 Hw < Hb. 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 az is:
az' = 0.7 Hb + 0.067 (x - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < 10Hb (H'25)
where x is the downwind distance (hi meters).
For a tall building,
a'z = 0.7 Hw + 0.067 (x - 3HW) 3HW < x < 1QHW (H-26)
If the ratio hs/Hb is less than or equal to 1.2, the horizontal dispersion
coefficient, ay, is enhanced. For a squat building with a projected width to height ratio
less than 5, the equation for ay is:
a'y = 0.35 Hw + 0.067 (x - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < lQHb (D-27)
For buildings with (HJH^ greater than 5, two options are provided for ar
\
a'y = 0.35 Hb + 0.067 (x - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < lOHb C1
or,
a'y = 1.75 Hb + 0.067 (x - 3Hb) 3Hb < x < lOHb C1
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-11 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
2.5Hb 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 ay is:
o'y = 0.35 Hw + 0.067 (r - 3HW) 3HW < x
(11-30)
2. Schulman-Scire Downwash Procedure
The mam 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 II.C. 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 apply ing 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 ar The vertical dispersion coefficient is determined as:
= A a'
where az' is determined from Eqns. (11-25) or (11-26), and,
(H-31)
A =
1
(Hb-he)/(2Lb)
0
he *•
Hb - 2Lb
2L, < h
(11-32)
Volume IV
11-12
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
where he is the plume height due to gradual momentum rise at 2Hb.
E. Stack-tip Downwash
If the ratio of the stack gas exit speed to the ambient wind speed is less than 1.5, the
plume may be drawn into the lee of the stack. Briggs (1973) suggests modifying the stack
height to adjust for this stack-tip effect:
h, + 2D(w/us - 1.5) w/«, < 1.5 . (11-33)
h w/u > 1.5
S *
where h's 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
particulate matter. The deposition velocity is defined as:
vd = L (11-34)
X,
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)
v
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
U-13 Do not cite or quote
-------
density of the particles. In Figure II-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; Pleim et al. 1984):
vd = - \ - + v (11-35)
ra + rd + W, .
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)
The resistance model used hi 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):
where, zr is the reference height ( =10 m),
Z0 is the surface roughness length (m),
k is the von Karman constant (~ 0.4),
%
«, is the friction velocity (m/s), and
\l/H 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).
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-14 Do not cite or quote
-------
-5zr IL 0 < zr IL < 1
0 zr IL = 0 (n.37)
exp[0.598 + 0.391n(-zr/L) - 0.09o(ln(-zr/L))j -1 < zr IL < 0
L is the Monin-Obukhov length (m) (see Eqn. 11-110),
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 particulate matter.
There are three major mechanisms for the transport of particles across
the deposition layer. Small particles (<0.1 /tm diameter) are transported
through the laminar deposition layer primarily by Brownian diffusion. This
process becomes less efficient as the particle diameter increases. Particles hi
the 2- to 20-/nm diameter range tend to penetrate the deposition layer by
inertial impaction. The stopping tune, t, 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 /zm are dominated by gravitational settling effects. Particles in
the range of 0.1- to 2-fj.m 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) hi terms of the Schmidt number (Sc = v/D, where v is the viscosity of
air, and D is the Brownian diffusivity of the pollutant in air) and the Stokes
number (St = (vg/g)(u*2/v), where vg is the gravitational settling velocity and g
is the acceleration due to gravity).
rd =
+ 10-3/s')V
CD-38)
The diffusivity of a particle hi air, D, is a function of the particle size.
Smaller particles tend to be more efficiently transported by Brownian motion,
Volume IV
11-15
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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:
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),
pg 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 X / df) [a, + a2exp (-a3dp ! X)] (H-40)
where, X is the mean free path of air molecules (6.5 x lO'6 cm), and
0i,a2,fl3 are 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 hi the modeling of the WTI incinerator are
discussed in Section III. A.I.
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 hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-16 Do not cite or quote
-------
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, C/zrf),
where zd is a near-surface height at which the deposition flux and deposition velocity
are estimated.
W = vd Cd (x,zd) (II-4D
The concentration profile Q(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
+ 00
C0(x,z) = C(x,y,z)dy = Q0D(x,z,h) (II-42)
D(x,z,K) 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 (0 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 (< 1) the depletion factor, and call
P(x,z) the profile factor. Then the "corrected" concentration profile is
Cd(x,z) = Q(x)D(x,z,K) P(x,z)
(11-43)
P(x,z) C0(x,z)
The depletion factor is obtained by integrating the deposition flux over the distance
traveled by the plume:
(11-44)
= -vd Q(x) D(x,zd,h) P(x,zd)
so that
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-17 Do not cite or quote
-------
*~o
X
-J vdD(x>,zd,h)p(xi,zd)dx>
(H-45)
This integral is evaluated numerically in the code.
The profile factor is more difficult to obtain. Horst (1993) relates the
modified concentration profile (Q(x,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:
vd Cd(x,zd) = K(z) - Cd(x,z)
(11-46)
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, vg, is added to the right
side:
= K(z) -- Cd(x,z)
vg Cd(x,z)
(11-47)
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 Q(x,z) that is consistent with the constant
flux assumption. Horst solves Eqn. (11-47) for C^x.z):
= Cd(x,zd]
(11-48)
where
R(z,zd) =
dz'
(11-49)
R is the atmospheric resistance, a measure of the resistance to pollutant transfer
through the layer from zd to z.
Volume IV
11-18
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Eqns. (11-48) and (11-43) allow the formulation of a similar expression for
P(x,z):
D(x,z,K) P(x,z) = D(x,zd,h) P(x,zd)
V — V
1 + "
v*
s (l - e~v>R(z
\x t.
.,>)"
(11-50)
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,zd,h) in Eqn. (11-50), and the
approximate result is:
P(x,z) = P(x,zd)
(H-51)
An additional constraint conserves the mass flux hi the plume:
oo
f u D(x,z,K) P(x,z) dz = 1
(11-52)
which, when combined with Eqn. (11-51), gives
V^I
,z,K) dz
-\
(11-53)
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,Q). He argues that P(x,zd) only
needs to be accurate when az is of order h (i.e., the plume is hi contact with the
surface), and the switch to h = 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,
V" "
oo
Vg I (l -
i
u DCx.z.O) dz
-i
(11-54)
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,z
-------
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,zJ is independent of h, the plume height still influences the
deposition flux through D(x,z,h) in Eqn. (11-43), 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
u
h - -1 x , 0.0
(11-55)
This essentially allows all particles hi the plume to fall toward the surface at their
respective settling velocities, regardless of whether the particles are hi the center or
upper portion of the distribution. As he approaches zero, the lower part of the plume
is "reflected" at the surface (in D(x,z,h), not necessarily in
a. Deposition/Terrain Interaction
When terrain adjustments are made hi 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 hi 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 hi 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-20 D° not cite or quote
-------
"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, vd, 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 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 vg. Because the
center-of-mass of a Gaussian plume is the plume centerline (h) when az 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 - (vglu)x (11-56)
where h is the initial height of a plume of uniformly-sized particles, and vg is
the settling velocity for these particles.
Horst (1983) points out that this approximation is probably appropriate
only for h > az. 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-21 Do not cite or quote
-------
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-mass. As stated above, this is the plume centerline height when
h > oz. For h = 0, the center-of-mass is proportional to az:
01-57)
Therefore, we can simulate the effect of gravitational settling on the center-of-
mass of a plume that is on the surface by modify ing its depth in the vertical,
or ar In the absence of gravitational settling, the center-of-mass of a surface-
based plume (h = 0) will grow hi proportion to ar With gravitational
settling, the rate of growth is diminished by the settling velocity. Define a
modified center-of-mass as /zcm'; then
d hL d h
cm
V.
(11-58)
dx dx u
This is similar to a differential form of the tilted plume expression hi Eqn. (II-
56).
Plumes will continue to grow in the vertical when particles are small
enough that dh'Jdx or d/dx(h'cj is positive in Eqn. (11-58). But for larger
particles, the plume can shrink hi the vertical. Rewrite Eqn. (11-58) hi terms
of az:
v
do'7 do, i .. va (11-59)
dx dx u
value az' is the modified value of az accounting for the effects of settling.
If az were a linear function of distance, then the derivatives in Eqn. (II-
59) would yield constants, and a modified growth rate would be fixed for all
Volume IV External Review Draft
U_22 Do not cite or quote
-------
distances beyond x0. If the growth rate were negative, then az' would
eventually reach az = 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 az(x) is nonlinear, we note that daz/dx
typically decreases with distance. As oz grows larger, its rate-of-growth
diminishes. Under the action of gravitational settling large enough to cause az
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
a.. Therefore, as az grows smaller, daz Idx may increase, thereby influencing
/ - v
the value of daz'ldx in Eqn. (11-59). If daz Idx exceeds \lirl2 -1 at some
value of x, then a balance will be achieved at the corresponding value of oz,
and az' will become a constant. The point of balance is defined by
t^=^PTV-± (H-60)
dx u
The equation that governs this process is clarified by rewriting Eqn. (11-59) as
(A do
aJ = — - expressed in terms of az, not x.
Integrate Eqn. (11-61) to obtain:
da.
= x + const (11-62)
and evaluate the constant of integration by demanding that az'(x = x0) = am,
the value of oz at the "touchdown" point. This will yield an equation for
distance as a function of az' which must be inverted to obtain az'(x = x - *0),
where x0 is the point at which the plume centerline reaches the surface.
Curves of az(x) are expressed as a series of piece-wise continuous
functions of the form ox* 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 dajdx = G(a^) hi Eqn. (11-62), the Briggs
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-23 Do not cite or quote
-------
curves are used for both rural and urban locations, as these produce continuous
functions of dojdx. 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: Stability A,B
Urban: Stability C
az(x) = ax (11-63)
^ = a = G(a\ (H-64)
dx v '
r da, r da, i / \
x = : + const = — + const (K = Jv/2 vlu) (11-65)
J G(O'Z)-K ] a~K ^ '
Integrate and match az' = am at x = x0, to obtain
oj(x) = (a - fi/2 vs/u) (x - x0) + azo (H-66)
Here it can be seen that a/ is a linear function of x, and az' either continues to
grow at a reduced rate, or it actually shrinks at a fixed rate if Vg/u is large
enough.
Case 2
Rural: Stability E,F
a. = ax(l + foe)'1 (H-67)
z
daz
= I (a - ba\2 = G(a\ (0 < a < alb] (H-68)
dx a \ zl \ z/ l z '
Volume IV External Review Draft
TJ-24 Do not cite or quote
-------
x -
-Jl
const
± la - bo}2 - K
a v '
= v/7r/2 vt I K)
(H-69)
Integrate and match az' = a^ at jc = x0, to obtain
-a
In
2b
((a-ba',) -
(11-70)
Invert to obtain
a
where
(a
- Y if - *.)
(a - bazo] + JaK
(H-71)
(11-72)
Eqns. (11-71) and (11-72) are more interesting than Eqn. (11-66) hi that they
allow az' to reach equilibrium values where the local turbulent entrainment hi
the vertical is hi balance with the bulk settling process.
Case 3
Rural:
Urban:
Stability C,D
Stability D,E,F
az(x) = ax (l + fee)
-1/2
(11-73)
Volume IV
11-25
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
doz
~dx
1 +
2a_
bo.
2fl2
2a_
~ba.
(11-74)
x =
-I
+ const
2a_
bo.
- K
2a
1 +
2a
= v/T/2 vs/u) (II-75)
Due to the complexity of this integral, an approximate solution to the integral
is developed by solving for large az and small oz separately, and then matching
the two solutions.
Large Limit: G(az > 2alb} =
2ba.
(11-76)
Small Limit: G(oz < 2alb] =
a
-» 2
a
(11-77)
Note that these two forms of G(o^ match at az = 2a/b. Plots of G^a^ versus
oz show that Eqns. (11-76) and (11-77) provide a very good representation of
Eqn. (11-74).
Develop the complete solution by solving
Volume IV
11-26
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
X =
dai
+ const (az > 2alb]
(H-78)
2ba,
- K
X =
dai
a
- K
+ const (Oj < 2a/b)
ai-79)
a
Then demand that az'(x0) = aro, using the correct form of solution
(0^ > 2a/b or om < 2a/b) to determine one of the integration constants. The
second integration constant is found by matching the solutions for az' at lalb.
The result is an implicit equation in oz' for each region:
(E-80)
2a/b:
X -<*« - CT* + K(X - Xo) _
,3/2
= In
2a
- JalK
alK
(H-81)
where au and cr^ are constants that depend on the size of am relative to lalb:
c,>2a/b: a = (a/K)2 JL In
*• *£* v ' /-» i
(H-82)
in
***
„,
2a
(H-83)
Volume IV
11-27
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Aa =
and where
a*
~2bK
i _
4K
hi
•\
\
4K
a
In
f
\
(H-84)
Numerical iteration is used to solve these implicit equations for oz'(x — x0).
The method chosen for this iterates directly on:
4= F (az, x - x0)
(11-85)
where F(az', x - *0) is either a natural logarithm function or an exponential
function, depending on which choice results in the condition for convergence:
dF
da.
< 1
(11-86)
Case 4
Urban:
Stability A,B
a.(x) = ax(l + bx]
(11-87)
The function G(a^) that corresponds to Eqn. (11-87) involves the solution of a
cubic equation, which precludes a simple expression for the integral hi Eqn.
(11-62). Because the growth of oz is rapid for this case, the settling velocity
will generally have a small effect on a/. Therefore, the feedback embodied hi
Eqn. (11-62) is neglected, and Eqn. (11-59) is solved Instead to obtain
a( = az(x) - \jfl2 vs (x - X0)Iu
(11-88)
c. Implementation in ISC-COMPDEP
* Adjustments to the mass of the plume, its distribution hi the vertical,
and the effective az are characterized hi 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
Volume IV
11-28
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
The factor for the effective az is defined as
"ZCOR - ^D (n-89)
Likewise, the source depletion factor is defined as
'COR
(11-90)
and evaluated by Eqn. (11-45). The profile correction factor was defined in
Eqn. (11-51):
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 flux. 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 III.
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 hi the vertical:
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-29 Do not cite or quote
-------
A C(x,y,z) dz (11-92)
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
--• COO - f Fw(x,y)
-------
(1980) from observations. The scavenging coefficients for frozen precipitation are expected
to be reduced to about 1/3 of the values hi Figure II-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 X for liquid or frozen precipitation is most
appropriate. The reported precipitation code is related to precipitation type as shown hi
Table II-l. The liquid precipitation values are used for precipitation codes 1-18, and frozen
precipitation for 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 hi ISC-COMPDEP
is similar to that used hi 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 hi 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 hi 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 ah- 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 hi 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-31 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
JI-32 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi one application
of the model. A Guideline model for simple terrain is ISCST2 and a Guideline complex
terrain model is COMPLEX I. ISCST2 serves as the base for ISC-COMPDEP, so its terrain
treatment was already hi place. The COMPLEX I model was prepared as a callable module
or subroutine for use hi ISC-COMPDEP. The COMPLEX I module in ISC-COMPDEP was
implemented in regulatory default mode. The intermediate terrain processing algorithm was
embedded hi ISC-COMPDEP, and one or both terrain algorithms are called as required.
The primary differences hi 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 hi 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 hi 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 hi 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-33 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hr 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 (H-96)
If the elevation at the receptor lies below the centerline of the plume at the source,
h,-h,- (z, - z,) • (1 - C) OM7)
In either case, hr is not allowed to be less than some minimum value, which is
typically set at 10 m. Note that zr ^ zs is assumed hi 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, hi 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 hi 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 hi 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 conditiqns are typically defined as those periods hi 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 hi a
meteorological record when calculating hourly average concentrations, and to remove most
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-34 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 hi a 24-hour period, 6 hi an 8-hour period, and 3 hi 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 would consist of the arithmetic average of all 22
concentrations calculated for the non-calm hours hi 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 hi 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 hi 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 hi the
new version is obtahted 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 hi the flow field along its trajectory).
The changes to ISC-COMPDEP allow vertical layering hi the temperature and wind
fields (as resolved by a nearby instrumented tower) to influence plume rise and transport
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-35 Do not cite or quote
-------
(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
• Calculate the mean ddldz 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 dO/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).
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-36 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi the remainder of the code for transport and dilution.
There is no attempt to segment the plume, allowing it to track changes hi 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 hi 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.
1. Interpolation Methods
The methods used by ISC-COMPDEP to interpolate and extrapolate
temperature data obtained from the observed profile is illustrated hi Figure II-7.
Within the range of observed data points (indicated by the asterisks hi the figure), the
temperature is interpolated linearly. Beyond the range of the observed points (e.g.,
below 20 m and above 150 m hi 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 II-8). Following the
convention hi 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 II-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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-37 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 («,), Monin-Obukhov length (L),
and surface roughness length (zj 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 CD144 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 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:
Q. + Qf = Qh + Qe + Qg
-------
C3 =
where T is the measured air temperature (K),
A is the albedo,
a is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10'8 W/m2/K4),
N is the fraction of the sky covered by clouds,
is the solar elevation angle (deg.),
a is an empirical surface moisture parameter, and,
S is the slope of the saturation enthalpy curve [5 = s/j], where
s = d(q,)/d(T) and y = Cp/L,
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
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 hi Eqn. (11-100) represents
short-wave solar radiation in the absence of clouds. The second term (1 + fc^V*2),
accounts for the reduction of incoming solar radiation due to clouds (hi is negative).
The values for the empirical constants q, c2, alt a2, blt and b2 suggested by Holtslag
and van Ulden (1983) are shown in Table II-3.
The flux of heat into the ground or storage hi surface materials, Qg, is usually
parameterized during the day tune as a fraction of the net radiation (e.g., DeBruin and
Holtslag, 1982; Oke, 1978).
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 hi the Netherlands. Oke (1982) indicates that typical ranges for cg are 0.05 to
0.25 hi rural areas, 0.20 to 0.25 in suburban areas, and 0.25 to 0.30 hi 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, Qf, can usually be
neglected, except hi highly urbanized areas.
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-39 Do not cite or quote
-------
The sensible heat flux, Qh, and latent heat flux are determined by Holtslag and
van Ulden (1983) as:
Qh =
Qe=
(H-104)
where j3' 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 hi a moderate climate)
In neutral and unstable conditions, the following relationship developed by
Wang and Chen (1980) is used hi HPDM and other models such as MESOPUFF II to
compute the friction velocity.
ku
ln[(z-d)/zj
(11-105)
where
0.128 + 0.005 In (z0/z)
0.107
ZjZ < 0.01
zjz > 0.01
(H-106)
CH-107)
= 1.95 + 32.6(zo/z)
045
(H-108)
Qh kgz
f>cP Tu\n
(11-109)
Volume IV
H-40
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
The term ^ln(l + d2d3) represents the correction due to instability,
u*n = 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 w* 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, Zo = 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).
3 T
L = ."* IPCP (11-110)
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, 6*,
is calculated using Holtslag and Van Ulden's (1983) equation:
Otl =0.09(1 -0.5JV2) (H-111)
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:
(11-112)
*2
where the neutral drag coefficient C^ is defined as Mn[(z - d)/z0], and 6* is set equal
to the smaller of 0n and 6^.
The sensible heat flux, QH, is defined during stable conditions as:
Qh = -pcpute. (H-113)
For large values of u (or «,), 6n (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
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-41 Do not cite or quote
-------
increasing indefinitely with higher wind speeds. In HPDM, the value of 6. is not
allowed to exceed 0.05/w,, 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, w,, can be calculated from:
u =
1 -
1/2
(11-114)
where «o = (4.1zg6JT)
1/2
Because 6* is set equal to the smaller of 0n and 0,2, the following condition is always
met:
(11-115)
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 hi Table II-4.
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 hi this risk assessment. A discussion of the most significant differences
in the models is contained hi Schwede and Scire (1994). Since that paper was written,
however, addition enhancements have been made to 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.
Volume IV
11-42
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Both models use the basic algorithms hi the ISC2 model to evaluate impacts in simple
terrain. Both models use the algorithms hi 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 hi ISC2 but not hi 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 paniculate 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 that was used in an older
version of ISC (Bowers et al. 1979). It is based of the work of Huber and Snyder
(1976). 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 dowHwash algorithms. See Section II.D for details. This difference in the
models can result hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-43 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 Ah" 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 hi 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 xm. Since this is not necessarily
consistent with the empirical dispersion coefficients hi the COMPDEP model, the K-
theory scheme does not always conserve mass exactly. However, in practice for
many combustion sources such as the WTI 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, inertial
impaction, and Brownian motion effects (see Section II.F.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
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-44 Do not cite or quote
-------
predictions can be different. Generally (but not always), the COMPDEP scheme
produces higher deposition velocities in the intermediate size range (0.1 pm diameter
up to 10 urn diameter). ISC-COMPDEP can produce higher values for very small
particles (< -0.05/xm 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 hi 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 hi 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 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
II.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 hi DEPMET are derived from
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-45 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 scavenging coefficients for
liquid and frozen precipitation. It is suggested that the values of the scavenging
coefficients for frozen 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 hi both models allows only a rough
parameterization of the complex processes involved hi 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 hi Section I V.D.I.
Volume IV External Review Draft
H-46 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 IIJ. 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 hi 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 hi the predicted
concentration and deposition fields.
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-47 Do not cite or quote
-------
Table H-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
11-48
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table II-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
11-49
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table H-3
Values of Net Radiation Constants
(Holtslag and van Ulden 1983)
Constant
Value
3]
a2
b,
b2
990 W/m2
-30 W/m2
-0.75
3.4
5.31 x 10'13 W/m2/deg. K6
60 W/m2
Volume IV
11-50
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table H-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
11-51
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
HB
Suck = HB
RO*O
StMk-2HB
Suck - 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 H, = 3 Hb
to Hb when H, = H,,.
Volume IV
11-52
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 n-2. Flow near a sharp-edged building in a deep boundary layer. [From Hosker,
(1984)]
Volume IV
11-53
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
E
VJ
t/t
O
Q.
*SEHMEL AND SUITER (1974)
**MOLl£R AND SHUMANN (1970)
10
10 " 1
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure n-3. Observed deposition velocities as a function of particle size for 1.5 g/cm density
particles. Measured by Sehmel and Sutler (1974) and Moller and Schumann
(1970). Figure from Slinn et al. (1978).
Volume IV
11-54
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Wet Scavenging Rate Coefficient (lO'V
T 1 1 1 I I I 1| 1 1 1 I I I I I |
0.1 1 , 10
Particle Diameter (microns)
"
100
Figure n-4. Wet scavenging coefficient as a function of particle size (Jindal and Heinold,
1991).
Volume IV
11-55
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Wet Scavenging Ratio (10~4 s~')
100-
o
'•5
-------
Figure n-6. Cross-section of terrain illustrating positions of sources and receptors.
Volume IV
11-57
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
200-i
150-
100-
CD
50-
o- 11111111111 n 1111111
Temperature (C)
8 10 12
Figure n-7. Illustration of temperature interpolation/extrapolation.
Volume IV
11-58
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
200 H
150-
100-
50-
(power law)
(power law) ^
f (WS constant below 10m)
J t S
Wind Speed (m/s)
Figure n-8. Illustration of wind speed interpolation/extrapolation.
Volume IV
11-59
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
200-
150-
100-
'.£?
*d>
X
50-
I | i I
100
50 100 150
Wind Direction (deg)
200
Figure n-9. Illustration of wind direction interpolation/extrapolation.
Volume IV External Review Draft
11-60 Do not cite or quote
-------
El. 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 III-l 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 hi March 1993 and
performance testing conducted in August 1993 (U.S. EPA 1993f).
The fraction of the particulate matter by weight in various particle diameter
size categories is shown hi Table III-2 which is obtained from a report on the trial
burn tests (U.S. EPA 1993f). The particle distribution data for the test run is plotted
hi Figure IH-1, where six categories, 2.97, 1.89, 0.93, 0.55, 0.40, and <0.40-/im
diameter are defined. In order to resolve the particle distribution in the size range
less than 0.40-/mi 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 /xm diameter. From Figure III-l, then- 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 hi Table
III-2 hi the <0.4-/nm 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 particulate 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.
Volume IV • External Review Draft
III-l Do not cite or quote
-------
It is 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 apportioned
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 hi 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 (Sj) to
volume (Vj) ratio (Ss / V; = irDj2 / (7rDj3/6) = 6 / 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, = 6 W; / D,, where W; 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, = £ Rj); and
• Compute the surface area-weighted fraction for size category i as: Rj /
R,
Table III-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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IH-2 Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
• OPEN WASTEWATER TANK. This tank is located on the plot plan
(Figure III-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 hi 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 corner
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
HI-3 Do not cite or quote
-------
all fugitive emission sources is 212.1 m MSL. Other source characteristics for the
fugitive emission sources are listed in Table III-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.
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 III-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 III-2).
According to the U.S. EPA guidance, a stack which is within a distance 5Lb of a
building, where Lb is the lesser of the building height (Hh) and the projected building width
(Hw) may be influenced by building downwash effects, if the stack height is also less than
Hb + l.5Lb. Since Lb cannot be greater than the building height, a minimum building height
for consideration in the downwash analysis is hs/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 III-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".
Volume IV External Review Draft
IH_4 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 III-6. For some directions, the
buildings are sufficiently close to result in a combination of the buildings hi accordance with
the U.S. EPA complimentary structure guidelines. The GEP height determined by BPIP 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.
C. Meteorological Data Selection and Processing
Meteorological data hi 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
tune 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 hi determining
atmospheric stability* plume transport, and dispersion. The vertical temperature gradient
data from the BVPSMT have been incorporated into the model hi order to provide an
unproved 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IH-5 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 WTFs property. One year of wind data (April 1992 through
March 1993) from these sites are analyzed. The results, presented hi Figures III-3
and III-4, show obvious channeling along the axis 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 III-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 III-6 shows the topography in the vicinity of the tower. The tower is located
at a bend hi the river valley. Just down river to the west, at the bend, the valley is
Volume IV External Review Draft
III-6 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi the intervening distance.
Figure ffl-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 III-8 and III-9 show the wind
rose for the 35-ft 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 111-10 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 III-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 morfe 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
hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
III-7 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 are presented for several heights in the Appendix IV-2.
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
HI-8 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 nij 45.7 m, and 152.4 m levels correspond to measurement heights of the
BVPSMT or WTI towers. The 80.8 m and 111.3 m 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 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, hi 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
HI-9 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 ILL., 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).
Hourly precipitation data is from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
The data consists of two types: hourly precipitation amounts (hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
HI-10 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi a greater
degree of plume depletion at the 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 hi 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
HI-11 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 then" land use type (urban/suburban, agricultural, forest land, water, and
barren). The geophysical parameters shown in Table III-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 hi 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 hi using receptor-specific land use data is that plume depletion
effects due to dry deposition should not be significant, since hi 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 the WTI facility), the variation hi 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.I for comparison to the
ISC-COMPDEP results. The COMPDEP model uses a domain averaged value of
surface roughness hi 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.
v
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 hi ISC-COMPDEP as
well, is that only one type of output field may be generated hi a single run. That is, it is
possible to produce concentrations, wet deposition fluxes, dry deposition fluxes, or total
Volume IV External Review Draft
III-12 Do not cite or quote
-------
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).
• 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.
v
• Dry deposition and depletion modeled
• Wet deposition and depletion modeled
• Gridded terrain data used for depletion calculations
Volume IV External Review Draft
HI-13 Do not cite or quote
-------
Particle density: 1 g/cm3
Particle categories: 10
Particle diameters (/xm):
2.97, 1.89,
0.27, 0.18,
0.93,
0.12,
0.55,
0.062,
0.40,
0.030
Size distribution - mass-weighted distribution:
0.04260, 0.08510, 0.17020, 0.19150, 0.19150,
0.11910, 0.10000, 0.05000, 0.04000, 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
• Wet scavenging coefficients - liquid precipitation:
0.2U10-3, 0.14jclO-3, O.SOxlO-4, 0.50x10^, 0.60x10^,
0.90JC10-4, 0.13;tlO-3, O.lSxlO'3, 0.20*10-3, 0.22xlO'3
Wet scavenging coefficients - frozen precipitation:
0.70*10^, QAlxW4, O.miO-4, O.miQ-4,
O.SQxlO-4, QAlxW4, O.SOjclO-4, 0.67x10^,
0.20X10-4,
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 hi the list file outputs hi Appendix
IV-3.
Volume IV
111-14
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table HI-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
1.83 m
17.74 m/s
367.0 °K
212.1 m
538,460 m
4,497,750 m
(150 ft)
(6ft)
(58.2 ft/s)
(201°F)
(696 ft)
—
Volume IV
m-15
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table ffl-2
Particle Weight Fractions Observed During Run 2 of the
WTI Trial Burn Particle Distribution Study
March 17, 1993
(From A.T. Kearney, 1993)
Median Diameter (um)
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
111-16
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table ffl-3
Size Distributions of the Pollutant Mass
Assumed in the WTI Modeling
Pollutant Mass Fraction (%)
Base Particle Size Distribution
Diameter (nm)
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
111-17
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table ffl-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
X
(m)
23.89
173.47
193.12
199.30
179.65
61.02
r
(m)
48.98
108.45
116.90
102.31
93.99
42.83
Stack
Height
(m)
6.706
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
28.04
Temperature
(deg. 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
X
(m)
177.06
100.16
r
(m)
204.76
170.91
Height
(m)
5.3
3.048
Initial
°f
2.35
1.77
Initial
^
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
111-18
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table ffl-5
WTI Building Information
(From A.T. Kearney, 1992)
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 (HB)
15.24 m (50 ft)
8.84 m (29 ft)
6.10 m (20 ft)
6.71 m (22 ft)
6.10 m (20 ft)
25.76 m (84.5 ft)
14.94 m (49 ft)
15.24 m (50 ft)
6.10 m (20 ft)
7.62 m (25 ft)
29.08 m (95.4 ft)
24.38 m (80 ft)
32.31 m (106 ft)
2 1.34m (70 ft)
Volume IV
111-19
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table IH-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table m-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
111-21
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Cumutthw Wtigflt % GfMMrTtan StMd Szt
90.
100
10
01
^^
11
*
u
/
s
1
^
B I
• S
,'
S 1
;
i
t
i
X
1
4
9
J
L
f
/
L.
r*
$
•
^
,i
!
rr'
2
'
0
s a
20.
CumuOtiv* W«ght % IMS Thw SMrt Sat
Figure ffl-l. Plot of particle mass as a function of particle diameter. Data for particle sizes
greater than 0.4-um diameter are from the Trial Bum 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
ffl-22
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ira J/ ,, ' "**!,. ii III I
['__ __ /_ !. UMO j | tXrWHG 3is,30*0 _ I I I
I"/ :"»S'SI ' :IS==iaS'^."iT11"l""j'!"<''* aii.no.oi ~\~~ 7 r' i' — T |~ : ~:': ~' ~ ~~~:-:::—-:-.;:::::=.-=::=-=: —•-—•-;
- I »•>"• ---="-==-K- "*>«.
— mwOTuu. run KuucmKT noun
Figure ffl-2. Plot plan of the WTI facility. The coordinates shown are m terms of plant north, -
and are in the units of feet. The main incinerator stack is labeled. The fugitive ~M
El r'
emission sources are indicated by the circled numbers 1 through 5.
External Review Draft
-iT-Li**«D •J^B
Volume IV Do not cite or quote IBT ..ii.m«
RUST
HI-23 -ii^™-:
-------
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
SSW
0.0-04
Ifl-iB
U-UJJ
2J-U
ft 11.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ESE
SE
SSE
WTI Site 2
Winds at 30 meters
April 1, 1992 - March 31, 1993
Figure DI-3. Hourly wind rose for WTI Site 2, 30-m data, located on-site.
Volume IV
m-24
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
NNW
NW
WNV
ssw
15-11.0
0.0-10
U-4J
|t 11.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ESE
SE
SSE
TTTI Site 3
Winds at 10 meters
April 1, 1992 - March 31. 1993
Figure ffl-4. Hourly wind rose for WTI Site 3, located at the eastern edge of the property.
Volume IV
m-25
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Figure IH-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.
External Review Draft
Volume IV
ra-27
-------
-------
oo
0
cr>
1300:
•1200-
1 100:
1000:
900 :
800^
700 :
600
BVPSMT Section
WTI Section
DDDDD BVPSMT Station
WTI Station
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
4 9 14 19 24
Cross Va ey Distance (1/10 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
HI-28
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NV
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
0.6-2.5
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0 gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-90,1992 35 Foot Level
Figure ni-8. Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station meteorological tower 35-ft level
for 1986-1990, 1992 (six years).
Volume IV
ffl-29
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-1990,1992 35 Foot Level
Figure ffl-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
IH-30
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
SSW
0.6-2.5
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0 gt 15.0
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower D*
1986-90,1992 150 Foot Le\
Figure HI-10. Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station meteorological tower 150-ft
level for 1986-1990, 1992 (six years).
Volume IV
IH-31
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
0.6-2.5
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0 gt 150
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1986-90,1992 500 Foot Level
Figure ffl-11. Hourly wind rose at Beaver Valley Power Station meteorological tower 500-ft
level for 1986-1990, 1992 (six years).
Volume IV
ffl-32
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
0.6-2.5.
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 1&0-15.0.
2.5-5.0 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
HI-33
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
IV. DISCUSSION OF MODELING RESULTS
Modeling simulations are conducted with the ISC-COMPDEP model, as described hi
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 particulate 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 hi Section IV.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 that are conducted include
simulations using nine-year high and low annual precipitation amounts, and the use of
turbulence-based horizontal dispersion coefficients utilizing the BVPSMT 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 hi the uncertainty analysis.
Because the steady-state plume model is ill-suited to evaluate impacts during calm
wind conditions andsiuring 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
U.S. EPA are also summarized. The 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 IV.B.6, the results of the physical modeling
performed hi the wind tunnel study are summarized along with mathematical modeling with
ISC-COMPDEP for the conditions studied hi 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 hi the modeling is also conducted (see Section IV.D).
The uncertainty analysis is categorized into two types: limitations of the technical
algorithms hi the models, and limitations hi 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 particulate 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 hi
Table IV-1. Contour plots for the base case simulations are presented hi 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 ffl.F). However, enhanced features of ISC-
COMPDEP, which are not part of the ISCST2 and COMPLEX I models, are also used hi
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-2 DO not cite or quote
-------
deposition, and multi-layer plume rise. A partial listing of the model output files generated
by ISC-COMPDEP for the base case simulations is shown hi Appendix IV-3. Version
94227 of ISC-COMPDEP is used hi 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:
(IV-1)
= v
N tr
where Xi is the concentration at receptor i, and
N is the number of receptors (i.e., 936).
Receptor average total deposition flux, ~Ft :
T = 1 f (F). (IV-2)
' # tT
where (F^ is the total (wet + dry) deposition flux at receptor i, and
Tt is the receptor average deposition flux
"Total" average deposition velocity,
(IV-3)
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 hi 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, hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-3 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
\% for 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 hi 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 IV-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 D.I.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 External Review Draft
jy_4 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 IV-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 + 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 hi Section II.M,
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 have since been
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-5 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 hi 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 hi the sensitivity runs
with all of the pollutant mass on particles less than 0.4 /im diameter assigned to very
small 0.03 /im 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
/im 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
rV-6 Do not cite or quote
-------
the mass-weighted and surface area-weighted pollutant distributions. The deposition
fluxes show 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 50% 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 12.1 meters (see Section
III.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 niches (NOAA 1983). Precipitation data from the BVPSMT for the period
1986 through May 1994 are analyzed. The average annual precipitation at the
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-7 Do not cite or quote
-------
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).
In the precipitation sensitivity tests, the base precipitation file (from the
Pittsburgh Airport), is scaled by the ratio of the highest annual BVPSMT
precipitation to the base amount (i.e., 47.34/39.3 = 1.20) and the ratio of the lowest
annual BVPSMT 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 BVPSMT in the calculation of the dispersion rates
used in the model. Measured values of oe are available from the BVPSMT at the
150-ft and 500-ft levels of the tower. The model computes ay from the measured
wind fluctuations, rather than on surface stability class. The relationship between ay
and 00 can be written as:
J
y
where oy is in meters,
oe is in radians,
x is the downwind distance (m), and
the function, fy, is given by Draxler (1976):
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-8 Do not cite or quote
-------
fy(x) = 1 + 0.9(0.001;c/H)05
where u is the wind speed (m/s).
In the first equation above, the approximate equivalence of the turbulence
intensity iy and ae is used (i.e., iy = ae, for small values of oe, expressed in radians).
Missing values of ae are filled by taking the slope of the initial (small x) portion of
the rural Briggs curves for oy (as reported by Gifford, 1976). For small x, the
growth hi oy is nearly linear, so that ae = Oy/x. These values vary by stability class:
Stability class: A B C D E F
ae (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-1 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, ae from the
150-ft level of the BVPSMT is used in the calculation of ay 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 hi 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 oy 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-9 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 ay is larger when the o6 data are used, peak concentrations from the ISC
module are smaller, which would foster the 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 ae. 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 ay 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 15% of the number of hours hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-10 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi the stable layer during nighttime hours with poor
dispersion conditions, followed by 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.
For these reasons, a non-steady-state puff model (CALPUFF) is used to
simulate a typical calm wind and plume fumigation event in order to assess the
impact of these conditions on long term concentrations at WTI. The puff model,
unlike plume models, can easily handle light or calm wind conditions, along-wind
diffusion, accumulation of emissions in an elevated stable layer, and the eventual
fumigation of the emissions during the morning inversion breakup period. Prior to
this analysis, U.S. EPA's Applied Modeling Research Branch also performed a study
(Petersen and Schwede 1994) to help quantify model uncertainty on annual
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-11 Do not cite or quote
-------
concentrations and peak 24-hour average concentrations due to low-wind-speed
conditions. They applied the INPUFF model using two versions of the full year of
meteorological data, one with the calm periods removed, and one with the calm
periods replaced with wind speeds less than 1 m/s.
