-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME: xii
Guidelines for Air Quality Monitoring and Data Reporting Undar ESECA.
KDAD. 6/76. OAQPS No. 1.2-034.
AEROS User's Manual, Volume II. MDAD. 2/76. OAQPS No. 1.2-039.
AEROS Summary & Retrieval Manual, Volume III. MDAD. 2/76. OAQPS No.
1.2-040.
NADB Internal Operations Manual, Volume IV. MDAD. 2/76. OAQPS No.
1.2-041.
'AERCS Manual of Codes, Volume V. MDAD. 2/76. OAQPS No. 1.2-042.
/Guideline for Public Reporting of Daily Air Quality—Pollutant Standards
Index fPSI). MDAD. 8/76. OAQPS No. 1.2-044.
SIP Preparation Manual for NO . CPDD. 8/76. OAQPS No. 1.2-048.
/\
Policies for the Inclusion of Carbon Monoxide and Oxldant Controls in
State Implementation Plans (TCP Policy Paper). CPDD. 1/76. OAQPS No.
3.0-002.
1
Legal Interpretation end Guideline to Implementation of Recent Court
Decisions on the Subject of Stack Height Increase as a Means of Meeting
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. CPDD. 1/76. OAQPS No. 3.0-003.
De-designation of.Air Quality Maintenance Areas. Memo. CPDD. 8/17/76.
OAQPS No. 3.0-004.
-------
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
i
1
i ILL
x/^»
1 fl
1 "^f^
• is
i ^
n
«*.
i
•
:
1
\L
r-
i
OOOR76005
OAQPS No. 1.2-034
i
1
OAQPS GUIDELINES
1
i
I
I GUIDELINES
|
1 FOR
AIR QUALITY MONITORING
AND DATA REPORTING
UNDER ESECA
Sv
fc\_
fa\ " " "" ~
£f^^1- m J^" ,.,_,„, , ^,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
-------
I
I
I OAQPS 1.2-034
I
•Guidelines for Air Quality Monitoring
and Data Reporting Under ESECA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Prepared by
•Monitoring and Reports Branch
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
• Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
June 1976
I
I
\
-------
-------
I
I
•
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction and Background ----------------------- 1
II. General Needs for Monitoring Under ESECA ---------- 3
III. Specific Criteria for Monitoring and
• Reporting Requirements
(Appendix A: Typical Annual Costs for Source
Oriented Air Monitoring Network
• Appendix B. Atmospheric Simulation Models
Appendix C. Federal Register Reporting of Impact
on Air Quality of Coal Conversion
• Actions
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. Introduction and Background
The purpose of this guideline is to provide EPA Regional
Offices with information necessary to implement air quality
monitoring and data reporting requirements of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA).
Monitoring guidance is applicable to certain fuel combustion
sources converting to coal under the Act. The Act in Section
3, paragraph (k) (1) (H) , specifically requires the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare plans for monitoring
or requiring sources to monitor the impact of conversion to
coal usage on concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the ambient
air. Monitoring requirements for certain other pollutants
are implicit in other provisions of the Act.
A major stated purpose of the ESECA is "to provide a
means for assisting in meeting the essential needs of the
United States for fuels, in a manner which is consistent to
the fullest extent practicable, with existing national commit-
ments to protect and improve the environment." In carrying
out this purpose for stationary sources, the Act gives the
Federal Energy Administration (FEA) the authority to issue
orders to power plants and other major fuel burning installa-
tions to convert to coal as their primary fuel. FEA "prohi-
bition orders," however, are subject to requirements imposed
by EPA for certain environmental conditions.
The two principal environmental conditions defined in
the Act are (1) "Regional Limitation" and (2) "Primary
Standard Condition." Separate guidelines, OAQPS Guideline
Series Nos. 1.2-033 and 1.2-035, have been prepared specifying
criteria for applying these conditions.
