EPA-450/2 - 78 - 027R-B
                                       (NTIS No. PB 93-213213)
                  SUPPLEMENT B

                       TO THE

GUIDELINE ON AIR QUALITY MODELS (REVISED)

              (Appendix W of 40  CFR Part 51)
                                       PROTECTION
                                         AGENCY

                                      »AkkAS, TEXAS

                                         LIBRARY
                     FEBRUARY 1993
           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711

-------
                         NOTE
The following  pages contained in Supplement  B to the
Guideline on Air  Quality Models  (Revised)  (EPA Publi-
cation No. EPA-450/2-78-027R)  are to be  inserted in the
Guideline, with Supplement A already having been incor-
porated.  The page numbers will indicate  which pages are
to be added and which are to replace  previous pages.  As
the ERT Air Quality Model  (ERTAQ)  and the Multiple Point
Source Diffusion  Model  (MPSDM) are  being deleted from
Appendix B,  pages  B-19   ->  B-22  and  B-59   ->  B-62,
respectively,  should  be  removed  from any  previous
editions of the Guideline.

-------
                                    PREFACE

      Industry and control agencies have long expressed a need for consistency
in the application of air quality models for regulatory purposes.  In the 1977
Clean Air Act, Congress mandated such consistency and encouraged the
standardization of model applications.  The Guideline on Air Quality Models
was first published in April 1978 to satisfy these requirements by specifying
models and providing guidance for their use.  This guideline provides a common
basis for estimating the air quality concentrations used in assessing control
strategies and developing emission limits.

      The continuing development of new air quality models in response to
regulatory requirements and the expanded requirements for models to cover even
more complex problems have emphasized the need for periodic review and update
of guidance on these techniques.  Four primary on-going activities provide
direct input to revisions of this modeling guideline.  The first is a series
of annual EPA workshops conducted for the purpose of ensuring consistency and
providing clarification in the application of models.  The second activity,
directed toward the improvement of modeling procedures, is the cooperative
agreement that EPA has with the scientific community represented by the
American Meteorological Society.  This agreement provides scientific
assessment of procedures and proposed techniques and sponsors workshops on key
technical issues.  The third activity is the solicitation and review of new
models from the technical and user community.  In the March 27, 1980 Federal
Register, a procedure was outlined for the submittal to EPA of privately
developed models.  After extensive evaluation and scientific review, these
models, as well as those made available by EPA, are considered for recognition
in this guideline.  The fourth activity is the extensive on-going research
efforts by EPA and others in air quality and meteorological modeling.

      Based primarily on these four activities, this document embodies
revisions to the "Guideline on Air Quality Models."  Although the text has
been revised from the 1978 guide, the present content and topics are similar.
As necessary, new sections and topics are included.  EPA does not make changes
to the guidance on a predetermined schedule, but rather on an as needed basis.
EPA believes that revisions to this guideline should be timely and responsive
to user needs and should involve public participation to the greatest possible
extent.  All future changes to the guidance will be proposed and finalized in
the Federal Register.  Information on the current status of modeling guidance
can always be obtained from EPA's Regional Offices.
                                      iii                         Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
              IV

-------
                               TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

                                                                          Page

PREFACE	   iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS	   v

LIST OF TABLES	   ix

1.0  INTRODUCTION   	   1-1

2.0  OVERVIEW OF MODEL USE	   2-1

     2.1     Suitability of Models	   2-2
     2.2     Classes of Models	   2-4
     2.3     Levels of Sophistication of Models 	   2-6

3.0  RECOMMENDED AIR QUALITY MODELS   	   3-1

     3.1     Preferred Modeling Techniques  	   3-3
             3.1.1  Discussion	   3-3
             3.1.2  Recommendations	   3-5
     3.2     Use of Alternative Models	   3-6
             3.2.1  Discussion	   3-6
             3.2.2  Recommendations	   3-7
     3.3     Availability of Supplementary Modeling Guidance  	   3-9
             3.3.1  The Model Clearinghouse	   3-10
             3.3.2  Regional Meteorologists Workshops 	   3-12

4.0  SIMPLE-TERRAIN STATIONARY-SOURCE MODELS  	   4-1

     4.1     Discussion	   4-1
     4.2     Recommendations	   4-2
             4.2.1  Screening Techniques  	   4-2
             4.2.2  Refined Analytical Techniques 	   4-3

5.0  MODEL USE IN COMPLEX TERRAIN    	   5-1

     5.1     Discussion	   5-1
     5.2     Recommendations	   5-3
             5.2.1  Screening Techniques  	   5-4
             5.2.2  Refined Analytical Techniques 	   5-7

6.0  MODELS FOR OZONE, CARBON MONOXIDE AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE   	   6-1

     6.1     Discussion	   6-1
     6.2     Recommendations	   6-3
             6.2.1  Models for Ozone	   6-3
             6.2.2  Models for Carbon Monoxide  	   6-4
             6.2.3  Models for Nitrogen Dioxide (Annual Average)  .  .   .   6-5
                                                                  Revised 2/93

-------
                                                                          Page

7.0  OTHER MODEL REQUIREMENTS   	   7-1

     7.1     Discussion	   7-1
     7.2     Recommendations	   7-3
             7.2.1  Fugitive Dust/Fugitive Emissions  	   7-3
             7.2.2  Particulate Matter  	   7-4
             7.2.3  Lead	   7-5
             7.2.4  Visibility	   7-6
             7.2.5  Good Engineering Practice Stack Height  	   7-7
             7.2.6  Long Range Transport (LRT)  (i.e.,  beyond 50km)   .   .   7-8
             7.2.7  Modeling Guidance for Other Governmental Programs   .   7-9
             7.2.8  Air Pathway Analyses (Air Toxics and Hazardous
                    Waste	   7-10

8.0  GENERAL MODELING CONSIDERATIONS  	   8-1

     8.1     Discussion	   8-1
     8.2     Recommendations	   8-2
             8.2.1   Design Concentrations  	   8-2
             8.2.2   Critical Receptor Sites  	   8-4
             8.2.3   Dispersion Coefficients  	   8-5
             8.2.4   Stability Categories 	   8-6
             8.2.5   Plume Rise	   8-7
             8.2.6   Chemical Transformation  	   8-8
             8.2.7   Gravitational Settling and Deposition  	   8-9
             8.2.8   Urban/Rural Classification 	   8-10
             8.2.9   Fumigation	   8-11
             8.2.10  Stagnation 	   8-12
             8.2.11  Calibration of Models  	   8-13

9 .0  MODEL INPUT DATA   	   9-1

     9.1     Source Data	   9-2
             9.1.1   Discussion	   9-2
             9.1.2   Recommendations	   9-3
     9.2     Background Concentrations  	   9-7
             9.2.1   Discussion	   9-7
             9.2.2   Recommendations  (Isolated Single Source)  	   9-8
             9.2.3   Recommendations  (Multi-Source Areas) 	   9-8
     9.3     Meteorological Input Data	   9-10
             9.3.1   Length of Record of Meteorological Data	   9-11
             9.3.2   National Weather Service Data  	   9-13
             9.3.3   Site-Specific Data	   9-15
             9.3.4   Treatment of Calms	   9-23
                                      vi                          Revised 2/93

-------
                                                                          Page

10.0 ACCuliicY Alto tJNCERTAINTY OF MODELS   	   10-1

     10.1    Dicussion	   10-1
             10.1.1  Overview of Model Uncertainty   	   10-1
             10.1.2  Studies of Model Accuracy   	   10-3
             10.1.3  Use of Uncertainty in Decision-Making   	   10-4
             10.1.4  Evaluation of Models 	   10-6
     10.2    Recommendations	   10-8

11.0 REGULATORY APPLICATION OF MODELS   	   11-1

     11.1    Discussion	   11-1
     11.2    Recommendations	   11-3
             11.2.1  Analysis Requirements  	   11-3
             11.2.2  Use of Measured Data in Lieu of Model Estimates   .   11-5
             11.2.3  Emission Limits  	   11-7

12.0 REFERENCES   	   12-1

13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY   	   13-1

14.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS	   14-1

     APPENDIX A TO APPENDIX W OF PART 51 - SUMMARIES OF PREFERRED
     AIR QUALITY MODELS   	   A-l

     APPENDIX B TO APPENDIX W OF PART 51 - SUMMARIES OF ALTERNATIVE
     AIR QUALITY MODELS   	   B-l

     APPENDIX C TO APPENDIX W OF PART 51 - EXAMPLE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
     CHECKLIST  .  '	   C-l
                                      vii                          Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
             Vlll

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES
Table No.                           Title                                 Page
   4-1       Preferred Models for Selected Applications in
             Simple Terrain 	   4-4

   5-la      Neutral/Stable Meteorological Matrix for CTSCREEN  ....   5-9

   5-lb      Unstable/Convective Meteorological Matrix for
             CTSCREEN	   5-9

   5-2       Preferred Options for the SHORTZ/LONGZ Computer
             Codes When Used in a Screening Mode	   5-10

   5-3       Preferred Options for the RTDM Computer Code When
             Used in a Screening Mode	   5-11

   9-1       Model Emission Input Data for Point Sources  	   9-5

   9-2       Point Source Model Input Data (Emissions)  for
             PSD NAAQS Compliance Demonstrations  	   9-6

   9-3       Averaging Times for Site-Specific Wind and
             Turbulence Measurements  	   9-19
                                      ix                          Revised 2/93

-------
     Recommendations are made in this guide concerning air quality models,




data bases, requirements for concentration estimates, the use of measured data




in lieu of model estimates, and model evaluation procedures.  Models are




identified for some specific applications.  The guidance provided here should




be followed in all air quality analyses relative to State Implementation Plans




and in analyses required by EPA, State and local agency air programs.  The EPA




may approve the use of another technique that can be demonstrated to be more




appropriate than those recommended in this guide. This is discussed at greater




length in Section 3.0.  In all cases, the model applied to a given situation




should be the one that provides the most accurate representation of




atmospheric transport, dispersion, and chemical transformations in the area of




interest.  However, to ensure consistency, deviations from this guide should




be carefully documented and fully supported.




     From time to time situations arise requiring clarification of the intent




of the guidance on a specific topic.  Periodic workshops are held with the EPA




Regional Meteorologists to ensure consistency in modeling guidance and to




promote the use of more accurate air quality models and data bases.  The




workshops serve to provide further explanations of guideline requirements to




the Regional Offices and workshop reports are issued with this clarifying




information.  In addition,  findings from on-going research programs, new model




submittals, or results from model evaluations and applications are




continuously evaluated.  Based on this information, changes in the guidance




may be indicated.




     All changes to this guidance must follow rulemaking requirements since




the guideline is codified in Appendix W of part 51.  EPA will promulgate




proposed and final rules in the Federal Register to amend this Appendix.








                                      1-3                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
Ample opportunity for public comment will be provided for each proposed change




and public hearings scheduled if requested.  Final rule changes will be made




available through the National Technical Information Service  (NTIS).




     A wide range of topics on modeling and data bases are discussed in the




remainder of this guideline.  Chapter 2 gives an overview of models and their




appropriate use.  Chapter 3 provides specific guidance on the use of




"preferred" air quality models and on the selection of alternative techniques.




Chapters 4 through 7 provide recommendations on modeling techniques for




application to simple-terrain stationary source problems, complex terrain




problems, and mobile source problems.  Specific modeling requirements for




selected regulatory issues are also addressed.  Chapter 8 discusses issues




common to many modeling analyses, including acceptable model components.




Chapter 9 makes recommendations for data inputs to models including source,




meteorological and background air quality data.  Chapter 10 covers the




uncertainty in model estimates and how that information can be useful to the




regulatory decision-maker.  The last chapter summarizes how estimates and




measurements of air quality are used in assessing source impact and in




evaluating control strategies.




     Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (the "Guideline on Air Quality Models




(Revised)")  itself contains three appendices:  A, B,  and C.  Thus, when




reference is made to "appendix A" in this document, it refers to the appendix




A to appendix W to 40 CFR part 51.  Appendices B and C are referenced in the




same way.




     Appendix A contains summaries of refined air quality models that are




"preferred"  for specific applications; both EPA models and models developed by




others are included.   Appendix B contains summaries of other refined models








                                      1-4                          Revised 2/93

-------
that may be considered with a case-specific justification.  Appendix C




contains a checklist of requirements for an air quality analysis.
                                     1-5                          Revised 2/93

-------
     3.2  Use of Alternative Models





          3.2.1  Discussion





                 Selection of the best techniques for each individual air





quality analysis is always encouraged, but the selection should be done in a





consistent manner.  A simple listing of models in this guide cannot alone





achieve that consistency nor can it necessarily provide the best model for all





possible situations.  An EPA document, "Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air





Quality Models",13-16  has been prepared  to  assist in developing a  consistent





approach when justifying the use of other than the preferred modeling tech-





niques recommended in this guide.  An alternative to be considered to the





performance measures contained in Chapter 3 of this document is set forth in





another EPA document "Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model".17





The procedures in both documents provide a general framework for objective





decision-making on the acceptability of an alternative model for a given





regulatory application.   The documents contain procedures for conducting both





the technical evaluation of the model and the field test or performance





evaluation.





                 This section discusses the use of alternate modeling tech-





niques and defines three situations when alternative models may be used.
                                      3-6                          Revised 2/93

-------
          3.2.2  Recommendations

                 Determination of acceptability of a model is a
Regional Office responsibility.  Where the Regional Administrator finds that
an alternative model is more appropriate than a preferred model, that model
may be used subject to the recommendations below.  This finding will normally
result from a determination that  (1) a preferred air quality model is not
appropriate for the particular application; or (2) a more appropriate model or
analytical procedure is available and is applicable.

                 An alternative model should be evaluated from both a theoret-
ical and a performance perspective before it is selected for use.  There are
three separate conditions under which such a model will normally be approved
for use:  (1)  if a demonstration can be made that the model produces concen-
tration estimates equivalent to the estimates obtained using a preferred
model;  (2) if a statistical performance evaluation has been conducted using
measured air quality data and the results of that evaluation indicate the
alternative model performs better for the application than a comparable model
in Appendix A; and (3)  if there is no preferred model for the specific
application but a refined model is needed to satisfy regulatory requirements.
Any one of these three separate conditions may warrant use of an alternative
model.  Some known alternative models that are applicable for selected
situations are contained in Appendix B.  However, inclusion there does not
infer any unique status relative to other alternative models that are being or
will be developed in the future.

                 Equivalency is established by demonstrating that the maximum
or highest,  second highest concentrations are within 2 percent of the esti-
mates obtained from the preferred model.  The option to show equivalency is
intended as a simple demonstration of acceptability for an alternative model
that is so nearly identical (or contains options that can make it identical)
to a preferred model that it can be treated for practical purposes as the
preferred model.  Two percent was selected as the basis for equivalency since
it is a rough approximation of the fraction that PSD Class I increments are of
the NAAQS for SO2,  i.e.,  the difference  in  concentrations  that  is  judged to be
significant.  However,  notwithstanding this demonstration, use of models that
are not equivalent may be used when one of the two other conditions identified
below are satisfied.

                 The procedures and techniques for determining the acceptabil-
ity of a model for an individual case based on superior performance is con-
tained in the document entitled "Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality
Models",15 and should be followed, as appropriate."  Preparation and implemen-
tation of an evaluation protocol which is acceptable to both control agencies
and regulated industry is an important element in such an evaluation.
     "Another  EPA document,  "Protocol  for Determining the  Best  Performing
Model,"17 contains advanced statistical techniques for determining which model
performs better than other competing models.  In many cases, this protocol
should be considered by users of the "Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air
Quality Models" in preference to the material currently in Chapter 3 of that
document.

                                      3-7                         Revised 2/93

-------
                 When no Appendix A model is applicable to the modeling
problem, an alternative refined model may be used provided that:

                 1.   the model can be demonstrated to be applicable to the
problem on a theoretical basis, and

                 2.   the data bases which are necessary to perform the
analysis are available and adequate, and

                 3a. performance evaluations of the model in similar circum-
stances have shown that the model is not biased toward underestimates, or

                 3b. after consultation with the EPA Regional Office, a second
model is selected as a baseline or reference point for performance and the
interim procedures'/protocol17 are then used to demonstrate that the proposed
model performs better than the reference model.
                                     3-8                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
     4.2  Recommendations

          4.2.1  Screening Techniques

                 Point source screening techniques are an acceptable approach
to air quality analyses.  One such approach is contained in the EPA document
"Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary
Sources".18  A computerized version of the screening technique, SCREEN2, is
available.19-20

                 All screening procedures should be adjusted to the site and
problem at hand.  Close attention should be paid to whether the area should be
classified urban or rural in accordance with Section 8.2.8.  The climatology
of the area should be studied to help define the worst-case meteorological
conditions.   Agreement should be reached between the model user and the
reviewing authority on the choice of the screening model for each analysis,
and on the input data as well as the ultimate use of the results.
                                     4-2                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
                                   TABLE 4-1

         Preferred Models for Selected Applications in Simple Terrain


Short Term  (i.e., 1-24 hours)             Land Use          Model'

   Single Source                          Rural             CRSTER
                                          Urban             RAM

   Multiple Source                        Rural             MPTER
                                          Urban             RAM

   Complicated Sources2                   Rural/Urban       ISCST2

   Buoyant Industrial Line Sources        Rural             BLP

Long Term (i.e.,  monthly, seasonal or annual)

   Single Source                          Rural             CRSTER
                                          Urban             RAM

   Multiple Source                        Rural             MPTER
                                          Urban             COM 2.0 or RAM3

   Complicated Sources2                   Rural/Urban       ISCLT2

   Buoyant Industrial Line Sources        Rural             BLP
     'Several  of  these models  contain options which allow them to be inter-
changed.  For Example,  ISCST2 can be substituted for CRSTER and equivalent, if
not identical, concentration estimates obtained.  Similarly, for a point
source application, MPTER with urban option  can be substituted for RAM.  Where
a substitution is convenient to the user and equivalent estimates are assured,
it may be made.  The models as listed here reflect the applications for which
they were originally intended.

     Complicated sources  are  those  with  special problems such as aerodynamic
downwash, particle deposition, volume and area sources, etc.

     3If only  a few sources  in an urban area are to be modeled,  RAM should be
used.

                                      4-4             ,            Revised 2/93

-------
5.0  MODEL USE IN COMPLEX TERRAIN




     5.1  Discussion




          For the purpose of this guideline, complex terrain  is defined as




terrain exceeding the height of the stack being modeled.  Complex terrain




dispersion models are normally applied to stationary sources  of pollutants




such as SO2 and particulates.





          A major outcome from the EPA Complex Terrain Model  Development




project has been the publication of a refined dispersion model  (CTDM)  suitable




for regulatory application to plume impaction assessments in  complex terrain.21





Although CTDM as originally produced was only applicable to those hours




characterized as neutral or stable, a computer code for all stability




conditions, CTDMPLUS,19 together with a user's guide,22 and on-site meteorolog-





ical and terrain data processors,23'24  is now  available.  Moreover,  CTSCREEN,'9>23





a version of CTDMPLUS that does not require on-site meteorological data




inputs,  is also available as a screening technique.




          The methods discussed in this section should be considered in two




categories: (1) screening techniques, and (2) the refined dispersion model,




CTDMPLUS,  discussed below and listed in Appendix A.




          Continued improvements in ability to accurately model plume  disper-




sion in complex terrain situations can be expected, e.g., from research on lee




side effects due to terrain obstacles.  New approaches to improve the  ability




of models to realistically simulate atmospheric physics,  e.g., hybrid  models




which incorporate an accurate wind field analysis, will ultimately provide




more appropriate tools for analyses.  Such hybrid modeling techniques  are also




acceptable for regulatory applications after the appropriate  demonstration and




evaluation. '5







                                      5-1                          Revised 2/93

-------
     5.2  Recommendations

          Recommendations in this Section apply primarily to those situations
where the impaction of plumes on terrain at elevations equal to or greater
than the plume centerline during stable atmospheric conditions are determined
to be the problem.  If a violation of any NAAQS or the controlling increment
is indicated by using any of the preferred screening techniques, then a
refined complex terrain model may be used.  Phenomena such as fumigation, wind
direction shear, lee-side effects, building wake- or terrain-induced downwash,
deposition, chemical transformation, variable plume trajectories, and long
range transport are not addressed by the recommendations in this section.

          Where site-specific data are used for either screening or refined
complex terrain models, a data base of at least 1 full-year of meteorological
data is preferred.  If more data are available, they should be used.  Meteoro-
logical data used in the analysis should be reviewed for both spatial and
temporal representativeness.

          Placement of receptors requires very careful attention when modeling
in complex terrain.  Often the highest concentrations are predicted to occur
under very stable conditions, when the plume is near, or impinges on, the
terrain.  The plume under such conditions may be quite narrow in the vertical,
so that even relatively small changes in a receptor's location may substan-
tially affect the predicted concentration.  Receptors within about a kilometer
of the source may be even more sensitive to location.  Thus, a dense array of
receptors may be required in some cases.  In order to avoid excessively large
computer runs due to such a large array of receptors, it is often desirable to
model the area twice.   The first model run would use a moderate number of
receptors carefully located over the area of interest.  The second model run
would use a more dense array of receptors in areas showing potential for high
concentrations, as indicated by the results of the first model run.

          When CTSCREEN or CTDMPLUS is used, digitized contour data must be
first processed by the CTDM Terrain Processor23 to provide hill shape parame-
ters in a format suitable for direct input to CTDMPLUS.  Then the user
supplies receptors either through an interactive program that is part of the
model or directly, by using a text editor; using both methods to select
receptors will generally be necessary to assure that the maximum concentra-
tions are estimated by either model.  In cases where a terrain feature may
"appear to the plume"  as smaller, multiple hills, it may be necessary to model
the terrain both as a single feature and as multiple hills to determine design
concentrations.

          The user is encouraged to confer with the Regional Office if any
unresolvable problems are encountered with any screening or refined analytical
procedures, e.g.,  meteorological data, receptor siting, or terrain contour
processing issues.
                                      5-2                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
          5.2.1  Screening Techniques

                 Five preferred screening techniques are currently available
to aid in the evaluation of concentrations due to plume impaction during
stable conditions:   (1) for 24-hour impacts, the Valley Screening Technique'9
as outlined in the Valley Model User's Guide;26  (2) CTSCREEN," as outlined  in
the CTSCREEN User's Guide;25  (3) COMPLEX I;19  (4) SHORTZ/LONGZ ;19-27 and (5)  Rough
Terrain Dispersion Model (RTDM) |9>9°  in  its prescribed  mode  described below.   As
appropriate, any of these screening techniques may be used consistent with the
needs, resources, and available data of the user.

                 The Valley Model, COMPLEX I, SHORTZ/LONGZ, and RTDM should be
used only to estimate concentrations at receptors whose elevations are greater
than or equal to plume height.  For receptors at or below stack height, a
simple terrain model should be used (see Chapter 4).  Receptors between stack
height and plume height present a unique problem since none of the above
models were designed to handle receptors in this narrow regime, the definition
of which will vary hourly as meteorological conditions vary.  CTSCREEN may be
used to estimate concentrations under all stability conditions at all recep-
tors located "on terrain" above stack top,  but has limited applicability in
multi-source situations.  As a result, the estimation of concentrations at
receptors between stack height and plume height should be considered on a
case-by-case basis after consultation with the EPA Regional Office; the most
appropriate technique may be a function of the actual source(s) and terrain
configuration unique to that application.   One technique that will generally
be acceptable,  but is not necessarily preferred for any specific application,
involves applying both a complex terrain model  (except for the Valley Model)
and a simple terrain model.  The Valley Model should not be used for any
intermediate terrain receptor.  For each receptor between stack height and
plume height, an hour-by-hour comparison of the concentration estimates from
both models is made.  The higher of the two modeled concentrations should  be
chosen to represent-the impact at that receptor for that hour, and then used
to compute the concentration for the appropriate averaging time(s).  For the
simple terrain models,  terrain may have to be "chopped off" at stack height,
since these models are frequently limited to receptors no greater than stack
height.

                 5.2.1.1  Valley Screening Technique

                          The Valley Screening Technique may be used to
determine 24-hour averages.  This technique uses the Valley Model with the
following worst-case assumptions for rural areas:  (1) P-G stability "F";
(2)  wind speed of 2.5 m/s;  and (3) 6 hours of occurrence.  For urban areas
the stability should be changed to "P-G stability E."

                          When using the Valley Screening Technique to obtain
24-hour average concentrations the following apply:   (1) multiple sources
should be treated individually and the concentrations for each wind direction
summed; (2)  only one wind direction should be used (see User's Guide,26 page 2-
15)  even if individual runs are made for each" source; (3)  for buoyant sources,
the BID option may be used, and the option to use the 2.6 stable plume rise
factor should be selected;  (4) if plume impaction is likely on any elevated
terrain closer to the source than the distance from the source to the final
                                      5-3                          Revised 2/93

-------
plume rise, then the transitional  (or gradual) plume rise option for stable
conditions should be selected.

                          The standard polar receptor grid found in the Valley
Model User's Guide may not be sufficiently dense for all analyses if only one
geographical scale factor is used.  The user should choose an additional set
of receptors at appropriate downwind distances whose elevations are equal to
plume height minus 10 meters.  Alternatively, the user may exercise the
"Valley equivalent" option in COMPLEX I or SCREEN2 and note the comments above
on the placement of receptors in complex terrain models.

                          When using the "Valley equivalent" option in
COMPLEX I, set the wind profile exponents (PL) to 0.0, respectively, for all
six stability classes.