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 IV.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 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-12 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 IV-2 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.
v
• 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-13 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi one
day. The total number of hours found to be calm are:
Definition 1 — 866
Definition 2 — 479
Definition 3 — 1942
Within a day, the distribution of calm hours has a strong diurnal
pattern, being largely associated with stable nighttime periods. Figure IV-3,
the frequency of occurrence (number of days per year) of calm hours at a
particular tune 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 CALPUFF
In order to evaluate the effects of calm wind conditions and fumigation
events, CALPUFF is applied to the full year of meteorological data.
CALPJJFF 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.
Then- distribution is plotted hi Figure IV-4. CALPUFF employs the ISC
terrain treatment, transitional rise, and included stack-tip downwash and
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-14 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 aw of 0.16
m/s and av of 0.5 m/s. Wet and 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-3.
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-3). 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-5 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 /xg/m3). In contrast, the CALPUFF results shown in Figure IV-
6 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
TV-IS Do not cite or quote
-------
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 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 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 INPUFF simulation (Petersen and Schwede 1994) is derived from
the same meteorological file as CALPUFF, so that it too produces the
"channeled flow" concentration distribution, even though no terrain is
specified in INPUFF. Unlike the CALPUFF simulations, the wind directions
during the lightest wind speed hours (less than 1.0 m/s) were randomized in
the INPUFF simulations. U.S. EPA's comparison of INPUFF with
COMPDEP (no terrain, no calms) indicated that 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
hi 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.
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 hi 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-16 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi the wind tunnel. These are discussed hi 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:
• 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 hi 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 hi 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 hi concert with the changes hi the mean streamline patterns.
These findings do indeed indicate that terrain-induced perturbations to the flow are
expected to occur at the WTI site..
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-17 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 pah- used hi 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 hi Figures IV-7 through IV-9.
Figure IV-7 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-8 and IV-9
demonstrate significantly different behavior. Even though terrain downwash effects
are not modeled hi ISC-COMPDEP, the treatment of terrain hi the model produces
concentrations that exceed those obtained hi the wind tunnel simulations. The
structure of the curves is also different hi that concentrations do not always decrease
as the stack is raised. This is particularly the case hi Figure IV-9 hi 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-18 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 HI. 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 hi 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 particulate
matter emissions from the ash handling facility, so the same size distribution used in the
base case simulations of the incinerator stack are used for the ash handling facility.
Table IV-4 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 hi 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 m. 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 hi
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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-19 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi the model are
discussed below.
a. Wet Deposition
The wet deposition algorithm used hi 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. The data hi these studies do not allow the identification and
parameterization of individual wet removal processes, such as in-cloud
nucleation and below cloud interception. Instead, all wet removal
mechanisms are included implicitly in the empirical scavenging coefficients.
Non-steady-state effects and saturation effects are not included hi the model.
ISC-COMPDEP assumes that no changes hi the size distribution of the
particles occurs, as can happen due to aerosol growth hi 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
hi the model overestimating the peak wet deposition flux (and therefore
overestimating the estimated risk) of the facility.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-20 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 hi 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 hi the two zones can be completely decoupled hi 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 hi 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
hi complex terrain such as near the WTI facility, this assumption is
questionable, and is likely to lead to errors hi plume trajectories. However,
over long 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).
v
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 hi the ISC-COMPDEP model cannot treat
calm conditions or fumigation associated with inversion break-up events.
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-21 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 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 hi a significant simplification of the meteorological conditions hi the
valley. However, with the focus on long-term average concentrations and
Volume IV External Review Draft
IV-22 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
hi Section IV.B.3. It was found that year-to-year variability hi 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 yum. 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 /xm 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 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 /im in diameter. Due to limitations of the
testing equipment, the shape of the size distribution below 0.4 /xm 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 I V.B.I). 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 External Review Draft
IV-23 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
Ib
Ic
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
5c
f
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
GEP Ht. Stack
GEP Ht. Stack
GEP Ht. 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
(Hg/m3)
.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 (I km, 100°)
.9190 (1 km, 100°)
.9223 (1 km, 100°)
Maximum
Deposition Flux
(g/mVyr)
.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 (0.1 km, 1 00°)
.2394(0.1 km, 90°)
"
Receptor
Average
Concentration
Oig/m3)
.1018
.1013
.1024
.0830
.0826
.0836
.1017
.1012
.1019
.1014
.1018
.1014
.1024
Receptor
Average
Deposition Flux
(g/m2/yr)
.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
~
IV
-------
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-lb
C-lc
C-2a
C-2b
C-3
I-la
I-lb
I-lc
I-2a
I-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
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
ISC-COMPDEP
*
Run Description
Base Case
Base Case
Base Case
Mass < .4 urn
At 0.03 urn
Vapor Modeled as
0.03 urn particle
Base Case
Base Case
Base Case
Mass < .4 urn
At 0.03 urn
Vapor Modeled as
0.03 um particle
No Depletion
No Depletion
Receptor-Specific
Land Use
Pollutant
Distribution
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor
Mass
Surface Area
Vapor/Particle
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°)
.901 2 (1.25 km, 250°)
.8752(1.25 km, 250°)
.8705 (1.25km, 250°)
.9404 (1.25 km, 250°)
.9443 (1.25km, 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/m2/yr)
.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/m3)
.0978
.0976
.1002
.0965
.0944
.0941
.0813
.0830
.0852
.0810
.0824
.0825
.0852
.0852
.0852
.0852
Domain
Average
Deposition
Flux (g/mVyr)
.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 IV
IV-25
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table IV-3
Comparison of CALPUFF and ISC-COMPDEP
Modeling Results
ISC-COMPDEP
CALPUFF
Concentration (ng/m3)
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-26
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Table IV-4
Summary of WTI Modeling Results with ISC-COMPDEP
Fugitive Emission Sources
Annual Simulation (April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993)
AH Results Are Based on Unit Emission Rate (1 g/s or 1 g/mVs)
Run No.
Sc
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
(ug/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°)
298.68' (0.3 km, 40°)
143.56b(0.1 km, 40°)
288.70" (0.2 km, 40°)
a Based on an emission rate of 1 g/s.
b Based on an emission rate of 1 g/s per stack (four stacks in run)
Volume IV
IV-27
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000-
40000-
30000
20000
10000
o
z
Annual Concentrations (jUg/ni *
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
-—•0.005
0.005
0.020
-10000
-20000 . ______
I ~~^ -0-005
-30000-
-40000
-5000CH
-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.
- 1.000
C.50C
C.20C
C.100
0.075
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.000
Volume IV
IV-28
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
40000-1
30000-
20000
10000-)
E !
^"" I
i
o:
o
2
0-
ro
-10000
-20000
-30000-i
-40000-
-500CXH
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
0.0001
-HO. 100
I—';0.05QC
i ;
!
!—- j 0.0201
i i
— 0.005C
— 0.002C
I
—; 0.001 c
f - I
!•- ..! O.OOOf
I o.ooo:
I
! 0.000
0.000(
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
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-29
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
40000-
30000
20000-
10000-
X
I—
or
O
2
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
'>/ /
-10000
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
-50000-j r - -v
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0
OJ
0.1000C
0.05000
0.0200C
0.0100C
0.0050C
0.0020C
0.00100
0.0005C
0.00020
0.00010
0.00005
10.00000
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-3. Annual dry deposition fluxes (g/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-30
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000^
40000-
30000-
20000
10000-
£ CM
QC
O
-10000
-20000-
-30000-
-40000
Total Annual Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
0.0005
.\
:" '. ''A
,
O.OOQ5
o.<
J0.100C
j
0.050C
0.020C
0.01 OC
0.005C
0.002C
0.001 C
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
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-31
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Win WS152=1.0 m/s (Percentiles: 1 5 25 50 75 95 99)
Win WS152 1.0 m/s (Percentiles: 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 ay
functions developed by Briggs.
Volume IV
IV-32
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Daily Duration of Calms/Inversions
50-n
40-
30-
I
20-
dT(15&-35ft)GE1.0C
ws(Wn)=0; dT(150-35ft)GE1.5C
- & - ws(wn)=o
10-
0-
I I I T T
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
# Calm Hours per Day
Figure IV-6. Frequency of occurrence of calm periods of a given number of hours per day.
Cairn 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-33
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Diumal Distribution of Calms/Inversions
160-1
120-
80-
I
40-
ws(vVn)=Q; dT(150-35ft) GE 1.0C
ws(Wn)=0; dT(150-35ft) GE 1.5C
_ & - ws(wn)=o
» « -°~oX
S>
•t-r-r
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of Day
Figure FV-7. Frequency of occurrence of calm conditions by time-of-day. Calm hours are
determined from the measured wind speed at the WTI tower (30 m), and inversion
conditions are detennined from temperatures measured at the Beaver Valley tower.
Volume IV
IV-34
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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-35
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISC-COMPDEP (NOCMPL)
-6 -4 -2
10
Figure IV-9. Anmfcl concentrations (Mg/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
IV-36
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CALPUFF (Slug)
-10
8 10
10
-10 -8
6
8 10
Figure IV-10. Annual concentrations (ng/m3) for a unit emission rate (1 g/s) predicted by applying CALFUFF.
The WTI stack is located at (0,0) and distances are in kilometers.
Volume IV
IV-37
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Terrain Downwash Tests: Hat Terrain
o
2
b
f
20
18
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6 -
4 —
2 —
I I ! I I
Hs=45.7m(tunnel)
Hs=45.7m(mcxtel)
Hs=7Z7m (tunnel)
Hs=7Z7m(mcxte<)
Hs=120m(tunnd)
Hs=120m (model)
I I I I I I I T
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Wind Speed @500 ft (m/s)
Figure IV-11. Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA FMF wind tunnel results for the flat terrain
configuration.
Volume IV
IV-38
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Terrain Downwash Tests: Wind From SE
^- ^
33
o
3
^*^
I
20-
18 -
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4 —
2 —
0-
Hss45.7m (tunnel)
Hs=45.7m (model)
Hs=727m(tunnej)
Hs=7Z7m (model)
Hs=120m (tunnel)
Hs=120m (model)
-i—i—i—i—i—i—r
"i—I—r
024
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-39
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
Terrain Downwash Tests: Wind From NW
o
15
f
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6-
4-
Hs=45.7m(tunnej)
Hs=45.7m (model)
Hs=7Z7m (tunnel)
Hs=7Z7m (model)
Hs=120m (tunnel)
Hs=120m (model)
i I I I I
0246
i l i
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Wind Speed @500 ft (nVs)
Figure IV-13. Comparison of ISC-COMPDEP results with U.S. EPA FMF wind tunnel results for "NW" winds.
Volume IV
IV-40
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
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 hi 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 hi the valley, evaluation of terrain-induced downwash effects,
modeling of fugitive emission sources, inclusion of short-term average concentration
estimates for use hi evaluating concentration increases from upset conditions, and an analysis
of the sources of uncertainty hi 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 hi detail in Section
II of this report. Many of the peer review panel concerns are addressed by the use of
ISC-COMPDEP; hi fact additional refinements were made to the model hi 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 (ae). ISC-COMPDEP simulations are conducted using local precipitation data,
short-term concentration estimates are produced for evaluating upset or accident-related
increases hi 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 External Review Draft
V-l Do not cite or quote
-------
For the case of calm wind and fumigation conditions, the basic steady-state
assumption used hi 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 hi 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 hi 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 wastewater 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 hi Section IV.D, and is summarized in Table V-l. 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 External Review Draft
V-2 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
proportional 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
TABLE V-l
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
External Review Draft
-------
VI. REFERENCES
Auer, A.H. Jr., 1978: Correlation of land use and cover with meteorological anomalies. /.
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 ofAPCA, 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.
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. /. Clim. 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,^, 99-105.
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 Safety, 17,
68-86.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
Colder, 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.
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. /. Clim. and Appl. 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.
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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-2 Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
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 hi Gaussian Plume Modeling. Part
II. Possible Requirements for Change hi 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 Model 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.
Petersen, W.B. and L.G. Lavdas, 1986: INPUFF 2.0 — 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 Particles by
Precipitation. J. Applied Meteor., 19, 715-722.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-3 ' Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
Scire, J.S., F.W. Lurmann, 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., D.G. Strimaitis, R.J. Yamartino, and Xiaoming Zhang, 1995: A User's 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. Sutler, 1974: Particle deposition rates on a water surface as a
function of particle diameter and air velocity. /. Rechs Atmos., in, 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-4 Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-5 Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
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 Con/, 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.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-6 Do not cite or (Iuote
-------
Wesely, M.L. and B.B. Hicks, 1977: Some factors that affect the deposition rates of sulfur
dioxide and similar gases on vegetation. /. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 27, 1110-1116.
Volume IV External Review Draft
VI-7 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX IV-1
Building Dimension Analysis
Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) Output Files
WTDBPIP3.OUT -
WT1BPIP3.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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
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
a conversion factor of
will be converted to meters using
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
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
Exteraal Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.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
29.08
24.38
29.08
29.08
24.38
29.08
26.88
25.97
32.33
26.88
25.97
32.33
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
29.08
29.08
29.08
25.76
29.08
24.72
22.57
31.85
24.72
24.81
31.85
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
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
29.08
21.81
25.75
30.86
21.81
25.75
30.86
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
42.49
33.74
50.98
42.49
33.74
50.98
25.76
29.08
29.08
25.76
29.08
29.08
27.61
28.77
29.63
27.61
28.77
29.63
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
29.08
29.08
25.76
29.08
29.08
27.01
30.90
29.30
26.08
30.90
29.30
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
29.08
29.08
25.76
29.08
29.08
24.64
32.10
28.21
23.77
32.10
28.21
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
21.92
48.91
51.66
21.92
48.91
51.66
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-4
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 waste3
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
15
15
15
15
15
50
18
51
50
18
51
15
15
15
15
15
15
50
18
51
50
18
51
15
15
15
15
15
15
50
18
51
50
18
51
29
6
25
29
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.09
.23
.16
.09
.23
.16
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.09
.23
.16
.09
.23
.16
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.09
.23
.16
.09
.23
.16
.08
.71
.76
.08
15
15
15
15
15
15
47
26
51
47
26
51
15
15
15
15
15
15
47
26
51
47
26
51
15
15
15
15
15
15
47
26
51
47
26
51
29
25
25
29
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.00
.39
.86
.00
.39
.86
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.00
.39
.86
.00
.39
.86
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.00
.39
.86
.00
.39
.86
.08
.76
.76
.08
15
15
15
15
15
15
42
33
50
42
33
50
15
15
15
15
15
15
42
33
50
42
33
50
15
15
15
15
15
15
42
33
50
42
33
50
29
25
25
29
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.49
.74
.98
.49
.74
.98
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.49
.74
.98
.49
.74
.98
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.49
.74
.98
.49
.74
.98
.08
.76
.76
.08
15
15
15
15
15
15
36
40
50
36
40
50
15
15
15
15
15
15
36
40
50
36
40
50
15
15
15
15
15
15
36
40
50
36
40
50
24
25
29
24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.68
.06
.09
.68
.06
.09
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.68
.06
.09
.68
.06
.09
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.68
.06
.09
.68
.06
.09
.38
.76
.08
.38
15
15
15
15
15
15
29
45
51
29
45
51
15
15
15
15
15
15
29
45
51
29
45
51
15
15
15
15
15
15
29
45
51
29
45
51
24
25
29
24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.75
.17
.66
.75
.17
.66
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.75
.17
.66
.75
.17
.66
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.75
.17
.66
.75
.17
.66
.38
.76
.08
.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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-6 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.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 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 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
5 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
3f 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
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-8
0.00 FEET
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipB.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
3f 0.
( 0.
CORNER
X
80.00
24.38
18.94
143.00
43.59
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
36.64 25.31] meters
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-9
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
INCIN FD has 1 tier(s) with a base elevation of
BUILDING TIER BLDG-TIER TIER NO. OF
NAME NUMBER NUMBER HEIGHT CORNERS
INCIN FD
17 84.50 6
25.76 meters
143.00
43.59
41.48
121.00
36.88
35.30
121.00
36.88
33.18
80.00
24.38
21.65
if 0.
( 0.
CORNER
X
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
-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
00 FEET
00) meters
COORDINATES
Y
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
steantplt
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 0.00
{ 0.00)
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
FEET
meters
CORNER COORDINATES
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
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 (a) 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
wastefrm
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
29 50.00 4
15.24 meters
IV-1-11
617.00 106.00 FEET
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3 . sum
Number of stacks
to be
'
[
processed : 6
STACK STACK
STACK NAME
WTI1
(
wastel
(
waste2
(
waste3
(
waste4
(
-
steam
(
BASE HEIGHT X
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipS.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 *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: 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-13 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: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: 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-14 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.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 Namerwastefrm 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-15 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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:wastefnn 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: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 'Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefnn 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 '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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-16 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.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: 15.88 '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 .-was tefrm 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-17 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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:wasteS 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
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 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: 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 Namerwastefrm 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 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-18 Do not cite or quote
-------
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:wastefnn 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-19 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipB.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 Nametwastefrm 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-20 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
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: 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:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-21 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 Naroe: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 Namerwastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2 Stack Ht: 16.76
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16 'Wake Effect Ht: 38.10
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-22 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipB.sun
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-23 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 1
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 NamecINCIN 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-24 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-25 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipS.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 0.0.0
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:waste£rm 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-26 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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:wastefnn 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
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-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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-27 Do not cite or quote
-------
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-.was tefrm 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 IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-28 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipB.sum
Drtcn: 220.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 27.61 *Hake 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 »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 *Equation 1 Ht: 38.10
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
BldNo: 8 Bid Name:wastefnn 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
Directional MAX: BH: 32.31 PBW: 10.67 *Wake Effect Ht: 48.32
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Eguation 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-29 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 Namerwastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Naroe: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:INCIN 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-30 Do not cite or Quote
-------
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: 1 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 PD 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 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: 1
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-31 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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.-wastefnn 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 *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: 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FVM-32 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.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:wastefmi 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-33 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 Namerwastefrm TierNo: 1
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3 Stack Ht: 16.76
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-34 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 *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: 51.16 *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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-35 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 1
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-36 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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: I 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-37 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.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:WTI1 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
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: wastef rrn 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-38 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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
Dominate combined buildings:
Drtcn: 10.00
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-39 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipS.sum
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4 Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 50.09 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88 *Equation 1 Ht:
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Wake Effect Ht:
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 *Equation 1 Ht:
*adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 20.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 24.72 *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
15.24 PBW:
15.24 PBW:
47.00
15.88
Directional MAX: BH:
GEP: BH:
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 47.00
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 24.72
GEP: BH: 29.08
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:
PBW: 25.95
•adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
Drtcn: 30.00
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
68.00
68.00
0.00
45.72
66.16
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
66.16
68.00
0.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl
Directional MAX: BH:
GEP: BH:
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
29.08
29.08
PBW:
PBW:
21.81
29.08
IV-1-40
Stack Ht: 45.72
•Wake Effect Ht: 61.80
•Equation 1 Ht: 72.69
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-41 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 Stic 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-42 D° not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
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
Drtcn: 70.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-43 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
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: 6.71 PBW: 16.41 'Wake Effect Ht: 16.76
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95 'Equation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 80.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 22.57 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.93
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: 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
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: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 90.00
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-44 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
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: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
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 *Eguation 1 Ht: 68.00
No combined tiers affect this stack for this direction
Drtcn: 100.00
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
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
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
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 Naine: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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-45 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Drtcn: 110.00
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
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: 120.00
StkNo: 1 Stk NamerWTIl 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-46 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
v
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 '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
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-47 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
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: 150.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 30.86 *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: 50.98 *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: 50.98 *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: 50.98 *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: 50.98 *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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-48 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 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: 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-.was tel 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 P/-1-49 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 *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: 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 *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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-50 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Drtcn: 190.00
StkNo: 1 Stk NamerWTIl 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-51 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipB.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 Ht: 68.00
'adjusted for a Stack-Building elevation difference of 0.00
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-52 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Bldg-Tier nos, contributing to MAX: 1 9
Drtcn: 220.00
StkNo: 1 Stk NameiWTIl 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
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: 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
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-53 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-54 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
Drtcn: 250.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht: 45.72
Directional MAX: BH: 24.38 PBW: 25.97 *Wake Effect Ht: 60.96
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 29.08 *Eguation 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: 1 5.9
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 *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: 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 Name:WXTl 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 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
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-55 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 68.00
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: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
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-56 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipS.sum
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
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
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-57 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sun
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 Naroe: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 '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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-58 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.16
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 6 Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.80
GEP: BH: 29.08 PBW: 25.95
No combined tiers affect this stack for
Drtcn: 320.00
•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
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl Stack Ht:
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 31.85 *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:
StkNo: 2 Stk Name:wastel
24 PBW
15.
51.86
15.88
for
.24 PBW: 51.86
.24 PBW: 15.88
this stack for
Directional MAX: BH:
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW
No combined tiers affect this stack
StkNo: 3 Stk Name:waste2
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
No combined tiers affect
StkNo: 4 Stk Name:waste3
Directional MAX: BH: 15.24 PBW: 51.86
GEP: BH: 15.24 PBW: 15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 5 Stk Name:waste4
Directional MAX: BH: 15
GEP: BH: 15
.24
.24
PBW:
PBW:
51.86
15.88
No combined tiers affect this stack for
StkNo: 6. Stk Name:steam
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 22.42
GEP: BH: 29.08
No combined tiers affect
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
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
16.76
38.10
38.10
6.71
62.96
68.00
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
59.38
68.00
Drtcn: 330.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:WTIl
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-59
Stack Ht: 45.72
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3. sum
Directional MAX: BH: 29.08 PBW: 30.86 *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: 50.98 *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: 50.98 *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: 50.98 *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: 50.98 '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: 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: 340.00
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 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-60 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpipB.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«r 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-61 Do not cite or quote
-------
wtibpip3.sum
No. of Tiers affecting Stic: 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-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 9 1
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-62 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-63 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 IV-1
IV-1-64
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
DATE : 02/14/95
TIME : 17:54:22.75
A3 63 - 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 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-1-65 Do not cite or quote
-------
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.
( 0.
CORNER
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
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
00 FEET
00) meters
COORDINATES
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
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
IV-1-66
0.00 FEET
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
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
»f 0.
{ 0.
CORNER
X
80.00
24.38
18.94
143.00
43.59
36.64
COORDINATES
Y
77.00 FEET
23.47 meters
2 9'. 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
IV-1-67
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
143.00 -11.00 FEET
43.59 -3.35 meters
41.48 13.79] meters
121.00 -11.00 FEET
36.88 -3.35 meters
35.30 11.19] meters
121.00 7.00 FEET
36.88 2.13 meters
33.18 16.25] meters
80.00 7.00 FEET
24.38 2.13 meters
21.65 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 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
IVM-68
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
29 50.00 4
15.24 meters
IV-1-69
0.00 FEET
0.00) meters
CORNER COORDINATES
X Y
617.00 106.00 FEET
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
Number of stacks to be processed :
STACK NAME
STACK
BASE HEIGHT
STACK
X
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
COORDINATES
Y
cadbed
0.00 94.50 FEET
0.00 28.80) meters
239.00 52.00 FEET
( 72.85 15.85) meters
[ 61.02 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 6EP 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 Naroezcadbed 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-71 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-72 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
*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: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: 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: 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
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 FV-1-73 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: I 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: 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
BldNo: 5 Bid Name:INCIN FD TierNo: 1
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
Volume IV
Appendix IV-1
Stack Ht: 28.80
IV-1-74
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
*adjusted 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-75 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 1
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-76 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 Nametcadbed 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 hos. 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-77 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 26.08 *Wake Effect Ht: 64.39
6EP: 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 '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: 70.00
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: 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
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 1 9
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
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-78 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-79 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
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
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-80 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
Drtcn: 210.00
StkNo: I Stk Name roadbed 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 Nametcadbed 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: 1 5.9
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-81 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
StkNo: 1 Stk Name:cadbed Stack Ht: 28.80
Directional MAX: BH: 25.76 PBW: 24.81 *Wake Effect Ht: 62.98
6EP: 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 roadbed 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-82 Do not cite or quote
-------
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: 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 roadbed 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 '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: 360.00
StkNo: 1 Stk Naroe: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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-1 IV-1-83 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADBPIP.SUM
No. of Tiers affecting Stk: 2
Bldg-Tier nos. contributing to MAX: 17 13
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix P/-1 IV-1-84 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-2 IV-2-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
50-75 10.0-15.0
0.6-2.5 S'D 7'5 '
2.5-5.0 7.5-lo!b"
(mph)
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
IV-2-3
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NNE
20%
NW
NE
WNW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NNE
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
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 IV-2
IV-2-9
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
1986 — itO 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NNE
20%
NW
NE
WNW
wsw
ENE
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10-0-15.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1988 — ISO 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
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
1989 — itO 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNV
NNE
20%
NW
NE
WNW
wsw
ENE
ESE
SE
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1990 — 1BO Foot Level
Figure IV-2-12. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1990, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-14
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CUSSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-1S.O
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
1992 — 150 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-13. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1992, 150-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-15
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
ssw
0.6-2.£
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
2.5-5.0
7.5-10.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley 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 FV-2
IV-2-16
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
- E
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0 gt 15.0
(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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
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)
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Beaver Valley PS Tower Data
1990 — 500 Foot Level
Figure IV-2-19. Annual wind rose for the BVPSMT for 1990, 500-foot level.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-21
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
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)
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
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
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 5 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
N
NNE
20%
NE
SSE
ENE
ESE
SE
WIND SPEED CLASSES
2-5-5.0 7.5_10.o
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 0 GMT Surface Layer
Figure IV-2-23. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GNfT sounding data, surface level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-25
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1988 Cf GMT 950 mb
Figure IV-2-24. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, 950 mb level, 1988.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-26
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SYT
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
1989 (f GMT 950 mb
Figure IV-2-25. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, 950 mb level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-27
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
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 Sounding Data
1988 (f 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNV
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5
2.5-5.0 7.5-10.0
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
E
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNV
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 (f GMT 850 mb
Figure IV-2-29. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 0 GMT sounding data, 850 mb level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-31
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
sw
ssw
0.6-2.5
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
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
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-32
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
WSW
SW
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
2-5-5.0 75_100
(mph)
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
ESE
SE
SSE
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
SW
SSW
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15.0
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
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
IV-2-34
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NN¥
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
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
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 IV-2
IV-2-35
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
NW
WNW
W
wsw
sw
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
(mph)
gt 15.0
N
NNE
20%
NE
ENE
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NNW
NW
WNW
WSW
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
ESE
SE
SSE
Project 1363
Pittsburgh Sounding Data
1989 12 GMT 900 mb
Figure IV-2-35. Annual wind rose for Pittsburgh 12 GMT sounding data, 900 mb level, 1989.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-2
IV-2-37
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
NNW
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
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
N
NW
WNW
W
WSW
sw
NNW
NNE
20%
ssw
WIND SPEED CLASSES
5.0-7.5 10.0-15^0.
NE
ENE
2-5-5.0 7.5-10.0
ESE
SE
SSE
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
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.
BASECPRT - 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
.prt
••• ISCONDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI stack modeling, EPA Region V. Project 1363, Base Cess ••• 08/25/94
••* CUB source; 936 receptors 19 to SOKM any; Hue wt. "• 17:37:03
PAGE 1
••• MODELDO OPTIOHS USED: COHC RURAL EUV DPAOLT EMDPL NBTOPL
••• MODEL snap OPTIONS sawMnr •••
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Modal Is Setup For Calculation of Average CCNCentration Valuea.
— SCAVENGOn/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Me* OKr DEPLETION. DDPLETE * T
••Model Uses MET DEPLETION. MDPLETE • T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LHGAS.LHPAin • T T
••Model Uses GUDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Use* RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Use* Regulatory DEFAULT Option*:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dovmash.
3. auoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Oae CalM Proeeaaing Routine.
S. Mot Use Mi*»ino Data. Processing Routine.
6. Default Mad Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Teaperature Gradient*.
8. "Upper Bound* Valuea for Supersquat Building*.
9. Mo Exponential Decay for ROTAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors en ELEV Terrain.
••Model ASSUBB* Mo PIAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Muster of levels : 3
(• ACL) 30.0000
(• AGL) 45.7000
(• AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Wind Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 5
IB AGL) 30.0000
In AGL) 45.7000
(B AGL) 80.8000
IB AGL) 111.300
IB AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average I*) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Source Is); 1 Source Group (• I; and 936 Receptor Is)
•The Model ASSUBSS A Pollutant Type of: LEAD
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Output* Tables of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLB Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Mairi«» Short Term Values (MUTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Pile(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flsgs May Appear Following COMC values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (B) • 30.00 : Decay coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle * 0.0
Emission units - GRAMS/SEC ' ; Emission Rate Unit Factor • 0.100001*07
Output Units •> MICROGRAMS/M**3
"Input Kunitraam File: basea.inc ; "Output Print File: basaa.eon
••Detailed Error/Message File: ERRORS.OOT
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-3 Do not cite or quote
-------
buu.prt
ISCOHD0 VntSIOM 94227 ••• ••* WTI mtmek modeling, EPA R«flion V, J>roj«ct 13«3. Bua Cue ••• 08/25/94
*** On* source; 936 r«c«ptor« up to 5OHM may; turn* wt. ••• 17:37:03
PAO1 2
MODKM1K? OPTIOM5 US1D: OONC RDRAL KLKV DMULT ORYDPL NB1DPL
•*• romT sooxci DM* •••
.NUMBER EKISSIOM RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK •OILDZK! HUSSION KATE
SOURCE FART. (GRAMS/SEC) X ¥ ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VtL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DBG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
MTISTACK 10 0.10000E»01 0.0 0.0 212.1 4S.70 3(7.00 17.74 1.S3 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-4 Do not cite or quote
-------
OROOP ID
buaa.prt
VERSION 94227 »• ••• WTI *t«ck •odclino, EPA Region V. Project 1363, Bu* Cue ••• 08/25/94
••• On* •oure*; 936 r>c*pto» up to 50m may; Mu< vt. *•• 17:37:03
PAOE 3
OPTIONS USED: COHC RURAL ELEV DFADLT DRYDPL DEIOPL
SOURCE IDs OEFOIDR SOURCE GROUTS
SOURCE IDs
tRTSTOOC.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-5 Do not cite or quote
-------
.prt
ISCONDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WIT «uck •odcliag, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Bu« CM* ••• 01/25/94
**• On* >oure«; 936 nmptors up to SOU* may; Mu« vt. ••• 17:37:03
PAOE 4
OPTIONS USB: OOHC RURAL SLSV DPAOLT DRYDPL WTTDPL
••• SOOKCS PAKTICnLAIS/GAS DM* •••
••• SODRCE ID - WTISTACK; SOURCE TYPE - POINT ••*
MASS PRACTIOH -
0.04260, 0.0*510, 0.17020. 0.19150, 0.19150, 0.11910, 0.10000, O.OSOOO, 0.04000, 0.01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS > -
2.97000, 1.19000, 0.93000, O.SSOOO. 0.40000, 0.27000, 0.11000, 0.12000, 0.04200, 0.03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (0/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] I/(S-IM/KR)-
0.21E-03,0.14E-03,0. SOE-04,0. SOE-04,0.60E-04,0.90S-04,0.131-03,0.15S-03.0.20E-03,0.22E-03,
SCAV COEP [ICE] 1/(S-I«/KR)-
0.70E-04,0.47E-04,0.17E-04,0.17E-04,0.20E-04,0.30E-04,0.431-04,0.50E-04.0.67E-04.0.73S-04.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-6 D° not cite or quote
-------
VBRSICM 94227 •••
OVT1CMS vamui OQNC
buw.prt
••• WTI «t*ck mottling, EPA Mgien V, Fro]«ct 1363, tan Cam
•" On* moaicm: 936 r«c«pcer« up to 50KH ray; Mu« vt.
XDBAL BUV anata
••• DIMCTION SPECIFIC BOXLDHB DIMENSIONS •••
DKYDPL MRDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
FMn 5
SOORCE ID: HTISTM3C
IFV BH
1 29.1.
7 24.4,
13 29.1,
19 29.1,
25 24.4,
31 29.1,
EM KM
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
IFV BH
2 29.1.
8 29.1,
14 29.1,
20 29.1.
26 25. t.
32 29.1,
BH WUC
24.7 0
22.6 0
31.8 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
31.8 0
IFV BH
3 29.1.
9 29.1,
IS 29.1,
21 29.1,
27 29.1,
' 33 29.1,
BH NMC
21.8 0
25. « 0
30.9 0
21.8 0
25.8 0
30.9 0
IW BH
4 25.8.
10 29.1,
16 29.1,
22 25.8,
28 29.1.
34 29.1,
BH MAK
27.6 0
28.8 0
29.6 0
27.6 0
28.8 0
29.6 0
IFV BH
5 24.4,
11 29.1.
17 29.1.
23 25. 8.
29 29.1,
35 29.1,
BH NAK
27.0. 0
30.9, 0
29.3. 0
26.1. 0
30.9, 0
29.3, 0
IFV BH
6 24.4.
12 29.1,
18 29.1.
24 25.8,
30 S9.1.
36 29.1.
BH HAK
24.6. 0
32.1, 0
28.2, 0
23.8. 0
32.1. 0
28.2. 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-7
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
.prt
XSCOMDEF VIRSIOH 94227 •*•
OPTIONS DSID: CONC
••• HTX >t«ck modeling, EPA Mgion V, Project 1363. Bu« <
*** On* •euro; 936 receptor* up to 50m •ray; Mu« wt.
XDML ILIV OTM1LT
D9LXDPL MXTDPZ.
OI/2S/94
17:37:03
PABI «
*• DISCWTS CMHESIM! HECUTOKS —
(I-COORD. Y-COORD, ZILCV, ZPIAG)
( 17.4.
( 52.1,
S6.8.
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
8C8.2,
1736.5,
3473.0,
6945.9.
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307. «,
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.
98.5,
295.4,
492.4,
689.4,
886.3,
1231.0,
1723.4.
2215.8,
29S4.4,
4924.0,
9848.1,
1*696.2,
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,
141.4,
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
22S.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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
( 34.7,
( 69.5,
I 104.2,
136.9,
173.6.
260.5,
347.3.
434.1.
694.6,
1302.4.
2C04.7.
5209.4,
8612.4,
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,
23000.0,
128.6,
( 257.1,
( 385. 7,
( 514.2.
( 642.8,
( 964.2.
197.0.
393.9.
590.9.
787.8.
964.8.
1477.2.
1969.6.
2462.0.
3939.2.
7386.1,
14772.1.
29544.2.
49240.4.
117.},
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.
22S.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 IV-3
IV-3-8
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buM.prt
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94337
MDDKLXMS OPTJCHS OSZD:
HTI «tack Kxteling, EPA Melon V. Project 1363. Ba» Cam
Go* aouxc*; 936 ne«ptora up to SOfOt may; MAM we.
CCHC RURAL ELIV
08/25/94
17:37:03
not 7
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN
(X-COORE, Y-COORD. ZELEV
(METERS)
zn*s)
1124.9.
1446.3.
1928.4.
3213.9,
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5.
76.6,
229.8,
3(3.0,
536.2,
«89.4,
957.6,
1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1.
3(30.2.
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
86.6,
259. (,
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,
2(19.1,
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,
3313.9,
6427.9.
12155.8,
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0.
250.0.
350.0,
450.0,
625.0.
(75.0.
1125.0,
1500.0.
2SOO.O.
5000.0.
10000.0,
20000.0,
34.2,
102.6,
171.0,
239.4,
307.8,
437.5,
598.5,
769.5.
1036.1.
1710.1.
3430.2,
6840.4,
361.5,
353.6,
335.3.
353.0,
398.4.
380.0,
420.0.
213.4.
213.4,
319.5,
319.5,
235.6,
319.5,
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,
307.3,
303.7,
207.3.
207.3.
213.4.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
331. C,
3(4.0.
370.3.
3(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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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);
( 1285.6
1607.0
2571.2
4(20.9
9641.1
19213 . C
32139.4
153.2
306.4
459. C
C12.8
766.0
1149.1
1532.1
1915.1
30C4.2
5745.3
11490.7
22911.3
38302.2
173.2
346.4
519.6
692.8
166.0
1299.0
1732.1
21C5.1
3464.1
6495.2
12990.4
2S980.8
43301.3
1«7.9
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,
1385.6,
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,
1350.0,
2000.0,
3750.0.
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0.
C8.4,
136.8.
205.2.
273.6.
342.0,
513.0,
684.0.
855.1.
1361.1.
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. C.
347.5,
141.4.
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.
3(0.0,
380.0,
420.0.
301.2.
202.7,
207.3,
213.4.
213.4.
213.4,
213.4.
231.6,
310.9.
3(4.0.
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);
0.01;
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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-9
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOKDKP VBtSION 94227 •••
HODBLSKj OPTICM5 USED: OGMC
HTI itaek Bodcling, EPA Region V. Project 1363, B*n
On* •ourea; 936 r«e«ptors up to 50m my; iu«i «t.
DFADLT
DRYDPL NBTDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PACT a
•• DISCRETE CMHISXMI KICIPTOHS ••
(X-COORD, r-COORD. ZELIV. ZFLAGI
(MOTHS)
37St7.7,
98.5,
295.4,
492.4.
619.4.
8S6.3,
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,
4934.0,
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,
-694S.9,
-34.2.