-------
Under the Primary Standard Condition, EPA is authorized
to grant certain converting sources compliance date exten-
sions. Regulations issued under 40 CFR 55 require that any
source to which a compliance date extension may apply must
submit and obtain approval of a source compliance schedule
for complying with SIP regulations as soon as practicable
but no later than January 1, 1979. Air monitoring plans for
a source can be required as part of the compliance schedule
or separately, if a compliance date extension is not necessary
to meet State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements.
Paragraph k(2) of Section 3, ESECA, requires EPA to pub-
lish in the Federal Register at 180-day intervals (1) concise
summaries of progress toward compliance by sources granted
compliance date extensions, and (2) up-to-date findings on
the impact of conversions on applicable implementation plans
and ambient air quality.
It is estimated that between 20 and 30 sources will require
monitoring under ESECA actions. Typical estimated costs per
source are given in Appendix A.
-------
1
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
II. General Needs for Air Quality Monitoring
A. Necessity for Monitoring by Sources
States are presently maintaining and reporting data
from air monitoring networks meeting at least minimum
requirements of SIP regulations, 40 CFR 51. The minimum
requirements are based primarily on pollution levels and
population. The networks are generally adequate to pro-
vide information on pollutant concentration maximums and
distributions mainly in urban areas. They are usually not
sufficient to determine impacts of specific point sources,
especially those located outside urban areas. Hence,
separate requirements for monitoring around specific point
sources need to be imposed to comply with the monitoring
provisions of ESECA.
Monitoring primarily intended to measure the impact
of sources undergoing conversion should be required of the
owners or operators of such sources. This is necessary
so as not to impose significant additional burdens on state
and local agencies operating SIP monitoring networks. Addi-
tionally, however, for sources located in urban or other
areas where SIP air monitoring network sites exist, SIP
network data should be utilized from selected existing
st'ations, as necessary. As a rule-of-thumb, most source-
related impacts should occur within 20 kilometers of a source.
Likewise, a 40 kilometer radius area should account for the
additive impact of other sources in an area. Wherever pos-
sible, however, the area considered for monitoring should
-------
be based on conditions particular to source-related emission
and stack parameters, topographic features, and meteorology.
B. Sources Designated for Monitoring
Sources designated for monitoring are those converting
to coal under ESECA which either meet all SIP requirements
or are granted compliance date extensions.
The EPA may require the use of intermittent or supple-
mentary control systems (SCS) as part of a primary standard
condition. An SCS requires considerably more monitoring
than a source under a constant emission limitation. Specific
guidance for air quality monitoring for an SCS is contained
in Guidelines for Evaluating Supplementary Control Systems
(EPA 450/3-75-035, OAQPS No. 1.2-036, and Guidance for Air
Quality Monitoring in the Vicinity of Large Point Sources,
OAQPS No. 1.2-012, Supplement B (in preparation).
C. Pollutants to be Monitored
Pollutants for which monitoring may be necessary under
ESECA are S02, TSP, and sulfates. Reporting of plans for
monitoring S0~ is specifically required in the Act. While
not mentioned specifically, monitoring for the other pollu-
tants is implicit in the Act. Emissions of NO2, hydrocarbons,
or carbon monoxide in amounts which may cause or contribute
to exceeding the ambient standards are very unlikely from
power plants or other large fuel burning installations.
There is no air quality standard presently applicable
to sulfates but recent information indicates possible adverse
health effects at elevated concentration levels. A provision
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of ESECA implies for non-criteria pollutants, such as sulfates,
that plant fuel conversions to coal shall not result in an
increase in emissions of such pollutants or of their precursors
that may result in a significant risk to public health. Requir-
ing monitoring for sulfates would allow evaluation of trends
of sulfate levels near a source that could possibly be related
to fuel conversion or a change in sulfate precursor emissions.