                 5.2.1.2  CTSCREEN

                          CTSCREEN may be used to obtain conservative, yet
realistic, worst-case estimates for receptors located on terrain above stack
height.  CTSCREEN accounts for the three-dimensional nature of plume and
terrain interaction and requires detailed terrain data representative of the
modeling domain.  The model  description and user's instructions are contained
in the user's guide.25  The terrain data must be digitized in the same manner
as for CTDMPLUS and a terrain processor is available.23  A discussion of the
model's performance characteristics is provided in a technical paper.91
CTSCREEN is designed to execute a fixed matrix of meteorological values for
wind speed (u) , standard deviation of horizontal and vertical wind speeds  (crv,
ffw),  vertical potential temperature gradient (d6/dz),  friction velocity (u.) ,
Monin-Obukhov length (L) ,  mixing height (z-,) as a function of terrain height,
and wind directions for both neutral/stable conditions and unstable convective
conditions.  Table 5-1 contains the matrix of meteorological variables that is
used for each CTSCREEN analysis.  There are 96 combinations, including
exceptions, for each wind direction for the neutral/stable case, and 108
combinations for the unstable case.  The specification of wind direction,
however, is handled internally,  based on the source and terrain geometry.  The
matrix was developed from examination of the range of meteorological variables
associated with maximum monitored concentrations from the data bases used to
evaluate the performance of CTDMPLUS.  Although  CTSCREEN is designed to
address a single source scenario, there are a number of options that can be
selected on a case-by-case basis to address multi-source situations.  However,
the Regional Office should be consulted, and concurrence obtained, on the
protocol for modeling multiple sources with CTSCREEN to ensure that the worst
case is identified and assessed.  The maximum concentration output from
CTSCREEN represents a worst-case 1-hour concentration.  Time-scaling factors
of 0.7 for 3-hour, 0.15 for 24-hour and 0.03 for annual concentration averages
are applied internally by CTSCREEN to the highest 1-hour concentration
calculated by the model.

                 5.2.1.3  COMPLEX I

                          If the area is rural,  COMPLEX I may be used to
estimate concentrations for all averaging times.   COMPLEX I is a modification
of the MPTER model that incorporates the plume impaction algorithm of the
Valley Model."  It is a multiple-source screening technique that accepts

                                      5-4                          Revised 2/93

-------
hourly meteorological data as input.  The output is the same as the normal
MPTER output.  When using COMPLEX I the following options should be selected:
U) set terrain adjustment IOPT{1) = 1;  (2) set buoyancy induced dispersion
IOPT (4) =1;  (3) set IOPT  (25) = 1;  (4) set the terrain adjustment values to
0.5, 0.5, 0.5 0.5, 0.0, 0.0,  (respectively for six stability classes); and
(5) set Z MIN = 10.

                          When using the "Valley equivalent" option  (only) in
COMPLEX I, set the wind profile exponents  (PL) to 0.0, respectively, for all
six stability classes.  For all other regulatory uses of COMPLEX I, set the
wind profile exponents to the values used in the simple terrain models, i.e.,
0.07, 0.07, 0.10, 0.15, 0.35, and 0.55, respectively, for rural modeling.

                          Gradual plume rise should be used to estimate
concentrations at nearby elevated receptors, if plume impaction is likely on
any elevated terrain closer to the source than the distance from the source to
the final plume rise  (see Section 8.2.5).

                 5.2.1.4  SHORTZ/LONGZ

                          If the source is located in an urbanized  (Section
8.2.8)  complex terrain valley, then the suggested screening technique is
SHORTZ for short-term averages or LONGZ for long-term averages.  SHORTZ and
LONGZ may be used as screening techniques in these complex terrain applica-
tions without demonstration and evaluation.  Application of these models in
other than urbanized valley situations will require the same evaluation and
demonstration procedures as are required for all Appendix B models.

                          Both SHORTZ and LONGZ have a number of options.
When using these models as screening techniques for urbanized valley applica-
tions,  the options listed in Table 5-2 should be selected.

                 5.2.1.5  RTDM (Screening Mode)

                          RTDM with the options specified in Table 5-3 may be
used as a screening technique in rural complex terrain situations without
demonstration and evaluation.

                          The RTDM screening technique can provide a more
refined concentration estimate if on-site wind speed and direction character-
istic of plume dilution and transport are used as input to the model.  In
complex terrain,  these winds can seldom be estimated accurately from the
standard surface (10m level) measurements.   Therefore, in order to increase
confidence in model estimates, EPA recommends that wind data input to RTDM
should be based on fixed measurements at stack top height.  For stacks greater
than 100m, the measurement height may be limited to 100m in height relative to
stack base.  However,  for very tall stacks, see guidance in Section 9.3.3.2.
This recommendation is broadened to include wind data representative of plume
transport height where such data are derived from measurements taken with
remote sensing devices such as SODAR.  The data from both fixed and remote
measurements should meet quality assurance and recovery rate requirements.
The user should also be aware that RTDM in the screening mode accepts the
input of measured wind speeds at only one height.  The default values for the
wind speed profile exponents shown in Table 5-3 are used in the model to


                                      5-5                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
determine the wind speed at other heights.  RTDM uses wind speed at stack top
to calculate the plume rise and the critical dividing streamline height, and
the wind speed at plume transport level to calculate dilution.  RTDM treats
wind direction as constant with height.

                          RTDM makes use of the "critical dividing streamline"
concept and thus treats plume interactions with terrain quite differently from
other models such as SHORTZ and COMPLEX I.  The plume height relative to the
critical dividing streamline determines whether the plume impacts the terrain,
or is lifted up and over the terrain.  The receptor spacing to identify
maximum impact concentrations is quite critical depending on the location of
the plume in the vertical.  Analysis of the expected plume height relative to
the height of the critical dividing streamline should be performed for
differing meteorological conditions in order to help develop an appropriate
array of receptors.   Then it is advisable to model the area twice according to
the suggestions in Section 5.2.

                 5.2.1.6  Restrictions

                          For screening analyses using the Valley Screening
Technique, COMPLEX I or RTDM, a sector greater than 22%° should not be
allowed.  Full ground reflection should always be used in the Valley Screening
Technique and COMPLEX I.
                                      5-6                          Revised 2/93

-------
          5.2.2  Refined Analytical Techniques

                 When the results of the screening analysis demonstrate a
possible violation of NAAQS or the controlling PSD increments, a more refined
analysis may need to be conducted.

                 The Complex Terrain Dispersion Model PLus Algorithms for
Unstable Situations  (CTDMPLUS) is a refined air quality model that is pre-
ferred for use in all stability conditions for complex terrain applications.
CTDMPLUS is a sequential model that requires five input files:   (1) general
program specifications; (2) a terrain data file;  (3) a receptor file;  (4) a
surface meteorological data file; and  (5) a user created meteorological
profile data file.  Two optional input files consist of hourly emissions
parameters and a file containing upper air data from rawinsonde data files,
e.g., a National Climatic Data Center TD-6201 file, unless there are no hours
categorized as unstable in the record.  The model description and user
instructions are contained in Volume 1 of the User's Guide.22  Separate
publications23'24 describe the  terrain preprocessor  system  and  the  meteorologi-
cal preprocessor program.   In Part I of a technical article92 is a discussion
of the model and its preprocessors; the model's performance characteristics
are discussed in Part II of the same article.93  The size of the CTDMPLUS
executable file on a personal computer is approximately 360K bytes.  The model
produces hourly average concentrations of stable pollutants,  i.e., chemical
transformation or decay of species and settling/deposition are not simulated.
To obtain concentration averages corresponding to the NAAQS,  e.g., 3- or 24-
hour, or annual averages,  the user must execute a postprocessor program such
as CHAVG."  CTDMPLUS is applicable to all receptors on terrain elevations
above stack top.   However, the model contains no algorithms for simulating
building downwash or the mixing or recirculation found in cavity zones in the
lee of a hill.  The path taken by a plume through an array of hills cannot be
simulated.  CTDMPLUS does not explicitly simulate calm meteorological periods,
and for those situations the user should follow the guidance in Section 9.3.4.
The user should follow the recommendations in the User's Guide under General
Program Specifications for:  (1) selecting mixed layer heights, (2) setting
minimum scalar wind speed to 1 m/s, and  (3) scaling wind direction with
height.  Close coordination with the Regional Office is essential to insure a
consistent, technically sound application of this model.

                 The performance of CTDMPLUS is greatly improved by the use of
meteorological data from several levels up to plume height.  However, due to
the vast range of source-plume-hill geometries possible in complex terrain,
detailed requirements for meteorological monitoring in support of refined
analyses using CTDMPLUS should be determined on a case-by-case basis.  The
following general guidance should be considered in the development of a
meteorological monitoring protocol for regulatory applications of CTDMPLUS and
reviewed in detail by the Regional Office before initiating any monitoring.
As appropriate,  the On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance document66 should
be consulted for specific guidance on siting requirements for meteorological
towers, selection and exposure of sensors, etc.  As more experience is gained
with the model in a variety of circumstances, more specific guidance may be
developed.
                                      5-7                         Revised 2/93

-------
                 Site specific meteorological data are critical to dispersion
modeling in complex terrain and, consequently, the meteorological requirements
are more demanding than for simple terrain.  Generally, three different
meteorological files  (referred to as surface, profile, and rawin files) are
needed to run CTDMPLUS in a regulatory mode.

                 The surface file is created by the meteorological preprocess-
or  (METPRO)24 based on on-site measurements or estimates of solar and/or net
radiation, cloud cover and ceiling, and the mixed layer height.  These data
are used in METPRO to calculate the various surface layer scaling parameters
(roughness length, friction velocity, and Monin-Obukhov length) which are
needed to run the model.  All of the user inputs required for the surface file
are based either on surface observations or on measurements at or below 10m.

                 The profile data file is prepared by the user with on-site
measurements (from at least three levels) of wind speed, wind direction,
turbulence, and potential temperature.  These measurements should be obtained
up to the representative plume height(s) of interest  (i.e., the plume
height(s) under those conditions important to the determination of the design
concentration).  The representative plume height(s) of interest should be
determined using an appropriate complex terrain screening procedure (e.g.,
CTSCREEN) and should be documented in the monitoring/modeling protocol.  The
necessary meteorological measurements should be obtained from an appropriately
sited meteorological tower augmented by SODAR if the representative plume
height(s) of interest exceed 100m.  The meteorological tower need not exceed
the lesser of the representative plume height of interest  (the highest plume
height if there is more than one plume height of interest) or 100m.

                 Locating towers on nearby terrain to obtain stack height or
plume height measurements for use in profiles by CTDMPLUS should be avoided
unless it can clearly be demonstrated that such measurements would be repre-
sentative of conditions affecting the plume.

                 The rawin file is created by a second meteorological prepro-
cessor (READ62)24 based on NWS (National Weather Service) upper air data.  The
rawin file is used in CTDMPLUS to calculate vertical potential temperature
gradients for use in estimating plume penetration in unstable conditions.  The
representativeness of the off-site NWS upper air data should be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.

                 In the absence of an appropriate refined model,  screening
results may need to be used to determine air quality impact and/or emission
limits.
                                      5-8                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
                                   TABLE 5-la




               NEUTRAL/STABLE METEOROLOGICAL MATRIX FOR CTSCREEN
Variable
U
*v
(m/£
(m/£
3)
3)
ffw (m/s)
AO/Az
WD
(K/m)
l
0
0
0
.0
.3
.08
.01
2
0
0
0
.0
.75
.15
.02
(Wind direction
meteorological
Specific Values
3.

0.
0.
0 4.0 5.0

30 0.75
035
optimized internally for each
combination)
Exceptions:



(1) If U s 2 m/s and av s 0.3 m/s, then include 
-------
                               TABLE 5-2

    Preferred Options  for the SHORTZ/LONGZ Computer Codes When Used
                          in a Screening  Mode
Option

I Switch 9



I Switch 17

GAMMA 1


GAMMA 2

XRY


NS, VS, FRQ  (SHORTZ)—




NUS, VS, FRQ  (LONGZ)—

ALPHA

SIGEPU-
-(particle size,
  etc.)
SIGAPU-
          -  (dispersion parameters)
P  (wind profile)
                   Selection

                   If using NWS data,  set  =  0
                   If using site-specific  data,
                      check with the Regional Office

                   Set = 1  (urban option)

                   Use default values  (0.6
                      entrainment coefficient)

                   Always default to "stable"

                   Set = 0  (50m rectilinear
                      expansion distance)
Do not use  (applicable only
   in flat terrain)
                   Select 0.9

                   Use Cramer curves  (default);  if
                      site-specific turbulence data
                      are available,  see Regional
                      Office for advice.

                   Select default values given in
                      Table 2-2 of User's  Instruc-
                      tions; if site-specific data
                      are available,  see Regional
                      Office for advice.
                                 5-10
                                     Revised 2/93

-------
                      TABLE  5-3

Preferred Options for the RTDM Computer Code When Used
                  in  a Screening Mode
Parameter
PR001-003



PRO 04





PRO 05


PRO 06

PRO 09
PRO 10


PRO 11

PR012
PR013
PRO 14

PR015
PR020
PR022
PRO 2 3

PR016 to
019; 021;
and 024

Variable
SCALE



ZWIND1
ZWIND2
IDILUT

ZA

EXPON


ICOEF

IPPP
IBUOY
ALPHA

IDMX

ITRANS
TERCOR
RVPTG

ITIPD
I SHEAR
IREFL
IHORIZ
SECTOR
IY, IZ,
I RVPTG,
IHVPTG/IEPS,
IEMIS
Value




Wind measurement height
Not used
1

0 (default)

0.09, 0.11, 0.12,
0.14, 0.2, 0.3
(default)
3 (default)

0 (default)
1 (default)
3.162 (default)

1 (default)

1 (default)
6*0.5 (default)
0.02, 0.035
(default)
1
0 (default)
1 (default)
2 (default)
6*22.5 (default)
0



Remarks
Scale factors assuming horizontal
distance is in kilometers,
vertical distance is in feet, and
wind speed is in meters per second
See Section 5.2.1.4
Height of second anemometer
Dilution wind speed scaled to plume
height
Anemometer -terrain height above
stack base
Wind profile exponents


Briggs Rural/ASME (1979) dispersion
parameters
Partial plume penetration; not used
Buoyancy -enhanced dispersion is used
Buoyancy -enhanced dispersion
coefficient
Unlimited mixing height for
stable conditions
Transitional plume rise is used
Plume patch correction factors
Vertical potential temperature gra-
dient values for stabilities E and F
Stack- tip downwash is used
Wind shear; not used
Partial surface reflection is used
Sector averaging
Using 22.5° sectors
Hourly values of turbulence, vertical
potential temperature gradient, wind
speed profile exponents, and stack
emissions are not used
                         5-11
Revised 2/93

-------

-------
6.0  MODELS FOR OZONE, CARBON MONOXIDE AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE

                                                   ••••^fSV.-*'  •
     6.1  Discussion


          Models discussed in this section are applicable to pollutants  often


associated with mobile sources, e.g., ozone  (O3) ,  carbon monoxide (CO) and


nitrogen dioxide (NO2) .   Where stationary sources of CO and N02  are  of concern,


the reader is referred to Sections 4 and 5.


          A control agency with jurisdiction over areas with significant ozone


problems and which has sufficient resources and data to use a photochemical


dispersion model is encouraged to do so.  Experience with and evaluations of


the Urban Airshed Model show it to be an acceptable, refined approach, and


better data bases are becoming available that support the more  sophisticated


analytical procedures.  However, empirical models  (e.g., EKMA)  fill  the  gap


between more sophisticated photochemical dispersion models and  proportional


(rollback) modeling techniques and may be the only applicable procedure  if the


available data bases are insufficient for refined dispersion modeling.


          Models for assessing the impact of carbon monoxide emissions are


needed for a number of different purposes, e.g., to evaluate the effects of


point sources, congested intersections and highways, as well as the  cumulative


effect on ambient CO concentrations of all sources of CO in an  urban area.94-95


          Nitrogen oxides are reactive and also an important contribution to


the photochemical ozone problem.  They are usually of most concern  in areas of


high ozone concentrations.  Unless suitable photochemical dispersion models


are used, assumptions regarding the conversion of NO to NO2 are
                                      6-1                         Revised 2/93

-------
     6.2  Recommendations

          6.2.1  Models for Ozone

                 The Urban Airshed Model  (UAM)19>28  is recommended for photo-
chemical or reactive pollutant modeling applications involving entire urban
areas.  To ensure proper execution of this numerical model, users must satisfy
the extensive input data requirements for the model as listed in Appendix A
and the users guide.  Users are also referred to the "Guideline for  Regulatory
Application of the Urban Airshed Model"29 for additional data requirements  and
procedures for operating this model.

                 The empirical model, City-specific EKMA,19>30"33 has limited
applicability for urban ozone analyses.  Model users should consult  the
appropriate Regional Office on a case-by-case basis concerning acceptability
of this modeling technique.

                 Appendix B contains some additional models that may be
applied on a case-by-case basis for photochemical or reactive pollutant
modeling.  Other photochemical models, including multi-layered trajectory-
models, that are available may be used if shown to be appropriate.   Most
photochemical dispersion models require emission data on individual  hydrocar-
bon species and may require three dimensional meteorological information on an
hourly basis.  Reasonably sophisticated computer facilities are also often
required.  Because the input data are not universally available and  studies to
collect such data are very resource intensive, there are only limited evalua-
tions of those models.

                 For those cases which involve estimating the impact on ozone
concentrations due to stationary sources of VOC and NO,,  whether for permit-
ting or other regulatory cases, the model user should consult the appropriate
Regional Office on the acceptability of the modeling technique.

                 Proportional  (rollback/forward) modeling is not an  acceptable
procedure for evaluating ozone control strategies.
                                      6-3                         Revised 2/93

-------
          6.2.2  Models for Carbon Monoxide

                 For analyzing CO impacts at roadway intersections, users
should follow the procedures in the "Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide
from Roadway Intersections".34  The recommended model for such analyses is
CAL3QHC.33  This model combines CALINE3  (already in Appendix A) with a traffic
model to calculate delays and queues that occur at signalized intersections.
In areas where the use of either TEXIN2 or CALINE4 has previously been
established, its use may continue.  The capability exists for these intersec-
tion models to be used in either a screening or refined mode.  The screening
approach is described in reference 34; a refined approach may be considered on
a case-by-case basis.  The latest version of the MOBILE (mobile source
emission factor) model should be used for emissions input to intersection
models.

                 For analyses of highways characterized by uninterrupted
traffic flows, CALINE3 is recommended, with emissions input from the latest
version of the MOBILE model.

                 The recommended model for urban areawide CO analyses is RAM
or Urban Airshed Model (UAM); see Appendix A. Information on SIP development
and requirements for using these models can be found in references 34, 96, 97
and 9 8.

                 Where point sources of CO are of concern,  they should be
treated using the screening and refined techniques described in Section 4 or 5
of the Guideline.
                                      6-4                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
          6.2.3  Models for Nitrogen Dioxide  (Annual Average)

                 A three-tiered screening approach is recommended to obtain
annual average estimates of NO2 from point sources for New Source Review
analysis, including PSD, and for SIP planning purposes:

                 a.  Initial screen:  Use an appropriate Gaussian model from
Appendix A to estimate the maximum annual average concentration  and assume a
total conversion of NO to NO2.   If  the concentration exceeds the NAAQS and/or
PSD increments for N02,  proceed to  the 2nd level screen.

                 b.  2nd level screen:  Apply the Ozone Limiting Method3* to
the annual NO, estimate  obtained in (a)  above using a representative average
annual ozone concentration.  If the result is still greater than the NAAQS,
and/or PSD increments, the more refined Ozone Limiting Method in the 3rd level
screen should be applied.

                 c.  3rd level screen:  Apply the Ozone Limiting Method
separately for each hour of the year or multi-year period.  Use  representative
hourly NO2 background and ozone levels in the calculations.

                 In urban areas, a proportional model may be used as a
preliminary assessment to evaluate control strategies to meet the NAAQS for
multiple minor sources,  i.e., minor point, area and mobile sources of NOX;
concentrations resulting from major point sources should be estimated sepa-
rately as discussed above, then added to the impact of the minor sources.  An
acceptable screening technique for urban complexes is to assume  that all NOX
is emitted in the form of NO2 and to use a model from Appendix A for nonreac-
tive pollutants to estimate N02 concentrations.   A more  accurate estimate  can
be obtained by (1) calculating the annual average concentrations of NO, with
an urban model, and  (2)  converting these estimates to NO2 concentrations based
on a spatially averaged NO2/NOX annual ratio determined from an existing air
quality monitoring network.

                 To demonstrate compliance with N02 PSD  increments  in urban
areas, emissions from major and minor sources should be included in the
modeling analysis.  Point and area source emissions should be modeled as
discussed above.   If mobile source emissions do not contribute to localized
areas of high ambient NO2  concentrations,  they should be modeled as  area
sources.  When modeled as area sources, mobile source emissions  should be
assumed uniform over the entire highway link and allocated to each area source
grid square based on the portion of highway link within each grid square.  If
localized areas of high concentrations are likely, then mobile sources should
be modeled as line sources with the preferred model ISCLT2.
                 In situations where there are sufficient hydrocarbons
available to significantly enhance the rate of NO to N02 conversion,  the
assumptions implicit in the Ozone Limiting Procedure may not be appropriate.
More refined techniques should be considered on a case-by-case basis and
agreement with the reviewing authority should be obtained.  Such techniques
should consider individual quantities of NO and N02 emissions,  atmospheric
transport and dispersion, and atmospheric transformation of NO to N02.   Where


                                      6-5                          Revised 2/93

-------
it is available site-specific data on the conversion of NO to NO2 may be used.
Photochemical dispersion models, if used for other pollutants in the area, may
also be applied to the NOX problem.
                                     6-6                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
transport distances are limited in detail.  This limitation  is a result  of  the




expense to perform the field studies required to verify and  improve mesoscale




and long range transport models.  Particularly important and sparse are




meteorological data adequate for generating three dimensional wind fields.




Application of models to complicated terrain compounds the difficulty.   EPA




has completed limited evaluation of several long range transport  (LRT) models




against two sets of field data.  The evaluation results are  discussed in the




document, "Evaluation of Short-Term Long-Range Transport Models."99-100  For the





time being,  long range and mesoscale transport models must be evaluated  for




regulatory use on a case-by-case basis.




     There are several regulatory programs for which air pathway analysis




procedures and modeling techniques have been developed.  For continuous




emission releases, ISC2 forms the basis of many analytical techniques.   EPA is




continuing to evaluate the performance of a number of proprietary and public




domain models for intermittent and non-stack emission releases.  Until EPA




completes its evaluation,  it is premature to recommend specific models for  air




pathway analyses of intermittent and non-stack releases in this guideline.




     Regional scale models are used by EPA to develop and evaluate national




policy and assist State and local control agencies.  Two such models are the




Regional Oxidant Model (ROM)101-102-103 and  the Regional Acid Deposition Model





(RADM) .104  Due  to the  level  of  resources  required to  apply these models,  it is





not envisioned that regional scale models will be used directly in most  model




applications.
                                      7-2                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
          7.2.2  Particulate Matter

                 The new particulate matter NAAQS, promulgated on July  1,  1987
 (52 FR 24634), includes only particles with an aerodynamic diameter  less than
or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers  (PM-10).  EPA has also proposed regula-
tions for PSD increments measured as PM-10 in a notice published on  October 5,
1989  (54 FR 41218).

                 Screening techniques like those identified in Section  4 are
also applicable to PM-10 and to large particles.  It is recommended  that
subjectively determined values for "half-life" or pollutant decay not be used
as a surrogate for particle removal.  Conservative assumptions which do not
allow removal or transformation are suggested for screening.  Proportional
models (rollback/forward) may not be applied for screening analysis,  unless
such techniques are used in conjunction with receptor modeling.

                 Refined models such as those in Section 4 are recommended for
PM-10 and large particles.  However, where possible, particle size,  gas-to-
particle formation, and their effect on ambient concentrations may be consid-
ered.  For urban-wide refined analyses COM 2.0 or RAM should be used.   CRSTER
and MPTER are recommended for point sources of small particles.  For source-
specific analyses of complicated sources, the ISC2 model is preferred.  No
model recommended for general use at this time accounts for secondary particu-
late formation or other transformations in a manner suitable for
SIP control strategy demonstrations.  Where possible, the use of receptor
models38-39'105'106'107  in conjunction with dispersion models is encouraged to more
precisely characterize the emissions inventory and to validate source specific
impacts calculated by the dispersion model.  A SIP development guideline,108
model reconciliation guidance,106  and an  example  model application109 are  avail-
able to assist in PM-10 analyses and control strategy development.

                 Under certain conditions, recommended dispersion models are
not available or applicable.  In such circumstances, the modeling approach
should be approved by the appropriate Regional Office on a case-by-case basis.
For example, where there is no recommended air quality model and area sources
are a predominant component of PM-10, an attainment demonstration may be based
on rollback of the apportionment derived from two reconciled receptor models,
if the strategy provides a conservative demonstration of attainment.  At this
time, analyses involving model calculations for distances beyond 50km and
under stagnation conditions should also be justified on a case-by-case basis
(see Sections 7.2.6 and 8.2.10).

                 As an aid to assessing the impact on ambient air quality of
particulate matter generated from prescribed burning activities, reference 110
is available.
                                      7-4                          Revised 2/93

-------
          7.2.4  Visibility

                 The visibility regulations as promulgated in December 1980
require consideration of the effect of new sources on the visibility values of
Federal Class I areas.  The state of scientific knowledge concerning identify-
ing, monitoring, modeling, and controlling visibility impairment is contained
in an EPA report "Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress".42  In
1985, EPA promulgated Federal Implementation Plans  (FIPs) for states without
approved visibility provisions in their SIPs.  A monitoring plan was estab-
lished as part of the FIPs.b

                 Guidance and a screening model, VISCREEN, is contained in the
EPA document "Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis
(Revised)."43  VISCREEN can be used to calculate the potential impact of a
plume of specified emissions for specific transport and dispersion conditions.
If a more comprehensive analysis is required, any refined model should be
selected in consultation with the EPA Regional Office and the appropriate
Federal Land Manager who is responsible for determining whether there is an
adverse effect by a plume on a Class I area.

