United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Atmospheric Sciences
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA/600/S3-88/009 Apr. 1988
x°/EPA Project Summary
Evaluation and Assessment of
UNAMAP
R. Ernest Baumann and Rita K. Dehart
The Evaluation and Assessment of
UNAMAP is a study to determine how
best to Improve the usefulness and
availability of the UNAMAP air
pollution dispersion models. The
study consists of a technology
assessment, data collection and
analysis, and specific improvements
contained in an implementation plan.
The analysis indicates that
improvements to UNAMAP are
needed in the areas of. (1) model
accuracy, (2) model documentation,
(3) user support, (4) data collection,
(5) data input, and (6) computer
compatibility. The study includes the
development of an improvement plan
which Is based on a strategy that is
consistent with the long-term
objectives for UNAMAP. This
strategic framework guides the
implementation of improvements and
strikes a balance between the goals
of advancing dispersion modeling
research and transferring technology
to the public. Included In the plan is
a set of ten specific recommended
improvements.
This Project Summary was
developed by EPA's Atmospheric
Sciences Research Laboratory, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC, to an-
nounce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
The User's Network for Applied
Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP) is a
software library of air quality simulation
models provided by the Environmental
Operations Branch (EOB) of EPA's
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory (ASRL). The Evaluation and
Assessment of UNAMAP project was
designed to facilitate EOB's ongoing
efforts to improve the utility and
availability of UNAMAP to the public.
The results of the study describe a
plan for implementing a series of
recommended improvements to the
UNAMAP program. The plan consists of
a definition of strategy consistent with
EPA's objectives for UNAMAP, and the
schedule and budget to implement the
specific recommendations.
The improvements were derived
during the course of the investigation,
and were based on two major sets of
requirements. Technology requirements
determine what computer, data, and
modeling technology are available to
UNAMAP users now and in the near
future. User requirements determine what
areas of UNAMAP utilization are most
difficult and determine where
improvement would be most beneficial.
Each recommendation has been
formulated both to take advantage of the
current technological environment and to
help meet expressed and implied user
requirements.
The conclusions and recom-
mendations in this study are based on
research and analysis which were
performed in three phases. The first was
a technology assessment to determine
technology available to UNAMAP. The
second was data collection (by interview
and questionnaire) and analysis. The
third was the derivation of recom-
mendations.
Technology Assessment
All products follow a pattern of growth
which involves changes to the product,
-------
the users, and the market. UNAMAP has
followed such a growth pattern. The
Technology Assessment Report
evaluated the technological environment
in which UNAMAP exists today and that
in which it will function most effectively in
the future. The information was used in
subsequent stages of the project to
provide evaluation criteria for system
alternatives and final recommendations.
The technology assessment found
that all components of modeling
technology have changed dramatically
since the development of the first
computerized air quality models in the
1960s. The technology is continuing to
change at a fast pace. The report
covered three distinct phases in air
quality model development: (1) the
technology as utilized by UNAMAP
Version 6; (2) the technologies used by
models currently under development, as
well as adaptations made to UNAMAP to
utilize current technology; (3) the
technological requirements for future
models to solve current problems.
In Version 6, the technology applied to
the models has progressed, while that of
the computer systems used to run them
at EPA has not. Although the original
Gaussian dispersion mathematics are still
used, the UNAMAP models have
become more sophisticated and con-
sistent. Adaptations and new pro-
cessors have increased the models'
usability. The UNIVAC 1100 utilized for
support, however, represents no ad-
vances since UNAMAP was begun in
1973.
New modeling developments have
grown from the user community's
attempts to deal with today's air quality
modeling applications. Model developers
are creating models for more challenging
environmental problems. UNAMAP users
have adapted the models to respond to
situations that are different or more
complex than those for which the
software was designed. Consultants and
third-party vendors have contributed
more sophisticated data collection and
input methods and facilitated the use of
new computer technology.
Modeling software must advance to
meet both application and user needs.
Modeling has become a successful and
important tool in protecting the
environment. Because of this success,
models are needed for even more
complex, real-world situations which
need representation. Complex regional
models are needed by county, regional,
and state agencies to study dispersion
and transport of pollutants over larger
distances. More realistic complex terrain
models are needed to represent
geographical areas where terrain is a
factor.
The typical model user has changed
since the advent of UNAMAP. Today, a
user may not be a "modeling expert." He
may use the models only a few times a
year or lack the computer expertise to
use mainframe versions easily. Services
such as modeling consultants and
developers of menu-based micro-
computer versions have grown to meet
the needs of today's user.
Users expect software which not only
fits the application but is also easier to
use. In judging ease of use, the user-
friendly, microcomputer products
available for other applications will be
used as criteria against which the
UNAMAP software will be judged.
The data used by the models will
continue to be provided by the National
Weather Service (NWS) or collected at
the site in question, therefore, more
consistency of data input and output
among the models will be needed to
accommodate the novice or infrequent
user.
Computer technology will continue its
trend toward distributed processing with
microcomputers used for an increasing
amount of modeling activity, including
graphics output. User expectations will
also require that data gathering and file
transfer technologies in UNAMAP match
those available in other application areas.
Data Collection and Analysis
A major portion of the Evaluation and
Assessment of UNAMAP project was the
collection of data from UNAMAP users
and other members of the dispersion
modeling community. The data helped
define who uses UNAMAP and how the
models are used. The data also identified
the areas of the modeling process which
users felt should be improved.