Such monitoring also improves the data base upon which future
actions by EPA relative to sulfates can be assessed. Further
information related to the need for monitoring for sulfates
may be obtained from EPA 450/2-75-007, September 1975, Position
Paper on Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates.
D. Meteorological Data
Monitoring for source pollutant impacts must also include
collection of meteorological data which adequately describes
the transport and dispersion of pollutants in the vicinity of
greatest impact of the source. Monitoring of meteorological
parameters may be performed by source operators or equivalent,
representative data collected by the National Weather Service
or private firms may be utilized.
E. Means for Requiring Monitoring by Source Operators
The compliance schedule requirement under 40 CFR 55
should be utilized whenever possible for requiring monitoring
of sources to receive compliance date extensions. A separate
means, such as requirement of a monitoring plan, may be
imposed if a compliance date extension is not necessary to
meet SIP requirements. Monitors should be required to be
-------
operational at least 60 days prior to conversion in order
to obtain some ambient data on source impact prior to con-
version and to gain assurance that monitors are operating
properly prior to conversion.
F. Reporting Schedules
EPA must track the air quality impact of ESECA source
conversion activities. EPA Regional Offices, with necessary
assistance from OAQPS, should accomplish this on a quarterly
basis. Depending on the reported air quality around these
sources, EPA may take subsequent actions to alter the condi-
tions of ESECA actions. Also, EPA must issue a summary
report in the Federal Register at least every 180 days on
the impact of ESECA source actions on ambient air quality.
Air quality monitoring needs of ESECA make it imperative to
have a short reporting lag. To minimize the time lag,
monthly reporting should be requested from source operators,
when possible, and the schedule should be such that an eval-
uation can be initiated no later than 60-90 days after a
month or quarter for which data are collected. For selected
data from SIP networks, an accelerated schedule should be
requested, if possible, to coincide with the schedules
applicable to monitoring by sources.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III. Specific Criteria for Monitoring and Data Reporting
A. Definitions
a. "Designated source" shall be used to specify
sources converting to coal under ESECA. Such sources shall
be designated for monitoring of pollutant concentrations
and, if necessary, pertinent meteorological parameters in
their vicinity.
b. "Isolated source" for the purpose of this guide-
line shall mean any emission point or group of emission points
to which greater than 80 percent of the pollutant concentra-
tions at any distance on an annual average basis (measured or
estimated) is attributable to that source except for identi-
fiable background concentration. Any other point source
shall be classified as an "urban source."
B. Monitoring Requirements
For each designated source, a minimum of 3 monitors per
specified pollutant should be required (See Table 1). In
addition, at least one wind speed and direction data collection
system should be required along with an acceptable means (by
measurement or inference) for estimating atmospheric stability.
Requirements for meteorological measurements may be waived if
representative, equivalent data can be obtained from the
National Weather Service or private firms within 40 kilometers
of the source. On-site wind sensors should be at least 10
meters above ground level or nearby obstructions—preferably
as close as practicable to the average stack height of the
source.
-------
Table 1
Minimum Network—Monitoring Around Designated Sources
Pollutant
Measurement Method
Parosaniline
Hi-Vol 24-hour
Sampling
Frequency
Continuous
One every 3
Minimum No.
of Sites
3
3
S02
TSP and/or
Sulfates Filter days
1Refer to OAQPS Guideline Number 1.2-018 for other methods
that may be acceptable.
Of the minimum 3 monitors for each pollutant, at least
one monitor should be placed in the area of maximum short-term
(1-24 hour average) concentration. For SO-, two periods for
short-term standards apply, 3-hour and 24-hour. The maximum
concentrations for those two periods may not occur in the same
area. Therefore, more than one maximum concentration area may
have to be monitored for SO-- All monitors should not be placed
along a single downwind direction so that for periods with con-
sistent wind direction, at least one monitor will indicate
background levels or levels not contributed by the source. A
summary of guidance for physical placement of monitors contained
in OAQPS 1.2-012 "Guidelines for Air Quality Monitoring Networks
and Instrument Siting," July 1975, is given in Table 2.