-102. C,
-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.
38C.5.
360.0.
310.0,
310.0,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
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,
COO.O.
800.0,
1000.0,
1500.0,
2000.0,
2500.0,
4000.0,
7SOO.O.
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,
292.6,
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);
.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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-3-10
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
.prt
XSCOMDBP VIKSIOM 94227 •••
MQHUM6 OPTZOHS DSD: COMC
HIT (tack aodelino. EPA Mgion V. trojKt 1363.
On* aouro; 936 receptors up co SOW away; Mui vt
DPMI.T
08/25/94
17:37:03
not 9
•* D1SCMTE CMtTISIMI MCUTOHS ••
(X-COORD. Y-COOHD. ZKLBV, ZPIAS)
(METERS)
1174.6,
1644. 5.
2114.3.
2819.1.
4698. 5,
9396.9,
18793.9,
375*7.7,
86.6,
2S9.8,
433. O/
C06.2.
779.4,
1083. 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,
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.
-62S.O,
-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,
-619.4,
-957.6,
-1340. f.
-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,
2C8.2.
310.9.
329.2.
347.5.
329.2,
353.6,
406.4,
371.9.
390.1,
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)1
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);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
I 1409.5,
( 1*79.4.
I 2349.2.
( 3758.8.
( 7047.7.
( 1409S.4,
2*190.8.
469*4.6.
171 .2,
346.4,
519.6,
492.8,
866.0.
1299.0,
1733.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4,
259*0.*.
43301.3,
153.2.
306.4.
459.6.
412. ».
76C.O.
1141.1.
1533.1.
1915.1.
3064.2.
5745.3.
11490.7.
22911.3.
3*302.2.
12*. 6.
257.1.
315.7,
514.2.
643.*.
964.2.
12*5.6.
1607.0.
2571.2.
4120.9.
( 9641.8.
-513.0.
-6*4.0,
-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.
-3*5.7.
-514.2.
-642. (,
-964.2,
-13*5.6,
-1607.0.
-2571.2.
-4120.9.
-9641.*.
-19213.6.
-32139.4.
-153.2,
-306.4.
-459.6.
-612.*.
-766.0.
-1149.1.
-1532.1,
-1915.1,
-3064.2,
-5745.3,
-11490.7.
347.5,
353.6,
347.5,
345.9,
• 365.*.
3*0.0,
360.0,
360.0.
202.7.
202.7,
261.2.
347.5.
347.5,
359.7.
35J.7,
347.5,
359.7,
402.3,
3*0.0,
360.0.
360.0.
202.7.
202.7,
29*. 7.
353.6,
353. C,
359.7,
353. «,
141.4.
359.7,
40*. 4,
3*0.0,
360.0,
360.0.
202.7,
202.7.
304.*.
323.1.
323.1.
159.7.
359.7.
159.7.
420. C.
392.0.
340.0.
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-11
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bMM.prt
ISCOMDO VBISICN 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USID:
COBC RDRAL ELEV
HTI iuek Bodcling. EPA R«gion V, Project 1363, Bu*
MM »ourc«; 936 r«c«ptor« up to SOKM n«y; Hail vt.
DFADLT
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV,
(•ERRS)
12135.8.
25711.5,
50.0.
150.0,
250.0.
350.0,
450.0.
625.0,
•75.0.
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,
1036.1.
1710.1,
3430.2.
6840.4,
13610.8,
17.4,
52.1.
86.8,
131.6.
156.3.
217.1
303.9
390.7
520.9
868.2
1736.5
3473.0
C94S.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
261.2
310.9
323.1
298.7
341.4
365.8
401.4
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
291.7
304.8
29S.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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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,
37SO.O.
7500.0,
15000.0,
25000.0,
<8.4,
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
-563.6
-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,
286.5,
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,
302.7,
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);
0.0);
0.0)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);
MBTUJPL
08/25/94
17:31:03
PAGE 10
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-12
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bum.prt
ISCCMDEP V0SXOH 94227
NODBL3NS OPTIONS USD:
HTI luck Bodeling. EPA Region V. Project 1363. Bue Cue
One source; 936 receptor* up to SOKK any; Hu* vt.
CCNC nnuo. BW
DFADLT
08/25/94
17:37:03
PACT 11
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN UCEPTOXS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZEVEV, ZPLAC)
(UTTERS)
( 0.0,
0.0.
0.0,
0.0.
0.0.
o.o.
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-17.4,
-32.1,
-86.1,
-121.6,
-1S«. 3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-S20.9,
-868.2,
-1736.5,
-3473.0,
-694S.9,
-34.2,
-102.6,
-171.0,
-239.4.
-307.8,
-427.5,
-598.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2,
-6(40.4,
-13680.8,
-50.0,
-150.0,
-2SO.O.
-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.
-2»5.4,
-492.4,
-689.4.
-•86.3,
-1231.0,
-1723.4,
-2215.8,
-2954.4.
-4924.0,
-9848.1,
-19696.2.
-39392.3.
-94.0,
-381.9,
-4C9.8.
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1*44.5,
-2114.3,
-2819.1,
-4698.5,
-9396.9,
-1(793.9,
-37587.7,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-C06.2.
-779.4.
-1082. S,
-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,
302.7,
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. S.
219. S,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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,
-49.5.
-104.2,
-138.1.
-173.6,
-3(0.5.
-347.3,
-434.1,
-694. S,
-1302.4.
-2604.7.
-5209.4,
-8682.4,
-68.4.
-136.8.
-205.2.
-273.6.
-342.0,
-513.0.
-684.0.
-855.1.
-13C8.1.
-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,
-1SOOO.O,
-30000.0,
-50000.0.
-197.0,
-393.9.
-590.9.
-787.8.
-984. t,
-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,
-3738.8,
-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.
39«.2.
390.1,
360.0,
340.0,
380.0,
202.7,
202.7.
202.7.
249.9.
380.4,
280.4.
262.1,
353.6.
402.3.
384.0.
340.0.
360.0,
380.0.
202.7.
202.7.
202.7,
203.7.
219.5,
213.4,
331.6,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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-3-13
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDBP VBRSICH $4227
WTI «t«ek modeling. IPX Melon V. Project 1363, *u« Cue
On* •ourn; 936 r«c»pcor» up to 50KM ««y; MOM vt.
MODHJHB OPTIONS USD: ODBC ROML KLBV
DPJtOLT
01/25/94
17:37:03
FACT 12
•• DISOUTE CMOKSIMI WCBPTOHS •«
(X-COOXD. Y-COORD. ZILBV. ZFIAB)
(MERRS)
( -5000.0
-10000.0
-20000.0
-64.3
-192.1
-321.4
-450.0
-S78.5
-103.5
-1124.9
-1446.3
-1928.4
-3213.9
-6427.9
-12855. B
-25711.5
-76.6
-229.8
-3(3.0
-536.2
-689.4
-957.6
-1340.6
-1723.6
-2298.1
-3830.2
-7660.4
-15320.9
-30641.8
-16.6
-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
-6660.3, 392.6, 0.0);
-17320.5, 380.0, 0.0);
-34641.0, 360.0, 0.0);
-76.
-229.
-383.
-536.
-689.
-957.
-1340.
-1723.
'-2298.
-3830.
-7660.
-15320.
-30641.
-64.
-192.
-321.
-450.
-578.
-803.
-1124.
-1446.
-1928.
-3213 .
-6427.
-12855.
-25711.
213.4, 0.0);
202.7, • 0.0);
202.7, 0.0);
202.7, 0.0);
202.7, 0.0);
202.7. 0.0);
213.4, 0.0);
213.4. 0.0);
371.9, 0.0);
39C.2. 0.0);
378.0, 0.0);
3(0.0. 0.0);
380.0. 0.0);
213.4. 0.0);
207.3, 0.0);
202.7, 0.01;
202.7, 0.0);
207.3. 0.0);
207.3, 0.0);
207.3, 0.0);
213.4, 0.0);
323.1, 0.0);
384.0. 0.0);
371.0. 0.0);
380.0. 0.0);
400.0, 0.0);
-50.0, 213.
-150.0, 213.
-250.0, 213.
-350.0, 213.
-450.0, 213.
-625.0. 22S.
-875.0, 329.
-1125.0, 286.
-1500.0. 243.
-2500.0, 372.
-5000. . 402.
-10000. , 310.
-20000. . 400.
-34. , 213.
-102. . 213.
-171.0, 213.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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
-128.6
-257.1
-385.7
-514.2
-642.8
-964.2
-1285.
-W07.
-2571.
-4120.
-9641.
-19283 .
-32139.
-153.
-306.
-459.
-612.
-766.
-1149.
-1532.
-1915.
-30C4.
-5745.
-114*0.
-22911.
-36302.
-173.
-346.
-519.
-692.
-866.
-1299.
-1732.
-2165.
-3464.
-6495.
-12990.
-25910.
-43301.
-117.
-375.
-563.
-12990. . 360.0
-25980. . 360.0
-43301. . 380.0
-153. . 202.7
-306. . 202.7
-459. . -202.7
-612. . 202.7
-766.0. 202.7
-1149.1. 213.4
-1532.1, 213.4
-1915.1, 213.
-3064.2. 371.
-5745.
-11490.
-22911.
-31302.
-121.
-257.
-315.
-514.
-642.
-964.
-1215.
-1607.
-2571.
-4120.
-9641.
-19213 .
-32139.
396.
349.
3(0.
3(0.
201.
207.
202.
202.
207.
207.
213.
256.
359.
371.
3(0.
400.
310.
-100.0, 213.
-200.0, 207.
-300.0, 213.
-400.0. 213.
-500.0. 213.
-750.0, 274.
-1000.0, 310.
-1250.0, 256.
-2000.0. 365.
-3750.0. 371.
-7500.0. 3(0.
-15000.0. 310.
-25000.0. 3(0.
-CI.4, 213.
-136.1, 213.
-205.2, 213.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0):
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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-3-14
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
•• ISCONMP VSRSIOH 94227
** MODBJMB OPTXGM8 USED:
NTI «wck •octaling, SPA Reg-ion V, Project 1363, >u« i
On* «ouzc«; 936 r*c«ptor> up Co 50ml may; Mu« «.
COHC RDMI. IUV
BRYDPL MRDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
not 13
•* DISCMTl CMtTBSXMf
IX-COORD, Y-COORD. ZXLXV
IKETEKS)
ZFLM)
( -657.8,
( -845.7,
( -1174.6.
( -1644. S.
( -2114.3,
( -2819.1.
( -4698. 5.
( -9396.9.
( -11793.9,
( -375(7.7,
( -98.5,
I -295.4,
( -492.4,
( -619.4,
I -8(6.3,
( -1231.0,
( -1723.4,
/ -221S.8.
( =2954.4,
( -4924.0.
( -9148.1.
I -19696.2,
( -39392.3.
( -100.0.
I -300.0,
1 -500.0,
( -700.0.
I -900.0.
( -1250.0,
( -1750.0.
( -2250.0,
( -3000.0.
( -5000.0,
( -10000.0,
( -20000.0,
( -40000.0,
( -98.5,
I -295.4,
( -492.4,
( -6(9.4,
I -((6.3,
I -1231.0,
( -1723.4,
( -2215.8,
( -2954.4,
-339.4,
-307.8,
-427.5.
-598.5,
-769.5.
-1026.1,
-1710.1.
-3420.2,
-6*40.4,
-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,
(6.8,
121.6,
156.3,
217.1,
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
313.4,
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,
3(0.0,
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,
3(0.0.
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
225.6,
243.1,
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. S,
-1879.4,
-2349.2,
-3758.8.
-7047.7,
-14095.4.
-28190. (.
-44J84.4,
-197.0.
-3*3.1.
-590. >,
-7(1.8,
-984.8.
-1477.2.
-1969.6.
-2462.0.
-3939.2.
-73(6.1.
-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.
-7(7.8,
-9(4. (,
-1477.2.
-1969. «,
-3462.0,
( -3939.2,
-273.6,
-342.0,
-513.0.
-6(4.0,
-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.
3(0.0.
3CO.O.
213.4.
213.4.
213.4.
219.5.
310.9.
359.7,
371.9.
371.9,
36S.8.
390.1.
360.0.
420.0.
400.0,
213.4.
213.4,
213.4.
213.4,
298.7,
304. (,
341.4,
371.9.
378.0,
371.9.
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
22S.6,
237.7,
2(0.4,
304. (.
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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-15
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buM.prt
XSCGNDKP VERSION 94227 •••
' OPTIONS USD): COMC
MR iuck •od.lino, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bam Cu«
On* leure*; 936 r«c«pcors up to SOXM away; Hue vt.
XDML tt«V
OFADLT
ORXDP1* N1TUPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PM» 14
•• DISCRRE CMtTISIMI
(X-COORC, Y-COOKD. ZSLKV
(METERS)
ZPIAO)
-4924.0,
-9148.1,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-94.0.
-211.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6.
-1644.5.
-2114.3,
-2819.1,
-4«98.5,
-9396.9,
-18793.9.
-37587.7,
-86.6,
-259.8,
-433.0,
-606.2,
-779.4,
-1082.5,
-1515.5,
-1948. C,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
-8660.3,
-17320.5,
-34641.0.
-7«.6,
-229.8,
-383.0,
-536.2,
-689.4.
-957.6,
-1340.6,
-1723.6,
-229*. 1,
-3S30.2.
-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,
12835.8,
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.
37*. 0,
424.9.
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
219.5.
225.6,
268.2.
310.9.
292.6,
359.7,
371.9,
37*. 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);
0.01;
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-7386.1,
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4,
-187.9,
-375.9,
-563.8,
-751.6.
-939.7,
-1409. S,
-1879.4,
-2349. 2,
-3751.8.
-7047.7,
-14095.4.
-28190.8,
-46914.6,
-173.2,
-346.4.
-519.6,
-692.8,
-866.0.
-1299.0,
-17J2.1,
-21*5.1,
-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,
( -22911.3,
( -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.},
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-16
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buu.prt
ISCCMDBP VBISIOM 94227 »•
' MODEUM OfTXOHS OSID: COMC
*m ctaek BOdcling. EPA R*vion V. Project 1363. ••»•
936 r«c»ptor» up to 50XM «ny; Mui «t.
XDML ELEV
DPAOLT
ORYDPIt METDflt
08/35/94
17:37:03
IS
•• DXSCXER CMHESXMf
(X-COOXD. Y-COORD. ZCLCV
(METERS)
-32V.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.
-16.8.
-121.6.
-ISC. 3.
-217.1.
-303.9.
-390.7,
383.0,
536.2,
689.4.
»57.6.
1340.6.
1723.6.
2298.1.
3830.2.
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
•6.6,
2S9.8,
433.0,
606.2,
779.4,
1082.5,
ISIS. 5.
1948.6,
2598.1,
4330.1.
8660.3.
17320.5.
34641.0.
94.0,
281.9,
469.8,
657.8,
345.7,
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.
3CO.O,
213.4,
231.6,
225.C,
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.
22S.6,
262.1,
291.7,
335.3.
359.7.
341.4,
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;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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);
( -385.7,
I -514.2.
( -642.8,
( -964.2.
( -128S.6.
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4820.9.
-9641.8,
-19283.6.
-1213*. 4,
-100.0,
-300.0,
-300.0,
-400.0.
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0.
-1250.0,
-2000.0.
-3750.0.
-7SOO.O.
-15000.0.
-25000.0.
-6S.4,
-136.8.
-205.2.
-273.6.
-342.0.
-513.0.
-6*4.0.
-855.1.
-1368.1.
-2565.2,
-5130.3.
-10260.6.
-17101.0,
-34.7.
-69.5.
-104.2,
-131.9,
-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. (,
692.8.
866.0,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2.
12990.4.
25980.8.
43301.3.
187.9.
3TS.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. «,
231. C,
243.8,
343.1,
304.8.
329.3.
353.6,
384.0.
384.0.
365.8.
360.0,
340.0,
350.0,
225. C.
225.6.
343.8,
286. S,
292.6,
353.6.
359.7.
347.5,
385.0,
329.2.
360.0.
340.0,
350.0,
225. C.
225.6,
343.8,
292. C.
298.7,
365.8,
359.7.
376.0.
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-17
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buai.prt
ISCCMMP VntSXON 94227
MDHfTiTBO OfTXGMS USD:
••• HTI mtfck Bedding. BPA fmgim V. Project 1363. Bam Cu*
*** On* •eura; 936 rmcfptoim up to 50ml may; HIM vt.
CCHC KOMI. ILIV
DFADLT
MXDPL IflRDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
THO* 16
•• DISCMTI CMHZSXMI
(X-COOKD, Y-COOXD. ZB4EV, ZKJI0)
-S20.9,
-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,
314.0.
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);
0.01;
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);
-694.6,
-1102.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.5.
-8682.4,
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
313.4
371.9
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
beMa.prt
ISCOMDEP VBISICH 94227 •••
OFTICHS US1D:
ten «t«ck eodeling. EPA Region V, Project 1361, But Cue
On* •ouree; 936 receptors up to SOKM away; Hu< wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL HETDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
rue* 17
METEOROLOGICAL OUTS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
U-Y1S; 0-NO)
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
111111 i 111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111. 111
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
NOTE:
METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED HILL ALSO DEPEND CM WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
1 UPPER BOUND OP FIRST TH
> SPEED CATEGORIES
(HCTIU/SK)
1.S4, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23. 10.80,
HIND PROFILE EXPONENTS
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001+00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
C
F
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.300001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-19
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
VERSION 94227 •••
OPTIONS USBD
••* tm itack Modeling. EPA Region V. Project 1363. Bam
••* Cam source; 936 receptor* up to SOKM «my; Mas* vt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DPADLT
DftYDPL NRDPL
08/25/94
17:37:03
PAGE 18
PILE
depbin
Bet
SURFACE STATION
I
NO.:
OWE:
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
PLOH SPEED -
HOUR VECTOR IM/S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
104.0 4.47
112.0 5.36
106.0 .47
115.0 .47
130.0 .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 .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.P6.
UPPER AIR STATION NO. :
HAKE:
YEAR:
TEMP STAB MBUNG KEI
IK) CLASS RURAL
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
633.5
649.5
665.4
611.4
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
1.I2.2P7
94823
wn
1993
CUT (M)
DRBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
611.4
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
I,f9.4.fl0
I,f8.4
USTAR M-O LEW
(M/S)
0.3366
0.4269
0.3363
0.3363
0.2874
0.4366
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)
176.
283.
175.
175.
128.
211.
225.
224.
172.
fS. 1,14. 17. 2]
m z-o zd IPCODE
(M) (M)
0.3000 l.S 13
0.3000 1.5 0
0.3000 1.5 0
0.3000 l.S 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 l.S 28
0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 l.S 28
-999.0 0.3000 1.5 28
-999.0 0.3000 1.5 28
-999.0 0.3000 1.5 28
-999.1
-999.
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
) 0.3000 1.5 28
0.3000 l.S 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 l.S 28
0.3000 l.S 0
0.3000 l.S 28
0.3000 l.S 0
0.3000 l.S 28
PRATE
(•m/HR)
0.00
0.2S
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.
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD HKtCH MIKD IS BLOHINB.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-20
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
baaeb.prt
*•• ISCOMDSP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WIT stack aodeling, EPA Region V. Project 1363, Baae COM ••• 08/25/94
**• On* aouree; 936 receptor* up to SOKM away; Surface wt. ••* 17:30:09
not i
••• MODELINC OPTICMS USED: CCMC RURAL ELEV DPAULT DRTDFL NETDPL
••• MODE. SETUP OPTICHS SOMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Proceeding i* Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Valuea.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model U*e* DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model U*e* NET DEPLETION, NDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LMGAS.IMPACT * P T
••Model U*e* GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation!
••Model uaea RURAL Diaperaion.
••Model Oaes Regulatory DEFAULT Option*:
1 Final PluM RiM.
Stack-tip Downwaah.
Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
U*e cals» Proceuing Routine.
Not Use Missing Data Proceaaing Routine.
Default Hind Profile Exponent*.
Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
•Upper Bound* Valuea for Superaquat Building*.
No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepta Receptor* on BLBV Terrain.
••Model AaatiBM No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Nuaber of Levela : 3
AOL) 30.0000
ACL) 45.7000
AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Kind Profile Data.
Number of Level* : S
AGL) 30.0000
AGL) 45.7000
AGL) (0.8000
AGL) 111.300
AOL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Tern Average la) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Averages
••This Run Include*: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group!*); and 936 Receptor I*)
••The Model A**une» A Pollutant Type of: LEAD
••Model Set To Continue RDNning After the Setup Teating.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Ten Valuea by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Table* of Overall Mariauei Short Ten Value* (MMCTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* External Filelal of High Valuea for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Plage May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Cain Hour*
• for Mi**ing Hour*
b for Both Calm and Miuing Hour*
•*Mi«c. Input*: Anaa. Hgt. In) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
EBiaaion Unit* . GRAMS/SEC ; taiaiion Rate Unit Factor - 0.10000E+07
Output Unit* - *HCROGRAIIS/Br»3
••Input Ruiutreaa File: bueb.ine ; ••Output Print File- baaeb con
••Detailed Error/Meaaage File: ERRORS.OUT
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-21 Do not cite or quote
-------
baaeb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 • WTI itack Bedeling. EPA Region V, Project 1363. Baae Ca*e ••• 08/25/94
••• On* aource; 936 receptor* up to SOKM amy; Surface wt. ••» 17:50:05
PAGE 2
MODELDB OPTIONS USED: CCHC ROMtL CLEV DFADLT EKYDFL METDFL
••• rOIHT SODXCE DMK •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDIMG EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELBV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VBL. DIAHETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.ICI (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
WTTSTACK 10 0.100001*01 0.0 0.0 212.1 45.70 367.00 17.74 1.13 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-22 Do not cite or quote
-------
buob.prt
••• XSCCNDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• tfTI (tack nodtling. EPA Ragion V, ProD.ct U63. Bu« CM. •*• 08/25/94
*•• On* source; 936 r«c«ptor» up to SOKM airay; Surface vt. ••• 17:50:05
MCB 3
••• HODKLDIO OmCHS OS«D: OOHC KOIUIL CUEV OTAOLT ORXDPL WTTDPL
'*• sconce ID* venoms soracz CTOOPS
GROUP ID SOURCE ID*
ALL HTISTACK,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-23 Do not cite or quote
-------
barab.prt
ISCGNDEP VERSION »4227 — *** MTI Itack Kxteliag, B?A Region V, Project 1363. B«M Cmm *•• 08/25/94
*•• On* aourc*; 936 nccpeora up to 50KM ray; Surface wt. ••• 17:50:05
PACE 4
HODCUMO OPTIONS USED: OMC KDML ELBV DTADI.T JMTDTl. HETDPI.
••• SOOKCB PMtTICDLKTE/GAS DMA •••
•••• SOORCB ID . WWSTUCK; SOURCE T»E • POWT •••
MASS FRACTION -
0.00414, 0.01301, 0.05288. 0.10060, 0.13832. 0.12745. 0.16051. 0.12038. 0.18640, 0.0*631.
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, 0.93000, 0.55000, 0.40000, 0.27000, 0.18000, 0.13000, 0.06200, 0.03000,
PARTICLE DKHSITY |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 [L1Q1 1/(S-MM/HR>«
0.21E-03,0.14B-03,O.SOE-04.0.50E-04,0.60B-04.0.90E-04,0.13B-03.0.1SE-03.0.20E-03.0.22E-03.
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/(S-MM/HR)>
0.70E-04,0.47E-04,0.17B-04,0.17E-04,0.20E-04.0.30B-04,0.43E-04,0.50B-04,0.67E-04,0.73E-04.
Volume IV . External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-24 Do not cite or quote
-------
XSCCMDSP VERSION 94227 •••
NODELXNG OPTXGMS USKU:
MTISTACK
baaeb.prt
•*• MTI stack Modeling, EPA Region V. Project 1363. Baa* Case
••• On* source; 936 receptors up to SOXM away; Surface trt.
RURAL ELBV DFADLT
••• omcnoN SPECIFIC BOXLOIHG DMEMSIOIS •••
ORYDFL NEl'UPL
OS/2S/94
17:50:05
mat 5
lUUKUA AM . r
IFV BK
1 29.1,
7 24.4,
13 29.1,
19 29.1.
25 24.4.
31 29.1,
r* *0 itv^n.
BH HAK
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
26.9; 0
26.0. 0
32.3, 0
IFV BH
2 29.1,
8 29.1,
14 29.1.
20 29.1,
26 25.8,
32 29.1,
BH HAK
24.7 0
22.6 0
31.8 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
31.8 0
IFV BH
3 29.1,
9 29.1,
IS 29.1,
21 29.1.
27 29.1.
33 29.1,
BH MAK
21. 0
25. 0
30. 0
21. 0
25. 0
30. 0
IFV BH
4 25.8.
10 29.1,
16 29.1.
22 25.8,
28 29.1.
34 29.1,
BH MAK
27. 0
28. 0
29. 0
27. 0
28. 0
29. 0
IFV BK
5 24.4,
11 29.1,
17 29.1,
23 25.8,
29 29.1,
35 29.1,
BH MAX
27.0 0
30. 0
29. 0
26. 0
30. 0
29. 0
IFV BH
S 24.4.
12 29.1,
18 29.1.
24 25.8,
30 29.1,
36 29.1.
BH MAX
24.6. 0
32.1. 0
28.2, 0
23.8. 0
32.1, 0
28.2, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-25
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94327
' MODB*2]IS OPTIONS DSD:
WTI cuek BOdcling, BPA Region V, Project 1363, Base
On* source; 936 receptors up te SOXH nny; Surface wt
CONC RtnwL njcv
DFADLT
DRYDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PADS 6
•• Dxsatcn currasiM>
(X-COOKD. Y-COOHD, ZKLTV
(METBtS)
ZFLXC)
17.4.
52.1.
86. 8,
121.6.
156.3.
217.1,
303.9,
390.7,
520.9,
161. 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,
SO.O,
1SO.O,
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.
225.
225.
243.
280.
353.
310.
353.
347.
341.
3(0.
340.
350.
213.
225.
225.
237.7
256.0
329.2
335.3
353.6
362.4
359.7
385.9
340.0
380.0
213.4
22S.6
225.6
225.6
243.8
225.6
359.7
353.6
323.1
366.7
396.2
360.0
370.
213.
22S.
225.
225.
225.
280.
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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, 197.0. 225.6 0.0);
69.5. 393. . 225.6
104.:
138.
173.
260.
347.
434.
(94.
1302.
2604.
5209.
8(82.
fl.
136.
205.
273.
t, 590. , 225.6
767. , 256.0
9(4. . 286.5
1477. . 353.6
19(9. , 347.5
24(2.0. 359.7
3939.2, 341.4
7386.1. 3(5.8
14772.1. 340.0
29S44.2, 3(0.0
49240.
1(7.
375.
5(3.
751.
342.0. 939.
513. (
), 1409.
(84.0. 1879.
855.1
L. 2349.
13(8.1. 3758.
25(5.2, 7047.
5130.]
14095.
102(0.6, 28190.
17101. (
). 4(984.
100.0, 173.
200. <
), 346.
300.0, 519.
400.0, (92.
500. (
3(0.0
225. (
225.6
225.6
243.8
286.5
347.5
347.5
359.7
329.2
369.7
340.0
3(0.0
390.0
219.5
225. (
225. (
231. (
866.0, 262.1
750.0, 1299.0, 347.5
I 1000. (
), 1732.1. 353.6
( 1250.0. 2165.1, 329.2
( 2000.0, 3464.1, 3(1.2
( 3750. (
6495.2, 378.0
( 7500.0. 12990. , 320.0
( 15000.0. 25980. , 380.0
( 25000.0, 43301. , 400.0
( 128. «
153. . 213.4
( 257.1, 306. , 225. (
( 385.7, 459. , S2S.«
( 514.2
612. , 225.6
( 642.8, 766.0. 243.8
( 964.2, 1149.1, 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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-26
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bucb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USED:
••* WTI acaek aod*Ung. EPA Region V, Project 1363. Bu« C**«
*** On* sourett; 936 r*c«ptors up to 50KM w*my;. Sur£ac* wt.
COBC KDML ELEV
DfABLT
OKYDPL NE'lVPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PMS 7
•• DISCRETE CMtTSSXMf RECEPTORS
(X-COORD. Y-COORD, ZELEV,
(METERS)
1124-.9.
1446.3,
1928.4,
3213.9.
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5,
76.6,
229. »,
3R3.0,
S36.2,
CS9.4,
9S7.6,
1340.6,
1723.6,
2298.1,
3830.2,
7660.4,
15320.9,
30641.8,
•6.6,
2S9.8,
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,
6S7.8,
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.
C427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5.
SO.O,
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,
7C9.5,
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.
235.6,
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. C,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
12(5.6.
1607.0,
2571.2.
4820.9,
9641.8,
19283.6.
32139. 4,
153.2,
30C.4,
45».6.
612.8,
7C6.0,
114*. 1,
1512.1,
1*15.1,
30(4.2,
5745.3.
114*0.7,
22*81.3,
31302.2,
173.2,
346.4.
519.6,
C92.I,
86C.O,
1299.0,
1732.1,
2165.1,
3464.1,
64*5.2,
129*0.4,
25*80.8,
43301.3,
187.*.
375. 9,
563.8,
751.8,
939.7,
140*. 5.
187*. 4,
234*. 2.
3758. S,
7047.7,
140*5.4,
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,
21*. 5,
219.5,
21*. 5,
323.1.
353. C,
347.5,
341.4,
373.1,
360.0,
380.0.
420.0,
207.3,
201.2,
213.4.
213.4,
21*. 5,
21*. 5,
2*2. C.
333.1,
323.1,
378.*,
380.0,
380.0,
420.0,
201.2
202.7
207.3
213.4
213.4
213.4
213.4.
231. C,
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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-27
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
beeeb.prt
iscaaar vnsioi 94337 •*•
MODBLJMB OfTZOHS USED: OOHC
MTT «uek
iling, EPA Region V. Project 1363. Be» Cue
936 receptors up to SOKM any; Surface wt.
DPADLT
DKYDPL NRUVL
08/25/94
17:50:05
net t
•• DXSOURB CMtraSIMI
(X-COOKD, Y-COOKD. tXLXV
(MOTHS)
( 37587.7.
( Si. 5.
295.4,
492.4.
689.4.
886.3.
1231.0.
1733.4,
2315.8.
3954.4,
4934.0,
9848.1,
19696.3,
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,
493.4,
689.4,
886.3,
1231.0.
1723.4,
2315.8,
3954.4,
4934.0,
9848.1.
19696.3,
39393.3,
94.0,
1 281.9,
4C9.8.
657.8,
845.7,
13680.
17.
52.
86.
121.
156.
217.
303.
390.
520.
868.
1736.
3473.
6945.
0.
0.
360.0,
207.3,
302.7,
202.7,
202.7,
303.7,
302.7.
313.4.
307.3,
304.8,
365.8,
371.9.
360.0,
380.0,
307.3,
202.7,
0.0, 202.7,
0.0. 302.7,
0.0. 302.7,
0.0, 343.8.
0.0, 333.1.
0.0. 304.8,
0.0, 310.9.
0.0. 403.3,
0.0, 380.1,
0.0, 360.0,
0.0, 400.0,
-17.4, 207.3,
-53.1, 202.7,
-86.8. 303.7,
-131.6, 302.7,
-156.3. 325.6,
-317.1, 347.5.
-303.9, 333.1.
-390.7, 341.4,
-520.9, 347.5,
-868.2, 386.5,
-1736.5, 360.0.
-3473.0, 380.0,
-694S.9, 380.0,
-34.2, 207.3.
-102.6, 302.7,
-171.0. 202.7,
-239.4, 256.0,
-307.8, 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);
0.0);
0.0);
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.
197.
393.
590.
787.
984.
1477.2
1969.6
2462.0
3939.2
7386.1
14773.1
39544.3
49340.4
300.0
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
5C3.I
751.8
939.7
17101.
34.
69.
104.
138.
173.
260.
347.
434.
694.
1302.
2604.
5209.
8683.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-34.'
-69.
-104.:
-138.
-173.
-260.
-347.
-434.
-694.
-1302.
-2604.
-5209.
-8682.
-68.
-136.
-205.
-273.
-342.
9, 400.0.
1. 303.7,
S, 303.7.
i. 303.7,
), 302.7,
5, 303.7.
S. 203.7,
), 307.3.
L, 331.6.
(. 346.6,
1, 384.0.
7, 330.0,
1, 380.0,
1, 400.0,
), 202.7,
), 303.7,
), 302.7.
1. 202.7,
), 202.7,
), 341.4,
), 341.4.
>, 293.6,
>, 359.7,
). 347.5.
), 360.0,
), 380.0,
>, 360.0,
t. 302.7,
I, 303.7,
t, 303.7,
219.5,
329.3.
353.6.
341.4,
333.1,
353.6,
353.6.
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
203.7,
303.7,
213.4,
398.7,
333.1.
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);
0.01;
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)1
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-28
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bueb.prt
ISCOHDEP VERSION 94227
MODELING OPTIOHS USED:
DTJ itaek BOdelino, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Bue Cue
One source ; 936 receptors up to 50KM nay; Surface vt.
COMC K01WL ELTV
DPA0LT
DRYDPL NEIUPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PACE 9
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •«
(X-COORD, Y-COOKD. ZCLEV. ZPLAO)
(UTTERS)
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,
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.
-427.5, 347.5,
-598.5, 310.9,
-769.5, 350.2,
-1026.1, 347.5,
-1710.1. 371.9.
-3420.2, 408.4,
-6840.4, 360.0,
-13680.8, 360.0.
-50.0. 207.3.
-150.0, 202.7,
-250.0, 213.4,
-350.0, 317.0,
-450.0. 353.6,
-625.0, 310.9,
-875.0, 335.3,
-1125.0, 359.7,
-1500.0, 365.8.
-2500.0, 353.6.
-5000.0, 396.2,
-10000.0, 380.0,
-20000.0. 360.0.
-64.3, 207.3,
-192.
-321.
-450.
-578.
-803.
-1124.
-1446.
-1928.
-3213.
-6427 .
-12855.
-25711.
-76.
-229.
-383.
-536.
-689.
-957.
-1340.
-1723.
-2298.
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,
-3830.2, 371.9,
-7660.4, 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,
1179.4.
2349.2.
3756.8.
7047.7.
14095 . ,
28190. .
4C984. ,
173. ,
34C. .
519. .
692. ,
866. ,
1299.0,
1732.1.
2165.1,
3464.1,
6495.2,
12990.4.
25980.8.
43301.3.
153.2,
30C.4,
459.6.
613.8,
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, 347.!
-684.0, 353. (
-855.1, 347.!
-1368.1, 345.!
-2565.2, 3S5.I
-5130.3, 380.1
-10260.6, 360.1
-17101.0, 360.1
-100.0, 202.'
-200.0. 202. •
-300.0, 268.:
-400.0. 347.!
-500.0. 347.!
-750.0. 359.'
-1000.0. 359.'
-1250.0. 347.!
-2000.0, 359. •
-3750.0, 402.:
-7500.0, 380.1
-15000.0, 360. (
-25000.0, 360.1
-128.6, 202.'
-257.1, 202.'
-385.7, 298.'
-514.2, 353.
-642. , 353.
-964. , 359.
-1285. , 353.
-1607. . 341.
-2571. , 359.
-4820. , 408.
-9641. , 380.
-19283. , 360.
-32139. , 360.
-153. , 202.
-306. , 202.
-459. , 304.
-612. . 323.
-766. , 323.
-1149. , 359.
-1532. . 359.
-1915.1, 359.
-3064.2, 420.
-5745.3. 392.
-11490.7, 340.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
. ' 0.0);
0.0);
). 0.0);
I. 0.0);
), 0.0);
>, 0.0);
r, o.o);
t, 0.0);
i, 0.0):
i, 0.0);
1. 0.0);
', 0.0);
S. 0.0);
', 0.0);
1, 0.0);
>, 0.0);
), 0.0);
), 0.0);
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);
I, 0.0);
>. 0.0);
', 0.0);
i, 0.0);
}, 0.0);
}, 0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-29
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bucb.prt
ISCOOEP VBtSION 94227
MODBL3B5 OPTIONS USB):
WIT »t«ck Bedding, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Bam CM*
On* •com; 936 receptor* up to SOKM may; Surf*c* wt.
COMC RDML ELIV
08/25/94
17:50:05
PACE 10
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV. ZPLMS)
(METERS)
12855. «.
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
C2S.O.
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,
-ISIS. t.
-1948.6,
-2598.1,
-4330.1,
-8660.3,
-17320. S,
-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,
3CO.O,
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);
0.01;
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);
( 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,
13000.0,
23000.0,
68.4,
136.8,
205.2,
273.6,
342.0,
513.0,
684.0,
855.1.
1368.1.
2365.2.
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,
-25910. t.
-43301.3,
-18719,
-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,
286.5.
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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-3-30
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bueb.prt
ISCOHDIP VERSION 94227
MODEUNS OFTICHS USB):
HTI ataek nodeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363, Bua Cue
One •oure«; 936 receptor* up to 50m «ray; Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ILBV
DPADLT
DRYDPL HETDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 11
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-OOORD. ZELBV. ZPLAG)
(METERS)
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.
-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,
-«89.4.
-886.3.
-1231.0.
-1723.4.
-2215.8.
-2954.4,
-4924.0,
-9848.1.
-19696.2,
-39392.3.
-94.0.
-281.9,
-469.8,
-«57.8,
-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. S.
213.4,
231.6,
359.7,
414.5.
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0):
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,
-131.9.
-173. C,
-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,
-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,
-964. t.