                 PLUVUE II, listed in Appendix B, may be applied on a case-by-
case basis when refined plume visibility evaluations are needed.  Plume
visibility models have been evaluated against several data sets.*4'45
     b40  CFR 51.300-307

                                      7-6                          Revised 2/93

-------
          7.2.5  Good Engineering Practice Stack Height

                 The use of stack height credit in excess of Good Engineering
Practice (GEP) stack height or credit resulting from any other dispersion
technique is prohibited in the development of emission limitations by 40 CFR
51.118 and 40 CFR 51.164.  The definitions of GEP stack height and dispersion
technique are contained in 40 CFR 51.100.  Methods and procedures for making
the appropriate stack height calculations, determining stack height credits
and an example of applying those techniques are found in references 46, 47,
48, and 49.

                 If stacks for new or existing major sources are found to be
less than the height defined by EPA's refined formula for determining GEP
height,0  then  air quality  impacts associated with  cavity or wake effects  due
to the nearby building structures should be determined.  Detailed downwash
screening procedures18 for both the cavity and wake regions should be followed.
If more refined concentration estimates are required, the Industrial Source
Complex  (ISC2) model contains algorithms for building wake calculations and
should be used.  Fluid modeling can provide a great deal of additional
information for evaluating and describing the cavity and wake effects.
     The EPA refined formula height is defined as H + 1.5L  (see Reference 46).

                                      7-7                          Revised 2/93

-------
          7.2.6  Long Range Transport  (LRT)  (i.e., beyond 50km)

                 Section 165(e) of the Clean Air Act requires that suspected
significant impacts on PSD Class I areas be determined.  However, 50km is the
useful distance to which most Gaussian models are considered accurate for
setting emission limits.  Since in many cases PSD analyses may show that
Class I areas may be threatened at distances greater than 50km from new
sources, some procedure is needed to  (1) determine if a significant impact
will occur, and (2) identify the model to be used in setting an emission limit
if the Class I increments are threatened (models for this purpose should be
approved for use on a case-by-case basis as required in Section 3.2) .  This
procedure and the models selected for use should be determined in consultation
with the EPA Regional Office and the appropriate Federal Land Manager  (FLM).
While the ultimate decision on whether a Class I area is adversely affected is
the responsibility of the permitting authority, the FLM has an affirmative
responsibility to protect air quality related values that may be affected.

                 If LRT is determined to be important, then estimates utiliz-
ing an appropriate refined model for receptors at distances greater than 50 km
should be obtained.  MESOPUFF II, listed in Appendix B, may be applied on a
case-by-case basis when LRT estimates are needed.  Additional information on
applying this model is contained in the EPA document "A Modeling Protocol For
Applying MESOPUFF II to Long Range Transport Problems".111
                                      7-8                          Revised 2/93

-------
          7.2.7  Modeling Guidance for Other Governmental Programs

                 When using the models recommended or discussed in this
guideline in support of programmatic requirements not specifically covered by
EPA regulations, the model user should consult the appropriate Federal or
State agency to ensure the proper application and use of that model.  For
modeling associated with PSD permit applications that involve a Class I area,
the appropriate Federal Land Manager should be consulted on all modeling
questions.

                 The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD)  model"2 was devel-
oped by the Minerals Management Service and is recommended for estimating air
quality impact from offshore sources on onshore flat terrain areas.  The OCD
model is not recommended for use in air quality impact assessments for onshore
sources.  Sources located on or just inland of a shoreline where fumigation  is
expected should be treated in accordance with Section 8.2.9.

                 The Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS)"3 was
developed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Air
Force and is recommended for air quality assessment of primary pollutant
impacts at airports or air bases.  Regulatory application of EDMS is intended
for estimating the cumulative effect of changes in aircraft operations, point
source, and mobile source emissions on pollutant concentrations.  It is not
intended for PSD,  SIP, or other regulatory air quality analyses of point or
mobile sources at or peripheral to airport property that are independent of
changes in aircraft operations.  If changes in other than aircraft operations
are associated with analyses, a model recommended in Chapter 4,  5, or 6 should
be used.
                                      7-9                          Revised 2/93

-------
          7.2.8  Air Pathway Analyses  (Air Toxics and Hazardous Waste)

                 Modeling is becoming an increasingly important tool for
regulatory control agencies to assess the air quality impact of releases of
toxics and hazardous waste materials.  Appropriate screening techniques114-"5
for calculating ambient concentrations due to various well-defined neutrally
buoyant toxic/hazardous pollutant releases are available.

                 Several regulatory programs within EPA have developed
modeling techniques and guidance for conducting air pathway analyses as noted
in references 116-129.  ISC2 forms the basis of the modeling procedures for
air pathway analyses of many of these regulatory programs and, where identi-
fied, is appropriate for obtaining refined ambient concentration estimates of
neutrally buoyant continuous air toxic releases from traditional sources.
Appendix A to this Guideline contains additional models appropriate for
obtaining refined estimates of continuous air toxic releases from traditional
sources.  Appendix B contains models that may be used on a case-by-case basis
for obtaining refined estimates of denser-than-air intermittent gaseous
releases, e.g., DEGADIS;130  guidance  for the  use  of such models is  also
available.131

                 .Many air toxics models require input of chemical properties
and/or chemical engineering variables in order to appropriately characterize
the source emissions prior to dispersion in the atmosphere; reference 132 is
one source of helpful data.  In addition, EPA has numerous programs to
determine emission factors and other estimates of air toxic emissions.  The
Regional Office should be consulted for guidance on appropriate emission
estimating procedures and any uncertainties that may be associated with them.
                                     7-10                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
     8.2  Recommendations

          8.2.1  Design Concentrations

                 8.2.1.1  Design Concentrations for Criteria Pollutants with
                          Deterministic Standards

                          An air quality analysis for S02,  CO,  Pb,  and NO2  is
required to determine if the source will (1) cause a violation of the NAAQS,
or  (2) cause or contribute to air quality deterioration greater than the
specified allowable PSD increment.  For the former, background  concentration
(see Section 9.2) should be added to the estimated impact of the source to
determine the design concentration.  For the latter, the design concentration
includes impact from all increment consuming sources.

                          If the air quality analyses are conducted using  the
period of meteorological input data recommended in Section 9.3.1.2  (e.g.,  5
years of NWS data or 1 year of site-specific data), then the design concentra-
tion based on the highest, second-highest short term concentration or long
term average, whichever is controlling, should be used to determine emission
limitations to assess compliance with the NAAQS and to determine PSD incre-
ments .

                          When sufficient and representative data exist for
less than a 5-year period from a nearby NWS site, or when on-site data have
been collected for less than a full continuous year, or when it has been
determined that the on-site data may not be temporally representative, then
the highest concentration estimate should be considered the design value.
This is because the length of the data record may be too short to assure that
the conditions producing worst-case estimates have been adequately sampled.
The highest value is then a surrogate for the concentration that is not to be
exceeded more than once per year  (the wording of the deterministic standards).
Also, the highest concentration should be used whenever selected worst-case
conditions are input to a screening technique.  This specifically applies  to
the use of techniques such as outlined in "Screening Procedures for Estimating
the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised".18  Specific guidance
for CO may be found in the "Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from
Roadway Intersections".34

                          If the controlling concentration is an annual
average value and multiple years of data (on-site or NWS) are used, then the
design value is the highest of the annual averages calculated for the individ-
ual years.   If the controlling concentration is a quarterly average and
multiple years are used, then the highest individual quarterly average should
be considered the design value.

                          As long a period of record as possible should be
used in making estimates to determine design values and PSD increments.  If
more than 1 year of site-specific data is available, it should be used.
                                      8-2                          Revised 2/93

-------
                 8.2.1.2  Design Concentrations for Criteria Pollutants with
                          Expected Exceedance Standards

                          Specific instructions for the determination of
design concentrations for criteria pollutants with expected exceedance
standards, ozone and PM-10, are contained in special guidance documents for
the preparation of SIPs for those pollutants.86'108  For all SIP revisions the
user should check with the Regional Office to obtain the most recent guidance
documents and policy memoranda concerning the pollutant in question.
                                      8-3                          Revised 2/93

-------
          8.2.5  Plume Rise

                 The plume rise methods of Briggs56'57  are incorporated in the
preferred models and are recommended for use in all modeling applications.  No
provisions in these models are made for fumigation or multistack plume  rise
enhancement or the handling of such special plumes as flares; these problems
should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

                 Since there is insufficient information to identify and
quantify dispersion during the transitional plume rise period, gradual  plume
rise is not generally recommended for use.  There are two exceptions where the
use of gradual plume rise is appropriate:  (1) in complex terrain screening
procedures to determine close-in impacts;  (2) when calculating the effects of
building wakes.  The building wake algorithm in the ISC2 model incorporates
and automatically  (i.e., internally) exercises the gradual plume rise calcula-
tions. If the building wake is calculated to affect the plume for any hour,
gradual plume rise is also used in downwind dispersion calculations to  the
distance of final plume rise, after which final plume rise is used.

                 Stack tip downwash generally occurs with poorly constructed
stacks and when the ratio of the stack exit velocity to wind speed is small.
An algorithm developed by Briggs (Hanna, et al.)57 is the recommended technique
for this situation and is found in the point source preferred models.

                 Where aerodynamic downwash occurs due to the adverse in-
fluence of nearby structures, the algorithms included in the ISC2 model58
should be used.
                                      8-7                         Revised 2/93

-------
          8.2.9  Fumigation

                 Fumigation occurs when a plume (or multiple plumes) is
emitted into a stable layer of air and that layer is subsequently mixed to the
ground either through convective transfer of heat from the surface or because
of advection to less stable surroundings.  Fumigation may cause excessively
high concentrations but is usually rather short-lived at a given receptor.
There are no recommended refined techniques to model this phenomenon.  There
are, however, screening procedures (see "Screening Procedures for Estimating
the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources"18) that may be used to approxi-
mate the concentrations.  Considerable care should be exercised in using the
results obtained from the screening techniques.

                 Fumigation is also an important phenomenon on and near the
shoreline of bodies of water.  This can affect both individual plumes and
area-wide emissions.  When fumigation conditions are expected to occur from a
source or sources with tall stacks located on or just inland of a shoreline,
this should be addressed in the air quality modeling analysis.  The Shoreline
Dispersion Model (SDM)  listed in Appendix B may be applied on a case-by-case
basis when air quality estimates under shoreline fumigation conditions are
needed.133  Information on the  results  of  EPA's  evaluation  of  this model
together with other coastal fumigation models may be found in reference 134.
Selection of the appropriate model for applications where shoreline fumigation
is of concern should be determined in consultation with the Regional Office.
                                     8-11                         Revised 2/93

-------
          8.2.10 Stagnation

                 Stagnation conditions are characterized by calm or very low
wind speeds, and variable wind directions.  These stagnant meteorological
conditions may persist for several hours to several days.   During stagnation
conditions,  the dispersion of air pollutants,  especially those from low-level
emissions sources, tends to be minimized, potentially leading to relatively
high ground-level concentrations.

                 When stagnation periods such as these are found to occur,
they should be addressed in the air quality modeling analysis.  WYNDvalley,
listed in Appendix B, may be applied on a case-by-case basis for stagnation
periods of 24 hours or longer in valley-type situations.  Caution should be
exercised when applying the model to elevated point sources.  Users should
consult with the appropriate Regional Office prior to regulatory application
of WYNDvalley.
                                     8-12                         Revised 2/93

-------
          9.1.2  Recommendations

                 For point source applications the load or operating condition
that causes maximum ground-level concentrations should be established.  As a
minimum, the source should be modeled using the design capacity  (100 percent
load).  If a source operates at greater than design capacity for periods that
could result in violations of the standards or PSD increments, this load*1
should be modeled.  Where the source operates at substantially less than
design capacity, and the changes in the stack parameters associated with the
operating conditions could lead to higher ground level concentrations, loads
such as 50 percent and 75 percent of capacity should also be modeled.  A range
of operating conditions should be considered in screening analyses; the load
causing the highest concentration, in addition to the design load, should be
included in refined modeling.  The following example for a power plant is
typical of the kind of data on source characteristics and operating conditions
that may be needed.  Generally, input data requirements for air quality models
necessitate the use of metric units; where English units are common for
engineering usage, a conversion to metric is required.

                 a.  Plant layout.  The connection scheme between boilers and
stacks, and the distance and direction between stacks, building parameters
(length, width, height, location and orientation relative to stacks) for plant
structures which house boilers, control equipment, and surrounding buildings
within a distance of approximately five stack heights.

                 b.  Stack parameters.  For all stacks, the stack height and
inside diameter (meters), and the temperature (K)  and volume flow rate (actual
cubic meters per second)  or exit gas velocity (meters per second) for
operation at 100 percent, 75 percent and 50 percent load.

                 c.  Boiler size.  For all boilers, the associated megawatts,
106 BTU/hr,  and pounds  of  steam per  hour,  and  the  design  and/or actual  fuel
consumption rate for 100 percent load for coal (tons/hour), oil
(barrels/hour), and natural gas  (thousand cubic feet/hour).

                 d.  Boiler parameters.  For all boilers, the percent excess
air used,  the boiler type (e.g.,  wet bottom, cyclone,  etc.), and the type of
firing  (e.g., pulverized coal, front firing, etc.).

                 e.  Operating conditions.  For all boilers, the type,  amount
and pollutant contents of fuel, the total hours of boiler operation and the
boiler capacity factor during the year, and the percent load for peak
conditions.
     Malfunctions  which  may result  in excess  emissions are not  considered to
be a normal operating condition.  They generally should not be considered in
determining allowable emissions.  However, if the excess emissions are the
result of poor maintenance, careless operation, or other preventable
conditions, it may be necessary to consider them in determining source impact.

                                      9-3                          Revised 2/93

-------

-------
                 f.  Pollution control equipment parameters.  For each boiler
served and each pollutant affected, the type of emission control equipment,
the year of its installation, its design efficiency and mass emission rate,
the data of the last test and the tested efficiency, the number of hours of
operation during the latest year, and the best engineering estimate of its
projected efficiency if used in conjunction with coal combustion; data for any
anticipated modifications or additions.

                 g.  Data for new boilers or stacks.  For all new boilers and
stacks under construction and for all planned modifications to existing
boilers or stacks, the scheduled date of completion, and the data or best
estimates available for items (a) through (f) above following completion of
construction or modification.

                 In stationary point source applications for compliance with
short term ambient standards, SIP control strategies should be tested using
the emission input shown on Table 9-1.  When using a refined model, sources
should be modeled sequentially with these loads for every hour of the year.
To evaluate SIPs for compliance with quarterly and annual standards, emission
input data shown in Table 9-1 should again be used.  Emissions from area
sources should generally be based on annual average conditions.  The source
input information in each model user's guide should be carefully consulted and
the checklist in Appendix C should also be consulted for other possible
emission data that could be helpful.  PSD NAAQS compliance demonstrations
should follow the emission input data shown in Table 9-2.  For purposes of
emissions trading, new source review and demonstrations,  refer to current EPA
policy and guidance to establish input data.

                 Line source modeling of streets and highways requires data
on the width of the roadway and the median strip, the types and amounts of
pollutant emissions,  the number of lanes, the emissions from each lane and the
height of emissions.   The location of the ends of the straight roadway
segments should be specified by appropriate grid coordinates.  Detailed
information and data requirements for modeling mobile sources of pollution are
provided in the user's manuals for each of the models applicable to mobile
sources.

                 The impact of growth on emissions should be considered in
all modeling analyses covering existing sources.  Increases in emissions due
to planned expansion or planned fuel switches should be identified.  Increases
in emissions at individual sources that may be associated with a general
industrial/commercial/residential expansion in multi-source urban areas should
also be treated.  For new sources the impact of growth on emissions should
generally be considered for the period prior to the start-up date for the
source.  Such changes in emissions should treat increased area source emis-
sions, changes in existing point source emissions which were not subject to
preconstruction review,  and emissions due to sources with permits to construct
that have not yet started operation.
                                      9-4                          Revised 2/93

-------
                   TABLE  9-1   MODEL EMISSION  INPUT  DATA  FOR POINT SOURCES1
Averaging Time
Emission Limit

  (#/MMBtu)2
Operating Level

  (MMBtu/hr)z
          Operating Factor

y\       (e.g.,  hr/yr,  hr/day)
                    Stationary Point Source(s) Subject to SIP Emission Li*it(s) Evaluation for
                      Compliance with tabient Standards (Including Areawide Dewmst rat ions)
Annual & quarterly:
Short term:
Maximum allowable
emission limit or
federally enforceable
permit limit.

Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.
Actual or design capacity
(whichever is greater),
or federally enforceable
permit condition.

Actual or design capacity
(whichever is greater),
or federally enforceable
permit condition.*
          Actual operating
          factor averaged over
          most recent 2 years.3
          Continuous opera-
          tion,  i.e.,  all  hours
          of each time period
          under  consideration
          (for all  hours of  the
          meteorological data
          base).6
                                           Nearby Background Source(s)
                        Same  input requirements as for stationary point source(s) above.
                                           Other Background Source(s)
                    If modeled (see Section 9.2.3), input data requirements are defined below.
Annual & quarterly:
Short term:
Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.

Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.
Annual level when actu-
ally operating,  averaged
over the most recent 2
years.3

Annual level when actu-
ally operating,  averaged
over the most recent 2
years.3
          Actual  operating
          factor  averaged over
          the most  recent 2
          years.3

          Continuous  opera-
          tion,  i.e.,  all hours
          of each time period
          under consideration
          (for all  hours  of  the
          meteorological  data
          base).6
1   The model  input data requirements shown on this table apply to stationary source control  strategies  for  STATE
   IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.  For purposes of emissions trading, new source review,  or prevention of  significant
   deterioration, other model input criteria may apply.  Refer to the policy and guidance for these  programs  to
   establish  the  input data.

2   Terminology applicable to fuel burning sources; analogous terminology (e.g.,  ^/throughput) may be used for
   other  types of sources.

3   Unless it  is determined that this period is not representative.

*   Operating  levels such as 50 percent and 75 percent of capacity should also be modeled to  determine the load
   causing the highest concentration.

6   If operation does not occur for all hours of the time period of consideration (e.g.,  3 or 24 hours)  and  the
   source operation is constrained by a federally enforceable permit condition,  an appropriate adjustment to  the
   modeled emission rate may be made (e.g., if operation is only 8:00 a.m.  to 4:00 p.m.  each day,  only  these
   hours  will  be modeled with emissions from the source.  Modeled emissions should not be averaged across non-
   operating  time periods.)
                                                      9-5
                                                                    Revised  2/93

-------
           TABLE 9-2  POINT SOURCE MODEL INPUT DATA (EMISSIONS)  FOR  PSD  HMDS COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS
Averaging Time
Emission Limit

  (tf/MMBtu)1
Operating Level

  (HMBtu/hr)1
Operating Factor

(e.g., hr/yr, hr/day)
                                      Proposed Major New or Modified Source
Annual & quarterly:
Short term:
(< 24 hours)
Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.

Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.
Design capacity or fed-
erally enforceable permit
condition.
Design capacity or fed-
erally enforceable permit
condition.3
Continuous operation
(i.e., 8760 hours).2
Continuous operation
(i.e., all hours of
each time period un-
der consideration)
(for all hours of the
meteorological data
base).2
                                           Nearby Background Source(s)*
Annual & quarterly:
Short term:
(< 24 hours)
Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.

Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
Iimit.
Actual or design capacity
(whichever is greater),
or federally enforceable
permit condition.

Actual or design capacity
(whichever is greater),
or federally enforceable
permit condition.
Actual operating
factor averaged over
the most recent 2
years. '

Continuous operation
(i.e., all hours of
each time period un-
der consideration)
(for all hours of the
meteorological data
base).2
                                           Other Background Source(s)6
Annual & quarterly:
Short term
(< 24 hours)
Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.

Maximum allowable emis-
sion limit or federally
enforceable permit
limit.
Annual level when actu-
ally operating, averaged
over the most recent 2
years.6

Annual level when actu-
ally operating, averaged
over the most recent 2
years.
Actual operating
factor averaged over
the most recent 2
years.

Continuous operation
(i.e., all hours of
each time period un-
der consideration)
(for all hours of the
meteorological data
base).2
   Terminology applicable  to  fuel burning sources; analogous  terminology  (e.g., ^/throughput) may be used for
   other  types of  sources.

   If  operation does  not occur  for  all  hours  of  the  time  period of consideration  (e.g., 3 or 24 hours) and the
   source operation  is  constrained  by a federally enforceable permit condition, an appropriate adjustment to the
   modeled emission  rate may  be made  (e.g.,  if operation  is only 8:00 a.m.  to 4:00 p.m. each day, only these
   hours  will  be modeled with emissions from  the source.  Modeled emissions should not be averaged across non-
   operating  time  periods.

   Operating  levels  such as 50  percent  and 75 percent  of  capacity should  also be  modeled to determine the load
   causing the highest  concentration.

   Includes existing  facility to which  modification  is proposed if the emissions  from the existing facility will
   not  be affected by the  modification.  Otherwise use the same parameters  as for major modification.

   Unless it  is determined that this  period  is not representative.

   Generally,  the  ambient  impacts from  non-nearby background  sources can  be represented by air quality data
   unless adequate data do not  exist.

   For  those  permitted  sources  not  yet  in operation  or that have not established  an appropriate factor,
   continuous operation (i.e.,  8760 hours) should be used.
                                                       9-6
                                                                    Revised 2/93

-------
          9.2.2  Recommendations  (Isolated Single Source)

                 Two options are available to determine the background
concentration near isolated sources.

                 Option One:  Use air quality data collected in the vicinity
of the source to determine the background concentration for the averaging
times of concern.6  Determine  the  mean background concentration at each
monitor by excluding values when the source in question is impacting the
monitor.  The mean annual background is the average of the annual concentra-
tions so determined at each monitor.  For shorter averaging periods, the
meteorological conditions accompanying the concentrations of concern should be
identified.  Concentrations for meteorological conditions of concern, at
monitors not impacted by the source in question, should be averaged for each
separate averaging time to determine the average background value.  Monitoring
sites inside a 90° sector downwind of the source may be used to determine the
area of impact.  One hour concentrations may be added and averaged to deter-
mine longer averaging periods.

                 Option Two:  If there are no monitors located in the vicin-
ity of the source,  a "regional site" may be used to determine background.  A
"regional site" is one that is located away from the area of interest but is
impacted by similar natural and distant man-made sources.

          9.2.3  Recommendations  (Multi-Source Areas)

                 In multi-source areas two components of background should be
determined.

                 Nearby Sources:  All sources expected to cause a significant
concentration gradient in the vicinity of the source or sources under consid-
eration for emission limit(s)  should be explicitly modeled.  For evaluation
for compliance with the short term and annual ambient standards, the nearby
sources should be modeled using the emission input data shown in Table 9-1 or
9-2.  The number of such sources is expected to be small except in unusual
situations.  The nearby source inventory should be determined in consultation
with the reviewing authority.   It is envisioned that the nearby sources and
the sources under consideration will be evaluated together using an appropri-
ate Appendix A model.

                 The impact of the nearby sources should be examined at
locations where interactions between the plume of the point source under
consideration and those of nearby sources (plus natural background) can occur.
Significant locations include: (1) the area of maximum impact of the point
source; (2) the area of maximum impact of nearby sources; and  (3)  the area
where all sources combine to cause maximum impact.  These locations may be
identified through trial and error analyses.
     eFor purposes of PSD,  the  location  of monitors  as  well  as  data quality
assurance procedures must satisfy requirements listed in the PSD Monitoring
Guidelines.63

                                      9-8                          Revised 2/93

-------
                 Other Sources:   That portion of the background attributable
to all other sources (e.g., natural sources, minor sources and distant major
sources)  should be determined by the procedures found in Section 9.2.2 or by
application of a model using Table 9-1 or 9-2.
                                     9-9                          Revised 2/93

-------
                 9.3.3.2  Recommendations

                          Site-specific Data Collection

                          The document "On-Site Meteorological Program
Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications"66 provides recommendations  on
the collection and use of on-site meteorological data.  Recommendations on
characteristics, siting, and exposure of meteorological instruments and on
data recording, processing, completeness requirements, reporting, and  archiv-
ing are also included.  This publication should be used as a supplement to the
limited guidance on these subjects now found in the  "Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration"63  and the "Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems"67 contains such
information for meteorological measurements.  As a minimum, site-specific
measurements of ambient air temperature, transport wind speed and direction,
and the parameters to determine Pasquill-Gifford stability categories  should
be available in meteorological data sets to be used  in modeling.  Care should
be taken to ensure that monitors are located to represent the area of  concern
and that they are not influenced by very localized effects.  Site-specific
data for model applications should cover as long a period of measurement as is
possible to ensure adequate representation of "worst-case" meteorology.  The
Regional Office will determine the appropriateness of the measurement  loca-
tions .

                          All site-specific data should be reduced to  hourly
averages.  Table 9-3 lists the wind related parameters and the averaging time
requirements.

                          Temperature Measurements

                          Temperature measurements should be made at standard
shelter height (2m)-in accordance with the guidance  in reference 66.

                          Wind Measurements

                          Wind speed and direction should be measured  at or
near plume height for use in estimating transport and dilution.  To approxi-
mate this,  if a source has a stack below 100m,  select the stack top height as
the transport wind measurement height.   For sources with stacks extending
above 100m,  a 100m tower is suggested unless the stack top is significantly
above 100 meters (200m or more).   In cases with stacks 200m or above,   the
Regional Office should determine the appropriate measurement height on a case-
by-case basis.   Remote sensing may be a feasible alternative.  The dilution
wind speed used in determining plume rise and also used in the Gaussian
dispersion equation is,  by convention,  defined as the wind speed at stack
top.

                          Multiple level (typically three or more)  measure-
ments of wind temperature and turbulence (wind fluctuation statistics)  are
required for refined modeling applications in complex terrain.  Such measure-
ments should be obtained up to the representative plume height(s) of interest
(i.e.,  the plume height(s)  under those conditions important to the determina-
tion of the design concentration).  The representative plume height(s)  of
interest should be determined using an appropriate complex terrain screening

                                     9-16                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
procedure  (e.g., CTSCREEN) and should be documented in the monitoring/modeling
protocol.  The necessary meteorological measurements should be obtained  from
an appropriately sited meteorological tower augmented by SODAR if the  repre-
sentative plume height(s) of interest exceed 100m.  The meteorological tower
need not exceed the lesser of the representative plume height of interest  (the
highest plume height if there is more than one plume height of interest) or
100m.

