United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MD20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA 450/2-81-075
October, 1981
Air
vvEPA
APTI
Course 423
Dispersion of Air Pollution:
Theory and Model
Application
Student Workbook
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MD20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA 450/2-81-075
October, 1981
Air
APTI
Course 423
Dispersion of Air Pollution:
Theory and Model
Application
Student Workbook
Technical Content:
D. R. Bullard
Northrop Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 12313
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Under Contract No.
68-02-2374
EPA Project Officer
R. E. Townsend
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Manpower and Technical Information Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
This is not an official policy and standards document. The opinions and selections
are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Every attempt has been made to represent the present state of the art as
well as subject areas still under evaluation. Any mention of products or organiza-
tions does not constitute endorsement by the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
This document is issued by the Manpower and Technical Information Branch,
Control Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards, USEPA. It was developed for use in training courses presented by the EPA
Air Pollution Training Institute and others receiving contractual or grant support
from the Institute. Other organizations are welcome to use the document.
Sets of slides and films designed for use in the training course of which this
publication is a part may be borrowed from the Air Pollution Training Institute
upon written request. The slides may be freely copied. Some films may be copied;
others must be purchased from the commercial distributor.
11
-------
Introduction
The Air Pollution Training Institute has developed Course 423, Dispersion of Air
Pollution—Theory and Model Application, to train meteorologists, engineers, and
physical scientists responsible for measuring and evaluating meteorological factors
that affect the dispersion and concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere.
Meteorological factors and the role they play in the transport and dispersion of air
pollution are presented. You will have an opportunity to calculate estimates of
continuous-release pollutant concentrations and become familiar with
meteorological instruments. Discussions will be held to enable you to evaluate air
pollution control strategies and to plan and interpret surveys.
This workbook is designed to provide you with a guide to the lecture materials.
Included herein are the course goal, course objectives, and chapter objectives and
outlines. A study guide lists reading assignments and homework problems
associated with this course. The homework problems are included in this workbook.
-------
Table of Contents
Course Goal and Objectives , 0-1
Study Guide 0-3
Chapter 1: Registration, Course Information, and Pretest 1-1
Chapter 2: Air Pollution Meteorology 1 2-1
Chapter 3: Air Pollution Meteorology II 3-1
Chapter 4: Turbulence and Diffusion I (video) 4-1
Chapter 5: Turbulence and Diffusion n (video) 5-1
Chapter 6: Turbulence and Diffusion III (video) 6-1
Chapter 7: Effective StackHeight and Plume Rise 7-1
Chapter 8: Problem Set I: Plume Rise 8-1
Chapter 9: Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates 9-1
Chapter 10: Class Exercise 1: Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates:
Stability and Receptor Distance 10-1
Chapter 11: Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume
Modeling I and II 11-1
Chapter 12: Problem Set II: Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates 12-1
Chapter 13: Air Quality Models on UNAMAP 13-1
Chapter 14: Introduction to the Guideline on Air Quality Modeling 14-1
Chapter 15: Elements and Applications of the Single Source
(CRSTER) Model 15-1
Chapter 16: Elements of the Expected Exceedance Method (EXEX) 16-1
Chapter 17: Elements and Applications of the Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Model 17-1
Chapter 18: Elements and Applications of the Multiple Source (RAM) Model. . . 18-1
Chapter 19: Elements and Applications of the Complex Terrain
(VALLEY) Model 19-1
Chapter 20: Elements and Applications of the Ozone Isopleth
(EKMA/OZIPP) Model 20-1
Chapter 21: Elements and Applications of the Mobile (MOBILE1) Model 21-1
Chapter 22: Shoreline Fumigation Model 22-1
Appendix: A-l
A-l. Journal of Applied Meteorology A-l-1
A-2. On the Criteria for the Occurence of Fumigation Inland
from a Large Lake A-2-1
A-3. Cumulative Standardized Normal Distribution $(t) A-3-1
-------
Attachments
Attachment 2-1.
Attachment 2-2.
Attachment 2-3.
Attachment 2-4.
Attachment 3-1.
Attachment 5-1.
Attachment 7-1.
Attachment 8-1.
Attachment 9-1.
Attachment 12-1
Attachment 13-1
Attachment 14-1
Attachment 15-1
Attachment 19-1
Brookhaven National Laboratories, Gustiness Classification. . -2-2
Nuclear Safety Guide #23 2-3
Oak Ridge data. . 2-3
Richardson number 2-4
Climatic changes produced by cities 3-3
Roughness lengths for various surfaces 5-3
Dispersion Estimate Suggestion No. 2 (revised) 1973 7-3
Problem set 1: plume rise. 8-3
Dispersion Estimate Suggestion No. 1, November 7, 1972 9-5
. Problem set 2: atmospheric dispersion estimates 12-3
. A partial model listing of UNAMAP 13-3
. Modeling bibliography. . 14-3
. Hourly surface observation station listing 15-3
. VALLEY model estimate of x 24-hour maximum 19-3
VI
-------
Course Goal and Objectives
Course Goal
The purpose of APTI Course 423, Dispersion of Air Pollution — Theory and Model
Application, is to familiarize the students with the development of selected theories
of dispersion, current thinking and research in dispersion modeling, and the
application of dispersion and plume rise equations to actual situations.
Course Objectives
Upon completion of this course, you should be able to:
1. recall the effect that topography has on the dispersion of air pollution, the
basic meteorological factors that influence air pollution dispersion, and the
effect of turbulence on dispersion of air pollution.
2. solve dispersion estimate problems of air pollution transport from source to
expected concentrations at receptors using the Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates (WADE) by D. Bruce Turner.
3. solve plume rise estimate problems in various environmental stability situa-
tions using the methods proposed by G. A. Briggs and endorsed by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
4. solve problems for comparison of differences in magnitude between sigma y
and sigma z values used in air quality modeling.
5. select an air quality dispersion model to estimate the concentration values at
receptor locations by using the Guideline on Air Quality Models; the
Workbook for Comparison of Air Quality Models; and sufficient information
about air quality models available, topography, meteorology, climatology,
source emissions data, and a particular site situation.
0-1
-------
Study Guide
Reading Assignments
The following assignments should be completed as indicated:
Prior to Arrival for Class
1. scan Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates by Turner, particularly
chapter 3.*
2. scan Plume Rise by Briggs.*
3. scan Dispersion Estimates Suggestion no. 2 by Turner, revised 1973 (Attach-
ment 7-1).
4. scan Plume Rise from Multiple Sources by Briggs.*
5. read Determination of Atmospheric Diffusion Parameters by R. R. Draxler,
1977.*
6. scan Dispersion Notes by S. P. S. Arya.*
7. scan Consequences of Effluent Release by Gifford.*
8. review Air Pollution Meteorology by Turner, Sept. 1975.
Monday Night
1. review Dispersion Estimates Suggestion no. 2, revised 1973 (Attachment 7-1).
2. review precourse material by R. R. Draxler.
Tuesday Night
1. review Guideline on Air Quality Models EPA-450/2-78-027.
2. review User's Guide to PTXXX Models.
Thursday Night
1. review all materials, notes, for posttest on Friday.
Homework Problems
The following problems should be completed when indicated:
1. Problem set 1: plume rise, due Tuesday morning.
2. Problem set 2: atmospheric dispersion estimates, due Wednesday morning.
*Found in Selected Readings Packet sent prior to course offering.
0-3
-------
Chapter 1
Registration, Course Information,
and Pretest
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the course structure and objectives, to have you meet
instructors and other students, to take the pretest, and to receive pertinent
logistical information.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be familiar with the basic content and
structure of this course. There are no testable objectives for this chapter.
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
II. Course structure and requirements
III. Registration
IV. Pretest
1-1
-------
Chapter 2
Air Pollution Meteorology I
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the meteorological scales of motion, important
meteorological factors that influence dispersion, and the large-scale meteorological
factors that influence air pollution dispersion.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. identify the meteorological scales of motion of the atmosphere and the rela-
tive distances that characterize them.
2. recall the important meteorological factors that influence dispersion.
3. recall the large-scale meteorological factors that influence air pollution
dispersion.
Chapter Outline
I. Meteorological scales of motion
A. Microscale
B. Mesoscale
C. Synoptic scale
D. Macroscale
II. Meteorological factors influencing dispersion
A. Primary
B. Secondary
III. Large-scale meteorological factors influencing air pollution
A. Dispersion anticyclones
B. Frontal trapping
C. Shoreline winds
2-1
-------
Attachment 2-1. Brookhaven National Laboratories gustiness classifications.
2-2
-------
Attachment 2-2. Nuclear Safety Guide #23.
Classification of atmospheric stability
Stability
classification
Extremely unstable
Moderately unstable
Slightly unstable
Neutral
Slightly stable
Moderately stable
Extremely stable
Pasquill
categories
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
V
(degrees)
25.0°
20.0°
15.0°
10.0°
5.0°
2.5°
1.7°
Temperature change
with height (°C/100 m)
<-1.9
-1.9 to -1.7
-1.7 to -1.5
-1.5 to -0.5
-0.5 to 1.5
1.5 to 4.0
>4.0
*Standard deviation of horizontal wind direction fluctuation over a period of 15 minutes to one
hour. The values shown are averages for each stability classification.
Extracted from Safety Guide 23: Onsite Meteorological Programs (Nuclear Regulatory Comission).
Attachment 2-3. Oak Ridge data: Pasquill stability categories versus temperature difference*
and wind speed.
Temperature
gradient
(°C/30.5 m)
<-3.1 to -2.0
-1.9 to -1.1
-1.0 to -0.4
-0.3 to ±0.0
+ 0.1 to +1.1
+ 1.2 to +2.3
+ 2.4 to +3.5
Wind speed (m/s)
0-1.4
A
A-B
B
D
F
F-G
G
1.5-3.1
A-B
B
B-C
D
E-F
F
F-G
3.2-4.9
B
BC
C
D
E
E-F
F
5.0-6.7
B-C
C
C-D
D
D-E
(E)
—
6.8
(C)
C-D
D
D
D
—
—
*Temperature difference in °C per 30.5 m from 1.2 m to 41 m.
From AEC, Oak Ridge, TN.
2-3
-------
Attachment 2-4. Richardson number.
Where:
g= gravitational constant
T = average temperature through layer of concern
307 3z = change of potential temperature with height
du/dz = change of wind speed with height
0.25
-------
Chapter 3
Air Pollution Meteorology II
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with topographical effects on air pollution, urban effects on
meteorology and climate, and the meteorological situations that cause problems in
making dispersion estimates.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. apply the effects of a particular topographical feature to atmospheric motion
and explain the resulting effects on plume dispersion.
2. explain how urban areas modify the meteorology and climate of the urban
area itself and of the surrounding area.
3. explain the dispersion of plumes for various meteorological situations.
4. describe the urban heat island effect on atmospheric circulation and
temperatures.
Chapter Outline
I. Topographical influences on dispersion
A. Plane
B. Mountain and valley
C. Shoreline
II. Urban effect on meteorology and climate
A. Urban effects
B. Effects on meteorology
C. Effects on climate
III. Meteorological situations that cause problems in making dispersion estimates
A. Fumigation
B. Trapping
C. Stability A category
D. Flow reversal
E. Background concentrations
F. Elevated receptor
3-1
-------
Attachment 3-1. Climatic changes produced by cities.
Comparison with
Element rural environs
Contaminants
dust particles 10 times more
sulfur dioxide 5 times more
carbon dioxide 10 times more
carbon monoxide 25 times more
Radiation
total on horizontal surface 15 to 20% less
ultraviolet, winter 30% less
ultraviolet, summer 5% less
Cloudiness
clouds 5 to 10% more
fog, winter 100% more
fog, summer 30% more
Precipitation
amounts 5 to 10% more
days with 0.2 inches 10% more
Temperature
annual mean 1 to 1.5 °F more
winter minima 2 to 3.0 °F more
Relative humidity
annual mean 6% less
winter 2% less
summer 8% less
Wind speed
annual mean 20 to 30% less
extreme gusts 10 to 20% less
calms 5 to 20% more
Taken from Symposium: Air Over Cities, SEC Technical
Report A62-5, Public Health Service, Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1961.
3-3
-------
Chapter 4
Turbulence and Diffusion I
(video presentation)
Chapter Goal
To introduce you to the nature of wind, the importance of average wind, and the
meaning and use of standard deviation of wind direction fluctuations, roughness
factor, and turbulence.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. select the statement that describes the relationship of average wind to plume
transport.
2. select the statement that describes the relationship of wind direction fluctua-
tions to plume dispersion.
Chapter Outline
I. Plume rise
A. Wind
B. Effluent temperature
C. Ambient temperature
II. Transport
A. Weather maps
B. Airport observations
C. Special observations
III. Diffusion
A. Dilution
B. Difficult to treat
IV. Removal
A. Air chemistry
B. Radioactive
C. Washout
D. Rainout
E. Deposition
4-1
-------
V. Wind properties
A. Recorded by anemometer
B. Height above ground
C. Fluctuations
D. Statistics of V' and W'
E. Standard deviations
F. Turbulence
G. Basic properties of heat convection
H. Rates of mechanical turbulence to heat convection
4-2
-------
Chapter 5
Turbulence and Diffusion II
(video presentation)
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the qualitative meaning of the Richardson number and its
relationship to the Monin-Obukhov number; and with roughness factor and wind
profiles.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. equate Richardson numbers to turbulent production.
2. use a wind profile to obtain roughness factor.
Chapter Outline
I. Richardson number
A. Flux Richardson number
B. Gradient Richardson number
C. Richardson number versus atmospheric conditions
II. Monin-Obukhov number
A. Defined in relation to Richardson number
B. Properties
III. Mean wind described quantitatively
A. Properties of mean wind in surface layer
B. Validity problems
C. Increased accuracy of wind estimation
IV. Statistics of the wind
A. Normalized standard deviation of vertical wind speed
B. Meaning of normalized standard deviation
5-1
-------
Attachment 5-1. Roughness lengths for various surfaces.
Type of surface
Fir forest
Citrus orchard
Large city (Tokyo)
Corn
*u5 2 = 35 cm sec'1
u5 2= 198 cm sec"'
Corn
U4 0 = 29 cm sec'1
u, o = 212 cm sec'1
Wheat
u, 7 = 190 cm sec'1
U] 7 = 384 cm sec'1
Grass
u2 0 = 148 cm sec'1
u2 0= 343 cm sec'1
u2 o = 622 cm sec'1
Alfalfa brome
u2 2 = 260 cm sec'1
u2 2 = 625 cm sec"'
Grass
Smooth desert
Dry lake bed
Tarmac
Smooth mud flats
h(cm)
555
335
300
220
60
60-70
15.2
5-6
4
2-3
z,,(cm)
283.0
198.0
165.0
127.0
71.5
84.5
74.2
23.3
22.0
15.4
11.4
8.0
2.72
2.45
0.75
0.14
0.32
0.03
0.003
0.002
0.001
Author
Baumgartner (1956)
Kepner et al. (1942)
Yamamoto and Shimanuki (1964)
Wright and Lemon (1962)
Wright and Lemon (1962)
Penman and Long (1960)
Deacon (1953)
Tanner and Pelton (1960b)
Rider et al. (1963)
Rider (1954)
Deacon (1953)
Vehrencamp (1951)
Rider et al. (1963)
Deacon (1953)
*The subscript gives the height (in meters) above the ground at which the wind speed, u, is
measured.
5-3
-------
Chapter 6
Turbulence and Diffusion III
(video presentation)
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with some experimental data that is used to assess the sigma
values; the relationships of the Richardson number, Monin-Obukhov length, and
other sigma values.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. select the statement that describes the use of experimental data to obtain
sigma values.
2. identify the terms in the Richardson number and their meaning in obtaining
a representative dimensionless number.
Chapter Outline
I. Fluctuation of wind direction
A. Complicated
B. Azimuth
C. Weak wind, strong insolation, rapid fluctuation
D. Strong wind, weak insolation, little fluctuation
II. Monin-Obukhov theory
A. Problems
B. Changes
C. Pine Grove Mills study
III. Taylor diffusion theorem
A. Description
B. Assumptions by Taylor
IV. Treatment of dispersion in practice
A. Direct measurements
B. Estimate aA and aE
V. Graphical form of dispersion
A. Pasquill-Gifford categories
B. Assumptions
6-1
-------
Chapter 7
Effective Stack Height and Plume Rise
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the method of calculating effective stack height and plume
rise as suggested by Dr. Gary Briggs and endorsed by USEPA; and to compare
Briggs' plume rise formula with other plume rise formulas available.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. calculate effective stack height and final plume rise, given the EPA endorsed
plume rise formulas by Briggs and sufficient information about a source and
atmospheric conditions.
2. calculate plume rise from formulas by Davidson-Bryant, Holland, etc., to
contrast with that calculated by the Briggs method.
Chapter Outline
I. Background
A. Early attempts
B. Contradicting formulas
II. Behavior of plume
A. Aerodynamic effects
1. Stack effects
2. Plume rise
3. Dispersion
III. Observations
A. Modeling studies
B. Atmospheric studies
IV. Plume rise formulas
A. Earlier formulas
B. Current formulas
7-1
-------
Attachment 7-1. Dispersion estimate suggestion no. 2 (revised).
MODEL APPLICATION BRANCH
Subject:
Estimate of Plume Rise
It was brought to my attention last month by Mr. Marvin Green of the Department of
Environmental Protection of the State of New Jersey, and by Mr. Ed Hurt of the Monitoring and
Data Evaluation Division, EPA that the use of the equation (12) for stable conditions results in
estimates for some x in excess of the final rise. The correction of this error in calculations is the
reason for this revision.
We, in the Model Application Branch, have used the equations of Briggs to estimate plume rise
for several years now. Gary Briggs has revised this several times and we have tried to keep up with
these revisions.
Briggs, Gary A., 1969. Plume Rise. USAEC Critical Review Series. TID-25075. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151.
Briggs, Gary A., 1971. Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observation, pp. 1029-1032, in Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress, edited by H. M. Englund and W. T.
Berry. New York: Academic Press.
Briggs, Gary A., 1972. Discussion on Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable Surroundings. Atmos.
Environ. 6, 507-510 (Jul 72).
The following symbols are used:
TT a constant = 3.14
g gravitational acceleration = 9.80 m sec"2
T ambient air temperature, K
u average wind speed at stack level, m sec"1
v, stack gas exit velocity, m sec"1
d top inside stack diameter, m
T, stack gas exit temperature, K
Vf stack gas volume flow, m3 sec"1
F buoyancy flux parameter, m* sec"3
x* distance at which atmospheric turbulence begins to dominate entrainment, m
AH plume rise above stack top, m
x downwind distance from the source, m
xf distance downwind to final rise, m
d0/dz vertical potential temperature gradient of atmosphere, K m*1
s restoring acceleration per unit vertical displacement for adiabatic motion in the
atmosphere—a stability parameter, sec"2
The following procedures are consistent with the way in which we calculate Briggs plume rise:
If T is not given, we have been using
T= 293 K (68 °F) for design calculations
V,= |:v,d*=0.785 [v,d2] (1)
(2)
7-3
-------
For unstable or neutral conditions:
x* = 14 F5'8 for F less than 55 (3)
x* = 34 P/5 for F greater than or equal to 55 (4)
The distance of the final rise is: x,= 3.5 x* (5)
The final plume rise:
AH_1.6 F1/3 (3.5 x*)2/3 ,gs
u
For x less than the distance of final rise:
For stable conditions, need dd/dz
If d6/dz is not given use:
0.02 °K nT1 for stability E
0.035 °K nT1 for stability F
(8)
Calculate
and
AH= — —f — (plume rise for calm conditions) (10)
Use the smaller of these two AH's.
This is the final rise.
The distance to final rise is:
If you want to calculate rise for a downwind x less than x/; this is given by
1 fi Fi/SvZ/a
*H=L6FuX (12)
which is the same equation used for unstable and neutral conditions.
7-4
-------
REVISION May 1, 1973
Although under stable conditions the plume begins to rise according to the 2/3 power with
distance, it does not continue the same rate of rise to the distance of final rise, x.f, given by equation
(11). Therefore equation (12) will give a AH higher than the final rise at distances beyond about
2/3 xf. It is therefore recommended that when using equation (12), the result be compared with the
final rise and the smaller value used. In effect then, for determining the plume rise at a distance, x,
during stable conditions, the minimum value of the three values of AH determined by equations
(9), (10) and (12) should be used.
A FORTRAN subroutine to perform these calculations is included here in case it is of use to you.
This is used by a main program by using a CALL BEHO72 statement which has all the variables
included in parenthesis following the BEHO72 as it is in the subroutine statement. Note that both
the final plume height, HF, and the plume height at the distance X, HX, are calculated and given
as output. By having X equal 0 upon entry to the subroutine, only the final rise will be determined.
This subroutine is one of several to be put on the UNAMAP network in the near future.
I want to acknowledge Roger Thompson's valuable assistance in keeping up with plume rise
developments prior to his assignment for University Training, and to Russ Lee, Marvin Green, and
Ed Burt who have pointed out some recent changes.
D. Bruce Turner, NOAA
Acting Chief
Model Application Branch
7-5
-------
SOURCE PROGRAM LISTING
04/30/73
SUBROUTINE BEH072 (HF\HX,HMW,F,DELHF,DISTF,DELHX,HP,TS,YS,D,VF,KST,U,X,
DTHDZ,
1 T,P)
C BEH072 (BRIGGS EFFECTIVE HEIGHT) OCTOBER 1972
C D. B. TURNER. RESEARCH METEOROLOGIST* MODEL APPLICATIONS BRANCH,
C METEOROLOGY LABORATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
C ROOM 316B, NCHS BUILDING, RTP. PHONE (919) 549-8411 EXT 4564
C MAILING ADDRESS: MTL.EPA, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711.
C *ON ASSIGNMENT FROM NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
C ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
C THIS DIFFERS FROM THE AUGUST 1972 VERSION IN STATEMENT 24+1:
C THE CONSTANT 2.4 PREVIOUSLY HAS 2.9, AND IN STATEMENT 27:
C THE CONSTANT 3.14159 PREVIOUSLY HAS 2.4 .
C THIS VERSION OF BRIGGS EFFECTIVE HEIGHT TO CALCULATE PLUME RISE
C FROM A SINGLE SOURCE IS BASED ON:
C 1) BRIGGS.GARY A., 1971: SOME RECENT ANALYSES OF PLUME RISE
C OBSERVATION. PP 1029 - 1032 IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND
C INTERNATIONAL CLEAN AIR CONGRESS, EDITED BY H.M. ENGLUND
C AND W.T. BEERY. ACADEMIC PRESS, NEH YORK.
C 2) BRIGGS.GARY A., 1972: DISCUSSION ON CHIMNEY PLUMES IN
C NEUTRAL AND STABLE SURROUNDINGS. ATMOS. ENVIRON. 6, 507
C - 510. JULY 1972.
C OUTPUT VARIABLES ARE....
C HF FINAL EFFECTIVE PLUME HEIGHT (METERS)
C HX EFFECTIVE PLUME HEIGHT FOR DISTANCE X (MUTERS)
C HMW HEAT OUTPUT OF SOURCE (MW)
C F BUOYANCY FLUX (M**4/SEC**3)
C DELHF FINAL PLUME RISE (METERS)
C DISTF DISTANCE OF FINAL PLUME RISE FROM SOURCE (KM)
C DELHX PLUME RISE AT DISTANCE X (METERS)
C INPUT VARIABLES ARE....
C HP PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT (METERS)
C TS STACK GAS TEMPERATURE (DEG K)
C VS STACK GAS EXIT VELOCITY (M/SEC)
C D INSIDE STACK DIAMETER (METERS)
C VF STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE (M**3/SEC)
C JCST STABILITY (CLASS), SEE PAGE 209 OF PASQUILL,
C ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION. CLASSES DEFINED BY....
C 1 IS PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS A
C 2 IS PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS B
7-7
-------
C 3 IS PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS C
C 4 IS PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS D
C 5 IS PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS E
C 6 IS PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS F
C U HIND SPEED (M/SEC)
C X DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KM)
C DTHDZ POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE LAPSE RATE (DEG K/METER)
C T AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (DEG K)
C P AMBIENT AIR PRESSURE (MB)
C THANKS TO DALE COVENTRY FOR HIS HELPFUL DISCUSSION ON
C PROGRAMMING PLUME RISE, TO ROGER THOMPSON FOR THE COMMENT
C CARDS, AND TO RUSS LEE WHO REVISED THIS ACCORDING TO REFERENCE 1.
C T = 0. MEANS NO AMBIENT TEMPERATURE GIVEN. USE T = 293.
1 T = 293. 3
2 IF(P)3,3,4 4
C P = 0. MEANS NO AMBIENT AIR PRESSURE GIVEN. USE P = 960.
3 P = 960. 5
C IF VF IS NOT GIVEN, CALCULATE IT FROM STACK DATA.
4 IF (VF)5,5,6 6
5 VF = 0.785398*VS*D*D 7
C THE CONSTANT 0.785398 = PI/4
6 F = 3.12139*VF*(TS-T)/TS 8
C THE CONSTANT 3.12139 IS THE ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY / PI
HMW = 0.00011 21 7*F*P 9
C THE CONSTANT 0.00011217 = PI TIMES THE SPECIFIC HEAT OF AIR AT
C CONSTANT PRESSURE (0.24 CAL/GM*DEG K) TIMES MOLECULAR WEIGHT
C OF AIR (28.966 GM/GM.MOLE) DIVIDED BY IDEAL GAS CONSTANT
C (0.0831 MB*M**3/GM.MOLE*DEG K) AND ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY
C (9.80616 M/SEC*SEC) AND THEN MULTIPLIED BY (4.1855E-06 MW/CAL
C PER SEC) TO CONVERT THE ANSWER TO MEGAWATTS.