-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,
24». 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);
0.01;
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-31
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bueb.prt
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227
OPTIONS USD:
trfl stack Modeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. MM Cu*
On* •ourc«; 936 receptor* up to SOXM any; Surf an wt.
CCNC KOML IUV
DPADLT
DRYDPL N1TDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAOI 12
•• DISCKBTB CMtTBSIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD. Y-COORD, ZELSV, ZPLM)
(METERS)
I -5000.0.
( -10000.0.
( -20000.0,
( -64.3,
I -192.1,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-571.5,
-103. S,
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1931.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12*55. (,
-25711.5,
-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,
-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,
-8660.3,
-17320.5.
-34641.0,
-76.6,
-229.8,
-383.0,
-536.2,
-C89.4,
-957.6,
-1340.6.
-1723.6,
-2298.1,
-3830.2,
-7660.4.
-15320.},
-30641.8.
-64.3.
-192.8.
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5,
-803.5,
-1124.9.
-1446.3.
-1928.4.
-3213.*,
-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.
3*4.0,
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,
310.0,
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
I -15000.0
( -25000.0
( -128.6
-257.1
-385.7
-514.2
-642.8
-964.2
-1215.6
-1C07.0
-2571.2
-4120.9
->641.8
-19213.6
-3ZU9.4
-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
-173.2
-346.4
-519.6
-692.8
-866.0
-1299.0
-1732.1
-2165.1
-3464.1
-C495.2
-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
-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.
340.0,
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);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0))
0.0)1
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-32
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
batcb.prt
•• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
•• MODELING OPTIONS OSBJ:
NTI «t*ck nodeluw. EPA Region V. Project 1363. Bam Cue
One source; 936 receptor* up to SOKH ew*y; Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ELTV
DPMJLT
DRYDPl* METDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 13
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS •«
(X-COORD, IT-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(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,
-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.
-SS40.4,
-13680.8.
-17.4,
-52.1.
-86.8.
-121. 6.
-156.3,
-217.1,
-303.9,
-390.7,
-S20. 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.
1S6.3.
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,
225.4.
243.8,
317.0,
298.7,
371.9,
365.8,
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);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-751.8.
-939.7.
-1409.5.
-1879.4.
-2349.2,
-3758.8,
-7047.7,
-140*5.4,
-28190.8,
-469(4.6.
-1»7 .0.
-3»3.»,
-590. »,
-7«7.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2.
-1969.6,
-24C2.0,
-3939.2,
-73*6.1,
-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.
-717.8,
-9(4.8,
-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,
-U0.9.
-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,
310.0.
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. t.
341.4.
371.9.
378.0,
371.9,
340.0.
3(0.0,
400.0,
213.4,
213.4,
225. C,
237.7,
2«0.4,
304. (,
341.4,
353.6,
353.6,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bucfe.prt
ISCCHDEP VBtSIOH 94227
MODELING OPTIONS USD:
WTI «uek BOdcling, EPA Region V. Project 1363, Mm Cu*
On* •ourc«; 936 r«c«ptor« up to SOKK may; Surtac* «.
CCMC RDML ILEV
DPAULT
DRVDPL WC1SPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGI 14
•• DXSOURC CAKTISIAN UCKPTOKS ••
(X-COOUD, Y-COOKD. ZXLXV. ZFIAB)
(MEnRS)
( -4924.0,
( -9848'.!,
-19696.2,
-39392.3,
-94.0.
-281.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7,
-1174.6,
-1644.5,
-2114.3.
-2819.1.
-4698.5,
-93*6.9,
-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,
-S36.2,
-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. S,
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,
304.6,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
-7386.1
-14772.1
-29544.2
-49240.
-1«7.
-375.
-5«3.
-7S1.
-»39.
-1409.
-int.
-234*.
-37Si.
-7047.
-140»S.
-28190.
-46914.
-173.
-346.
-519.
-692.
-866.
-1299.
-1732.
-2145.
-34C4.
-6495.
-12990.
-259*0.
-43301.
-153.
-30C.
-459.
-612.
-766.
-1149.
-1532.
-1915.
-3064.
-5745.
-11490.
-229(1.
-38302.
-128.
-257.1
1302.4,
2604.7,
5209.4.
8682.4.
61.4.
136.8,
205.2,
273.6.
342.0.
513.0,
6(4.0,
855.1.
1366.1,
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,
9<4.2,
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.
225.
274.
298.
298.
3S9.
378.
378.
371.
420.
400.
400.
213.
231.
231.
304.
304.
323.
371.
378.
371.
384.
400.
420.
3SO.
213.
231.
231.
304.
317.
341.
365.
378.
359.
378.
360.
400.
370.
225.
231.
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0):
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)1
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0)1
.0)1
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-34
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bucb.prt
ISCONMP VEKSICN 94227
OPTIONS USD:
HTI »t»ck aocteling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Rue CMC
Co* •ourc«; 936 r«c«ptors up to 50KM way; Surf»c« wt.
COHC RURAL ELIV
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 15
DRYDPL NETUPZ.
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELIV. ZFIAG)
(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,
-86.8.
-121.6.
-15C.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. S.
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.
218.7,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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,
-1807.0,
-2571.2.
-4820.9,
-9641.8,
-19283.6,
-32139.4,
-100.0,
-200.0,
-100.0.
-400.0,
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0,
-1250.0.
-2000.0.
-3750.0.
-7500.0,
-15000.0,
-25000.0,
-«8.4.
-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.
C92.8,
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,
243.1.
292. S,
298.7,
365.8,
359.7,
378.0.
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)1
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-35
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
.prt
ISCOHDBP VERSION 94237
MODKL3MG OPTIONS USZD:
im stack modeling. EPA Region V. Project 1363. Bue
On* source; 936 receptors up to 50m amy; Surface wt
CCNC RURAL KUV
08/25/94
17:50:05
PACT 16
(X-COORD, Y-COORD. ZILIV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
-520.9.
-•61.2.
-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,
0.01;
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);
-69
-130
-260
-520
-8(8:
1
(
(
(
1.
I.
1.
I.
i.
).
).
.
.
,
.
.
.
!c
1.0
(.0
1.0
3939.2
7386.1
14772.1
29544.
49240.
200.
400.
600.
too.
1000.
1500.
2000.
2500.
4000.
7500.
15000.0
30000.0
50000.0
378.0
341.4
340.0
340.0
320.0
225.
225.
237.
210.
292.
323.
317.
359.
3(3.
371.
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-3-36
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
baeeb.prt
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
MODELXMS OPTIONS OSB): CONC RDRAL ELBV
wn »uefc Bodeling. EPA Region V, Project 1363, Base Cue
936 receptor* up to 50KM «ny; Surface wt.
DFAULT
DRYDPL
08/25/94
17:50:05
PAGE 17
METEOROLOGICAL UMTS SELECTED FOR PROCESSIK
(1-YES; 0-NO)
1 1
1 '1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1111111111 1111111111 11111111
1111111111 1111111111 11111111
1111111111 1111111111 11111111
1111111111 1111111111 11111111
•1111111111 1111111111 11111111
1111111111 1111111111 11111111
1111111111 1111111111 11111111
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
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
MOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND CM WHAT IS 9KLODED Oi IBS DATA FILE.
BOUND OP FIRST THROU8H FIFTH WIHD SPEED CATEGORIES
(METEM/SK)
1.54, 3.09. S.14. 8.23, 10.(0,
••• KIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
a
c
D
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.1SOOOE*00
.3SOOOE+00
.550001*00
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
3 3
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
.700001-01 .70000E-01
.10000E*00 .10000E*00
.150001*00 .150001*00
.35000E*00 .35000E»00
.55000E*00 .55000E*00
4
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.15000E*00
.35000B*00
.550001*00
.70000B-01
.70000E-01
.10000E*00
.1SOOOE+00
.J5000E»00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.ISOOOEfOO
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DECREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
WHO) SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOB«00
.OOOOOStOO
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE»00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE-00
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEoOO
.OOOOOE»00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
,OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-37
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
banb.prc
VBISION 94227 •••
OVTZOMS USED:
OJK RURAL ILBV
wn itaek modeling, EPA Region V. Project 1363. Bue Cue
One lourc*; 936 receptor* up to SOUK any; Surface vc.
DTADLT
IJRVDVl* WBTDFL
01/25/94
17:50:05
18
FILE: depbin.Mt
SURFACE STATION MO.: 94(23
mm: wn
YIAK: 1993
, DATA •••
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9.4.M.l.I2.2F7.1.l9.4.ll0.l.f8.4.fS.l.i4.f7.2)
OFFER AIR STATION HO.: 94823
wn
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 HOOK
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 .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 .68
124.0 .66
113.0 .23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP ST
IK) 0.
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
ISS RURAL
601.
617.
633.
649.
66S.
HI.
697.
713.
729.
745.
761.]
777.]
793. (
809. (
809. (
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809. (
809. C
809. C
HEIGHT II
URBAN
601.
617.
633.
649.
665.
681.
697.
713.
729.
745.
L 761.
L 777.
) 793.
) 809.
> 809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809. (
809. C
809. (
809. C
I) 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 LEND
176.
213.
175.
175.
128.
211.
225.
224.
172.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
TR Z-0 Id
(M) (M)
8 0.3000 1.
1 0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
D 0.3000 1.
D 0.3000 1.
9 0.3000 1.
9 0.3000 1.
9 0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.
0.3000 1.!
0.3000 1.!
IPCODE
5 13
5 0
0
28
28
28
28
i 28
5 28
' 28
S 28
5 28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
0
28
S 0
S 28
PRATE
l»n/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. S-E AND 6-P.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRBCTIOH TOWARD WHICH WIHD IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-38
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
baaec.prt
"• ISCCHDIP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI (tack Bodeling, EPA Region V. project 1363, Base Cu* ••• 01/29/94
••* on* source, 336 receptors up to 50KM away; Vapor. ••• 10:56:41
_ PACE 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: COMC RURAL ELBV DFAULT
••• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SMOKY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Processing ia Selected
••Modal la Setup Po'r Calculation of Average concentration values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Modal Uaaa NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLZTE > T
••Model Uaaa NO HET DEPLETION. MDPLETE - F
••NO MET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uaea ORIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Daea RURAL Dispersion.
••Modal Daea Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plua* Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwesh.
3. Buoyancy- induced Diaperaion.
4. Use Calsw Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
1. 'Upper Bound* Values for Superaguat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Modal Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
"Model Aaaueaa No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Tesperature Profile Data.
NuBber of Levels : 3
(m ACL) 30.0000
Im AOL) 45.7000
(m AOL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(B AGL) 30.0000
(B AGL) 45.7000
(a AGL) 80.8000
(B AGL) 111.300
(B AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average (a) of: 1-BR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includea: 1 Sour eels I; 1 source Group Is I; and 936 Receptor(a)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: LEAD
••Model Sat To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Output* Tables of Highest Snort Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall Mairimm Short Term Values (MAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Filela) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flaga May Appear Following CONC Valuea: c for Calm Hours
B for Missing Hours
b for Both Cala and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: Anaai. Hgt. (B) - . 30.00 ; Decay Coef . - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 00
"Input RuaatreaB Pile: naaec.inc , —output Print File: baaec.con
••Detailed Error /Massage Pile: ERRORS. OUT
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-39 Do not cite or quote
-------
bucc.prt
••* XSCOMDEP VERSION 94237 ••• *•• NTI stack modeling, EPA Mgion V, Project 1363, B*n C«M ••• 08/29/94
••• On* «ourc«; 936 xM«ptox> up to SOKM may; Vapor. ••• 10:56:41
not 2
... irmiynn OFTXCNS OSED: owe wnuu. ILIV DFADLT
••• POINT SODRCE DMA •••
MUMBUt EMISSION MTE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK KRLDINS EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SBC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TCMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS] (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
MTTSTACK 0 0.100001*01 0.0 0.0 212.1 45.70 3*7.00 17.74 1.S3 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-40 Do not cite or quote
-------
baMc.prt
•*• ISCOHUP VBSXCN 94227 ••• *•• WTI »t»ck nodeling. EPA Region V. Project 1363. Bam CM* ••• 08/29/94
••• One source; 936 recepcor* up to SOnt any; Vapor. •" 10:56:41
PACT 3
... MODBJNG OPTIONS USB): CCMC KORU. tUCV DTADLT
••• SOOltCE ID* DEFDHMG SODRCI GROOPS
GROUP ID SOURCE XX*
ALL MTISTACK.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-41 Do not cite or quote
-------
bucc.prt
ISCCMMP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI «uek BedBlina, EPA Mgioa V, Project 13S3. Bu« Cu« ••• 08/29/94
••• Cm »ourc«; 936 r«c«ptor« up to 50XM «nv; V«por. ••• 10:56:41
MOT 4
s OTTIOMS DSD: COHC KOKAL ZLKV DTAOLT
PAKTICOlAn/Q»S DABk •••
••• SODXCE ID - HTISTACK; SOURCE TCPI - POINT
SCAV COEP [UQ] 1/IS-IM/KR)-
0.001*00,
SCAV COST [JCB] l/IS-MI/KRI-
O.OOBfOO.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-42 Do not cite or quote
-------
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
buvc .prt
MTI (tack nodaling. EPA Region V. Project 1363, B
On* aourcc 936 raeaptora up to 50KM avay; Vapor.
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COMC EORAL ELEV
08/29/94
10:36:41
PACE 5
DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIOHS
SOURCE ID: MTISTACK
IFV BH
1 29.1,
7 24.4,
13 29.1,
19 29.1,
25 24.4,
31 29.1,
BH MAK
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3, 0
26.9, 0
26.0, 0
32.3. 0
IFV BH
2 29.1,
8 29.1.
14 29.1,
20 29.1,
26 25.8,
32 29.1,
BH WAX
24.7 0
22.6 0
31.8 0
24.7 0
24.8 0
31.8 0
IFV BH
3 29.1.
9 29.1,
IS 29.1.
21 29.1.
27 29.1.
33 29.1.
BH KAK
21.8 0
25.8 0
30.9 0
21.8 0
25.8 0
30.9 0
IFV BH
4 25.8,
10 29.1.
16 29.1.
22 25.8.
28 29.1.
34 29.1,
BH HAK
27.6 0
28.8 0
29.6 0
27.6 0
28.8 0
29.6 0
IFV BH
5 24.4,
11 29.1.
17 29.1,
23 25.8.
29 29.1,
35 29.1.
27.0, 0
30.9, 0
29.3. 0
26.1, 0
30.9. 0
29.3. 0
IFV BH
6 24.4.
12 29.1,
18 29.1,
24 25.8,
30 29.1,
36 29.1.
BW HAK
24.6, 0
32.1. 0
28.2, 0
23.8. 0
32.1. 0
28.2, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-43
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDEP VBISICH 94227
OffTZOMS USD:
WTI itmek Modeling, EM tagion V. Project 1363.
On* soura; 936 r»c«pter» up to 50KM nay; Vapor.
CCHC CORAL «UV
DFADLT
Ot/29/94
10:56:41
t
•• DXSCMR CAKTESIMI
(X-COORD, r-COORD, ZILSV
(METERS)
ZFLMi)
( 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.
13610.8,
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,
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
3S3.0
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. C.
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
4.0);
O'.O);
0.0);
34.7, 197.0,
69.5, 393.9.
104.
138.
173.
260.
347.
434.
494.
1302.
2604.
520*.
8612.
(1.
136.
205.
273.
342.
590.9.
787.8.
984.8.
1477.2.
1969.6,
2462.0,
3939.2,
738C.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4.
M7.9,
375.9.
$63.8.
751.8,
939.7.
513.0. 1409.5.
684.0. 1879.4,
855.1. 2349.2,
1368.1, 3758.8.
2565.2. 7047.7.
5130. . 14095.4.
10260. . 28190.8.
17101. . 46984.6,
100. . 173.2,
200. , 346.4,
300. , 519.6,
400. . 692.8,
500. , 866.0,
750.0. 1299.0.
1000.0. 1732.1,
1250.0, 2165.1,
2000.0, 3464.1,
3750. , 6495.2,
7500. . 12990.4,
15000. . 25980.8.
25000. , 43301.3.
128. , 153.2.
257. , 306.4.
< 315.7. 459.6,
( 514.2, 612.8,
( 642.8, 766.0.
( 964.2. 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.C,
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,
223. C,
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 IV-3
IV-3-44
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
.prt
1 VBtSICM 94227
MODELIMB OPTIONS USED:
WTI (tack »od«ling, EPA tagion V, Project 1363. Bu*
Om mouic*: 936 r«c«pcor» up to 50KM «ny; Vapor.
CCMC RURAL CLIV
08/29/94
10:56:41
PACT 7
•* DISCUR CARTISIAH !
(X-COORD. Y-COORD. ZSLKV, ZPUG)
(HETTOS)
1124.9,
1446.3.
1928.4.
3213.9.
6427.9.
12655.8,
25711.5.
76.6,
229.8,
383.0.
536.2.
( 689.4.
( 9S7. 6.
( 1340.6.
( 1T23.6,
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. «.
321.4,
450.0,
578. 5,
803.5,
1124.9,
1446.3,
1928.4.
3213.9,
6427.9,
12855.8,
25711.5.
SO.O,
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);
0.0);
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,
1512.1,
U1S.1,
3064.2,
5745.3,
11490.7,
22981.3,
38302.2.
173.2,
346.4.
519.6.
692.8.
•66.0,
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,
38102.2.
128.6.
257.1,
185.7,
514.2.
642.8,
964.2,
1285.6,
1C07.0,
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.
1166.1.
2S65.2.
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,
321.1.
151.6,
347.5.
141.4,
171.1,
160.0,
180.0,
420.0.
207.1,
201.2.
213.4,
213.4,
219.5,
219.5.
292.6,
323.1,
323.1,
178.9,
180.0,
160.0.
420.0,
201.2,
202.7,
207.1.
211.4,
213.4,
211.4,
211.4,
211.6,
110.9.
1(4.0,
160.0,
400.0,
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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-45
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
baMc.prt
1SCOHDD VERSION 94327
OPTIONS US1D:
WTI stack Boteline. EPA Mgion V. Project 1363,
Cn* •ourc«; 936 r«c«ptor» up to SOX* amy; v«por.
Ban Cam
CONC RDRM. EL«V
01/29/94
10:56:41
PAOI I
•• DISCRIR CARTISZMI 1
U-COORD, Y-COOKD, ZILBV. ZFIAB)
(METERS)
37587.7,
91. 5,
295.4,
492.4,
6*9.4,
886.3,
1231.0,
1723.4.
2215. «,
29S4.4,
4924.0.
9S4t.l,
196*6.2,
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.
9*. 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,
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.
6945.1,
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.
-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,
313.4,
207.3,
304.8.
365.8,
371.9,
3(0.0,
380.0,
307.3.
302.7,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7,
243.8,
333.1,
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.
38C.S.
360.0,
380.0,
380.0.
207.3.
202.7,
202.7,
256.0.
286.5,
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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
46984.6.
197.0.
393.9.
590.9.
787.8,
984.8.
1477.2.
1969.6,
2463.0.
3939.2,
7386.1,
14772.1,
29544.2,
49240.4,
300.0,
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,
29544.3,
49340.4,
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,
-136.1,
-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.
3CO.O,
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,
203.7,
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);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-46
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bwce.prt
XSCCMDCP VERSION 94227
MODSX.XMB OPTIONS USED:
NTT cuek Bodcling, ZPA Itogion V. Project 1363, Bu*
On* •aura; 936 receptor* up to 5OHM may; Vapor.
CMC nnui. «LIV
DPAOLT
08/29/94
10:56:41
MOI 9
1174.6, -427.5,
1644.5, -598.5,
2114.3, -769.5,
2819.1, -1026.1,
4698.5, -1710.1.
9396.9, -3420.2.
18793.9, -«840. ,
37587.7. -13680. .
86.6. -50. .
259.8. -ISO. ,
433.0. -250. ,
606.2, -350. .
779.4. -450. .
1082.5, -625. ,
1515.5, -875. .
1948.6. -1125.0.
2598.1, -1500.0,
4330.1, -2500.0,
8660.3, -5000.0,
17320.5, -10000.0,
34641.0, -20000.0,
76.6, -64.3,
229.8, -192.8,
383.0, -321.4,
536.2. -450.0,
689.
957.
1340.
1723.
2298.
3830.
7660.
15320.
30641.
64.
192.
321.
450.
578.
803.
1124.
1446.
1928.
3213.
6427.
-578.5,
-803.5,
-1124.9,
-1446.3.
-1921.4,
-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);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
*•• DISCRETE CM
(X-COORD, Y-CI
(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);
0.01;
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
ETISIMi RKB
X)RO, ZSXSV,
OTZRSI
1409.5,
1879.4,
2349.2,
3758.8,
7047.7,
14095. ,
28190. ,
46984. .
173. ,
346. .
SI*. .
692. ,
866. .
12»». 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.
114*. 1,
1532.1,
1915.1.
3064.2,
574S.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,
(TORS •••
ZFLtt)
-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,
-365.7.
-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,
-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.
353.
359.
353.
341.
359.
408.
380.
360.
360.
202.
202.
304.
323.
323.
359.
359.
35*.
420.
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)1
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-47
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
*•• XSCOKDBP VERSION 94227
••• MODEL1MS OfTIONS DSBD:
tm »t«ck •od.ling. SPA Melon V, Project 1363,
On* »ourc«; 936 r»c«ptor« up to 50m «ny; Vapor
CCK R0ML IL1V
DPAOLT
OR/29/94
10:56:41
mat 10
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN UCEPTOHS ••
U-COORD, Y-COORP. ZEUV. ZHAO I
Hams)
12895.8,
25711.5,
50.0,
150.0,
250.0,
350.0,
450.0,
625.0,
875.0,
1125.0,
1500.0,
2500.0,
SOOO.O,
10000.0,
20000.0.
34.2,
102.6.
171.0.
239.4.
307.8,
427.5,
598.5.
769.5,
1036.1.
1710.1.
3420.2,
6840.4,
13680. a.
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
-J5J8.1
-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
-46*8.5
-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
-9841.1
-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.
401.1,
360.0.
400.0,
207.3.
202.7.
249.9,
280.4,
28C.5,
298.7.
304.8,
296.7,
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);
0.01;
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)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);
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.
•8.4.
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.
-692.6,
-666.0,
-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.
-3756.6,
-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 :l.
329.2,
341.4,
359.7,
371.S,
420.6,
408.4,
340.0,
430.0.
400.0,
202.7. I
207.3. <
292.6,
304.8, I
286.5. (
310.9. I
335.3. 1
378.0, I
402.3, (
402.3, <
360.0, I
420.0. 1
430.0.
302.7.
202.7.
286.5.
274.3.
3*6.5.
304.6.
298.7,
365.8,
390.1.
408.4.
380.0.
400.0.
400.0,
202.7,
202.7,
274.3. (
274.3. (
1.0};
3.0);
3.0);
3.0);
9.0);
3.0);
3.0);
3.0);
9.0);
3.0);
9.0);
3.0);
3.0);
).0);
).0);
).0);
).0);
3.0);
>.0);
>.0);
).0);
).0);
1.0);
).0);
1.0);
).0);
1.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0)!
.0);
.0);
.0);
1.0);
>-0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-48
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
baMC.prc
VERSION 94227
MODEUMG OFTZGHS DSKD:
HTI (tack Bodclina, EPA Region V. Project 1363, Bu«
936 r»c«peor« up eo 50XM may; Vapor.
CCMC RURAL «LIV
08/29/94
10:56:41
PAGE 11
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD. ZKLBV, ZFLMi)
(METERS)
( 0.0,
( 0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
-17.4,
-55.1.
-86.1.
-121.6,
-1S6.3,
-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.
-7C9.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2.
-6840.4,
-13680.8,
-50.0,
-150.0.
-250.0,
-350.0,
-450.0,
-625.0.
-87S.O,
-1125.0,
-1500.0,
-2500.0,
-900.0,
-1250.0,
-1750.0,
-2250.0,
-3000.0.
' -SOOO.O,
-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. C.
-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.
313.4,
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):
0.01:
0.0);
0.0);
O.Oli
0.0):
0.0);
0.0);
0.0):
0.0);
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);
0.01;
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,
-34.7.
-M.S.
-104.2,
-138.9.
-173. C.
-260.5,
-147.3,
-434.1,
-694.6,
-1302.4,
-2604.7,
-5209.4,
-8C82.4,
-68.4,
-136.8,
-20S.2,
-273.6.
-342.0.
-513.0,
-684.0.
-85S.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.
-19C9.6.
-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. C.
286.9,
280.4,
353.C,
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. (.
402.3,
384.0,
340.0.
360.0,
380.0,
202.7,
202.7,
202.7.
202.7.
219.5.
211.4.
231.4,
292.6.
39S.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)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)i
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.01;
0.0)1
0.0);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-49
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buvc.prt
ISCOMDEP VBRSICN 94227 •••
itDniLTMB OPTIONS OSID: COHC
HTI itmek Modeling, DA Mgien V, Projoct 1363, Bu* Cue
On* soura; 936 r«e«pto» up to SOKM away; Vapor.
ROML BJV
DFAOLT
08/29/94
10:56:41
mat 12
•• DISCRETE CARTESIAN KECEPTOM ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD. IELEV, XPLftC)
(METERS)
-5000.0,
-10000.0.
-20000.0,
-64.1,
-192.8,
-321.4,
-450.0.
-578.5.
-803.5.
-1134.9,
-144C.3.
-1928.4.
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-128SS.8.
-25711.5,
-76.6,
-229.8,
-383.0.
-536.2.
-689.4.
-957. 6,
-1340.6.
-1723.6,
-2298.1.
-3830.2.
-76C0.4,
-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,
-8660.3.
-17320.5.
-34641.0.
-76.6,
-229.8,
-383.0.
-536.2,
-C89.4,
-957.6,
-1340. C,
-1723. (,
-2298.1.
-3830.2.
-7660.4.
-15320.}.
-30641.8.
-64.3.
-192.8,
-321.4,
-450.0,
-578.5.
-803.5.
-1124.9,
-1446.3.
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-1285S.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,
203.7,
213.4.
213.4,
371.9,
396.2,
371.0.
360.0,
380.0,
213.4,
207.3,
202.7.
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
207.3.
313.4,
323.1.
384.0.
378.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213. 4.
213.4.
213.4.
213.4,
213.4,
335.6.
329.2.
286.5.
243.8,
373.5,
402.3,
380.0.
400.0,
313.4.
313.4.
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, -12990.4.
( -15000.0. -25980.8.
( -25000.0. -43301.3.
-128.6 -153.2.
-257.1
-385.7
-514.2
-642.8
-9C4.2
-1385. <
-If 07.0
-3571.2
-4820.9
-9(41.1
-19213. C
-3213*. 4
-IS] .2
-304.4
-459. 6
-612.8
-746.0
-1149.1
-1532.1
-1915.1
-3064. S
-5745.3
-11490.7
-22981.3
-38302.2
-173.2
-346.4
-519. C
-692.8
-8*6.0
-1299.0
-1732.1
-2165.1
-3464.1
-6495.3
-12990.4
-25980.8
-43301.3
-187.9
-375.9
( -563.8
-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.
-9*41.8.
-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,
-C8.4,
-136.8,
-205.2,
360.0,
360.0.
380.0.
202.7,
202.7.
202.7,
202.7,
202.7.
213.4,
213.4.
313.4.
378.0.
396.3,
349.0,
3*0.0.
3*0.0,
301.3.
207.3,
202.7,
202.7,
207.3,
207.3,
213.4.
25*. 0,
359.7.
378.0,
3*0.0.
400.0.
310.0,
213.4.
207.3,
213.4,
213.4,
213.4,
274.3,
310.9.
25*. 0.
3*5.8.
378.0,
3*0.0,
380.0,
3*0.0,
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-50
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
bucc.prt
•• ISCONDBF VERSION 94237
WIT stick •odlluog. EPA Mgion V. Project 1363. COM Cue
i; 936 r»e«pcor« up to SOXM «ny; Vapor.
CCNC FOKAL EtEV
DPAOLT
08/29/94
10:56:41
PM» 13
•• DISOtEIC CMERSIMI RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, y-COORD, ZELEV, ZHAO)
(METERS)
-657.8,
-845.7.
-1174.6.
-1644.5.
-2114.3,
-2119.1.
-4698.5.
-9396.9.
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-98.5.
-295.4.
-492.4,
-685.4,
-8*6.3,
-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,
-88C.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,
-6140.4.
-13680.8.
-17.4.
-52.1,
-86.8,
-131. C.
-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
243.1
304.8
335.3
371.9
371.9
371.9
360.0
360.0
380.0
213.4
213.4
213.4
235.6
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,
-140*5.4,
-28190.8.
-46984.6.
-M7.0.
-393.1,
-5*0.9,
-7t7.8,
-984.8,
-1477.2,
-1969.6,
-2462.0.
-3*39.2.
-7386.1.
-14772.1,
-29544.2,
-49240.4.
-300.0,
-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,
-5*0.*,
-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.*.
-173.6,
-260.5,
-347.3.
-434.1.
-6*4.6,
-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,
34.7,
69.5.
104.2,
138.*.
173.6,
360.5,
347.3,
434.1,
694.6,
219.5,
213.4,
353.6.
335.3,
304.8.
298.7.
365.8,
360.0.
310.0.
360.0.
213.4.
313.4,
213.4,
219.5,
310.9,
359.7.
371.9.
371.9.
365.8.
3*0.1.
360.0,
420.0.
400.0.
213.4,
213.4,
313.4.
313.4,
3*8.7,
304.8,
341.4.
371.9.
378.0.
371.9.
340.0,
380.0,
400.0,
313.4.
313.4.
335.6.
337.7,
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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-51
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buec.prt
ISCCHDBP VBRSICN 94227
WIT «t«ck Kxteling, EM Region V. Project 1363.
On* soure*; 936 rcoptori up Co 50m ««y; V<
OPTZGMS USED: COMC RURAL BLKV
DPAOtT
01/29/94
10:56:41
MOB 14
(X-COORD. If-COORD, ZELSV, ZPLM)
(METERS)
-4924.0,
-984*. 1,
-19696.2.
-39392.3,
-94.0.
-211.9,
-469.8,
-657.8,
-845.7.
-1174.6.
-1644.5.
-2114.3.
-2819.1,
-4C98.5.
-9396.9.
-18793.9,
-37587.7,
-86.6.
-259.8.
-433.0.
-606.2,
-779.4.
-1082.5.
-1515.5.
-1948.6.
-25*8.1.
-4330.1,
-86*0.3,
-17320.5,
-34641.0.
-76.6,
-229.8,
-383.0.
-536.2,
-619.4,
-957.6.
-1340.6,
-1723.6,
-22M.1.
-3830.2,
-7660.4,
-15320.1,
-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
360.0
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
42C.7
400.0
400.0
213.4
225.6
225.6
268.2
316.4
304.8
353.6
371.9
364.0
384.0
37*. 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);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
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
-1879.4
-2341.3
-3758.8
-7047.7
-140*5.4
-281*0.8
-46984. «
-173.2
-346.4
-51*. 6
-6*2.6
-866.0,
-12*9.0,
-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,
-114*0.7,
-22*81.3,
-38302.2.
-128.6,
-257.1,
1302.4.
2604
5209
8682
68
136
205
273
342
513
684
855
1366
2565
5130
10260
17101
100
200
300
400
500
750
1000
1250
2000
3750
7500
15000
.7.
.4.
.4.
.4.
.8,
.2.
• 6.
.0.
.0.
.0,
.1.
• 1.
.2.
.3.
.6,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0.
.0.
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0.
.0.
• 0,
.0.
25000.0.
128
.6.
257.1,
385
.7,
514.2.
642
.8.
964.2.
1285
.6.
1607.0.
2571.2,
4620
.9.
9641.8,
1*283.6,
32139
4. •
153.2,
306
4.
364.0,
400.0,
380.0,
400.0,
213.4,
219.5.
225.6,
274.3,
2*8.7,
2*6.7,
35*. 7,
378.0,
378.0.
371. J.
420.0,
400.0,
400.0.
213.4,
231.6,
231.6,
304.8.
304.6,
323.1.
371.9,
378.0,
378.0.
3*4.0.
400.0.
420.0,
350.0.
213.4.
231.6.
231.6.
304.8,
317.0,
341.4,
365.6,
378.0,
359.7.
376.0.
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);
0.01;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0)i
0.0);
0.0)i
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-52
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
buec.prt
•• ISCCHDIP VERSION 94227 •••
•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
HTI itack Bodeling, EPA Region V, Project 1363. Base
One eource; 936 receptor* up to 5OHM amy; Vapor.
Ca««
OS/29/94
10:56:41
PACT 15
•• DlSCJUm CMTESXMf RECEPTORS ••
IX-COOKD, Y-COORD. ZELEV, 2PUG)
(METBtS)
-321.4,
-450.0.
-578. S.
-803.5.
-1124.9,
-1446.3,
-1928.4,
-3213.9,
-6427.9,
-12*55.8,
-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.
-S98.5,
-769.5,
-1026.1,
-1710.1,
-3420.2.
-6840.4.
-136(0.8,
-17.4,
-52.1.
-86.8,
-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,
1915.5.
1948.6,
2598.1,
4330.1.
8660.3,
17320.5,
34641.0,
94.0,
281. S,
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. S.
353.6.
384.0,
378.0,
371.9,
360.0.
380.0,
213.4.
225.6,
225.6,
262.1,
2S0.4.
323.1,
359.7,
329.2.
378.0,
371.9,
349.0.
360.0.
370.0,
213.4.
225.6,
225.6,
2(2.1,
J98.7.
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);
0.01;
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);
0.0);
0.0);
( -385.7.
( -514.2.
-642.8,
-964.2.
-12*5.6,
-1607.0,
-2571.2,
-4*30.9,
-9641.*,
-192*3.6,
-32139.4,
-100.0,
-300.0,
-300.0,
-400.0.
-500.0,
-750.0,
-1000.0.
-1250.0.
-3000.0.
-3750.0.
-7500.0.
-15000.0.
-25000.0.
-68.4.
-136.8.
-205.2.
-273.6.
-343.0.
-513.0.
-6(4.0.
-855.1.
-1368.1.
-2565.2,
-5130.3.
-10260.6,
-17101.0.
-34.7,
-69.5,
-104.2.
-131.9,
-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.
S19.6,
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.
751.1,
939.7,
1409.5.
1879.4,
2349.2.
375*. «,
7047.7,
14095.4,
28190.8,
46984.6,
197.0,
393.9,
590.9.
787.*,
984.8,
1477.2,
1969.6,
2462.0.
231.6,
304.*,
310.9.
347.5,
353.6,
365.*.
384.0.
378.0,
3*0.0,
400.0.
360.0.
225.6,
231.6,
243.1,
243.*,
304.8.
329.2.
353.6.
3*4.0.
384.0.
365.8.
360.0.
340.0.
350.0,
225.6.
225.6.
243.*,
2*6.5.
392.6.
353.6.
359.7.
347.5.
3*5.0.
329.2,
360.0.
340.0,
350.0.
225.6,
225.*.
243.*.
292. «.
298.7,
365.*.
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);
0.01;
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);
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-53
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
banc.prt
ISCCMD0 VBtSICM 94337
HTI ataek Bodaling, EPA Ragion V, Projact 1363,
Ona aourea; 936 racaptora up to 50KM away; Vapor.
DPAOLT
OS739/94
10:56:41
PACE 16
" DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ••
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV. ZPLAGI
(METERS)
-530.9,
-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
3350.0
3000.0
5000.0
10000.0
30000.0
40000.0
384.0,
365.8,
339.9.
360.0.
330.0,
313.4.
335.6,
335.6.
356.0.
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
-1303.4
-3604.7
-5309.5
-86S3.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-------
bBMc.prt
VBtSION 94227 •••
OPTIONS U&EU:
Wn stack •odalina. EPA Region V, Pro}«ct 1363, E*m Cu*
On* •eura; 936 r*e«ptor« up to 50KK any; Vcpor.
COHC RURAL ELSV
01/29/94
10:96:41
PAG1 17
••* METEOROLOGICAL UMTS SELECTED POR PROCESSOR; •••
U-YES; 0-NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111 '111
111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
MOTE: NSTEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED MILL ALSO DEPEND OH WHAT IS nCLODED IN THE DATA PILE.
BOUND OP FIRST THROUGH FIPTH HXHD SPEED CA'
(METERS/SBC)
1.54, 3.09. S.14, 1.23, 10.(0,
W1KD PROPILE
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E»00
.350001+00
.55000E»00
.700008-01
.70000X-01
-10000K+00
.150001+00
.350001*00
.55000«+00
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.10000E+00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001+00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001+00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001+00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.100001+00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001+00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES RELVm PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
t
T
.000001+00
.000001+00
.000001+00
.000001+00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001+00
.OOOOOE+00
-OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.200001-01
.350001-01
SPEED CATEGORY
3
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.000001+00
.OOOOOE+00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.000001+00
.000001+00
-20000E-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
.000001+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-55
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
••• ISCCHDBP VERSION 94227 —
banc.prt
MTI «uek Bodeling. EPA Region V, Project 1363. •
One aource; 936 receptor* up co SORV away,- vapor.
HDDELHB OPTIONS USB): COMC RURAL ELEV
08/29/94
10:56:41
PACT IB
THE FIRST 24 BOORS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FORMAT: (4I2,2P9.4.P6.1.I2.2P7.1.f9.4.£10.1.H.4.£5.1.i4,«7.2)
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: NTT
YEAR: 1993
PLOW SPEED
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR VECTOR (M/S)
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
1
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 IS
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 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 .68
124.0 .68
113.0 .23
97.0 .68
113.0 .13
117.0 .13
152.0 2.68
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: NTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (N)
' (1C) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.