Models described in Appendix B, essentially repeated from
OAQPS 1.2-035, can be used to estimate maximum concentrations
and the locations relative to a source at which the maxima are
likely to occur.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
For isolated point sources, the above network design
considerations are sufficient. For urban sources, additional
information on the contribution of ESECA actions on general
pollution levels is desirable. Therefore, selected SIP sur-
veillance network data may be utilized for this purpose. Data
should be utilized from SIP monitoring sites exhibiting the
maximum annual and short-term concentrations within a 40
kilometer radius and from monitoring sites close to the
designated source. The maximum concentration site(a) ~should
be that (those) recording maximum levels during the previous
calendar year.
C. Data Collection and Reporting
As mentioned previously, source owners or operators can
be required to include for EPA approval as part of the com-
pliance schedule requirement of 40 CFR 55, a plan for air
monitoring. Alternatively, a separate monitoring plan can
be required as a condition to fuel conversion. In either
case, a monitoring plan should include a description of the
proposed air quality and meteorological monitoring network.
It should include as a minimum a brief description of the
basis for determining the need for monitoring and the follow-
ing information:
a. UTM coordinates, city, county, state, AQCR,
operator, and the name of laboratory performing
analysis for the proposed stations.
b. SAROAD site identification for all existing
stations.
c. The pollutants to be sampled at each station, the
number of stations for each pollutant, the
sampling methods, and sampling schedules.
-------
H
^j
ii
M
W
CJ
fif*
S
O
CO
H
H
O
fXi
P^
O
H
H
1
0
H
H
IjJ
§
w
Q_}
^4
^J
P-t
w
PQ
O
PH
Q
S
^N
O
M
H
H
CO
£5
O
M
H
CO
PS
o
CO
H
H
u
o
M
O
PT[
o
^"1
p**
1
CO
.
CM
w
,-4
^C
H
^•^
co
M
CU
4J
01
5
4J
C
CO
0)
o
rH
PL,
O)
O
J_J
PM
a
o
•rl
4J
CJ
0)
rH
01
to
01
•H
CO
rH.0
co
4J
a
o
N
•H
J^)
Q
pTJ
j_^
cd
o
•H
4-1
^1
-U
tr*
00
•H
(1)
35
0)
U
CO
}-4
CO
CU
rH
o
cd
CJ
C!
cd
s-t
cd
cu
i-H
O
t3
a
3
0
M
to
cu
O
&
CO
Ci
0
•rl
CO
CJ
0
rH
0)
4-1
•H
CO
(U
£
a)
4J
•rH
CO
4J
0
CO
4-1
3
rH
i-H
0
Pu
CM
A
CM
O
4-1
H
in
rH
O
4J
ro
rH
S 1 CO
O UH O
H -rl -rl
UH T> M
O
'O « 4J
Q) C 05
C! O iH UH
•H -H ft -H
8 4J v_,
0) I Ci CO
4J fi Cd 4J
cu o cd
*O 4-i ** *"O
C H
4-1 -H CU >>
G TJ 4J /-x
•rl CO O -H 0)
0 C! 0 rH rH
CX O CO r^
•H Ci 3 td
g CO O CTrH
3 CO -H -H
0 -H CO >-i Cfl
•H S 3 -H >
X CU UH Cfl Cfl
cfl
s
***
CO
CU
CM
0)
._J
Tl
o
•H
XI
J.4
^
m
rH
^3
co
CM
A
CM
O
4-1
rH
in
rH
O
4J
CO
1
CO
rH
3
CU
O
a
l|-|
o
CO
•H
co
cd
jz
C
o
•8
C
•H
g
0)
4-1
01
Q
T3
O
O
J_t
0
rC
00
•H
(U
t-i
•H
cd
•a
§
CO
g
4-1
4J
cd
p.