                          For routine tower and surface measurements,  the
wind speed should be measured using an anemometer, and the wind direction
measured using a horizontal vane.  Specifications for wind measuring instru-
ments and systems are contained in the "On-Site Meteorological Program
Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications".66

                          Stability Categories

                          The Pasquill-Gifford  (P-G) stability categories, as
originally defined, couple near-surface measurements of wind speed with
subjectively determined insolation assessments based on hourly cloud cover and
ceiling observations.  The wind speed measurements are made at or near 10m.
The insolation rate is typically assessed using observations of cloud  cover
and ceiling based on criteria outlined by Turner.50  In the absence of  site
specific observations of cloud cover and ceiling, alternative procedures using
wind fluctuation statistics (i.e., the aA and aE methods)66  and Turner's method
with off-site cloud cover and ceiling and on-site 10m wind speed are recom-
mended.

                          The two methods of stability classification  which
use wind fluctuation statistics, the Qk and ffE methods, are described  in
detail in EPA's "On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory-
Modeling Applications"66  (note applicable tables in Chapter 6).  In the case of
the crA method it should be noted that wind meander may occasionally bias the
determination of 0A and thus lead to an erroneous determination of the P-G
stability category.  To minimize wind direction meander contributions, aA may
be determined for each of four 15-minute periods in an hour.  However, 360
samples are needed during each 15-minute period.  If the aA method is being
used for stability determinations in these situations, take the square root of
one-quarter of the sum of the square of the four 15 minute ffA's,  as illustrat-
ed in the footnote to Table 9-3.  While this approach is an acceptable
alternative for determining stability, as qualified above, ffA's calculated in
this manner are not likely to be suitable for input to models under develop-
ment that are desigried to accept on-site hourly a's based on 60-minute
periods.  For additional information on stability classification using wind
fluctuation statistics, see references 68-72.

                          In summary, when on-site data are being used,  P-G
stability categories should be estimated based on:
                                     9-17                         Revised 2/93

-------
                           (1)  Turner's method55 using  site-specific  data  which
                               include cloud cover, ceiling height and  surface
                                (~10m) wind speeds;

                           (2)  
-------
                                   TABLE 9-3
      Averaging Times for Site-Specific Wind and Turbulence Measurements
            Parameter                           Averaging Time
      Surface wind speed                              1-hr
        (for use in stability
         determinations)

      Transport direction                             1-hr

      Dilution wind speed                             1-hr

      Turbulence measurements                         l-hr1
        (crE and aA) for  use
        in stability determinations


1  To minimize meander effects in 
-------

-------
(THESE PAGES INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
              9-20 to 9-22               Revised 2/93

-------
            10.1.4  Evaluation of Models




                    A number of actions are being taken to ensure that the




best model is used correctly for each regulatory application and that a model




is not arbitrarily imposed.  First, this guideline clearly recommends the most




appropriate model be used in each case.  Preferred models, based on a number




of factors, are identified for many uses.  General guidance on using alterna-




tives to the preferred models is also provided.  Second, all the models in




eight categories  (i.e., rural, urban, industrial complex, reactive pollutants,




mobile source, complex terrain, visibility and long range transport) that are




candidates for inclusion in this guideline are being subjected to a systematic




performance evaluation and a peer scientific review.83  The same data bases are





being used to evaluate all models within each of eight categories.




Statistical performance measures, including measures of difference  (or




residuals) such as bias, variance of difference and gross variability of the




difference, and measures of correlation such as time, space, and time and




space combined as recommended by the AMS Woods Hole Workshop," are being





followed.  The results of the scientific review are being incorporated in this




guideline and will be the basis for future revision.12-13  Third, more specific




information has been provided for justifying the site specific use of alterna-




tive models in the documents "Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality




Models",15 and the "Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model".17





Together these documents provide methods that allow a judgment to be made as




to what models are most appropriate for a specific application.  For the




present,  performance and the theoretical evaluation of models are being used




as an indirect means to quantify one element of uncertainty in air pollution




regulatory decisions.







                                     10-6                         Revised 2/93

-------
11.0  REGULATORY APPLICATION OF MODELS




      11.1  Discussion




            Procedures with respect to the review and analysis of air quality




modeling and data analyses in support of SIP revisions, PSD permitting or




other regulatory requirements need a certain amount of standardization to




ensure consistency in the depth and comprehensiveness of both the review and




the analysis itself.  This section recommends procedures that permit some




degree of standardization while at the same time allowing the flexibility




needed to assure the technically best analysis for each regulatory applica-




tion.




             Dispersion model estimates, especially with the support of




measured air quality data, are the preferred basis for air quality demonstra-




tions.  Nevertheless, there are instances where the performance of recommended




dispersion modeling techniques, by comparison with observed air quality data,




may be shown to be less than acceptable.  Also, there may be no recommended




modeling procedure suitable for the situation.  In these instances, emission




limitations may be established solely on the basis of observed air quality




data as would be applied to a modeling analysis.  The same care should be




given to the analyses of the air quality data as would be applied to a




modeling analysis.




             The current NAAQS for SO2  and  CO  are  both stated in terms





of a concentration not to be exceeded more than once a year.  There




is only an annual standard for NO2  and  a quarterly standard for Pb.





The PM-10 and ozone standards permit the exceedance of a concentration




on an average of not more than once a year; the convention is to




average over a 3-year period.5>86'103   This







                                     11-1                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
      11.2  Recommendations

            11.2.1  Analysis Requirements

                    Every effort should be made by the Regional Office to meet
with all parties involved in either a SIP revision or a PSD permit application
prior to the start of any work on such a project.  During this meeting, a
protocol should be established between the preparing and reviewing parties to
define the procedures to be followed, the data to be collected, the model to
be used, and the analysis of the source and concentration data.  An example of
requirements for such an effort is contained in the Air Quality Analysis
Checklist included here as Appendix C.  This checklist suggests the level of
detail required to assess the air quality resulting from the proposed action.
Special cases may require additional data collection or analysis and this
should be determined and agreed upon at this preapplication meeting.  The
protocol should be written and agreed upon by the parties concerned, although
a formal legal document is not intended.  Changes in such a protocol are often
required as the data collection and analysis progresses.  However, the
protocol establishes a common understanding of the requirements.

                    An air quality analysis should begin with a screening
model to determine the potential of the proposed source or control strategy to
violate the PSD increment or NAAQS.  It is recommended that the screening
techniques found in "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality
Impact of Stationary Sources"18 be used for point source analyses.  Screening
procedures for area source analysis are discussed in "Applying Atmospheric
Simulation Models to Air Quality Maintenance Areas".*7  For mobile source
impact assessments the "Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway
Intersections"34 is available.

                    If the concentration estimates from screening techniques
indicate that the PSD increment or NAAQS may be approached or exceeded, then a
more refined modeling analysis is appropriate and the model user should select
a model according to recommendations in Sections 4-8.   In some instances,  no
refined technique may be specified in this guide for the situation.  The model
user is then encouraged to submit a model developed specifically for the case
at hand.  If that is not possible,  a screening technique may supply the needed
results.

                    Regional Offices should require permit applicants to
incorporate the pollutant contributions of all sources into their analysis.
Where necessary this may include emissions associated with growth in the area
of impact of the new or modified source's impact.  PSD air quality assessments
should consider the amount of the allowable air quality increment that has
already been granted to any other sources.  Therefore,  the most recent source
applicant should model the existing or permitted sources in addition to the
one currently under consideration.   This would permit the use of newly
acquired data or improved modeling techniques if
                                     11-3                         Revised 2/93

-------
            11.2.3  Emission Limits

                    11.2.3.1  Design Concentrations

                              Emission limits should be based on concentration
estimates for the averaging time that results in the most stringent control
requirements.  The concentration used in specifying emission limits is called
the design value or design concentration and is a sum of the concentration
contributed by the source and the background concentration.

                              To determine the averaging time for the design
value, the most restrictive National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
should be identified by calculating, for each averaging time, the ratio of the
applicable NAAQS (S) minus background (B) to the predicted concentration  (P)
(i.e., (S-B)/P).  The averaging time with the lowest ratio identifies the most
restrictive standard.  If the annual average is the most restrictive, the
highest estimated annual average concentration from one or a number of years
of data is the design value.  When short term standards are most restrictive,
it may be necessary to consider a broader range of concentrations than the
highest value.  For example, for pollutants such as SO2,  the  highest,  second-
highest concentration is the design value.  For pollutants with statistically
based NAAQS, the design value is found by determining the more restrictive of:
(1) the short-term concentration that is not expected to be exceeded more than
once per year over the period specified in the standard, or  (2) the long-term
concentration that is not expected to exceed the long-term NAAQS.  Determina-
tion of design values for PM-10 is presented in more detail in the "PM-10 SIP
Development Guideline".103

                              When the highest, second-highest concentration
is used in assessing potential violations of a short term NAAQS, criteria that
are identified in "Guideline for Interpretation of Air Quality Standards"88
should be followed.- This guideline specifies that a violation of a short term
standard occurs at a site when the standard is exceeded a second time. Thus,
emission limits that protect standards for averaging times of 24 hours or less
are appropriately based on the highest,  second-highest estimated concentration
plus a background concentration which can reasonably be assumed to occur with
the concentration.

                    11.2.3.2  NAAQS Analyses for New or Modified Sources

                              For new or modified sources predicted to have a
significant ambient impact63 and to be located in areas designated attainment
or unclassifiable for the SO2,  Pb,  N02, or CO NAAQS, the demonstration as to
whether the source will cause or contribute to an air quality violation should
be based on:  (1) the highest estimated annual average concentration deter-
mined from annual averages of individual years; or (2)  the highest,  second-
highest estimated concentration for averaging times of 24-hours or less; and
(3) the significance of the spatial and temporal contribution to any modeled
violation.  For Pb,  the highest estimated concentration based on an individual
calendar quarter averaging period should be used.  Background concentrations
should be added to the estimated impact of the source.   The most restrictive
standard should be used in all cases to assess the threat of an air quality
violation.  For new or modified sources predicted to have a significant
ambient impact63 in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the

                                     11-7                         Revised 2/93

-------
PM-10 NAAQS, the demonstration of whether or not the source will cause or
contribute to an air quality violation should be based on sufficient data to
show whether:  (1) the projected 24-hour average concentrations will exceed the
24-hour NAAQS more than once per year, on average;  (2) the expected  (i.e.,
average) annual mean concentration will exceed the annual NAAQS; and  (3) the
source contributes significantly, in a temporal and spatial sense, to any
modeled violation.

                    11.2.3.3  PSD Air Quality Increments and Impacts

                              The allowable PSD increments for criteria
pollutants are established by regulation and cited in 40 CFR 51.166.  These
maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentrations may be exceeded once
per year at each site, except for the annual increment that may not be
exceeded.  The highest, second-highest increase in estimated concentrations
for the short term averages as determined by a model should be less than or
equal to the permitted increment.  The modeled annual averages should not
exceed the increment.

                              Screening techniques defined in Sections 4 and 5
can sometimes be used to estimate short term incremental concentrations for
the first new source that triggers the baseline in a given area.  However,
when multiple increment- consuming sources are involved in the calculation, the
use of a refined model with at least 1 year of on-site or 5 years of off-site
NWS data is normally required.  In such cases, sequential modeling must
demonstrate that the allowable increments are not exceeded temporally and
spatially, i.e., for all receptors for each time period throughout the year(s)
(time period means the appropriate PSD averaging time, e.g., 3-hour, 24-hour,
etc.).

                              The PSD regulations require an estimation of the
S02, particulate matter,  and N02 impact on any Class I area.  Normally,
Gaussian models should not be applied at distances greater than can be
accommodated by the steady state assumptions inherent in such models.  The
maximum distance for refined Gaussian model application for regulatory
purposes is generally considered to be 50km.  Beyond the 50km range, screening
techniques may be used to determine if more refined modeling is needed.  If
refined models are needed, long range transport models should be considered in
accordance with Section 7.2.6.  As previously noted in Sections 3 and 7, the
need to involve the Federal Land Manager in decisions on potential air quality
impacts, particularly in relation to PSD Class I areas, cannot be overempha-
sized.

                    11.2.3.4  Emissions Trading Policy (Bubbles)

                              EPA's final Emissions Trading Policy, commonly
referred to as the "bubble policy," was published in the Federal Register in
1986.89  Principles contained in the policy should be used to evaluate ambient
impacts of emission trading activities.

                              Emission increases and decreases within the
bubble should result in ambient air quality equivalence.   Two levels of
analysis are defined for establishing this equivalence.  In a Level I analysis
the source configuration and setting must meet certain limitations  (defined in


                                     11-8                         Revised 2/93

-------
the policy) that ensure ambient equivalence; no modeling is required.  In a
Level II analysis a modeling demonstration of ambient equivalence is required
but only the sources involved in the emissions trade are modeled.  The
resulting ambient estimates of net increases/decreases are compared to a set
of significance levels to determine if the bubble can be approved.  A Level II
analysis requires the use of a refined model and the most recent readily
available full year of representative meteorological data.  Sequential
modeling must demonstrate that the significance levels are met temporally and
spatially, i.e., for all receptors for each time period throughout the year
(time period means the appropriate NAAQS averaging time, e.g., 3-hour,
24-hour, etc.).

                              For those bubbles that cannot meet the Level I
or Level II requirements, the Emissions Trading Policy allows for a Level III
analysis.  A Level III analysis, from a modeling standpoint, is generally
equivalent to the requirements for a standard SIP revision where all sources
(and background) are considered and the estimates are compared to the NAAQS as
in Section 11.2.3.2.

                              The Emissions Trading Policy allows States to
adopt generic regulations for processing bubbles.   The modeling procedures
recommended in this guideline apply to such generic regulations.  However, an
added requirement is that the modeling procedures contained in any generic
regulation must be replicable such that there is no doubt as to how each
individual bubble will be modeled.  In general this means that the models, the
data bases and the procedures for applying the model must be defined in the
regulation.  The consequences of the replicability requirement are that
bubbles for sources located in complex terrain and certain industrial sources
where judgments must be made on source characterization cannot be handled
generically.
                                     11-9                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
12.0  REFERENCES^

1.    Code of Federal Regulations  (Title 40, Part 51): Protection of the
      Environment; Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
      Implementation Plans.

2.    Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.  Guidelines for the Regional
      Evaluation of State and Local New Source Review Program.  EPA Publica-
      tion No. EPA-450/2-77-027. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/
      Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB-275053)

3.    Environmental Protection Agency/ 1980.  Prevention of Significant
      Deterioration Workshop Manual.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/2-80-081.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 81-136459)

4.    Environmental Protection Agency, 1981.  Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
      Atmospheric Diffusion.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-81-009.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS
      No.PB 81-201410)

5.    Code of Federal Regulations  (Title 40, Part 50): Protection of the
      Environment; National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards,

6.    Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.  Model Clearinghouse: Operational
      Plan (Revised).  Staff Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.   (Docket No. A-88-04, II-J-1)

7.    Environmental Protection Agency, 1980.  Guidelines on Air Quality Models.
      Federal Register. 45(61): 20157-20158.

8.    Londergan, R.J.,  D.H. Minott, D.J. Wackter, T. Kincaid and D. Bonitata,
      1982.  Evaluation of Rural Air Quality Simulation Models.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/4-82-020.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 83-182758)

9.    Londergan, R.J.,  D.H. Minott, D.J. Wackter and R.R. Fizz, 1983.
      Evaluation of Urban Air Quality Simulation Models.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-83-020.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park,  NC.   (NTIS No. PB 84-241173).

10.   Londergan, R.J. and D.J. Wackter, 1984.  Evaluation of Complex Terrain
      Air Quality Simulation Models.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-84-017.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.(NTIS
      No. PB 85-119485).
     'Documents not available  in the open  literature or  from  the National
Technical Information Service  (NTIS)  have been placed in Docket No. A-80-46 or
A-88-04.  Item Numbers for documents placed in the Docket are shown at the end
of the reference.

     ESome EPA references,  e.g., model  user's  guides,  etc., are periodically
revised.  Users are referred to the SCRAM BBS  to download updates for
addenda, see page A-l.

                                      12-1                        Revised 2/93

-------
11.   Fox, D.G., 1981.  Judging Air Quality Model Performance.  Bulletin of the
      American Meteorological Society, 62(5): 599-609.

12.   American Meteorological Society, 1983.  Synthesis of the Rural Model
      Reviews.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/3-83-108.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 84-121037)

13.   American Meteorological Society, 1984.  Review of the Attributes and
      Performance of Six Urban Diffusion Models.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-600/S3-84-089.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No.PB 84-236850)

14.   White, F.D.(Ed.), J.K.S. Ching, R.L. Dennis and W.H. Snyder, 1985.
      Summary of Complex Terrain Model Evaluation.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-600/3-85-060.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 85-236891)

15.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.  Interim Procedures for Evaluating
      Air Quality Models (Revised).  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-84-023.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 85-106060)

16.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1985.  Interim Procedures for Evaluating
      Air Quality Models:  Experience with Implementation.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-85-006.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 85-242477)

17.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Protocol for Determining the Best
      Performing Model.  EPA Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-025.  U.S. Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

18.   Environmental Protection Agency,1992.  Screening Procedures for
      Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-019.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.

19.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  Support Center for Regulatory Air
      Models Bulletin Board System (SCRAM BBS).   Source Receptor Analysis
      Branch, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (Docket Nos. A-88-04, II-J-4a and b)

20    Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  SCREEN2 Model User's Guide.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/4-92-006.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.

21.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  EPA Complex Terrain Model
      Development:   Final Report.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/3-88-006.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No.
      PB 88-162110)

22.   Perry, S.G.,  D.J. Burns, L.H. Adams, R.J.  Paine, M.G. Dennis, M.T. Mills,
      D.J. Strimaitis, R.J.  Yamartino and 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 Publication No. EPA-600/8-89-041.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 89-181424)
                                      12-2                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
23.   Mills, M.T., R.J. Paine, E.A. Insley and B.A. Egan, 1987.  The Complex
      Terrain Dispersion Model Terrain Preprocessor System - User's Guide and
      Program Description.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-88-003.   U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 88-162094)

24.   Paine, R.J., 1987.  User's Guide to the CTDM Meteorological Preprocessor
      Program.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-88-004.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 88-162102)

25.   Perry, S.G., D.J. Burns and A.J Cimorelli, 1990.  User's Guide to
      CTDMPLUS: Volume 2. The Screening Mode (CTSCREEN).   EPA Publication No.
      EPA-600/8-90-087.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park,  NC.  (NTIS No. PB 91-136564)

26.   Burt, E.W., 1977.  Valley Model User's Guide.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/2-77-018.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park,  NC.  (NTIS No. PB-274054)

27.   Bjorklund, J.R.  and J.F. Bowers, 1982.  User's Instructions for the
      SHORTZ and LONGZ Computer Programs, Volumes I and II.  EPA Publication
      No. EPA-903/9-82-004a and b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
      III, Philadelphia, PA.  (NTIS Nos. PB 83-146092 and PB 83-146100)

28.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.  User's Guide for the Urban Airshed
      Model, Volume I-VIII.   EPA Publication Nos.  EPA-450/4-90-007a-c, d(R),
      e-g; EPA-454/B-93-004, respectively.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.  (NTIS Nos. PB 91-131227,
      PB 91-131235, PB 91-131243,  PB 93-122380, PB 91-131268, PB 92-145382,  and
      PB 92-224849, respectively,  for Vols. I-VII)

29.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.  Guideline for Regulatory
      Application of the Urban Airshed Model.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-91-013  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 92-108760/AS)

30.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Procedures for Applying City-
      Specific EKMA (Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach).   EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-89-012.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Research
      Triangle Park,  NC.  (NTIS No. PB 90-256777)

31.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  User's Manual for OZIPM-4 (Ozone
      Isopleth Plotting with Optional Mechanisms),  Volumes 1 and 2.   EPA
      Publication Nos.  EPA-450/4-89-009a and b.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.  (NTIS Nos. PB 90-261488 and
      PB 90-255399)

32.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.  A PC Based System for Generating
      EKMA Input Files.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-88-016.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency/ Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 90-255407)

33.   Meyer, Jr., E.L. and K.A.  Baugues, 1987.   Consideration of Transported
      Ozone and Precursors and Their Use in EKMA.   EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-89-010.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park,  NC.  (NTIS No. PB 90-255415)
                                      12-3                         Revised 2/93

-------
34.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Guideline for Modeling Carbon
      Monoxide from Roadway Intersections.  EPA Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-005
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

35.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  User's Guide for CAL3QHC Version 2:
      A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near
      Roadway Intersections.  EPA Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-006.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

36.   Cole, H.S. and J.E. Summerhays, 1979.  A Review of Techniques Available
      for Estimation of Short-Term NO2 Concentrations.   Journal  of the Air
      Pollution Control Association, 29(8): 812-817.

37.   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1980.  Air Quality
      Considerations in Residential Planning.  U.S. Superintendent of
      Documents, Washington, DC.  (GPO Order Nos. 023-000-00577-8,
      023-000-00576-0, 023-000-00575-1)

38.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1981.  Receptor Model Technical Series.
      Volume I:  Overview of Receptor Model Application to Particulate Source
      Apportionment.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-81-016a  (NTIS No.
      PB 82-139429); Volume II: Chemical Mass Balance.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-81-016b  (NTIS No. PB 82-187345); Volume III  (Revised): CMB
      User's Manual (Version 7.0).  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-90-004  (NTIS
      No. PB 90-185067); Volume IV:  Technical Considerations In Source
      Apportionment By Particle Identification.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-83-018 (NTIS No. PB 84-103340); Volume V: Source Apportionment
      Techniques and Considerations in Combining their Use.  EPA Publication
      No. EPA-450/4-84-020 (NTIS No. PB 85-111524); Volume VI: A Guide To The
      Use of Factor Analysis and Multiple Regression (FA/MR)  Techniques in
      Source Apportionment.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-85-007  (NTIS No.
      PB 86-107638).  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC.

39.   Pace, T.G.,  1982.  The Role of Receptor Models for Revised Particulate
      Matter Standards.  A Specialty Conference on: Receptor Models Applied to
      Contemporary Pollution Problems.  Air Pollution Control Association,
      Pittsburgh,  PA;  pp. 18-28.  (Docket No. A-80-46, II-P-10)

40.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.  Supplementary Guidelines for Lead
      Implementation Plans.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-038.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No.
      PB 82-232737)

41.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1983.  Updated Information on Approval
      and Promulgation of Lead Implementation Plans (DRAFT).   U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (Docket No.  A-80-46, II-B-38)

42.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.  Protecting Visibility: An EPA
      Report to Congress.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/5-79-008.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No.  PB 80-220320)
                                      12-4                         Revised 2/93

-------
43.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Workbook for Plume Visual Impact
      Screening and Analysis  (Revised).  EPA Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-023.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

44.   Seigneur C., A.B. Hudischewskyj and R.W. Bergstrom, 1982.  Evaluation of
      the EPA PLUVDE Model and the ERT Visibility Model Based on the 1979
      VISTTA Data Base.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-82-008.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 83-164723)

45.   White, W.H., C. Seigneur, D.W. Heinold, M.W. Eltgroth, L.W. Richards,
      P.T. Roberts, P.S. Bhardwaja, W.D. Conner and W.E. Wilson, Jr., 1985.
      Predicting the Visibility of Chimney Plumes: An Intercomparison of Four
      Models with Observations at a Well-Controlled Power Plant.  Atmospheric
      Environment, 19(3): 515-528.

46.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1985.  Guideline for Determination of
      Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for
      the Stack Height Regulations), Revised.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-80-023R.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 85-225241)

47.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1981.  Guideline for Use of Fluid
      Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice (GEP)  Stack Height.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/4-81-003.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 82-145327)

48.   Lawson,  Jr., R.E. and W.H. Snyder, 1983.  Determination of Good
      Engineering Practice Stack Height: A Demonstration Study for a Power
      Plant.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/3-83-024.   U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 83-207407)

49.   Snyder,  W.H. and R.E.  Lawson, Jr., 1985.  Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
      Good Engineering-Practice Stack Height in Complex Terrain.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-600/3-85-022.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 85-203107)

50.   Turner,  D.B., 1969.  Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.  PHS
      Publication No. 999-AP-26.  U.S. Department of Health, Education and
      Welfare,  Public Health Service, Cincinnati,  OH.  (NTIS No. PB-191482)

51.   McElroy,  J.L. and F. Pooler, Jr., 1968.  St. Louis Dispersion Study,
      Volume II - Analysis.   National Air Pollution Control Administration
      Publication No. AP-53,  U.S. Department of Health,  Education and Welfare,
      Public Health Service,  Arlington, VA.  (NTIS No. PB-190255)

52.   Irwin, J.S., 1983.  Estimating Plume Dispersion -  A Comparison of Several
      Sigma Schemes.  Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology,  22: 92-114.

53.   Briggs,  G.A. and F.S.  Binkowski, 1985.  Research on Diffusion in
      Atmospheric Boundary Layers: A Position Paper on Status and Needs.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-600/3-25-072.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 86-122587)
                                      12-5                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
54.   Pasquill, P., 1976.  Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume
      Modeling, Part II.  Possible Requirements for Change in the Turner
      Workbook Values.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/4-76-030b.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB-258036/3BA)

55.   Turner, D.B., 1964.  A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area.  Journal of
      Applied Meteorology, 3(1): 83-91.

56.   Briggs, G.A., 1975.  Plume Rise Predictions.  Chapter 3 in Lectures on
      Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses.  American Meteorological
      Society, Boston, MA; pp. 59-111.

57.   Hanna, S.R., G.A. Briggs and R.P. Hosker, Jr., 1982.  Plume Rise.
      Chapter 2 in Handbook on Atmospheric Diffusion.  Technical Information
      Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC; pp. 11-24.
      DOE/TIC-11223 (DE 82002045)

58.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  User's Guide for the Industrial
      Source Complex  (ISC2)  Dispersion Models, Volumes 1,  2 and 3.  EPA
      Publication Nos. EPA-450/4-92-008a-c.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS Nos. PB-92-232461,
      PB 92-232453, and PB 92-232479, respectively)

59.   Irwin, J.S., 1978.  Proposed Criteria for Selection of Urban Versus Rural
      Dispersion Coefficients.   (Draft Staff Report).  Meteorology and
      Assessment Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (Docket No. A-80-46, II-B-8)

60.   Auer,  Jr., A.H., 1978.  Correlation of Land Use and Cover with
      Meteorological Anomalies.  Journal of Applied Meteorology, 17(5): 636-643.