There were two parts to the data
collection activity: personal interviews
and mailed questionnaires. In-depth
interviews were conducted with 22
representatives of the following organ-
izations:
• EPA (ASRL and OAQPS)
• EPA Regional Meteorologists
• State air quality agencies
• Local or county air quality agencies
• Private industries (as users of the
models)
• Educational institutions
• Modeling consultants
• Modeling software marketers
The interviews provided an overview
of the UNAMAP system as well as
information on the modeling process.
The data from the interviews were
to design a questionnaire which
mailed to a larger segment of th
UNAMAP community (256 organizations
Usable data were returned in 11
questionnaires. These questionnaire
were analyzed, and certain types of dal
were extracted including a user profili
which models are used, and problem
encountered in the modeling process.
typical UNAMAP user:
• Belongs to one of four major industr
groups; consultant, state governmen
private industry, or local government;
• Classifies himself as a user of th
models;
• Has an experience level which varie
by industry group.
The largest portion of th
questionnaire dealt with the problem
perceived by the users and the
suggestions for improvement. Twelv
potential problem areas were identifie
by Battelle project team members base
on conversations with EPA. Questionnair
respondents were asked to rank th
problem areas as to the severity of th
problem. User responses were groupe
into low, medium, and high categorie:
Problem areas scored as medium or hig
on the severity scale by all major us<
groups were further analyzed. Us<
suggestions to correct these problerr
were categorized, and a percentage i
suggestions in each category wa
computed.
Six out of the original twelve potenti
problem areas were rated as maj(
problems by the users. These are th
problems which Battelle's recommei
dations attempt to rectify.
The following table shows the aree
specified as major problems as well e
the potential problems not considere
significant by most users:
PROBLEM AREAS
MAJOR PROBLEM
NOT A MAJOR
PROBLEM
Accuracy of the
models
Documentation of
models
Support for models
Data collection
Data input
Hardware compatibility
Choosing a model
Buying/accessing thi
model
Hardware access
Unreliable hardware
Response time
Other (users could
specify problems no
listed)
Alternatives were generated from tr
suggestions and from typical con
ponents of technical support in th
-------
>informations systems industry. Eval-
uation criteria and constraints were
identified, and used to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of the
alternatives.
The suggestions and alternatives were
evaluated using the technological context
described in the Technology Assessment
and industry experiences with currently
implemented systems as described in
the trade literature. Through the
evaluation process, Battelle developed a
list of recommendations. The recom-
mendations were formulated to address
multiple problem areas wherever
practical, and to utilize technology which
is available to the UNAMAP support staff
and model users.
Recommendations
The UNAMAP program has great
visibility and impact on the public,
including industry, state air pollution
control agencies, and community groups.
To take advantage of this visibility,
UNAMAP needs to provide a centralized
modeling service of high quality. The
recommended improvements, when
taken as a whole, will allow UNAMAP to
achieve the following goals:
• To function as the public source of
newly developed and refined air
quality models.
• To distribute models which are easily
executed on a variety of commonly-
used computers of all sizes.
• To provide a wide set of models which
are relatively easy to execute, even
for the novice or occasional user.
• To offer modelers a central source of
technical information, meteorological
data, and user support.
To attain these goals, a long-range
strategy and milestones are required.
Therefore, the first part of the
implementation plan is a strategic
framework. This serves as a guideline for
the assignment of priorities to the
recommendations. The priorities are
consistent with the long-term objectives
of the UNAMAP program. The strategy is
designed to strike a balance between the
two objectives of UNAMAP: advance-
ment of research in dispersion modeling,
and the effective transfer of modeling
technology to the public.
The approaches discussed will first
expand the users' ability to use the
models, and then serve to advance the
modeling technology being used. The
initial changes must allow UNAMAP to
evolve to meet the current expectations
of the modeling community. When using
the regulatory models is less difficult,
modelers will be able to turn more of
their attention to the research aspects of
modeling. As in the early days of
UNAMAP, the user community will
become more involved in the process of
testing and validating new models as part
of the research cycle.
The strategy can be executed through
a set of ten specific recommendations for
improvement to UNAMAP. They are the
following:
• Establish an electronic bulletin board
on a multi-user computer system.
• Provide a set of end-user doc-
umentation for all UNAMAP models.
• Provide models which execute on IBM
mainframes, DEC VAX computers,
and IBM PC's.
• Improve the accuracy of models.
• Develop consistent user-friendly
interfaces for all models.
• Consolidate all support for all
UNAMAP models.
• Establish a meteorological data
clearinghouse.
• Include more special purpose models
in UNAMAP.
• Support the collection and use of
additional and more accurate
meteorological data.
• Support the electronic distribution of
UNAMAP documentation and updates.
The report summarizes each recom-
mendation, and discusses implemen-
tation tasks and estimated costs.
Based on its contribution to the
strategic framework, each improvement
can be assigned a priority and a com-
pletion time estimate. These two factors
are used to generate an imple-
mentation schedule and a budget.
Battelle's implementation plan
estimates that the five recommendations
grouped into the first phase of
improvements can be implemented over
a schedule of 121 weeks for an
estimated cost of $769,000. These are
preliminary figures based on current
understanding of the work required. The
cost estimates are over and above the
current EOB budget and are predicated
on contracting for all model enhancement
and documentation work. EOB resources
would be reallocated to perform on-
going management functions generated
by the recommendations.
-------
R. Ernest Baumann and Rita K. Dehart are with the Information Systems Section
of Battelle, Columbus Division, Washington, DC. 20036
D. Bruce Turner is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Evaluation and Assessment of UNAMAP," (Order
No. PB 88-180 062IAS; Cost: $25.95, subject to change) will be available
only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S3-88/009
' f B METEBj
6250I09 i
0000329 PS
S
•fr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1988—548-013/87045
------- |