C GO TO APPROPRIATE BRANCH FOR STABILITY CONDITION GIVEN.
C IF UNSTABLE OR NEUTRAL GO TO 7, IF STABLE GO TO 20.
GO TO (7, 7, 7, 7,20, 20, 20), KST 10
C DETERMINE APPROPRIATE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING XST, DISTANCE AT
C WHICH TURBULENCE BEGINS TO DOMINATE. THE FORMULA USED DEPENDS
C UPON BUOYANCY FLUX. STATEMENTS 8 AND 9 ARE EQUATION (7).
7 IF(F-55.)8,9,9 11
8 XST = 14.*F**0.625 12
GO TO 10 13
7-8
-------
9 XST = 34.*F**0.4 14
10 DISTF = 3.5*XST 15
DELHF = 1.6*F**0.333333*01 STF**0.666667/'J 16
IF(X)29,29,32 17
C IF X = 0.0, CALCULATE FINAL RISE ONLY, IF X IS GREATER THAN
C 0.0, CALCULATE RISE FOR DISTANCE = X ALSO.
32 XM = 1000.*X 18
C XM IS X IN METERS,
C STATEMENT 14 IS EQUATION (6), REFERENCE 1.
14 DELHX = 1.6*F**0.333333*XM**0.666667/U 19
IF(DELHX.6T.DELHF)DELHX=DELHF 20
GO TO 30 21
20 IF(DTHDZ)21,21,24 22
C IF DTHOZ IS NEGATIVE OR ZERO ASSIGN TO IT A VALUE OF 0.02 OR
C 0.035 IF STABILITY IS SLIGHTLY STABLE OR STABLE, RESPECTIVELY.
21 GO TO (7,7,7,7,22,23,23),KST 23
22 DTHDZ =0.02 24
GO TO 24 25
23 DTHDZ = 0.035 26
24 S = 9.80616*DTHDZ/T 27
C THE CONSTANT 9.806IS IS THE ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY.
C S IS A STABILITY PARAMETER.
C CALCULATE PLUME RISE ACCORDING TO EQUATION (4), RLFERENCE 1.
DHA = 2.4*(F/(U*S))**0.333333 28
C CALCULATE PLUME RISE BY EQUATION (5), REFERENCE 1 FOR LIGHT
C WIND CONDITIONS ACCORDING TO MORTON, TAYLOR, AND TURNER.
DELHF = 5.0*F**0.25/S**0.375 29
IF(DHA-0£LHF)25,25,27 30
25 DELHF = DHA 31
C DISTANCE TO FINAL PLUME RISE IS GIVEN 8Y THE FOLLOWING
27 DISTF = 3.14159*U/S**0.5 32
C IF X « 0.0, CALCULATE FINAL RISE ONLY, IF X IS GREATER THAN
C 0.0, CALCULATE RISE FOR DISTANCE = X ALSO,
C IF X IS ZERO OR LESS, GO TO 29 AND SET PLUME RISE AND DISTANCE
C TO MAXIMUM PLUME RISE EQUAL TO ZERO.
IF(X)29,29,33 33
33 XM - 1000.*X 34
C XM IS X IN METERS.
C IF XM IS GREATER THAN THE DISTANCE TO THE POINT OF FINAL PLUME
C RISE, SET PLUME RISE EQUAL TO FINAL PLUME RISE, OTHERWISE,
7-9
-------
CALCULATE PLL'ME RISE FROM EQUATION (6), REFERENCE 1.
IF (XM-DISTF)14,14,28 35
28 DELHX = DELHF 36
GO TO 30 37
29 DELHX =0. 38
HX = 0. 39
GO TO 31 40
CALCULATE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT AT DISTANCE X.
30 HX = HP + DELHX 41
CALCULATE FINAL EFFECTIVE HEIGHT.
31 HF = HP + DELHF 42
DISTF - DISTF/1000. 43
RETURN ' 44
END 45
87 COMMENT CARDS 1 CONTINUATION CARDS 21 NUMBERED STATEMENTS
7-10
-------
Chapter 8
Problem Set 1: Plume Rise
Chapter Goal
To reinforce the material presented in Chapter 7.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. calculate plume rise using specific data from Plume Rise by Briggs and
atmospheric conditions specified by the problem.
2. calculate plume rise enhancement using formulas found in Plume Rise from
Multiple Sources by Briggs and data specified by the problem.
8-1
-------
Attachment 8-1. Problem set 1: plume rise.
Name Date_
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Colbert Power Generation Plant data may be found in Plume
Rise by Briggs. This data will be used throughout the problem set. Calculate the quantities called
for when the appropriate atmospheric conditions are given.
8 Neutral and unstable, when the wind speed is 5 meters per second. Refer to Dispersion
Estimate Suggestion Number 2 (revised) handout.
1. Find x*.
2. Find the distance to final plume rise, xf.
3. Find the Ah at 800 meters downwind.
4. Find the Ah at 1,500 meters downwind.
• Stable, when the wind speed is 2 meters per second, the temperature is 280 K, and 36/dz is
0.02 K per meter.
5. At what distance, x, is x equal to Tru/s1'2?
6. The x in question 5 above is important to plume rise calculations. Why?
7. Find the Ah at 800 meters downwind.
8. Use equation for calm conditions, assuming an inversion at 500 meters, to find Ah.
• As an estimate of possible enhancement in the plume rise from the three stacks at the Colbert
Power Plant, assume a spacing of 100 meters, the number of stacks is three, and use the plume
rise calculated in question 4 above as Ahi. Use the formulas found in Plume Rise from Mul-
tiple Sources by Briggs to calculate the spacing factor, S, the plume enhancement, £„, and
Ahn.
9. Find spacing factor, S.
10. Find plume enhancement, £„.
11. Find Ah,.
8-3
-------
Chapter 9
Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the methods of solving dispersion estimate problems found
in air pollution using the Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (WADE)
by D. B. Turner.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. select from the Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates the appro-
priate formula and procedure for calculating dispersion concentrations given
a specific air pollution situation with appropriate source data, atmospheric
factors, and receptor locations.
2. use the graphs and tables in the Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates to determine the appropriate data to use in the proper formula
given the physical description and meteorological data about an air pollution
problem.
Chapter Outline
I. Estimates of atmospheric dispersion
A. Coordinate system (Figure 9-1)
B. Dispersion equations (Figures 9-2 and 9-3)
C. Standard deviations of wind directions
II. Effective height of emission
A. Plume rise (Holland's equation)
B. Estimating required stack height
C. Effects of evaporative cooling
D. Effect of aerodynamic downwash
9-1
-------
III. Special topics
A. Inversion, breakup, fumigation
B. Plume trapping
C. Comparisons of ground-level concentration to effective stack height con-
centration from elevated sources
D. Total dosage
E. Crosswind-integrated concentrations
F. Sampling times
G. Topography
H. Area sources
IV. Example problems
V. Appendices
(x, - y, z)
x, - y, 0)
Figure 9-1. Coordinate system showing Gaussian distributions in horizontal and vertical.
7T(Tj,ff2U
Where: ayat = standard deviation of plume width and height
Figure 9-2. Generalized Gaussian equation.
9-2
-------
Downwind
concentration
(point source)
c . .
Source emission rate
IT ["Average"] ["Horizontal"! ["Vertical"] ["Effective!
wind plume plume emission
|_ speed J |_ spread J |_ spread J |_ height J
Receptor j
location
distance J
Ground level
source/ground
level receptor
_ . .
Source emission rate
FA1 TH1
WP
LsJ LsJ
Elevated source/
ground level
receptor
c . .
Source emission rate
' [A] rHl rVl TE
W P P E
LsJ LsJ LsJ Ln
Elevated source/
ground level =
receptor
Source emission rate
* rAi rHi rvi rEi rRi
W P P E L
LsJ LsJ LsJ LnJ LoJ
(not on plume centerline)
Figure 9-3. Generalized Gaussian diffusion equation.
JJownwind Area source emission rate
(area source) *" [Average
wind
|_ speed
Adjusted
horizon
plume
spread
Vertical
plume
spread
Effective
emission
height
Receptor!
location
distance J
Downwind
concentration
(line source)
Line source emission rate
. _ fAl [VI
VS W P
LsJ LsJ
average
concentration
S
= E
s=l
[Source emission rate] [Frequencies of w/s, w/d, stability]
n=l
r- TA1
V27T W
LsJN
Downwind |
distance
S L factor
1ME1
E
J LnJ:
Figure 9-4. Special forms of Gaussian diffusion equation.
9-3
-------
Attachment 9-1. Dispersion estimate suggestion no. 1, November 7, 1972
(Model Application Branch).
Subject: Estimation of 3-hour and 24-hour average concentrations
In order to obtain some degree of uniformity in performing calculations of air
pollution concentrations from point sources among EPA's air pollution
meteorologists, the following suggestions are made:
Calculate plume rise by using methods suggested by Briggs (1970) as modified by
his discussion (1972).
Assume that estimates made using equations (excluding equation 5.12, page 38)
and sigmas suggested by the Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
(WADE) are valid for averaging times up to one hour.
To make an estimate of concentrations for a longer averaging time such as
3-hours or 24-hours, perform calculations for each hour of the period and average
the hourly concentrations to obtain the concentration for the longer averaging
time. Since interest is frequently on the maximum concentration during this
period, the difficulty is in designating the location (azimuth and range) of the
receptor that will receive the maximum impact from the source. If conditions are
relatively stationary during this period, the mean direction and the distance of
maximum for this stability and wind speed can be used for an estimate of this loca-
tion. For changing conditions, calculations may need to be made at several recep-
tors to approximate the maximum.
Because of interest in the estimation of short period maximum concentrations
(3-hour to 24-hour) with a frequency of occurrence of once per year, a computa-
tional scheme was recently developed by the Model Application Branch with
assistance from the Computer Techniques Group, Division of Meteorology to
estimate the maximum 24-hour concentration for a year for single sources. This
computational scheme can be considered a "brute force' approach as concentra-
tions for each hour of the year 1964 (the only year that data from Asheville is
readily available for 24 hours per day with wind direction to 10°) are calculated
and the 24-hour concentration for each day is determined. Concentrations at 180
receptors (36 azimuths and 5 ranges) are found. An Interim User's Guide has been
made available for this system. It is anticipated that technical review will require
some modification to the calculations. Validation using air quality data near a
point source is desirable, if suitable data can be found. A final User's Guide will be
prepared and distributed by the Model Application Branch within the next several
months.
Briggs, Gary A., 1971. Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observations, pp.
1029-1032, in Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress, edited
by H. M. Englund and W. T. Berry, New York: Academic Press.
Briggs, Gary A., 1972. Discussion on Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable Sur-
roundings, Atmospheric Environment 6: 507-510.
9-5
-------
Chapter 10
Class Exercise 1
Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates:
Stability and Receptor Distance
Chapter Goal
To reinforce the material presented in Chapter 9.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. work dispersion estimate problems, given adequate information about par-
ticular situations.
2. identify the different forms of the Gaussian equation and explain their
application to dispersion estimate situations.
Chapter Outline
I. Examples of dispersion estimates problems
A. Stability (Figure 10-1).
B. Centerline concentration from an elevated source, sunny summer after-
noon (Figure 10-2).
C. Centerline concentration from ground-level source (Figure 10-3).
D. Centerline concentration from an elevated source, cloudy day, Stability D
(Figure 10-4).
E. Off centerline concentration (Figure 10-5).
Support Material
D. B. Turner, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
10-1
-------
Example Problems (Figures 10-1—10-5)
Student Worksheets
Given: sunny summer afternoon
Windspeed _
Insolation is_
Stability class is_
Figure 10-1. Stability: sunny summer afternoon.
Given: sunny summer afternoon
Where:
u= 4 m/s
elevated source
H = 20m
Q.= 100 g/s
Receptor distance 200 m
Srahility =
0 =
U =
fJy =
(J. —
H =
y =
exp- W=
1 1°' J
exp-'^ I"X]=
p L°v-J
1000m
Figure 10-2. Receptor distance: sunny summer afternoon.
10-2
-------
Given: clear night
Where: u = 2m/s
ground-level source
Q_= 100 g/s
x ~
•m
Receptor distance 200 m
Stability =
0 =
u =
(T,. =
ni =
T_T
v —
-1/2 fH2!
exp 1/2 — =
1 L^J
«P- rxi=
F Lff/J
\=
1000 m
Figure 10-3. Receptor distance: clear night.
10-3
-------
Given: stability "D"
Where:
u = 4 m/s
elevated source
H = 20m
Q_=100g/s
iff exP
Receptor distance 200 m
Stability =
0 =
n =
ay —
ni ~
H =
y =
e,p- [«!] =
' 1°' J
exp-"« 1 X]=
L^-J
\ =
1000m
Figure 10-4. Receptor distance: stability "D".
10-4
-------
Given: stability "B"
Where: u = 4m/s
ground-level source
concentration 50 meters off centerline
Q,= 100 g/s
Receptor distance 200 m
Stability =
0 =
u =
ny =
n.=
H =
•y =
-1/2 I"H2]
exp 1/2 — - =
1 l°S\
pxp-"2 Xl=
1 L°/J
X =
1000 m
Figure 10-5. Receptor distance: stability "B
10-5
-------
Chapter 11
Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters
in Gaussian Plume Modeling I and II
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with a few of the important atmospheric dispersion parameters
used in Gaussian plume modeling techniques. Emphasized are their development
and their similarities and differences.
Chapter Objective
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. calculate the Richardson number, Slade's sigma 6, Smith's P, and sigma y
given sufficient meteorological data at a particular location.
Chapter Outline
I. Theoretical basis of the Gaussian plume modeling and dispersion parameters
A. Conservation of mass—diffusion equation
B. Gradient transport theories
C. Statistical theories of diffusion
D. Lagrangian similarity theories
E. Contemporary numerical models of dispersion
II. Experimental evaluations of stability and dispersion parameters
A. Stability parameters and typing schemes
B. Diffusion measurement techniques
C. Plume diffusion experiments
D. Empirical sigma schemes
E. Accuracy of dispersion estimates
11-1
-------
Chapter 12
Problem Set 2: Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates
Chapter Goal
To reinforce the material presented in Chapters 9 and 10.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. work dispersion estimate problems given adequate information about par-
ticular situations.
2. identify the different forms of the Gaussian equation and explain their
applications to dispersion estimate situations.
Support Material
D. B. Turner, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
12-1
-------
Attachment 12-1. Problem set 2: dispersion estimates.
Name
Date
A source emits 100 grams per second of effluent into the atmosphere with an effective stack
height of 100 meters. A subsidence inversion at 500 meters above the surface limits vertical
dispersion. The wind speed is 4 meters per second and the stability class is B. What is the
ground-level, centerline concentration at 500 meters downwind from the source? At a distance of
5 kilometers downwind, how many times higher is the ground-level, centerline concentration
with the inversion than the concentration at the same receptor, if there was no limit to vertical
mixing?
A proposed source is to emit 72 grams per second of SO2 from a stack 30 meters high with a
diameter of 1.5 meters. The effluent gases are emitted at a temperature of 394 K with an exit
velocity of 13 meters per second. Assume the design ambient air temperature is 20°C. Use
stability class A and Briggs' plume rise formulas to determine the critical wind speed for the
stability class. Use Figure 12-1 and a downwind distance of 200 meters.
u
(m/s)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Ah
(m)
H
(m)
Xu
Q
(/m2)
Q.
u
(g/m)
X
(g/m3)
Figure 12-1. Maximum concentration versus wind speed.
3. The particle counts shown in Figure 12-2 were observed at sampling stations 400 meters apart.
The relationship of the stations to plume center line is shown in Figure 12-3. What is the effec-
tive ay for this sample run? Use the graph paper provided to solve this problem.
Sampling
station
1
2
3
4
Left
side
157
96
18
14
Centerline
210
Right
side
182
110
22
18
Figure 12-2. Station sampling data.
12-3
-------
c
4321
L
i i i i
1234
Figure 12-3. Plotting scheme for data.
4. An inventory of emissions has been made in an urban area by square areas, 1524 meters on a
side. The emissions from one such area are estimated to be 6 grams per second for the entire
area. The effective stack height of the sources within each area is assumed to be 20 meters. The
wind is from the south at 2.5 meters per second on a thinly overcast night. If the source areas
have the configuration shown below, what is the percentage contribution of emissions from area
A to the center point of area D? Also assume that the emissions from areas A and C are equal.
N
i
D
C
i
B
A
*
6
1O
}
Figure 12-4. Area source illustration.
12-4
-------
5. An apartment building is located at the sampling point 300 meters downwind from an
expressway. The expressway runs north-south and the wind is from the west at 4 meters per
second. It is 5:30 in the afternoon on an overcast day. The measured traffic flow is 8,000
vehicles per hour during this rush hour and the average vehicle speed is 40 miles per hour. At
this speed the average vehicle is expected to emit 0.02 grams per second of total hydrocarbons.
How much lower, in percent, will the hydrocarbon concentration be on the top of the building
as compared with the concentration estimated at ground level? Assume a standard floor to be
314 meters in height.
Receptor
r
• II I
I I
• II
Figure 12-5. Source/receptor relationship.
12-5
-------
Chapter 13
Air Quality Models on UNAMAP
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the air quality models that are currently available on the
computerized UNAMAP series.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. recall the method of determining plume rise for each of the models available
on UNAMAP.
2. recall the method of determining plume dispersion used in each of the air
quality models available on UNAMAP.
3. recognize the limitations of each of the air quality models available on
UNAMAP.
4. interpret data obtained from use of each of the air quality models available
on UNAMAP.
Chapter Outline
I. Series Three models
A. APRAC-1A
B. CDM
C. CDMQC
D. CRSTER
E. HI WAY
F. PAL
G. PTDIS
H. PTMAX
I. PTMPT
J. ISC
K. RAM
L. VALLEY
II. Types of algorithms
A. Size of computer core required
B. Character of model
C. Receptor/source oriented
D. Factors required by algorithm
13-1
-------
III. Computer algorithms for handling input parameters
A. Plume rise
B. Plume dispersion
C. Atmospheric stability
D. Mixing height
E. Wind speed and direction
IV. Discussion of models on UNAMAP
A. APRAC-1A
B. CDM
C. CDMQC
D. HI WAY
E. PTXXX
V. UNAMAP air quality model outlook
Support Material
D. B. Turner, User's Guide to PTXXX Air Quality Models: PTMAX, PTDIS,
PTMTP.
13-2
-------
Attachment 13-1. A partial model listing of UNAMAP.
1. Busse, A. D. and Zimmerman, J. R. User's Guide for the Climatological Dispersion Model,
USEPA, EPA-R4-73-024, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. 144 pages.
2. Zimmerman, J. R. and Thompson, R. S. User's Guide for HIWAY, a Highway Air Pollution
Model, USEPA, EPA-650/4-74-008, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972. 74 pages.
3. Mancuso, R. L. and Ludwig, F. L. User's Manual for the APRAC-1A Urban Diffusion Model
Computer Program, USEPA, EPA-650/3-73-001, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972. Ill pages.
(Available from NTIS as publication PB213091.)
4. Turner, D. B. and Busse, A. D. User's Guides for PTXXX Point Source Dispersion Programs
(draft), USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. 29 pages.
5. Petersen, W. B. User's Guide for PAL, a Gaussian-Plume Algorithm for Point, Area, and Line
Sources, USEPA, EPA-600/4-78-013, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1978. 63 pages.
6. Brubaker, K. L. et al. Addendum to User's Guide for Climatological Disperison Model, USEPA,
EPA-450/3-77-015, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977. 134 pages.
(Guldberg talks about the balance.)
13-3
-------
Chapter 14
Introduction to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models
Chapter Goal
The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize you with the Guideline on Air Quality
Models, EPA 450/2-78-027, and the air quality models recommended by the
Guideline for use in air pollution dispersion modeling.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. recall the models that are recommended for use in air quality modeling.
2. recall the uses of the Guideline as it applies to new source reviews, prevention
of significant deterioration, and control strategies.
Chapter Outline
I. Atmospheric dispersion modeling
A. Important in new source reviews, control strategy analysis, and prevention
of significant deterioration
B. Mathematical set of equations
C. Predictive tool
II. Guideline on Air Quality Models
A. Origin
B. General description
C. Status and uses
D. Recommended modeling procedures
III. Workbook for Comparisons of Air Quality Models
A. Purpose
B. Principal contents
C. Use (practical)
14-1
-------
Table 14-1. Models applicable to specific pollutants, sources, and averaging times.
Point sources
SO2 and PM
All averaging
times
CRSTER
RAM
PTXXX models
ISC
VALLEY
Multi-sources
SO2 and PM
Annual
average
AQJ)M
TCM
CDM/CDMQC
Rollback
Multi-sources
SO2 and PM
Short-term
averages
Rollback
TEM
RAM
CDMQC
AQDM
NO2
Annual
average
Rollback
COM
0*
1-hour
average
EKMA
Rollback
CO
1- and 8 -hour
averages
Rollback
HIWAY
PAL
Holzworth
APRAC-1A
APRAC 2
14-2
-------
Attachment 14-1. Modeling bibliography.
CRSTER User's Manual for the Single Source (CRSTER) Model, EPA-450/2-77-013, July
1977.
Addendum to the User's Manual for the Single Source (CRSTER) Model,
November 1979.
User Information for the Modified CRSTER Program, USEPA Region IV, Atlan-
ta, Ga.
Guideline on Air Quality Models (revised), October 1980.
EKMA/OZIPP Guideline for the Interpretation of the Ozone Air Quality Standard,
EPA-450/4-79-003, January 1979.
Uses, Limitations, and Technical Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relation-
ships Between Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a and b,
November 1977 and February 1978.
User's Manual for Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth Plotting Package, EPA-
600/8-78-014a, July 1978.
ISC Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide, Volumes I and
II, EPA-450/4-79-030 and 031, December 1979.
Addendum to the ISC Model User's Guide, 1980.
MOBILE1 User's Guide to MOBILE1: Mobile Source Emissions Model, EPA-400/9-78-007,
August 1978.
Mobile Source Emissions Factors, EPA-400/9-78-005, March 1978.
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 9
(revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources, EPA-450/4-78-001, September 1978.
MPTER User's Guide for MPTER, EPA-600/8-80-016, April 1980.
PBLSQ Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans, EPA-450/2-78-038, August 1978.
RAM User's Guide for RAM, Volumes I and II, EPA-600/8-78-016a and b, November
1978.
Auer, A., "Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies,"
Journal of Applied Meteorology, 17: 636-643, 1978.
VALLEY VALLEY Model User's Guide, EPA-450/2-77-018, 1977.
Addendum to the VALLEY Model User's Guide, October 1979.
Workshop on Atmospheric Dispersion Models in Complex Terrain,
EPA-600/9-79-041, November 1979.
14-3
-------
Chapter 15
Elements and Applications of the
Single Source (CRSTER) Model
Chapter Goal
To familiarize students with the Single Source model presently available on the
UNAMAP computer package.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. describe the application of the Single Source model to a given
source and surrounding terrain features.
2. describe the accuracy of the Single Source model under given source-receptor
conditions.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (CRSTER).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Elements and Applications of the Single Source
(CRSTER) Model.
15-1
-------
Attachment 15-1. Hourly surface observation station listing 9-24-80.
NAME
33643
1 1 6 4 1
2645 >
2641 !
26--'i 3 3
'.'^liV-/
33876
1337A
3.3876
Y
03856
13:594
33894
93855
Y
3.3895
13895
93992
93993
3.3963
231B3
233 94"
931 9 3
23174
23174
03302
93225
23188
23234
2 3 2 3 4
23190
23237
93214
23062
23062
2306A
93058
94702
94702
TINEil.
94702
54729
TIN El.
34750
94772
BAN JUAN/38 i.'FRDF/F'R
SAN JUAN/ IS MERDE/FR
ANCHORAGE-
FAIRBANKS
FAIFCBANKB
1 1 1 N F A 1 !
KENAJ /HUN 3
B3 Rf'13 NOh'Af'1
BIRMINGHAM
BIRMINGHAM
HUN TSUI I LE
MOBILE/BATES
f'lOBii. E: /BATE: 8
MOBTI E/BATEB
f'l 0 N T G 0 1'\ E R Y / D A N N ELI Y'
fiON rOOl'lERY/DANNELi Y
E:. 1. D 0 F:: A D 0 / G 0 0 D U' J N
FAYET fEVILLE/DRAKE FIELD
LITTLE; ROCK/ADAMB
PHOENIX/SKY HARBOR
in:N8i oi.i
FRESNO SI1;: TERM/HAMMER
LOB ANGEl. P8
LOS ANGELES
ON'! AR 3 0/3. NIL
SACRAMENTO/METRO
BAN D3.FGO/1. 3 NDBERGH
SAN FRANCISCO
BAN F'-RANCIBCO
SANTA BARBARA/MUNI
BTOCKTON/HE:.T
M AND EN BERG AFB
DENMER/BTAPl. ETON
DENVER/STAPEETON
GRAND JUNCTION/WALKER
PUEBLO/MEMORIAL
BRIDGEPORT
BRIDGEPORT
Y
BRIDGEPORT
D ANBURY
Y
HARTEORD^RADL EY
NEW HAMEN
1. Y
93738
TINE
UASH3.NGTON/IH)L1
Y
3 3 7 '• 3 W A B HIN G T 0 N / N A T 3 0 f [ A [..
TINELY
33743
13889
WASJH3 NGT ON/NAT 3 ONA1
JACKSONVILLE
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AL
AL
AL
A I.