274.
274.
273.
273.
273.
272.
271.
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
633.5
649.5
6(5.4
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
«09.0
•09.0
809.0
•09.0
809.0
109.0
809.0
*( »>» ,mr a.
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
LW . *( «O . •» ( &
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
a • *• *•! ft/ ,4 }
Z-0 Zd
IM) (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
O.OOOC 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
In/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
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B, 3-C. 4»O, 5»E AMD 6»P.
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD MUCH HIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-56
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
TROCHIISH.OOT
••• ISCOXDBP VERSION 94227 ••• ••* WTI Fugitive *oure* Modeling - TRUCK HASH ••• 12/23/94
••• On* Volume eource; 936 receptor* up to SOKM way; Vapor. ••• 18:26:17
PASS i
••• MODILTIC OPTIOHS OSZD: COHC HOMO. ELEV DPADLT
... MOB. srrop omoMS SOMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Procuring im Selected
.•Model I* S«tup rer Calculation of Average concentration Value*.
— scAVE»siNG/DBPosrnoN LOGIC —
••Modal Uie* MO DRY DEPLETION. DDFLETB • F
••Model U*e* HO MET DEPLETION. MDFLETE • P
••NO MET SCAVENGING D»t* provided.
••Modal Oaea GRIDDED TZRJIAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Oaea KDHAL Diaperaien.
••Model Oaee Regulatory DEPADLT Option*:
1. Final Plua* Riae.
2. Stack-tip Peimoaah.
3. luoyancy-induced Diaperaion.
4. Dae CalM Vrocnaing Routine.
5. Hot Dae Milling Data Proeeaaiag Routine.
6. Default Hind Profile Exponenta.
7. Default Vertical Potential Teaperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound* Valuea for Superaguat Building!.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Aaeuaea No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Te-aperature Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 3
IB AOL) 30.0000
(• ACL) 45.7000
(• AOL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 5
(• AGL) 30.0000
(B ACL) 45.7000
In ACL) 10.1000
Im AGL) 111.300
Im AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Tex* Average (a) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
**Thi« Run Include*: 1 Source!*); 1 Source Group(•); and 936 Receptor!*)
••The Model Aaiume* A Pollutant Type of: POSITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Teating.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Highest Short Term Value* by Receptor (RSCTMLE Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall mrltann Short Term Value* (MAXTAELE Keyword)
Model Output* External File la) of High Value* for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flag* May Appear Following CONC Valuea: e for Calm Hour*
m for Milling Hour*
b for Both Cain and Miaaing Hour*
••Miac. Input*: Anam. Hgt. (») - 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
•million unit* - GRAMS/SEC ; Bmiaaion Rate Dnit Factor • 0.100001*07
Output Unit* - HICROGRAIIS/aT**3
••Input Runitraaa File: truckwah.inc ; ••Output Print File: truckwah.out
••Detailed Brror/Meaaage Pile: TROCKMSB.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-57 Do not cite or quote
-------
••• ISCOMDBF VERSION 94227 ••• ••• NTI Fugitive source Modeling - TRUCK NUB ••• 12/23/94
••• One Voluae •ouree; 936 receptor* vp to SORM may: Vepor. ••• 1«:28:17
*•• MOPB.TMB OFTIONS USED: COMC RURAL (LBV DFAULT
••• VOLEKE SODRCI tATA •••
MDMBBR nCSSION KATE BASE REUlkSC OUT. HUT. BaSSZON KATE
SOURCE FART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELSV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
TROOC 0 0.10000E+01 100.2 170.9 212.1 3.OS 1.77 2.14
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-58 Do not cite or quote
-------
flRJCXMSH.OOT
•• XSCCHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• NTI rugitiv* »ourc« Modeling - TRUCK HftSK ••• 12/23/94
••• On* Voliow •ouroi 936 receptor* up to 5QKN >vay; Vapor. ••• 11:28:17
VAGI 3
•• HTtl-™" OPTICMS USED: COHC HOWkL CLIV DTAULT
500XCC IDC DKF1M1MB SODKCX GKOOVS
SODXCE ID*
ALL TRUCK
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-59 Do not cite or quote
-------
TODCKMSH.OOT
XSCOMHP VBRSXCM 94227 ••• ••• WIT Fugitive «oure* Kidding - TRDCT MASK ••• 12/23/94
••• On* VoluB* coure*; 93C rae*ptora up to SOKM nny; Vapor. ••• 18:28:17
mat 4
MODELXMB OPTIOMS DSK): COMC ItOHAL KJEV DPADLT
••* SOa»CS rAKTZCDlATE/US DM* •••
-•• SOURCE ID - TRUCK ; SOURCE TVPB • VOLUME
SCjiv COEF [LIQ] 1/IS-1M/HR).
0.001*00.
SCAV COir [ICE] l/IS-Mf/HR)-
0.001*00.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-60 Do not cite or quote
-------
••• ISCCKBU VERSION 94227 ••• ••• NT! Fugitive source Bodcling - THOCK VOSH ••• 12/23/94
••• On* Volua* Boura; 936 r«c«pcor. up Co 50XM any; Vapor. ••* 16:28:17
PASS 16
••* MODBJXG OPROBS USZD: CCHC BtmAL ELCV OFJtDLT
• SOOKCT-mCErlUK COHBDATiaHS LESS HDW 1.0 MRn OK 3'ZLt •
in oisiMiat. aacaiAnoMS tax MOT n nxronax>.
SODKCI RBCSPTOR LOCXTIOK - - DISTAHCB
ID XK (MRnSI XK (NETIXS) (METERS)
mncic 100.0 173.2
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-61 Do not cite or quote
-------
TXOCKHSH. OUT
ISCOHDEP VERSION 9422-7 -••
OPTIONS USED
HTI Fugitive »ourc« BcxUling - moot HASH
On* Volua* •ourc«; 936 receptor* up to 50KM nay; Vapor.
CONC RURAL ILIV
DFADLT
12/23/94
10:28:17
FAG1 17
••• HBTBOROLOsxcAL DAYS SELECTED mt PROCESSOR •••
U-YIS; 0«HO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
11111-11111
1111111111
111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
11111-11111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
MOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED HILL ALSO DUEMD OH HBAT IS MCLOPED IN THE DATA- FILE.
... QPFER BOOND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH HOD SPEED CATEGORIES •••
(METERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.09. 5.14, 1.23. 10.SO,
•*• HIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000S-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.150001*00
.35000E*00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.10000«»00
.1SOOOE+00
.35000E*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL IINVIRATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
HUID SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001+00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.300001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-62
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
TKUCKMSH.OUT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
• MODELING OPTIOHS USED: CCMC
••• HTI Fugitive course nodeling - TKOCK WASH
••• One VoluM iourc«; $36 receptor* up to 50KM mey; Vapor.
RURAL ELEV DFAOLT
12/23/94
18:28:17
FACE 18
TOE FIRST 24 BOORS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FILE: depbin.Mt
SURFACE STATION HO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9.4,F«.1.I2.2F7.1,Z9.4,fl0.1.f8.4.f5.1.i4.f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION MO. : 94823
NAME: NTI
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
I
^
1
j
1
1
j.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j.
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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
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.C8
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP STJ
• IK) OJ
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.8
273.3
372.5
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
kB MIXING
hSS RURAL
601.
617.
633.
649.
665.
681.
6>7.
713.
729.
745.
761.
777.
793.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
HEIGHT IM)
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649. S
665.4
681.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
I 761.1
I 777.1
) 793.0
) 809.0
) 809.0
9 809.0
3 809.0
3 809.0
9 809.0
9 809.0
9 809.0
9 809.0
9 809.0
9 809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
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 II
IM) (M) (M)
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. 0.0000 0.0
0. 0.0000 0.0
0. 0.0000 0.0
0. 0.0000 0.0
0. 0.0000 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 O.OOOO 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
•CODE
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
(•n/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
••* MOTES:
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-3-63
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
msn.our
*"• ISCOXDSP VBtSIOM 14227 *•• ••• tffl Fugitive aource Bodeling - ORGANIC WASTE TANK PARM ••• 12/27/94
••• Pour Point aource; 936 receptor* up to 50XN «way; Vapor. *•• 16:48:17
PACT 1
••* MrmTTrTla? OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAULT
*** w*TTIf SCTOP OPTXGMS JilJMaTAP 1 •••
••Intermediate Terrain Proceaaing U Selected
••Model I« Setup Per Calculation of Average CONCentration Valuea.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uaea HO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLRE • P
••Modal Uaea NO NET DEPLETION. NDPLETE - P
••NO HET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uaea GUDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Uaea RURAL Diaperaion.
••Model Uaea Regulatory DCPADbT Option*:
1. Pinal PliaM Riae.
2. Stack-tip Downwaah.
3. Buoyancy-induced Oiaperaion.
4. uae CalM Koeeaaing Houtine.
5. Not Uae Mieaing Date Proceaaing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponenta.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradienta.
8. 'Upper Bound' Valuea for Superaguat (uildinga.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Aceepta Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Aeauaea No PLAOPOLE Receptor Haigbta.
••Model Accepting Teeperatuze Profile Data.
NuBber of Levela : 3
Id AGL) 30.0000
(e> ACL) 45.7000
(•ACL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Data.
Nuaber of Levela : 5
IB ACL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
(• AOL) 80.1000
In AGL) 111.300
IB AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Ten Average (a I of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
••Thia Run Include*: 4 Soureel*), 1 Source Group(•); and 936 Recaptor la)
••The Model Aaauawa A Pollutant Type of: POSITIVE
••Model Set To Continue RDJtaing After the Setup Teating.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Bigheat Short Ten Valuea by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall Mart ami Short Tern Valuea (NAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* External Pilel*) of High Value* for Plotting (PLOTPILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Plaga May Appear Following CONC Valuea: c for Calai Hour*
B tor Mixing Hour*
b for Both Cala and Miaaing Hour*
••Miac. Input*: Anem. Hgt. <•> > 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
Badaaion Unite » GRAMS/SEC : Bmiaiion Rate Unit Paetor » 0.10000E*07
Output Unit* - MXCMaRAKS/M**3
••Input Runstree* Pile: WASTE.me : ••Output Print Pile: MASTS.OUT
••Detailed Brror/Meaaage Pile: WAsn.ERP.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-64 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDSF VBtSIOH 94227 ••• ••• NT! rugitiv* »ourc« *aO»liaa - ORGANIC HASTE TAMC FARM •*• 12/27/94
•*• Four Point >oure«; 936 r*c«ptor> up Co 50KM any; v*por. ••• 16:48:17
PACE 2
MODSUK: OPTIONS nsso: ccwc RURAL ELEV DPAULT
POIMT SODXCS WXA
soratcz
ID
WASTEl
WASTE!
HASTE3
WAST14
MUKBEK
PART.
CATS.
0
0
0
0
BUSSION RATE
(GRAMS/SEC)
O.lOOOOEoOl
0.10000B»01
0.10000E»01
0.100001*01
X
(METERS)
173.5
193.1
199.3
179.7
Y
(UTTERS)
10g. 6
116.9
102.3
94.0
BASE
ELEV.
(METERS)
21Z.1
212.1
212.1
212.1
STACK
HEIGHT
(METERS)
It. 90
18.90
18.90
18.90
STACK
TEXT.
(DBG. HI
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
STACK
EXIT VEL.
(K/SECI
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
STACK
DIAMETER
(METERS)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
BUILDING
EXISTS
•• YXS
YES
YES
YES
EMISSION RATE
SCALAR VARY
BY
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-65 Do not cite or quote
-------
NftSTE.OOT
••• ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• *•• WTI Pugitiv* lourec BOdcling - OKSMHC WASTE TMK TOOt ••• 12/27/94
••• four Point «ourc«; 936 receptor* up to 5OHM any; Vapor. -•• 16:48:17
PAGE 3
••• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC ROTXL ELEV OPJUOLT
SODIICE ID* OEPnOMS SOOXCE SHOOTS '"
SOURCE ID*
HASTE1 . WASTE2 , HWSTS3 , HASTB4 .
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-66 D° not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDEF VERSION 94227 *•• ••• WIT Fugitive IOUTC* Modeling - ORGANIC MUTE TAW FARM ••• 12/27/94
**• Four Point loura; 936 r«c*peor» up to 50JCM •my,- Vapor. ••• 16:48:17
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USD): CONC RURAL ELEV DPAOLT
••• SODRCB naencnxrs/efs DMA •••
••• SOURCE ID - WtSTEl ; SOORCE TYPE - POINT
SCAV COEP [LIQ] l/IS-Mt/HR)-
O.OOE»00,
SCAV COET [ICE) I/(S-IM/HR).
O.OOE+00,
— SOORCE ID • HASTK2 ; SOURCE TYPE •
SCAV COEP [LIQ) l/(S-Nf/HR>-
O.OOE»00,
SCAV COET [ICC] 1/IS-NM/HR).
O.OOEfOO.
••• SOORCE 10 • KASTE3 ; SOURCE TYPE • FOUR
SCAV COET [LIQ] 1/lS-MM/HRI-
O.OOE+00,
SCAV COEF [ICE] I/(S-KK/HR).
0.001*00,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-67 Do not cite or quote
-------
ZSCOHDV VERSION 94227 ••• ••• NTX Pugitiv* »ourc« •odxling - ORGANIC HASTE TANK PAm ••• 12/27/94
••• Pour Point •ourci; 936 nc
-------
ISCOHDEF VERSION 94227 •••
MODELSB OPTIONS USED: CONC
HASTE.OOT
"• MTI Pugitiv* sourc* MMteling - ORGANIC HASTE TANK PARK
••• Four Point •ourc«; 936 raoptor* up to 50KM away; Vapor.
RURAL EUV DPADLT
— DinCTIOH SPECIFIC BUHDIIC DIMENSIONS •••
12/27/94
16:48:17
PAGE 6
SOURCE ID: MASTE1
IPV BH
1 15.2,
7 15.2.
13 15.2.
19 15.2,
25 15.2,
31 15.2,
BH HAK
50.1, 0
18.2, 0
51.2, 0
50.1. 0
18.2. 0
51.2, 0
IPV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
15.2,
BH MAX
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
47.0, 0
26.4, 0
51.9, 0
IPV BH
3 15.2,
9 15.2,
IS 15.2,
21 15.2,
27 15.2.
33 15.2,
BH MAX
42.5, 0
33.7, 0
51.0. 0
42.5, 0
33.7, 0
51.0, 0
IPV BH
4 15.2,
10 15.2.
16 15.2.
22 15.2,
38 15.2,
34 15.2.
BH MAX
36.7. 0
40.1, 0
50.1. 0
36.7. 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
IPV BH
5 15.2,
11 15.2.
17 15.2.
23 15.2,
29 15.2,
35 15.2.
BH HAK
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
29.8, 0
45.2. 0
51.7, 0
IPV
6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
BH HAK
21.9. 0
48.9. 0
51.7, 0
21.9. 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
SOURCE ID: HASTE2
IPV BH
1 15.2,
7 15.2.
13 15.2,
19 15.2,
25 IS. 2,
31 15.2,
BH HAK
50.1. 0
18.2, 0
51.2, 0
50.1, 0
18.2. 0
51.2. 0
IPV BH
2 15.2,
8 15.2.
14 IS. 2,
30 15.3,
26 15.2,
32 15.2,
BH HAK
47.0 0
26.4 0
51.9 0
47.0 0
26.4 0
51.9 0
IPV BH
3 15.2.
9 15.2.
15 15.2,
21 15.2,
27 15.2,
33 15.2,
BH HAK
42.5, 0
33.7. 0
51.0. 0
42.5, 0
33.7. 0
51.0, 0
IPV BH
4 15.2.
10 15.2,
16 15.2.
32 15.2.
28 15.2,
34 15.2,
BH HAIC
36.7 0
40.1 0
50.1 0
36.7 0
40.1 0
50.1 0
IPV BH
5 15.2,
11 15.2.
17 15.2,
23 15.2.
29 15.2.
35 15.2,
BH MAX
29.8, 0
45.2. 0
51.7, 0
29.8. 0
45.2, 0
51.7. 0
IPV BH
6 15.2,
12 15.2.
18 15.2.
24 15.2,
30 15.2,
36 15.2,
BH HAX
21.9 0
48.9 0
51.7 0
21.9 0
48.9 0
51.7 0
SOURCE ID: HASTE3
IPV
1
7
13
19
25
31
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
15.2.
15.2.
BH HAK
50.1, 0
18.2, 0
51.2, 0
50.1, 0
18.2. 0
51.2. 0
IPV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
15.2.
15.2.
BH
47.0
26.4
51.9
47.0
26.4
51.9
HAX
0
0
0
0
0
0
IPV
3
9
IS
21
27
33
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
BH HAK
42.5, 0
33.7, 0
51.0. 0
42.5. 0
33.7, 0
51.0. 0
IPV
4
10
16
32
38
34
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
15.2.
BH HAX
36.7. 0
40.1, 0
50.1. 0
36.7, 0
40.1. 0
50.1. 0
IPV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
BH MAX
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
29.8, 0
45.2. 0
51.7. 0
IPV
. 6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
15.2,
15.2.
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
BH HAK
21.9. 0
48.9, 0
51.7, 0
21.9, 0
48.9. 0
51.7, 0
SOURCE ID: HASTE4
IPV BH
1 15.2,
7 15.2,
13 15.2,
19 15.2.
25 15.2.
31 15.2,
BH HAK
50.1, 0
18.2, 0
51.2, 0
50.1, 0
18.2. 0
51.2, 0
IPV
2
8
14
20
26
32
BH
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
BH
47.0
26.4
51.9
47.0
26.4
51.9
HAK IPV
0 3
0 9
0 15
0 21
0 27
0 33
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH HAK
42. 5, 0
33.7. 0
51.0, 0
42.5, 0
33.7, 0
51.0. 0
IPV
4
10
16
22
28
34
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
BM MAX
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1. 0
36.7, 0
40.1, 0
50.1, 0
IPV
5
11
17
23
29
35
BH
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2,
BH HAK
29.8, 0
45.2, 0
51.7, 0
29.8. 0
45.2. 0
51.7. 0
IPV
6
12
18
24
30
36
BH
15.2.
15.2,
15.2.
15.2,
15.2,
15.2.
BH HAX
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive aourc* Bodaling - ORGANIC HASTE TASK FARM ••• 12/27/94
••• Pour Point louro; 936 raeaptora up to SOKM away; Vapor. ••• 16:48:17
PACT 18
MODELING OPTIONS DSSD: CONC RURAL ELEV DPAOLT
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBIMATIOHS LESS THAN 1.0 NITER OR 3*ZL> •
TX DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS HAY NOT BE PERPORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) TO (METERS) (METERS)
MASTE1 153.2 128.6 28.45
HASTE1 173.2 100.0 8.58
KASTE1 . 187.9 68.4 42.70
HASTE2 153.2 128.6 41.58
HASTES 173.2 100.0 26.12
MASTE3 173.2 100.0 26.20
WASTES 187.9 68.4 35.76
MASTE4 153.2 128.C 43.52
MASTE4 173.2 100.0 8.81
187.9 C8.4 26.89
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-70 Do not cite or quote
-------
WASTE.OCT
XSCONDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••* WTI Pu01tiv> Mum mottling - ORGANIC WASTE TANK PARK ••• 12/21/94
••* Pour Point source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM nray; Vapor. ••• 16:48:17
PACT 19
MOOEUHQ OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELSV DPAOLT
••• METEOROLOGICAL OUTS SELECTED POR Pff*Vi.1ffTH7 ••*
U-Y1S; O.NO)
MOTE: MRI
SOXOLOGXOU. DMA ACTUALLY PROCESSED HILL ALSO BBPEKD OH WHAT IS INCLUDED IK THE DATA PILE.
*•* UPPER BOUND OP PIRST THR30GH FIPTS MMB SPEED CATEGOIUXS •••
-------
••• ISCONDEP VERSION 94227 •*•
• •• ijurtBi.TM*
OPTIONS OS]
••«
D: CONC
THE rnsT
FILE: dapbin.Mt
SOU
FACE STATIC
N NO.: 94
NAME: HTI
••• WTI Puoltiw
••• Four Point
RURAL ELEV
24 HOURS OF MET!
823
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 DAY HOUR
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
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 IM/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 .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 .13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
i •oure* Bodclino: - ORGANIC WASTE TANK
lourn; 936 r«c«ptor« up to 50KM **my:
DFAULT
lOttOLOQTCAli DATA ***
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9.4.F6.1.I2.2F7.1
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB inXUTi HEIGHT (N)
IK) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.
274.
274.
273.
273.
273.
272.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
269.
601. 601.6
617. 617.6
633. 633.5
649. 649.5
665. 665.4
681. 681.4
C97. 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
FARM
Vapor.
,f9.4.fl0.1
USTAR M-O
(M/8)
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
••• 12/27/94
,«8.4,
***
«5.1,i4.
LENGTH Z-0
(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
(H)
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
16:48
PAGE
f7.2)
17
20
•
Zd IPCODE PRATE
(H)
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
IBB/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-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-72
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
TANK.OUT
ISCCMDEP VERSION 14227 •*• *** WTI Fugitive aource modeling - OPEN MASTEMATER TURK *•• 12/23/94
••• Om Volume source; 936 receptors up to 5OHM any; Vapor. ••• 17:14:24
PACK 1
MODELING OPTIOHS OSH): CCNC RURAL ELkV DFADLT
"Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
••Model Is setup For Calculation of Average Concentration Valuea.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uaea NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - P
••Model Uaea NO .WET DEPLETION. MDPLETE > F
"NO NET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
••Model Uaea GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uaea RURAL Diaperaion.
••Model Uae* Regulatory DEFAULT Option*:
1. Final Hurse RIM.
2. Stack-tip Downwaah.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calm* Proceaaing Routine.
5. Not Use Miaaing Data Proceaaing Routine.
6. Default Mind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default vertical Potential Temperature Gradient*.
6. 'Upper Bound* value* for Super*quat Building*.
9. Ho Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
"Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Assumes Mo FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 3
(m AGL) 30.0000
In AOL) 45.7000
(m AGL) 152.400
"Model Accepting Hind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m AGL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 45.7000
la AOL) 80.8000
(D AGL) 111.300
(m AOL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Term Average (a) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
••This Run Include*: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Groupie); end 936 Reeeptorjs)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model set To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Tables of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Ten Value* by Receptor IRECTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall lUTietm Short Ten value* IMAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External file(s) of High Values for Plotting IPLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flaga May Appear Following CONC Value*: c for Calm Hour*
• for Missing Hour*
b for Both Calm and Miaaing Hour*
"Misc. Input*: Anam. Hgt. (ml • 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
Keowion Units - GRAMS/SEC • ; sniaaion Rate Unit Factor - 0.100001*07
Output Units > MXCROGRAMS/M**3
"Input RunstraaB File: tank.inc ,- "Output Print File: tank.out
••Detailed Brror/Meaaage File: TANK.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-73 Do not cite or quote
-------
•• ISCOKDEP VBtSICM $4227 ••• ••• DTI Fugitive aoure* BOdaling - OPEN MASTEMATER TANK ••• 12/33/94
••• OB* Volma aourc*; 936 racaptori up to SOKM may; Vapor. ••• 17:14:24
' PACE 2
•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCHC RDRAL EbEV DFAULT
**• VOLUME SOOKCE DMA •••
NUKBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE OUT. HRT. EKISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SIT SZ SCALAR VARY
10 CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
TANK 0 O.lOOOOEtOl 177.1 . 204.6 212.1 S.30 2.35 4.96
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-74 Do not cite or quote
-------
TANK.GOT
••• ISCONDKP VtRSION »4227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive source •odlling - OPBJ KASTMATER TAUT ••• 12/23/94
••• On* VoluM «ourc«; 936 r««ptor« up co SOm nay; Vapor. ••• 17:14:24
PJtQX 3
*•• MQD1LZNS OPTIONS USB): CCHC RDMI. ELCV DFADLT
•" SOCXCI H» DEPIHIHS SODKCB SHOOTS •••
GROUP ID SODRCE IDs
AU. TANK
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-75 Do not cite or quote
-------
TAWS. OUT
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94231 ••• ••• HTI PugitiVB sourc* Budding - OPEN HASTZMATER TANK »• 12/23/94
••• On* VoluM sourc*; 936 r«e«ptor* up to SOKM any; Vapor. •*• 17:14:24
PACE 4
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CCMC RURAL ELEV DPADLT
••• SODRCE PARTICD1ATZ/QAS DATA *•*
••• SOURCE IO - TANK ; SOOKCZ TYPE
SOW COBF [LIQJ 1/IS-IOI/HP).
0.001*00,
SCAV COEF [ICE] I/(S-IM/HHI-
0.OOE*00,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-76 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COHC
••• HTT Fugitive aoure* aodaling - OPEN NASTEHATER TANK
••• One Volua* aourec; 936 rec«ptor« up Co 50KM avay; Vapor.
RURAL ELSV DFAULT
12/23/94
17:14:24
PAGE 16
••• METEOROLOGICAL DATS SELECTED KK ntOCESSDC •••
U-YES; 0>NO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
NOTE:
METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED MILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED H) THE DATA FILE.
BOUND OP FIRST THKOU58 PITTH MUD STEED CATEGORIES
(UTTERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.09, S.14. S.23. 10.SO.
••• WHO) PROFILE EXPONENTS —
STABUJTY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
NZMD SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOfccOO
.1SOOOE»00
.330001+00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001+00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001+00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001+00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001+00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001+00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001+00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001+00
.150001+00
.350001+00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001+00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001+00
.30000E-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001.00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001+00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001+00
.000001*00
.000001+00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001+00
.000001+00
.000001*00
.000001+00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-77
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
1 VERSION 94227 •••
HI'Bim
-------
••• XSCONDtP VERSION 14227 ••• ••• MTI Fugitive aource Modeling - CARBON VEST STACK ••• 02/1«7»S
••• On* Point aouree; »3( receptor* up to 50m away; Vapor. ••• 17:13:30
not i
••• ttgrrLT"? OPTIONS ostD: ODBC RURAL ELEV onaur
••• MOML SETUP OFTXOHS SDJMuTY *•*
••Intermediate Terrain Proeeaaiag is Selected
••Model I* Setup 'or Calculation of Average concentration Value*.
— SCAVENGDB/DSPOSrrXCM LOGIC —
••Model U*e* NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE • T
• •Model U*e* NO WET DEPLETION. MDPLETE • F
••NO MET SCAVENGING Data provided.
••Model Dm GRXODKD TERRAIN Data (or Depletion Calculation*
••Modal Dm* RURAL Oiaperaion.
••Model Uaea Regulatory DCFADLT Option*:
1 Final PluBM RiM.
3 Stack-tip DoMMaah.
3 Buoyancy-induced Ciaperaien.
IMe Cala* ProceMiag Routine.
Hot U»« Mining Data Froceaaiag Routine.
Default Mind Profile Exponent*.
Default Vertical Potential Teaverature Gradient*.
•Upper Bound * Value* for Supenguat Building*.
No Exponential Decay for RtnuvL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELCV Terrain.
••Model Aaauae* No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Teiperatuxe Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 3
(• AGL) 30.0000
(• ASL) 45.7000
(• ACL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Hind Profile Data.
Nuaber of Level* : S
<• AGL) 30.0000
IB AGL) 45.7000
IB AGL) 80.SOOO
IB AOL) 111.300
IB AOL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 abort Ter» Averagel*> of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
•Thi* Run Include*: 1 Source!*); l Source Group!*); and >3C Receptor!*)
••The Model A**UB*> A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the setup Teiting.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Higheit Snort Tern Value* by Receptor IRKTABLE Keyvord)
Model Output* Table* of Overall "--•—— Short Ten Value* IMXTXABLE Keyvord)
Model Output* External File (a) of High Value* for Plotting (PLOTPXU Keyword)
••NOTE: Tbe Following Flag* May Appear Following CONC Value*: c for Cala Hour*
B for Mi*aing Hour*
b for Both Cala and Milling Hour*
•*«U«c. input*: AneB. Hot. IB) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
EBiaaion Unit* - ORAMS/SCC ; Bmiaaion Rate Obit Factor « 0.10000E*07
Output UUt* » MJCROORAMS/lf'3
"input Kunitrea. File.- cad*tack.i»c . "Output Print File: eedateek.out
••Detailed Error/Memo* Pile: CACSTACK.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendk IV-3 IV-3-79 Do not cite or quote
-------
cusnac.ooT
VERSION 1122? ••• ••• wrx ruoitiv* «ourc« moamiiag - CMBON van STUCK ••• o2/ic/»s
••• On* faint coum; 93C receptor* up to SOKM may; Vapor. ••• 17:13:30
no* 2
msoD.TWi OVTZCMS VOXD-. OOHC nauu. ILIV DPADLT
••• fonrr socmci
HDKBBI Hussion RATE BASZ smcx STACK STUCK STACK RJXLDIHO BQSSIQN wmt
SOUUCI PART. (GWtMS/SBC) X Y KLBV. HEIGHT VBB. EXIT V«L. DIAKCTW EXISTS SCkUUt VMIY
ID CATS. ixems) (KETERSI (KETEUSI iHemts) (MB.KI m/SKi IMETIM) n
CAOSTACX 0 0.100001*01 Cl.O 42.1 212.1 21.04 2SO.OO 31.05 O.Ti '• f*S
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-80 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADSTXaC.OOT
••• XSCOKDEP VBtSIOM 9*227 ••• ••• MTI Vugitiv* »ourc» HOd*ling - CARBON VSNT STACK ••• 02/16/95
••• On* Point •ottre*; 936 r«c«ptor« up to 50KJC my; Vapor. ••• 17:13:30
PACE 3
'•' NOOELOB OmCKS USB): CONC RDRAt. ELBV OTAULT
••• SOOKCE HM Dtrmmo SOOXCE CROUPS
GROUP ID SOURCE IDs
CADSTACK,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-81 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADSTACK.OUT
ISCOHDCP VBtSION 94227 ••• ••• HIT Pugritiv* loure* KXteliag - CARBON VENT STACK >•• 02/16/95
••• On* Point fourcm; 936 r«e«pcor» up to SOXM away; Vapor. ••• 17:13:30
PAOI 4
MODBUMG OPTICHS USD): COHC KDRU. BLIV DPADLT
••• SOURCE VAItTICDLATI/GAS DATA •••
••• SOOKCE ID - CADSTACK; SOORCE TYPE > POINT
SCAV COEF [LIQ1 1/1S-KK/HR).
O.OOE»00,
SCAV COEF [ICE] l/(S-MM/nt)»
O.OOE+00.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-82 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDKF VSR5ION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
CADSTACK.OOT
••• WIT Fugitive aouxc* •odtling - CMBON VBIT STACK
••* dam Point tour cm: 936 receptor* up to SOKM n«y; Vapor.
RURAL RJTV DFAOLT
•*• DIRECTION sraciric wanaaa OMEKSIOHS •••
02/16/95
17:13:30
PAOI 5
SCOXCI ID:
IFV BK
1 25.
7 24.
13 25.
19 25.
25 24.
31 25.
CAUSTACX
BW WAX IFV BK
27.1. 0 2 25.8
26.0, 0 B 25.8
24.8, 0 14 25.8
27.1, 0 20 25.8
26.0, 0 26 25.8
24.8. 0 33 25.8
BW
28.1
24.8
22.4
28.1
24.8
22.4
WUC IFV BK
0 3 25.8
0 9 25.8
0 15 25.8
0 21 25.8
0 27 25.8
0' 33 25.8
BW MJC IFV BK
28.3. 0 4 25.
26.4, 0 10 25.
20.1, 0 16 25.
28.3. 0 22 25.
26.4, 0 28 25.
20.1, 0 34 25.
BW
27.6
27.3
19.3
27.6
27.3
19.3
WAK IFV BK
0 5 25.8
0 11 25. B
0 17 25.8
0 23 25.8
0 29 25. B
0 35 25.8
BW WAX IFV BH BW WAX
26.1. 0 6 25.8, 23.8, 0
27.3, 0 12 25.8. . 26.4, 0
22.6, 0 18 25.8, 25.2, 0
26.1. 0 24 25.8, 23.8. 0
27.3. 0 30 25.8, 26.4, 0
22.6. 0 36 25.8, 25.2, 0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-83
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CADSTACK.OOT
ISCOHDBP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Pugitiv* »eurc« aodllino - CARBON VENT STACK "* 02/16/95
••• On* Point •oura; 936 raecpton up to 30XM nray; V«por. ••• 17:13:30
PACE 17
KODELINa OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DPADLT
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS LESS THAH 1.0 METER OR 3*tLB *
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS NAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
ID ZR (METERS) YR (METERSI (METERS)
CADSTACK 34.2 94.0 57.74
CADSTACK 50.0 16.6 45.14
CADSTACK 64.3 76.6 33.93
CADSTACK 76.6 64.3 26.51 .
CADSTACK 86.6 50.0 26.57
CADSTACK 94.0 34.2 34.06
CADSTACK 98.5 17.4 45.30
100.0 0.0 57.91
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 FV-3-84 Do not cite or quote
-------
CADSTAOC.OUT
VERSION 94227 •••
OPTIONS DSKD: COMC
••• HTI Pugitiv* mure* •eteXing - CARBON VENT STACK
••• On* Point •ourec; 936 r«c«ptor« up to SOXM »w»y; Vapor.
RURAL ELEV DPAOLT
02/16/95
17:13:30
PAGE 18
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED POX PROCESSING
(1-YES; 0«NO)
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
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
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111X11
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
'l 111111111 1111111111 1111111X11
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
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DMA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED HI THE DATA FILE.
BOGND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH HIND SPEED
(METERS/SEC)
1.S4, 3.09, 5.14. 8.23. 10.10.
••• HIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.10000E+00
.1SOOOE+00
.35000E+00
.550001*00
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
.700001-01 .70000E-01
.70000E-01 .700001-01
.100001*00 .100001*00
.1SOOOE*00 .150001*00
.35000E*00 .350001*00
.55000E*00 .5SOOOE*00
4
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000i*00
.XSOOOE*00
.35000E*00
.55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E*00
.15000E*00
.35000E*00
.55000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.XOOOOE*00
.1SOOOE*00
.350001*00
.SSOOOE*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
HD1D SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
,OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOS*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-85
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
CADSTACX.OUT
••• ISCOXDEP VERSION 94227
HTI Fugitive IOUTC* aodaling - CARBON VENT STACK
One Point •cure*; 936 rcOTptor* up to 50KM mmy; Vapor.
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV
02/1C/95
17:13:30
PAGE 19
THE FIRST 24 HOODS OP HETEOROLOOICAL DATA
PILE:
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94123
MAKE: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR
PLOW
VEt'iXJR
FORMAT: (4I2,2P9.4,P«.1.I2.2P7.1.f9.4.fl0.1.f8.4.15.1.14.f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 94823
HAKE: MR
YEAR: 1993
SPEED
(M/S)
(K)
STAB
cuss
MTKTIIQ HEIGHT
RURAL
(M)
USTAR
(M/S)
M-O LBHTK
(M)
Z-0
(M)
Xd IPCODE PRATE
(M) (na/KR)
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
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
2
3
4
S
t
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
104.0 4.47 275. 601.6 601.6 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
112.0 5.36 274. 617.6 617.6 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
106.0 .47 274. 633. S 633. S 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
115.0 .47 273. 649.5 649.5 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
120.0 .02 273. 665.4 66S.4 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
123.0 .36 273. 681.4 681.4 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
130.0 .92 272. 697.3 697.3 0.0000 0. 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
124.0 .92 271. 713.3 713.3 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
115.0 .47 271. 729.2 729.2 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
107.0 .02 270. 745.2 745.2 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
113.0 .02 270. 761.1 7<1.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
108.0 .47 270. 777.1 777.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
114.0 .36 271. 793.0 793.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
107.0 .92 271. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
120.0 .92 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
119.0 .47 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
118.0 3.58 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
124.0 2.68 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
124.0 2.68 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
113.0 2.23 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
97.0 2.68 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
113.0 3.13 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
117.0 3.13 270. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
152.0 2.68 269. 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
••• NOTES:
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2-B. 3«C. 4-D. 5»E AND 6»P.
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOMARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-86
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION »4227 ••• ••• MTI Fugitive source modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLDG ••• 01/25/9!
••• On* Point «ourc«; 936 receptors up to SOXM sway; Mass Wt. ••• 18:00:36
MGI 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS DSD: CONC RURAL ELSV DFAOLT DRYDFL MBTDPL
••• MODEL soar OPTICNS SUMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
• •Model Is Setup Par Calculation of Average concentration Values.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uses DRY DEPLETION. DEPLETE > T
••Model Uses MET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LUCAS, LWPART - P T
••Model Uses GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
••Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. final Flume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Hot Use Kissing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Mind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. 'Upper Bound* Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. Ho Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Aasuates Ho FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
number of Levels : 3
IB AOL) 30.0000
IB AGL) 4S.7000
In ACL) 153.400
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Data.