61.   Brier, G.W., 1973.  Validity of the Air Quality Display Model Calibration
      Procedure.  EPA Publication No. EPA-R4-73-017.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB-218716)

62.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1985 and ff.   Compilation of Air
      Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources
      (Fourth Edition; GPO Stock No. 055-000-00251-7), and Supplements; Volume
      II: Mobile Sources  (NTIS PB 87-205266) and Supplement(s).  EPA
      Publication No.  AP-42.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.

63.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  Ambient Air Monitoring Guidelines
      for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-87-007.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 90-168030)

64.   Landsberg, H.E.  and W.C. Jacobs, 1951.  Compendium of Meteorology.
      American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA; pp. 976-992.

65.   Burton, C.S., T.E. Stoeckenius and J.P. Nordin, 1983.  The Temporal
      Representativeness of Short-Term Meteorological Data Sets:  Implications
      for Air Quality Impact Assessments.  Systems Applications, Inc., San
      Rafael, CA.   (Docket No. A-80-46, II-G-11)
                                      12-6                         Revised 2/93

-------
66.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  On-Site Meteorological Program
      Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-87-013.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 87-227542)

67.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  Quality Assurance for Air
      Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV - Meteorological Measurements.
      EPA Publication No. EPA-600/4-82-060R.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC.

68.   Irwin, J.S., 1980.  Dispersion Estimate Suggestion #8:  Estimation of
      Pasquill Stability Categories.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC   (Docket No. A-80-46, II-B-10)

69.   Mitchell, Jr., A.E. and K.O. Timbre, 1979.  Atmospheric Stability Class
      from Horizontal Wind Fluctuation.  Presented at 72nd Annual Meeting of
      Air Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, OH; June 24-29, 1979.
      (Docket No. A-80-46, II-P-9)

70.   Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1972.  Meteorological Programs in Support
      of Nuclear Power Plants.  Regulatory Guide 1.23 (DRAFT).  U.S. Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development, Washington, DC.
      (Docket No. A-80-46, II-P-11)

71.   Smedman - Hogstrom, A. and V. Hogstrom, 1978.   A Practical Method for
      Determining Wind Frequency Distributions for the Lowest 200m from Routine
      Meteorological Data.  Journal of Applied Meteorology,  17(7): 942-954.

72.   Smith, T.B. and S.M. Howard, 1972.  Methodology for Treating Diffusivity.
      MRI 72 FR-1030.  Meteorology Research, Inc., Altadena, CA.  (Docket No.
      A-80-46, II-P-8)

73.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.  Calms Processor  (CALMPRO)  User's
      Guide.  EPA Publication No. EPA-901/9-84-001.   U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA.   (NTIS No. PB 84-229467)

74.   Burton,  C.S., 1981.  The Role of Atmospheric Models in Regulatory
      Decision-Making:  Summary Report.  Systems Applications, Inc.,  San Rafael,
      CA.  Prepared under contract No. 68-01-5845 for U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (Docket No.
      A-80-46, II-M-6)

75.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1981.  Proceedings of the Second
      Conference on Air Quality Modeling, Washington, DC.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (Docket No.
      A-80-46, II-M-16)

76.   Hanna, S.R., 1982.  Natural Variability of Observed Hourly SO2 and  CO
      Concentrations in St.  Louis.  Atmospheric Environment, 16(6) :  1435-1440.

77.   Fox,  D.G., 1983.   Uncertainty in Air Quality Modeling.  Bulletin of the
      American Meteorological Society, 65(1): 27-36.
                                      12-7                         Revised 2/93

-------
78.   Bowne, N.E., 1981.  Validation and Performance Criteria for Air Quality
      Models.  Appendix F in Air Quality Modeling and the Clean Air Act:
      Recommendations to EPA on Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory
      Applications.  American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA; pp. 159-171.
      (Docket No. A-80-46, II-A-106)

79.   Bowne, N.E. and R.J. Londergan, 1983.  Overview, Results, and Conclusions
      for the EPRI Plume Model Validation and Development Project: Plains Site.
      EPRI EA-3074.  Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

80.   Moore, G.E., T.E. Stoeckenius and D.A. Stewart, 1982.  A Survey of
      Statistical Measures of Model Performance and Accuracy for Several Air
      Quality Models.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-83-001.   U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 83-260810)

81.   Rhoads, R.G., 1981.  Accuracy of Air Quality Models.  Staff Report.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC.  (Docket No.
      A-80-46, II-G-6)

82.   Pasquill, F., 1974.  Atmospheric Diffusion, 2nd Edition.  John Wiley and
      Sons, New York, NY; 479 pp.

83.   Austin, B.S., T.E. Stoeckenius, M.C. Dudik and T.S. Stocking, 1988.
      User's Guide to the Expected  Exceedances System.  Systems Applications,
      Inc., San Rafael, CA.  Prepared under Contract No. 68-02-4352 Option I
      for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (Docket No. A-88-04, II-I-3)

84.   Thrall, A.D., T.E. Stoeckenius and C.S. Burton, 1985.  A Method for
      Calculating Dispersion Modeling Uncertainty Applied to the Regulation of
      an Emission Source.  Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA.
      Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
      Park, NC.   (Docket No. A-80-46, IV-G-1)

85.   Environmental Protection Agency,  1981.  Plan for Evaluating Model
      Performance.  Staff Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park,  NC.  (Docket No.  A-80-46, II-G-6)

86.   Environmental Protection Agency,  1979.  Guideline for the Interpretation
      of Ozone Air Quality Standards.  EPA Publication No. EPA 450/4-79-003.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB-292271)

87.   Environmental Protection Agency,  1974.  Guidelines for Air Quality
      Maintenance Planning and Analysis,  Volume 12:   Applying Atmospheric
      Simulation Models to Air Quality Maintenance Areas.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-74-013.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB-237750)

88.   Environmental Protection Agency,  1977.  Guidelines for Interpretation of
      Air Quality Standards (Revised).   OAQPS No. 1.2-008.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 81-196420)
                                      12-8                         Revised 2/93

-------

-------
89.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.  Emissions Trading Policy
      Statement; General Principles for Creation, Banking, and Use of Emission
      Reduction Credits.  Federal Register. 51(233): 43814-43860.

90.   Environmental Research and Technology, 1987.  User's Guide to the Rough
      Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM),  Rev. 3.20.  ERT Document No. P-D535-585.
      Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., Concord, MA.   (Docket No.
      A-80-46, IV-D-5)

91.   Burns, D.J., S.G. Perry and A.J. Cimorelli, 1991.  An Advanced Screening
      Model for Complex Terrain Applications.   Paper presented at the 7th Joint
      Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology  (cosponsored by
      the American Meteorological Society and the Air & Waste Management
      Association), January 13-18, 1991,  New Orleans, LA.

92.   Perry, S.G., 1992.  CTDMPLUS: A Dispersion Model for Sources near Complex
      Topography.  Part I: Technical Formulations.  Journal of Applied
      Meteorology, 31(7): 633-645.

93.   Paumier, J.O., S.G. Perry and D.J.  Burns, 1992.  CTDMPLUS: A Dispersion
      Model for Sources near Complex Topography.  Part II: Performance
      Characteristics.  Journal of Applied Meteorology, 31(7): 646-660.

94.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.  Evaluation of Mobile Source Air
      Quality Simulation Models.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-86-002.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
      (NTIS No. PB 86-167293)

95.   Shannon, J.D., 1987.  Mobile Source Modeling Review.  A report prepared
      under a cooperative agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency.
      (Docket No. A-88-04, II-J-2)

96.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.  Emission Inventory Requirements
      for Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-91-011.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 92-112150)

97.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Guideline for Regulatory
      Application of the Urban Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon Monoxide.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/4-92-01la and b.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.   (NTIS Nos. PB 92-213222 and
      PB 92-213230)

98.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Technical Support Document to Aid
      States with the Development of Carbon Monoxide State Implementation
      Plans.  EPA Publication No. EPA-452/R-92-003.   U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 92-233055)

99.   Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.  Evaluation of Short-Term Long-
      Range Transport Models,  Volumes I and II.  EPA Publication Nos.
      EPA-450/4-86-016a and b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS Nos. PB 87-142337 and PB 87-142345)
                                      12-9                         Revised 2/93

-------
100.  McNider, R.T., 1987.  Review of Short-Term Long-Range Models.  A report
      prepared under a cooperative agreement with the Environmental Protection
      Agency.  (Docket No. A-88-04, II-I-10)

101.  Lamb, R.G., 1983.  A Regional Scale  (1,000km) Model of Photochemical Air
      Pollution,  Part I-Theoretical Formulation, Part II-Input Processor
      Network Design, and Part Ill-Tests of Numerical Algorithms.  EPA
      Publication Nos. EPA-600/3-83-035, EPA-600/3-84-085, and
      EPA-600/3-85-037.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS Nos. PB 83-207688, PB 84-232651, and
      PB 85-203818,  respectively)

102.  Young, J.O., M. Aissa, T.L. Boehm et al.,  1989.  Development of the
      Regional Oxidant Model, Version 2.1.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-600/3-89-044.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 89-194252)

103.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.  The Regional Oxidant Model  (ROM)
      User's Guide.   Part 1: The ROM Preprocessors.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-600/8-90-083a (NTIS No. PB 91-171926); Part 2: The ROM Processor
      Network.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-90-083b (NTIS No. PB 91-171934);
      Part 3: The Core Model.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-90-083c (NTIS No.
      PB 91-171942).  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Research Triangle
      Park, NC.

104.  Chang, J.S., R.A. Brost,  I.S.A.  Isaksen,  S.  Madronich, P. Middleton, W.R.
      Stockwell and C.J. Waleck,  1987.  A Three-Dimensional Eulerian Acid
      Deposition Model: Physical Concepts and Formulation.  Journal of
      Geophysical Research,  92(D12): 14681-14700.

105.  Environmental Protection Agency/ 1987.  Protocol for Applying and
      Validating the CMB.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/4-87-010.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 87-206496)

106.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  Protocol for Reconciling
      Differences Among Receptor and Dispersion Models.   EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-87-008.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 87-206504)

107.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.  Chemical Mass Balance Model
      Diagnostics.  EPA Publication No.  EPA-450/4-88-005.   U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 88-208319)

108.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  PM-10 SIP Development Guideline.
      EPA Publication No.  EPA-450/2-86-001.  U.S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.   (NTIS No. PB 87-206488)

109.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  Example Modeling to Illustrate
      SIP Development for The PM-10 NAAQS.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-87-012
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS
      No. PB 87-205191)
                                     12-10                        Revised 2/93

-------

-------
110.  Sestak, M. L. and A. R. Riebau, 1988.  SASEM Simple Approach Smoke
      Estimation Model.  U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note 382.
      BLM/YA/PT-88/003 + 7000.  Available from Printed Materials Distribution
      Section, BLM Service Center  (SC-658B),  Denver, CO 80225-0047.   (NTIS No.
      PB 90-185653)

111.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.   A Modeling Protocol for Applying
      Mesopuff II to Long Range Transport Problems.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-454/R-92-021.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.

112.  DiCristofaro, D.C. and S.R. Hanna, 1989.  The Offshore and Coastal
      Dispersion (OCD) Model, Volume I: User's Guide, Volume II: Appendices.
      Version 4 Prepared for Minerals Management Services by Sigma Research
      Corporation,  Westford, MA.   (Docket No. A-88-04, II-D-A-06)

113.  Federal Aviation Administration, 1988.   A Microcomputer Pollution Model
      for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, Model Description, Model
      Application and Background, and EDMS User's Guide (June 1991) .   Federal
      Aviation Administration Publication Nos. FAA-EE-88-4 and 5; FAA-EE-91-3,
      respectively.  United States Air Force Publication Nos. ESL-TR-88-53 and
      55; ESL-TR-91-31, respectively.  Federal Aviation Administration, Office
      of Environment and Energy, Washington,  D.C.   (NTIS Nos. ADA 199003,
      ADA 199794,  and ADA 240528, respectively)

114.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.   Workbook of Screening Techniques
      for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants  (Revised).  EPA Publication
      No. EPA-454/R-92-024.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.

115.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.   User's Guide to TSCREEN: A Model
      for Screening,Toxic Air Pollutant Concentrations.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-90-013.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 91-141820)

116.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.   Hazardous Waste TSDF Fugitive
      Particulate Matter Air Emissions Guidance Document.   EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/3-89-019.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 90-103250)

117.  Environmental Protection Agency/ 1989.   Procedures for Conducting Air
      Pathway Analyses for Superfund Applications, Volume I Applications of Air
      Pathway Analyses for Superfund Activities and Volume IV Procedures for
      Dispersion Modeling and Air Monitoring for Superfund Air Pathway
      Analysis, EPA-450/1-89-001 and 004.  U.S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS Nos. PB 89-113374 and
      PB 89-113382)

118.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.   Air Dispersion Modeling as
      Applied to Hazardous Waste Incinerator Evaluations,  An Introduction For
      the Permit Writer.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research
      Triangle Park, NC.  (Docket No. A-88-04, II-J-10)
                                     12-11                        Revised 2/93

-------

-------
119.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  U.S. EPA Office of Toxic
      Substances Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) User's Guide and
      GAMS Version 3.0 User's Guide (DRAFT).  Prepared under Contract No.
      68-02-0481 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Washington, D.C.
      (Docket No. A-88-04, II-J-5a and II-J-13)

120.  Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989.  Handbook of Chemical Hazard
      Analysis Procedures.  Available on request by writing to:  Federal
      Emergency Management Agency, Publications Office, 500 C Street, S.W.,
      Washington, D.C. 20472.

121.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  Technical Guidance for Hazards
      Analysis:  Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances.
      Available on request by telephone: 1-(800)-535-0202.

122.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.  Superfund Exposure Assessment
      Manual.  EPA-540/1-88-001, OSWER Directive 9285.5-1.  Office of Remedial
      Response, Washington, D.C. 20460.   (NTIS No. PB 89-135859)

123.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  Incineration of Sewage Sludge;
      Technical Support Document.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
      Washington, D.C. 20460.   (NTIS No. PB 89-136592)

124.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  Sludge Incineration Modeling
      (SIM)  System User's Guide  (Draft).  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
      Substances, Exposure Evaluation Division,  Washington, D.C. 20460.
      (NTIS No. PB 89-138762)

125.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  Risk Assessment Guidance for
      Superfund.  Volume I:  Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A.  (Interim
      Final).  OSWER Directive 9285.7-Ola.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
      Response, Washington, D.C. 20460.

126.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.  User's Manual for the Human
      Exposure Model  (HEM).  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/5-86-001.   Office of
      Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 27711.

127.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  A Tiered Modeling Approach for
      Assessing the Risks Due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/4-92-001.  Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No. PB 92-164748)

128.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Toxic Modeling System Short-term
      (TOXST)  User's Guide.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-92-002.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

129.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  Toxic Modeling System Long-term
      (TOXLT)  User's Guide.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-92-003.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

130.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  User's Guide for the DEGADIS 2.1
      Dense Gas Dispersion Model.  EPA Publication No.  EPA-450/4-89-019.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No.
      PB 90-213893)
                                     12-12                        Revised 2/93

-------
131.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.  Guidance on the Application of
      Refined Models for Air Toxics Releases.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-91-007.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 91-190983)

132.  Perry, R. H. and Chilton, C. H., 1973.  Chemical Engineers' Handbook,
      Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.

133.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.  User's Guide to SDM - A Shoreline
      Dispersion Model.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-88-017.  U.S. Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS No.
      PB 89-164305)

134.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  Analysis and Evaluation of
      Statistical Coastal Fumigation Models.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-450/4-87002.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 87-175519)

135.  Irwin, J.S., J.O. Paumier and R.W. Erode, 1988.  Meteorological Processor
      for Regulatory Models (MPRM 1.2) User's Guide.  EPA Publication No.
      EPA-600/3-88-043R.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 89-127526)
                                     12-13                        Revised 2/93

-------
13.0  BIBLIOGRAPHY"

American Meteorological Society, 1971-1985.  Symposia on Turbulence,
      Diffusion, and Air Pollution  (1st - 7th).  Boston, MA.

American Meteorological Society, 1977-1984.  Joint Conferences on Applications
      of Air Pollution Meteorology  (1st - 4th).  Sponsored by the American
      Meteorological Society and the Air Pollution Control Association.
      Boston, MA.

American Meteorological Society, 1978.  Accuracy of Dispersion Models.
      Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 59(8): 1025-1026.

American Meteorological Society, 1981.  Air Quality Modeling and the Clean
      Air Act:  Recommendations to EPA on Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory
      Applications.  Boston, MA.

Briggs, G. A., 1969.  Plume Rise.  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Critical
      Review Series, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Dickerson, W. H. and P. H. Gudiksen, 1980.  ASCOT FY 79 Program Report.
      Report UCRL - 52899, ASCOT 80-1.  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
      Livermore, CA.

Drake, R. L. and S. M. Barrager, 1979.  Mathematical Models for Atmospheric
      Pollutants.  EPRI EA-1131.  Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
      CA.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.  Workbook for Comparison of Air
      Quality Models.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-028a and b.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Fox,  D. G., and J. E. Fairobent, 1981.  NCAQ Panel Examines Uses and
      Limitations of Air Quality Models.  Bulletin of the American Meteo-
      rological Society, 62(2): 218-221.

Gifford, F. A., 1976.  Turbulent Diffusion Typing Schemes:  A Review.
      Nuclear Safety, 17(1): 68-86.

Gudiksen, P. H., and M. H. Dickerson, Eds., Executive Summary:  Atmospheric
      Studies in Complex Terrain Technical Progress Report FY-1979 Through FY-
      1983.  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.  (Docket
      Reference No. II-I-103).

Hales, J. M., 1976.  Tall Stacks and the Atmospheric Environment.  EPA
      Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-007.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park,  NC.
     "The  documents  listed here  are major sources  of  supplemental  information
on the theory and application of mathematical air quality models.

                                      13-1                        Revised 2/93

-------

-------
                      APPENDIX A TO APPENDIX W OF PART 51

                               Table of Contents

A.O         INTRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY	   A-l

A.I         BUOYANT LINE AND POINT  SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL  (BLP)   ...   A-3

A. 2         CALINE3	   A-7

A.3         CLIMATOLOGICAL DISPERSION MODEL  (COM 2.0)	   A-ll

A.4         GAUSSIAN-PLUME MULTIPLE SOURCE AIR QUALITY
            ALGORITHM  (RAM)	   A-15

A.5         INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COMPLEX MODEL  (ISC2)   	   A-21

A.6         MULTIPLE POINT GAUSSIAN DISPERSION ALGORITHM
            WITH TERRAIN ADJUSTMENT  (MPTER)	   A-25

A. 7         SINGLE SOURCE  (CRSTER) MODEL	   A-29

A. 8         URBAN AIRSHED MODEL  (UAM)	   A-33

A.9         OFFSHORE AND COASTAL DISPERSION MODEL  (OCD)  	   A-39

A. 10        EMISSIONS AND DISPERSION MODEL SYSTEM  (EDMS)   	   A-43

A. 11        COMPLEX TERRAIN DISPERSION MODEL PLUS ALGORITHMS
            FOR UNSTABLE SITUATIONS  (CTDMPLUS)   	   A-47

A.REF       REFERENCES	   AR-1
                                      A-i                         Revised  2/93

-------
A.O   INTRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY

      This appendix summarizes key features of refined air quality models
preferred for specific regulatory applications.  For each model, information is
provided on availability, approximate cost in 1990, regulatory use, data input,
output format and options, simulation of atmospheric physics, and accuracy.
These models may be used without a formal demonstration of applicability
provided they satisfy the recommendations for regulatory use; not all options
in the models are necessarily recommended for regulatory use.

      Many of these models have been subjected to a performance evaluation
using comparisons with observed air quality data.  A summary of such compari-
sons for models contained in this appendix is included in "A Survey of Statis-
tical Measures of Model Performance and Accuracy for Several Air Quality
Models," EPA-450/4-83-001.  Where possible, several of the models contained
herein have been subjected to evaluation exercises, including (1) statistical
performance tests recommended by the American Meteorological Society and (2)
peer scientific reviews.  The models in this appendix have been selected on the
basis of the results of the model evaluations, experience with previous use,
familiarity of the model to various air quality programs, and the costs and
resource requirements for use.

      The Availability statement for models in this Appendix that refers to the
User's Network for Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP) should be ignored
since UNAMAP is no longer operational.  However, all models and user's documen-
tation in this appendix are available from:

                        Computer Products
                        National Technical Information Service  (NTIS)
                        U.S. Department of Commerce
                        Springfield,  VA 22161
                        Phone:  (703)  487-4650

      In addition,  model codes and selected,  abridged user's guides are
available from the Support Center for Regulatory Air Models Bulletin Board
System19 (SCRAM BBS),  telephone (919)  541-5742.  The SCRAM BBS is an electronic
bulletin board system designed to be user friendly and accessible from anywhere
in the country.   Model users with personal computers are encouraged to use the
SCRAM BBS to download current model codes and text files.
                                      A-l                         Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
              A-2                 Revised 2/93

-------
A.5   INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COMPLEX MODEL  (ISC2)
Reference:
Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  User's Guide for the
Industrial Source Complex  (ISC2) Dispersion Models, Volumes
1, 2, and 3.  EPA Publication Nos. EPA-450/4-92-008a-c.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
(NTIS Nos. PB 92-232461, PB 92-232453, and PB 92-232479,
respectively)
Availability:
The model code is available on the Support Center for Regu-
latory Air Models Bulletin Board System and also from the
National Technical Information Service  (see page A-l).
Abstract:
The ISC2 model is a steady-state Gaussian plume model which
can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide
variety of sources associated with an industrial source
complex.  This model can account for the following: settling
and dry deposition of particles; downwash; area, line and
volume sources; plume rise as a function of downwind dis-
tance; separation of point sources; and limited terrain
adjustment.  It operates in both long-term and short-term
modes.
a.    Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      ISC2 is appropriate for the following applications:

      0    industrial source complexes;

      0    rural or urban areas;

      0    flat or rolling terrain;

      0    transport distances less than 50 kilometers;

      0    l-hour to annual averaging times; and

          continuous toxic air emissions.

      The following options should be selected for regulatory applications:

          For short term or long term modeling, set the regulatory "default
          option"; i.e., use the keyword DFAULT,  which automatically selects
          stack tip downwash, final plume rise, buoyancy induced dispersion
          (BID),  the vertical potential temperature gradient, a treatment for
          calms,  the appropriate wind profile exponents, the appropriate value
          for pollutant half-life, and a revised building wake effects algo-
          rithm;  set the "rural option"  (use the keyword RURAL)  or "urban
          option" (use the keyword URBAN); and set the "concentration option"
          (use the keyword CONG .
                                      A-21
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
b.    Input Requirements

      Source data:  location, emission rate, physical stack height, stack gas
      exit velocity, stack inside diameter, and stack gas temperature.  Option-
      al inputs include source elevation,  building dimensions, particle size
      distribution with corresponding settling velocities,  and surface reflec-
      tion coefficients.

      Meteorological data:  ISCST2 requires hourly surface weather data from
      the preprocessor program RAMMET, which provides hourly stability
      class,wind direction, wind speed, temperature,  and mixing height.  For
      ISCLT2, input includes stability wind rose (STAR deck),  average afternoon
      mixing height, average morning mixing height,  and average air tempera-
      ture.

      Receptor data:  coordinates and optional ground elevation for each
      receptor.

c.    Output

      Printed output options include:

      0    program control parameters, source data,  and receptor data;

      0    tables of hourly meteorological data for each specified day;

      0    "N"-day average concentration or total deposition calculated at each
          receptor for any desired source combinations;

      0    concentration or deposition values calculated for any desired source
          combinations at all receptors for any specified day or time period
          within the day;

      0    tables of highest and second highest concentration or deposition
          values calculated at each receptor for each specified time period
          during a(n) "N"-day period for any desired source combinations, and
          tables of the maximum 50 concentration or deposition values calcu-
          lated for any desired source combinations for each specified time
          period.

d.    Type of Model

      ISC2 is a Gaussian plume model.

e.    Pollutant Types

      ISC2 may be used to model primary pollutants and continuous releases of
      toxic and hazardous waste pollutants.  Settling and deposition are
      treated.
                                      A-22                        Revised 2/93

-------
f.    Source-Receptor Relationships

      ISC2 applies user-specified locations for point, line, area and volume
      sources, and user-specified receptor locations or receptor rings.

      User input topographic evaluation for each receptor is used.  Elevations
      above stack top are reduced to the stack top elevation, i.e., "terrain
      chopping".

      User input height above ground level may be used when necessary to
      simulate impact at elevated or "flag pole" receptors, e.g., on buildings.

      Actual separation between each source-receptor pair is used.

g.    Plume Behavior

      ISC2 uses Briggs (1969, 1971, 1975)  plume rise equations for final rise.

      Stack tip downwash equation from Briggs (1974) is used.

      Revised building wake effects algorithm is used.  For stacks higher than
      building height plus one-half the lesser of the building height or
      building width, the building wake algorithm of Huber and Snyder (1976) is
      used.  For lower stacks,  the building wake algorithm of Schulman and
      Scire (Schulman and Hanna, 1986)  is used,  but stack tip downwash and BID
      are not used.

      For rolling terrain (terrain not above stack height), plume centerline is
      horizontal at height of final rise above source.

      Fumigation is not treated.

h.     Horizontal Winds

      Constant, uniform (steady-state)  wind is assumed for each hour.

      Straight line plume transport is assumed to all downwind distances.

      Separate wind speed profile exponents (EPA, 1980)  for both rural and
      urban cases are used.