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
A P.;
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
DC
DC
DC
FL
BEG
01/01/78
01/01/77
03/03/6S
01/01/74
Ol/Oj/77
0. I/ (31/74
03/03/74
0.1/0 I./ 6 5
01/01/78
(31/01/6S
01/03/79
01/01 /7C)
01/01/78
01 /01/71
01/01/79
01/05/70
01/01/77
01 /03/77
01/01/74
01/03 /73
01/01/77
01/03/68
01/01/77
03/03/6S
01/01/77
03/0 3/74
(H/01 /74
01/03/74
01/01/74
oi/oi/6':.
01/01/74
10/01/75
01/01/79
03/01/6S
.11/01/67
03/01/77
01/0.1/73
0 I/O 1/6 S
06/01/80
01/03/70
06/0 1/ BO
01/01/70
06/01 /BO
06/03/80
06/0 3 /BO
03/03 /61;.
0.1/01/70
EMI.'
3 2/33 //B
30/33/77
12/31/74
12/31/74
3 2/33 /7B
02 /28/72
32/33/78
12/31/6S
1 2/31/79
3. 2/33/7/i
12/31/7G
5 2/33 /7'"p
12/31/79
12/31/76
32/31/77
12/31/78
32/31/77
32/31/68
3.2/31/76
12/33/78
12/31/7o
32/33/74
12/31/74
06/30/69
12/31/78
03/31/77
12/3.1/79
12/33/6!:.
06/31/69
.1.2/31/74
02/28/6^
OB/31 /BO
3.2/31/74
08/31 /BO
3.2/33 /;//,
08/3.1 /BO
08/33 /BO
08/33/80
32/33/74
12/31/74
REMARKS
LIBRARY
ROUTINE
L3E'.F3H [-'DIT
LIBRARY"
U0347^
LIBRARY
>JH KEfY ETN1R
Llf.RARY
W03475
I. )f'.RARY
IN KEY E!iNTR
LJf^RARY.
ROUTINE-:
C 3 3 ^i A
IN LC'IT
LJ.f.RARY
ROUTINt:
Llf.RARY
ROUriNE
LIE^.RARY
ROUTINE
1H LDJT
IN EDIT
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIEUxARY
IH EDIT
LIBRARY
IN DPS
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
ROUTINE-'.
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
PROCESS ROU
Llf.RARY
PROCESS ROM
LIBRARY
PROCESS ROU
F:'ROn:S8 ROU
PF
-------
5 78:1V
1283'?
j 2 c : ..-'. V
12839
Y
5.281 5
03855
93805
12842
Y
5 284 2
1284 2
5 2844
1387',
5.3874
13874
03t:20
03813
03822
03822
Y
93845
E'MENT
22525.
.14931
Y
54990
.1 4 9 9 0
54937
94908
Y
j. 4940
14950
j 4 9 4 3
949.10
24535
24131
24535.
24156
3 4 8 5. 9
94846
94846
14923
3.4923
Y
3.4842
94822
93822
93817
9381 7
93817
5 4827
93819
9385. 9
11848
93823
93823
5.3985
139B5
33985
jAnTOi1'1.1] ! i r
n ( A n i
M i A n i
ORl ANf>0
PPNSACO! A
TAI. 1 APiABSF T
TAMPA
TAMPA
TAMPA
UF-B1 PALM BFAOH
ATLANTA
ATI A NT A
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
MAC ON
SAVANNAH
SAVANNAH
VAl DOS! A
ONLY
MONO LULU/ JOHN ROGFKB
BURLING FOH
OF: DAP RAPIDS
GPDAR RAP 1 1)8
[>FB HOI NFS
DUBI.JQUE
MASON CITY
OTTOMAWA
SIOUX CITY
WATERLOO
BO] BF
BOISE
BO ISP'
POGATELLO
G H I G AGO/0 HARP
OHTCAGO/OHAFvF
MOI.1NE/QUADACITY
HOI. INP/UUADAGITY
PFORIA'GRFATFR PFORIA
ROGKPORD/GRTR ROGKPOR!)
SPK3NGF3 FI.D/OAP] TA!
P V A N 8 V I L 1 . F / D P; P S 8
F VAN BY 11 1 F/f^RFSS
EVANSVILLE/DRFBG
FT HAYNF/BAFR
IND:CANAPOLI8/UPIR COOK
IW>3 ANAPOt. IS/UriR GOOK
SOUTH BEND/GT JOFJ
TFPRF HAU'f F./HUl MAN
TERRP HAUTE/HU I.HAN
nOF.iOF CITY
DODGF GITY
DODGF f:]TY
PL
PL
F- i
L
PL
n.
PL
PI.
PL
FL
PL
PL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
I A
I A
TA
I A
I A
3 A
I A
I A
I A
3. t>
I'D
ID
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
I n
\ N
3N
IK
KS
K.S
KB
05 /05. // 5
01/01/77
0 3 / 0 3. / 7 C.i
01/01/78
02/05/74
01/01/78
05 /05/77
01/01/79
05 -'05 /7S
01/01/70
50/05/75
01/01/74
05/01/70
01 70.1/65
05 /05/74
0.1/01/74
05/05/78
01/0.1/79
05. / 05/7 2
05. 70 3/77
01/01/75
01/01/75
04/26/75
05/03/75
01/01/75
05 /05./75
01/01/75
05./05./75
01/01/75
05 /05/74
01/0.1/66
05V 01/77
0 1 / ( U / 7 4
05/05/65
09/0.1/65
3. 3V 05/6 7
01/01/73
05/05./7E::
05/05 770
01/0.1/73
05. 70 1/73
01/01/78
05/05/70
01/01/79
01/03/73
01/0.1/77
05. 705. 772
0.1/01/73
05/0 1/7 3
08/01/74
0.1/03. / 7 5.
01/01/77
03./n3/75
5 2/31/65
5. 2 / 3 5 / 7 6
.12/3.1/79
• 5 2/35. //ci
12/31/78
12/31/79
3 2/35/78
12/31/75
03/35./77
12/31/78
12/33/73
06/30/69
52/35/78
12/31/78
5.2/3 3. //£<
12/31/79
32/33V76
12/31/79
04/25/75
12/31/79
12/35/79
12/31/79
12/35 /79
12/31/79
12/31/79
12/31/79
5.2/35.776
12/31/66
12/31/74
5.2/31/77
03/31/66
06/30/69
12/31/77
12/35/79
5.2/31/77
12/31/77
3.2/35V77
12/31/78
12/31/77
12/31/79
32/31/77
32/3176
12/31/77
06/30/74
12/3.1/78
32/33/73
12 ' 3 5. 776
LIBRARY
R 0 U TINT-;
L IF'.RARY
IN KEY ENTR
wn 3 4 £'.•/•
U03A75
F;:OUT] NF
IN KEY ENTR
W0347T>
LIBRARY
I ] BRARY
U03472
1.3 BRARY
LIBRARY
W034B9
U'03V/2
UG3475
IN KEY ENTR
BFLFCIFD FL
FOOIITIHF.
IN KEY ENTR
1403847
WO 38 4 7
WCJ384&
IN KEY ENTR
W0304B
W03848
UI03B4B
14038^ 7
I IBRARY
LIBRARY
ROUT INF
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
L 3 BRARY
LIBRARY
IN KFY FNTR
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
COMPLETED
1 IBRARY
EDIT
LIBRARY
ROUTINE
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
1 IBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
ROUTINE
IN KEY EHff
15-4
-------
Y
5 3 V 9 •'-.
13994
03940
03940
03940
03940
53865
24143
14942
14942
3.3BB5
Y
53BB3.
13723
13723
13722
13722
13722
2405.1
240.11
5495.4
14916
34942
Y
14942
ST ! OUIS/I AMBTRT
ST LOUIS/LAMBERT
JACKS OH/ THOMPSON
.JACKSON/ THOMPSON
JACKSON/THOMPSON
JACKSON/ THOMPSON
MERIF>] AN
GREAT FALLS
OMAHA/EPPI F'Y-
OMAIIA/EI-TLEY
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO/GSO-FEC
GREENGBORO/GSO--HI
RALEIGH
R A 1 E: I G H / F:' A 1 E 3 G F ! - D H R H A M
R ALE 1 13 H / R A 1.. E I (3 H - D U R H A M
BISMARCK
BISMARCK
EARGO
GRAHD FORKS/ IN VI.
OMAHA
OMAHA
14745 CONCORD
T1NEIY
94741 EETERBORO
TINELY
54730 MORRISTOWN
TINELY
5.4734 NEWARK
14734 NEWARK
TIMELY
14734
2305G
230SO
0 4 7 0 1
03160
NEWARK
ALBIJQnERQUE/SUNPT--K:[RT
I S L I P /
A C A R T H U f<
ROCK
23.154 ELY/YELL AMD
23169 LAS VEGAS/MCCARIAN
14735 ALBAMY
14733 BUF-EAL 0
14733 BUFFALO
54733 BUFFALO
14705 FARHINODAI.E
"IINELY
047B5 ISLIP
TINELY
947B9
94789
947B9
NEW
NEW
NEW
94789 NEW
YORK/FT TOTTEH
YORK/FT TO ITEM
YORK/FT TOTTEN
YORK/FT TOTTEN
947B9
YIKG
947S9
NEW YORK/JEK
NEW YORK/KENNEDY
no
MO
('U':
MS
ns
MS
ns
MT
NB
NB
HC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
}-!()
KD
KD
NP
HE
NE
NH
NJ
NJ
K.I
NJ
NJ
NM
NH
NU
NV
NM
Ny
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
05/01/72
01/01/6^
03 / 01/77
01/0.1/76
01/01/74
09/01/72
01/03A74
01/01/77
01/01/77
01/01/66
CU / 01/79
01/05/74
01/01/74
01/01/70
01/01/74
01/01/72
01/01/65
01/05/70
0.1 /O.r../ 7 7
05 /01/73
01/01/74
01/01/7S
05 /OJ/77
06 701 /BO
06/01 /BO
06/05 ./CO
05 /Ci5/6c;.
06/01/80
01/05 /70
01/01/77
01/05/73
01/01/74
Ol)/05/7B
01/01/77
05/01/77
11/01/67
ni ,/ni /6r>
01/0.1/73
05/05/70
06/0.1 /SO
5 2/7,5 /77
12/31/65
52/35/70
12/31/76
52/31/7T.
12/31/73
12/35/7B
52/33/7B
12/31/66
52/35 /79
12/35/78
12/31/7S
32/31/74
12/31/78
32/35/73
12/31/65
3 2/33 /70
12/3.1/78
12/35/77
12/31/78
12/31/76
08/31/80
08/3 5 /SO
OB/3 5. /BO
06/30/67
08/31/80
32/35 /76
12/31/76
.12/31/78
32/33./7B
12/31/74
07/35/66
12/31/77
12/33/74
08/31/80
! JBF'ARY
LIBRARY
W0347.V
LIBRARY
1/0347?
LIBRARY
M03472
ROUTINE
1. 3BRARY
LIBRARY
)N KEY F
W034B9
U03472
LIBRARY
W03489
LIBRARY
LI BRA IvY
i JE'.RARY
LIBRARY
t: 3. i 4 4
IN EDIT
IN KEY E
f ROUTINE
PROCESS
PROCESS
PROCESS
.IBRARY
:'ROCESS
.IBRARY
ROUTINE
.lE'.RARY
IN EDIT
LJ.F.'.RARY
ROUTINE
ROUTINE
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
C 1 1 4 4
LIBRARY
PROCESS
NTR
NTR
RCU
ROO
ROU
ROU
ROU
TINELY
1473? NE:W
YORK/L AGUARtn A
NY
NY
NY-
NY
NY
NY
.NY
NY
06/05/BO
11/01/67
01/01/65
03 / 05/70
01/0.1 /66
03/05/74
06/OJ/BO
06/fii/BO
OB/33/BO
06/30/69
02/28/65
3 2/33/70
03/31/66
12/33 ''7B
OB/3 3/BO
08/33/BO
PROCESS ROU
AWAITING KE
PROCESS ROU
PROCF:SS ROU
15-5
-------
6 TOPTKA
Y
93l:U 4 COU3 NoT ON/OTR C:INI<
938 1--; POVlNi^rON/GTR CIMN
93B20 !E X'J iU-;'(OM
93820 |.ll'X:( NOTON
Y
I OU3 Sl-'3 I LEVSTAN03 I ORD
LOUIS's111. 1. r/STAK'[>3 TOF;D
LOUIS '-.'ILLE/STANOII-'OKD
13935 ALEXAHPRIA/E8LER
5 3076 L AfAYE:TTF:/R[T--3 ONAL
LAKE CHARLES
LAKE:
NEW o
03837
03937
12916
53957 ^HRF-'VLPORT
1^739 BOSTON/LOGAN
5.4739 ['.OSTON/LOGA?-'
14739 BOSTON/LOGAN
T3NLLY
93725. BA1. T3f[!OF'Fr/rF.:)FN[»BHlP
93721 BALTIMORE/FRIEJJDSM t P
'I 1ME 1 Y
93725 BA1 T 3MOF;E;/F Rl E:NFn:f! 3 F'
24011 BISDAPrK
1/954 rAROO/ti'Fii.'TOR
93720 SAL H5BURY/U ICOM .ICO CO
146rU, AUGUST A/AUBUf:TA S-:TATE:
14607 CARIBOU
94£:49 Al PEfN/F-'HE-LfS COLLINS
94847 DETROIT/METROPOLITAN
94047 DE:'TR03.T/ME-:TkOPOl. ITAN
9Ai!]NAtVIR] -CITY
14847 GAULT 8TE MARIE
54953 EH!!. UTH
94931 HIBBTNG/CHI8HOLM
3HTE-RNAT10NAL F ALL S
MINNEAPOLIS/5?. 1' PAUL
ROC:HE f:TE"R
COLUMBIA REC/ERM
KANSAS C:)TY< AIRPORT)
5 4 9 5 8
14922
54925
03945
03947
Y
KANSAS OlTY
SPR1N8F in F>
K8
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
I. A
LA
LA
LA
I A
MA
MA
MA
MO
no
MM
MI>
no
MO
m:
nt-:
MI
MI
MI
HI
ni
M I
MI
ni
Ml
M:C
Ml
MI
MN
MN
MN
MM
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
05/03 /75
05/05/75
05/01/73
o i./o i/ 65
05. / 05/7 4
06/08/77
U1/05V79
CUV CUV 7 £5
01/01/7!]
08 /05V 7 2
(3 .1 / 0 1 / 7 6
01 /CUV 7 4
01/01/77
CUV 05/6 6
01/01/68
05/01/70
01/01/77
05 /CUV 6 9
06/01/80
09/01/65
06/01/80
1 5/05/67
01/01/77
CUV CUV 7 3
01/01/68
CUV CUV 7 4
0.1/01/77
05 /CUV/3
01/0.1/73
CUV 0 5/65
07/0.1/73
01 / 01/70
01/01/75
05 /CUV 7 3
01/01/73
05/C.UV73
0.1/01/73
01/01/7/1
01/01/73
0 5/05/73
01/01/72
05V 05V 7 3
0.1/0.1/70
05/01/73
01/01/77
05 /05V 75
CU/05 /75
05/05/75
12/35 /7V
1 2 / 3 5 ' ' 9
5.2/35/77
12/31/6S
HA /nf',/77
12/31/78
1.2/31/79
5.2 /35V 70
12/31/77
07/35V74
12/31/76
5.2/35 /70
5.2/35V66
06/30/68
J2/35V74
5 2/35 /'?{•
08/31/80
03/31 /66
08/31/80
CiA/30/69
1.2/31 /77
12/31/72
52/35V7P
5.2/35/77
0 5 / * I / 7 "<;
5.2/31V6B
12/31/77
5.2/35/77
12/31/77
5. 2/3 5V 7 7
12/31/76
5.2/35/77
.12/31/77
52/35V7F;
12/3.1/77
52/35/77
12/31/75
12/31/77
12/31/77
5.2/31/77
5.2/31/79
52/35/79
52/35/79
)N KfY TMH/
)N KfY IWTR
LJf'.KARY
LIBRARY
WO 3/1^9
W034?:]
IK KLY L'HTF'
IMOW.VS
LIBRARY
LJBF-:AF.;Y
LIBRARY
IK' E-:03T
ROUT. i Mr:
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
C.:l5Vt4
ROUTINE
LIBRARY
PROCESS ROIJ
LIBRARY
PROCESS ROM
LIBRARY
ROUTINE
C].5.-'i''i
LIBRARY
IN LDJT
ROUTINE
C'li/./i
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
01544
f 31144
LIBRARY
I IBRARY
IN EDIT
Gil 4 4
015.44
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
C1544
ROUTINE
IN KEY EKTR
IN KEY ENTR
IN KEY f.K'TR
15-6
-------
TINELY
11/32
11757
1175?
1 4768
01711
91715
TINELY
91715
11895
9381 1
118 2 0
11821
93815
93815
ORK
9381 5
11891
91830
11852
11852
21221
21225 flEDEORD/JACKSON CITY
21225 ttEETOREVJAOKBON CKfY
21225 MEDEORD/JACKSON CITY
21229 PORTLAND
NEW YORK/I AC-MART'] A
f'OUGHKEiEPBH /tnnOHE BB CO
ROCHESTER/MONROE CO
BCHE:NF OTAPY CO
WHITE PLAINS
WHITE PI. AD NS/WCHBTR
AKRON/AKRON CANTON
CINCINFA'f 1
CLEMELAND/HOPKINS
COL UMEMJB/PORT CO!. UMEUIB
DAYTON
E:° AY'I ON
[>AY
[>AYTON/JM COX
riANEIELO/LAHM
TOl EE>0
YOUNGSTOWN
TUL8A
ABTORIA/Ci ATBOP CO
EUOENE/MAHLON SWEET
PORTLAND
2122
21232 BALEf'l/nCHARY
137
13?
1 3 7
137
137
1.3?
137
918
918
~r» ' ''
'j Q
•/-.;
"J, c-'
39
~' r-'
39
9 V
9 (
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
H1LADELPHIA
HILADELPH]A
HILADELPHIA
HIEA,nEEPHIA
HILADELPHIA
HILADELPHIA
HILADELPHIA
ITTBEHIRGH
ITTSBURGH/GTR PITTSBOH
13880 CHARLESTON
13880 CHARLESTON
Y
i388fi CHARI EBTON
13883 COUJMIVCA
Y
11 vll B30UX f A! 1 B
Y
J7.f:/? t:R]B10l /TRI [:]TY
13882 CHATTANOOGA
93850 CHATTANOOGA
Y
13891 KMOXA'H. I. E;
13893 M (-IMP HIS
j v f;c;.-/. Mr t<\\'-\\ ] c;
MY
NY-
NY
NY
NY
NY
MY
OH
OH
OH
(Ml
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
RI
SC
BO
SC
SC
BD
TN
TN
TN
TN
"IN
TN
TN
1 0 / 0 1 / 7 5'
01/01/77
01/01 /71
10/0 1/75
[il /[i 1/76
06/01/80
01/01 /71
01/01/73
[11 /01/7B
01/01/69
01/01/73
o.i/o.l /J?n
01/01/80
[H/01/70
01/01/73
01/01/73
01/01/73
01/01/73
01/01/73
[11/01/71
01/01/71
01/01/77
01/01/71
[11 /01/77
01/01/66
10/01/69
01/01/71
01 /01/71
01/01/71
[i 1/0 1/ 73
01/01/77
01. / 01/7 8
01/01/65
05/01/72
01/01/71
01/01/79
01/01/80
[i 1/0 1/77
01/01/70
01/01/70
01/01/70
Oi / 0'l/7 9
01/01/78
01/01/71
01/01/75
[11/0 1/68
01/01/70
01 /[i 1/7 8
01/01/79
01 /01/70
01/01/72
01/01/79
12/31/77
12/31 /77
12/35/78
03/31/77
12/31/77
08/31 780
1 2/31 /?8
12/31/77
12/31/78
12/31/77
12/31/77
12/31/80
12/31/77
12/31/77
12/31/77
12/31/73
12/31/77
12/31/73
1.2/31/71
12/31/71
12/31 /71
12/31/78
12/31/66
02/2B/70
12/31/71
12/31/71
12/31/71
12/7,1/77
12/31/77
12/31/78
03/31/72
12/31/76
12/31/78
12/31/79
12/31/78
12/31/71
12/31/71
12/31/79
12/31/78
12/31/78
12/31/79
12/31/71
12/31/71
12/3.1 /78
12/31/79
12/31 /?1
12/31/76
12/31/79
C 1 1 1 1
1 N F f> 1 1
[': ) 1 1 1
PROCESS ROU
IN EE>]T
WO 3 175
ROUTINE
W/ ROUTINE W
C 1 1 1 1
CI141
F^OUTINE:
0 1 1 -1 1
D I P
Clll/i
KEY ENTRY
ROUTINE
F;:OUTINE
IN KEY ENTR
W03175
W03489
IN KEY ENTR
W03175
IN KEY ENTR
IN KE Y ENTR
15-7
-------
13 9 -•/
•-.) v p •', y
5. 2 9 5 r->
.1 2 '•? 1 9
53V60
2 31"). '-4
2304 4
23044
03927
12918
1295 8
12918
23023
23023
12921
24127
24527
REEL
24127
13737
13737
13740
13740
13740
93734
93738
93738
1 4 7 4 2
14742
14742
24227
94240
'> /. '.' "', '?,
24233
2 4 2 3 3
2423 3
24557
24160
24243
STED
24243
1 4 9 9 1
< / t » (/i r i
J. 4 c, / ?-,
1 4920
5.4928
Y
14 83 "'
1483 7
54839
1483'''
54839
14877
NAS-.HY] ! 1 E: /['IF' T
A f'l A R .[ L L 0 / F N 8 L 1 8 H
E:.ROWN8V'Tl L. E
BROUN??-1,' II LF/RTO GRAND
DALLAS/LOW: F]TI D
F 1 P A '':' '">
Fl PA80
EL PASO
FT WORTH/Fv'E-'.GIONAL
HOUSTON/HOBBY
MOUSTON'/HOF'.E'.Y
HOUSTON/HOBBY FIELD
MIFH AM'i
MIDI.. AND/ 8 LOAN
8AH AMTOk'JO
SALT LAKE CITY
SALT i. AKE: cm'
SALT LAKE;. CITY
NORFOLK
NORFOI K RE:G
RICHMOND
RIOHfMOND/E'.YRE)
RICHMOND/BYRD
STF FILING
WASHINGTON DC/DULLER
WASHINGTON DO/DIM I. E<>
BURLINGTON
F.'.URLl N.GTOH
BURL fNG TON
OLYMPIA
niJILLAYUTE
Sf-'ATTl F'-TACOMA
SEATTLE/TACOfIA
SEiATTLFVTACOMA
SEATTI..E/TACOMA
8POKAWF
U A L L A WALL A / C I T Y - C N T' Y
YAKIMA
YAKJMA
EAU CLAIRE
ORE.:E:N E'.AY
LA CROS8E
I. ACR08SL
MADI80M
MADISON/TRIJAX
M) LWAUK.E.".E"/Nl'TC;h'E- 1
MILWAUKEE/MITCHEL
Nil UAUKfT/nTTOHf 1
WAU8AU
TN
TN
TH
TN
IK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
LIT
I.IT
LIT
VA
W-i
l,'A
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
VT
VT
WA
WA
WA
UA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
Wl
UI
HI
W)
WI
WI
UI
I,'!
WI
05/01/78
0.1/01/77
05/01/78
(U/ni/79
0 5. / 0.1 770
01/01/68
01/0)/77
01 / 0.1/7 7
01/01/74
01/01/77
0 A/0 5/7 6
01/0.1/67
01/01/75
03/01/75
10/05/75
01/01/74
01/01/77
01/01/77
01/01/67
01/01/65
01/05/65
01/01/77
0.1/01/78
01/01/70
01/01/78
01/01/77
01/01/69
01/01/77
01/01/77
01/01/68
01/01/66
06/01/76
01/01/80
01/01/74
01/01/74
HI ,/01 /77
01/01/72
05.701/65
01/01/74
01/01/74
0.1/01/74
01/01/77
01/01/74
01/01/73
05 /05/73
01/01/73
01/05/78
05/05/77
01/01/73
05/01/70
01/01/76
05 /05 773
01/0.1/73
1 2/35 /7E!
12/31/77
5 2/31 /7P
l'V31/79
12/35/78
12/31/68
12/31/73
52/31/78
12/35/78
12/31/67
12/31/75
08/31/7S
12/31/77
12/31/78
12/31/78
06/30/69
12/31/78
52/31/78
12/31/78
12/31/74
12Y31/7B
12/31/77
12/31/6?
12/31/78
12/31/72
12/3.1/66
12/31/78
12/35/74
12/31/74
12/31/72
12/2,5 /69
12/31/78
12/31/74
12/31/78
12/3J/77
12/31/74
12/3.1/77
12/31/77
12/3.1/77
12/35/79
12/31 ./7G
12/35/74
12/31 /77
12/35/77
12/31/77
U03475
ROUTINF
W0347S
TN KEY F.NTR
K 01 IT I Hi:
IN rnn
ROUTINF
IN EDIT
FiOUTJME-:
OH- LIBRARY
F?OUTINE:
Gil 44
01144
01144
ROUTINF
ROUTINF;
FJOUTINE-:
IN EDIT
TO FIE: KEMP
C 1.1 4 4
C; 1 5 4 4
Cll't'i
IN KtY F:-HTK
FlOUTINf
CI144
15-8
-------
[i?,f:?:' F'.FC.:K!.F: Y/Fu'il E-'JKH WY 05/05/6?: 3 :•'/(.' J //:.'