Number of Levels : 5
(m ACL) 30.0000
(m AGL) 4S.7000
(n AOL) 80.8000
(• AGL) 111.300
(B AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculates 1 Short Tern Aver age Is) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
••This Run Includes: 1 Sour eels); 1 Source Oroup(s); and 93C Receptor Is)
••The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: POSITIVE
••Model Set To Continue XONning After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Snort Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Tables of Overall "—'—— Short Ten Values (KAXTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External Pile Is) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTPILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Plags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Cain Hours
B for Missing Hours
b for Both CalB and Missing Hours
••Misc. Inputs: AMB. Hgt. IB) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle • 0.0
Emission units - GRAMS/SBC .• Emission Rate Unit Factor - 0.100001*07
Output units • BTOtOGRMIS/M*^
••Input Runstream Pile: steam._c.inc ,- •-output Print File: ateama_c.out
••Detailed Error/Message File: STIAM_C.BMt
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-87 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_C.OOT
ISCONDEP VERSION 14227 ••• ••• KTI Fugitive «ourc« •adeline - ASH KAHDLING/STEAM BUB •*• 01/25/95
••* On* Point source; 936 receptor* up to 50KM nmy; Mua Ht. ••* 18:00:36
PAGE 2
MODZLHB OPTIOMS USED: CCMC RDRAI, KLBV DPJtOLT OKfOK. NCTDPL
••• POOR SODRC1 D*T* •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK DUILDIHG EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEISRI TEMP. EXIT VIL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEO.KI (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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-88 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASKA_C.OCrT
••• ISCOMMP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• NTI Fugitiv* source oodeling - ASH HANDLXNB/STEMf BLOC ••• 01/25/55
•*• One Point «ourc«; 936 receptor* up Co 50JCM way, Hu< wt. ••• 18:00:36
PACE 3
••• MOMLIIIG OPTXOKS USB): CCHC KUKAL ILEV DFAOLT OHYDPL WETDPL
••• SOOKCE IDs DKPIHIHB SOORCT GROUPS
GROUP ID SOOSCI ID»
ALL STEAM
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-89 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_C.OOT
ISCOMDSP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Pugitiv* source BOdcling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BUXi ••• 01/25/95
*•• On* Point *ourn; 936 r«c«ptor« up to SOXM may; Hu> wt. ••• 18:00:36
NODEUNS OFTIOKS USED: CONC RURAL ELEV DFAULT nam ta"** *
"* SODRCK PAimCDIAn/GAS DMA •••
••• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS FRACTION »
0.04260, 0.01510. 0.17020, 0.19150, 0.19150, 0.11910, 0.10000, 0.05000, 0.04000. 0.01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS I -
2.97000, 1.89000, 0.93000, O.S5000, 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 [LIQ1 1/(S-MI/HR)«
0.21K-03,0.141-03,0.SOB-04,0.50E-04.0.60E-04,0.901-04.0.131-03,0.151-03.0.20E-03.0.22E-03,
SCAV COEF (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.SOE-04,0.67E-04,0.73E-04.
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-90 Do not cite or quote
-------
VERSION 94227 •••
OVTXCMS USED:
ASIA_C.aOT
••• WTI Fugitive soure* BOdcling - ASK HANDLHIB/STEMI BLOC
••• On* Point *oura; 936 necpeor* up to SOKM «ny; Mu« Ht.
KOMI. ELIV DPAOLT
••• DXUCTIGN SPECIFIC BUILDING DXMDISXGNS ••*
DRYDPL ME'IUVL
01/25/95
18:00:36
PACE 5
SOURCE ID: STEAM
irv BH BW
1 29.1, 25.9
7 6.7, 16.4
13 25. t, 24. 8
19 29.1, 25.9
25 14.9, 65.3
31 25.8, 24.8
MAX IPV BH
0 2 29.1
0 8 25. 8
0 14 25.8
0 20 29.1
0 26 25.8
0 32 25.8
BW
24.7
24.8
22.4
24.7
24.8
22.4
KAK IPV BH
0 3 29.1
0 9 25.8
0 15 25.8
0 21 29.1
0 27 25.8
0 33 25.8
BW
21.8
26.4
20.1
21.8
26.4
20.1
HMC IfV BH
0 4 24.4
0 10 25.8
0 1C 29.1
0 22 24.4
0 28 25.8
0 34 29.1
BW
28.
27.
25.
28.
27.
25.
MAK IPV BH
0 5 24.4
0 11 25.8
0 17 29.1
0 23 24.4
0 29 25.8
0 35 29.1
BW MAX IPV BH
27.0, 0 6 24.4
27.3, 0 12 25.8
25.9, 0 18 29.1
27.0, 0 24 24.4
27.3. 0 30 .25.8
25.9, 0 36 29.1
BH
24.6
26.4
25.9
24.6
26.4
25.9
KAK
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-91
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASRA_C.OOT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 9*237 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive source Bodeling - ASH HANDLIN3/STEJ* BLOC ••• 01/25/95
••• One Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKM »w»y; Mass Mt. -•• 18:00:36
MODELING OPTIONS USED: COMC RURAL EUEV DPAULT DRYDPL METDPL
• SOOTa-RKXPTOK COMBDaTIOKS IMSS THWJ 1.0 METKR OR 3*ZLB •
IN DISTOMC1. CALCULATIONS MAY MOT BI PEKFOmlD.
SOURCE
ID
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
RECEPTOR LOI
XR (METERS) XI
17.4
- 34.2
50.0
64.3
86.6
94.0
-34.2
-17.4
0.0
JATION - -
ft (METERS)
98.5
94.0
86.6
76.6
SO.O
34.2
94.0
98.5
100.0
DISTANCE
(METERS)
49.93
46.16
45. SO
48.93
62.72
71.62
73.48
64.44
56.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-92 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
VERSION 94227 •••
wn Fugitive source Modeling - ASH HANDLING /STEAK BLOC
One point cource; 936 receptor* up to 50KM away,- Mu* Wt.
•*• MODELING OPTIONS OSED: COHC RURAL ELEV
DRYDFL W8TDPL
01/25/»5
18:00:36
PAGE IS
*•* METEOROLOGICAL HAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING •••
(1-YES; 0-HO)
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 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
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED MILL ALSO DEPEND OK WAT IS BKXOBtD IN THE DATA PILE.
BOUND OP FIRST THROUUK FIFTH MIND SPEED CATEGORIES
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.OS. 5.14, t.23, 10.80,
••• WHO PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.15000E»00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E.OO
.150001*00
.3SOOOE+00
.550001*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEoOO
.15000E*00
.35000E*00
.55000E*00
.700001-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E*00
.350001*00
.55000E»00
.700001-01
.70000E-01
-10000E»00
-15000E*00
.35000E*00
.S5000E*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.15000E*00
.35000E»00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DECREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
-35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
SPEED CATEGORY
3
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE«00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
-35000E-01
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-93
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_C.OUT
ISCONPEP VXKSICM 94227 •••
MODELLING OPTIONS UbU>:
HTI Pugitiv* loom moOfliag - ASK HANDLING/STEAM BLOC
On* Point »ourc«; 936 r«c«ptor» up to 50m «wmy; Mali Ht.
DRYDPL METDPL
01/2S/9S
18:00:36
PAGE 19
THE FIRST 24 MOORS OP METEOROLOGICAL DAT*
FILE: dcpbin.Mt
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: <4I2.2F9.4.P6.1.I2.2P7.1.».4,fl0.1, fi.4. fS.l,i4. f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION BO. : 94123
HAKE: WTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR MONTH
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
93 1
$3 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
HUUK
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FLOW SPEED TWF STAB NOONS HEIGHT (M) USTAR N-O LBOTH Z-0 Zd IPCODE PRATE
VECTOR (M/S) IK) CLASS RURAL URBAN (M/S) (M) (M) . (M) (n/KRj
104.0 4.47 275.4 601. C 601. C 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 .47 274.0 633.5 633.5 0.3363 175. 0.3000 1.5 0 0.00
115.0 .47 273.9 649.5 649.5 0.3363 175. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
120.0 .02 273.8 665.4 665.4 0.2874 128. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
123.0 .36 273.3 681.4 681.4 0.4266 281. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
130.0 .92 272.5 697.3 697.3 0.3820 225. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
124.0 .92 271.9 713.3 713.3 0.3819 224. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
115.0 .47 271.0 729.2 729.2 0.3355 172. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
107.0 .02 270.9 745.2 745.2 0.3534 -999. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
113.0 .02 270.6 761.1 761.1 0.3534 -999. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
108.0 .47 270.9 777.1 777.1 0.3926 -999. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
114.0 .36 271.1 793.0 793.0 0.4712 -999. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
107.0 .92 271.0 809.0 809.0 0.4319 -999. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
120.0 .92 270.6 809.0 809.0 0.3817 223. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
119.0 .47 270.5 809.0 809.0 0.3354 172. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
118.0 .58 270.4 809.0 809.0 0.2310 81. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
124.0 2.68 270.4 809. 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
124.0 2.68 270.1 809. 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
113.0 2.23 270.3 809. 809.0 0.0982 29. 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
97.0 2.68 270.3 809. 809.0 0.1178 29. 0.3000 1.5 0 0.00
113.0 3.13 270.3 809. 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 29.4 0.3000 1.5 28 0.00
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2«B, 3-C. 4»D, S-E AMD 6«F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD HHtOJ NIMD IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-94
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASRA_H.OOT
... ISCONDEP VDtSICN 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive *Ouree modeling - ASH HANDLINa/STEAM BLOC •••
••• On* Point *ouree; 936 receptor* up to SOKM nay; Mas* Wt. ••• 23:53:23
PAGE 1
•*• MODELING OPTIONS USD): NDEP RURAL ELEV DFADLT DRYDPL WBTDPL
— MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Proee**ing i* Selected
••Model I* Setup Par Calculation of Net DEPo*ition Valuea.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
• •Modal Uaa* DRY DEPLETION. DDFLETE « T
••Mode], U*e* MET DEPLETION. WDPLETE • T .
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LNGAS,IMPART -FT
••Model Uaei GRIDDEO TERKAIH Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Um»m RURAL Di«per*ion.
••Model Uae* Regulatory DEFAULT Option*:
1. Final Flume Rim.
2. Stack-tip Downwa*h.
3. Buoyancy-induced Diaperaion.
4. U»* Calm* Preeeaaing Routine.
5. Hot Uaa Mining Data Proeeeaiiig Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default Vertical Potential Teaperature Gradient*.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Superaquat Buildinga.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Modal Aacuxe* No PLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Teaperature Profile Data.
Huaber of Level* : 3
(m AOL) 30.0
(•ACL) 45.7
(•AOL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting wind Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 5
(m AOL) 30.0
In AGL) 45.7
In AOL) 80.8
(m AGL) 111.3
(• AGL) 152.3999
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Term Average( .00001*00 ; Rot. Angle - .0
EmiMion miu - CRAMS/SEC ,• EBiuion Rat* Unit Factor - 3600.0
Output Onita • GRAWS/M>*2
••Input Runatream File: *taama_w.uid ; "Output print Pile: *e«a»a w.out
••Detailed Error/Meeaage File:
STEAMA_H.E*J)
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-95 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASH*_M.OOT
XSCCKDIP VERSION 94227 •** ••• MTI Pugitiv* IOUTC* sodding - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLOC •••
••• On* Point «ourc«; 936 r«c«ptor» up to SOKM «w»y; Mu* Wt. ••• 23:53:23
PAGE 2
OPTIONS DSK): MDIP KDRAL IUV DFADLT DKXDPI. NRDPL
••• POINT SOOIICr DMA •••
NUMBER BKCSSICM RATE BkSI STUCK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING HUSSION KATE
. PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEKP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DBQ.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .IOOOOE+01 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-96 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_W.OOT
••• XSCGMDEP VERSION S42J7 ••• ••* WTI Fuaftiv. aoure* moOaliaa - ASH HAHDLmCi/STttM BLOC ••*
*"* On* Point •ourcc; 936 r«c up to 50XM «w»y; Mu« Mt. ••• 23:53:23
PACK 3
... ur,r»ti^n OPTZOHS USD: NDEP KORAL SLIV DFADLT DKfDPL MCIDPb
••• somes to* BEFTCNE SODRCS otoops •••
CROOP IE SOURCE IDs
ALL SIMM
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-97 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMMP VBISICN 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive lource Kidding - ASH HMmUMS/STEAM BLDG '"
••• On* Point aourea; 936 nnptor* up to 50m my; HUB Wt. ••• 23:93:23
PAGE 4
• MOOELXMG OPTIONS HSU): IMP RURAL ELEV DFAOLT HtyCPL METDPL
PAKtlCDLKR/OKS WOK. •••
•*- SOOUCI ID - STIMI ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS PMCTTCN -
.04260, .01510, .17020, .19150, .19150, .11910, .10000, .05000. .04000. .01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000. 1.89000, .93000, .55000. .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE. DENSITY (G/QI"3I •
1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000,
SCAV COEf (LIQ) l/IS-MK/HRI-
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .SOB-04, .60E-04, .901-04, .13E-03, .15E-03, -20E-03, .221-03.
SCAV COEF tICEl 1/(S-MH/KR>-
.70E-04, .47E-04. .17E-04. .17E-04, .20E-04, .30E-04. .431-04, .SOE-04, .671-04, .731-04,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-98 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
' OPTIONS USED: NDEF
SOURCE ID: STUM
'" WTI Fugitiv* coure* BCXtaliaa - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BUG
••• On« Pome mouret: 336 r*eq>to» up to 50KM amor; lUu Wt.
RURAL HIV DFAOLT
•»• DmcnON SPECIF 1C •"TTt!v"a7 DIMkKSIONS ••*
OGXDPL MRDPL
23:53:23
PACE 5
MA»U^ AJJ; 04JUU*
IFV BH BW
1 29.1, 25.9
7 S.7, 16.4
13 25. 8. 24.8
19 29.1, 25.9
25 14.9. 65. 3
31 25.8, 24.8
MAX IFV BH
0 2 29.1
0 8 25.8
0 14 25.8
0 20 29.1
0 26 25.8
0 32 25.8
BH
24.7
24.8
22.4
24.7
24.8
22.4
MM IFV BH
0 3 29.1
0 9 25.8
0 15 25.8
0 21 29.1
0 27 25.8
0 33 25.8
BH
21.8
26.4
20.1
21.8
26.4
20.1
MAX IFV BH
0 4 24.4
0 10 25.8
0 16 29.1
0 22 24.4
0 28 25.8
0 34 29.1
BW
28.9
27.3
25.9
28.9
27.3
25.9
WAK IPV BH
0 5 24.4
0 11 25.8
0 17 29.1
0 23 24.4
0 29 25.8
0 35 29.1
BW MAX IFV BH
27.0. 0 6 24.4
27.3. 0 12 25.8
25.9, 0 18 29.1
27.0. 0 24 24.4
27.3, 0 30 25. 8
25.9, 0 3C 29.1
BW WAX
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASBA.W.ODT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 «•• ••• NTI Fugitive lource Badeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
*•• One Point •ouree; 936 receptor* up to SOXM amy; Man WE. ••• 23:93:23
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: NDEF RURAL ELEV DFAOLT DRTOPL KnOFL'*" "
• SOURCE-RECEPTOR CONBimTICMS LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3'ILB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCOLATIONS KAY HOT BE PERFORMED.
SOORCE RECEPTOR LOCATION DISTANCE
ID ZR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAK 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAK 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAK 50.0 86.6 45.10
STEAK 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAK 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAK -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAK -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAK .0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-100 Do not cite or quote
-------
AS8A_N.OOT
iseoMDEp VERSION 9422? •••
• MODELING OPTIONS USED: WDEP
••• KTI Fugitive •oure* BOdlling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM
••• On* Point «ourc«; 936 r«c«pcor« up to 50KH «ny;
RDRAL ELSV
DPADLT
acton. KETDPL
23:53:25
PACE II
t DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1-YIS; O.BO)
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
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
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 1111111111
1111111111 111111111J. 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
1 1 3.
Ill
111
111
111
111
MOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DMA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND CM WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
UPPER BOUND OP FIRST TMKOUOH FIPTB WIND SPEED CK,
IHETERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.0§, ' S.14, 1.23. 10.SO.
••* HIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
KIND SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E*00
.SSOOOEfOO
.70000E-01
.70000S-01
.10000E»00
.15000S*00
.33000S+00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E»00
.35000B»00
.55000B+00
.70000E-01
.70000B-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E»00
.SSOOOE*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E»00
.15000E»00
.35000B*00
.SSOOOEfOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOttOO
.15000E*00
.35000E*00
.55000E+00
VERTICAL POTEHTIAL TENPERATORE QRADISHTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
-OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.310001-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE-4-00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE»00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
SPEED CATEGORY
3
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.000008+00
.20000B-01
.33000B-01
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.20000S-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.OOOOOB+00
.20000E-01
.35000B-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-101
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOXDEP VERSION 94227
* MODELING OPTIONS USKD:
ASKA_M.OCT
HTI Fugitive lource BOdcling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG
On* Point «oure«; 936 r«c«ptor« up to SOKM any; Mus Nt.
HDEP RURAL ELEV
DFADLT
DRYDFL WETDFL
23:53:23
PAGE 19
THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA •••
FILE: dcpbin.Mt
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
HAKE: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: <4I2.2P9.4.P6.1.I2.2F7.1.f9.4,flO.l.f8.4,£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
IS
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 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
118.0 .38
124.0 .68
124.0 .68
113.0 .23
97.0 .68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
TEMP ST
. (K) 0.
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
ASS RURAL
601.
617.
633.
649.
665.
681.
697.
713.
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-O LENGTH
IK)
176.8
283.7
175.6
175.4
128.1
2S1.8
22S.3
224.6
172.9
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.4
172.4
81.7
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) (M)
.3000 1.5 13
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 0
.3000 1.5 26
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
PRATE
.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, S-I AND 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH HOD IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-102
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
AHSA_D.OOT
••• ZSCONDEP VERSION $4227 ••• *•• HTI Fugitive aouree modeling - ASH HANDLIWJ/STEAM BLDC ••• 01/26/95
••• On* Point lource; 936 receptor* up to SORM may: Maa* Nt. ••• 00:18:55
PAGE 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS DStD: BDEF RURAL BLEV DPAULT DRYDPL HETCPL
••• MODEL SCTBF OPTIOHS SUMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Froeeaaing i* Selected
••Model I* Setup For Calculation of Dry Deposition Value*.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model Uae* DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE - T
••Model U*e* NET DEPLETION. WDPLETE > T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LWGAS.LMPART -FT
••Model U*e* GRIDDED TERRAIN Data {or Depletion Calculation*
••Model U*e* RURAL Di*per*ion.
••Model U*e* Regulatory DEFAULT Option!:
1. Final Flue* Rise.
2. Stack-tip DOHiwach.
3. Buoyancy-induced Di*p*r»ion.
4. Use Calm* Preceding Routine.
5. Not Uae Mixing Data Proeeuing Routine.
6. Default Mind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default Vertical Potential Tetveratura Gradient!.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Superaguat Building*.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Auuae* No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting To-operature Profile Data.
Number of Level* .- 3
In AOL) 30.0000
(B ACL) 4S.7000
(m AOL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Hind Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 5
m AGL) 30.0000
m AOL] 4S.7000
m AGL) 80.8000
m AGL) 111.300
m AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 Snort Ten Averaged) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
•Thi» Run Include*: 1 Source!*); 1 Source Group!*); and 936 Receptor!*)
••The Model Axuae* A Pollutant Type of: FUU1T1VE
••Model set To Continue Running After the Setup Teating.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Higheet Short Term Value* by Receptor (RICTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall Miriam short Tare) Value* (MAZTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* External File(*l of High Value* for Plotting IPUnriLE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flag* May Appear Following DSPO value*: c for Cala Hour*
• for Mining Hour*
b for Both Cain and Kiuing Hour*
••Mi*c. Input*: Anem. Hot. !•) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef. > 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
EBiaaion unit* - GRAMS/SEC ; Eniilion Rate Unit Factor « 3600.0
Output Unit* - GRAKS/M**2
••Input Runatreaa File: ateaa*x_d.ind ,- ••Output Print Pile: •CMMa_d.out
••Detailed Error/Mesaage Pile: STEAMA_D.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-103 Do not cite or quote
-------
AHSA_D.OOT
••• ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitive *ource modeling - ASK HAMDLIHS/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/26/95
"• One Point *ource; 936 receptor* up to SOKM away; MM* Mt. ••• 00:18:55
PAGE 2
••• MODELXHG OPTIONS USED: DDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT DRYDPL MRDPL
••• P01HT SODRCI 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/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 O.lOOOOEtOl 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 0.10 0.10 . YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-104 Do not cite or quote
-------
AHSA_P.OUT
XSCOMMF VnSION 94257 ••• ••• WTI Fugitiv* •oure* •od.ling - ASH KMOLOB/STIMI BLD6 ••• 01/26/95
*•• On* Taint moazct; 936 iKwptoim vp to 5OHM mtay; Ha» Mt. ••• 00:18:55
PAGE 3
ornoHS asm: EBB? RURAL ILIV DFAOLT M»PL NBTOPL
sacntcB zoa DsrakiMB SOURCE GROUPS ••*
ALL
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-105 Do not cite or quote
-------
AHSA_D.OOT
• • ISCOMDBP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Pugitiv* «ourc« BOdcling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/26/95
**• On* Point «ourc«; 936 r*c«ptor« up to SOKM «ny; Na» Wt. ••• 00:18:55
PAGE 4
•• MODELING OPTIONS USED: BOEP RDRAL ELEV DPAOLT DRYDPL NETDPL
••* SOmCS PAKnCDLATE/OAS DATA •••
••• SOURCE ID « STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POUR •••
MASS PKACTION "
0.04260, 0.01510. 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.SSOOO, 0.40000, 0.27000, 0.18000, 0.12000, 0.06200, 0.03000.
PARTICLE DENSITY
-------
ISCCHBBP VBXSION 94227
MI Fugitive mure* Modeling - MR HMOLIHG/STIMI BLOC
ODB Point •oure*; 936 r«e«ptor« up to SOm way; HBM Ht.
MODELJMC OVTIOKS USK>: DOW KDRAL BLBV
DRVDPL MRTDn*
01/26/15
00:18:55
PACE S
DZUCTXOH SfBCIVXC illlUVmS DDOMSICKS
SOURCE ID: STIMI
IFV EH BH
1 29.1, 25.9
7 6.7, 16.4
13 25. «, ' 24. «
19 29.1, 25.9
25 14.9, 65.3
31 25.8, 24. B
WUC IFV BH
0 2 29.1
0 8 25.8
0 14 25.8
0 20 29.1
0 26 25.8
0 32 25.8
BH
24.7
24.8
22.4
24.7
24.8
22.4
MM ITV BH
0 3 29.1
0 9 25.8
0 15 25.8
0 21 29.1
0 27 25.8
0 ' 33 25.8
BH
21.8
2C.4
20.1
21.8
26.4
20. 1
HJUt ITV BH
0 4 24.4
0 10 25.8
0 16 29.1
0 22 24.4
0 28 25.8
0 34 29.1
BH
28.9
27.3
2S.9
28.9
27.3
25.9
NMC IFV BH
0 5 24.4
0 11 25.8
0 17 29.1
0 23 24.4
0 29 25.8
0 35 29.1
BH NMC IFV BH BH
27.0, 0 6 24.4, 24.6
27.3, 0 12 25.8, 26.4
25. 9, 0 18 29.1, 25.9
27.0, 0 24 24.4, 24.6
27.3, 0 30 25.8. 26.4
2S.9, 0 36 29.1, 25.9
NM
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-107
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
AHSA_D.OOT
ISCOHDEP VDISION 94227 •*• ••• WTX Pugitiv* *oure< BOdcling - ASH KANDLINS/STEAM 1LDC ••• 01/26/95
••• OM taint, •sure*; 936 r»c«pcor« up to 50KM wny; Hu> Nt. ••• 00:18:55
PAGE 17
MODEUM! OPTIOHS USTD: OOtF RDKAL ELEV DTADLT DHYOPL MRDPL
• SODKCE-KZCKPTOR COMBDttTiaJS LESS IBM 1.0 HfTOt OT 3*ZLB *
IK DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS KAY WOT IE PERFORMED.
SOURCE
ID
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
STEAM
- - RECEPTOR
XR (KERRS)
17.4
34.2
50.0
64.3
86.6
94.0
-34.2
-17.4
0.0
LOCATION - -
YR (METERS)
»«.5
94.0
86.6
76.6
50.0
34.2
94.0
98. 5
100.0
DISTANCE
(METERS)
49.93
46.16
45.80
48.93
62.72
71.62
73.48
64.44
56.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-108 Do not cite or quote
-------
AHSA_D.OUT
VERSION 94227 •••
OPTIONS USED: DDEP
•*• NTI Pueitiv*
••• On* Point
RURAL ELEV
»ourc« vxteling - ASH KAKDLBC/ST1AM BLDC
936 r*c«ptor> up to 50KM my; MM* Ht.
BPAOLT
OMXPPL ME'IDPL
01/26/95
00:18:55
PAGI IS
METEOROLOGICAL CAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1»YES; 0-HO)
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
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
.1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111 1111111111
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
. DMA ACTUALLY PROCESSED MIU. ALSO DBPBID CM MAT IS BKLODID IN IBB DM* FUJI.
BOUND OP PmST TSROOBB PTPTH KIND SPBD
UHTOS/SK)
1.S4, 3.09. 5.14, 1.23. 10.80,
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
B
P
.700001-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.3SOOOE+00
.5SOOO*»00
HIM
2
.70000S-01
.700001-01
.10000B»00
.150001+00
.350001*00
.550008*00
D SPEED CATEGORY
3
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
4
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATDKI GRADIENTS
(DECREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350008-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.300001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-109
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
VERSION 94227 **•
OPTIONS USED: DDKP
AHSA_D.OOT
'•• HTI Fugitive »ourc« KXte lino - ASH mNDLIMG/STEAM BLDS
••• On« Point *oure«; 936 nccpter* up to 5OHM any; M*M Ht.
RURAL KLKV DPAULT
01/26/95
00:18:5!
PACE 19
• •• TOE FIRST 24 HOURS OF MBTB
FILE
SURFACE
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
pbin.net
STATION NO. :
NAME: 1
YEAR:
MONTH DAY HOUR
1
3
3
]
3
J
]
1
3
]
3
3
1
]
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
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
ITI
1993
FLOW SPEED
VECTOR 'IK/SI
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
134.0 .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
DROLOGXCAL DATA "-
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9.4
F6.1.I2.2F7
1. £9. 4, £10.1
,£8. 4, £5
.I.i4.f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
M
WE: HTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MJJUMU
(K> CLASS RURAL
275. 601.
274.
274.
273.
273.
273.
272.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
269.
617.
633.
649.
665.
681.
697.
713.
729.
745.
761.
777.
HEIGHT (Ml
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
•65.4
681.4
C97.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
I 777.1
793.0 793.0
809.0 809.0
809.
9 809.0
809.0 809.0
809.
9 809.0
809.0 809.
809.
9 809.
809.0 809.
809.
9 809.
809.0 809.
809.0 809.0
809.0 809.0
USTAR M-O
(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
LENGTH
(«)
176.8
283.7
175.
175.
128.
281.
225.
224.
172.
-999.
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) IM)
0,3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
0.3000 1.5
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
Ina/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, S«E AND 6-F.
FLOW VICTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD MUCH MIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-110
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_2.0OT
••• ISCOHDIP VERSION S42J7 — ••• HTI Fugitive aource modeling - ASK HANDLIH3/STEAM BLOG •••
••• On* Point aource; 936 receptor* up to SOKM ««y; Ma*« Ht. ••• 10:57:13
PAGE 1
••• MODELOB OPTIONS USE): DEPOS RURAL ELEV DPABLT DRYDFL NETDPL
••• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SOMKARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Proceaaing i* Selected
••Model I* Setup Per Calculation of Total Deposition Value*.
— SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC —
••Model U*e* DRY DEPLETION. DEPLETE . T
••Model U*e* MET DEPLETIOH. MDPLETt > T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LMGAS.LNFART -FT
••Model O*e< GRIDDXD TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Dec* RURAL Di*per*ion.
••Model U»e* Regulatory DEFAULT Option*:
1. Final Plume Riae.
2. Stack-tip Dowiwaah.
3. Buoyancy-induced Diaperaion.
4. U»e Calam- Froeeaaing Routine.
5. Mot Dae Miaaing Data Proceaaiag Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default Vertical Potential Teoperatur* Gradient*.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Superaquat Building*.
9. Mo Exponent!*! Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Aaauaie* No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 3
<• AGL) 30.0
(• AGL) 45.7
(• AGL) 152.3MS
-•Model Accepting Hind Profile Data.
Nuaber of Level* : 5
(• ACL) 30.0
(•AGL) 45.7
(• ACL) SO.I
(• AGL) 111.3
(» AGL) 152.399$
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Term Averaged) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
••Thi* Run Include*: 1 Source(•); 1 Source Group(•); and »3« Reeepter(a)
••The Model Aaauaa* A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Teating.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Highest Short Tern Value* by Receptor (RECTARLE Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall «*--'—— Short Term Value* (MAXTABU Keyword I
Model Output* External File!*) of High Value* for Plotting (FLOTFtLE Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Flaga May Appear Following DKPO Value*: c for Cain Hour*
• for Milling Hour*
b for Both Calm and Mi«*ing Hour*
••Mi*c. Input*: Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - .00001*00 ; Rot. Angle - .0
EBiuion Unit* • GRAMS/SBC • ; Bmiaaion Rate Unit Factor - 3600.0
Output Unit* • GRAMS/IC'2
••Input Runatiream File: •tea>a_dv.ind ; ••Output Print File: • t«ama_dw.out
••Detailed Error/Meaaage Pile: —-- •=»'
STEAMA_DH.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 JV-3-111 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASBA_2.OOT
ISCOMDBP VERSION 94227 ••• **• MTI Fugitive Soure* Modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDC •••
••• OM Point cource; $36 receptor* up to 5OHM nmy; Mu« Wt. ••• 10:57:13
PMC 2
* Mr?fWTrTlaB OPTIONS USED: 08POS jumJk£i IZAV DPAOLT EKTDPL 1
••• POINT somes own •••
NDMBBt EKISSXCN KATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BOILDXNS KKISSIOK RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TWP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (OEG.K) IM/SEC) (MBTKRS) BY
STEAM 10 ' .10000S+01 ' 23.9 49.0 212.1 C.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-112 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASOV.2.00T
•• ISCCKDIP V0SION 94227 ••• ••• wn Fugitive •oure* Bodalinv - ASH HAMDLINO/SRMC BUB •••
••• On* Paint «oure«; 936 receptor* up to 50XM stray; MM* HI. ••• 10:57:13
PACT 3
••* MODILXKi OFTIOHS OSB>: DCKS KDWO. ZLXV DTAOLT OOOfL
••• SODKCB ZO> DBPIMUIB SOUKCB OKOOPS
GROOP ID SOORCZ ID*
ALL
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-113 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_2.OOT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• NTT Pugitiv* •ourc* Bedding - ASH HANDLING/ STEAK BLOC • ••
••• On* Point »ourc«; 936 receptors up to 50m «w»y; Mu« Mt. ••• 10:57:13
• MODELXHB OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL (LEV DPAOLT VKIDH. '^' *
*•• SOURCE rARTICDLATE/OAS DAT* •••
••• SOORCE ID • STEAM ; SODRCE TYPE • POINT •••
MASS FRACTION -
.04260, .08510. .17020. .19150. .19150, .11910, .10000, .05000, .04000. .01000,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (O/CM"3> •
1.00000. 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000, 1.00000. 1.00000. 1.00000,
SCAV COBF tLXQ] l/IS-Mf/HK)*
.211-03, .14E-03, .SOE-04, .501-04, .601-04, .90E-04, .13E-03, .151-03, .208-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/IS-MM/HR)-
.70E-04. .47E-04, .17E-04, .17E-04, .20E-04, .30E-04, .431-04, .50E-04, .67B-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-114 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCCHBBP TORSION »4227
ASB*_2.0DT
HIT Fugitiv* sourc* moO»liat - ASH HMDLXNG/STMII BLOC
era taint mouic*; 93 f receptors up to SOXM amy; Mui wt.
HODILJIIO OmOMS tJRD: D0OS KOTAL BLtV
NA'IVPL
10:57:13
PJUS1 5
DIUCTXON SFKZFZC
SOORC8 ID: STMM
IFV BH BM HMt ITV BR
1 29.1. 2S.9. 0 2 29.1
7 6.7. . 16.4, 0 « 25.8
13 25.8. 24.8. 0 14 25.8
19 29.1. 25.9. 0 20 29.1
25 14.9, 65.3, 0 26 25.8
31 25.8, 24.8, 0 32 25.8
BM
24.7
24.8
22.4
24.7
24.8
22.4
NMC IFV BH
0 3 29.1
0 9 25.8
0 IS 25.8
0 21 29.1
0 27 25.8
0 • 33 25.8
BH
21.8
26.4
20.1
21.8
26.4
20. 1
MMt tFV BR
0 4 24.4
0 10 25.8
0 16 29.1
0 22 24.4
0 28 25.8
0 34 29.1
BH HAK IFV BH
28.9, 0 5 24.4
27.3. 0 11 25.8
25.9. 0 17 29.1
28.9, 0 23 24.4
27.3, 0 29 25.8
25.9. 0 35 29.1
BH HAK IFV BH
27.0, 0 6 24.4
27.3, 0 12 25.8
25.9, 0 18 29.1
27.0. 0 24 24.4
27.3. 0 30 25.8
25.9, 0 36 29.1
BH
24.6
26.4
25.9
24.6
26.4
25.9
HUC
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-115
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_2.OOT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 — ••• WTI Fugitive source Modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
••* Cm Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKM evey; Mess Mt. ••• 10:57:13
PACE 17
* MODEUMG OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL ELEV DFAULT ORYDPL HETDPL
• SOCRCE-RECEPTOR COMBIKATIOMS LESS THAU 1.0 METER OK 1*ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.
SOURCE RECEPTOR LOCATION DISTANCE
1C XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM -34.2 94.0 46.16
50.0 86.6 45. SO
C4.3 76.6 41.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
94.0 34.2 71.62
-34.2 .94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 S6.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-116 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHA_2.0OT
ISCOHBIP V0SIQN 91257
Mil Pugitiv* sourc* BixWlino - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BUG
On* Point lourc*; 936 r»c«ptor« up to SOW nny; Mwi wt.
OFTIOKS USD: DEPOS RDRAL EL«V
DRYDPL WETOPL
10:57:13
fACI U
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS
(1-WS; 0«HO)
POR PROCESSOR?
1111111111 1111111, 111 1111111111 1111 l 11111 1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
llllllllll
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
llllllllll
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
NOR: MRCCnOLOGICkL MIA ACTUALLY PKOCBSSCO MILL ALSO MFBB ON MAT IS XMCbBDCD IK «K DATA FXLB.
urn* team or ratsr IBKOOOB rirra MOD SPUD CATHORXES
1.54, 3.01, S.14, $.23, 10. iO,
••* HIHB pttoriLB IXKMPJT& •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTBRTAS, TPOEKATOm CTADOKTS
(DEGREES KELVm PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
HDD SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.00000«*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-i n
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASRA.2.0C7T
ISCOMDIP VERSION 94227 •••
* MODELING OWIONS
HTI Fugitive source Bodeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC
On* Point maaicm: 936 receptor* up to 50KM nray; MUM Ht.
10:57:13
PACE 19
THB FIRST 24 BOORS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
FILE: depbin.Mt
SURFACE STATION NO.: 94*23
NAME: MTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9.4,FC.l.I2.2F7.1.f9.4.fl0.1.f8.4,fS.l,14.f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION HO. : 94*23
HAKE: NTT
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
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
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
2.48
2.23
2.68
3.13
3.13
2.68
TEMP ST
IK) 0.
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
•B MTKIHTt B
kSS RURAL
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
6*1.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
•09.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
•09.0
•09.0
109.0
EIGHT (M)
URBAN
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
611.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
109.0
•09.
809.
809.
809.
109.
•09.
•09.0
109.0
809.0
USTAR
(M/S)
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2874
.4266
.3820
.3*19
.3355
.3534
.3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3817
.3354
.2310
.1178
.1178
.09(2
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
M-O LEND
IM)
176.
2*3.
175.
175.
128.
281.
225.
224.
172.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
IH Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) (M)
• .3000 1.5 13
7 .3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
9 .3000 1.5 28
9 .3000 1.5 28
9 .3000 l.S 28
9 .3000 1.5 28
) .3000 1.5 28
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1. 0
.3000 1. 28
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
PRATE
IBB/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
•*• MOTES:
STABILITY CLASS 1»A. 2>B. 3-C. 4-D, 5-1 AMD 6»F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOMIMS.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-118
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASBB_C.OOT
••* XSCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• MTX Fugitive »OUTC« modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
••• On* Point aouree; 936 receptor* up to SOW away; Surface Me. ••• 02:23.-06
PACE 1
••• tmvn.Turs OPTIONS USED: COMC RURAL SUV DFAULT . DftYDPL NETDFL
••• MODEL STTOP omoMS SUMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Proceaaing is Selected
••Modal I> Satup For Calculation of Average concentration Valuaa.
— SCAVBCOIB/DEPOSmaH LOGIC —
••Modal Uaea DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE • T
••Modal Uaaa NET DEPLETION. HDPLETE » t
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LMBAS.LMPMIT « P T
••Modal Uaaa GRXDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Modal Uaaa RURAL Diaperaion.
••Modal Uaaa Regulatory DEFAULT Optiona:
1 Final Pluee Riaa.
Stack-tip Dovnvaah.
Buoyancy*induced Diaparaion.
Uae Calve Proceeaing Routine.
Hot Oae Miaaing Data Proceaaiag Routine.
Default Hind Profile Exponent!.
Default Vertical Potential Teapereture Gradient*.
•Upper Bound* Valuea for Superaguat Buildinga.
No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptora en ELEV Terrain.
••Model Aaeunea No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Nuafeer of Level* : 3
(•ACL) 30.0
(• ACL) 45.7
(• AGL) 152.3>»9
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Deta.