o
•H
4-1
CO
4J
Ci
01
•H
cd
rl
00
4-1
•H
rH
cd
3
tr
CM
A
CM
0
4J
rH
in
rH
O
4J
cn
C
o
•H
00
Q)
pcj
c
•H
4J
•H
^
cd
d)
rl
cd
C
CO
VJ
3
Ci
0
*X3
§
o
^)
00
K^
o
cd
PQ
CM
A
1
in
rH
O
4-1
CM
CM
O
CO
^1
o
UH
CO
cfl
CJ
00
G
rl 4J
0) VI
f"j Q
4-1 CX
O CX
3
rl CO
(X
o
4-1
UH
O
o
rl
(U
•8
o
9
M
cd
(U
rH
cfl
o
tU
•rl
to
s
O
01
o
CJ
cd
rl
cd
0)
rH
CJ
d
o
N
•H
!-i
O
ffl
10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d. The objective(s) for which sampling for each
pollutant is carried out, i.e., maximum post-
conversion 24-hour concentration, impact on
pre-conversion maximum concentration sites, etc.
e. In addition, Regional Administrators may require
additional information about sampling sites as
outlined in OAQPS Guideline No. 1.2-019, "Air
Quality Monitoring Site Description Guideline."
The approved networks should be established by at least
60 days prior to effective date of conversion. On a monthly
basis, after establishment of the approved network, the source
owner or operator should be required to submit air quality
and meteorological data in SAROAD format either on magnetic
tape or card form, preferably tape, to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office. To meet the rapid reporting schedule, an
automatic data logging and processing system is advised. The
submittal by the source operator should be no later than 30
days after the end of the month for which the data were collected.
The EPA Regional Office should submit the data, after checking
for completeness and general accuracy, to the NADB no later than
60 days after the end of a monthly period. Any SIP network
data to be used to supplement ESECA source-oriented networks
should also be submitted at this time, if possible. This
schedule will allow an evaluation of a source's air quality
impact status between 60 and 90 days after the end of any
monthly or quarterly period.
On a semi-annual basis, in January and July, EPA must
publish in the Federal Register up-to-date summaries of impact
of conversion actions on ambient air quality. EPA Regional
11
-------
Offices should submit by the 10th of those months data to
OAQPS for the preparation of that report. An example format
for entering the data is given in Appendix C. The reports
should contain data for the latest (available) 6-month period,
except for annual averages where the latest 12-month period
is applicable. They should be submitted to Chief, Monitoring
and Reports Branch (MD-14), MDAD, OAQPS, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711.
12
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A
Typical Annual Costs*
for Source Oriented Air Monitoring Network
S0_ Continuous (3)
High Volume Samplers (3)
Sulfate Analysis (As separate item)
Wind Direction and Speed (1)
(Including 10 m. tower)
Shelter
Automatic Data Logging
Processing to Mag Tape in SAROAD Format
*Includes Purchase, Operating and Maintenance Costs
equipment costs amortized over 5 years in equal
$24,000
$ 6,000
$ 3,500
$ 1,200
$ 1,000
$ 3,150
$ 1,750
$40,600
(Capital
amounts)
PRINCIPAL
SOURCE: Final Report, "Cost of Monitoring Air Quality
in the United States , "Research Triangle
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1096, Task No. 3,
December 1973 (20 percent inflation cost
added) .
A-l
Institute,
increase
-------
I
I Appendix B--Atmospheric Simulation Models
I. Introduction
| A key element in the determination of pollutant source impact
_ is an adequate methodology for relating pollutant emissions to ambient
™ ' air quality. The most commonly used tool for relating emissions and air
• quality is an atmospheric simulation or dispersion model.
An atmospheric simulation model is a mathematical description of
| the transport, dispersion and transformation processes that occur in
— the atmosphere. In its simplest form, such a model relates pollutant
• • concentrations (x) to pollutant emissions rates (Q) and a background
• concentration (b),
x = kQ + b.
| The constant k is a function of atmospheric conditions and the spatial
relationship between source and receptor. Atmospheric simulation models
• are ultimately concerned with the variabilities of k and Q and their
• impacts on pollutant concentrations.