      An optional treatment for calm winds is included for short term modeling.

i.     Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.
                                     A-23                         Revised 2/93

-------
j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      Rural dispersion coefficients from Turner (1969)  are used, with no
      adjustments for surface roughness or averaging time.

      Urban dispersion coefficients from Briggs (Gifford, 1976)  are used.

      Buoyancy induced dispersion (Pasquill,  1976)  is included.

      Six stability classes are used.

k.    Vertical Dispersion

      Rural dispersion coefficients from Turner (1969)  are used, with no
      adjustments for surface roughness.

      Urban dispersion coefficients from Briggs (Gifford, 1976)  are used.

      Buoyancy induced dispersion (Pasquill,  1976)  is included.

      Six stability classes are used.

      Mixing height is accounted for with multiple reflections until the
      vertical plume standard deviation equals 1.6 times the mixing height;
      uniform vertical mixing is assumed beyond that point.

      Perfect reflection is assumed at the ground.

1.    Chemical Transformation

      Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay.  Time
      constant is input by the user.

m.    Physical Removal

      Settling and dry deposition of particulates are treated.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      Bowers, J. F., and A. J. Anderson, 1981.  An Evaluation Study for the
          Industrial Source Complex  (ISC) Dispersion Model, EPA Publication No.
          EPA-450/4-81-002.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
          Triangle Park, NC.

      Bowers, J. F., A. J. Anderson, and W. R. Margraves, 1982.   Tests of the
          Industrial Source Complex  (ISC) Dispersion Model at the Armco Middle-
          town, Ohio Steel Mill, EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-82-006.  U.S.
          Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

      Scare, J. S., and L. L. Schulman, 1981.  Evaluation of the BLP and ISC
          Models with SF6 Tracer Data and SO2 Measurements at Aluminum Reduction
          Plants.  Air Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference on
          Dispersion Modeling for Complex Sources, St. Louis, MO.
                                      A-24                          Revised 7/87

-------
A.8   URBAN AIRSHED MODEL  (UAM)
References:
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.  User's Guide for the
Urban Airshed Model, Volume I-VIII.  EPA Publication Nos.
EPA-450/4-90-007a-c, d(R), e-g, and EPA-454/B-93-004,
respectively.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC   (NTIS Nos. PB 91-131227, PB 91-131235,
PB 91-131243, PB 93-122380, PB 91-131268, PB 92-145382, and
PB 92-224849, respectively, for Vols. I-VII).
Availabilitv:
The model code is available on the Support Center for Regu-
latory Air Models Bulletin Board System and also from the
National Technical Information Service  (see page A-l).
Abstract:
UAM is an urban scale, three dimensional, grid type numerical
simulation model.  The model incorporates a condensed photo-
chemical kinetics mechanism for urban atmospheres.  The UAM
is designed for computing ozone  (03)  concentrations under
short-term, episodic conditions lasting one or two days
resulting from emissions of oxides of nitrogen  (NO,) ,  vola-
tile organic compounds (VOC), and carbon monoxide  (CO).  The
model treats urban VOC emissions as their carbon-bond surro-
gates .
a.    Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      UAM is appropriate for the following applications:  urban areas having
      significant ozone attainment problems and one hour averaging times.

      UAM has many options but no specific recommendations can be made at this
      time on all options.  The reviewing agency should be consulted on selec-
      tion of options to be used in regulatory applications.

b.    Input Requirements

      Source data:  gridded, hourly emissions of PAR, OLE, ETH, XYL, TOL, ALD2,
      FORM, ISOR, ETOTH, MEOH, CO, NO, and N02 for  low-level sources.   For
      major elevated point sources, hourly emissions, stack height, stack
      diameter, exit velocity, and exit temperature.

      Meteorological data:  hourly, gridded, divergence free, u and v wind
      components for each vertical level; hourly gridded mixing heights and
      surface temperatures; hourly exposure class;  hourly vertical potential
      temperature gradient above and below the mixing height; hourly surface
      atmospheric pressure; hourly water mixing ratio; and gridded surface
      roughness lengths.
                                      A-33
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
      Air quality data:  concentration of all carbon bond 4 species at the
      beginning of the simulation for each grid cell; and hourly concentrations
      of each pollutant at each level along the inflow boundaries and top
      boundary of the modeling region.

      Other data requirements are:  hourly mixed layer average, NO2 photolysis
      rates; and ozone surface uptake resistance along with associated gridded
      vegetation (scaling) factors.

c.    Output

      Printed output includes:

      0    gridded instantaneous concentration fields at user-specified time
          intervals for user-specified pollutants and grid levels;

      0    gridded time-average concentration fields for user-specified time
          intervals, pollutants, and grid levels.

d.    Type of Model

      UAM is a three dimensional, numerical, photochemical grid model.

e.    Pollutant Types

      UAM may be used to model ozone  (03)  formation  from oxides of nitrogen
      (NOX)  and volatile  organic compound (VOC)  emissions.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationship

      Low-level area and point source emissions are specified within each
      surface grid cell.   Emissions from major point sources are placed within
      cells aloft in accordance with calculated effective plume heights.

      Hourly average concentrations of each pollutant are calculated for all
      grid cells at each vertical level.

g.    Plume Behavior

      Plume rise is calculated for major point sources using relationships
      recommended by Briggs  (1971) .

h.    Horizontal Winds

      See Input Requirements.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Calculated at each vertical grid cell interface from the mass continuity
      relationship using the input gridded horizontal wind field.
                                      A-34                        Revised 2/93

-------
j-    Horizontal Dispersion

      Horizontal eddy diffusivity is set to a user specified constant value
      (nominally 50 m2/s) .

k.    Vertical Dispersion

      Vertical eddy diffusivities for unstable and neutral conditions calcu-
      lated using relationships of Lamb et al. (1977) ,- for stable conditions,
      the relationship of Businger and Arya (1974) is employed.  Stability
      class, friction velocity, and Monin-Obukhov length determined using
      procedure of Liu et al.  (1976) .

1.    Chemical Transformation

      HAM employs a simplified version of the Carbon-Bond IV Mechanism  (CBM-IV)
      developed by Gery et al. (1988)  employing various steady state approxima-
      tions .

m.    Physical Removal

      Dry deposition of ozone and other pollutant species are calculated.
      Vegetation (scaling)  factors are applied to the reference surface uptake
      resistance of each species depending on land use type.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      Builtjes, P.  J. H.,  K. D. van der Hurt,  and S. D. Reynolds, 1982.
          Evaluation of the Performance of a Photochemical Dispersion Model in
          Practical Applications, 13th International Technical Meeting on Air
          Pollution Modeling and Its Application, lie des Embiez, France.

      Cole, H. S.,  D. E. Layland, G. K. Moss,  and C. F. Newberry, 1983.  The
          St. Louis Ozone Modeling Project.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-83-
          019.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

      Dennis, R. L., M. W.  Downton,  and R. S.  Keil, 1983.  Evaluation of
          Performance Measures for an Urban Photochemical Model.  EPA Publica-
          tion No.  EPA-450/4-83-021.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Re-
          search Triangle Park, NC.

      Haney,  J. L.  and T.  N.  Braverman, 1985.  Evaluation and Application of
          the Urban Airshed Model in the Philadelphia Air Quality Control
          Region.  EPA Publication No.  EPA-450/4-85-003.  U.S. Environmental
          Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

      Layland, D. E. and H. S. Cole, 1983.  A Review of Recent Applications of
          the SAI Urban Airshed Model.   EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-84-004.
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC.

      Layland, D. E., S. D. Reynolds,  H. Hogo and W. R. Oliver, 1983.  Demon-
          stration of Photochemical  Grid Model Usage for Ozone Control Assess-
          ment.  76th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
          Atlanta,  GA.
                                     A-35                         Revised 2/93

-------
Morris, R. E. et al., 1990.  Urban Airshed Model Study of Five Cities.
    EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-90-006a-g.  U.S. Environmental Protec-
    tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Reynolds, S. D., H. Hogo, W. R. Oliver, L. E. Reid, 1982.  Application of
    the SAI Airshed Model to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, SAI No. 82004.
    Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Schere, K. L. and J. H. Shreffler, 1982.  Final Evaluation of Urban-Scale
    Photochemical Air Quality Simulation Models.  EPA Publication No.
    EPA-600/3-82-094.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
    Triangle Park, NC.

Seigneur C., T. W. Tesche, C. E. Reid, P. M. Roth, W. R. Oliver, and J.
    C. Cassmassi, 1981.  The Sensitivity of Complex Photochemical Model
    Estimates to Detail In Input Information, Appendix A - A Compilation
    of Simulation Results.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-81-031b.  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1989.  Air Quality Manage-
    ment Plan--Appendix V-R  (Urban Airshed Model Performance Evaluation).
    El Monte, CA.

Stern, R. and B. Scherer, 1982.  Simulation of a Photochemical Smog
    Episode in the Rhine-Ruhr Area with a Three Dimensional Grid Model.
    13th International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling and
    Its Application, lie des Embiez, France.

Tesche, T. W., C. Seigneur, L. E. Reid, P. M. Roth, W. R. Oliver, and J.
    C. Cassmassi, 1981.  The Sensitivity of Complex Photochemical Model
    Estimates to Detail in Input Information.  EPA Publication No.
    EPA-450/4-81-031a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
    Triangle Park, NC.

Tesche, T. W., W. R. Oliver, H. Hogo, P. Saxeena and J. L. Haney, 1983.
    Volume IV- -Assessment of NOX Emission Control  Requirements in the
    South Coast Air Basin--Appendix A.  Performance Evaluation of the
    Systems Applications Airshed Model for the 26-27 June 1974 O3 Episode
    in the South Coast Air Basin, SYSAPP 83/037.  Systems Applications,
    Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Tesche, T. W., W. R. Oliver, H. Hogo, P. Saxeena and J. L. Haney, 1983.
    Volume IV--Assessment of NO, Emission Control  Requirements in the
    South Coast Air Basin--Appendix B.  Performance Evaluation of the
    Systems Applications Airshed Model for the 7-8 November 1978 NO,
    Episode in the South Coast Air Basin, SYSAPP 83/038.  Systems
    Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Tesche, T. W, 1988.  Accuracy of Ozone Air Quality Models.  Journal of
    Environmental Engineering, 114(4): 739-752.
                                A-36                        Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
               A-37                 Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
              A-38                Revised 2/93

-------
A.9   OFFSHORE AND COASTAL DISPERSION MODEL (OCD)

Reference:        DiCristofaro, D. C. and S. R. Hanna, 1989.  OCD: The Offshore
                  and Coastal Dispersion Model, Version 4.  Volume I:  User's
                  Guide, and Volume II: Appendices.  Sigma Research Corpora-
                  tion, Westford, MA.  (NTIS Nos. PB 93-144384 and PB 93-144392)
Availability:     This model code is available on the Support Center for Regu-
                  latory Air Models Bulletin Board System and also from the
                  National Technical Information Service  (see page A-l).
Technical
Contact:           Minerals Management Service
                  Attn:  Mr. Dirk Herkoff
                  Parkway Atrium Building,
                  381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 22070-4817
                  Phone:  (703) 787-1735
Abstract:          OCD is a straight-line Gaussian model developed to determine
                  the impact of offshore emissions from point, area or line
                  sources on the air quality of coastal regions.  OCD incorpo-
                  rates overwater plume transport and dispersion as well as
                  changes that occur as the plume crosses the shoreline.
                  Hourly meteorological data are needed from both offshore and
                  onshore locations.  These include water surface temperature,
                  overwater air temperature, mixing height, and relative
                  humidity.

                  Some of the key features include platform building downwash,
                  partial plume penetration into elevated inversions, direct
                  use of turbulence intensities for plume dispersion, inter-
                  action with the overland internal boundary layer, and con-
                  tinuous shoreline fumigation.
a.     Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      OCD has been recommended for use by the Minerals Management Service for
      emissions located on the Outer Continental Shelf  (50 FR 12248; 28 March
      1985).   OCD is applicable for overwater sources where onshore receptors
      are below the lowest source height.  Where onshore receptors are above
      the lowest source height, offshore plume transport and dispersion may be
      modeled on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the EPA Regional
      Office.

b.     Input Requirements

      Source data:  point, area or line source location, pollutant emission
      rate, building height, stack height, stack gas temperature, stack inside
      diameter, stack gas exit velocity, stack angle from vertical, elevation


                                      A-39                        Revised 2/93

-------
      of stack base above water surface and gridded specification of the
      land/water surfaces.  As an option, emission rate, stack gas exit veloci-
      ty and temperature can be varied hourly.

      Meteorological data (over water):  wind direction, wind speed, mixing
      height, relative humidity, air temperature, water surface temperature,
      vertical wind direction shear (optional),  vertical temperature gradient
      (optional),  turbulence intensities (optional).

      Meteorological data (over land):  wind direction, wind speed, tempera-
      ture, stability class, mixing height.

      Receptor data:  location, height above local ground-level, ground-level
      elevation above the water surface.

c.    Output

      All input options, specification of sources, receptors and land/water map
      including locations of sources and receptors.

      Summary tables of five highest concentrations at each receptor for each
      averaging period, and average concentration for entire run period at each
      receptor.

      Optional case study printout with hourly plume and receptor characteris-
      tics .  Optional table of annual impact assessment from non-permanent
      activities.

      Concentration files written to disk or tape can be used by ANALYSIS
      postprocessor to produce the highest concentrations for each receptor,
      the cumulative frequency distributions for each receptor, the tabulation
      of all concentrations exceeding a given threshold, and the manipulation
      of hourly concentration files.

d.    Type of Model

      OCD is a Gaussian plume model constructed on the framework of the MPTER
      model.

e.    Pollutant Types

      OCD may be used to model primary pollutants.  Settling and deposition are
      not treated.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationship

      Up to 250 point sources, 5 area sources, or 1 line source and 180 recep-
      tors may be used.

      Receptors and sources are allowed at any location.

      The coastal configuration is determined .by a grid of up to 3600 rectan-
      gles .  Each element of the grid is designated as either land or water to
      identify the coastline.
                                      A-40                        Revised 2/93

-------
g.    Plume Behavior

      As in MPTER, the basic plume rise algorithms are based on Briggs' recom-
      mendations .

      Momentum rise includes consideration of the stack angle from the verti-
      cal.

      The effect of drilling platforms, ships, or any overwater obstructions
      near the source are used to decrease plume rise using a revised platform
      downwash algorithm based on laboratory experiments.

      Partial plume penetration of elevated inversions is included using the
      suggestions of Briggs (1975) and Weil and Brower (1984) .

      Continuous shoreline fumigation is parameterized using the Turner method
      where complete vertical mixing through the thermal internal boundary
      layer (TIBL) occurs as soon as the plume intercepts the TIBL.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      Constant, uniform wind is assumed for each hour.

      Overwater wind speed can be estimated from overland wind speed using
      relationship of Hsu (1981).

      Wind speed profiles are estimated using similarity theory (Businger
      1973).   Surface layer fluxes for these formulas are calculated from bulk
      aerodynamic methods.

i•    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.

j .    Horizontal Dispersion

      Lateral turbulence intensity is recommended as a direct estimate of
      horizontal dispersion.  If lateral turbulence intensity is not available,
      it is estimated from boundary layer theory.  For wind speeds less than
      8 m/s,  lateral turbulence intensity is assumed inversely proportional to
      wind speed.

      Horizontal dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions near the
      source.   A virtual source technique is used to simulate the initial plume
      dilution due to downwash.

      Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976)  are used to calculate buoyant
      plume enhancement and wind direction shear enhancement.

      At the water/land interface, the change to overland dispersion rates is
      modeled using a virtual source.  The overland dispersion rates can be
      calculated from either lateral turbulence intensity or Pasquill-Gifford
      curves.   The change is implemented where the plume intercepts the rising
      internal boundary layer.
                                      A-41                         Revised 2/93

-------
k.    Vertical Dispersion

      Observed vertical turbulence intensity is not recommended as a direct
      estimate of vertical dispersion.  Turbulence intensity should be estimat-
      ed from boundary layer theory as default in the model.   For very stable
      conditions, vertical dispersion is also a function of lapse rate.

      Vertical dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions near the
      source.  A virtual source technique is used to simulate the initial plume
      dilution due to downwash.

      Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to calculate buoyant
      plume enhancement.

      At the water/land interface, the change to overland dispersion rates is
      modeled using a virtual source.  The overland dispersion rates
      can be calculated from either vertical turbulence intensity or the
      Pasquill-Gifford coefficients.  The change is implemented where the plume
      intercepts the rising internal boundary layer.

1.    Chemical Transformation

      Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay.  Different
      rates can be specified by month and by day or night.

m.    Physical Removal

      Physical removal is also treated using exponential decay.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      DiCristofaro, D. C. and S. R. Hanna, 1989.  OCD: The Offshore and Coastal
          Dispersion Model.  Volume I: User's Guide.  Sigma. Research
          Corporation, Westford, MA.

      Hanna, S. R. and D. C. DiCristofaro, 1988.  Development and Evaluation of
          the OCD/API Model.  Final Report, API Pub. 4461, American Petroleum
          Institute, Washington, D.C.

      Hanna, S. R., L. L. Schulman, R. J. Paine and J. E. Pleim, 1984.  The
          Offshore and Coastal Dispersion  (OCD) Model User's Guide, Revised.
          DCS Study, MMS 84-0069.  Environmental Research & Technology, Inc.,
          Concord, MA.   (NTIS No. PB 86-159803)

      Hanna, S. R., L. L. Schulman, R. J. Paine, J. E. Pleim and M. Baer, 1985.
          Development and Evaluation of the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion
          (OCD) Model.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
          35: 1039-1047.
                                      A-42                        Revised 2/93

-------
A. 10  EMISSIONS AND DISPERSION MODELING SYSTEM  (EDMS)
Reference:
Segal, H. M., 1991.   "EDMS - Microcomputer Pollution Model
for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases: User's Guide." FAA
Report No. FAA-EE-91-3; USAF Report No. ESL-TR-91-31, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C.  20591.   (NTIS No. ADA 240528)

Segal, H. M., and Hamilton, P. L., 1988.  "A Microcomputer
Pollution Model for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases -
Model Description."  FAA Report No. FAA-EE-88-4; USAF Report
No.ESL-TR-88-53, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Inde-
pendence Avenue, S.H., Washington, D.C. 20591.   (NTIS No.
ADA 199003)

Segal, H. M., 1988.   "A Microcomputer Pollution Model for
Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases - Model Application and
Background."  FAA Report No. FAA-EE-88-5; USAF Report No.
ESL-TR-88-55, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Indepen-
dence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591.   (NTIS No.
ADA 199794)
Availability:
EDMS is available for $40 from the address listed below:

Federal Aviation Administration
Attn:  Mr. Howard Segal, ABE-120
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20591
Phone:  (202) 267-3494
Abstract:
EDMS is a combined emissions/dispersion model for assessing
pollution at civilian airports and military air bases. This
model, which was jointly developed by the Federal Aviation
Administration  (FAA) and the United States Air Force  (USAF),
produces an emission inventory of all airport sources and
calculates concentrations produced by these sources at speci-
fied receptors.  The system stores emission factors for fixed
sources such as fuel storage tanks and incinerators and also
for mobile sources such as automobiles or aircraft. EDMS
incorporates an emissions model to calculate an emission
inventory for each airport source and a dispersion model, the
Graphical Input Microcomputer Model (GIMM),  (Segal, 1983) to
calculate pollutant concentrations produced by these sources
at specified receptors.  The GIMM, which processes point,
area, and line sources, also incorporates a special meteoro-
logical preprocessor for processing up to one year of Nation-
al Climatic Data Center (NCDC) hourly data.   The model oper-
ates in both a screening and refined mode, accepting up to
170 sources and 10 receptors.
                                      A-43
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
a.    Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      EDMS is appropriate for the following applications:

      0    cumulative effect of changes in aircraft operations, point source
          and mobile source emissions at airports or air bases;

      0    simple terrain;

      0    transport distances less than 50 kilometers; and

      0    1-hour to annual averaging times.

b.    Input Requirements

      All data are entered through a "runtime" version of the Condor data base
      which is an integral part of EDMS.  Typical entry items are source and
      receptor coordinates, percent cold starts, vehicles per hour, etc. Some
      point sources, such as heating plants, require stack height, stack
      diameter, and effluent temperature inputs.

      Wind speed, wind direction, hourly temperature, and Fasquill-Gifford
      stability category  (P-G) are the meteorological inputs.  They can be
      entered manually through the EDMS data entry screens or automatically
      through the processing of previously loaded NCDC hourly data.

c.    Output

      Printed outputs consist of:

      0    a monthly and yearly emission inventory report for each source
          entered; and

      0    a concentration summing report for up to 8760 hours  (one year) of
          data.

d.    Type of Model

      For its emissions inventory calculations, EDMS uses algorithms consistent
      with the EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42.  For
      its dispersion calculations, EDMS uses the GIMM model which is described
      in reports FAA-EE-88-4 and FAA-EE-88-5, referenced above.  GIMM uses a
      Gaussian plume algorithm.

e.    Pollutant Types

      EDMS inventories and calculates the dispersion of carbon monoxide,
      nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, hydrocarbons, and suspended particles.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationship

      Up to 170 sources and 10 receptors can be treated simultaneously.
      Area sources are treated as a series of lines that are positioned perpen-
      dicular to the wind.
                                      A-44                        Revised 2/93

-------
      Line sources (roadways, runways) are modeled as a series of points.
      Terrain elevation differences between sources and receptors are neglec-
      ted.

      Receptors are assumed to be at ground level.

g.    Plume Behavior

      Plume rise is calculated for all point sources  (heating plants, incinera-
      tors, etc.) using Briggs plume rise equations  (Catalano, 1986; Briggs,
      1969; Briggs, 1971; Briggs, 1972).

      Building and stack tip downwash effects are not treated.

      Roadway dispersion employs a modification to the Gaussian plume algo-
      rithms as suggested by Rao and Keenan (1980) to account for close-in
      vehi cle-induced turbulence.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      Steady state winds are assumed for each hour.  Winds are assumed to be
      constant with altitude.

      Winds are entered manually by the user or automatically by reading
      previously loaded NCC annual data files.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical wind speed is assumed to be zero.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      Four stability classes are used  (P-G classes B through E).

      Horizontal dispersion coefficients are computed using a table lookup and
      linear interpolation scheme.  Coefficients are based on Pasquill (1976)
      as adapted by Petersen (1980).

      A modified coefficient table is used to account for traffic-enhanced
      turbulence near roadways.  Coefficients are based upon data included in
      Rao and Keenan (1980) .

k.    Vertical Dispersion

      Four stability classes are used  (P-G classes B through E).

      Vertical dispersion coefficients are computed using a table lookup and
      linear interpolation scheme.  Coefficients are based on Pasquill (1976)
      as adapted by Petersen (1980) .

      A modified coefficient table is used to account for traffic-enhanced
      turbulence near roadways.  Coefficients are based upon data from Rao and
      Keenan (1980).
                                      A-45                        Revised 2/93

-------
1.    Chemical Transformation

      Chemical transformations are not accounted for.

m.    Physical Removal

      Deposition is not treated.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      Segal, H. M. and P. L. Hamilton, 1988.  A Microcomputer Pollution Model
          for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases - Model Description.  FAA
          Report No. FAA-EE-88-4; DSAF Report No. ESL-TR-88-53,  Federal Avia-
          tion Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W.,  Washington, D.C.
          20591.

      Segal, H. M., 1988.  A Microcomputer Pollution Model for Civilian
          Airports and Air Force Bases - Model Application and Background.  FAA
          Report No. FAA-EE-88-5; USAF Report No. ESL-TR-88-55,  Federal Avia-
          tion Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W.,  Washington, D.C.
          20591.
                                      A-46                        Revised 2/93

-------
A.11  Complex Terrain Dispersion Model Plus Algorithms for Unstable Situations
       (CTDMPLUS)
Reference:
Perry, S. G., D. J. Burns, L. H. Adams, R. J. Paine, M. G.
Dennis, M. T. Mills, D. G. Strimaitis, R. J. Yamartino and E.
M. Insley, 1989.  User's Guide to the Complex Terrain Disper-
sion Model Plus Algorithms for Unstable Situations  (CTDMPLUS)
Volume 1:  Model Descriptions and User Instructions.  EPA
Publication No. EPA-600/8-89-041.  Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 89-181424)

Paine, R. J., D. G. Strimaitis, M. G. Dennis, R. J.
Yamartino, M. T. Mills and E. M. Insley, 1987.  User's Guide
to the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model, Volume 1. EPA Publi-
cation No. EPA-600/8-87-058a.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 88-162169)
Availability:
This model code is available on the Support Center for Regu-
latory Air Models Bulletin Board System and also from the
National Technical Information Service  (See page A-l).
Abstract:
CTDMPLUS is a refined point source Gaussian air quality model
for use in all stability conditions for complex terrain
applications.  It contains, in its entirety, the technology
of CTDM for stable and neutral conditions.  However, CTDMPLUS
can also simulate daytime, unstable conditions, and has a
number of additional capabilities for improved user friendli-
ness .   Its use of meteorological data and terrain information
is different from other EPA models; considerable detail for
both types of input data is required and is supplied by
preprocessors specifically designed for CTDMPLUS.  CTDMPLUS
requires the parameterization of individual hill shapes using
the terrain preprocessor and the association of each model
receptor with a particular hill.
a.     Recommendation for Regulatory Use

      CTDMPLUS is appropriate for the following applications:

          elevated point sources;

      "    terrain elevations above stack top;

      "    rural or urban areas;

      0    transport distances less than 50 kilometers; and

      0    one hour to annual averaging times when used with a post-processor
          program such as CHAVG.
                                     A-47
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
b.    Input Requirements

      Source data: For each source, user supplies source location, height,
      stack diameter, stack exit velocity, stack exit temperature, and emission
      rate; if variable emissions are appropriate, the user supplies hourly
      values for emission rate, stack exit velocity, and stack exit tempera-
      ture.

      Meteorological data: the user must supply hourly averaged values of wind,
      temperature and turbulence data for creation of the basic meteorological
      data file ("PROFILE").   Meteorological preprocessors then create a
      SURFACE data file (hourly values of mixed layer heights, surface friction
      velocity, Monin-Obukhov length and surface roughness length) and a
      RAWINsonde data file (upper air measurements of pressure, temperature,
      wind direction, and wind speed).