Nuaber of Level* : S
i AGL) 30.0
• AOL) 45.7
I AOL) 80.*
> AOL) 111.3
• AOL) 152.3999
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Term Average la) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
••This Run Include*: 1 Souree(a); 1 Source Group!*); and »3« Receptor)*)
••The Model Aaeunaa A Pollutant Type of: POSITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Teating.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Higbeat Short Ten Valuea by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyvord)
Model Output* Table* of Overall "—•—— Short Term Valuea S/M**3
••Input KunatreeB File: ateeec>_c.ine ; ••Output Print Pile: ateaafc e.out
••Detailed Error/Meaaage File:
~B_C.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-119 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASKB_C.ODT
ISCOMDSF VERSION 9«227 ••• ••• WR rugitiv* •oure* »od«linc - ASH HANDUMG/STEAM BLDO •••
••• one Point lourc*; 936 r«c«ptor« up Co SOKM away; Surface Wt. •*• 02:23:06
not i
• waotLaa omoBS ono: ccnc innuu. ELTV DTMZLT EKYDTL MRDK.
• •«• PO1XT SOURO5 DMA •••
HODBl HUSSION KATE BASI STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDIMG BHSSION RATE
SODXCE PART. I GRAMS/SIC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCAUUt VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DK.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) *Y
STEAM 10 .lOOOOEtOl 23.9 49.0 212.1 6.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-120 Do not cite or quote
-------
*SH»_C.OOT
XSCCWnr vmsiCN 94227 ••• ••* NTI Fugitive «ourc« aodcling - ASH HMJDLJJ1G/STIAM BLOC ••*
•*• On* Point »ourc«; 936 r»c«ptor« up to 50XM nay; Surt«c» Ht. ••• 02:23:06
VACS 3
• HOPILTBB OPTIOHS OSD: CCMC IHULL (LBV DFAUlff EKYDTL MITDPL
•*• SOURCE n* Dirnroc SOOKCB CRODPS
GROOP ID SODRCZ HW
ALL STUM
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-121 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.C.OUT
ISCOMDSP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• KIT Pugitivi •OUTCB BOdtliae - ASH HANDLlm/SnAM BLDG •••
••• On* Point •aura; 936 ne«peo» up to SOXM n«y; Surface Nt. ••* 02:23:06
PAGE 4
* MODELINQ OPTIONS USED: COMC kURAL ELBV DPAOLT Uitbtii MElVPi.
••• SOU*C» PARTICDLATE/CAS DATA •••
••• SOOXCe ID • STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT **•
MASS PRACTIOH >
.00414, .01301, .052*8. .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 {LXQJ 1/(S-MM/HR)«
.21E-03, .14E-03, .501-04, .50E-04, .60E-04, .»OI-04, .13E-03, .151-03, .20E-03, .22E-03.
SCAV COEP [ICE] 1/(S-MM/RR)-
.70E-04, .47E-04, -17E-04, .17E-04, .20E-04. .30E-04, .431-04, .501-04, .67E-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-122 Do not cite or quote
-------
VSXS1OH 94227 •••
OPl'ltMS USBD: CONC
ASH»_C.
-------
ASRB.C.ODT
XSCOMDEP VERSION 94227 *•• ••• HTI Pugitiv* »ourc« BOdelino - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG •••
*** Cm* Point lourca; 936 r«c«ptor« up Co SOXM «w»y; Surface Ht. ••• 02:23:06
PAGE 17
• MODELING OPTIOHS DSD): CONC KOMU, SLCV DFADLT DKYDPL NETDPL
• SOORCE-nCEPTOIt CCHBWMTONS LESS TRW 1.0 MET** OR 3'ZLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCOLATICHS MAY NOT BE PEKPOKKED.
SOOKCE RBCEPTOK LOCATION DISTANCE
ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAK SO.O 86.6 45.10
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 SO.O 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 »4.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 98.5 64.44
STEAM .0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 F/-3-124 . Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.C.OOT
•• ISCOHDBP VERSION 9*227
••• NTI Fugitive source nod* lino - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BUG
••• on* Point •euro; 936 receptor* 19 to 50KM emy; Surface wt.
OPTIOKS USB): CCHC RURAL ELEV
DRYDPL METUPL
02:23:06
no* is
' METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED rat PROCESSING
(l-YES; 01*3 ]
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
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1
1
1
1
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1111
1111
1111
1111
1 1 1.1
1111
1111
1111
NOTE:
r DMA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND CM WHAT IS TBCLHnPl IK THE DATA FILE.
UPPER BOUND OF FIRST 1URUUUH PIPIU MOID SPEU)
(METERS/SEC)
1.S4. 3.09, S.14, 1.23. 10.10,
WHID PROFILE EXPONENTS
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
I
P
.TOOOOE-01
.70000B-01
.100001*00
.1SOOO*»00
.35000B+00
.S5000E+00
HIND SPEED C&TEGOK1
2 3
.700001-01 .70000B-01
.70000K-01 .70000E-01
.100001*00 .10000E*00
.150001*00 .150001*00
.350001*00 .350001*00
.550001*00 .550001*00
r
4
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.130001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
' VERTICAL POTKCTIAL TEMPERATORE GRADIBRS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
HOID SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-125
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227
• MODELHB OPTIONS USED:
ASKB.C.OOT
WTI Fugitive lource Modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM I
One Point source; 936 receptor! up to SOXX my; Surface wt.
CONC RURAL ELEV
DPAULT
DKXDPL WETDPL
02:23:06
PACE 19
FILE:
SURFAI
YEAR 1
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
dl
3
•ON
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
pbin.ea
STATION
1
1
TH 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
:
HO.:
«AME:
flAR:
HOUR
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
94123
MTI
1993
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
101.0 .47
114.0 .36
107.0 .92
120.0 .92
119.0 .47
111.0 3.51
124.0 2.61
124.0 2.61
113.0 2.23
97.0 2.61
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.61
FORMAT
UPPER
TEMP 511
(K) 0.
275.4
274.1
274.0
273.9
273.1
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
: (4I2.2F9.4.F6
MR STATION NO.
NAME
YEAR
M tmasK HE
kSS RURAL
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
66S. 4
(11.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745. 2
761.1
777.1
793.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
•09.0
•09.0
109.0
.1.I2.2F7
: 94123
: WTI
: 1993
IGHT (M)
OMAN
601.6
617.6
633. S
649.5
665.4
611.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
•09.0
•09.0
•09.0
•09.0
•09.0
.I.f9.4,fl0
USTAR M
(M/S)
.3366
.4269
.3363
.3363
.2(74
.4266
.3(20
.3119
.3355
.3534
.3534
.3926
.4712
.4319
.3117
.3354
.2310
.1178
.117*
.09(2
.1171
.1374
.1374
.1171
.I.fl.4.f5
-O LENGTH
(M)
176.1
2S3.7
175.6
175.4
121.1
2(1. •
22S. 3
224.6
172.9
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.4
172.4
81.7
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
.I.i4.f7.2)
Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) (M)
.3000 1.5 13
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 21
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 21
PRATE
lem/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. 24, 3»C. 4-B. 5-B AMD 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-126
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASBB.W.OOT
••* ZSCOMBIP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HR Fugitive (OUTCC noddling - ASH HMDLXHS/STEAM BLOC •••
•*• One Joint *ource; 936 receptor* up to 50m avay; Surface IK. •*• 20:43:21
PAG1 1
••• MonEMiio OPTIONS USED: MDEP RURAL ELEV DFADLT . noon, NBTDPL
• •• MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SOaetAKY ••*
••Intermediate Terrain proceeding i* Selected
••Model I* Setup Par Calculation of Met DlPo»ition Value*.
— SCAVENBIMB/DEPOSrrlON LOGIC —
••Model Uae* DRY DEPLETION. ODPLETE • T
••Model U*e* MET DEPLETION. MDPLETE - T
••SCAVENGING Data Provided. LMGAS.IMPART - FT
••Model U*e* GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model U*e* mmAL Disperiion.
••Model IUM Regulatory DEPADLT Option*:
1. Final Plue» Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dovm*h.
3. Hjoyancy-intluced pi*per*ion.
4. UM CalJM ProccMing Routine.
S. Hot Uae Hiuing Data Procening Routine.
6. Default Hind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default Vertical Potential Teg»erature Gradient*.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Superaguat Building*.
9. No Exponential Decay for RUlutL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
"Model Aaauae* No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Teeperature Profile Data.
Niofeer of Levvl* : 3
!• ACM 30.0
(B AGL) 4S.7
tm AGL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting Hind Profile Data.
Nunber of Level* : 5
(a AGL) 30.0
tm AGL) 45.7
(m AGL) 80.8
(B ACL) 111.3
(B AOL) 152.3999
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Ten Average I*) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
•*Thi* Run Include*: 1 Source(•); 1 Source Group(»); and 936 Receptor!*)
••The Model Aaaune* A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Teiting.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Higheat Short Term Value* by Receptor IRICTMLE Keyvord)
Model Output* Table* of Overall Mariana Short Term Value* (MAZTABLZ Keyword)
Model Output* External File!*) of High Value* for Plotting IPLOTPILE Keyword)
••NOTE: Toe Following Flag* May Appear Following DEPO value*:. c for Calm Hour*
B for Miuing Hour*
b for Both Calm and Mixing Hour*
••Mi«c. Input*: Anaa. Hot. (•) « 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - .00001*00 ; Rot. Angle * .0
EBiuion Unit* • GRAMS/SEC , EBiMion Rate Unit Factor . 3600.0
Output Unit* » CRAMS/M-'2
••Input Rututreaa Pile: •teaBb.w.ind , ••output Print Pile: eeeamb w.out
••Detailed Error/Meaaage Pile: .
STEAMB_H.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-127 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASH»_K.OUT
ISCCNDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WIT Fugitiv* •ourc* modeling - ASM HANDLING/STEAM BLDG '"
*•• Co* Paint loure*; 936 r«c«ptor« up to SOXM ««y; Surface Ht. •*• 20:43:21
PAOI 2
tLKV DPAOLT DKYDPL WITDPL
••• POINT SODKCI DATA "•
NUMBER BCESSICN KATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EKtSSION RATE
SOURCE . PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X ¥ BJSV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DBS.K)
-------
ASHB.W.OCT
XSCOMDSP VBtSIOH 94227 ••« ••• im rugitiv* »ourc» mottling - ASH RMffiLmS/STBUI BLOC •••
*•• On* Point soura; 936 r«e«ptors up to 50XM any; Surface Mt. ••• 20:43:21
PAGE 3
omons QSD: HBCP ROIIAL CLBV DPAOLT ORYDPL. i
* *** SOOPX9 Zte UEPAMIMG SOURCE GROUPS
OXJOOT ID SOURCE ID*
ALL STEAM
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-129 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB_H.OOT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fuflitiv. .cure, modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC •••
••• On* Point loura; 936 r«c«ptor« up to 50XM nny; Surface Ht. ••• 20:43:21
PAGE 4
OPTIONS USED: MDBP mnuu. iuv DFAULT DRYDPL MRDPL
••• SOURCE PARTICOLATE/aAS DMA *••
••• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SODKCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS PIUCTION -
.00414, .01301, .05288. .10060, .13832. .12745, .16051, .12038, .18(40. .0*631,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000. .55000. .40000. .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200,• .03000,
PARTICLE DENSITY (G/OC**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-m/HR).
.21E-03, .14E-03, .50E-04, .SOB-04. .60E-04, .90E-04. .13E-03. .151-03, .201-03. .22E-03.
SCAV COEF [ICE] 1/(S-KM/RR)»
.70E-04. .47E-04. .17E-04. .17E-04, .20B-04, .30E-04. .431-04, .501-04, .671-04, .731-04,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-130 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOMDKP VBtSION 94227 •••
*• MR Fugitive •oure* nod*ling - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLDG
••• on* Point toure*; 936 r«c«pcor» up to 50KM my; Surface Ht.
KOMI. CUV DPADLT
••• DxncrxoH SPECIFIC BOXUXMC DIMENSIONS •••
20:43:21
PAGI 5
DRYDPL ME'IVPL
SOURCE ID: STEAM
IFV BH BH
29.1. 25.9
6.7. 16.4
25.8, 24.8
29.1, 25.9
14.9, 65.3
25.8, 24.8
1
7
13
19
25
31
HAK IFV BH
0 2 29.1
0 8 25.8
0 14 25.8
0 20 29.1
0 26 25.8
0 32 25.8
BH
24.7
24.8
22.4
24.7
24.8
22.4
HAX IFV BR
0 3 29.1
0 9 25. 8
0 IS 25.8
0 21 29.1
. 0 27 25.8
0 33 25.8
BH HAK IFV BH
21.8, 0 4 24.4
26.4, 0 10 25.8
20.1, 0 16 29.1
21.8, 0 22 24.4
26.4, 0 28 25.8
20.1. 0 34 29.1
BH
28.9
27.3
2S.9
28.9
27.3
25.9
HAK IFV BR
0 5 24.
0 11 25.
0 17 29.
0 23 24.
0 29 25.
< 0 35 29.
BH HAK IFV BR
27.0. 0 6 24.4
27.3. 0 12 25.8
25.9. 0 18 29.1
27.0. 0 24 24.4
27.3. 0 30 25.8
25.9, 0 36 29.1
BH
24.
26.
25.
24.
26.
25.
HAX
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-131
External Review Draft
Do not-cite or quote
-------
ASHB.W.OOT
••• ISCCHDEF VERSION 94237 ••* ••• WIT Fugitive source Modeling - ASK HANDLING/STEAM BUG •>•
*•• Cn* Point source; 936 receptor* up to SOKM any; Surfeee wt. ••• 20:43:21
not 17
RURAL SLEV OTAOLT DRXDPL WTTDM,
• SOORCE-RECErfUR COMBXMKTXCHS LESS THAU 1.0 HRIR OK J*ZL* •
W DISTMK3. CALCDLATiaMS MAY MOT BE HRFCIRmU.
SODRCI - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
10 XR (METERS! TO (METERS) (METERSI
17.4 »8.5 49.9}
STEAK 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
94.0 34.2 71.62
-34.2 94.0 73.48
-17.4 98.5 64.44
.0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-132 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.M.OOT
VERSION 94227 •••
OPTIONS USB): HDD
•• MR Pugieiv* »ourc» Bodcling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BtDG
••• On* Point aourc«; 936 r«c«pton up to 50XM avay; Surface Ht.
KOML 1UV DFADLT
DRIEDPL
20:43:21
PACT 18
(1-YES,- 0-HO>
i DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED KILL ALSO DEPEND OH WAT IS mCUTOKD IN HOI DATA PHI.
BOUND OP MUST THROOGB PIPTH MIHD SPUD CAT
iMems/sK)
1.S4, 3.09. 5.14. 8.23. 10.SO.
NIMD
WXMD SPEtD CATEGORY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
B
P
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.1SOOOS*00
.3SOOO(+00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.70000E-01
.100001+00
.15000E+00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700008-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.15000«»00
.350001*00
.550001*00
. 700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.70000S-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
*•• VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(IHBP.E1S KELVTN PER HKTER)
STABXLZT3T
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
C
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-133
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB_W.OUT
ISCCMDEP VERSION 94227 •••
WT1 Fugitive nmrc* Bodaling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLCG
On* Point •ourcc; 936 r«c«pcor» up to 50RM nmy; Surface Ht.
DRYDPL ME'IUPL
20:43:21
PAGE 19
THE FIRST 24 BOORS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
PILE: d«pbin.H«t
SDRPACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: WTI
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (4I2.2P9.4.P6.1,I2,2F7.1,f9.4.£10.1.ft.4.£5.1,i4.f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: tfTI
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
6
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
116.0 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.
274.
274.
273.
273.
273.
272.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.1
270.3
270.3
270.3
270.4
269.9
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
665.4
661.4
697.3
713.3
729.2
745.2
761.1
777.1
793.0
809.0
809.0
609.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
809.0
609.0
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
609.0
609.0
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
.1176
.0982
.1178
.1374
.1374
.1178
M-0 LENGTH
(M)
176.8
283.7
175.
175.
128.
281.
225.
224.
172.
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
-999.0
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.4
29.4
Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M)
.3000 l.S 13
.3000 l.S 0
.3000 l.S 0
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 l.S 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 l.S 0
.3000 1.5 28
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 28
PRATE
Im/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
PLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-134
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.D.OUT
••• IsemnKP VBtSION 94227 **• •** HTI Fugitive *ource modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM SLUG ••* 01/25/95
lauwju- »~» M> QM ^iBt .ource; 936 receptor* up to 50XK away; Surface Mt. ••• 18:S5:3«
PAGE 1
••• MODILIIIO omcMS USED: ODEP RURAL ILEV DFAULT ORYDPL WETDPL
••• MOB. SETUP OPTICHS SUMMARY •••
••intermediate Terrain Procuring is Selected
.•Model It Setup Par Calculation of Dry DEPoaition Value*.
— SCAVENSTOB/DBPOSITICH LOGIC —
••Model Dies DRY DEPLETION. DDPLZTE . T
••Model Uae* WET DEPLETION. WOPLETE • T
••SCAVENGING D«t« Provided. LWGAS.LWFART - P T . -
••Model Ueea GKIOOED TEMUON EMU for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Uaea RDIUkL Diaperaion.
••Model Uses Itegulatory DBPAOLT Options:
1. Final Hue* Rise.
2. Stack-tip Dowimeah.
3. luoyancy-induced Diaperaion.
4. we Calaw Proceaaing Routine.
5. Not uae Miaaing Data Proceaaing Routine.
6. Default Mind Profile bponenta.
7. Default Vertical Potential Tecperature Gradient*.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Super*guat Building*.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptora on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Auune* No FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Tannrature Profile Data.
Hunter of Level* : 3
<• AGL) 30.0000
(• AGL) 45.7000
(• AGL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Hind Profile Data.
NuBber of Level* : 5
n AGL) 30.0000
at AGL) 45.7000
m AGL) 80.8000
m AGL) 111.300
m AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculatea 1 Short Term Aver age la) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
•Thia Run Include*: 1 Source!*); 1 Source Group!*); and 93« Receptor!*)
••The Model A»UBM* A Pollutant Type of: POSITIVE
••Model Set To Continue ROHning After the Setup Tea tins
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Bigheat Short Term Value* by Receptor (RBCTABLE Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall Mawieimi Snort Term Value* (MATTABLE Keyvord)
Model Output* External Pile I*) of High Value* for Plotting (PLOTFILE Reyoerd)
••NOTE: The Following Flag* May Appear Following DEPO Value*: e for Cain Hour*
m for Miaaing Hour*
b for Both Calm and MiMiag Hour*
"Miac. Input*: Anem. Hgt. (m) - 30.00 ; Decay Coef. - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle » 0.0
Emiaaion Unit* - GRAMS/SEC " ; Emiaaion Rate Unit Factor • 3600.0
Output Unita - GRAMS/M>*>2
••Input RunatreeB File: *teamb d.ind ; ••Output Print File: *teaejp_d.out
••Detailed Error/MeaMge File:' STIAMB_D.ERR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-135 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.D.OOT
ISCCHDCF VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WI Fugitive mure* VXfeliag - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDC ••• 01/25/95
••• On* Point »ourc«; 936 rccnton up to 5DIM away; Surfac* Ht. ••• 16:55:36
PACE 2
MOTTTiTV? OPTICMS DSID: DOEP RDItkli KLIV DFAULT EMDPL NRDPL
"• POINT SOORCB DM* •••
NUMBER HUSSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BOIU3DK: EKESSION KATE
SOURCE PART (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. OIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) IDEC.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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-136 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASH»_D.OUT
ISCONDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive source Modeling - ASH HAKDLJM3/STKAM BLDG ••• 01/25/95
••• do* Point »ourc«; 936 r*c«ptor« up to 50KM any; Surface Ht. ••• 18:55:36
PACE 3
MODEUMS OPTIONS USED: tOEP KJML ILEV DFAULT EHYDPL HBTDPL
SODXCE ID* DEF1MIM6 SOURCE GROUPS
SOURCE UK
ALL STEAM
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix W-3 IV-3-137 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASBB_D.OOr
ISCONDE* VERSION 94227 ••• ••• tm Fugitiv* coura mod*lino - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLDC ••• 01/25/9S
••• One Point •ourra; 936 r«c«ptor» up to SOKM my; surftc* wt. ••• 18:55:36
OFTIOMS USED: EOEP KORAL EUV DPAOLT EHYDFL HE1DPL
•" SOORCE
••• SOORCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE - POINT •••
MASS nULCTION'-
0.00414. 0.01301. 0.0528B. 0.10060. 0.13832. 0.13745, 0.16051, 0.12038, 0.18640, 0.09631,
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000. 1.89000, 0.93000. 0.5SOOO, 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.
SOW COW (LXO) 1/IS-IM/HR).
0.21E-03.0.14E-03.0.SOB-04.0.SOE-04.0.601-04,0.SOB-04.0.13E-03,0.151-03,0.20E-03,0.221-03,
SCAV COEP [ICE) 1/IS-KM/HR).
0.70E-04,0.47B-04,0.17E-04.0.17E-04.0.20B-04,0.30B-04.0.43B-04,0.SOE-04.0.67E-04.0.73S-04,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-138 Do not cite or quote
-------
VERSION 94227 •••
SOURCE ID: STUM
ASHB_D.OCT
••• HR Fugitive eource modeling - ASH HANDLme/STEAM BUG
••• On* Joint eource; 936 receptor* up to SOXM eny; Surface Nt.
•DUAL BUV DFAULT
••• onuenoB sTtciric Bonoac oamsxaKs •••
01/25/95
18:55:36
FAQI 5
DR.YDPI* METUVL
IPV BH BM MM IFV BH
1 29.1, 25. 9, 0 2 29.1
7 6.7. 16.4, 0 8 25.8
13 25.8, 24.8, 0 14 25.8
19 29.1, 25.9, 0 20 29.1
25 14.9, 65.3. 0 26 25.8
31 25.8, 24.8, 0 32 25.8
BN
24.7
24.8
22.4
24.7
24.8
22.4
HAK IFV BH
0 3 29.1
0 9 25.8
0 15 25.8
0 21 29.1
0 27 25.8
0 '33 25.8
BH MAX IFV BH
21.8, 0 4 24.4
26.4, 0 10 25.8
20.1, 0 16 29.1
21.8, 0 22 24.4
26.4. 0 28 25.8
20.1, 0 34 29.1
BH
28.
27.
25.
28.
87.
25.
HAK IFV BH
0 5 24.4
0 11 25.8
0 17 29.1
0 23 24.4
0 29 25.8
0 35 29.1
BH HAK IFV BH
27.0, 0 6 24.4
27.3, 0 12 25.8
25.9, 0 18 29.1
27.0, 0 24 24.4
27.3, 0 30 25.8
25.9. 0 36 29.1
BH 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-3-139
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.D.OOT
XSCOMEBP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• MTI Fugitive •ourec BOdeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLDG ••• 01/25/95
*•• Om Point (OUTCB; 936 receptors up to SOKM «ny; Surface wt. ••• 18:55:36
PAGE 17
MOOEUMB OPTXOMS USD: BMP KUML BLSV DPJUH.T BRYDPL NKDPL
• SOOUCC-MCBFTOR COHBIXKTICMS LXSS TUMI 1.0 HRIR OR 3*IL» •
ZH OISTJWCB. CALCDIATIOMS MY HOT BE PntPOMIED.
SODRCE RECEPTOR LOCATION DISTANCE
ID XR (KRERS) YR (METERS) (METERS I
17.4 9S.5 49.93
34.2 94.0 4C.16
STEAK SO.O 86.6 45.80
STEAM S4.3 . 76.6 48.93
86.6 SO.O 62.72
94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 91.5 64.44
0.0 100.0 S6.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-140 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.D.OOT
•• ISCOXDEP VERSION 94227
•• ttrflrETrTtffr OPTIONS USED:
HTI Pugitiv« •eure* «od«linO - ASH HAKDUHG/STEAIf BLDG
On* Point iaure«; 936 receptor* up Co 50KM tray; Surface WE.
DDKP KQXAL XLIV
DRYDPL MEIVPL
01/25/95
18:55:36
PACE 18
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
METEOROLOGICAL ours SELECTED POR PROCESSINQ
(l-YES; 0*410)
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
llllllllll
111111
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll
llllllllll llllllllll llllllllll
NOTE: MERORaUJGXCAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED HHJ. ALSO DSPB1D ON HBAT IS OKUIDCD IN TOE DATA FILE.
BOUND OF PntST TBROOOH FIP1H MIHD SPUD CA1TOO1UES
(METRS/SK)
1.54. 3.OS, 3.14, S.23, 10.tO.
•*• KIND PROPXLI npONWtS •••
STABILITY
CATBGORY
A
B
C
D
I
P
NINO SPEED CATEGORY
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E4-00
.15000E+00
.3SOOOE+00
.550001*00
.70000S-01
.700001-01
.lOOOOEfOO
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOBtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E»00
.590001*00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.1SOOOE*00
.35000E+00
.55000E»00
.70000S-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E»00
.35000E+00
.S5000E»00
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.15000E*00
.35000E«00
.5SOOOB+00
VEXTICA1< POTEWTXAL TEMPERATURE
(DECREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATBGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
MZMD SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE»00
.OOOOOB*00
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.OOOOOE»00
,00000«»00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.JOOOOE-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE«00
.OOOOOE*00
.JOOOOE-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.20000E-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.OOOOOEtOO
.200001-01
.350001-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-141
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASB»_C,OUT
ISCOMDET VERSION 94227
wn Fugitiv* aoure* modeling - ASH HANDLINB/STEAM BUG
On* Point •oure*; 936 nevptors up to SOKM away; Surface Mt.
MODELING OPTIONS USED: DDEF RURAL ELEV
DFAULT
DRYDFL ME'IDFL
01/25/95
18:55:36
PAGE 19
THE FIRST 24 HOOKS OP METEOROLOGICAL DMA
FILE: dapbin.Mt
SURFACE STATION MO.: 94823
NAME: WIT
YEAR: 1993
FORMAT: (4I2.2F9.4,F«.1,I2,2F7.1.f9.4,fl0.1.(8.4.fS.l,i4.f7.2)
OFFER AIR STATION MO.: 94823
HAKE: WIT
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
f
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
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 .68
124.0 .68
113.0 .23
97.0 2.68
113.0 3.13
117.0 3.13
152.0 2.68
flMF ST
IK) CLI
275.
274.
274.
273.
273.
273.
272.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
269.
IB MTTPT? n
ISS RURAL
601.
617.
633.
649.
665.
681.
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.
809.
809.
809.
809.
UOHT (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
609.0
809.0
809.0
609.0
USTAR
IM/S)
0.3366
0.4269
0.3363
0.3363
0.2874
0.4266
0.3120
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
0.1176
0.1374
0.1374
0.1178
M-0 LEND1
(M)
176.
283.
175.
175.
128.
281.
225.
224.
172.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
-999.
223.
172.
81.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
IH Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) (M)
! 0.3000 1.5 13
7 0.3000 1.5 0
0.3000 1.5 0
0.3000 1. 28
0.3000 1. 28
0.3000 1. 28
0.3000 1. 28
0.3000 1. 28
0.3000 1. 28
3 0.3000 1.5 28
3 0.3000 1.5 28
3 0.3000 1.5 28
3 0.3000 1.5 28
3 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
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-E AND 6-F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOMARD WHICH MOD IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-142
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
L.2.00T
••• XSCOMDEP VERSION 9422'' ••• ••• MTI Fugitive source Modeling - ASH KAKDLXMS/STIAJf BUG •••
••• On* Point source; 936 receptors up to SOKM my; Surface Mt. ••• 16:37:51
PACE 1
••• MODELING OPTIONS USB): DEPOS RURAL ELEV DFAULT DKYDFL METDPL
••• MODEL soar omoHS SUMMARY •••
"Intermediate Terrain proceeding is Selected
••Model Is Setup For Calculation of Total DEPOSition Value*.
— SCAVBCnC/DEPOSmON LOGIC —
••Model U*es DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE • T
••Model Use* WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE - T
••SCAVBCINS Data Provided. LNGAS.LHPART .-FT
••Model Uaea GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculation*
••Model Uaea RURAL Dispersion.
••Model Oeea Regulatory DEFAULT Option*:
1. Final Plus*) Rile.
2. Stack-tip Dovn*uh.
3. Buoyancy-induced Diapercion.
4. Uae Calav Froeeaaing Routine.
5. Mot Uae aliaaing Data Proeeaaina Routine.
6. Default Mind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default Vertical Potential Teaperature Gradient*.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Superaguat Building*.
9. Mo Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELBV Terrain.
••Model Aaiune* No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Nuaber of Level* : 3
(• AGLI 30.0
(m AOL) 45.7
(•ACL) 152.3999
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 5
(• AGL) 30.0
IB ACL) 45.7
(a AGL) 10.8
(B ACL) 111.3
(B AGL) 152.3999
••Model Calculates '1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Averages
••This Run Include*: 1 Source (•); 1 Source Oroupls) ; end 93C Receptor!*)
•The Model Assuaes A Pollutant Type of: FDOmVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Table* of Highest Short Ten Value* by Receptor (MCTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs Table* of Overall "-»'—— Short Term Value* (MAXTABLE Keyvord)
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFTLS Keyword)
••NOTE: The Following Fleg* May Appear Following OEPO Values: c for Calm Hour*
a for Missing Hour*
b for Both Calm and Miaaing Hour*
"Misc. Input*: Anea. Hot. la) - 30.00 ; Decay Cocf. - . 00001*00 ; Rot Angle « 0
' E"iMion
Print File: st«-,_dw.out
STEAMt_DH.IRR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-143 Do not cite or quote
-------
AS8B_2.0OT
•• ISCOMDEP VBISICN 94227 ••• ••• tm Fugitive loure* Modeling - ASH HAKOLXMS/STEAM BLDG •••
••• On* Point •oure*; 936 r«c«pcor« up Co 50KH «wmy; Surf«c* Ht. ••• 16:37:5i
PAGE 2
••• MOPEr/P" OPTIONS USED: DEPOS RURAL SLEV OPAOLT DRVDPL NRDPL
, ••• POXHT SOOXCE DATA *••
HUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y EUCV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) IMETERSI (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 10 .100001*01 23.9 49.0 212.1 C.71 310.00 .10 .10 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix FV-3 rV-3-144 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB.3.0OT
iscaaar VERSION 1422? wr Puvitiv* mire* Bodaiing - ASH HMIDIJNO/STIAK BLDG •••
••• On* Point wnirc*: 93S r«c«ptor« up te SORM »«y; Surface Kt. ••• 16:37:51
MCB 3
OfTXOMS U&ILJ: OBTOS RURAL KLXV CVAULT OMYDPL
**• SOORCE ZM OEPDIZMG SOOltCX CWOUP5
GROUP ID SOORCE XD>
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-145 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHB_2.0UT
ISCOMDEF VBRSIOH 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fugitive «ourc« BOdcling - ASH KAKDLDIS/STEAM BLOC
••• On* Point aourev; 936 r*c*ptors up to SOXM may; Surfae* Ht. ••• 16:37:51
PAGE 4
• MODELING OPTTCN5 DSD: DEPOS KJUO. ILEV DFADLT DRYOPL MRDPL
•» SOOKCT PAKTICDIATI/GKS DKIA •••
••- SODRCE ID « STEAM ; SOORCE TYPE - POINT •••
•nee FRACTION •
.00414, .01301, .05288, -100SO, .13832, .12745, .16051, .12038. .18640, .0*631.
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS) -
2.97000, 1.89000, .93000, .55000, .40000, .27000, .18000, .12000, .06200, .03000,
PARTICLE. DENSITY -
.21E-03, .14E-03, .SOE-04, .501-04, .60E-04. .90E-04, .131-03, .151-03, .20E-03, .22E-03,
SCAV COEP [ICE] 1/IS-MM/HR)-
.70E-04, .47E-04, .17E-04, .178-04, .20E-04, .30E-04, .43E-04, .SOE-04, .67E-04, .73E-04,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-146 Do not cite or quote
-------
VERSION 9*227 •••
OVTXOHS USB):
ASn_2.0OT
•• WIT Fugitive wnize* •edcling - ASH HAMDLIKi/STEAII BLDC
••• On* Point
-------
XSHB_2.OOT
ISCOMDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Pugitiv* •euxe* Bodeliag - ASH KANDLINa/STEAM BLDG • ••
••• On* Point •cure*; 936 receptors up to SOKM n«y; Surface Ht. ••• 16:37:51
PAGE 17
• MODELING OPTIONS USB): DBPOS RURAL ILBV DFAULT DRYDPL NETDPL
• SOOIICI-MCBPTOIt COMBIHHTaiS LESS IBM 1.0 HflBl OR 3*ZL» •
XH DISTMRI. CALCUIATIOKS HKY NOT U PBtfOIUIlD.
SOORCB - - USCEPTOR LOCATION DISTURB
ID XR (HBTIRS) VR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM 50.0 16.6 45.80
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 50.0 62.72
STEM! 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 F/-3-148 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASRB_2.00T
' VXKSION 94227 ••
MODELHB OPTIONS USED
MIT Fugitive retire •odcling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BUG
On* Point »ourc«; 936 r*c«ptor« up to SOKM wray; Surface Ht.
DCPOS RBRAL ELEV
DPAHLT
16:37:51
PAGE it
DRYDPL NE'lUVL
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED POK PROCESSING
ll'YES; 0-HO)
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
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
111-1
1111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
1111111111 1111111111
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 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
DOTS: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND OH WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA PILE.
••* OPPER MONO OP FIRST THRUUOH PUTS WHO SPEED CATEGORIES •*•
(METEES/SK)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14. S.23, 10.10,
••• WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS •••
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.70000B-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.15000E*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
WHO) SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
.70000E-01 .70000E-01
.10000E»00 .10000E*00
.15000E*00 .150001*00
.350001*00 .350001*00
.550001*00 .550001*00
4
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.70000E-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.15000E*00
.350001*00
.55000E»00
' VERTICAL POTKmlAL 'I'EMPUtATllkB GRADIENTS
(DECREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
P
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
.OOOOOE*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000S-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.20000E-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-149
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCGNBEF VBtSICN 94227 •••
• MODELING OFTIGNS USKD
I_2.ODT
WTI Fugitive lource nodaling - ASK KMIDLINS/STIAM 8LDG
Oo« Point BOUTC*; 936 r«c«ptors up to 50XM Mny; Surfac* Wt.
DEPOS RURAL ELIV
DRYDPL WETDPL
16:37:51
PAGE 19
TSt FIRST 24 HOCUS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
SURFACE STATION NO. : 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
FLOW SPEED
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR VECTOR (M/S)
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 2
3
1
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
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
.47
.36
.47
.47
.02
.36
.92
.92
.47
.02
.02
.47
.36
.92
.92
.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
UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 94823
NAME: HTI
YEAR: 1993
TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M)
(X) CLASS RURAL URBAN
275.4
274.8
274.0
273.9
273.
273.
272.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
271.
271.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
270.
269.
601.6
617.6
633.5
649.5
C6S.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-O 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
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
Z-0 Zd IPCODE
(M) (M)
.3000 1.5 13
.3000 1.5 0
.3000 1.5 0
.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 28
.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 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
(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
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-3-150
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
ASK. OUT
••• ZSCOMDIP VERSION 94237 — *•• NTT Fugitive »ourc« modeling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BUX! ••• 12/27/94
••• Cm Point aource; 936 receptor* up to 5 OHM away; vapor. ••• IT: 14; 25
PACE 1
*•• MODELING OmtXS USK>: COHC RURAL SUV DPAULT
••• MODBL snap OPTIONS SUMMARY •••
••Intermediate Terrain Proeeaaiag i* Selected
IB setup For calculation of Average Concentration Value*.
— SCAVENSING/DEPOSITIOH LOGIC —
••Model Uaea HO DRY CEPLCTICN. DDPLETS - P
••Model Uaea HO VIET DEPLETION. NDPLETE - P
••HO MET SCAVENGING Dete Provided.
••Model Uaea GRXDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Caleulationa
••Model Uaea RURAL Diaper • ion.
••Model Usea Regulatory DEFAULT Options :
1. Final PluM Riae.
3. Stack-tip Downwaah.
3. Buoyancy-induced Diaperaion.
4. Uae Calm* Processing Routine.
5. Hat Uae Mi** ing Data Proceaaing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponent*.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradient*.
8. 'Upper Bound* Value* for Super aguat Building*.
9. Ho Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
••Model Accept* Receptor* on ELEV Terrain.
••Model Aaauna Ho FLAGPOLE Receptor Height*.
••Model Accepting Temperature Profile Data.
Number of Level* : 3
(• ACL) 30.0000
(• ACL) 45.7000
<• ACL) 152.400
••Model Accepting Mind Profile Data.
Nuaber of Level* : 5
u AGL) 30.0000
u AGL) 45.7000
B ACL) 80.1000
B AGL) 111.300
B AGL) 152.400
••Model Calculate* 1 Short Ten Averege(a) of: 1-HR
and Calculate* PERIOD Average*
"This Run Include*: 1 Source!*); 1 Source. Croup (a); and 936 Receptor (a)
••The Model Aaauaea A Pollutant Type of: FUGITIVE
••Model Set To Continue Running After the Setup Testing.