Simula-tion models estate concentrations only for pollutants which
I have identified sources, the emissions from which are inputs to the
models. If pollutants occur naturally in the atmosphere or are the
B result of unidentified distant pollutant sources, these pollutant con-
• centrations must be accounted for and separately added to the dispersion
model estimates in order to approximate total ambient concentrations.
• For example, it is commonly assumed that the natural background concen-
tration of total suspended particulate matter is 30-10 ug/m over much
I of the Eastern United States.
I
I
I
B-l
-------
1 1 . Cr i tjca 1 Pi sper s 1 on Cond i t i ons
Dispersion models should be used to simulate meteorological condi-
tions conducive to high ground level pollutant concentrations. Generally,
'he highest pollutant concentrations from point sources with stacks are
"xperienced with one of four critical dispersion conditions: looping,
inversion breakup fumigation, high wind coning, or limited mixing. The
'ooping and fumigation conditions are transient phenomena which generally
•lo not occur for periods long enough to endanger a 24-hour standard.
2 3
However, as has been shown by Carpenter et.al. , and Pooler , high
1 oncentrations may occur with high-wind coning and limited mixing conditions,
''ecause of the persistence of these meteorological conditions, the 24-hour
tandard may be endangered.
The principal characteristics of two dispersion conditions, which
"iay cause point sources to pose a threat to ground-level air quality,
High-Wind Coning. High-wind coning occurs with neutral sta-
bility conditions (See Turner ); these conditions are gener-
ally associated with cloudy, windy weather. The effluent
plume is shaped like a cone, with its axis roughly parallel to
the ground, The maximum ground-level concentration is a
function of the wind speed and the source characteristics
(stack height, gas volume, gas temperature). The wind speed
strongly influences the plume rise, i.e., the height above the
stack at which the plume bends from the vertical toward the
parallel position mentioned above, which in turn influences
the maximum ground level concentration and the distance from
the stack at which this concentration will occur.
Limited Mixing. Limited mixing or trapping occurs when the
upward dispersion of the plume is inhibited by a stable or
inversion layer aloft and the plume is mixed uniformly between
the ground and the stable layer. Maximum concentrations are
accompanied by light winds and occur from 5-10 kilometers from
the source. The maximum concentration is primarily determined
by the elevation and intensity of the stable layer aloft;
stack height has a minor influence.
B-2
-------
I
I Reasonable rules-of-thumb are (1) the high-wind coning condition causes
— highest ground-level concentrations from sources with relatively
• • short stacks (500 feet or less) and (2) the limited mixing situation
• causes greatest ground-level concentrations from sources with tall
stacks (greater than 500 feet). Mathematical models which simulate
14
these critical dispersion conditions are available from Turner and
Volume 10 to Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis .
• It is suggested that the set of plume rise equations given by Briggs
• be used in any dispersion estimates.
Most dispersion models provide estimates of 1-hour average concen-
• trations. To estimate 24-hour concentrations from 1-hour concentrations
it is suggested that a 4:1 ratio of the l-to-24-hour concentrations be
• assumed. This accounts for the daily variability of weather conditions
• by implicitly assuming that the wind direction prevails in one direction
for 6 of the 24 hours during the day on which the critical condition
• occurs. The suggested ratio of 4:1 is supported by substantial data
collected around power plants in the States of Kentucky , Massachu-
18 Q
setts and Ohio . Wherever observed data are available, location-
• specific estimates of the l-to-24-hour concentration ratios should be
used.
• HI. Special Situations
In addition to the critical dispersion conditions noted above,
I special situations such as aerodynamic downwash of the plume and plume
• . impaction on prominent terrain features can cause high pollutant concen-
trations.