?381?3 HUNTIiJ'VrON (JM 01/01/70 1 2/ < 1 /"-'i?
[!?,:?;/,(! HUNT). NOT OK UV fU/OJ./7f^ 3 :-'/;'J /"/£'•
038AQ HUHriNGTON/TR't STf'iTt: UV 01/01/70 1 :•? / ..T.t / ^'/t
Cl^c-^Ci t]|iHTTNC-;TOH/TF''l sTATF WV 01/05/77. i;?/7.}/77 f:):-^''.
13736 MORGANTOWH/NUHI-Mi'iRO FLO UM 0.1/01/74 12/3 1 /7o IN FOIT
D3f:n/t fAF^KFlFcSE^.I.IfsCi UV Ol/Oi/77. 1.V/7.J/77 C:)J'i4
240B7 CASPF.R UY 0.1/01/74 12/31/74
:.' 4 Ci i f' C:H F:! Y f. H f J L IJ Y 0 J / 0 5 / 7 4 5 ? / 7. Ji / 7 •'-,
24021 LAK'DF.R UY 01/01/77 R-UTTNtC
24023 I..AHDF1K/HUNT (,'Y 01/01/77 12/Xj/7f::
24062 WORI.. AN'D WY 01/01/7? 12/31/V9 IN KF.Y F-INTR
Y
EOF::.? 17
15-9
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Elements and Applications
of the Single Source (CRSTER) Model
15-11
-------
POINT SOURCE MODELS FOR S02, TSP, CO, AND N02
APPLICABLE TO ALL AVERAGING TIMES
RECOMMENDED MODELS
1. SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER) MODEL
2. UNAMAP MODELS (PTMAX, PTDIS)
3. TURNERS WORKBOOK. ETC.
*
All pollutants assumed to be nonreactive
in the atmosphere
15-13
-------
EPA GUIDELINE ON AIR QUALITY MODELS
. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES
• AIR QUALITY MODELS
- Suitability
- Classes of models
-..Recommended models
- Special situations
• DATA REQUIREMENTS
- Emissions source data
- Meteorological data
- Receptor sites
- Background air quality
• MODEL VALIDATION/CALIBRATION
15-14
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL APPLICATIONS
- STACK DESIGN STUDIES
- NEW SOURCE REVIEW - P.S.D.
• MONITORING NETWORK DESIGN
• CONTROL STRATEGY EVALUATION FOR SIPs
• REGULATORY VARIANCE EVALUATION
• COAL CONVERSION STUDIES
. SIP REVISIONS
15-15
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL CONCEPTS
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS
- SOURCE DATA - Multiple elevated stacks at single plant
location
- SITE DATA - 180 receptors, uneven terrain
METEOROLOGICAL DATA- Hourly wind speed and direction, stability,
mixing height, and temperature
MODEL COMPONENTS
- PLUME RISE MODEL - Briggs for hot, buoyant plumes
- DIFFUSION MODEL - Gaussian plume modified for limited mixing
heights, with P-G dispersion coefficients
OUTPUT DATA PRODUCED
- POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SPECIFIC AVERAGING TIMES (NAAQS)
AND RECEPTOR SITES
15-16
-------
/HOURLY\
/ SURFACE \
V LOGICAL /
\ DATA /
TWICE
DAILY
MIXING
HEIGHTS
1 — ~
PREPROCESSOR
!
1
1
1
—1
1
1
1
STABILITY WIND,
TEMPERATURE,
AND
MIXING HEIGHT
BY HOUR
n
i
i
1 S*?\
/DATA TO \
1 J( SINGLE
1 A SOURCE I
| \J»10DEL <-j
1
1
I
J
FIGURE 1-1
SCHEMATIC OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA PREPROCESSOR
-------
PROGRAM
CONTROL
SPECIFICATIONS
PREPRO>
CESSED
METEORO-
LOGICAL,
DATA
oo
EMISSION
SOURCE
DATA
RECEPTOR SITE
TERRAIN DATA
SINGLE
SOURCE
(CRSTER)
MODEL
ESTIMATED
CONCENTRATION
PRINTOUT
SOURCE
CONTRIBUTION
TABLES
ESTIMATED
CONCENTRA
TION TAPE
OPTIONAL
FIGURE 1-2
SCHEMATIC OF THE SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER) MODEL
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS, UNIFORM EMISSION RATE
REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY MEAN WIND VELOCITY
HOMOGENEOUS HORIZONTAL WIND FIELD
VERTICAL WIND SHEAR
- Direction, no
- Speed, yes
INFINITE PLUME
NO PLUME HISTORY
POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
NO CHEMICAL REACTIONS
NO DEPOSITION
NO RAINOUT
COMPLETE REFLECTION AT GROUND
GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION
PLUME CONCENTRATION IN HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIRECTIONS
DESCRIBED BY EMPIRICAL DISPERSION PARAMETERS DEPENDENT ON
ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY
15-19
-------
-3
-2
X- X
a
The Gaussian distribution curve.
15-20
-------
THE GAUSSIAN PLUME EQUATI ON
(x,y)
(x,y)
x
Q
H
u
exp
OyJ
exp
= RECEPTOR COORDINATES
= GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION
= EMISSION RATE
= EFFECTIVE STACK HEIGHT
= MEAN WIND SPEED
= DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
H
°z.
(m)
(g/m3)
(9/s)
(m)
(m/s)
(m)
15-21
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
• WIND SPEED AT STACK HEIGHT
u = u0 (h/7)P
• EFFECTIVE STACK HEIGHT
H = h + Ah
• LIMITED MIXING
Plume Trapping
Plume Loftinq
15-22
-------
X / \ \
/\ / \ /\
/ \/ \ / \
' ^ \ /' \
4\\ / ^
~t/ \A \
\/
A
\
/
\ \
\ \
\
2L + H
\ /
/ \
A
/ \
\
21 - H \
/ )1) Image piume \
x \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\
\ \
\\
\ \ \ \
\ \ Mixing Height (L) \
f
T
•111 \/\
*/i' / / / / / / •/ / / / /
< f / /
T / /
2L - H
/
/
/
/
/
\ /
/
X^
^ / \
•' /
21 + H
L
\ A
N / \
/ /\ \ /
\\ / \ V /
V \A/
Fiqure 2-1
The method of multiple plume images used to simulate plume
reflections in the single source model
15-23
-------
TABLE 2-3
MODIFIED GAUSSIAN PLUME EQUATIONS USED IN THE
SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER) MODEL
01
If
If
H < L and _ Q
oz < 1.6L X * °y°z U
H < L and Q
X LXP
o > 1.6L /2T o Lu
f / \2~1 *" f / \2l
1 ( yY ^—» CXD 1 (H+2NL.Y p n)
-All > U X U ol / \f-''l
2 \V / • 2 \ °2/
r -i ("k)
- f — ^ 1 /? l?t
\°y/
If H > L
X = 0
(2-13)
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
RECEPTOR NETWORK
Randomized flow vector for wind
Maximum widths of plume impact
Off-center!ine distance approximation
URBAN/RURAL CONSIDERATIONS
Atmospheric stability limited to P-G "D"
Separate mixing heights
DETERMINING HOURLY MIXING HEIGHTS (PREPROCESSOR)
Twice daily estimates of mixing height
Interpolated using time of sunrise, sunset, and hourly
stability
15-25
-------
•+50°
• •
•
1
Hourly
Measured wind
Direction
FIGURE 2-2
EXAMPLE OF RECEPTOR NETWORK USED IN THE SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER)
MODEL FOR A SOUTH WIND AND FOR EACH STABILITY CLASS
15-26
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
DETERMINING HOURLY STABILITY (PREPROCESSOR)
PasquiTI-Gifford Categories (A-F and "-")
Solar insolation determined by Turner method using cloud
cover, ceiling height, and solar elevation
TERRAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Plume height correction for uneven terrain
No plume impaction allowed
Plant base elevation is lower limit on receptor elevation
Mixing height follows terrain
Receptors not floating in air, no "Z" term in Gaussian
plume equation
15-27
-------
Mixing Height
rrri 1
Rl
Mixing Height
TERRAIN TREATMENT
WITHIN MODEL
Rl
R2
/ // I III I11*1 Illl f II ////// / /
Note: R1-R5 are receptor points at 5 ring distances.
FIGURE 2-4
ILLUSTRATION OF THE METHOD FOR TERRAIN ADJUSTMENT
IN THE SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER) MODEL
15-28
-------
HON DO YOU USE THE SINGLE SOURCE MODEL?
GATHER METEOROLOGICAL DATA
RUN PREPROCESSOR COMPUTER PROGRAM
GATHER SOURCE AND RECEPTOR SITE DATA
RUN SINGLE SOURCE MODEL COMPUTER PROGRAM
INTERPRET RESULTS
15-29
-------
Initialization
Card and Twice
Daily Mixing
Heights
Diagnostics
Preprocessor
Hourly
Surface
Meteorology
Preprocessed
Hourly
Meteorology
Program
Options,
Receptor and
Source Data
Single
Source
Model
Modeling
Results
Hourly
Concentrations
(Optional)
FIGURE 4-1
PROCEDURE FOR USING THE SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER) MODEL
15-30
-------
STEPS TO USE THE SINGLE SOURCE MODEL
SELECT SURFACE AND UPPER AIR OBSERVATION STATIONS (NWS) FOR
METEOROLOGICAL DATA FROM TD 1440 SURVEY
SELECT THE YEAR OF ANALYSIS
ORDER METEOROLOGICAL DATA FROM NCC
- Hourly surface data, mag tape in 144 format
- Twice daily mixing heights, tabular form
PUNCH MIXING HEIGHT CARDS
CHECK FOR MISSING DATA, MANUALLY OR BY PROGRAM
- Preprocessor does some checking for missing surface
data only
RUN PREPROCESSOR COMPUTER PROGRAM
OBTAIN MAG TAPE OF HOURLY PREPROCESSED METEOROLOGICAL DATA
AND DIAGNOSTICS
15-31
-------
STEPS TO USE THE SINGLE SOURCE MODEL
SELECT PROGRAM OPTIONS
- Rural or urban mode?
- Output tape of concentrations?
- Flat or uneven terrain?
- Which days will be run?
- Monthly source parameters?
- Source contribution output?
- Variable averaging period?
COLLECT EMISSIONS SOURCE DATA
- Plant elevation
- Stack parameters, for each stack
emission rate
gas velocity
gas temperature
stack exit diameter
stack height
COLLECT RECEPTOR SITE DATA
- Select ring distances - use PTMAX (UNAMAP)
- Determine terrain elevations
- Source contribution receptor data (optional)
PUNCH OPTIONS, EMISSIONS AND SITE DATA ON CARDS
INPUT PREPROCESSOR MAG TAPE
RUN SINGLE SOURCE MODEL COMPUTER PROGRAM
15-32
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL OUTPUT
PRINTOUT-CARD INPUT DATA LISTING
PRINTOUT-METEOROLOGICAL DATA
PRINTOUT-MODELING RESULTS
- STANDARD RUN OR SOURCE-CONTRIBUTION RUN
OUTPUT MAG TAPE (OPTIONAL) - EVERY 1-HOUR, 24-HOUR
AND ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION CALCULATED AT EACH
OF 180 RECEPTOR POINTS
DIAGNOSTICS
15-33
-------
CRITERIA FOR SPECIFYING SIP EMISSION
LIMITS
ANNUAL AVERAGE = THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
24, 8, 3, AND 1
HOUR AVERAGES = THE HIGHEST OF THE SECOND-
HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS
15-34
-------
EXAMPLE
DAY
¥ 1
345
420
317
RECEPTORS
# 2
320
400
469
# 3
336
298
400
1
2
3
WHICH 24-HOUR SOo CONCENTRATION DO YOU USE TO
DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH NAAQS?
15-35
-------
STANDARD MODEL RUN CONCENTRATION OUTPUT
BASIC CALCULATION IS FOR 1-HOUR
AVERAGED TO 3, 24-HOUR, AND ANNUAL TIME PERIODS
- Variable averaging period = 2, 4, 6, 8, or 12 hours
DISCRETE, NONOVERLAPPING TIME PERIODS
- 24 1-hour concentrations: 0000-0100, 0100-0200,- • • •
- 8 3-hour concentrations: 0000-0300, 0300-0600, • • • •
- 1 24-hour concentration : 0000-2400
CONCENTRATION OUTPUT FOR EACH AVERAGING PERIOD
- Table of highest concentration at each of 180 receptors
- Maximum highest concentration at any receptor
- Table of 2nd-highest concentration at each of 180 receptors
- Maximum 2nd-highest concentration at any receptor
Table of 50 highest concentrations at any receptor
15-36
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR AN EXAMPLE STANDARD RUN OF THE SINGLE SOURCE (CRSTER) MODEL
00
PLANT NAME: EXAMPLE RUN POLLUTANT: 502
THIS IS A SINGLE SOURCE MODEL EXAMPLE RUN.
THIS RUN ILLUSTRATES THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS:
STANDARD MODEL RUN
DAILY MET PRINTOUT
RUN FOR TWENTY DAYS
UNEVEN RECEPTOR TERRAIN
NO HOURLY OUTPUT TAPE
RURAL MIXING HEIGHTS
VARIABLE AVERAGING TIME
MONTHLY VARIATIONS OF G»V AND T.
CINCINNATI SURFACE
DAYTON UPPER AIR
MET FiLE REQUESTED
STN NO. YR STN NO. YR
SURFACE -938m 6i» 938m 61
UPPER AIR 93815 61 93815 61
PLANT LOCATION: RURAL
NO TAPE OUTPUT
0 VALUES REQUIRE MONTHLY INPUT
V VALUES REQUIRE MONTHLY INPUT
T VALUES REQUIRE MONTHLY INPUT
EMISSION UNITS: GM/SEC
AIR QUALITY UNITS: GM/M*O
DAY— 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
N 0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
I <
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
>
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
k
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
******
ALL TABLES. INCLUDING SOURCE CONTRIBUTION. THAT CONTAIN "ANNUAL" IN THE HEADING ARE BASED ONLY ON THOSE DAYS
MARKED BY "1" IN THE ABOVE TABLE
-------
RING DISTANCES(KMI=
.90
1.50 2.00 3.80 6.20
oo
00
PLANT ELEVATION (FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL>— 492.0
RECEPTOR ELEVATIONS (FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL I
DIRECTION RINGttl RINGB2 RINGS3 RINGH4 RINGB5
PLANT ELEVATION (METERS ABOVE SEA LEVEL!—
150.0
1
2
3
«•
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
540.0
550.0
525.0
490.0
490.0
480.0
- 470.0
470.0
455.0
455.0
455.0
455.0
520.0
610.0
700.0
700.0
600.0
510.0
470.0
455.0
455.0
455.0
455.0
460.0
460.0
470.0
480.0
500.0
530.0
610.0
720.0
675.0
630.0
590.0
560.0
540.0
500.0
550.0
615.0
720.0
680.0
550.0
480.0
455.0
455.0
455.0
610.0
660.0
590.0
720.0
560.0
530.0
720.0
650.0
470.0
600.0
720.0
700.0
455.0
455.0
460.0
460.0
460.0
465.0
475.0
460.0
460.0
460.0
470.0
460.0
460.0
460.0
470.0
575.0
625.0
640.0
650.0
580.0
455.0
455.0
480.0
610.0
720.0
660.0
590.0
720.0
560.0
540.0
550.0
580.0
650.0
670.0
720.0
720.0
495.0
455.0
470.0
460.0
455.0
455.0
460.0
460.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
510.0
660.0
710.0
7?0.0
455.0
490.0
470.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
610.0
590.0
610.0
460.0
460.0
480.0
460.0
460.0
470rO
480.0
490.0
490.0
480.0 ,
470.0
470.0
480.0
480.0
460.0
460.0
460.0
540.0
500.0
480.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
700.0
720.0
720.0
520.0
455.0
460.0
560.0
720.0
510.0
455.0
470.0
520.0
550.0
720.0
650.0
620.0
600.0
480.0
RECEPTOR ELEVATIONS (METERS ABOVE SEA LEVEL)
RINGttl RINGM2 RINGW3
R1NGM4
RINGH5
164.6
167.6
160,0
149.4
149,4
146.3
143.3
143.3
138.7
138.7
138.7
138.7
158.5
185.9
213.4
213.4
182.9
155.4
143.3
138.7
138.7
138.7
138.7
140.2
140.2
143.3
146.3
152.4
161.5
185.9
219.5
205.7
192.0
179.8
170.7
164.6
152. 1
167.6
187. 5
219.5
207.3
167.6
146.3
138.7
138.7
138.7
185.9
201.2
179. 8
219.5
170.7
161.5
219.5
198.1
143.3
182.9
219.5
213.4
138.7
138.7
140.2
140.2
140.2
141.7
144.8
140.2
140.2
140.2
143.3
140.2
140.2
140.2
143.3
175.3
190.5
195.1
198.1
176.8
138.7
138.7
i**6.3
185.9
219.5
201.2
179.8
219.5
170.7
164.6
167.6
176.8
190.1
204.2
219.5
219,5
150.9
138.7
1M3.3
140.2
138.7
138.7
140.2
140.2
143.3
143.3
143.3
143.3
143.3
143.3
155o4
201.2
216.4
211.5
S38.7
149. (*
J43.3
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
185.9
179.8
185.9
140.2
140.2
146.3
140.2
140.2
143.3
146.3
149.4
149.4
146.3
143.3
143.3
146.3
146.3
140.2
140.2
140.2
164.6
152.4
146^3
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
219.5
213.4
219.5
219.5
15S.5
138.7
140.2
170.7
219.5
155.4
13B.7
143.3
158.5
167.6
219.5
198.1
189.0
182.9
146.3
-------
STACK M 1— STACK 1
STACK » 2— STACK 2
STACK » 3— STACK 3
STACK M i»~ STACK i»
RECEPTOR ELEVATION LESS THAN PLANT ELEVATION RECEPTOR ELEVATION SET TO PLANT ELEVATION - 80 TIMES
STACK
01
Oo
<£>
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
532.74
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
773.32
7T3.32
789.23
709.23
789.23
789.23
789.23
709.23
789.23
789.23
789.23
709.23
709.23
7R9.23
-------
STACK MONTH EMISSION RATE
(GMS/SEC)
•» JAN 3434.8000
FEB 3434.8000
MAR 3434.8000
APR 3434.8000
MAY 3434.8000
JUN 3434.8000
JUL 3434.8000
AU6 3434.8000
SEP 3434.8000
OCT 3434.8000
NOV 3434.8000
DEC 3434.8000
JYR=64 IMO= 5 JDAY=125.
ISTAB= 6666654
AWS= 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 1.5
TEMPr 289. 288. 287, 286. 286. 286. 287.
AFV= 270. 320. 330. 330. 10. 350. 50.
AFVR= 267. 322. 335. 331. 8. 354. 53.
HLHlr 2010. 2032. 2054. 2077. 2099. 86,
2021. 2298. 2298. 2298. 2298. 2298.
HEIGHT DIAMETER EXIT VELOCITY TEMP
(METERS) (METERS) (M/SEC) (DEG.K)
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.00 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.60 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
243.80 5.91 33.83 405.00
33221
3.1 4.1 3.6 3.1 2.6
290. 292. 294. 297. 299.
20. 20. 30. 20. 320.
24. 23. 29. 23. 320.
, 362. 639. 915. 1192.
, 2298. 2294. 2287. 2279.
HLH2= 264. 264. 264. 264. 264. 340. 585. 829. 1074. 1319.
2053. 2298. 2298. 2298. 2298. 2298. 2298. 2048. 1563. 1079.
DAY RATIO CONCENTRATION
125 18.457 2.426167-03
JYR=6<» IMO= 5 JDAY=126.
ISTAB= 7665654
AWS= 1.0 3.1 2.6 2.6 1.0 2.1 1.5
TEMP= 286. 289. 289. 288. 289. 289. 290.
AFV= 340, 320. 330. 330. 330. 330. 360.
AFVR= 345. 322. 327. 333. 330. 328. 2.
HLH1= 2256. 2249. 2241. 2234. 2226. 85.
1899. 2158. 2158. 2158. 2158. 2158.
HLH2S 111. 111. 111. 111. 111. 192.
1912. 2158. 2158. 2158. 2158. 2158.
DAY RATIO CONCENTRATION
126 7.380 1. 399798-03
JYR=6U IMO= 5 JDAY=127.
ISTAB= 6767654
AWS= 2.6 1.5 2.1 1.0 1.0 2.1 2.6
TEMP= 291. 290. 289. 288. 289. 280. 290.
AFV= 330. 20. 30. 30. 10. 10. 10.
AFVR= 334. IB. 32. 31. 13. 7. 15.
HLH1= 1967. 1933. 1B9B. 1B63. 1B29. 63.
MAX HOURLY
DIRECTION DISTANCE(KM)
32 .90
3V M M f\
3222
1.0 3.1 3.1 2.6 3.6
291,. 293. 296. 297. 300.
360. 40. 40. 10. 20.
5. 37. 42. 12. 19.
344. 603. 862. 1122.
2158, 2141. 2106. 2071.
438. 683. 929. 1175.
2158. 2141. 1489. 1043.
MAX HOURLY
DIRECTION DISTANCEIKMI
3 2.00
34443
3.6 6.7 7.7 7.2 6.7
292. 295. 297. 299. 300.
20. 30. 40. 40. 30.
22. 26. 4'i. 3H. 26.
245. 426. 60M. 790.
2
3.6
299.
340.
343.
1468
2271
1564
595
HOUR
12
3.1
300.
30.
34.
1381
2037
1421
597
HOUR
14
3
7.2
300.
40.
37.
971
1 2
2.1 3.6
299. 300.
350. 340.
351. 345.
. 1745.
. 2264.
. 1808.
. 111.
2 3
2.6 3.1
299. 300
360. 340
4. 340
CONCENTRATION
1.314483-04
2-.
J
4.6 3.6
300. 300.
30. 20.
30. IB.
. 1640.
. 2002.
. 1666.
. 151.
3»
.3
4.1 4.1
301. 300
40. 30
43. 32
VOLUMETRIC FLOW
IM«*3/SEC)
928.04
928.04
92B.04
928.04
920.04
928.04
928.04
928.04
928.04
928.04
928.04
928.04
3
3.1
. 299.
. 330.
. 327.
MAX
4
2.6
298
330
333
2
DIRECTION
2
2.1
. 29').
. 360.
1.
MAX
1.5
298
320
324
2
CONCENTRATION DIRECTION
1.896704-04
3 4
7.2 6.2
300. 301.
20. 50.
2't. 49.
. 1153.
4 4
6.2 6.7
300. 300
30. 30
26. 28
4
3
3.1
. 2°''.
. 20.
19.
4
3.1
298
10
6
5
2.1
. 294.
. 330.
. 327.
4 - H
6
1.5
291
350
349
0 U
7
1.0
. 289.
. 10.
. 12.
R
7
1.0
287.
340.
344.
7
1.0
288.
340.
338.
DISTANCE(KM)
3
Jl
H
2.1
. 298.
. 330.
. 333.
4 - H
.80
2.6
295
320
318
0 U
2.1
. 293.
. 360.
1.
R
1.0
290.
360.
1.
2.6
290.
320.
318.
DISTANCE(KM)
S
5
2.6
. 295.
. 360.
. 359.
.80
4
3.6
295
360
1
5
2.6
. 293.
. 50.
48.
5
2.1
293.
30.
26.
5
2.6
294.
10.
13.