      Receptor data: receptor names  (up to 400)  and coordinates, and hill
      number (each receptor must have a hill number assigned).

      Terrain data: user inputs digitized contour information to the terrain
      preprocessor which creates the TERRAIN data file (for up to 25 hills).

c.    Output

      When CTDMPLUS is run, it produces a concentration file, in either binary
      or text format (user's choice), and a list file containing a verification
      of model inputs,  i.e.,

      0    input meteorological data from "SURFACE" and "PROFILE"

      0    stack data for each source

      0    terrain information

      0    receptor information

      0    source-receptor location  (line printer map).

      In addition, if the case-study option is selected,  the  listing includes:

          meteorological variables at plume height

          geometrical relationships between the source and the hill

      0    plume characteristics at each receptor, i.e.,

          ->  distance in along-flow and cross flow direction
          ->  effective plume-receptor height difference
          ->  effective <7y &  aI values, both flat terrain and  hill induced  (the
              difference shows the effect of the hill)
          ->  concentration components due to WRAP, LIFT and  FLAT.
                                      A-48                        Revised 2/93

-------
      If the user selects the TOPN option, a summary table of the top 4 con-
      centrations at each receptor is given,  if the ISOR option is selected, a
      source contribution table for every hour will be printed.

      A separate disk file of predicted  (1-hour only) concentrations  ("CONC")
      is written if the user chooses this option.  Three forms of output are
      possible:

      1)  a binary file of concentrations, one value for each receptor in the
          hourly sequence as run;

      2)  a text file of concentrations, one value for each receptor in the
          hourly sequence as run; or

      3)  a text file as described above, but with a listing of receptor
          information (names, positions, hill number) at the beginning of the
          file.

          Hourly information provided to these files besides the concentrations
          themselves includes the year, month, day, and hour information as
          well as the receptor number with the highest concentration.

d.    Type of Model

      CTDMPLUS is a refined steady-state, point source plume model for use in
      all stability conditions for complex terrain applications.

e.    Pollutant Types

      CTDMPLUS may be used to model non-reactive, primary pollutants.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationship

      Up to 40 point sources, 400 receptors and 25 hills may be used.  Receptors
      and sources are allowed at any location.  Hill slopes are assumed not to
      exceed 15°, so that the  linearized equation of  motion for  Bouissinesq flow
      are applicable.   Receptors upwind of the impingement point, or those
      associated with any of the hills in the modeling domain,  require separate
      treatment.

g.    Plume Behavior

      As in CTDM,  the basic plume rise algorithms are based on Briggs' (1975)
      recommendations.

      A central feature of CTDMPLUS for neutral/stable conditions is its use of
      a critical  dividing-streamline height (Hc)  to separate the  flow  in the
      vicinity of a hill into two separate layers.  The plume component in the
      upper layer has sufficient kinetic energy to pass over the top of the
      hill while  streamlines in the lower portion are constrained to flow in a
      horizontal  plane around the hill.  Two separate components of CTDMPLUS
      compute ground-level concentrations resulting from plume material in each
      of these flows.
                                      A-49                         Revised 2/93

-------
      The model calculates on an hourly (or appropriate steady averaging
      period) basis how the plume trajectory (and, in stable/neutral condi-
      tions, the shape) is deformed by each hill.  Hourly profiles of wind and
      temperature measurements are used by CTDMPLUS to compute plume rise,
      plume penetration (a formulation is included to handle penetration into
      elevated stable layers, based on Briggs (1984)), convective scaling
      parameters, the value of H,,, and the Froude number above H,,.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      CTDMPLUS does not simulate calm meteorological conditions.  Both scalar
      and vector wind speed observations can be read by the model.  If vector
      wind speed is unavailable, it is calculated from the scalar wind speed.
      The assignment of wind speed (either vector or scalar) at plume height is
      done by either:

      0    interpolating between observations above and below the plume height,
          or

      0    extrapolating (within the surface layer) from the nearest measurement
          height to the plume height.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical flow is treated for the plume component above the critical
      dividing streamline height (HJ ;  see "Plume Behavior".

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      Horizontal dispersion for stable/neutral conditions is related to the
      turbulence velocity scale for lateral fluctuations,  ffv, for which a
      minimum value of 0.2 m/s is used.  Convective scaling formulations are
      used to estimate horizontal dispersion for unstable conditions.

k.    Vertical Dispersion

      Direct estimates of vertical dispersion for stable/neutral conditions are
      based on observed vertical turbulence intensity, e.g., 
-------
n.    Evaluation Studies

      Burns, D. J., L. H. Adams and S. G. Perry, 1990.  Testing and Evaluation
          of the CTDMPLUS Dispersion Model:  Daytime Convective Conditions.
          Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.

      Paumier,  J. O., S. G. Perry and D. J.  Burns,  1990.  An Analysis of
          CTDMPLUS Model Predictions with the Lovett Power Plant Data Base.
          Environmental Protection Agency/ Research Triangle Park,  NC.

      Paumier,  J. O., S. G. Perry and D. J.  Burns,  1992.  CTDMPLUS: A Dispersion
          Model for Sources near Complex Topography.  Part II: Performance
          Characteristics.  Journal of Applied Meteorology,  31(7):  646-660.
                                      A-51                        Revised 2/93

-------
Catalano, J. A., 1986.  Addendum to the User's Manual for the Single Source
(CRSTER) Model.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-86-041.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No. PB 87-145843) .

Gery, M. W., G. Z. Whitten and J. P. Killus, 1988.  Development and Testing of
CBM-IV for Urban and Regional Modeling.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/3-88-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.   (NTIS No.
PB 88-180039)

Petersen, W. B., 1980.  User's Guide for HIWAY-2 A Highway Air Pollution Model.
EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-80-018.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS PB 80-227556) .

Rao, T. R. and M. T. Keenan, 1980.  Suggestions for Improvement of the EPA-
HIWAY Model.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 30: 247-256
(and reprinted as Appendix C in Petersen, 1980).

Segal, H. M., 1983.  Microcomputer Graphics in Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 23: 598-600.
                                      AR-3                         Revised 2/93

-------
                      APPENDIX B TO APPENDIX W OF PART 51

                               Table of Contents

B.O         INTRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY	B-l

B.I         AIR QUALITY DISPLAY MODEL  (AQDM)   	B-3

B.2         AIR RESOURCES REGIONAL POLLUTION ASSESSMENT  (ARRPA) MODEL  .   B-7

B.3         APRAC-3	B-ll

B.4         COMPTER	B-15

B.5         ERT AIR QUALITY MODEL  (ERTAQ)	Deleted

B.6         ERT VISIBILITY MODEL	B-23

B.7         HIWAY-2	B-27

B.8         INTEGRATED MODEL FOR PLUMES AND ATMOSPHERIC  CHEMISTRY
            IN COMPLEX TERRAIN  (IMPACT)	B-31

B.9         LONGZ	B-35

B.10        MARYLAND POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM  (PPSP) MODEL   	   B-39

B.ll        MESOSCALE PUFF MODEL (MESOPUFF II)   	B-43

B.12        MESOSCALE TRANSPORT DIFFUSION AND DEPOSITION MODEL
            FOR INDUSTRIAL SOURCES  (MTDDIS)	B-47

B.13        MODELS' 3141 AND 4141	B-51

B.14        MULTIMAX	B-55

B.15        MULTIPLE POINT SOURCE DIFFUSION MODEL  (MPSDM)  	   Deleted

B.16        MULTI-SOURCE (SCSTER) MODEL	B-63

B.17        PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC PLUMES MODEL  	   B-67

B.18        PLMSTAR AIR QUALITY SIMULATION MODEL   	   B-71

B.19        PLUME VISIBILITY MODEL  (PLUVUE II)   	   B-75

B.20        POINT, AREA, LINE SOURCE ALGORITHM  (PAL-DS)	B-79

B.21        RANDOM WALK ADVECTION AND DISPERSION MODEL  (RADM)  	   B-83

B.22        REACTIVE PLUME MODEL (RPM-II)	B-87
                                      B-i                         Revised  2/93

-------
B.23        REGIONAL TRANSPORT MODEL  (RTM-II)  	   B-91





B.24        SHORTZ	B-95





B.25        SIMPLE LINE-SOURCE MODEL  (GMLINE)  	   B-99





B.26        TEXAS CLIMATOLOGICAL MODEL  (TCM)   	B-103





B.27        TEXAS EPISODIC MODEL  (TEM)   	B-107





B.28        AVACTA II MODEL	B-lll





B.29        SHORELINE DISPERSION MODEL  (SDM)   	B-115





B.30        WYNDvalley MODEL  	   B-119





B.31        DENSE GAS DISPERSION MODEL  (DEGADIS)   	   B-123





B.REF       REFERENCES	BR-1
                                     B-ii                          Revised 2/93

-------
B.O   INTRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY

      This appendix summarizes key features of refined air quality models that
may be considered on a case-by-case basis for individual regulatory applica-
tions.  For each model, information is provided on availability, approximate
cost in 1990, regulatory use, data input, output format and options, simulation
of atmospheric physics and accuracy.  The models are listed by name in alpha-
betical order.

      There are three separate conditions under which these models will
normally be approved for use: first, if a demonstration can be made that the
model produces concentration estimates equivalent to the estimates obtained
using a preferred model (e.g., the maximum or high, second-high concentration
is within 2% of the estimate using the comparable preferred model); second, if
a statistical performance evaluation has been conducted using measured air
quality data and the results of that evaluation indicate the model in Appendix
B performs better for the application than a comparable model in Appendix A;
and third, if there is no preferred model for the specific application but a
refined model is needed to satisfy regulatory requirements.  Any one of these
three separate conditions may warrant use of these models.  See Section 3.2,
Use of Alternative Models, for additional details.

      Hany of these models have been subject to a performance evaluation by
comparison with observed air quality data.  A summary of such comparisons for
models contained in this appendix is included in "A Survey of Statistical
Measures of Model Performance and Accuracy for Several Air Quality Models",
EPA-450/4-83-001.  Where possible, several of the models contained herein have
been subjected to rigorous evaluation exercises, including (1) statistical
performance measures recommended by the American Meteorological Society and (2)
peer scientific reviews.

      Any availability statement for models in this appendix that refers to the
User's Network for Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP)  should be ignored
since the UNAMAP is no longer operational.  However, a source for some of these
models and user's documentation is:

                        Computer Products
                        National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
                        U.S. Department of Commerce
                        Springfield, VA  22161
                        Phone: (703) 487-4650

      A number of the model codes and selected,  abridged user's guides are also
available from the Support Center for Regulatory Air Models Bulletin Board
System1" (SCRAM BBS), Telephone (919) 541-5742.  The SCRAM BBS is an electronic
bulletin board system designed to be user friendly and accessible from anywhere
in the country.   Model users with personal computers are encouraged to use the
SCRAM BBS to download current model codes and text files.
                                      B-l                         Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
               B-2                  Revised 2/93

-------
(THESE PAGES INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
              B-19 to B-22              Revised 2/93

-------

-------
B.6   ERT VISIBILITY MODEL
Reference:
ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 1990.  ERT Visibility Model:
Version 4; Technical Description and User's Guide.  Document
M2020-003.  ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 35 Nagog Park,
Acton, MA 01720.
Availability:
The user's guide and model code are available from the
National Technical Information Service  (see page B-l).
Abstract:
The ERT Visibility Model is a Gaussian dispersion model de-
signed to estimate visibility impairment for arbitrary lines
of sight due to isolated point source emissions by simulating
gas-to-particle conversion, dry deposition, NO to NO2 conver-
sion and linear radiative transfer.
                      for Regulatory Use

      There is no specific recommendation at the present time.  The ERT Visi-
      bility Model may be used on a case-by-case basis.

      Input Requirements

      Source data requirements are: stack height, stack temperature, emissions
      of S02,  NO,, TSP, fraction of NO, as N02, fraction of TSP which is carbo-
      naceous, exit velocity, and exit radius.

      Meteorological data requirements are: hourly ambient temperature, mixing
      depth,  wind speed at stack height, stability class, potential tempera-
      ture gradient, and wind direction.

      Receptor data requirements are: observer coordinates with respect to
      source,  latitude, longitude, time zone, date, time of day, elevation,
      relative humidity, background visual range, line-of-sight azimuth and
      elevation angle, inclination angle of the observed object, distance from
      observer to object, object and surface reflectivity, number and spacing
      of integral receptor points along line of sight.

      Other data requirements are: ambient concentrations of O3 and NOX,
      deposition velocity of TSP, sulfate, nitrate, SO2 and NO,, first-order
      transformation rate for sulfate and nitrate.
                                      B-23
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
c.    Output

      Printed output includes both summary and detailed results as follows:
      Summary output:  page 1 - site,  observer and object parameters; page 2 -
      optical pollutants and associated extinction coefficients; page 3 - plume
      model input parameters; page 4 - total calculated visual range reduction,
      and each pollutant's contribution; page 5 - calculated plume contrast,
      object contrast and object contrast degradation at the 550nm wavelength;
      page 6 - calculated blue/red ratio and AE (U*V*W*) values for both sky
      and object discoloration.

      Detailed output:  phase functions for each pollutant in four wavelengths
      (400, 450, 550, 650nm), concentrations for each pollutant along sight
      path, solar geometry, contrast parameters at all wavelengths,
      intensities, tristimulus values and chromaticity coordinates for views of
      the object, sun, background sky and plume.

d.    Type of Model

      ERT Visibility model is a Gaussian plume model for estimating visibility
      impairment.

e.    Pollutant Types

      Optical activity of sulfate, nitrate (derived from SO2 and NOX emissions),
      primary TSP and NO2 is simulated.

f.    Source Receptor Relationship

      Single source and hour is simulated.  Unlimited number of lines-of-sight
      (receptors) is permitted per model run.

g.    Plume Behavior

      Briggs (1971) plume rise equations for final rise are used.

h.    Horizontal Wind Field

      A single wind speed and direction is specified for each case study. The
      wind is assumed to be spatially uniform.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      Rural dispersion coefficients from Turner (1969) are used.
                                      B-24

-------
B.ll  MESOSCALE PUFF MODEL  (MESOPDFF II)
Reference:
Scire, J. S., F. W. Lunnann, A. Bass, S. R. Hanna, 1984.
User's Guide to the Mesopuff II Model and Related Processor
Programs.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/8-84-013.  U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
(NTIS No. PB 84-181775)

A Modeling Protocol for Applying MESOPUFF II to Long Range
Transport Problems, 1992.  EPA Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Availability;
This model code is available on the Support Center for Regu-
latory Air Models Bulletin Board System and also from the
National Technical Information Service (see page B-l).
Abstract:
MESOPUFF II is a short term, regional scale puff model de-
signed to calculate concentrations of up to 5 pollutant
species  (SO2,  S04, NOx, HNOs, NO3) .   Transport,  puff growth,
chemical transformation, and wet and dry deposition are
accounted for in the model.
      Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      There is no specific recommendation at the present time.  The model may
      be used on a case-by-case basis.

      Input Requirements

      Required input data include four types: 1) input control parameters and
      selected technical options, 2) hourly surface meteorological data and
      twice daily upper air measurements, hourly precipitation data are option-
      al, 3) surface land use classification information, 4) source and emis-
      sions data.

      Data from up to 25 surface National Weather Service stations and up to 10
      upper air stations may be considered.  Spatially variable fields at hour
      intervals of winds, mixing height, stability class, and relevant turbu-
      lence parameters are derived by MESOPAC II, the meteorological prepro-
      cessor program described in the User Guide.

      Source and emission data for up to 25 point sources and/or up to 5 area
      sources can be included.  Required information are: location in grid
      coordinates, stack height, exit velocity and temperature, and emission
      rates for the pollutant to me modeled.

      Receptor data requirements: up to a 40 X 40 grid may be used and non-
      gridded receptor locations may be considered.
                                      B-43
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
c.    Output

      Line printer output includes:  all input parameters, optionally selected
      arrays of ground-level concentrations of pollutant species at specified
      time intervals.

      Line printer contour plots output from MESOFILE II post-processor
      program. Computer readable output of concentration array to disk/tape for
      each hour.

d.    Type of Model

      MESOPUFF II is a Gaussian puff superposition model.

e.    Pollutant types modeled

      Up to five pollutant species may be modeled simultaneously and include:
      S02,  S04, NO,,  HN03, N03.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationship

      Up. to 25 point sources and/or up to 5 area sources are permitted.

g.    Plume Behavior

      Briggs  (1975) plume rise equations are used, including plume penetration
      with bouyancy flux computed in the model.

      Fumigation of puffs is considered and may produce immediate mixing or
      multiple reflection calculations at user option.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      Gridded wind fields are computed for 2 layers; boundary layer and above
      the mixed layer.  Upper air rawinsonde data and hourly surface winds are
      used to obtain spatially variable u,v component fields at hourly
      intervals.  The gridded fields are computed by interpolation between
      stations in the MESOPAC II preprocessor.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical winds are assumed to be zero.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      Incremental puff growth is computed over discrete time steps with
      horizontal growth parameters determined from power law equations fit to
      sigma y curves of Turner out to 100km.  At distances greater than 100km,
      puff growth is determined by the rate given by Heffter (1965) .

      Puff growth is a function of stability class and changes in stability are
      treated.  Optionally, user input plume growth coefficients may be
      considered.
                                      B-44

-------
(THESE PAGES INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
              B-59 to B-62              Revised 2/93

-------

-------
B.19  PLDME VISIBILITY MODEL  (PLDVDE II)

Reference:        Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.  User's Manual for the
                  Plume Visibility Model, PLUVOE II  (Revised).  EPA Publication
                  No. EPA-454/B-92-008.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                  Research Triangle Park, NC.
Availability;     This model code is available on the Support Center for Regu-
                  latory Air Models Bulletin Board System and also from the
                  National Technical Information Service  (see page B-l).
Abstract:         The Plume Visibility Model  (PLUVUE II) is a computerized
                  model used for estimating visual range reduction and atmo-
                  spheric discoloration caused by plumes resulting from the
                  emissions of particles, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides
                  from a single emission source.  PLUVUE II predicts the trans-
                  port, dispersion, chemical reactions, optical effects and
                  surface deposition of point or area source emissions.  Adden-
                  da to the User's Manual were prepared in February 1985 to
                  allow execution of PLUVUE II and the test cases on the UNIVAC
                  computer.
a.    Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      The Plume Visibility Model  {PLUVUE II) may be used on a case-by-case
      basis.  When applying PLUVUE II to assess the visual impact of a plume,
      the following precautions should be taken to avoid the possibility of
      error:

      1.  Treat the optical effects of N02 and particles separately as well as
          together to avoid cancellation of N02 absorption with particle scat-
          tering.

      2.  Examine the visual impact of the plume in 0.1  (or 0), 0.5, and 1.0
          times the expected level of particulate matter in the background air.

      3.  Examine the visual impact of the plume over the full range of obser-
          ver - plume - sun angles.

b.    Input Requirements

      Source data requirements are: location and elevation; emission rates of
      SO,,  NO,, and particulates; flue gas flow rate, exit velocity, and exit
      temperature; flue gas oxygen content; properties  (including density, mass
      median and standard geometric deviation of radius) of the emitted aero-
      sols in the accumulation  (0.1-1.0/im) and coarse  (1.0-10./an) size modes;
      and deposition velocities for S02,  NOX, coarse mode aerosol, and accumula-
      tions mode aerosol.

      Meteorological data requirements are: stability class, wind direction
      (for an observer-based run), wind speed, lapse rate, air temperature,
      relative humidity, and mixing height.
                                      B-75                        Revised 2/93

-------
      Other data requirements are:  ambient background concentrations of NOX,
      NOj?  Oj, and S02r  background visual range or sulfate and nitrate
      concentrations.

      Receptor (observer) data requirements are:  location, elevation, terrain
      which will be observed through the plume  (for observer based run with
      white, gray,  and black viewing backgrounds).

c.    Output

      Printed output includes:

          plume concentrations and visual effects at specified downwind
          distances for calculated or specified lines of sight.

d.    Type of Model

      PLUVUE is a Gaussian plume model.

e.    Pollutant Types

      PLUVUE II treats NO, N02,  SO2, H2S04,  HNO3, 03,  primary and secondary
      particles to calculate effects on visibility.

f.    Source Receptor Relationship

      PLUVUE treats a single point or area source.

      Predicted concentrations and visual effects are obtained
      at user specified downwind distances.

g.    Plume Behavior

      PLUVUE uses Briggs  (1969, 1971, 1972) final plume rise equations.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      User-specified wind speed  (and direction  for an observer-based run)  are
      assumed constant for the calculation.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      User specified plume widths, or widths computed from either Pasquill-
      Gifford-Turner curves  (Turner, 1969) or TVA curves  (Carpenter,  et  al.,
      1971) are used in PLUVUE.
                                      B-76

-------
B.29  SHORELINE DISPERSION MODEL  (SDM)

Reference;        PEI Associates, 1988.  User's Guide to SDM - A Shoreline
                  Dispersion Model. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-88-017.  U.S.
                  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
                  (NTIS No. PB 89-164305)
Availability;     The user's guide is available from the National Technical
                  Information Service.  The model code is available on the
                  Support Center for Regulatory Air Models Bulletin Board
                  System  (see page B-l).
Abstract;         SDM is a hybrid multipoint Gaussian dispersion model that
                  calculates source impact for those hours during the year when
                  fumigation events are expected using a special fumigation
                  algorithm and the MPTER regulatory model for the remaining
                  hours  (see Appendix A).
a.    Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      SDM may be used on a case-by-case basis for the following applications:

      0    tall stationary point sources located at a shoreline of any large
          body of water;

      0    rural or urban areas;

      0    flat terrain;

      0    transport distances less than 50 km;

      0    1-hour to 1-year averaging times.

b.    Input Requirements

      Source data: location, emission rate, physical stack height, stack gas
      exit velocity,  stack inside diameter, stack gas temperature and shoreline
      coordinates.

      Meteorological data: hourly values of mean wind speed within the Thermal
      Internal Boundary Layer  (TIBL) and at stack height; mean potential
      temperature over land and over water; over water lapse rate; and surface
      sensible heat flux.  In addition to these meteorological data, SDM access
      standard NWS surface and upper air meteorological data through the RAMMET
      preprocessor.

      Receptor data:  coordinates for each receptor.
                                     B-115                        Revised 2/93

-------
c.    Outnut

      Printed output includes the MPTER model output as well as: special
      shoreline fumigation applicability report for each day and source; high-
      five tables on the standard output with "F" designation next to the
      concentration if that averaging period includes a fumigation event.

d.    Type of Model

      SDM is hybrid Gaussian model.

e.    Pollutant Types

      SDM may be used to model primary pollutants.  Settling and deposition are
      not treated.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationships

      SDM applies user-specified locations of stationary point sources and
      receptors.  User input stack height, shoreline orientation and source
      characteris'tics for each source.  No topographic elevation is input; flat
      terrain is assumed.

g.    Plume Behavior

      SDM uses Briggs (1975) plume rise for final rise.  SDM does not treat
      stack tip or building downwash.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      Constant, uniform  (steady-state) wind is assumed for an hour.  Straight
      line plume transport is assumed to all downwind distances. Separate wind
      speed profile exponents (EPA, 1980)  for both rural and urban cases are
      assumed.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      For the fumigation algorithm coefficients based on Misra  (1980) and Misra
      and McMillan (1980) are used for plume transport in stable air above TIBL
      and based on Lamb  (1978) for transport in the unstable air below the
      TIBL.  An effective horizontal dispersion coefficient based on Misra and
      Onlock  (1982) is used.  For nonfumigation periods, algorithms contained
      in the MPTER model are used  (see Appendix A).

k.    Vertical Dispersion

      For the fumigation algorithm, coefficients based on Misra  (1980) and
      Misra and McMillan  (1980)  are used.
                                     B-116                        Revised 2/93

-------
1.    Chemical Transformation

      Chemical transformation is not included in the fumigation algorithm.

m.    Physical Removal

      Physical removal is not explicitly treated.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.  Analysis and Evaluation of
          Statistical Coastal Fumigation Models.  EPA Publication No.
          EPA-450/4-87-002.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
          Triangle Park, NC.  (NTIS PB 87-175519)
                                     B-117                        Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
              B-118                 Revised 2/93

-------
B.30  WYNDvalley Model
Reference:
Harrison, Halstead, 1992.  "A User's Guide to WYNDvalley
3.11, an Eulerian-Grid Air-Quality Dispersion Model with
Versatile Boundaries, Sources, and Winds," WYNDsoft Inc.,
Mercer Island, WA.
Availability;
Copies of the user's guide and the executable model computer
codes are available at a cost of $295.00 from:

WYNDsoft, Incorporated
6333 77th Avenue SE
Mercer Island, WA  98040
Phone: (206) 232-1819
Abstract:
WYNDvalley 3.11 is a multi-layer  (up to five vertical layers)
Eulerian grid dispersion model that permits users flexibility
in defining borders around the areas to be modeled, the
boundary conditions at these borders, the intensities and
locations of emissions sources, and the winds and diffusivi-
ties that affect the dispersion of atmospheric pollutants.
The model's output includes gridded contour plots of pollut-
ant concentrations for the highest brief episodes  (during any
single time step), the highest and second-highest 24-hour
averages, averaged dry and wet deposition fluxes, and a
colored 'movie' showing evolving dispersal of pollutant
concentrations, together with temporal plots of the concen-
trations at specified receptor sites and statistical infer-
ence of the probabilities that standards will be exceeded at
those sites.   WYNDvalley is implemented on IBM* compatible
microcomputers, with interactive data input and color graph-
ics display.
a.    Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      WYNDvalley may be used on a case-by-case basis to estimate concentrations
      during valley stagnation periods of 24 hours or longer.  Recommended
      inputs are listed below.
      Variable

      Horizontal cell dimension
      Vertical layers
      Layer depth
      Background (internal to model)

      Lateral meander velocity
      Diffusivities
      Ventilation parameter (upper
         boundary condition)
      Dry deposition velocity
      Washout ratio
                        Recommended Value

                        250 to 500 meters
                        3 to 5
                        50 to 100 meters
                        zero (background should be added
                        externally to model estimates)
                        default
                        default
                        default

                        zero (site-specific)
                        zero (site-specific)
                                     B-119
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
b.    Input Requirements

      Input data, including model options, modeling domain boundaries, boundary
      conditions, receptor locations, source locations, and emission rates, may
      be entered interactively, or through existing template files from a
      previous run.  Meteorological data, including wind speeds, wind direc-
      tions, rain rates (optionally, for wet deposition calculations), and time
      of day and year, may be of arbitrary time increment (usually an hour) and
      are entered into the model through an external meteorological data file.
      Optionally, users may specify diffusivities and upper boundary conditions
      for each time increment.  Source emission rates may be constant or
      modulated on a daily, weekly, and/or seasonal basis.

c.    Output

      Output from WYNDvalley includes gridded contour maps of the highest
      pollutant concentrations at each time step and the highest and second-
      highest 24-hour average concentrations.  Output also includes the deposi-
      tion patterns for wet, dry, and total fluxes of the pollutants to the
      surface, integrated over the simulation period.  A running "movie" of the
      concentration patterns is displayed on the screen (with optional print-
      out)  as they evolve during the simulation.  Output files include tables
      of daily-averaged pollutant concentrations at every modeled grid cell,
      and of hourly concentrations at up to eight specified receptors.  Statis-
      tical analyses are performed on the hourly and daily data to estimate the
      probabilities that specified levels will be exceeded more than once
      during an arbitrary number of days with similar weather.

d.    Type of Model

      WYNDvalley is a three dimensional Eulerian grid model.

e.    Pollutant Types

      WYNDvalley may be used to model any inert pollutant.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationships

      Source and receptors may be located anywhere within the user-defined
      modeling domain.  All point and area sources, or portions of an area
      source, within a given grid cell are summed to define a representative
      emission rate for that cell.  Concentrations are calculated for each and
      every grid cell in the modeling domain.  Up to eight grid cells may be
      selected as receptors, for which time histories of concentration and
      deposition fluxes are determined, and probabilities of exceedance are
      calculated.

g.    Plume Behavior

      Emissions for buoyant point sources are placed by the user in a grid cell
      which best reflects the expected effective plume height during stagnation
      conditions.  Five vertical layers are available to the user.
                                     B-120                        Revised 2/93

-------
h.    Horizontal Winds

      During each time step in the model, the winds are assumed to be uniform
      throughout the modeling domain.  Numerical diffusion is minimized in the
      advection algorithm.  To account for terrain effects on winds and disper-
      sion, an ad hoc algorithm is employed in the model to distribute concen-
      trations near boundaries.