• In the case of emissions released from a short stack, e.g., one
which is less than 2 1/2 times the height of an adjacent building,
I B-3
I
-------
emissions can become trapped under so;"e wind conditions in the turbulent
cavity immediately downwind of the adjacent building. In this case, the
maximum concentration can be estimated by the use of simple volume
ipproximation. . While such downwash is generally a short-lived phe-
•lomenon, sources subject to downwash which encounter periods of per-
sistent high winds may cause substantial 24-hour pollutant concentra-
tions. In such cases, downwash should be considered the critical con-
Jition.
If rough terrain is present, major differences in the height of the
source and the height of the significant receptor locations may be
accounted for by modifying the effective plume height as follows:
h = H + Zs - Zr
"jhere
h - height of source plume with respect to the height of the
critical location (meters)
? = elevation of source (meters)
Z = elevation of critical location (meters)
rhe above correction procedure should be used only where major terrain
''ariations due to hills and valleys are present. Negative and small
nositive values of h, derived from this equation, should not be used in
>:he modeling equation. In such cases it is recommended that a value of
h = 10 meters be used. Estimates of the 1-hour concentrations developed
for these situations can be ratioed to 24-hour concentrations in a
Manner similar to that for the coning and limited mixing models.
B-4
-------
I
I While the simplified techniques noted above make reasonable assump-
tions about plume behavior in complex situations, they cannot consider
| the impact of the plume in the detail which is desirable. The use of
. physical models in wind tunnels or water channels allows a more detailed
study of plume behavior. Physical modeling is recommended for complex
I terrain situations when feasible.
IV. Computerized Simulation Models
I Specific computer programs which provide a more detailed analysis
_ than the simplified mathematical models are available. Computerized
™ models can consider a wide variety of meteorological conditions so that
I both average and worst case conditions and their frequencies can be
n T 2
determined. Such point source models are available within EPA '
I which (1) estimate concentrations at numerous receptors for averaging
times of 1 hour, 24 hours and 1 year, and (2) simulate the impact of
• sources on elevated terrain.
• It is also possible to use point source models in the UNAMAP
system to estimate concentrations for the high wind and limited mixing
I situations or to repetitiously apply the models to hourly periods for a
long period of time. To estimate annual average concentrations with
I 14
• computerized dispersion models, the Air Quality Display Model , and the
• Climatological Dispersion Model are available.
The models discussed in this appendix are applicable for estimating
I " concentrations of S02> particulate matter, and non-decaying pollutants.
In those cases where the impact of pollutants undergoing major atmos-
• pheric transformations are of concern, e.g., between NO and NCL, no
I
B-5
I
I
-------
widely accepted methods are available for determining pollutant concen-
trations. In such cases, it is necessary to make assumptions concerning
the conversion rate of the pollutant and the chemical constituents of
resulting compounds before concentration estimates can be made.
B-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References
1. McCormick, R.A., "Air Pollution Climatology" in Air
Pollution Volume 1, Edited by A.C. Stern, Academic
Press, New York, New York, 10003 (1968).
2. Carpenter, S.B., et. al., "Principal Plume Dispersion
Models; TVA Power Plants". Air Pollution Control
Association Journal, Volume 22f No^8, pp.491-495,
(1971).
3. Pooler, F., "Potential Dispersion of Plumes from
Large Power Plants". PHS Publication No. 999-AP-16,
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (1965).
4. Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates". Office of Air Programs Publication
No. AP-26. Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 21402 (1970).
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards;
"Reviewing New Stationary Sources", Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 10'.
Publication No. EPA-450/4-74-011 (OAQPS No. 1.2-029),
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 (1974).
6. Briggs, G.A., Plume Rise, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Division of Technical Information, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
(1969).
7. Montgomery, T.L., "The Relationship Between Peak and
Mean SO? Concentrations", Conference on Air Pollution
Meteorology, American Meteorological Society, Boston,
Massachusetts 02108 (April 5-9, 1971).