-------
PLANT NAME: EXAMPLE RUN
YEARLY MAXIMUM 21-HOUR CONC=
POLLUTANT: 502 EMISSION UNITS: GM/SEC
2.1790-01 DIRECTION 1 DISTANCE= 3.8 KM DAY=1P9
AIR QUALITY UNITS: GM/M**3
HIGHEST 21-HOUR CONCENTRATION AT EACH RECEPTOR
RANGE .9 KM 1.5 KM 2.0 KM
DIR
1
2
3
i»
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2<»
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
31
35
36
2.2800-05
1.1110-05
1.658<4-05
3.1162-05
1. 1920-05
2.5603-05
7.9016-06
1.5662-06
7.3962-07
1.5123-06
1.2737-06
1.0331-05
1.7101-05
1.1597-01
1.5121-01
9.1127-05
2.7616-05
1. 32 13-06
2.1216-06
1.5021-05
i». 7899-05
7.7230-05
6.3289-05
7.5912-05
7.5912-05
3. 8831-05
1.0012-05
1.3282-06
3.9901-06
2.1067-05
7.5737-05
1.0525-01
9.2619-05
8.7913-05
8.7191-05
5.7601-05
(125)
(126)
(126)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(113)
(131)
(131)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(116)
(1161
(116)
(116)
(116)
(113)
(113)
(113)
(113)
(113)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
3.9212-05
8.5751-05
1.1062-01
2.0398-01
1.6151-01
7.1111-05
5.8683-05
1.7020-05
2.2067-05
2.2811-05
1.3707-05
5.2522-05
5.0333-05
1.3119-01
1.6583-01
1.0731-01
3.1915-05
5.3873-06
1.7659-05
9.5321-05
1.2591-01
1.0227-01
5.3935-05
5.3310-05
7.8007-05
9.6131-05
1.7195-05
7.8668-06
1.8769-06
1.2875-05
1.1018-05
6.3211-05
6.8OOO-05
1.0519-01
1.1510-01
7.0879-05
(125)
(126)
(126)
(115)
(115)
(113)
(110)
(131)
(131)
(131)
(118)
(118)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(116)
(113)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(1251
5.6551-05
1.2960-01
1.8687-01
1.7518-01
1.5672-01
9.6391-05
9.05VJ-05
3.9138-05
5.0687-05
8.1291-05
9.9119-05
7.7132-05
1.5560-05
1.1212-01
1.3111-01
8.1606-05
2.5181-05
1.1851-06
8.6806-05
1.9818-01
1.7206-01
1.6812-01
5.5828-05
6.1957-05
1.1736-01
1.1285-01
6.6317-05
1.2778-05
7.2069-06
1.8690-05
2.8000-05
1.6699-05
5.9801-05
1.1185-01
1.1232-01
6.8317-05
(126)
(126)
(126)
(126)
(115)
(113)
(110)
(131)
(131)
(1301
(118)
(118)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(1321
(132)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
(125)
3.8
7.1670-05
1
1
2
7
6
1
1
1
1
8
1
9
8
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
5
7
1
1
5
2
3
7
7
1
5
1
8
7
.1925-01
.8580-01
.1790-01
,9'>'»2-05
.1913-05
.3873-01
.3706-01
.1575-01
.6517-01
.1171-05
.1373-01
.5113-05
.6899-05
.2135-01
.1713-05
.0888-05
.1121-05
.7217-05
.6738-01
.1131-01
.5710-01
.6739-05
.9971-05
.1729-01
.3251-01
.1728-05
.9697-05
.3601-05
.1832-05
.5309-05
.1212-05
.8112-05
.0651-01
.6773-05
.1527-05
KM
(126)
(127)
(127)
(129)
(111)
(113)
(110)
(131)
(131)
(131)
(115)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(1121
(112)
(111
(111
(111
(111
(111
(1161
(116)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(112)
(132)
(132)
(132)
(1321
(125)
(125)
(125)
(113)
6.2
1.5615-05
8.7575-05
8.5178-05
1.05r>0-01
7.9173-05
1.1821-05
2.3068-01
1.2152-01
7.659'J-05
1.2286-01
7.08115-05
8.1023-05
7.7519-05
5.8097-05
1.0295-01
2. 7208-05
6.0128-06
1.6923-05
5.1395-05
1.6212-01
1.3218-01
9.2912-05
1.3760-05
6.0071-05
7.6257-05
9.1739-05
5.1655-05
2.5137-05
3.9109-05
8.6751-05
8.2911-05
7.8095-05
6.7312-05
7.91P8-05
5.0092-05
7.0908-05
KM
(126)
(127)
(126)
(126)
(115)
(130)
(110)
(131)
(131)
(131)
HIM
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(112)
(1151
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(111)
(116)
(116)
(116)
(112)
(132)
(112)
(132)
(132)
(132)
(1261
(125)
(125)
(125)
(113)
-------
PLANT NAME: EXAMPLE RUN POLLUTANT: so2 EMISSION UNITSS GM/SEC AIR QUALITY UNITS; GM/M*O
YEARLY SECOND MAXIMUM 21-HOUR CONC= 1.8967-01 DIRECTIONS 1 DISTANCE= 3.8 KM DAV=126
tsO
SECOND HIGHEST 21-HOUR
RANGE .9 KM 1.5
OIR
1 l». 6927-06 (126) 3.6103-05
2 9.2017-06 (1251 5.9081-05
3
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3«»
35
36
1.1855-05
7.2971-06
5.8137-06
7.1737-06
6,0150-06
1.2533-06
1.0216-.07
7.0201-07
7.7295-07
2.0607-07
1.8111-07
3.6291-06
7.1001-06
9.8925-07
9.5202-09
2.0381-07
5.3060-07
8.6307-07
1.2595-06
9.7189-06
3.8117-05
2.8802-05
1.2719-05
9.9013-06
5.0798-06
1.0801-06
8. 9815-08
3.9366-07
1.5981-06
3.2111-07
1.0780-06
1.0585-06
7.7780-07
9.1389-07
(1121
(1261
1115)
(113)
(113)
(112)
(113)
(130)
(131 )
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(116)
(116)
(111)
(111)
(113)
(113)
(113)
(116)
(116)
(1161
(116)
(116)
(113)
(132)
1132)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(113)
(113)
9.0950-05
1.7461-01
1.0791-01
6.2190-05
5.2282-05
1.3131-05
2.1817-06
1.9122-05
3.7597-05
9.9267-06
1.0870-05
7.8798-05
1.1262-05
2.3678-06
7.5011-07
1.8522-06
1.1861-06
9.6605-06
3.6338-05
6.3892-05
2.1659-05
1.1817-05
5.3353-05
2.1679-05
6.9585-06
3.3507-06
1.6517-06
3.7728-06
2.9271-06
1.5083-06
9.1672-06
1.3552-05
1.1397-05
1.1293-05
CONCENTRATION AT EACH
KM 2.0
(126) 1.5701-05
(125) 1.0155-01
(127)
(126)
(112)
(112)
(113)
1110)
(130)
(130!
(130)
(112)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(115)
(111)
(116)
(116>
(116)
(1161
(113)
(116)
(113)
(113)
(112)
(112)
(132)
(132)
(132)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(113)
(113)
1.2061-01
1.2001-01
1.0151-01
1. 9^81-05
7.0162-05
2.1112-05
6.3171-06
8.2972-05
7.1757-05
1.3519-05
2.5336-05
9.7135-05
3.1861-05
7.0826-06
1.075S-07
3.1470-06
1.6503-06
5.9<»78-06
2. 1682-05
<«. 6318-05
2.85'30~05
3.5737-05
3.7459~'j5
1.70BO-Or<
1.1234-05
1.0327-05
4.2019-06
8.0572-06
1.8025-05
7.0617-06
2.2932-05
3.3933-05
2.5571-05
3.1389-05
RECEPTOR
KM
(1251
(125)
(127)
(145!
(144)
(110)
(1131
(140)
1130)
(131)
(130)
(130)
1148)
(118)
(148!
(148)
(llfl)
(142)
(146)
(146)
(146)
(146)
(141 )
1142)
(!'t2)
U12I
1142)
(142)
(146)
( 125)
(132)
(1321
(142)
(142)
(113)
(113)
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
6
1
7
1
5
8
7
1
6
3
3
8
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
3.8
,59r«8-05
.3360-04
.,8509-04
.8967-01
.9550-05
..0594-05
.0181-01
.0780-04
.9236-05
.1081-01
.6372-05
.0905-05
.1375-05
.3178-05
.9655-05
.7320-05
.3757-06
.3564-05
.6028-05
.1893-06
.2916-05
.6291-05
.8236-05
.6381-05
.1797-05
.9361-05
.0548-05
.5871-05
.3691-05
.9823-05
.1932-05
3.6211-05
3.7767-05
5
3
5
.58H2-05
.7279-05
.7805-05
KM
(125)
(126)
(1291
(126 (
(145>
(130)
(131)
(1311
(110)
(130)
(148)
(130)
(112)
(1121
(112>
(1181
(115)
(116)
(116)
(119)
(1161
(116)
(111)
(112)
(112)
(112)
(132)
(116)
(146)
(1161
(125!
(125!
(1121
(112)
(113)
(125)
6.2
4.2885-05
7.8626-05
6.6102-05
8.9102-05
7.8592-05
4.1647-05
1.8459-01
7.2166-05
6.9389-05
6.8646-05
5.0526-05
3.2021-05
3.7030-05
5.6f>70-05
5.1593-05
1.0783-05
5.5228-06
3.6865-05
3.8004-05
5.1565-05
5.6766-05
1.6932-05
3.6957-05
2.9196-05
1.9306-05
7.8335-05
3.6152-05
2.5132-05
2.7115-05
3.0511-05
1.2273-05
7.5110-05
3.2220-05
3.7267-05
2.6130-05
3.1652-05
KM
(143)
(125)
(127)
U29)
(114)
(140)
(1301
(131)
(131)
(130)
(148!
(1301
(112)
(112)
(112)
(118)
(142)
1148)
(116)
(11")
(119)
(116)
(HI!
(112)
(1421
(1161
(112)
(1321
(116)
1116)
(1161
(132)
(1431
(112!
(113)
(126)
-------
PLANT NAME: EXAMPLE RUN
POLLUTANT: 502
EMISSION UNITS: GM/SEC
AIR QUALITY UNITS: GM/M*»3
m
oo
MAXIMUM DAILY CONCENTRATIONS
DAY 21-HOUR CONCENTRATION DIRECTION DISTANCE
129 2.1790-01 1 3.80
140 2.3068-01* 7 6.20
115 2.0398-01 1 1.50
mi 1.9818-01 20 2.00
126 .8967-0"* 1 3.80
127 .8588-0"* 3 3.80
130 .8159-0"* 7 6.20
128 .71<*7-0"» 1 3.80
1"»2 .6583-0<» 15 1.50
131 .6517-01 10 3.80
131 .5318-0<* 7 6.20
146 .1285-0'* 26 2.00
125 .3115-01 2 3.80
111 1.2320-0"* 1 3.80
118 1.2135-0"* 15 3.80
113 9.6391-05 6 2.00
117 9.1085-05 3 3.80
132 8.6751-05 30 6.20
133 8.5918-05 7 6.20
119 5.6766-05 21 6.20
-------
SINGLE SOURCE MODEL LIMITATIONS
STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTIONS
- Continuous uniform emission rate
- Homogeneous horizontal wind field
- Hourly mean wind vector
- No directional wind shear in vertical
- Constant eddy diffusivities
- No plume history
- No deposition or reaction
TERRAIN ADJUSTMENT
MIXING HEIGHT
CALM WINDS
- 1.0 meters/second limit
- Use of previous hour's direction
AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS
STACK SEPARATION
PLUME RISE
15-44
-------
Chapter 16
Elements of the Expected Exceedance
(EXEX) Method
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the method of determining the number of times the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard will be exceeded (using statistical methods)
for SO2.
Chapter Objective
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. explain the procedure used to determine the expected number of exceedances
of the SO2 standard.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (EXEX).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Elements of the Expected Exceedance Method
(EXEX).
16-1
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Elements of the Expected Exceedance
(EXEX) Method
16-3
-------
EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES METHOD (EXEX)
APPLIES ONLY TO COAL FIRED BOILERS
EPA MEMO 12-6-79 OUTLINES EXEX
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 2-14-80 LISTS CONDITIONS FOR USE:
(1) 5 YEARS OF MET DATA
(2) COAL WASHING IF SULFUR IS HIGH
(3) CONTINUOUS SAMPLING OF STACK S09 OR COAL PILE
16-5
-------
If
13
12
11
10
> *
o
•5 8
X
7
6
r>
n 5
4
3
2
1
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
- ,_r
.5
••••
I
^^m
^^mm
—
—
__
••v
--
—
— |
— 1
— 1
I 1 1 i l~^h— • •
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.
% Sulfur in Coil
-------
STACK EMISSIONS DATA
• SO? •minions rtlf
» total hftt input nig
} . Mrtrtgmg limt ind
Iftnpling pvrrotf
COAL DATA
U»»toltul>ur 'x
.. H«il ftluf p»r unit m»jj
'fringing timt inri
stmplmg period
tNOIMBERINQ DESIGN DATA
M
\
ANALYTICAL
\EXPRESSIQNS
ill
DETERMINE
FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION
OF
S02 EMISSIONS
FIGURE 3. ELEMENTS OF THE SIMPLIFIED EXEX METHOD
-------
find Oportiing t o»b»t»Mf
USE OF RESULTS
Specifications of emissions in
terms of:
• Annutl Imtrigu
• Not t>» ••cvvrfwf in unf fMr
FIGURE 1. ELEMENTS OF THE SIMPLIFIED EXEX METHOD
-------
ATMOSPHERIC
DIFFUSION
MODEL
T
r
nous
3 HOUR
if vn
en
Hormutltfil conctntritlon
for ««ch r»c*pfof
tor »»ch
FIGURE 2. ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION MODEL
-------
CT)
H-l
O
FIGURE 4. SIMULATION MODEL
-------
Each trial li a simulation of 385
(or 366) days' concentration at
•ach receptor
Out of one trial for first year, a
sample 24-hour average concen-
tration at one receptor
For each year expected number of
exceedances and probability of
violation at each receptor.
For all year expected number of
exceedance and violation proba-
bilities averaged over all years on
meteorological record
FIGURE 5. ANALYSIS EXCEEDANCES AND VIOLATIONS FROM EXEX METHODOLOGY
-------
O)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
S 1.0
o
X
Jj
1 0.8
u
2 0.6
a,
u
c
,
0.4
0.2
0
STANDARD: 50 , n/m
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Mean Emissions Rate (Ibs SO?/MMBtu)
(c) GSD of S02 Emissions Distribution: 1.4--Scrubbed Plant
3.0
FIGURE 7 (ContinuPd)
-------
en
1.0" 1.5 2.0 2.5
Mean Emissions Rate (Ibs S02/MMBtu)
(b) GSD of S0? Emissions Distribution: 1.2--Scrubbed Plant
3.0
FSGURF 8 (Continued)
-------
Chapter 17
Elements and Applications of the
Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Model
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model presently
available on UNAMAP.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. describe the application of the Industrial Source Complex model to a given
source and surrounding terrain features.
2. describe the accuracy of the Industrial Source Complex model under given
source-receptor conditions.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (ISC).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Elements and Application of the Industrial
Source Complex (ISC) Model.
17-1
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Elements and Applications of the Industrial
Source (ISC) Model
17-3
-------
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE COMPLEX (ISC) MODEL
COMPLEX MODEL FOR INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES OFFERING
NUMEROUS SPECIAL FEATURES
TWO COMPUTER PROGRAMS
- ISCST: EXTENSION OF CRSTER
- ISCLT: EXTENSION OF COM, AQDM
RUN COSTS APPROXIMATELY 1/3$ PER SOURCE/RECEPTOR/
DAY FOR ISCST, $5.00 TOTAL FOR ISCLT
CODE AND USER'S MANUAL AVAILABLE
17-5
-------
en
[Program Control
1 Parameters
[Receptor
j Data
[i Source
1 Data
»
/Pre->v
/ Processed \
1 logical I
V Data /
./Pre-^x.
^X^Processed or^s^^
\Card Meteorological^
^s.T)ata format^r \
^^^ ? ./^ \
Meteot
1
lard
tat a
ISC
Short-Term
Model
Program
(ISCST)
»,
^
_ . _ m
Input Data
Output (Optional)
'*— ^
Dnlly Output
Tables (Optional)
^-"^
"N"-nay Output
Tnblea (Optional)
^ ^
Highest R Second
Highest Output
Tablen (Optional)
^ ^
Maximum 50
Output Tables
(Optional)
/Hourly\
UOptionat)/
FIGURE 1-1. Schematic diagram of the ISC Model short-term computer program ISCST.
-------
HIGH
24-HR
S GROUP 8 1
*** ~ HYPOTHETICAL POTASH PROCESSING PLANT - CONCENTRATION — ***
* HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER) *
* FROM SOURCES: 1,
* FOR THE RECEPTOR GRID *
* MAXIMUM VALUE EQUALS 29257.33984 AND OCCURRED AT (
.0, -200.0) *
y-axia /
(meters) /
3000.0 /
2000.0 /
1500.0 /
1250.0 /
1000.0 /
800.0 /
600.0 /
400.0 /
200.0 /
.0 /
-200.0 /
-400.0 /
-600.0 /
-800.0 /
-1000.0 /
-1250.0 /
-1500.0 /
-2000.0 /
-3000.0 /
-800.0
.02187
3.64513
118.39290
329.68170
103.86832
107.80086
1164.95976
2586.00357
3417.10876
2113.19528
16.72914
.00006
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00006
.12187
20.03640
(187,
(205,
(305,
(305,
(305,
(187,
(187,
(305,
(262,
(262,
(262,
(187,
(187,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
-600.0
.00103 (137,
.23969 (187,
6.56493 (205,
53.75400 (205,
427.40199 (305,
331.47763 (305,
192.61037 (187,
3429.66122 (187,
5034.82111 (305,
3410.68469 (262,
.65443 (262,
.00000 (187,
.00000 (337,
.00000 (337,
.00000 (337,
.00420 (337,
.24976 (337,
12.00114 (337,
98.79222 (337,
x-axla (meters)
-400.0
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
.00002
.00440
.17455
1.50348
15.05959
188.70668
999.93413
431.43685
8261.22119
6411.06494
.00080
.00000
.00000
.00620
.71882
13.46043
54.82790
160.56051
227.32941
(187,
(187,
(187,
(187,
(187,
(305,
(305,
(187,
(305,
(262,
(187,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
-200.0
.00140 (289,
.00018 (289,
.00037 (187,
.00314 (187,
.04380 (187,
.57678 (187,
12.40346 (187,
596.57519 (305,
1618.61168 (187,
14624.32703 (262,
.00000 (337,
.08076 (337,
41.96467 (337,
250.86494 (337,
442.10267 (337,
557.08878 (337,
589.01745 (337,
549.62419 (337,
396.21886 (337,
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
.39458
1.03276
2.02372
3.07055
5.07164
8.50962
16.37711
40.20404
159.62988
.00000
29257.33984
12556.48901
6761.63867
4217.97260
2898.65292
2017.04434
1501.84814
949.64354
513.20028
,0
(289,
(289,
(289,
(289,
(289,
(289,
(289,
(289,
(289,
( o,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
(337,
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
0)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
-------
Source data
cards
ISCLT program
control and
option data
cards
ISCLT Long-Term
Computer Program
Seasonal and/or annual
average ground-level con-
centration
Seasonal and/or annual
total ground-level
deposition
Printed
Concentration
or
Deposition
Tables
\
Meteorological
data cards
f
Receptor
data cards
1 >
/Optional \
Optional
Input
Tape
output
tape
FIGURE 1-2. Schematic diagram of the ISC Model long-term computer program
ISCLT.
17-8
-------
A COMPARISON OF ERA'S ISCST AND CRSTER MODELS
Item
Si mi 1ariti es/Di fferences
Averaging Times
Multiple Source, Treatment
Plume Rise
Downwash
Terrain Adjustment
Atmospheric Decay
Particulate Settling and
Deposition
Source Input Data
Output Tables
Meteorological Input Data
Rural Dispersion Coefficients
Urban Dispersion Coefficients
Receptor Coordinate System
Same, except ISC allows N-day averages also
ISC allows for spatial separation, CRSTER
does not
ISC calculates plume rise as a function of-'"'•-
distance and includes both momentum and buoy-
ancy effects, CRSTER uses only the final rise
due to buoyancy alone. ISC uses default 82
value of 0.60 while CRSTER uses 0.66 , _ .
ISC allows for stack tip (Brigqs) or building
wake effects (Huber and Snyder), CRSTER makes
no adjustments
Same
ISC calculates time dependent decay rate, CRSTER
has no decay term
ISC allows user to specify particle size de-
pendent effects, CRSTER makes no adjustments.
ISC also calculates deposition mass as option,
CRSTER does not
ISC allows at least 100 of any combination of
point, area, and volume sources, CRSTER can
handle only point sources and up to 19 of these
Same, except ISC offers more variety of output
data, e.g. definition of source groups, depo-
sition mass, as well as concentrations
Same, except ISC allows user to input values of
the wind-profile exponents and vertical poten-
tial temperature gradients
Same
ISC in Urban! mode is the same as CRSTER in ur-
ban mode. ISC in Urban2 mode is new.
Same, except ISC allows rectangular coordinates
as an option. ISC allows at least 400 receptors
CRSTER has 180. There is a tradeoff between the
maximum number of sources and receptors in ISC
as the limitation is on program core requirements
17-9
-------
A COMPARISON OF ERA'S ISCST AND CRSTER MODELS
(Continued)
I tern Si mi Ian" ties/Di f ferences
Emissions Input ISC allows variations by month, hour, season
and hour, or wind speed and stability; CRSTER
only allows variations by month. ISC allows
the users to apply scalars to one or several
sources, CRSTER variations apply to all sources
Source Contributions ISC disallows contributions when source-recep-
tor distances are 100 meters, CRSTER does not
Crosswind Distance ISC calculates exactly, CRSTER approximates
with arc length
Plume Trapping, Lofting Same
17-10
-------
Table 3-1. Meteorological data input
options for ISCST.
Input of hourly data by preprocessed data tape or card deck
Site-specific wind-profile exponents
Site-specific vertical potential temperature gradients
Rural Mode or Urban Mode 1 or 2
Entrainment coefficients other than the Briggs (1975) coefficients
Final or distance dependent plume rise
Wind system measurement height other than 10 meters
17-11
-------
Table 2-2. Default values for the wind-profile exponents
and vertical potential temperature gradients.
Pasquill Stability
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
Wind-Profile
Exponent p
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.30
Vertical
Potential
Temperature
Gradient (°K/m)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.035
17-12
-------
Table 2-3. Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients
used by the ISC model in the rural and urban modes.
Actual Pasquill
Stability Category*
A
B
C
D
E
F
1
Paaquill Stability Category for the Oy, az
Values Used in ISC Model Calculations
Rural Mode
A
B
C
D
E
F
Urban Mode 1
A
B
C
D
D
D
Urban Mode 2
A
A
B
C
D
0
*The ISCST program redefines extremely stable G stability as very stable F
stability.
17-13
-------
Table 4-1. Meteorological data input options for ISCLT.
Input of all meteorological data by card deck or by magnetic tape Inven-
tory previously generated by ISCLT
STAR summaries with five or six Pasquill stability categories
Site-specific mixing heights
Site-specific ambient air temperatures
Site-specific wind-profile exponents
Site-specific vertical potential temperature gradients
Rural Mode or Urban Mode 1 or 2
Entrainment coefficients other than the Briggs (1973) coefficients
Final or distance dependent plume rise
Wind system measurement height other than 10 meters
17-14
-------
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
STABILITY SUGGESTED VALUE
A, B, C AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM FOR EACH SEASON
D AVERAGE FOR EACH SEASON
E, F AVERAGE DAILY MINIMUM FOR EACH SEASON
MIXING HEIGHTS
A 1.5 TIMES MEAN AFTERNOON HEIGHT
B, C MEAN AFTERNOON HEIGHT
D AVERAGE OF MEAN MORNING AND AFTERNOON HEIGHTS
E, F MEAN MORNING HEIGHT
17-15
-------
ISC DISPERSION MODEL FEATURES
ST LT
X SOURCE INPUT - CONSTANT OR VARY BY MONTH, HOUR, SEASON AND
HOUR, OR WIND SPEED AND STABILITY
X SOURCE INPUT - CONSTANT OR VARY BY SEASON, OR WIND SPEED, OR
WIND SPEED AND STABILITY
X X SOURCE TYPES - AT LEAST TOO OF ANY COMBINATION OF POINT, AREA,
X X RECEPTORS - ARTESIAN OR POLAR
X X TERRAIN EFFECTS - SAME AS CRSTER
X X DOWNWASH - STACK TIP OR BUILDING WAKES
X X ATMOSPHERIC DECAY
X X PARTICULATE SETTLING AND DEPOSITION
X X CONCENTRATIONS OR DEPOSITION AMOUNTS
X AVERAGING TIMES - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24 HOURS AND N DAYS
X AVERAGING TIMES - SEASON OR YEAR
X X OUTPUT - TAPE OR PRINTOUT
X X FINAL OR TRANSITIONAL PLUME RISE
17-16
-------
SOURCE COMBINATION GROUPS
MAXIMUM 150 GROUPS OF ANY SET OF POINT, AREA, AND
VOLUME SOURCES
EXAMPLES
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
GROUP 5
GROUP 6
1-100
1
2
3-20
1-59
60-100
ALL SOURCES
POWER PLANT A
POWER PLANT B
XYZ CHEMICAL COMPANY
COMPLEX
ALL SOURCES IN STATE A
ALL SOURCES IN STATE B
17-17
-------
oo
ORE PROCESSING BUILDING
» —9Om —*
ORE PILE
CONVEYOR BELT
— 96m —
ROOF MONITOR
SOm
Mm
t
i
STACK
(a) PLANT LAYOUT
50
lOOm
STACK|
^OOF MONITOR •
PROCESSING
BUILDING
25m
(b) SIDE VIEW OF PLANT
N
FIGURK 2-11. Plant layout and aide view of a hypothetical potash processing plunt.
-------
. w
•"2.15
t
W
•
4
•
5
• 10
•9
•e
•7
•6>
(a) EXACT REPRESENTATION
2.15
2W
t
w
•
2
•
3
•5
•4
—-W—
(b) APPROXIMATE REPRESENTATION
FIGUHZ 2-10. Exact and approximate representation* of a line source by mul-
tiple volume sources.
17-19
-------
FIGURE 2-2. Example of a polar receptor grid. The stippled area shows the
property of a hypothetical industrial source complex.
17-20
-------
3UW
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-30
•
OO -200O -IOOO
•'•
••-
-•••;
:
.-
1. .-
:.- '
.'--.
-
.
-
0 1000 2000 30
FIGURE 2-3. Ezaapl* of an irregularly-spaced Cartesian recepcor grid. The
stippled area shows the property of a hypothetical industrial
source complex.
17-21
-------
Table 2-12. Particle-size distribution, gravitational
settling velocities and surface reflection coefficients
for particulate emissions from the ore pile and conveyor belt,
Particle
Size Category '
(U)
0-10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - SO
50 - 65
Mass Mean
Diameter
(V)
6.30
15.54
25.33
35.24
45.18
17.82
Mass Fraction
*n
0.10
0.40
0.28
0.12
0.06
0.04
Settling
Velocity
Vgn (m/sec)
0.001
0.007
0.019
0.037
0.061
0.099
Reflection
Coefficient
^n
1.00
0.82
0.72
0.65
0.59
0.50
17-22
-------
IsS
00
(H-v,a/0)
TOTAL REFLECTION
-------
Chapter 18
Elements and Applications of the
Multiple Source (RAM) Model
Chapter Goal
To familiarize students with the elements and applications of the Multiple Source
(RAM) model that is currently available on the UNAMAP computer package.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. describe the application of the Multiple Source model to a given
source and surrounding terrain features.