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Winds are assumed to be constant with height.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      Horizontal eddy diffusion coefficients may be entered explicitly by the
      user at every time step.  Alternatively, a default algorithm may be
      invoked to estimate these coefficients from the wind velocities and their
      variances.

k.    Vertical Dispersion

      Vertical eddy diffusion coefficients and a top-of-model boundary condi-
      tion may be entered explicitly by the user at every time step.  Alterna-
      tively, a default algorithm may be invoked to estimate these coefficients
      from the horizontal wind velocities and their variances, and from an
      empirical time-of-day correction derived from temperature gradient
      measurements and Monin-Obukhov similarities.

1.    Chemical Transformation

      Chemical transformation is not explicitly treated by WYNDvalley.

m.    Physical Removal

      WYNDvalley optionally simulates both wet and dry deposition.  Dry deposi-
      tion is proportional to concentration in the lowest layer, while wet
      deposition is proportional to rain rate and concentration in each layer.
      Appropriate coefficients  (deposition velocities and washout ratios) are
      input by the user.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      Harrison, H., G. Fade, C. Bowman and R. Wilson, 1990.  Air Quality
          During Stagnations:  A Comparison of RAM and WYNDvalley with PM-10
          Measurements at Five Sites.  Journal of the Air & Waste Management
          Association, 40: 47-52.

      Yoshida, C., 1990.  A Comparison of WYNDvalley Versions 2.12 and 3.0 with
          PM-10 Measurements in Six Cities in the Pacific Northwest, Lane
          Regional Air Pollution Authority, Springfield, OR.

      Maykut, N. et al., 1990.  Evaluation of. the Atmospheric Deposition of
          Toxic Contaminants to Puget Sound, State of Washington, Puget Sound
          Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
                                     B-121                        Revised 2/93

-------
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
              B-122                 Revised 2/93

-------
B.31  DENSE GAS DISPERSION MODEL  (DEGADIS)
Reference:
Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.  User's Guide for the
DEGADIS 2.1 - Dense Gas Dispersion Model.  EPA Publication
No. EPA-450/4-89-019.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. (NTIS No. PB 90-213893)
Availabilitv:
The model code is only available on the Support Center for
Regulatory Air Models Bulletin Board System  (see page B-l).
Abstract:
DEGADIS 2.1 is a mathematical dispersion model that can be
used to model the transport of toxic chemical releases into
the atmosphere.  Its range of applicability includes contin-
uous, instantaneous, finite duration, and time-variant re-
leases; negatively-buoyant and neutrally-buoyant releases;
ground-level, low-momentum area releases; ground-level or
elevated upwardly-directed stack releases of gases or aero-
sols .  The model simulates only one set of meteorological
conditions, and therefore should not be considered applicable
over time periods much longer than 1 or 2 hours.  The simula-
tions are carried out over flat, level, unobstructed terrain
for which the characteristic surface roughness is not a
significant fraction of the depth of the dispersion layer.
The model does not characterize the density of aerosol-type
releases; rather, the user must assess that independently
prior to the simulation.
      Recommendations for Regulatory Use

      DEGADIS can be used as a refined modeling approach to estimate short-term
      ambient concentrations (1-hour or less averaging times) and the expected
      area of exposure to concentrations above specified threshold values for
      toxic chemical releases.  It is especially useful in situations where
      density effects are suspected to be important and where screening esti-
      mates of ambient concentrations are above levels of concern.

      Input Requirements

      Data may be input directly from an external input file or via keyboard
      using an interactive program module.  The model is not set up to accept
      real-time meteorological data or convert units of input values.  Chemical
      property data must be input by the user.  Such data  for a few selected
      species are available within the model.  Additional data may be added to
      this data base by the user.
                                     B-123
                                                Revised 2/93

-------
      Source data requirements are: emission rate and release duration; emis-
      sion chemical and physical properties (molecular weight, density vs.
      concentration profile in the case of aerosol releases, and contaminant
      heat capacity in the case of a nonisothennal gas release; stack parame-
      ters (i.e., diameter, elevation above ground level, temperature at
      release point).

      Meteorological data requirements are: wind speed at designated height
      above ground, ambient temperature and pressure, surface roughness,
      relative humidity, and ground surface temperature  (which in most cases
      can be adequately approximated by the ambient temperature).

      Receptor data requirements are: averaging time of interest,  above-ground
      height of receptors, and maximum distance between receptors (since the
      model computes downwind receptor distances to optimize model performance,
      this parameter is used only for nominal control of the output listing,
      and is of secondary importance).  No indoor concentrations are calculated
      by the model.

c.    Output

      Printed output includes in tabular form:

      0    listing of model input data;

      0    plume centerline elevation, mole fraction, concentration,  density,
          and temperature at each downwind distance;

      0    cry  and  az values at each downwind distance;

      0    off-centerline distances to 2 specified concentration values at a
          specified receptor height at each downwind distance  (these values can
          be used to draw concentration isopleths after model execution);

      0    concentration vs. time histories for finite-duration releases (if
          specified by user).

      The output print file is automatically saved and must be sent to the
      appropriate printer by the user after program execution.

      No graphical output is generated by the current version of this program.

d.    Type of Model

      DEGADIS estimates plume rise and dispersion for vertically-upward jet
      releases using mass and momentum balances with air entrainment based on
      laboratory and field-scale data.  These balances assume Gaussian similar-
      ity profiles for velocity, density, and concentration within the jet.
      Ground-level denser-than-air phenomena is treated using a power law
      concentration distribution profile in the vertical and a hybrid top hat-
      Gaussian concentration distribution profile in the horizontal.  A power
      law specification is used for the vertical wind profile. Ground-level
      cloud slumping phenomena and air entrainment are based on laboratory
      measurements and field-scale observations.
                                     B-124                        Revised 2/93

-------
e.    Pollutant Types

      Neutrally- or negatively-buoyant gases and aerosols.  Pollutants are
      assumed to be non-reactive and non-depositing.

f.    Source-Receptor Relationships

      Only one source can be modeled at a time.

      There is no limitation to the number of receptors; the downwind receptor
      distances are internally-calculated by the model.  The DEGADIS calcula-
      tion is carried out until the plume centerline concentration is 50% below
      the lowest concentration level specified by the user.

      The model contains no modules for source calculations or release charac-
      terization.

g.    Plume Behavior

      Jet/plume trajectory is estimated from mass and momentum balance equa-
      tions.  Surrounding terrain is assumed to be flat, and stack tip down-
      wash, building wake effects, and fumigation are not treated.

h.    Horizontal Winds

      Constant logarithmic velocity profile which accounts for stability and
      surface roughness is used.

      The wind speed profile exponent, is determined from a least squares fit of
      the logarithmic profile from ground level to the wind speed reference
      height.  Calm winds can be simulated for ground-level low-momentum
      releases.

      Along-wind dispersion of transient releases is treated using the methods
      of Colenbrander (1980)  and Seals (1971).

i.    Vertical Wind Speed

      Not treated.

j.    Horizontal Dispersion

      When the plume centerline is above ground level, horizontal dispersion
      coefficients  are based upon Turner (1969)  and Slade (1968)  with adjust-
      ments made for averaging time and plume density.

      When the plume centerline is at ground level, horizontal dispersion also
      accounts for  entrainment due to gravity currents as parameterized from
      laboratory experiments.
                                     B-125                        Revised 2/93

-------
k.    Vertical Dispersion

      When the plume centerline is above ground level, vertical dispersion
      coefficients are based upon Turner (1969)  and Slade (1968) .   Perfect
      ground reflection is applied.

      In the ground-level dense-gas regime, vertical dispersion is also based
      upon results from laboratory experiments in density-stratified fluids.

1.    Chemical Transformation

      Not specifically treated.

m.    Physical Removal

      Not treated.

n.    Evaluation Studies

      Spicer, T. O. and J. A. Havens, 1986.  Development of Vapor Dispersion
          Models for Nonneutrally Buoyant Gas Mixtures - Analysis of USAF/N2O4
          Test Data.  USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Final Report
          ESL-TR-86-24.

      Spicer, T. O. and J. A. Havens, 1988.  Development of Vapor Dispersion
          Models for Nonneutrally Buoyant Gas Mixtures - Analysis of TFI/NH3
          Test Data.  USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Final Report.

o.    Operating Information

      The model requires either a VAX computer or an IBM* -  compatible PC for
      its execution.

      The model currently does not require supporting software.  A FORTRAN
      compiler is required to generate program executables in the VAX computing
      environment.  PC executables are provided within the source code; how-
      ever, a PC FORTRAN compiler may be used to tailor a PC executable to  the
      user's PC environment.
                                     B-126                         Revised 2/93

-------
McElroy, J. L. and F. Pooler, 1968.  St. Louis Dispersion Study, Volume II-
Analyses.  NAPCA Publication No. AP-53.  National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Arlington, VA.

Mitchell, Jr., A. E. and K. O. Timbre, 1979.  Atmospheric Stability Class from
Horizontal Wind Fluctuation.  Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, OH.

Moore, G. E., T. E. Stoeckenius and D. A. Stewart, 1982.  A Survey of
Statistical Measures of Model Performance and Accuracy for Several Air Quality
Models.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-83-001.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Mueller, S. F. and R. J. Valente, 1983.  Meteorological Data Preprocessing
Manual for the Air Resources Regional Pollution Assessment Model  (Generic
Version).  TVA/ONR/AQB-83/13.  Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Al.

Mueller, S. F., R. J. Valente, T. L. Crawford, A. L. Sparks, and L. L. Gautney,
Jr., 1983.  Description of the Air Resources Regional Pollution Assessment
(ARRPA) Model:  September 1983.  TVA/ONR/AQB-83/14.  Tennessee Valley
Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL.

Myers, T. C., and J. E. Langstaff, 1981.  Application of Meteorological and Air
Quality Modeling to the Las Vegas and Tampa Bay Areas.  SAI Number 101-81EF81-
108.  Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Pasquill, F., 1976.  Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume
Modeling, Part II.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/4-76-030b.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Seigneur, C., T. W. Tesche, P. M. Roth and M. K. Liu, 1983.  On the Treatment
of Point Source Emissions in Urban Air Quality Modeling.  Atmospheric
Environment, 17: 1655-1676.

Schere, K. L., and K. L. Demerjian, 1977.  Calculation of Selected Photolytic
Rate Constants over a Diurnal Range.  EPA Publication No. EPA-600/477-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Turner, D. B., 1964.  A Diffusion Model of An Urban Area.  Journal of Applied
Meteorology, 3: 83-91.

Turner, D. B., 1969.  Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
PHS Publication No. 999-AP-26.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.

Venkatram, A., 1980.  Dispersion From an Elevated Source in a Corrective
Boundary Layer.  Atmospheric Environment, 14: 1-10.

Wesely, M. L., and B. B. Hicks, 1977.  Some Factors That Affect the Deposition
Rates of Sulfur Dioxide and Similar Gases on Vegetation.  Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, 27: 1110-1116.
                                      BR-3

-------
Whitten, G. Z., J. p. Killus and H. Hogo, 1980.  Modeling of Simulated Photo-
chemical Smog with Kinetic Mechanisms.  Volume 1.  Final Report.  EPA
Publication No. EPA-600/3-80-028a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.

Beals, G. A., 1971.  A Guide to Local Dispersion of Air Pollutants.  Air
Weather Service Technical Report #214  (April 1971) .

Colenbrander, G. H., 1980.  A Mathematical Model for the Transient Behavior of
Dense Vapor Clouds, 3rd International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety
Promotion in the Process Industries, Basel, Switzerland.

Green, A. E., R. P. Singhal and R. Venkateswar, 1980.  Analytical Extensions of
the Gaussian Plume Model.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
30: 773-776.

Lamb, R. G., 1978.  Numerical Simulation of Dispersion from an Elevated Point
Source in the Convective Boundary Layer.  Atmospheric Environment,
12: 1297-1304.

MacCready, P. B., L. B. Baboolal and P. B. Lissaman, 1974.  Diffusion and
Turbulence Aloft Over Complex Terrain.  Preprint Volume, AMS Symposium on
Atmospheric Diffusion and Air Pollution, Santa Barbara, CA.  American Meteoro-
logical Society, Boston, MA.

Misra, P. K., 1980.  Dispersion from Tall Stacks into a Shoreline Environment.
Atmospheric Environment, 14: 397-400.

Misra, P. K. and A. C. McMillan, 1980.  On the Dispersion Parameters of Plumes
from Tall Stacks in a Shoreline Environment.  Boundary Layer Meteorology,
19: 175-185.

Misra, P. K. and S. Onlock, 1982.  Modeling Continuous Fumigation of the
Nanticoke Generating Station.  Atmospheric Environment, 16: 479-489.

Slade, D. H., 1968,  Meteorology and Atomic Energy. U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-
sion; 445 pp.   (NTIS NO. TID-24190)
                                      BR-4                        Revised 2/93

-------
1.    Source location map(s) showing location with respect to:

      0   Urban areas2

      0   PSD Class I areas

      0   Nonattainment areas2

      0   Topographic features  (terrain, lakes, river valleys, etc.)2

      0   Other major existing sources2

      0   Other major sources subject to PSD requirements

      0   NWS meteorological observations  (surface and upper air)

      0   On-site/local meteorological observations  (surface and upper air)

      0   State/local/on-site air quality monitoring locations2

      0   Plant layout on a topographic map covering a 1km radius of the source
          with information sufficient to determine GEP stack heights

2.    Information on urban/rural characteristics:

      0   Land use within 3km of source classified according to Auer  (1978):
          Correlation of land use and cover with meteorological anomalies.
          Journal of Applied Meteorology, 17: 636-643.

      0   Population

          - >      total
          ->      density

      0   Based on current guidance determination of whether the area should be
          addressed using urban or rural modeling methodology
     'The  "Screening  Procedures  for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of
Stationary Sources, Revised", October 1992  (EPA-450/R-92-019), should be used
as a screening tool to determine whether modeling analyses are required.
Screening procedures should be refined by the user to be site/problem specific.

     2Within  50km or  distance to which source has a significant impact,
whichever is less.

                                      C-3                         Revised 2/93

-------
      3.  Emission inventory and operating/design parameters for major sources
within region of significant impact of proposed site (same as required for
applicant)

      0   Actual and allowable annual emission rates (g/s) and operating rates3

      0   Maximum design load short-term emission rate (g/s)3

      0   Associated emissions/stack characteristics as a function of load for
          maximum, average, and nominal operating conditions if stack height is
          less than 6EP or located in complex terrain.  Screening analyses as
          footnoted on page 1 or detailed analyses, if necessary, must be
          employed to determine the constraining load condition  (e.g., 50%,
          75%, or 100% load) to be relied upon in the short-term modeling
          analysis.

          - location (DTM's)
          - height of stack (m) and grade level above MSL
          - stack exit diameter (m)
          - exit velocity  (m/s)
          - exit temperature (°K)

      0   Area source emissions (rates, size of area, height of area source)3

      0   Location and dimensions of buildings (plant layout drawing)

          - to determine GEP stack height
          - to determine potential building downwash considerations for stack
            heights less than GEP

      0   Associated parameters

          - boiler size (megawatts, pounds/hr. steam, fuel consumption, etc.)
          - boiler parameters  (% excess air, boiler type, type of firing, etc.)
          - operating conditions  (pollutant content in fuel, hours of
            operation,  capacity factor, % load for winter, summer, etc.)
          - pollutant control equipment parameters  (design efficiency,
            operation record, e.g., can it be bypassed?, etc.)

      0   Anticipated growth changes
     3Particulate emissions should be specified as a function of particulate
diameter and density ranges.

                                       C-4                          Revised 2/93

-------
 Air quality monitoring data:

 0   Summary of existing observations for latest five years  (including any
     additional quality assured measured data which can be obtained from
     any state or local agency or company)4

 0   Comparison with standards

 0   Discussion of background due to uninventoried sources and
     contributions from outside the inventoried area and description of
     the method used for determination of background  (should be consistent
     with the Guideline on Air Quality Models)

 Meteorological data:

 0   Five consecutive years of the most recent representative sequential
     hourly National Weather Service  (NWS) data, or one or more years of
     hourly sequential on-site data

 0   Discussion of meteorological conditions observed (as applied or
     modified for the site-specific area, i.e., identify possible
     variations due to difference between the monitoring site and the
     specific site of the source)

 0   Discussion of topographic/land use influences

 Air quality modeling analyses:

 0   Model each individual year for which data are available with a
     recommended model or model demonstrated to be acceptable on a case-
     by-case basis

     - urban dispersion coefficients for urban areas
     - rural dispersion coefficients for rural areas

 0   Evaluate downwash if stack height is less than GEP

 °   Define worst case meteorology

 0   Determine background and document method

     - long-term
     - short-term
4See  footnote  2  of  this checklist.

                                 C-5                         Revised 2/93

-------
0   Provide topographic map(s)  of receptor network with respect to
    location of all sources

0   Follow current guidance on selection of receptor sites for refined
    analyses

0   Include receptor terrain heights (if applicable) used in analyses

0   Compare model estimates with measurements considering the upper ends
    of the frequency distribution

0   Determine extent of significant impact; provide maps

0   Define areas of maximum and highest, second-highest impacts due to
    applicant source (refer to format suggested in Air Quality Summary
    Tables)

    ->      long-term
    ->      short-term

Comparison with acceptable air quality levels:

0   NAAQS

0   PSD increments

0   Emission offset impacts if nonattainment

Documentation and guidelines for modeling methodology:

0   Follow guidance documents

    ->      "Guideline on Air Quality Models, Revised"
            (EPA-450/2-78-027R)

    ->      "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact
            of Stationary Sources, Revised"  (EPA-450/R-92-019), 1992

    ->      "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice
            Stack Height  (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height
            Regulations)"  (EPA-450/4-80-023R), 1985

    ->      "Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for PSD"  (EPA-450/4-87-007),
            1987

    ->      "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of
            Implementation Plans: Approval and Promulgation of Imple-
            mentation Plans", 40 CFR Parts 40 and 51  (Prevention of
            Significant Deterioration), 1982
                                C-6                         Revised 2/93

-------
Pollutant:
                               AIR QUALITY SOMMARY

                              For New Source Alone
                               Highest   Highest    Highest   Highest
                                         2nd High             2nd High
                                      Annual
Concentration Due to
Modeled Source  (/ig/m3)

Background Concentration
Total Concentration  (/ig/m3)

Receptor Distance  (km)
(or DTM Easting)

Receptor Direction  (°)
(or UTM Northing)

Receptor Elevation  (m)

Wind Speed  (m/s)

Wind Direction  (°)

Mixing Depth  (m)

Temperature  (°K)

Stability

Day/Month/Year of Occurrence

Surface Air Data From _
Surface Station Elevation  (m)
Anemometer Height Above Local  Ground Level  (m)

Upper Air Data From 	
Period of Record Analyzed

Model Used        	

Recommended Model 	
     'Use separate sheet for each pollutant  (S02,  TSP,  CO,  NO,, HC,  Pb, Hg,
Asbestos, etc.)

     2List all appropriate averaging periods  (1-hr, 3-hr,  8-hr, 24-hr,
30-day, 90-day, etc.) for which  an  air quality standard exists
                                       C-7
                              Revised  2/93

-------
Pollutant:
                              AIR OnaLITY  SUMMARY

                              For All New  Sources
                              Highest    Highest   Highest    Highest
                                         2nd High             2nd High
                                     Annual
Concentration Due to
Modeled Source  (/jg/m3)

Background Concentration
Total Concentration  (/tg/m3)

Receptor Distance  (km)
(or DTM Easting)

Receptor Direction  (°)
(or DTM Northing) •

Receptor Elevation  (m)

Wind Speed  (m/s)

Wind Direction  (°)

Mixing Depth  (m)

Temperature  (°K)

Stability

Day /Month/Year of Occurrence

Surface Air Data From _
Surface Station Elevation  (m)
Anemometer Height Above Local Ground Level  (m)

Upper Air Data From 	
Period of Record Analyzed

Model Used        	

Recommended Model 	
     'Use separate sheet for each pollutant  (S02,  TSP,  CO,  NO,,  HC,  Pb,  Hg,
Asbestos, etc.)

     2List all appropriate averaging periods  (1-hr, 3-hr,  8-hr,  24-hr,
30-day,  90-day, etc.)  for  which an air quality standard exists
                                       C-8
                               Revised 2/93

-------
Pollutant:
                               AIR QUALITY STTMMaRY


                                 For All Sources
                               Highest   Highest   Highest   Highest
                                         2nd High             2nd High
                                      Annual
Concentration Due to
Modeled Source  (/*g/m3)

Background Concentration
Total Concentration

Receptor Distance  (km)
 (or UTM Easting)

Receptor Direction  (°)
 (or UTM Northing)

Receptor Elevation  (m)

Wind Speed  (m/s)

Wind Direction  (°)

Mixing Depth  (m)

Temperature  (°K)

Stability

Day /Month/Year of Occurrence

Surface Air Data From _
Surface Station Elevation  (m)
Anemometer Height Above Local Ground Level  (m)

Upper Air Data From 	
Period of Record Analyzed

Model Used        	

Recommended Model 	
     'Use separate sheet for each pollutant  (S02/  TSP,  CO,  NO,, HC,  Pb, Hg,
Asbestos, etc.)

      2List  all appropriate averaging periods  (1-hr, 3-hr, 8-hr, 24-hr,
30-day, 90-day, etc.) for  which  an  air quality standard exists.
                                       C-9
                              Revised  2/93

-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.

-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                              (Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
    EPA^50/2-78-027R (Supp. B)
                 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
    Supplement B to the Guideline on Air Quality Models
    (Revised)
                                                                  5. REPORT DATE
                                                                   February 1993
                 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    Source Receptor Analysis Branch
    Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                                  10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                                  13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                                  14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT

     The Guideline (published as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51) serves as the basis by which air quality
 models are to be used for demonstrations associated with SIP (State Implementation Plan) revisions,
 AQMA (Air Quality Maintenance Area) analyses, regional classifications for episode planning, new
 source review,  including that pertaining to PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration). It is intended
 for use by EPA Regional Offices in judging the adequacy of modeling analyses performed by EPA, by
 State and local  agencies, and by industry and its consultants. It also identifies modeling techniques and
 data bases that  EPA considers acceptable.  The Guideline makes specific recommendations concerning
 air  quality models,  data bases, and general requirements for making concentration estimates.

     This is Supplement B to the Guideline.  Supplement B:  (1) adds  several models, including
 CTDMPLUS (Complex Terrain Dispersion Model PLus Algorithms for Unstable Situations),
 CTSCREEN, EDMS (Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System) for airports,  SDM (Shoreline
 Dispersion Model), WYNDvalley for valley stagnation, and DEGADIS (DEnse GAs DISpersion Model);
 (2)  updates several  other models, i.e., OCD (Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model), ISC and
 SCREEN (now ISC2 and SCREEN2, resp.); (3) deletes several models (ERTAQ and MPSDM); and (4)
 improves several existing techniques and clarifies the appropriate input data for various regulatory
 compliance demonstrations.     	___	
 17
                                     KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                   DESCRIPTORS
                                                b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                                    c  COSAT1 Field/Group
    Air Pollution
    Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling
    Atmospheric Diffusion
    Meteorology	
  Dispersion Modeling
  Gaussian Plume Models
  Clean Air Act
 18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

    Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
   None
21. NO. OF PAGES
      107
                                                20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
                                                   None
                                                                                    22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------