8. Mills, M.T., "Comprehensive Analysis of Time-Concentration
Relationships and the Validation of a Single-Source
Dispersion Model", Final Report, EPA Contract No.
68-02-1376 (Task Order No. 5), GCA/Technology Division,
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 (March 1975).
9. Mills, M.T., and Stern, R.W., "Validation of a Single-
Source Dispersion-Model for Sulfur Dioxide at the
J.M. Stuart Power Plant", Final Interim Report -
Phase I, EPA Contract No. 19, GCA/Technology Division,
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 (July 1975).
-------
10. Smith, M.E., "Recommended Guide for the Prediction of
the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents", The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York
10017 (1973).
11. Hrenko, J., Turner, D.B., and Zimmerman, J., "Interim
User's Guide to a Computation Technique to Estimate
Maximum 24-Hour Concentrations from Single Sources",
Meteorology Laboratory, National Environmental Research
Center, EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
(October 1972, Unpublished Manuscript).
12. Burt, E., "Description of Terrain Model (C8M3D)",
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, (September 1971,
Unpublished Manuscript).
13. U.S. EPA, "User's Network for Applied Modeling of Air
Pollution" (UNAMAP). (Computer Programs on Tape for
Point Source Models, HIWAY, Climatological Dispersion
Model and APRAC-iA) NTIS PB 229771, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151 (1974).
14. TRW Systems Group, "Air Quality Display Model",
prepared for the National Air Pollution Control
Administration under Contract No. PH-22-68-60
(NTIS PB 189194) DHEW, U.S. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C. (November 1969).
15. Busse, A.D. and Zimmerman, J.R., "User's Guide for
the Climatological Dispersion Model", Environmental
Monitoring Series EPA-R4-73-024 (NTIS PB 227346AS)
NERC, EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, (December
1973) .
B-8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
FEDERAL REGISTER REPORTING OF IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY OF COAL
CONVERSION ACTIONS (SEMI-ANNUAL)
Suggested Format for Source Information Requested for FR
Report Preparation:
Source Name
Location
I Type of ESECA Action
Total No. of Units
Units Converted to Coal_
Dates of Conversion
Fuels Burned in Each Unit Prior to Conversion_
Fuel Consumption Rate Per Unit (Amount/Mo.):
Before Conversion
After Conversion
I
I
I
Fuel Quality Data: Coal Oil Gas
• Avg. Sulfur Content (%)
Avg. Ash Content (%)
• Avg. Heating Value (BTU/Amt.)
Type Control Equipment & Efficiency:
• SO.,
Particulate Matter (PM)_
Date of Last Emissions Test
Type of Test: Stack ( ) Fuel Analysis ( )
Estimated Emission Rate* (g/sec): Avg. Load Peak Load
Before Conversion -
S02
PM
After Conversion -
S02
PM
*by total facility or breakdown by separate units
i
-------
Suggested Format for Air Quality Information Requested for FR
Report Preparation
Location of Air Monitoring Sites
Pollutant(s) Monitored at Sites
Pollutant Summary
Monitoring Site Data -
Highest
Pollutant Avg. Period Quarter No. Values E£>. NAAQS 1st 2nd
SO 3-hour
* 24-hour
Annual Avg.* =
TSP 2 4-hour _
Annual Avg.* =
Other (Sulfates, NO2, etc.)
*Last 12 months ending with latest reporting period.
C-2
-------
-------
ca
r
H
)— i
O
2
2
O
•
O
>
o
^
C/)
^
O
N 2 33
o y-
Q. w
o S-
~" Z
-.05-2
S 3s. 5
(Q O o Z
;?!??
zl^l
Z 2 Q) O
o 3 ^ H
i^ «>' 2 m
9i S ^
03 —
O
s H
m
Z
o
m m
O m
-H en
o
m
O
------- |