2. describe the accuracy of the Multiple Source model under given source-
receptor conditions.
Lesson Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (RAM).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Elements and Applications of the Multiple Source
(RAM) Model.
18-1
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Elements and Applications of the Multiple
Source (RAM) Model
18-3
-------
MULTIPLE SOURCE (RAM) MODEL
MULTIPLE SOURCE MODEL FOR SHORT-TERM CONCENTRATIONS
EIGHT (8) COMPUTER PROGRAMS
RAMQ RAM
RAMMET RAMR
RAMBLK RAMF
CUMF RAMFR
RUN COST APPROXIMATELY 1/3C PER SOURCE/RECEPTOR/DAY
CODE ON U.NAMAP AVAILABLE FROM NTIS, $350.00
TWO (2) VOLUME USER'S MANUAL
18-5
-------
RAM DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
PASQUILL-GIFFORD MCELROY-POOLER
Based on mea- Gently rolling rural St. Louis urban
surements in terrain area
Roughness (ZQ) 3-30 centimeters TOO centimeters
Named Regime Rural Urban
18-6
-------
1,000 =
1 nl i l iiHIM i i ii inn
0.1 1.0 10 100
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KM)
10,000
1,000
a (m)
y
100
10
0.1 1.0 ' 10 100
DISTANCE DOWNWIND (KM)
PASQUILL-6IFFORD
MCELROY-POOLER
18-7
-------
FACTORS IN SELECTING URBAN VS RURAL
URBAN CORE POPULATION AND DENSITY
SOURCE HEIGHT
RECEPTOR LOCATION
18-8
-------
SUMMARY OF RAM MODEL CAPABILITIES
Item
Comment
Averaging Times
Plume Rise
Terrain Adjustment
Atmospheric Decay
Rural Dispersion Rates
Urban Dispersion Rates
Meteorological Input Data
Plume Trapping, Lofting
Sources
Receptors
Output
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours
Transitional and final rise, momentum and
buoyancy effects, stack downwash
None
Exponential half-life
Same as CRSTER
McElroy-Pooler
Same as CRSTER; card input also available
Same as CRSTER except no upper boundry
exists in stable conditions
Maximum 250 point sources and 100 area
sources at arbitary locations
Area sources can be one of 3 heights
Program identifies most significant sources
Constant emissions or hourly values
3 types: arbitary, program selected maxi-
mum, and honeycomb grid. One elevation
height above ground available
Extensive source-contribution tables and
cumulative frequency distributions for 24-
hour concentrations. No second highest
determinations
18-9
-------
RAM PROGRAM MODULES
RAMMET - SAME AS CRSTER PREPROCESSOR
RAMQ - PROCESSES EMISSIONS DATA AND RANKS SOURCES
BY SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
RAMBLK - BLOCK DATA
CUMF - PLOTS AND PRINTS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DIS-
TRIBUTIONS OF 24-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
18-10
-------
NORMAL RUN
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
RUN
URBAN SIGMAS
RURAL SIGMAS
RAM
RAMR
RAMF
RAMFR
18-11
-------
POINT AND
AREA SOURCES
i
RAMQ
DISK FILE OF
EMISSIONS .DATA
DISK FILE OF
HOURLY EMISSIONS
PRINTOUT OF
1-HOUR AND N-HOUR
CONCENTRATIONS
RAM OR RAMR
p
DISK FILE
OF
SOURCE-CONTRIBUTION
RESULTS
SURFACE DATA
MIXING HEIGHTS
HOURLY
MET CARDS
T or ^
/
/*
( RAMMET
X^^ -*
nTri/ rTir nr
MET DATA
PUNCHED CARDS
OF
CONCENTRATIONS
18-12
-------
RAM/RAMR OPTIONS
1 POINT SOURCE INPUT?
2 AREA SOURCE INPUT?
3 SPECIFIED RECEPTORS?
4 SIGNIFICANT POINT RECEPTORS?
5 SIGNIFICANT AREA RECEPTORS?
6 HONEYCOMB GRID OF RECEPTORS?
7 HOURLY CONCENTRATION OUTPUT?
8 SOURCE-CONTRIBUTIONS TO DISK?
9 HOURLY SUMMARIES ONLY?
10 PUNCH CARDS FOR ISOPLETHS?
11 INPUT MET DATA ON CARDS?
12 SPECIFY SIGNIFICANT SOURCE NUMBERS?
13 READ HOURLY EMISSIONS?
18-13
-------
POINT AND
AREA SOURCES
I
RAMQ
HOURLY
MET CARDS
DISK FILE OF
EMISSIONS DATA
DISK
HOURLY
FILE OF
EMISSIONS
PRINTOUT 24-HOUR
CONCENTRATIONS AND 5
HIGHEST 1 AND 24-
HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
SURFACE DATA
MIXING HEIGHTS
V
C RAMMET J
DISK FILE OF
MET DATA
TAPE FILE OF 1-
HOUR CONCENTRATION
DISK FILE OF
24-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
C
CUMF
T
PLOTS AND PRINTOUT
OF CUMULATIVE FRE-
QUENCY DUSTRIBUTIONS
18-14
-------
RAM PRINTOUT
N=24-HOURS
HOUR 1 1-HOUR SIGNIFICANT POINT CONTRIBUTIONS
1-HOUR SIGNIFICANT AREA CONTRIBUTIONS
1-HOUR SUMMARY TABLE
(REPEAT)
(REPEAT)
24-HOUR SIGNIFICANT POINT CONTRIBUTIONS
24-HOUR SIGNIFICANT AREA CONTRIBUTIONS
24-HOUR SUMMARY TABLE
18-15
-------
tUN BT: E» KREMSHAW. AIR ( HAIAKftOUS MATER. 01V.. REtlOk tV.EPAd JAM 76)
EMISSIONS: TEST Cltt, 1973
SfC MET. »ATA: TEST CITT 1973 ; UPPER AIR: TEST C1TT 1973
INPUT MET »ATA
NOUI TNETA
<»E6>
33.00
23.00
73/
SPEED
CN/S)
6.17
4.63
M1IIN6 TEMP
HE16HTCM) (DEC-K)
STAHLITT
CLASS
429.11
401.70
RESULTANT MET CONDITIONS
MINft DIRECTION*: 2B.71
AVERAGE HIN6 SPEED* 5.40
MSN» PERSISTENCE^ .996
26V.f?
271.46
RESULTANT WIND SPEEC^ S.36
AVEBAKE TEMP= 270.65
MOBAL STACILlTf 4
JI6NIHCANT POINT RECEPTORS
RECEPTOR f CAST
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
7
7
5
5
8
e
9
9
11
11
564.43
564.16
S79.45
$79.40
577.38
577.30
576.67
576.59
562.94
582.89
NORTH
4407.01
4406.52
4403.16
4403.07
4401.21
4401.OB
4400.55
4400.40
4400.BO
4400.70
PREDICTED MAI CONC.
39.?9
839.47
446.56
619.39
427.<3
MAI. 6JST
(KM)
.902
1.PO*
.166
.311
.2*9
.4*9
.276
.551
.187
.374
Ef f . MT
156.3*5
156.365
32.007
32.007
47.506
47.506
52.296
52.296
35.952
35.952
U(PMT HT)
P. 026
6.026
t.281
6.7S1
6.890
6.89C
4.753
4.753
6.263
6.263
SIGNIFICANT AREA SOURCE RECEPTORS
RECEPTOR f EAST NOITH
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
3
5
9
2
10
8
7
13
12
578.42
576.43
578.43
578.43
574.43
560.41
574.43
570.87
582.41
580.41
4399.94
4399.95
4401.96
4405.95
4399.96
4405.92
4405.96
4403.94
4403.92
4403.92
18-16
-------
••• •?» (• RMNSNAM. At* ft NAtAKtOUS WAtt*. H*.. RCC10M BV.CPM JAN T8>
CMISSIO*S: TEST CITT. 1973
SfC «T. »ATA: TfST CITf 1973 ; UPPCft Aid: TtST CUT 1973
• AUK
COMTHIMITION M0« SIGNIFICANT POIN* SOURCES
345
SOMKCt 0
RECEP *
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
•
V
10
11
1?
13
14
13
1*
17
10
If
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
2f
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
31
39
40
41
r
.000
.000
33.799
18.203
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
5
.000
.000
.000
.000
723.757
368.049
.357
.464
.137
.181
.000
.000
.084
.536
7.980
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.GOO
.coo
.POO
.GOO
.coo
.000
.000
8
.000
.000
.000
.000
•coo
.000
431.406
204.270
7.947
9.385
.000
.000
.000
13.504
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.PCC
.OOP
.000
.coo
.ceo
.000
.POO
.000
.ceo
.000
.coc
.coo
.ooc
.000
.ceo
.coo
.roo
.coo
.ooc
.000
.coc
9
.000
.coo
.000
.coo
.000
.POO
.coo
.000
701. «8?
281. 595
.roo
.coo
.TOO
35.»2?
.coo
.coo
.coo
.coo
.coo
.coo
.roo
.coo
.000
.coo
.coo
.coo
.000
.roo
.ceo
.coo
."00
.000
.roo
.000
.roo
.coo
.roo
."00
.POO
.roo
.coo
11
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
433.3*9
194. 8?6
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.oco
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1 • NOUII
TOTAL
SICNIF
POINT
.000
.000
35.799
18.703
723.757
368.049
431.76?
204.734
710.066
291.161
433.349
194. «26
.084
49.862
7.«eo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
."00
."00
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1
TOTAL
ALL POINT
SOURCES
.000
.000
35.799
18.203
723.757
368.049
432.202
205.191
712.682
293.761
433.349
194.826
.084
51.679
7.980
.754
13.839
.000
.563
.000
.000
.000
26.205
8.605
.000
.021
19.45?
9.41?
29.518
.003
7.718
10.968
45.548
.820
.000
12.956
.000
.000
.94?
15.?10
.000
-------
RUN b»: 10 KRINSWAW. A|h I HAZARDOUS KATE*. 91V., »EG10I» IV,EPA(1 JAN T8>
EMISSIONS: TEST OT7, 197?
S»C KIT. B«TA: TEST CITT 197* ; U"PEfc AIR: TEST ttTT 1973
00
H-i
oo
CONCENTRATION 1 API E
SPEte Ml INC.
(P/S) HtlbHT(A)
1 3T.CO 1.17 4iV.11
RECEPTOR NO. EAST NORTH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
t
f
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IV
20
21
22
2!
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
3?
33
34
35
36
37
38
3*
40
41
i r
i r
E 7
t 7
#• *
E S
P t
E' t
P 9
1 «
f 11
t 11
A 4
A »
A 5
A <<
A 2
A 10
A t-
A 7
A 13
A 12
H 0
H C
H C
M C
h C
H r
H r
H (•
N I
H 0
M r
H C
h C
h C
h r
h 0
H G
M n
M C
5tf .f»0
5t4.no
5t4.43
5f 4.1ft
•7V.45
579.40
577. 5K
577. 'C
576.67
576.59
5t 2.94
5??.*
.nooo
.021*
19.45?1
9.41??
?9.S1PO
.00v>h
7. ?18P
10. 96"?
45.54P?
.B?no
.nljni
1?.9543
.rono
.0000
.94 ?G
15.^10?
.nonr
AREA HTS: 1
TOTAL FRO*
SIGNIE AREA
SOURCES
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1 .4?15
1 .4465
? .7?81
?.e?80
?.960?
3.0427
.0000
.0000
3.2543
3.0888
1.7745
1.1665
1 .6338
.8464
1.0529
.4950
.5493
.5444
.1834
1.2702
.?? 7?
.3706
.2353
.1610
.3822
.5696
.2 753
.124P
.41?1
.3788
.4319
.0959
.134?
.4»64
.OPOP
.4971
.2645
11., T*.. 19.;
.0000
.0000
.0000
.OOno
1.4667
1.49?9
?.8?80
2.9602
3.0427
.0483
.0445
3.4000
3.0888
1.8009
1.1665
1.6338
.8464
1.05?9
.61?0
.6414
.34?1
1.2702
.34*9
.4890
.35^6
.1610
.3822
.5696
.2753
.1248
.4121
.4319
.0959
.134?
.4364
• POOO
.497T
.7645
SEPARATION NTS:
12.. 16
TOTAL EROH TOTAL FROM CONCENTRATION
ALL AREA ALL SOURCES RANK
SOURCES
.0000
.0000
15.7987
18.2026
725.2218
369.5415
434.9305
208.0191
715.6425
296.8038
411.3975
194.8708
1.4837
54.7674
9.7811
1.9200
15.4727
.8464
1.6154
.5121
.6120
.6414
26.5468
9.6749
.3489
.5104
19.8057
9.5734
29.9002
.57?4
7.4931
11.0911
45.9601
1.1988
.4320
11.052?
.1142
.4364
.9420
15.7073
.?«4S
40
11
15
1
5
3
r
6
4
a
24
9
17
29
26
13
11
10
11
20
17
14
14
22
12
12
23
19
10
16
18
19
IS
28
16
38
-------
*U* •.: tO KRCMSMAW. AIR ft MA/A»»OUS MATCH. 01W., REGION XI
{MISSIONS: TEST CITT. 197)
S»C HIT. »•?•: TEST CITT 1973 ; UPPER AIR: TEST CITY 1V73
/•Aft JAM
7-HOUR AVERAGE SO? SUMMARY CONCENTRATION TA«U E8?4
2S."166
.001*
? .'0^6
12.*0«*
34.05:)?
7.7fcP1
.ro^l
18.41?*
.'.0°G
.70CC
.4711
29.?43C
.CCi?
TOTAL FRO*
SI6N1J APfA
SOURCES
.0000
.0000
.0000
.ooco
1 .6611
1.693C,
2.972S
3.0«I4?
3.227*
?.*120
.OOCO
.0300
4.1139
3.3»f6
1.97R3
1 .3397
1 .6140
.VM7
1.2067
.5670
,fc?V?
.7640
.3"C?
1.3131
.2447
.349
. 1*"6
.**1?
.nono
.^*'?
.?Pt;9
TOTAL fROM CONCENTRATION
ALL SOURCES RANK
.0000
.001*
32.5140
18.4737
706. OV6
2^8.3*147
6^4.4337
316.0301
413.6^14
206.4279
7.1^16
100.920?
7.7P41
6.1052
19.6640
1.4*81
13.7646
.411?
.511?
10. J1V4
9.062<»
3.9944
12.4688
3*.5'70
'.1970
.455',
18.461'
.1466
.4»1?
.4711
79.791?
.2»65
41
40
11
15
1
5
3
7
2
t
*
f
74
9
73
75
1*
>fc
'7
M
30
'9
1 7
18
37
33
70
71
13
'?
76
1V
10
22
^
It
39
34
*5
12
-------
K!
O
.-
111 rv
UJ
J" (-J
«-;„
•— o
03 _
~> o> -
\ '
in in
J Ul
n i -
or
o
ttr , .
(_j J
z:'"
u_ ,,
o
^
D
^
(E -
n- ^
t- '~~L-
-* &-
^ ,-^
n
C.I "
o
n
09
.« <»•)
.
X
S 99
X *
n 9«
—
x x
0 IS
X
.0 V>
X*
nx
|0 8C
— -
" X
-^*x
^>r^
.0 in
xx*
d so
,K*X
0 KG
7.X1
.0 40
X
S
0 10
~
yX
X^
o ro.
X
0 10,
X
V
K
r
d &
X**
(x
0 ?
X
( "
D 1
V
<
0 0
x x
(. a
x
J 0,
c..' G.'., i.n :a ', r, m.n r-n.n 10.n «n.ci ->o.n f.o.n ?o.n no.o 9d.o 950 LOCRTr.D RT: I b7B - /9 . * 400 • OF,)
RUN BY: F.D KRE:NSHRW. PIR 4 HP/'RRDOUS MPUR. DIV.. REGION XV.LPRII JRN 78)
EMISSIONS; TF.ST CITY. 1973
SFC MF.T. nfl^fl: TF_ST CUY iq73 : uf-crR niR; tfr.r CITY 1973
-------
Chapter 19
Elements and Applications of the
Complex Terrain (VALLEY) Model
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the complex terrain (VALLEY) model that is currently
available on the UNAMAP computer package.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. describe the application of the Complex Terrain model to a given
source and surrounding terrain features.
2. describe the accuracy of the Complex terrain model under given source-
receptor conditions.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (VALLEY).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Elements and Apf.-'ct!ons of the Complex Ter-
rain (VALLEY) Model.
19-1
-------
Attachment 19-1. VALLEY model estimate of \ 24-hour maximum short-cut method (Ed Burt).
GENERAL FORM:
Avalley, 24-hr
(aXb)*fhalf~lifel«fplume defleH [6-hour] f v *] [Standard**]
i I factor J [tlon factor * 24-hr * AC * Conditions
i i i 'i J l i J I i J
-0.693X/(3600*I*u)
X in meters; I In hours
u in meters/second (2.5)
t
[401-p]
[ 400 J
1 ^ D ^ 401m
P=l for nonstable
I
T 1013.25
298
°K & nib
from fig 3-5 "^
Turner's WADE
(stability F)
W -W
EXAMPLE: Make an estimate of maximum X oi >. concentration at a
site 40 meters above plume height (at stability F, u - 2.5
meters/second, T - 283°K, P - 850mb). and 6400 meters
from source. Half-life • 3-hours. Q » 103 g/s.
From WADE, XK " *-5*10~8 »eters~a (use H - 10 meters)
/. X_ * 1.8*10~a grams/meter" , and
(fcl-hr
'24-hr max
?• (0.18)(0.85)(0.9)(6/24)(1.8*10"2*106)(1.13)
i
700 pg/m
19-3
-------
J
l.i'I i
Valley Model
SHORTCUT TO VALLEY MODEL ESTIMATE OF X 24-hour
1 UtllS ll ?
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Elements and Applications of the Complex
Terrain (VALLEY) Model
19-5
-------
VALLEY MODEL
PROVIDES ESTIMATE OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
ASSUMES WORST CASE OCCURS FOR PLUME
IMPINGEMENT UNDER STABLE CONDITIONS
FIELD DATA INDICATE A COMMON WORST CASE
IS CLASS F, 2.5 m/s, 6 HOURS PERSISTENCE
OF WIND IN A 22 1/2° SECTOR
NOT DESIGNED FOR:
— CURVING PLUMES
— UNSTABLE CONDITIONS
— DOWNWASH
- CALMS
— FUMIGATION
19-7
-------
EPA POLICY ON COMPLEX TERRAIN
INSUFFICIENT EMPIRICAL DATA EXIST TO SPECIFY
GENERALLY APPLICABLE COMPLEX TERRAIN MODELS
SCREENING TECHNIQUES:
-- VALLE JR STABLE CONDITIONS
— CRAMER FOR UNSTABLE CONDITIONS
IF POTENTIAL PROBLEM IS INDICATED:
-- SOURCE DEVELOPS ON-SITE DATA BASE
-- APPLY REFINED MODEL
EPA INITIATING 5-YEAR PLAN IN FY 80 TO DE-
( VELOP AND TEST COMPREHENSIVE COMPLEX TER-
RAIN MODELS
C
19-8
-------
VALLEY MODEL CAPABILITIES
• MULTIPLE SOURCES, UP TO 50 POINT OR A EA
• STAR INPUT DATA
• POLLUTANT HALF-LIFE
• CONCENTRATION UNITS
• URBAN/RURAL OPTION
• LIMITED MIXING
» LONG-TERM/24-HOUR OPTION
* 112 FIXED RECEPTORS
• TERRAIN ADJUSTMENT
19-9
-------
UNSTABLE AND
NEUTRAL CATEGORIES
STABLE
CATEGORIES
FRACTION
OF PLUME
REMAINING
IN SECTOR
Figure 2-1. Depiction of Plume Height In Complex Terrain, as in the Valley
Model, h is the Height of the Plume at Final Rise Above Ground for the
Unstable and Neutral Cases and Above Stack Base for the Stable Cases. Plumes
are Shown for Flows Toward and Away from Elevated Terrain.
C
19-10
-------
.u / —
RELOC4TI Z/3 INCH OP-/
mO
.O
.0
.0
.0 VH VALLEY VI
H4IN SMCK
.0
TEST RUM — S02
P*RTI«L UIMD ROSE FOR E«SY DUPLICATION.
.0
.0 *U -0
HLIFE= 3.00 MRS. CONCTR CORRCTO TO STD CONO VI* FACTOR 1.106. H*X TOWARD .9U. DE6. ,NORTH TOJMRD
. U . I .3 '
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
PLOT 153.CSS
.0
.0
.0 .0
.0 .0
.0 •*•*••*•• .0
• COORD •
.U » _._ * .U
11U.7
.U *••*•»*•• .0
.0 .0
EZ.6 25.8
LEV CUOHDX COORDY
.F.T <460.UC- 60.OC
,!,
.0
.0 VV HEW WIND SPUSlNpSl W .U
2.SOUUU . LOtlOO .UCUOO .LDOGO UJUOOU .OCtiOU
HU/LTIPLY PRINTED V»LU£S BY
1.0*32 TO GET CONC._ t?l UG/H3
K Mr"^Tc^/sEO rixo DH
75.N l.ZOCO'OJ ......
136.2 / BRIGiE BRIGlr t MIX OHMI ST«K T WIDTH
100. S.CO
BRICUN PIMBI
2?2. «TO. .C
10.3
4IR T 0*3 T DM1 OC V fLOW
283. 375. 3.2 ».B 36.C
.0
RURLt SHRT-TERM NODE.
.0
.U
U KM .b09KH 1.218KH 1.827KN 2.43CXH 3.3>»5KM J.C5«lKH
3 ....*....3 3 3.........3....*.... 3. ....... .3
.u RELOCATE 2/2 INCH DOWN
.o—/ .i.
SLOPING TERRAIN CONCEFT.
-------
.0 / —
RELOCATE 2/3 INCH UP-/
• 0
.0
HLtrC=
3.0U MRS.
6H. 2
~" " "" " - - - ^^ vj^ y%LLEy W1
.0 VENTS.I AS AREA ERCI
.0 .0
.O .0
TEST RUN — 502
PARTIAL WIND ROSE FOR EASY DUPLICATION.
.U .0 .0
/ .0 .0
CONCTR CORRCTO TO STD COND VIA FACTOR 1.106. MAX TOWARD 9U. DEC. NORTHl TOWARD
•C
tp
H-1
N)
97.6
58
I
10 .1
S5.5
.D ftunO° 51<
/ -° 8°^\ - I
93.3 • »••••».»• 7 3*.8 I
( • COORD J. I
82.8 • _._ I»79S|.8 269.8 97.5
101.2
PLOT 795.7C3
6U.1
\ / • COORD J. T ... I I I l.U*01 TO GET COMC . Ill 00/1
5.3 82.8 • _._ I»79S|.8 269.8 97.5 | 28.1 I | .0 .0 _ Q^r
• i I • M60f6t'« I SOR ELEV doORDX COORDY STK HT OJCK/SECT FIXO 01
\ \ 93.<» *«*«»»»y*732^l /38UU.FT M59.B1 59. 8» I 20. H 3.CaOO»C2 I
\ \ \, .0 ' .U/ -.. / | / I ||
HS\6 N .t* .0 /227.^ BHID.E I BRI6.F I DMIX DNNI STAR F «OTM
v .0 / »l»». »J»« ••••• I I Q. 100. 6.00 20.
/ 9A.2 / /
.0 .0 / 15.0 I I BR1CON P«HBI HUT
.0 .(j I I /•••••••• 870. .0
. ..0 ...... / / J»/ /)
".0 VV HE*N VINO SPDS«HPS» W .U ' ' I U
\.U VV MEAN WIND SPDS IMPS I W .U
2.50UUU .00000 .U 1)0 00 .OOUOO .CiOUliU .OOUCU
46.2
.U
.0
.0
T CAS T OTA" OAS V FLOV
263.••••••••••••••••«••«•••••••
.0
.0
.0
.0
BURL. SMRT-TERH MODE,
U KM
3.. ..
.6U9KH 1.Z1BKH 1.827KM 2.H3CKH 3.DM5KM 3.CS4KM
3 + 3 « 3 »....3 * 3 «....]
.O __RQ-OC»TC 2/3 INCH DOUf:
.O / .tl SLOPING TERRAIN COMCCPT.
-------
TEST RUM -- 302 P4RTI4L MIND ROSE FOR E* Sf DUPLICATION.
SOURCE 0*T». PLOT 180.63?
SOURCE N4ME COOKDX COORUY STK HT ENISS R4TE FIXO DH SOR M SOR H BRICUN BRIOE 8RICF 4IR T 6«S T OHM G*S
1 S*IN ST»CK! ISO.00 bU.UU 75. 1.2UCMU«CJ»»«»»»»«* U. 3800. 272.••»•••• 51. 283. 375. 3.2 *.B
_2_ V£.tTS^t»S. «RC4!5RC1 . 4SS.84 59.dl 20. 3.UUliU«02 D. 20* 3800. •••*•••••«»•••«•••«••• 283* »•*• ••*•• «••*«
f
i—j
Oo
-------
.0
.0
.0
.0 VI» VM.LEY VI
SUM CONC DUC TO *LL SBCS
. (J
.0
TEST RUN — S02
P4RTHL HIND ROSE FOR E*SY DUPLIC4TICN.