••Output Option* Selected:
Model Output* Table* of PERIOD Average* by Receptor
Model Output* Table* of Higheat Short Term Value* by Receptor (RCCTABU Keyword)
Model Output* Table* of Overall "—•— — Short Tana Value* (MAXTABLI Keyword)
Model Output* External File(a) of High Value* for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
••NOTE: The following Flaga May Appear Following COHC Value*: c for Cala Hour*
B for Muaing Hour*
b for Both CalB and Mia* ing Hours
••Miac. Input*: Ane*>. Hgt. IB) • 30.00 ; Decay Coef . - 0.0000 ; Rot. Angle - 0.0
EBiaaion Unit* • CRAMS/SEC ; (Biaaion Rate Unit Factor - 0.100001*07
Output Unite • KXCRaGRAMS/M"3
••Input RunatreeB File: eteeB.inc ; ••output Print File: eteeo.out
••Detailed Srror/Meeaage Pile: STBAM.BRR
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-151 Do not cite or quote
-------
ISCOHMP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fuaitiv* Source •od.ling - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLOC ••• 12/27/94
••• Om Point •oura; 936 rwMptori up to 50XM nray; Vapor. ••• 17:14:25
PACE 2
OPTICHS USD: COHC RURAL SUV DFABLT
••• POINT SOURCE DATA •••
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EKISSIOH RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) IM/SEC) (METERS) BY
STEAM 0 0.10000E»01 23.9 49.0 212.1 C.71 310.00 0.10 0.10 YES
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-152 Do not cite or quote
-------
.OOT
' ISCOKMP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• WTI Fugitiv* »ourc» modeling - ASH KAKDUMS/STEAM BLDC "• 12/27/94
••• On* Point »ourc»; 936 receptor* up to SORM ***y: Vapor. ••• 17:14:2!
?ACB 3
' HODELOB OmONS USED: CONC RORAL ELCV DPAULT
GROUP ID SOURCE ID*
ALL STEAK
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-153 Do not cite or quote
-------
XSCOHDEP VERSION 94227 ••• ••* HTI Pugitiv* source BOdcling - ASH HANDLING/STEAM BLOC ••• 12/27/94
••• On* Point »ourc«; 936 r«c«pcor« up to 5OHM avay; Vapor. ••• 17:14:25
PAGE 4
MODELING OPTIONS TJSID: CCNC RURAL. ILEV OPAIILT
••• S0011CI PAKTICDIATI/QAS DATA •••
••• SOURCE ID - STEAM ; SOURCE TYPE « POINT
SCAV COEF [LIQ1 1/(S-MM/HR>-
O.OOE»00,
SCAV COEP IICE1 1/(S-MK/HR>-
O.OOEtOO,
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-154 Do not cite or quote
-------
ASHC.OCT
VERSION 94227 •••
••• On* Point «ource;
OPTICNS USED: cose RORAL BLEV DFAOLT
••* DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUXU>m6 D1MEMSIONS
••• WTI Fugitive sourn Modeling - ASK HAHDLHK/STEAM BLDG
••• On* Point
-------
ISCCHDIP VERSION 94227 ••• ••• HTI Fuaitiv* mouic* modeling - ASH HMJDUM5/STEAM BLDC ••• 12/27/94
••• On* Point •cure*; 936 nccptori up to 5OHM «ray; Vapor. ••• 17:14:25
PACK 17
MODELING OPTIONS OSED: COHC RURAL ELEV DFAOLT
• SOORCE-RECEPTOR COMBIHATTOHS LZ5S THAW 1.0 METER OR 3«XLB •
IN DISTANCE. CALCULATIONS HAT NOT BE PERFORMED.
- - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE
XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS)
STEAM 17.4 98.5 49.93
STEAM 34.2 94.0 46.16
STEAM SO.O S6.6 45.SO
STEAM 64.3 76.6 48.93
STEAM 86.6 SO.O 62.72
STEAM 94.0 34.2 71.62
STEAM -34.2 94.0 73.48
STEAM -17.4 91.5 64.44
STEAM 0.0 100.0 56.34
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-3 IV-3-156 Do not cite or quote
-------
VnSION 94227 •••
OPTIONS
NTX Pueitiv* mure* vxteliag - ASH HMmLXMG/STUX BLDG
On* Faint moaiem; 936 necpcon up to 50KM my; vapor.
COMC KDRAL ELEV
12/27/94
17:14:25
PACE IB
METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING •••
U-YES; 0-HOI
11111111
11111111
11111111
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1 ]
1 1
1 I
111
111
111
1111
1111
1111
1111111
1111111
1111111
111
111
111
111
111
111
1 1
1 1
1 1
11111
11111
11111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED MILL ALSO DEPEND ON NRAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
MONO OF FIRST TBROOSH FIFTH HDB> SPEED CATBOORHS
(METERS/SEC)
1.54. 3.09. 5.14, 1.23, 10.10,
WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS
STABILITY
CATESORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.100001*00
.ISOOOEtOO
.350001*00
.550001*00
HIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
.700001-01 .700001-01
.700001-01 .700001-01
'.100001*00 .100001*00
.150001*00 .150001*00
.350001*00 .350001*00
.550001*00 .550001*00
4
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
.700001-01
.700001-01
.100001*00
.150001*00
.350001*00
.550001*00
VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
NIND SPEED CATEGORY
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.35000E-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.OOOOOE*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.350001-01
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.000001*00
.200001-01
.35000E-01
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-157
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
' VERSION 94227 •••
MODELING OPTIONS USED: CONC
•»• WTI Fugitive source Bodeline - ASH HANDLING/STEAK BLDG
•*• One Point source; 936 receptors up to 50KN wmy; Vapor.
RURAL ELEV DPAULT
12/27/94
17:14:25
PAGI 19
THE FIRST 24 BOORS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA
PILE: depbin.aet
SURFACE STATION HO.: 94823
NAME: MTI
YEAR: 1993
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR
FLOW
VECTOR
FORMAT: <4I2.2F9.4.P6.1,I2.2P7.1.f9.4,fl0.1.f8.4,fS.l.i4.f7.2)
UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 94823
HAKE: MTI
YEAR: 1993
SPEED
.(M/S)
(X)
STAB
CLASS
MIXING HEIGHT (M)
RURAL URBAN
USTAR
(M/S)
M-0 LENGTH
(M)
Z-0
(M)
Zd IPCODE PRATE
(M) m/HR)
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
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
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
104.0 4.47 275.4 601. 601.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
112.0 5.36 274.8 617. S17.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
106.0 .47 274.0 633. 633. 5 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
115.0 .47 273.9 649. 649.5 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
120.0 .02 273.1 «65. C65.4 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
123.0 .36 273.3 681. C81.4 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
130.0 .92 272.5 697. 697.3 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
124.0 .92 271.9 713. 713.3 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 .92 271.0 809.0 109.0 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. S 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 2.68 270.1 809.0 109.0 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 2.68 270.3 809.0 109.0 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. » 809.0 809.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00
••• NOTES:
STABILITY CLASS 1-A, 2»B, 3"C, 4»D, 5»E AND 6-P.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH HIND IS BLOWING.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-3
IV-3-158
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
APPENDIX IV-4
ISC-COMPDEP Contour Plots
Main Incinerator Stack - Base Case Simulations
IV-4-1 to IV-4-8 - Mass-weighted pollutant distribution.
FV-4-9 to FV-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
FV-4-35 to IV-4-42: surface area-weighted distribution
FV-4-43 to IV-4-44: vapor distribution
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-4 IV-4-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
I
D
2
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m 3)
WT1 Stack (Mass Distribution)
0.005
0.010
0.010
0-005
—11.000
0.500
0.200
0100
0.075
I
-\ 0.050
-J 0.020
10.010
10.005
0.000
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (fig/m 3
WT1 Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
—: 1.000
• 0 500
—(0200
I
— 0 100
— 0.075
— 0.050
0.020
0010
0.005
0000
-1500
-1500
Figure
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
EAST (m)
IV-4-2. Annual average concentrations (ug/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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
40000
30000
20000 i
10000
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
0.0002
O.OOOS
- 0 1000
- 0.0500
- 0.0200
- 0.0100
- 0.0050
- 0.0020
•H 0.0010
' i 0.0005
| 0.0002
| 10.0001
; ! o.oooo
-50000 ,. . . .
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000
500
JE
I
h-
OL
o
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
! 0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
40000
30000 ,
20000
10000
o:
o
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000-
-50000-r
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
,0.00005
0.00005
0.1000!
0.0200S
0.01001
0.00501
0.0020i
o.ooiot
0.00051
' !0.0002(
i 10.0001 C
i
; lO.OOOOf
i o.ooooc
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
r
1000
500
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-6. Annual dry 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.
0.1000
0.'
0.0100
0.0050
.0010
-^ 0.0005
i 0.0002
i 0.0001
l
J 0.0000
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-7
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
IT
O
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
0.0001
0.000*
0-'
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
i -
10.0005
10.0002
| 0.0001
'0.0000
-50000 t
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000
500
tr
g
-500
-1000-
-1500
-1500
-iD.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
j
)
0.0010
I—iQ.0005
i 0.0002
H 0.0001
!
i o.oooo
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000-
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000-
-10000-1
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
-50000^
Annual Concentrations (ptg/m)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
&005
1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
i 0.050
j 0.020
!
0.010
—10.005
i o.ooo
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
1500
1000
500
JE
o
z
-500
-1000-
Annual Concentrations (ng/m 3)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000-T
40000
30000
20000
10000
E,
I
K
cc
o
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
-10000-
-20000 t
-30000
-40000 \
_5QQQQ_L r r.
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
0.0001
—] 0.1000
0.0500
—10.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure IV-4-11.
EAST (m)
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.
10.0010
'0.0005
0.0002
: 0.0001
0.0000
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-12
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000
500
E
I
I—
tr
o
z:
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
40000
30000
20000
10000
rr
o
z
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
J,.
i 0.10000
I
!
0.05000
0.02000
r—10.01000
0.00500
0.00200
0.00100
i 0.00050
i 0.00020
I- i 0.00010
I J
r—} 0.00005
-'0.00000
-50000 •*
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000
a:
O
Figure IV-4-14.
EAST(m)
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000-
40000-
30000-
20000-
10000
Total Annual Deposition (g/m2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
0.0005
-10000-
-20000
-30000-
-40000
-5000QJ , - 1 T
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure IV-4-15.
EAST (m)
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.
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-16
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
E,
X
h-
o:
o
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
WTI Stack (Surface Distribution)
1500 R
1000
500
-1000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
0.0005
i 0.0002
'-—10.0001
0.0000
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST (m)
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m3)
WTI Stack (Vapor)
0.005
5000T>T
40000-
30000-
20000
10000-
0-
-10000
-20000-
-30000-
-40000-
-500004 r 1— —; ~ ~ ~~— — r~ T-- '""i i 1
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST(m)
H 1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.005
'0.000
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 FV-4
IV-4-18
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
1500
1000
500
CL
O
2
-500
-1000 r:;^
Annual Concentrations (jig/m 3)
WTI Stack (Vapor)
-1500
-1500
Figure IV-4-18.
-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.
- 100C
-0.5CK
-0.20C
-0.10C
- 0.07f
"|
40.05C
J0.02C
J0.01C
lO.OOf
000(
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-19
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
c
c
I
/*
$ •$
g £
I
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (ng/m 3)
Truck Wash
1500 r-
1000
500
H
o
z
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
Figure IV-4-20.
1500
Annual average concentrations (ng/m3) for the track wash (ISC-COMPDEP,
vapor pollutant). Modeling domain out to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-21
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (/Jg/m J
Organic Waste Tank Farm
1500 h
1000
500
I
tr
o
z
H^^®^^n^;% t'?.-8?l-!
-1500
Figure IV-4-22.
1500
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite .or quote
-------
-------
50000
Annual Concentrations (jig/m 3)
Open Wastewater Tank
40000
o
z
30000 '
20000-
ioooa
0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
0.005
0.010
H1.0C
0.5C
0.2C
0.1C
0.07
H O.OS
io.o:
10.01
lO.OC
Jo.oc
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-23.
Annual average concentrations (ug/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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (jug/m '
Open Wastewater Tank
1500
1000
500
I
rr
o
z
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
1500
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
Annual Concentrations (Mg/m3)
Carbon Adsorption Bed
40000
30000
20000
10000
X
a:
o
-10000
-20000
-30000
-4000&
0.005
0.020
f.
0.005
i 1.000
0500
0.200
0.100
0.075
—10.050
l
-i 0.020
i 0.010
i 0.005
10.000
-50000 ' • • -
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
Figure IV-4-25.
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Annual average concentrations (ng/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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (/xg/m 3)
Carbon Adsorption Bed
1500
1000
500 -j
I
(T
O
-500-
-1000
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
EAST(m)
1.000
0.500
0.200
0.100
0.075
0.050
i
10.020
0.010
.0.005
0.000
1500
Figure IV-4-26.
Annual average concentrations (ng/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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (fxg/m 3)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
50000
4000O
3000CH
10000-
r
o
z
-10000
-20000-
-3000O
-40000-
-soooa-
• ? r
Jj
™fe;
___
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 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-27. Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) 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-4-28
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations (/%/m 3)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000
500
E,
X
-500
-1000-
-1500 —
-1500
20.000
HK 10.000
-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-4-29
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
X
h-
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
-50000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
0.0010
I
10.0005
^ 0.0002
10.0001
0.0000
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
1500
1000
500
§
I
o
-500
-1000
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2 )
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
-150O
0.3000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
—^0.0010
i
—j 0.0005
i
.(0.0002
i
0.0001
0.0000
-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
50000
40000
I
f-
30000
20000
10000
0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
cnnnn __ _ >
-OUUUU 1 __ , __.,. . -
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
0.1000
0.
OJ
o.c
0.0050
0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
Figure F/-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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000-
5oa
i
o
-500
-1000-
-1500-
-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-weigh ted pollutant distribution). Modeling domain out
to 1.5 km is displayed.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-33
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
x%
Total Annual Deposition (g/m )
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
50000
40000
30000
20000-
10000-
E,
I
-10000-
-20000^
-30000-
-40000-
-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-4-33. 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-4-34
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Mass Distribution)
1500
1000
50&
IE
O
z
-500
-1000-
-150O
-1500
-1000
-500 0
EAST(m)
500
1000
1500
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.
10.3000
0.1000
0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
0.0020
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-35
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations ((ig/m 3)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
I
K
O
z
-10000-
-20000
-300CX>;
0.005
.0.020
0.005
-1.000
I
-10.500
I
-0.200
0.100
0.075
!
^0.050
J 0.020
-. 0.010
i 0.005
! 0.000
-40000-
-50000T T -T - . - . . ,. ,_,...,.., i
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure IV-4-35.
EAST (m)
Annual average concentrations ((Jg/m3) 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-4-36
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Concentrations Og/m 3)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000
500
i
o
-500-
-1000-
-150O
-1500
20.000
l.^~^^-L--~tt^^K&-i«['SSF3vl$-l
$/^:'^^?§r&&3j^*^£?^'4&8tf"
'^^•rff'-^v>^^»&S^f^&:^^
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-36.
Annual average concentrations (ug/m3) 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-4-37
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
ce
o
-10000-
-20000-
-30000
-40000
-50000
-|0. 1000
-| 0.0500
0.0200
0.0100
0.0050
J 0.0020
!
I0.0010
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
Figure IV-4-37.
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
150&
Annual Wet Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
-1500 -1000
Figure IV-4-38.
-500 0 500
NORTH (m)
1000
1500
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m 2)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000
40000
30000
20000-
10000
E
I
H-
CC
o
-10000
-20000
-30000-
-40000-
0.1000
0.0500
-: 0.0200
i
q 0.0100
0.0050
|—10.0020
-0.0010
L.
-i 0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST(m)
Figure IV-4-39.
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 FV-4
IV-4-40
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Annual Dry Deposition (g/m ")
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500 ;
1000
500
CC
O
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-1000
-500
0
EAST (m)
500
1000
1500
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
Total Annual Deposition (g/m ~)
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
50000 .
40000
30000
20000
10000
E
i~
cc
a:
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
EAST (m)
-0.1000
-^ 0 0500
-J 0.0200
-0.0100
- 0.0050
- 0.0020
-^00010
0.0005
00002
0.0001
0.0000
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
•"»
Total Annual Deposition (g/m ")
Ash Handling (Surface Distribution)
1500
1000
500
g
I
o:
o
z
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
Figure IV-4-42.
1500
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.
010C
0.05C
0.02C
•001C
-0.005
0.002
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-43
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
An"
50000 ,
ing (Vapor)
40000
30000
20000 !
0.010
-50000 \
-50000
Rgure IV-4-43.
-30CXX, .,0000 .
Volume IV
Appendix IV-4
IV-4-44
External Review Draft
D° not cite or quote
-------
-------
1500
Hgure IV-4-44-
displayed-
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
Volume W
• Appendix W-4
-------
-------
APPENDIX IV-5
Overview of the CALPUFF Non-Steady-State Dispersion Model
Volume IV External Review Draft
Appendix IV-5 IV-5-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
For Presentation at the Seventh
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. Selre
David G. StrlMltls
Robert J. Yamartlno
Sigma Research Corporation
234 Littleton Road. Suite 2E. Uestford. 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)
•odellng of relevant processes on scales fro* 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 (S) 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.
subgrld 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 (YaMrtlno et al., 1989:
Sclre 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 gridded fields of
horizontal and vertical wind components. _ The
model contains parameterization* 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 an
externally generated gridded wind field (e.g.. as
produced by a prognostic wind field model) as a
replacement for the diagnostic Step 1 winds. The
replacement gridded field need not use the same
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-mlnlmlzatlon 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 Holtslag and van Ulden (1983).
The aerodynamic and thermal properties of water
-------
surfaces require that different methods be used In
the narine environment. Over water, a profile
method, using air-sea temperature differences. Is
used to compute the micrometeorologlcal parameters
In the marine boundary layer. A detailed
description of CALMET Is provided in Sclre et al.
(1990).
The prognostic wind field nodel Included In
the CALPUFF modeling system is the version of the
CSUHH model most recently modified by Kessler
(1989). CSUHH Is a three-dimensional, hydro-
static. Incompressible primitive equation model
originally developed by Pielke (1974). CSUMM can
simulate mesoscale wind flow patterns with
horizontal scales of 10 to 300 km 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 paraneterlzatlons for
the atmospheric surface layer, planetary boundary
layer, and a soil layer.
3.
CALPUFF DISPERSION MODEL
CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-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, overwater
transport and coastal Interaction effects. It can
accomnodate arbitrarily-varying emissions from
point sources and grldded or discrete area
sources. Most of the algorithms contain options
to treat the physical 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 at 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 regain 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 Isopletha of the Instantaneous concentrations
of a slug at two tines 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
tine step. The slug sampling function Integrates
the concentrations over the time step to produce
the tine 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-wlnd
stretching of the slug becomes less Important.
Eventually, when * » 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 (Sclre et ml., 1984):
Current Wind Direction
s * As
o
q(s)
g(s) exp
ds (3)
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.
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) terms, an analytic solution to the Integral
can be obtained In terms of exponentials and error
functions. In evaluating Eqn. (3), the horizontal
dispersion coefficient, v , and the vertical term, 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 advection 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. 2. Time averaged concentration resulting
from the transport and evolution of the slug
depicted in Figure 1.
-------
3.2 Dispersion Coefficients
CALPUFF contains several options for computing
the dispersion coefficients, o- and «r . Involving
different levels of data lnputy z
(1) Use of direct Measurements of the turbulence
parameters v and f .
(2} Internal computation of o- and f using
similarity theory (Well. 1985; Brlggs. 1985) and the
the grldded mlcrometeorologlcal variables computed by
the CALMET model (surface friction velocity,
Monln-Obukhov length, convective velocity scale)
(3) Use of Pasquill-Glfford (PC) coefficients
In rural grid cells and McElroy-Pooler (HP)
coefficients In urban grid cells
The general forms of »y and
-------
3. 4 Overwater 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
SMall 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 CALMET Meteorological Model contains
separate boundary layer Modules for computing
stability and turbulence levels In the overland and
overwater boundary layers.
CALPUFT 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
grldded 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 partlculate 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) User-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
dependencies.
(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.. Barrle. 1981; SIinn 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+At " *t exp -
(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 R 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 grldded 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 cheaical Module contains three options
for dealing with chemical processes:
(DA pseudo-first order reaction mechanism for
the conversion of SO, to sulfate and NO (NO * NO,)
•* X Z
to HMO. and partlculate nitrate. This MechanisM
allows for up to five pollutants (S02> SOj. N0x>
HN0
3.
and NO*). .
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 siMulatlon
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 cheaical transformation calculations if
inert pollutants are being Modeled.
4.
POSTPROCESSING CAPABILITIES
The CALPUFF Modeling systea 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, mlcrometeorologlcal fields, and
geophysical fields in the file. The POSTPRO
program computes time averaged concentrations and
wet/dry deposition fluxes at grldded and discrete
receptors, lists peak concentrations, and performs
linear scaling operations.
-------
Acknowledgement: The development of the CALPUFF
•odellng system was sponsored by the California Air
Resources Board under contract AS-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 SO. scavenging in eastern North
America. Ataos. Environ., 15, 31-41.
Briggs, G.A.. 1985: Analytical parameterlzatlons
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. Briggs. J. Deardorff, B.A. Egan.
F.A. Glfford and F. Pasqulll. 1977: AHS
workshop on stability classification schemes
and sigma curves - Summary of recommendations.
Bull. AMI. 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.
Irwin. J.S., 1983: Estimating plume dispersion -
A comparison of several slgma schemes.
J. Clim. and Appl. Meteor., 22, 92-114.
Kessler, R.C.. 1989: User's guide to the SAI
version of the Colorado State University
Mesoscale Model. California Air Resources
Board, Sacramento, CA.
Ludwlg, F.L., L.S. Gaslorek 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.
Pielke. R.A., 1974: A three dimensional numerical
model of the sea breezes over surface Florida.
Won. Vea. Rev., 102, 115-139.
Sclre. J.S.. E. Insley and R.J. Yamartlno. 1990:
Model formulation and user's guide for the
CALMET meteorological model. Prepared for the
California Air Resources Board. Sigma Researcl
Corporation, Westford. MA.
Scire, J.S.. D.G. Strlmaltls and R.J. Yamartlno.
1990: Model formulation and user's guide for
the CALPUFF dispersion model. Prepared for thi
California Air Resources Board. Sigma Researcl
Corporation, Westford. MA.
Sllnn. W.G.N.. L. Basse, B.B. Hicks. A.W. Hogan,
D. Lai. P.S. Llss. K.O. Munnlch. G.A. Sehmel
and 0. Vlttori, 1978: Some aspects of the
transfer of atmospheric trace constituents pas
the air-sea Interface. Atmos. Environ., 12,
2055-2087.
Well. J.C., 1985: Updating applied diffusion
models. J. Cllm. Appl. Meteor., 24, 1111-1130
Yamartlno, R.J.. J.S. Sclre, S.R. Hanna. G.R.
Carmlchael and Y.S. Chang, 1989: CALGRID: A
mesoscale photochemical grid model. Volume I:
Model formulation document. California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
Sclre. J.S.. F.V. Lurmann. 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.
Sclre. J.S., R.J. Yamartlno. 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-6 IV-6-1 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
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
assignment to the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
External Review Draft
Volume IV Do not cite or quote
Appendix FV-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-dovmvtash effects.
Proper wind-tunnel modeling procedures, even in a relatively large tunnel, require that terrain-
downwash and building-dovmwzsh 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 External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 1V£ 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
External Review Draft
Volume IV _
Do not ate or quote
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 lOH^, (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
3 External Review Draft
Volume IV Do not cite or quote
Appendix FV-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 Y* 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 * 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-
Extemal Review Draft
VolumeIV 4 Do not cite or quote
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 WIT 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 (^usec/m3), where Cf
is the full-scale concentration of the contaminant (^g/m3) and Qf is the emission rate (g/sec) of the
contaminant. Full-scale concentrations are thus easily obtained by multiplying our value of C/Qf by
the full-scale emission rate of the contaminant, Qf.
4. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Velocity Measurements and Atmospheric Dispersion Comparability Tests
The hot-wire anemometry measurements showed that the flow structure of the flat-terrain
boundary layer was representative of an atmospheric boundary layer over rough terrain; it could be
characterized in the surface layer by a logarithmic velocity profile with a roughness length of 0.6m
(full scale) or over the full depth by a power-law profile with an exponent of 0.21.
Measurements over the terrain showed quite strong reductions of wind speed induced by the
hills upwind of the river valley. Thus, the plumes released within the valley are quite effectively
shielded by the upwind terrain and thus may tend to rise to greater heights within the valley. This
effect had rather unexpected consequences on the concentration fields to be observed.
Pulsed-wire measurements were made of the wind velocity components in the centerplane of
the valley for the 125° wind direction. These were used to construct the flow vectors shown in
Figure 4. The three-dimensional nature of the flow is clearly seen near the upstream valley wall,
where the vectors indicate that the flow is directly along the valley axis and up the slope. Note also
that there is a significant downward component of the flow as it approaches the location of the stack.
Observation of these features of the flow within the valley were also made using smoke
visualization. When the smoke source was placed at low levels near the upwind edge of the valley,
a small region of recirculating flow was observed that was quite consistent with the vector field of
Figure 4. The smoke would follow helical trajectories along the valley axis as it moved to the
southwest (positive y direction) until it dispersed and was swept downwind.
Volume IV 5 Extend Review Draft
Appendix IV-6 Do not cite or quote
-------
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
External Review Draft
VohuBeIV 6 Doooeciteorquou
Appendix IV-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 dcn/amb den =
Lm(m) =
Lb(m) =
Froude No. (based on Ta) =
Stack height (m) =
500-ft wind speed (m/s) -
Free-stnn wind spd (m/s) =
Wnd spd @ 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-sum wind spd (m/s) =
Wnd spd (a), 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
45.7
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
3324
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
Extern*I Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 (C/Qf) of 5.17/zsec/m3. We have drawn isocohcentration 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 5.65Asec/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.
(Cf/Qf)mx 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 if 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 External Review Draft
Appendix IV-6 8 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 (C/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 level during the 5-year period analyzed (c/, 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 (Cg/C^ = 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. Pfe-<>cthvt-
Flat terrain
The flat-terrain measurements were made to form the basis with which the measurements in
the presence of the terrain could be compared. A total of 14 cases with buildings was studied,
Volume IV 9 External Review Draft
Appendix TV-6 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 fiat 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 500ft-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 same in both cases.
The wind speed profile in fiat 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 fiat-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/zsec/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 fiat-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^ 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 fiat-terrain case. The interested reader is referred
to the data report.
External Review Draft
Volume IV Do not cite or quote
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 11 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 arid 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 centerline 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,
„, 11 External Review Drift
Volume IV l *
Do not cite or quote
Appendix rV-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
psec/m3, at critical wind speeds.
Configuration
125°
305°
Rat
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
flat 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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
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 305°;
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 Extenul Review Draft
Appendix IV-6 I3 Do not cite or quote
-------
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 she 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 WTT 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
., , ... External Review Draft
Volume IV 14
.. _,, Do not eite or quote
Appendix P/-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, tp 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 External Review Draft
Appendix FV-6 * 3 Do not cite or quote
-------
-------
s?
§
§
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 MOO MOO tOOO flEl
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.
-------
FIG2.DRW
ENTRANCE
CONTRACTION
CEILING
WINDOWS
HEIGHT
2.1m
TEST SECTION LENGTH
18.3m
WIDTH
3.7m
SPIRES », ~M MODEL
BLOCK
ROUGHNESS
DIFFUSER
SECTION
SOUNDPROOF ENCLOSURE
FOR FAN AND MOTOR
.
8
•e o
§ a
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
R-
As
ft
8
JO
Valley axis
Figure 4. Flow vectors in centerplane of river valley
-------
.-o
Figure 5. Surface concentration map for case SE6.8. Hs = 45.7m, wind
direction = 125°, U500 = 6.8m/s.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
_ SE6-8MX 001 (1 2i Max gic vs aownw.nd distance WD=i25deg. U=6 8m/s Hs=45 7m
06-25-94
4.5 • •
I
0>
U)
a
o
3 •
1.5 •
CTO = 5.65
\
= 500
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
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
/J> WTISEMX.001 (1,2) Max concentration ana distance vs wma speed. WD=125aeg. Hs-45 7m
06-15-94
D 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=120m
06-20-94
rt
1
-------
£A WTISEMX 001 (V3) Max concentration ana distance vs wind speed WD=l25deg Hs=45 7m
06-15-94
C WTISGMX 001 (1 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=12Dm
06-20-94
1800
x
1600 •
1400 •
1200 •
1000 .
800 .
600 ••
400 -.
200 ••
O
Stack Height, m
-£r 45.7
O 72.7
-O 120
-4-
2
-H
4
8
U,m/s
10
12
14
16
Figure 8. Distance to maximum glc versus wind speed for SE wind direction.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
A WTINEMX.001 (1,2) Max concantration and datanc* v» wind apaad. WD»305dag. H«-45.7m
07-13-94
Q WDNGMX.001 (1.2) Max concantration and dwtanea v« nwnd spaad. WD«305dao. H««72.7m
07-13-94
O WTINHMX001 (1.2) Maxc
07-1344
rtntion and dNUno* v» wind «pMd. WD«306(too. H^120m
A WDNENM.001 (1,2) Max canoanmton and diatanca v» nmd apa«i. WD-305d«g. Ha-45.7m
07-1344 wfeUdga
and dManea v» wind apa«d. WOOOSdag, Ha«72.7m
I i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i
WTINGNM.001 (1^) Max
07-1344
8
6 ••
5 •
a
o
3 •
2 •
1 •
-H
D
Stack Height, m
45.7
72.7
O- 120
_ NO buildings
D
o-o—o
o o
No buildings
0 I ' ' ' I ' '
12
16
20
24
U, m/s
28
Figure 9. Maximum glc versus wind speed for NW wind direction.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
£. WTIFEMX.001 (1,2) Max concentration and distance vs wind speed tor flat terrain, 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 spead for flat terrain, w/o bids
07-27-94 Hs«72.7m
I
Q>
W
g
o
10
8 ••
7 ..
6 .-
5 -.
4 .-
3 .-
2 -.
.1 ..
Stack Height, m
A 45.7
D 72.7
O 120
Filled symbols, without buildings
10
15
U, m/s
Figure 10. Maximum glc versus wind speed in flat terrain.
Volume IV
Appendix W-6
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
12
I
0)
CO
o
10 . •
8 .
4 .
2 •
A H$ = 45.7 m
D H5 = 72.7m
O H
OPEN SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 305°
FILLED SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 125°
HALF-FILLED SYMBOLS: FLAT TERRAIN
•4-
8
U, m/s
12
16
Figure 11. Maximum glc versus wind speed for all configurations with buildings.
Volume IV
Appendix IV-6
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
3000
2500 ••
2000 • •
-x 1500
1000 .
500 -
t
\
I 1 1
A H,» 45.7m
D H, = 72.7 m
O H
\ 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 IV
Appendix IV-6
External Review Draft
Do not cite or quote
-------
APPENDIX IV-7
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
Appendix IV-7 External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
-------
COMMENTS
D. Bruce Turner, C.C.M.
Appendix IV-7 External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
-------
From the desk of D. Bruce Turner, C. C. M.
PO Box 2099, Chapel ffill, 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 Orcnstein, 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)
ISCOMDEPexecutable 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; COMPLEXI is
used for receptors above plume centerime; 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 COMPLEXI 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 (oy and'b~z, 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 in 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 B 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
leveied-off plume is much more likely to result in die 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 in 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 downwash 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. Bruce Turner. CCM • P. O. Box 2099. Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2099 U.SA. • 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 Scavanging
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 wen; 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 panicles are transported and dispersed similar to a
gas.
D. Bruce Turner. CCM • P.O. Box 2099. ChapeJ 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 TEM1.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 the 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 panicle 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 with downwind distance to downwind edge of area source. Behaviour
appears to be reasonable.
9) Create a runstream TEM6.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.INC 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 with height data set AREA2.TMP with temperature increasing
with height. Create a runstream TEM9.ENC to use this data and run. With 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 with 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 TEM9.1NC 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. Brace Turner. CCM • P.O. Box 2099, Chapel HU1.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 oz 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 part 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 particle size is increased from 2 to 20 u,m. Runstreams are TEM14.INC and
TEM 14.IND. Peak concentration is decreased to 0.79 of that for 2 ujn particle sizes.
Concentration at 5000 m, the farthest distance calculated, is decreased to 0.23 of that for 2 p.m
panicle 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 |im particle 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. Broce Turner. CCM • P. O. Box 2099. ChapeJ Hffl-NC 27515-2099 U.S.A. • Voice and Fax: (919) 967-0325
-------
COMMENTS
Rayford P. Hosker, Jr., Ph.D.
Appendix IV-7 External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
-------
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. VaJlero
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: (615)576-1233
FAX: (615) 576-1327
-------
(c) Are the QA/QC practices described in the report? Were scientifically adequate QA/QC
practices followed during the experimental 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 WTI? 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. Rrst, 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 toxicrty 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 rf the nocturnal flow
patterns can lead tb'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 rf 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 done 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 instead.
If you have any questions about my comments and opinions, please contact me.
Rayford P. Hosker, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division
-------
COMMENTS
Michael Schatzmann
Appendix IV-7 External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
-------
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 or 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 hights. 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 densimetric 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 laver:
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 program;
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 allowed 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 WTI 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 External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
-------
Scientific Peer Review
of Two Documents
which report the results of
AREAL's Wind Tunnel Simulation Study
of Terrain Downwash Effects
at the WTI 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, 1995
-------
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 Down-wash 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 for 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 denned 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.
h. 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, hereaftei
called the reviewer, shall review the reports listed above. The reviewer shall specificall}
address the following scientific issues in his or her review.
a. The goals of the Study were to examine possible terrain-induced downwash effect!
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 in thi
vicinity of the WTI incinerator site. Provide comments on whether the condition
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 in the complex terrain.
(vi) Two summary graphs (reproduced here as Figures 1 and 2) were presented to show
the magnitude and position of the maximum 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 fiat 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 10m/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 oJ
the observations.
(vii) A specific difficulty was encountered and discussed hi 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, anc
72.7m where it was slight (particularly in the complex terrain scenario). It is unlikeh
to be of significance for stacks of height 120m. This further physical phenomenon neec
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 Reynold
number limitation and because of the distortion of geometrical scaling in the near fielc
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 whethe
the conditions used in the wind-tunnel experiments are appropriate to sim
ulate conditions at the site. These comments should address the followin
points:
3.1 The appropriateness of the wind-tunnel simulation practices that are use
in the study.
The wind-tunnel simulation practices used in the Fluid Modeling Branch for this stud
are. in general, appropriate to the study.
-------
12
10
1
a
a
6 ••
4 . .
2 .-
A H, = 45.7m
Q H,« 72.7m
O Ht«120m
OPEN SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 305°
FILLED SYMBOLS: WIND DIR. = 125°
HALF-FILLED SYMBOLS: FLAT TERRAIN
8
U.m/s
12
16
Figure 11. Maximum gic versus wind speed for all configurations with buildings.
Figure 1
-------
3000
2500 ..
2000 ••
1500 -.
1000 ••
500 -.
\
A H,«45.7m
D H,« 72.7m
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 12. Distance to maximum gic versus wind speed for ail configurations
with buildings.
Figure 2
-------
The relevant dimensioniess parameters are noted and where possible these are modelled
correctly. It is noted in the study that some dimensioniess 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 met or, if not, some further distortion of strict modelling is argued for, following
accepted modelling procedures.
Pouits 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./C/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
arbitrary' choice of d — -13mm made? u,/U is used rather than u./I/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.
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
archived in a readily accessible way.
-------
(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 on
this subject.
Mention is also made of Lawson (1984) which describes the Standard Operating
Procedures for the EPA Fluid Modeling Facility 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. 1 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.
•5
-------
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 TT"""™"™ 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 reviewer's 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 experience' 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.
Points (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 /xsec/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 01
the Study's limitations (whether described in the document or not) signif-
icantly limit its usefulness in simulating upwind terrain-induced downwasl
from the WTI incinerator.
The principal limitation of the study that was not adequately described in the documen
concerns the adequacy or not of the physical modelling of the marginally separating flov
in the valley near the upstream terrain. This aspect of the flow should be explicit!}
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 FV-7 External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
-------
OBatteiie
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Battelle Boulevard
P.O. Box 999 K9-30
Richlano. 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.
Sinder^
-------
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. Ramsddl, 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 40-43 of a draft document Air Dispersion Modeling Waste Technologies Industries dated
February 9, 1995
2) A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model dated February 1995
3) INPUFF 2.0-A Multiple Source Gaussian Puff Dispersion Algorithm User's Guide dated July
1986
4) "Effects of Near Calms on Air Concentration and Deposition" dated February 24, 1995.
Conclusions
1) Both computer models are technically adequate for and capable of evaluating the effects of
calm and low wind speed diffusion on 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual average concentrations.
2) Both models are capable of treating fumigation.
3) The comparisons of the 1-hr and 24-hr concentrations presented in pages 40-43 of Air
Dispersion Modeling are inconclusive because no information is presented to permit isolation
of the effects of calm and low wind speed diffusion from differences in concentrations due to
differences in model parameterizations.
4) The ratios between the highest 1-hr and highest 24-hr concentrations presented in this
document are larger than expected.
5) The use of a Pasquill-Gifford (P-G), distance-based diffusion parameterization with the
INPUFF code is inconsistent with the purpose of the study.
-------
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 cry 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 the
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 mminrnm values used for
-------
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 with 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, ?vo, and combine the lower limit with
formulations for av proportional to wind speed in a in an interpolation scheme such as
o, - [0^+ (b,U)a]1/a
•
where bv is related to surface roughness and stability. A similar relationship can be used for
5
-------
References
Frenkiel, F. N. 1953. "Turbulent Diffusion: Mean Conconcentration Distribution in a Flow Field of
Homogeneous Turbutlence." Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. m, 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." /. 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.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
n West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Fte
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
|