.0
.U
HLIFE- 3.111) HRC. CONCTR CORRCTO TO STD COND WU F4CTOH 1.106. M Wt TOU4RD 90. DEC. NORTH TOJMRD Tori PLOT 180.637
8.0
5.8 ?„«•
t. 0
u
11.9
12.9 15.5
,1,
9.3 .».«..,
COORO «•
-- !•
•o 3 to> \
lbb.9
71. 6
72
15.9
0
28.7
......
11.9
/ ««bDt6l> / SOR ELEtf JCOORDX COORDY
9,3 |«»*».»J» 7j.2 •*.».»FT»l«»«»»»•••*»••»•
\v \. .u isV^u BRIG.E IURIC/.F
\ \ YO •/• i- ..-'--
\ Bounces J 71
.0 .0 /
*0 .0
.0
.0 Vtf ME *W MIND SPDSJMPS! W .U t
njLTIPLY PRINTED V«LUCS BY
l.Q+32 TO GET COMC. IfJ UC/M3
LO 5.7 ~ 11.1
I
\
S1K IIT QtGM/SECI TIXD OH
,0000 •••••«
.0 / I I
r / |
/ 11 J3
••k»*»H O.
X /10MNI STAR r WI
P. C/ ICO. 6.CC*»«
DMI
DTH
2.SUUOLI .UOLiDO .OOUUO .CJLtJOQ .ODDUti .OOLCU
» 0 . SJ
.U .0 .0
.0
BRICUN P«M9t
....... 870. .C
S T
283
.0
.0
RURL . SHHT-TERH «ODE .
.0
O KK .&U9KH 1.218KM 1.827KM 2.H36KH 3. 01 5KM
3 »•-.*«...3.... *. ...3. ...*... .3.. ..+... .3. ... », ...3.. «.«.»..3
.0 __RD-OC»TE 2/3 IK CM DOWN
*°—' -f SLOPING TERRAIN CONCrPT,
-------
J.1!>.B X
RELOCATE 2/3 INCH UP- -f
11S.B
115. E
115.8
115-8
AS
~-f -
12.5,8
115,8
115.8
115.8-
115.8
US.8
SX5..8
115.8
115.8
115.8
115, 8
115. 8
115 .8
115.8 VIA VALLEY VI
GROUND ELEV DIFFERENCtS.
115.8
TEST RUM — S02
PARTIAL WIND ROSE FOR EASY DUPLICATION.
11S.8 „ _
W-33.5 300
WORTH TOWARD TOP. 1 1/lU » U SOURCE H T< 1J t- 1 RECPT H HTINIIS, HTS IM METERS. f ,.
.0 faf5 v&o
115,8 115.8 -wtflCV1' *rS\
.0 115.3 T J
115.8 115.8 200
»O 11S»8 115.8 1-25.9
•U r/- //)/) -19.%
u?,a 50 'fi' i
»«J 115,8 115,8 ").0 -|12.b /
llr.8 115. 8Ti
McAies KzceproR. eieVATWH M^f^^( \
s.0 .O «,U .0 .U SvL/^Nt; "A ~2 -U
^ &$ Mse; "-^^i2!0
.0 ilb.jr 11 5. a |
X^ 115.8
.0 (_ WIN& t>l&eCTl0H
»t> iis.8 RAN6CS n
115*8 Il5»8
.0 115.8
I I i.u«u
L12.6 -22.9
BOR ELEV JCOORDX
33UU.FT««I«»**»«»
rl2.6 CRIG.E Ul
I ••!•••••••
1 -21.3
5.8 -2S.L'I
j 5.8 VV HE AN MIND SPOSIMPSl W 115. B /
^0 $$$•*••$#* ift# •••••••• * • • • 4
en
* • * •
-55.
"w
_ ED VALUES BY
ID ELEV DIFF IN H
-HU.8 -J5.1 \
1 CIGH/SECJ riXD OH
H O.COCO !»•••••
DHNI JSTAR r WIDTH
1CUN P«MB» MUT \
•••••••S* rt i
•u\
' \ \
-12. T
US. 8
115.8
AIR T CAS T DIAN CAS V FLOU
115.8
115.8
115.8
115.8
115.8
115,8
115.8
115,8
115.e
115.8
115.8
115.3
115.8
RURL» SHRT-TERM MODE,
115.82
115.tt
.6li9KM 1.218KN 1.B27KM 2.436KH 3. Q15KH 3.65
-------
Chapter 20
Elements and Applications of the
Ozone Isopleth (EKMA/OZIPP)
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the Ozone Isopleth (EKMA/OZIPP) model that is currently
available for use and is endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Chapter Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. describe the application of the Ozone Isopleth model to a
given source and surrounding terrain features.
2. describe the accuracy of the Ozone Isopleth model under given source-
receptor conditions.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (EKMA/OZIPP).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Elements and Applications „/ ike Ozone Isopleth
(EKMA/OZIPP) Model.
20-1
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Elements and Applications of the Ozone
Isopleth (EKMA/OZIPP) Model
20-3
-------
REVISIONS TO PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIPANTS NAAQS
1. RAISE STANDARD TO 120 PPB
2. CHANGE TO OZONE
3. CHANGE MONITORING CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
4. CHANGE TO STATISTICAL FORM
5. TREATMENT OF MISSING DATA
6. CHANGES TO CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
BY DEFINITION:
The ozone NAAQS is attained "When the expected
number of days per calendar year with maximum
hourly average concentrations above 120 PPB is
equal to or less than one".
20-5
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR OZONE SIP DEVELOPMENT
1. PHOTOCHEMICAL DISPERSION MODELS
2. EMPIRICAL KINETICS MODELING APPROACH (EKMA)
3. STATISTICAL AND EMPIRICAL MODELS
4. MODIFIED LINEAR ROLLBACK
20-6
-------
MODIFIED LINEAR ROLLBACK
0, - A(TQ - 40) - 120
°3 - AT0
03 = DESIGN VALUE OF OZONE
TQ = CURRENT OZONE TRANSPORT
A = ADDITIVITY FRACTION
20-7
-------
INITIAL
CONDITIONS
I
WIMP |
1
1
1
1
/ V V V
-*— '1— »-
-fr
11
• •*•
X
^^
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
\H^
-«— 12-
-$
^J
1^'
^
Uio
-*•
w
p^
/^
-« —
N
y
2x
•"-)
^
-'3-
,''
"Q3
— ^•
IV
V
— *•
13x
1^
'
+/
\^X^ DILUTION RATE, x%/hr.
s
~^^^*~ ETC.
KEY
ti TIME PERIOD i
Mi MIXING DEPTH AFTER TIME i
Qi PRECURSORS INJECTED INTO
COLUMN DURINGTIME i
// ~tj-= SUNLIGHT INTENSITY DURIN
1 *T- TIME i
Figure 6. Conceptual view of the column model.
20-8
-------
EKMA ISOPLETHS
STANDARD
HAND APPLICATION
FIXED SET OF
ASSUMPTIONS
PREDICTS CHANGES
IN 03 ONLY
CITY SPECIFIC
OZIPP COMPUTER PROGRAM
LOCAL CONDITIONS INPUT
PREDICTS ABSOLUTE CON-
CENTRATIONS AND CHANGES
IN 03
INPUTS -
DESIGN 0,
MEDIAN 6-9 am
NMHC/NOV RATIO
A
DESIGN 03 = 0.280 PPM
MEDIAN RATIO = 6
STARTING POINT COORDINATES ARE:
NMHC
NO.
0.86 PPM
0.146 PPM
QUESTION 1: What NMHC reduction will reduce 03 to
0.120 PPM?
R = 0.86 - 0.4/ 0.86 = 53%
QUESTION 2: If NO^ is reduced 50%, what NMHC reduc-
tion is needed?
R = 0.86 - 0.26/ 0.86 = 70%
20-9
-------
OZONE ISOPLETH PLOTTING PACKAGE (OZIPP)
NTIS: PB 287-768. COST: $250.00
INPUTS:
LIGHT INTENSITY- LATITUDE, LONGITUDE, DAY
MIXING HEIGHT- DIURNAL VARIATION
NMHC AND NOX EMISSIONS AFTER 8 am
NMF'C "EACTIVITY
ALDEHYDE FRACTION OF NMHC
N02 FRACTION OF NOX
TRANSPORT OF NMHC, N02, AND 03 INTO URBAN AREA,
BOTH ALOFT AND AT THE SURFACE
20-10
-------
USE OF CITY SPECIFIC ISOPLETHS
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
•DESIGN 03, MEDIAN RATIO
STARTING POINT
COORDINATES
2. FUTURE CONTROLLED
STATE
-^NECESSARY REDUCTIONS IN
LOCAL NMHC AND NOX
EMISSIONS
20-11
-------
Chapter 21
Elements and Applications of Mobile
Source Model (Mobile 1)
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the Mobile Source (MOBILE1) procedure.
Chapter Objective
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. explain the procedure used to determine the percentage amount of hydro-
carbon emissions from all types of vehicles.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes (MOBILE1).
Support Material
Peter Guldberg, Modeling Notes, Mobile Source Emissions (MOBILE1) Model.
21-1
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Peter H. Guldberg
Mobile Source Emissions
(MOBILE1) Model
21-3
-------
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS MODEL
MOBILE1 PROGRAM AND USER'S GUIDE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
P!OBILE2 PROGRAM AND USER'S GUIDE AVAILABLE NOVEMBER 1980
CONTACT: EPA OFFICE OF MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL
2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105
(313) 668-4306
21-5
-------
REQUIRED INPUT FOR EACH SCENARIO
i. REGION
2. CALENDAR YEAR
3. AVERAGE VEHICLE SPEED
4. ANBJRNT TEMPERATURE
5. 7, COLD START VMT
6. % HOT START VMT
21-6
-------
EMISSION PARAMETERS
3 REGIONS Low ALTITUDE
CALIFORNIA
HIGH ALTITUDE (>fc,000 FT)
6 VEHICLE TYPES |_DY
LDT1
LDT2
HDG
HDD
MC
3 POLLUTANTS HC
CO
NO,
CALENDAR YEARS 1970-1999
21-7
-------
OPTIONAL INPUTS AND DEFAULT'VALUES
VMT Mix BY VEHICLE TYPE
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION BY AGE
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
AIR CONDITIONING
HUMIDITY
IDLE EMISSIONS
HC EMISSIONS
NATIONAL AVG,
NATIONAL AVG.
NONE
NONE
75 GRAINS/LB
NONE
TOTAL
21-8
-------
NATIONWIDE AVERAGE
COLD/HOT START MIX FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Vehicles Cold 20.58%
Start Mode
Vehicles Hot 27.28%
Start Mode
Vehicles Hot 52.14%
Stabilized Mode _____
Total 100.00%
21-9
-------
MIX (1979 G 1982)- VEL-32 .0 ,TEMP»20
TOTAL HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP, HC EMISSION FACTORS
CAL. YEAR: 1979
REGION: 49-sTATE
TOTAL HC
EXHAUST CO
EXHAUST NOX
CAL. YEAR:
REGION: 49
TOTAL HC
EXHAUST CO
EXHAUST NOX
LDV
: 5.46
: 53.10
: 3.19
1982 .
LDV
: 3.56
: 36.65
: 2.57
TEMP: 20
32.0:32.
COMPOSI
LDT1
6.39
59.83
3.29
TEMP: 20
32.0:32.
COMPOSI
LDT1
5.08
57.63
2.88
VEH. TYPE
.0(F)
0/32.0/32.0
TE EMISSION
LDT2
9,77
71.32
5.95
VEH. TYPE
,0(F)
0/32.0/32,0
TE EMISSION
LDT2
7.57
65.71
4.64
: LUV
0.811/0
MPH (32.
FACTORS
HOG
15.93
168.83
11.66
: LUV
0.811/0
MPH (32.
FACTORS
HD(>
11.73
177.39
..11.12
LDT1 LDT2 HOG
.144/0.013/0.023/0
0) 20. O/ 20, O/
(GM/MILE)
HDD MC
3.17 8.74
17.59 32.68
18.35 0.21
LDT1 LOT2 HDG
.144/0.013/0.023/0
0) 20. 0/ 20, 0/
(GM/MILE)
HDD C
2.95 5.94
16.31 23.68
17.76 0.47
HDD MC
.009/0 ,0
20.0
ALL MODES
5.87
56.71
3.57
HDD HC
.009/0.0
20.0
ALL MODES
4.02
43.10
2.97
-------
NATIONWIDE AVERAGE
MOTOR VEHICLE MIX BY TYPE
Vehicle Type Percentage of VMT
Light-Duty Vehicles (LDV) 80.3%
Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks
0-6000 Ib GVWl/ (LDT1) 5.8%
Over 6000 Ib GVW (LDT2) 5.8%
Heavy-Duty gasoline Trucks (HDG) 4.5%
Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks (HDD) 3.1%
Motorcycles (MC) 0.5%
Total 100.0%
I/ Gross vehicle weight.
21-11
-------
REVISED INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME 9. WORKSHEET 2
Instruction
Enter "freeflow" emissions (g/m) from MOBILE1
run using cruise speed on line A. Note
MOBILE1 emissions (g/mile) must be multiplied
by a conversion factor of 0.0006214.
17a First, calculate a correction factor Ct as
the composite emission rate (g/mile) predicted
by MOBILE1 for study area conditions using a
speed of 5 mph, divided by 188.8 g/mile (the
emission rate at 5 mph for the standard
conditions given in the Guideline). Multiply
this Ct times line 16.
17b Multiply line 5 by the sum of each approach of
line 6.9, divide by line 6.5.
17c Subtract 17b from 17a and enter on line 17-
18 Multiply line 5 by line 2, divide by 3600.
Enter this as the adjusted free-flow emission
rate.
21-12
-------
BURLINGTON KOOOS-VLL«3t.0,TEMP«33 K
TCTAL HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP. HC EMISSION FACTORS
VEh. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HOG HDD
CAL. YEAR: i960 TEMP
REGION! 49-STATE 3fe,0
33,0(FJ 0.803 /C. 058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
38.0/38,0/38.0 MPH (3t,0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 20'4, MECH. TRAINING: YES
1/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TL MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/M1LE)
LDV LUT1 LDT2 HOG HCD MC ALL MCDES
EXHAUST CO: 36.59 44.77 54.56 152.66 14.33 22.71 42.57
VEh. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LOT2 HOG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 19K2 TEMP: 33.OIF) o.803/c.o58/o.o58/G.045/0.031/0.005
REGICN: 49-STATE 3fc.O:38.0/38.0/3b.O MPH 136.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20,6
LCV I/M PKUGKAM STARTING IN 1982» STRINGENCY LEVEL 20X, MECH. TRAINING: YES
1/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MOCEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999-
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LOV LDT1 LDT2 HOG HDD MC ALL MCOES
EXHAUST CO! 27,86 43,19 51.22 16CK27 13.6C 18.09 _ ^ 35.57
VEh, TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HOC HDD ^C
CAL. YEAR! 1987 TLMP:' 33,0(F) 0.803/C.056/0.058/C.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 3t.o:3o.o/3e.o/3e.c MPH i3t.o) 20.&/ 27.3/ 20.6
LUV 1/M PKOGKAf, STARTING IN 1982r STRINGENCY LEVEL 205i, MECH. TRAINING! YES
I/M PROG. BENEFITS AT"LY ONLY TU MOCEL YEARS 1S51 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (CK/MILE)
LDV LOT1 LDT2 HOG HCD MC ALL MCDES
EXHAUST CO: 7.59 29.70 36.09 11C.77 12.94 5.71 15.32
-------
Chapter 22
Shoreline Fumigation Model
Chapter Goal
To familiarize you with the Shoreline Fumigation model developed by Walter
Lyons and Henry Cole, and to familiarize you with the techniques used to predict
concentrations along the interface of land and water.
Chapter Objective
Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. use the Lyons and Cole techniques of modeling plume behavior along the
interface of land and water to predict concentrations of pollutants.
Chapter Outline
Follows Modeling Notes, Shoreline Fumigation Model.
Support Material
Walter Lyons and Henry Cole, Modeling Notes, Shoreline Fumigation Model with
Appendix.
22-1
-------
MODELING NOTES
by Henry S. Cole
Shoreline Fumigation Model
With Appendices 1-3
22-3
-------
Lyons and Cole Shoreline Fumigation Model
DISCUSSION OF THE MODEL
Transparency, page 39, Lyon's EPA report
I. The dispersion for the shoreline fumigation case is divided into 3
parts:
Zone 1 - The plume is initially emitted into stable air. The disper-
sion is gaussian in both the vertical and crosswind direct-
ions. Flume does not impact the surface.
Zone 2 - Fumigation occurs. Enhanced horizontal (gaussian) dispersion
is due to mixing in the turbulent zone. In the vertical, the
dispersion is gaussian above the lid, uniform below. Contains
maximum ground-level concentration.
Zone 3 - The entire plume is engulfed in the turbulent layer. The dis-
tribution is gaussian in the horizontal, using coefficients
of dispersion for unstable air. Note the use of a virtual
point source. Also note that the use of ffy based on distance
to the actual source would greatly overestimate the plume
spread.
THE FUMIGATION ZONE
Predicting the maximum ground-level concentration
1. Locating Xfc and Xe , a desk calculator method:
A. You first need to know the effective plume height, ie, you can use
Briggs for stable.
B. Plot either the measured T1BL (top of internal boundry layer) on a
graph or illustrate with a parabolic TIBL model.
L « mx
C. On the same graph or on an overlay plot He .
D. Plot as a function of x:
H + 2.15oz and R - 2.150Z for stable air. It is convenient to have
then plotted in advance.
22-5
-------
A. VERTICAL PLUME GEOMETRY
STABLE LAYEI ALOFT
CLASS
STACK HEIGHT
HORIZONTAL PLUME GEOMETRY
ACTUAL
SOURCE
FUMIGATION ZONE
Figure 1 (a) Schematic of plume geometry 1n vertical (XZ)
plane used 1n nodellng continuous fumigation, (b) horizontal
(XY) plume geometry used In the Lyons and Cole continuous
fumigation model.
22-6
-------
DISPERSION M3DEL CONTINUED
2. The equation for the fumigation zone, ie, J^ < X <
geneous for 0 < Z < L .
1 is homo-
Consider the Y - 0 line:
X(x,OsO) •
Idp
where,
Q » source in grams per second
L * lid height, which varies as a function of x, (meters)
u *> mean wind speed in meters per second
„£ » stable dispersion coefficient, adjusted for added turb-
ulence in the fusaigation zone. Function of x.
ayf * ay + He /8 (in meters)
Idp - the integral of the normal distribution curve
£(2ir)J5
exp (-p*/2)dp
where p - |L(x) -
3. Handling the I term, the physical interpretation:
The integral I represents the portion of
the plume that is mixing downward in the
turbulent air below the lid. In the case
shown to the right, most of the plume re-
mains above the lid.
-1
22-7
Figure 2 Physical interpretation
-------
The Integral can be solved by referring to a normal probability func-
tion table. Find p » -1 by looking up 1: •
F(l) - 0.8413
(See Appendix 3)
for a -1 use 1 - F(l) - 0.1587, ie, at this distance downwind approx-
imately 161 of the plume is mixed downward.
4. EXAMPLE:
Given: Q » 109 grams per second
He - 330 meters
V
L • f (x) 3 ':: (assumed)
u • 5 meters per second
stabilities : stable marine air - F
unstable air within TIBL - B
nonvarying portion of the equation:
vq/rrr
QX106
10* X 10*
7.98X10'
U
variable portion of the equation:
•P
Idp
1250
1200
1150
noo-
1050'
1000-
950
900
/ N^^
1 ^
/
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
3.0 3.5 4.0
KM (X)
cone:
Figure 3 Example problem plot
Note that all of these terms increase
with increasing values of x.
The maximum occurs between X_ and Xg .
In the example shown Xp - 3 kilometers and X
Calculate values for 3, 3.5, 4, and 4.5 kilometers. Put on a
graph.
4.5 kilometers
22-8
-------
Calculations for Z » 0, and Y - 0.
At a distance of 3 kilometers :
L - 330 meters oy (f) - 92 meters
He - 330 meters oyf - 92 + 41.25 - 133 meters
P
Idp - 0.5
-OB
7.98X107 X 0.5 0-Q , ,
•'• X «rv " " 909.1 ygrams per meter9
3KM 133 X 330
At a distance of 3.5 kilometers:
L - 360 meters p - 360 - 330/28 - 30/28 - 1.07
H. • 330 meters /*p
e J Idp - 0.8577
az » 28 meters ~*
110 +41-151
110 meters
7.98X10* X 0.8577 ,,,. fc ,
•'• x 1 Sirw " - ' - " U59 Vgraas per meter'
3'3KM 151 X 360
At a distance of 4 kilometers:
L - 380 meters p - 380 - 330/31 - 50/31 • 1.61
He - 330 meters /Idp - 0.9463
•/-OB
oz » 31 meters
ervf - 120 + 41 - 161
. oz - 120 meters yi
. 7.98X10- X 0.9463
161 X 380
22-9
-------
For 5 kilometers the entire plume is engulfed. Use Turner's equation
for limited nixing, but let L vary and now use c_ for unstable air.
At a distance of 5 kilometers ;
L8 - 420 aeters
f or Z - 0 , and Y - 0
oy L u
The a used in this equation must be for the unstable air (B stability) .
Boweyer, since the plume only started dispersing in unstable air in the
fumigation zone (and not at the source) a virtual source oust be used to
calculate downwind distances , X' , that will be used to calculate oy .
The virtual s6urce may be located as follows :
(1) Find Oyf at Kg , in our example Xe ™ 4.5 kilometers
Oyf - 41 + 130 - 171 meters, where ayf • ay Btable + He /8
(2) On the ay graph (Turner) for the unstable (B) find that downwind
distance where 0yu * 171 meters
This turns out to be 1.1 kilometers. Thus the virtual point
source will be located 1.1 kilometers upwind of the Xe .
X4 - Xe - 1.1 « 3.4 kilometers
(3) X' - X - 74
22-10
-------
Appendix
A-l. Lyons, Walter and Cole, Henry S. 1973. "Fumigation and Plume Trapping
on the Shores of Lake Michigan During Stable Onshore Flow." Journal of
Applied Meteorology. 12:494-510.
A-2. Peters, L. K. 1975. "On the Criteria for the Occurrence of Fumigation
Inland From a Large Lake." Atmospheric Environment. 9:809-816.
A-3. Cumulative Standardized Normal Distribution (table).
A-l
-------
4
(Manuscript received I March 1972, in revised form 16 January 1973 >
ABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown that the lake breeze circulation cell which develops along the western shore
of Lake Michigan during almost half of the warm season days has detrimental eflects upon the air quality
of the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area. However, stable onshore flow associated with a synoptic-scale pressure
gradient occurs for an additional 15% of warm season days. This study examines the dispersion patterns
during gradient, onshore flow. Fumigation and plume trapping, in particular, appear 10 cause serious degra-
dation of air quality. Continuous fumigation of elevated plumes develops on days with strong insolation
Plume trapping occurs when a plume is emitted into a shallow layer of unstable air capped by a deep lid
of stable air. This condition is frequent on overcast spring days.
Two days characterized by easterly gradient -Binds were studied: 27 May 1970, overcast; 25 June 1970,
predominately sunny. The studies utilized meteorological data obtained from ground observers, ship's
records, a wiresonde, and from aircraft photography.
A computer diffusion model incorporating the mesoscale meteorological characteristics for each da\ pre-
dicted ground level concentrations from several sources including a large coal burning power plant. The
model for the fumigating power plant plume (25 June) yielded estimates in excess of 1.0 ppm SO- 7 km
downwind of the plant.
Limited air monitoring dala appear to confirm the diffusion model estimates and observations of plume
behavior.
1. Introduction
There is mounting evidence that residents of highly
populated, industrialized areas near Great Lakes shore-
lines receive higher than expected dosages of pollutants
during spring and summer months. Papers by Olsson
(1969). Lyons (1972), and Olsson el a!. (1968), among
others, have shown that the lake breeze circulation cell
which frequently develops during the warm season has
very detrimental effects upon the air quality in near-
shore areas. This situation often occurs when the
synoptic-scale pattern does not warrant the declaration
of an "Air Stagnation Advisory."
This study will show, however, that other common
mesoscale regimes markedly degrade local air quality.
On many warm season days, either clouds sufficiently
reduce insolation and/or gradient winds are too strong
to permit the formation of an organized lake breeze
circulation cell. Yet, on these days, serious pollution
problems frequently develop on the downwind shores.
This paper deals primarily with non-lake, breeze, on-
shore flow regimes.
'Contribution Xo. 69, Center for Great Lakes Studies, The
Vniversitv of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Lake Michigan (Fig. 1) is roughly 140 km wide and
520 km long. Reaching depths of almost 300 m, its
water temperatures lag considerably behind those of
the air during spring and summer, not reaching a quasi-
steady state with nearly uniform surface temperature?
(near 20C) until July, according to Church (1945) and
Mortimer (1968). Thus, throughout the "warm season,"
and especially during April, May and June, the land
air is warmer than the lake surface both day and night.
with the temperature contrast often as large as 25C.
In the absence of lake breezes, gradient winds adveci
warm land air from one shore to the other. Bellairr
(1965) was among the first to study the low-level modi-
fication of the air under these conditions. Using ship-
towed wiresondes, he found an extremely intense, but
also very shallow (^150 m), inversion layer formed
by conductive cooling. Lyons (1970) presented addi-
tional observational data and developed a numerical
simulation scheme for this phenomena, which he termed
a "conduction inversion." The atmosphere above the
surface conduction layer also tends to be stably strati-
fied as it flows onshore, not having been heated from
below as is the case over land during the day. Thi
deep pool of coolei air produces a lake mesohigh of
A-l-1
-------
. \rkii. 1973
WALTER A . LYONS AND H E X R Y S. COLE
495
TIG. 1. Area of investigation. Power plant under stud vis located 15 km south of Milwaukee,
\Visc. (MKE). Stars show locations of XOAA radiosonde stations in area. Hourly weather
data are available at locations shown by large circle.
some 2 mb excess pressure with a mean subsidence ap-
proaching 3-5 cm sec"1, which further stabilizes the
lake airmass (Lyons, 1971). As the air flows onshore
during the day, the surface temperature deficit rapidly
disappears within about 20 km inland fetch (Herkoff,
1%V), while in the vertical a thermal internal boundary
(T1BL) originates at the shoreline and erodes the over-
King stable cap (Bierly, 1968).
From a pollution viewpoint, this situation clearly
represents a hazardous regime. If there were an elevated
point source of some pollutant near the shoreline, the
L-fflneni would initially be emitted into the stratified
la\ers at higher levels and flow inland. As soon as the
pi time intersected the deepening TIBL, intense down-
ward mixing would cause high concentrations to reach
the surface at some point several kilometers inland.
I'pward dispersion is restricted by a capping layer of
stable unmodified lake air. This phenomenon, known as
fumigation, has long been recognized in connection
with the burn-off of nocturnal radiation inversions,
producing unusually high surface concentrations for
.')') 6!) min. During stable onshore flow on sunny days,
however, fumigation may be almost continuous through
I he da\, from an hour or so after sunrise and before sun-
set. Since it is estimated that stable-gradient onshore
flow occurs in the Chicago-Milwaukee area on about
15% of the spring and summer days, this phenomenon
is not an occasional but rather frequent occurrence.2
' About three times that number of days are associated with
lake breezes. If the lake breeze penetrates far enough inland (say
At night or when skies are overcast, elevated plumes
advect inland with minimal vertical diffusion. At such
times, however, low-level sources become problems.
During the spring, the inshore waters are warming
rapidly while a vast pool of cold water remains offshore.
Fig. 2, a XOAA-1 infrared map of-the Great Lakes on
the night of 28 May 1971, clearly illustrates the
"thermal bar" pattern discussed by Rodgers (1965).
This condition results in the formation of a shallow
Fie. 2. XOAA-1 DRIR satellite photograph for 0300 CST 28
May 1971, showing Great Lakes and vicinity. Darker areas are
warmer, and edge wanning around Lake Michigan's shore shows
quite clearly.
10 km), and has a sufficiently deep inflow layer (perhaps 300 m or
more), the identical fumigation problem defined below occurs
under that regime also.
A-l-2
-------
496
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
VOLUME 12
1-MDiANA \
35 80
37 MAY 1970
ILLINOIS
ISO
J-JG. 3- Lake Michigan water surface temperatures snd maximum air temperatures overland recorded on 25 June 1970 (left) and
27 May 1970 (righti. Also plotted are conditions observed at 1400 CST on both days with the wind sounding reported at 1800 CSX
ai Green Bav (GRB). On? wind barb equals 5 kt.
miu-d la\er as cold air from the center of the lake
passe? over warmer inshore ivaters and is briefly heated
from below As the air advects inland, pollutants
emitted within the relatively turbulent lower la^er
have their upward dispersion limited b">' the capping
inversion la_\ :-r above. The matter is further complicated
b\ in .Teased turbulence due to tne shoreline discon-
iinuit\ in roughness lengths The cherrra! and friciionai
effects, working, in tandem, produce plume trapping,
which often results in high ground level pollutant
concentrations.
In this paper, field work that assessed the seriousness
of these problems will be described. Following this, a
simple numerical model is used which suggests the
direction of future research in terms of mathematical
simulation and pollution monitoring.
2. Observations of plume behavior
Field studies were conducted two days, 27 May 1970
and 25 June 1970. Fi •. 3 shows the mean water surface
temperatures observed over Lake Michigan on these
two dates, the maximum land air temperatures and
14flO CST aviation data. Since there are no synoptic
surveys made of Lake Michigan water temperatures.
these were constru- ~" ~>y plotting the water tempera-
ture reports from commercial ships over a five-day
period. A cold central core of water existed with tem-
peratures below 40F in late Mav and still less than 50F
in late June, but with water temperatures in the mid-
50's near shore for both periods. The synoptic situation
for both of the days was similar (Figs. 4 and 7), that
is, easterly gradient flow of relatively warm air across
Lake Michigan.
a. 27 May 1970
On this date a large high pressure cell was present
north of the Great Lakes (Fig. 4). Overcast condition?
prevailed in the vicinity of the kke, and while tem-
peratures exceeded 80F in Illinois (where skies were
only partly cloudy), they remained in the 50's in south-
A-l-3
-------
APRIL 1973
W A L T E R A . L Y O N S AND HENRY S . COLE
497
FIG. •). Synoptic chart for 1200 CST 27 May 1970 with isobar? every 2 mb, and 5C water surface temperature isotherms
for Great Lakes. One wind barb equals 10 kt.
ern \\~isconsin (Fig. 3). Thus, there was relatively little
warming of the air as it flowed inland. An aerial view
toward the southwest from a location due east of down-
town Milwaukee showed two distinct smoke plumes
from shoreline point sources (Fie;. 5). The southern-
most, a very large power plant, had a plume which
rose to an effective stack height of ~350 m above lake
level as it flowed inland. Another source, a fertilizer
plant, located north of the power plant, was emit tin;:
very dense white smoke from a stack estimated to be
Kic. S. Composite aerial photograph from 500 m abovr the lake, looking southwest from Milwaukee harbor, at 1415 CST
27 May 1970. Evident is the power plant plume streaming inland in the stable layer alofi, with a Ion-level plume exhibiting
strong mixing in the shallow turbulent layer near the ground.
A-1-4
-------
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
\ouu\ir Ij
OlSERVED PLUME PROFILES
500
I I i I I i I
CALCULATED SO. PROFILE (XI) IN PPM
500
300
100
CALCULATED SO. PROFILE AT M IN PPM
CALCULATED GROUND LEVEL SO, CONCENTRATION (V=0)
020
£10
000
MAXIMUM 0.001 PPM
l*«f MICHIGAN
15 Km
I-'io. 6a. Schematic of conditions observed looking south along shoreline at 1400 CST, 27 May 1970. Dashed line is
approximate lemperalure profile measured by aircraft. 61>. Computed SO, concentrations (in parts per million! from
high- and l
-------
APKIL 1973
WALTER A . L V O X S A X D H E X R V S . COLE
499
J JG. 7. Synoptic chart for 1200 CST 25 June 1970 \vilh isobars every 2 ml), and 5C waier surfart temperature isothcr
only 20 m in height above (he ground, but instead of
fanning as the power plant plume did, it exhibited
marked looping
On this cloud\ day the air temperature at the beaches
was 1C, and an automobile traverse normal to the
shoreline showed less than a 1C increase in 10 l-:m as
the air flowed inland. In other words, there was virtually
no rernodification of the lake air on the western shore-
line. In an attempt to measure the gross thermal struc-
ture of the atmosphere at the lake shore, the aircraft's
cockpit air temperature was monitored during a step-
wise assent over the shoreline from the surface lo
'-700 m. It was found that the lapse rate was very
close to dry adiabatic m the bottom 150 m but there
was a strong capping inversion to approximately 600 m
height above the lake, topped b\ a. layer of more nearly
neutral lapse rate. It appears that the stable layer
between 150 and 600 m was, in fact, the nocturnal in-
version that existed when this air mass had left the
eastern shoreline early that morning. The nearly neutral
surface layer most likely developed during the last few
kilometers of fetch over the waier where the surfai•.
water temperatures had rapidly increased from aboui
5 to !5C in a matter of 10 km. Thi± warm inshore water
destroyed the intense conduction inversion which had
probably been present close 10 the surface in the middlr
of the lake.
Fig. 6a is a schematic diagram showing the condi-
tions on 27 Ma\. Shown are the elevated power plant
plume and the low-level plume from the fertilizer plant
The power plant plume is being emitted into the stable
air aloft and moves inland with relatively little vertical
diffusion. A radical!} different situation (plume trap-
ping) occurs close to the surface. There, the air is
relatively turbulent and pollutants released within this
shallow layer experience a rather large degree of mixing.
especially in the horizontal. Furthermore, there is
virtually no warming of this air mass as it travels
inland, with this condition maintaining itself for man\
tens of kilometers. Since the effective mixing height is
extremely limited, very high pollution concentrations
would be expected at the ground. By contrast, the
both high- and low-level sources, each at their respective effective plume height //. 6d. Calculated ground level
SO» values below the plume centerline for both sources.
A-l-6
-------
500
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
VOLUME 12
CST
] 13. 8. Smoothed isotherm? of all air temperatures collected on 25 June 1970 and plotted as a (unction of lime and wind
fetch inland from the shore. The nearshore water temperatures varied from 52 to 5.S1.
power plant plume in the stable layer aloft was ob-
served to travel westward as far as the eye could see.
It is unlikely that any of the power plant plume ma-
terial ever reached the surface during this period.
b. 25 June 1970: Fumigation
Or this dale, synoptic conditions were quite similar
to those described above with a notable exception that
the area was large); free of heavy cloud cover save for
some fairly dense cirrus moving down from the north-
west later in the day. From the maximum temperature
isotherms (Fig. 3), it is evident that considerable
warming of the lake air occurred within the first few-
kilometers of overland fetch. Fig. 7, at 1200 CST,
shows a large high centered over northern Lake Huron
promoting easterly flow at the surface over Lake
-Michigan. Maximum daytime air temperatures in
Michigan and Wisconsin away from the lake ranged
upward to 25C, compared to lake water temperatures
as low as 5C near the center (Fig. 3). It is likely that
easterly flow from the Michigan shoreline during the
dav produced a rather strong conduction inversion over
mid-lake. However, again due to the warmer water in
the final stages of the air's passage over the lake, a
shallow neutral layer was found close to the surface.
Likewise, a strong capping inversion was found at
higher levels, as on 27 May. The surface air tempera-
tures warmed rapidly as the air advected inland on the
western shoreline ' , 7 shows the analysis of surface
air temperatures as a function of time of day and
distance inland from the shore. These data were ob-
tained from the N\VS station at Mitchell Field, some
5 km inland, and from numerous hygrothermographs at
colleges and industrial facilities throughout the area.
Furthermore. 10 students from the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, armed with sling psycho-
meters, traveled predetermined routes measuring air
temperature. The representation used in Fig. 8 is very
useful; it shows at a glance the temperatures experi-
enced at any inland point as a function of time and
also the temperature gradient on a line parallel to the
wind direction as it flowed inland. The surface -winds
were generally from 060°, becoming somewhat more
easterly later in the afternoon. Fig. 8 shows that the
temperature remained nearly constant at the shoreline.
A-l-7
-------
APRIL 1973
WALTER A. LYONS AND HENRY S. COLE
501
TIMPESATUBS
FIG. 9. Low-level soundings obtained at various locations on 25 June 1950. W-l, W-2 and \Y-3 feier to three
ruas made at the shore, 2.7 km inland.'and 9.4 km inland. Included for comparison s.rr the 17)5 C^T raob ascent fr^m
Green Bay (GRB) and the 1202 CST EMSU run from Chicago'j Midwav Aiqwrt (jlDvV;, and the micromeieoroiogical
tower data from Argonne National Laboratory, 40 km -.vest of Chicago.
and that the temperature gradient reversed itself after
sunrise, from initially cooler temperatures inland to
considerably warmer by early afternoon. The air
warmed by about 6C after traveling ~ 25 km over the
heated land. Heating of up to 20C in the same distance
is often found on those days with very strong insolation.
Of greater interest to our study, however, are the
vertical temperature profiles as a function of distance
from the lake. A wire sounding system transported by
truck was used to determine low-level temperature
profiles. Soundings were taken at several fixed locations
along a road normal to the shoreline. The first sounding
made at the shoreline (\V-1 in Fig. 9) revealed a nearly
neutral layer almost 160 m deep coming onshore during
early morning, with a superadiabatic lapse in the low-
est 25 m. Above this turbulent surface layer was a
strong inversion extending upward to approximate)'
800 m above the lake (indicated by aircraft tempera-
ture cockpit readings; see Fig. lOa). As the air moved
inland over the warm ground the unstable layer, or
thermal boundary layer (TIBL), deepened rapidly.
This is shown by soundings W-2 and W-3 taken at
2.7 and 9.4 km inland. A late afternoon sounding at the
shoreline showed relatively little change in the thermal
characteristics of the air flowing onshore during the
course of the day. In Fig. 9, a plot of the wire soundings,
a sounding obtained by the Chicago Midway EMSU
low-level radiosonde, and the Argonne National Lab-
oratory micrometeorological tower data showed a super-
adiabatic layer in the lowest 50 m overlain by a deep
neutral layer. Both sites are located 15 km inland.
The Green Bay (GRB) radiosonde, sufficiently far
inland to be undisturbed by lake effects, showed the
adiabatic layer (the mixing layer) to extend to about
1500 m late in the afternoon. The top of the TIBL is
generally considered to increase in depth in a quasi-
parabolic raanner as the air flows inland (Bierly, 1968).
Observers in our single engine spotter aircraft kept
Rotations of the locations where turbulence was en-
countered (Fig. lOa).
On 25 June, the center line of the power plant plume
reached an effective stack height of ~320 m as it
flowed westward in a stable layer aloft. The top of the
TIBL intercepted the plume about 7 km inland (Fig.
iOa) where observers on the ground and in the air
clearly sa^r participate matter from the plume rapidly
mixing downward. Those direct!}- beneath the point
of plume fumigation noted the extremely strong taste
and smell of sulfur dioxide. On this day the fumiga-
tion continued from 0930 to 1430, after which the
cirrus overcast quickly reduced ground heating and
the TIBL turbulence no longer penetrated to plume
A-l-8
-------
502
JOVRNAL OF APPLIED M E T E 0 R O I. O G Y
VOLUME 12
*• All SMOOTH
500 All SMOOTH
lAKf MICHIGAN
CAICUIAUD SO, PlOfllf UZ) IN
0.) "•& , 1.9 0.5 9.3 02 OU
1»KE MICHIGAN
ALCULATfO SO.
CONCCMTKAtiONS (Y-0)
iAKI «ICHI6*M
FIG 10» Siematic of obsenitions during fomigation conditions on UK western shore of the lake (looking eouth) around
1400 CST 25 Inn* 1970. Plotted are the reports of turbulence encountered by the spotter aircraft, plus the «ppronniale
temperature profile over the waier. lOb. Computed profiles of SO, concentrations from both high- and kra-tevd sources in
A-l-9
-------
APRIL 1973
WALTER A . L V O X S AND HENRY S COLE
503
1 ic. 1J. Panoramic view ol fumigating power plant plume at 1430 CST 2!> June 1970, looking east ihrouph
south toward shoreline from a poini alxml 10 km inland, 700 m above f;round.
altitude. During the late afternoon the plume remained
aloft and advected many tens of kilometers inland with
little lateral or horizontal dispersion, much like on 27
Max.
During the first portion of the day while the power
plant fumigation was occurring, the effective stack
height of the low-level fertilizer plant was below the
top of the TIBL at all times. It exhibited marked loop-
ing and diffused rapidly within the deepening turbulent
boundary layer.
Fig. 11 is a panoramic aircrafi photograph of fumiga-
tion from the power plant plume. On this particular
da> tne fumigation began 7 km inland, although on
days with stronger insolation, it has been seen within
2-3 km of the shoreline. Fig. 12 is an end-on view of
the low-level plume resembling that of 27 May except
that it mixed within a greater depth as it flowed inland
due to the increasing depth of the TIBL.
3. Calculations of pollutant concentrations
Unfortunately, very little ambient air monitoring
has been done near the power plant in question. It is,
however, possible to estimate pollutant concentrations
b\ using the relativelv simple diffusion equations sum-
marized b\ Turner (!96V). \\hile having 'heir imper-
written
the-
been widd\ used for ball-par
estimate" The following is m.eant to be more illustra-
tive than conclusive (in terms of absolute values of
pv'liuuns;. bu' ii c!earl\ points the finjer at areas
needing iinmedjaic attention.
a Disfcrno:! in a homogeneous, infinite atmosphere
In an atmosphere where the stability (turbulence)
classes are more or less uniform in the space occupied
by a plume, it is comiyonly assumed that plume matter
spreads horizontal! v and vertically from the center line
in a Gaussian profile. The basic equation can be
(.v,j',z: H) =
exp -H -
where X is pollutant concentration. Q is the SOUTH.
strength (mass per unit time), oa and a, the lateral and
vertical standard deviations of concentrations within
a Gaussian plume (implicit functions of A), " the mean
wind speed, .v, y, 2 the axial, transverse and vertical
directions, H the effective stack height (plume center-
line). a=0.693, and f the half-life of the pollutant ias-
sumed 3 hr for SO,). For paniculate?, no fallout or
reaction is assumed and the half-life exponential term
drops from the equation.
The values of a.t and a,, empirically derived by
Pasquill (1961) and Clifford (1961) from actual observa-
JS JUM 1*70
Fie. 12. View toward the east-northeast of low-level plume at
1420 CST 25 June 1970, from about 7 km inland and 700 m
altove ground.
the i, i plane along plume centerline. lOc. Computed SO, concentrations in j, y plane at ground level (z-Oj. lOd. Com-
puted ground level SO, concentrations below plume centerline (»-y—Oj.
A-l-10
-------
504
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
VOLUME 12
A. VERTICAL M.UME ©EQMfTRY
STABlf LAYft AlOH
CLASS V
WING
8. HORIZONTAL IHUME GEOMETRt
FIG. 13. Geometry used in the calculation of pollutant concentrations during periods of continuous
fumigation. See text for explanation.
tions, are grouped into six subjectively determined sta-
bility classes ranging from Class A (extremely unstable)
to Class F (moderately stable). The application of (1)
here assumes the ground is flat. While the western
shore of Lake Michigan around Milwaukee does have
steep bluffs about 30 m high, the ground has virtually
no relief and a negligible slope for many miles inland.
b. Modeling plume trapping
If the mixing layer into which a plume was being
emitted were not of infinite (or at least very great)
depth, then vertical plume dispersion would be re-
stricted by the overlying lid (usually the base of stable
inversion layer aloft) at some distance downstream.
Turner (1969) presents a scheme for calculating
X (x>,y,z: H) for a plurne trapped within a layer bounded
by the surface and a discrete upper lid limiting the
diffusion. After a given distance downwind from the
source, the vertical concentration profile begins a tran-
sition from Gaussian to uniform. Horizontal dispersion
is assumed to behave in a Gaussian manner throughout
this process for all values of x. With Eq. (1) as is, and
modified for a lid, it is possible to simulate the dis-
persion regime found on the western shore of the lake
on 27 May 1970.
A-l-11
-------
APRIL 1973
WALTER A. LYONS AND HENRY S. COLE
505
c. Modeling continuous plume fumi gatwn
Turner describes a mathematical technique for pre-
dicting surface concentrations for the case of nocturnal
inversion breakup fumigation, which causes unusually
high pollutant concentrations for a short period of
time. The shoreline fumigation is by contrast almost
a steady-state process, and the procedure outlined
below was used to modify Turner's technique for this
specific application.
The dispersion regime downwind of an elevated
source at the shoreline was divided into three zones.
Separate equations (see Fig. 13) are used to compute
Xj (x,y,z : H); X2 (x,y,z: tf); X3 (x,y,z: H). The first zone
[in which Xj (x,y,z: H) applies] is essentially the same
as described in Section 3a, where an elevated plume is
emitted into a homogeneous, relatively stable layer.
For any part of the plume above the TIBL, (1) is
rewritten, using er.(j,.r) and u,,(< v) for the standard
deviations for plume spreadin6 j.. stable air (5), here
explicitly written as functions of downwind travel (.v)
from the source (x — 0).
The second zone [where X., (.v,v,c: H) applies] is that
portion of the area where A-J,^ .v:(j,.v)], (3)
<,vf(s.x) = ay(s,x)+(H 8). (4)
and aut(s,x) is the standard deviation in the y direction
that applies in the fumigation zone .r^ .v
-------
506
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
VoLVME 12
((_>) of H),(KKJ ions year"1 for particulates, and 130,000
tons year"' for sulfur oxide.J The low fertilizer plant
slack has a heighi of approximately 20 m above ground.
No source strength data whatsoever were available for
this plant, but for the purpose of comparison it was
arbitrariK assumed to have outputs equal to 5% and
20% of the power plant's, for sulfur dioxide and par-
ticulates, respectively.
a. 27 May 1970
The plume behavior for 27 May 1970 from these two
sources was modeled. The lower level point source had
an effective plume height estimated at 100 m above
ground level and was trapped within the shallow tur-
bulent la\er only 135 m deep. A mean wind speed of
6 m sec"1 was taken from the Madison pibal sounding
at IStNi C'ST. The stability class in the stable inversion
layer aloft was taken to be the most stable available,
Class F, and within the plume trapping layer close to
the surface. Class B was applied.
Fig 6b shows vertical cross sections, i.e., .\, z profiles
of SO; concentrations, along the y = () axes of both
plumes. As can be seen, the predicted plume from the
power plant at no time extends anywhere near the
surface, corresponding to visual observations. The SOj
from the low-level source decreases to almost back-
ground levels after some 15 km of fetch inland, but not
before having rather high peak values at the surface
just downwind of the source.
Fig. 6c shows the calculated .v, y profiles of SO., at
the respective plume levels (H) for both plumes. Fig.
6d are the calculated ground concentrations (i = 0)
beneath the respective plume axes (y = 0). Virtually no
sulfur oxide from the power plant plume is predicted
to reach the surface at any point. However, at a dis-
tance of 0.5 km downwind of the low level source, a
peak of 0.28 ppm SO, was predicted.
The models clearly illustrate that under the type of
conditions that existed on 27 Max 1970 a high stack
would be of considerable benefit. Any pollutant emitted
into the stable layer would continue to reside there as
it advected man\ tens of kilometers inland. On the
other hand, sources emitted into the shallow turbulent
layer above the surface would become trapped within
this layer resulting in inordinately high concentrations
even from relatively small sources. These conditions
appear to be quite typical for any period of stable on-
shore flow along the shores of the Great Lakes on a
cloudv day or during nighttime:
b. >5 June 1970
Conditions for 25 June 1970 included a mean wind
speed r of 6 m sec"1, and an observed effective slack
height H for the power plant of 320 m above the ground.
'Since the field observations were made, electrostatic precipi-
tators have been installed, greatly reducing the power plant's
paniculate emissions.
In this case, the top of the TIBL, L(x), was read into
the program as a look-up table It is shown as a dotted
line in Fig. lOa and was determined from the wire
soundings and by a plot of turbulence encountered b\
the spotter aircraft, The turbulence first encountered
the plume (.rt) at 5 km inland and reached the plume's
upper portion (*,) at 6.8 km inland—the point of
expected maximum fumigation. In the computations.
Class F stability was assumed above the TIBL and
Class A (considerable turbulence) was chosen for the
region below the TIBL. The same source strengths
(0 were used as in the previous section.
Fig. 10b illustrates the calculated SO^ profiles in the
x, £ plane along the plume centerlines (y = 0). Fig. l()c
shows the calculated ground level S0r concentrations
in the .\, y plane for the two plumes studies For the
high-level power plant plume there are essential!} no
surface effects until a point at least 5 km inland under
these conditions. The model calculates maximum con-
centrations of 1.07 ppm at 6.8 km inland and estimates
that an area of several square kilometers will exceed
0.5 ppm SO,, This fumigation spot, as one might call
it, will tend to move around with variations in wind
direction during the day. It will also tend to move in
and out along the plume axis as the intensity of insola-
tion increases and wains during the course of the day.
Xote also that the model for the low-level source, even
though rated at 5% of the power plant emissions, does
calculate a rather high peak value of 0.77 ppm. Fig.
lOb shows the ground-level calculated SO, profiles
beneath the centerline of both plumes. While it is
obvious that a high stack does indeed help to ameliorate
the extreme surface concentrations under these fumiga-
tion regimes, unless the plume can rise entirely above
the maximum TIBL level reached during the day, a
high stack only moves the fumigation spot inland and
somewhat reduces its intensity, but it does not elimi-
nate it.
It is unfortunate that at the time the above observa-
tions were made there were no adequate surface moni-
toring devices for sulfur oxides in the areas of interest.
State officials, at one time, in attempting to monitor
the effects of this power plant, had a continuous
monitoring SO; device located approximately 1.5 km
southwest of the stack—obviously of little help for
delecting fumigation episodes. During 1971, however,
some limited monitoring of surface SOo concentrations
was undertaken during fumigation of the power plant
plume. On 28 May 1971, a day almost identical to
25 June 1970. at a point some 8 km southwest of the
plant, concentrations as high as 9 ppm were measured
using a modified West-Gaeke method. These were
samples taken for about 10 min duration directly
beneath the fumigating plume centerline. Additional
readings taken in August 1971 yielded similarly high
ground level concentrations. \Yhile the monitoring is of
a preliminary nature, it appears possible thai the cal-
culated SOj concentration estimates are on the con-
A-l-13
-------
1973
\Y A L T E R A . LYONS AND HENRY S. COLE
507
•.ervative side. The observers who had the misfortune
of taking the SOj observations reported a strong odor,
(aste, and definite irritation of the nose and mouth.
Calculations of suspended particulates were also made
using the same equations. Fig. 14a shows a vertical
i.\-.s) profile of suspended particulates (jig rrr3) for
iiolh sources. As with the SO, the high-level power
plant plume stays entirely aloft. The lower plume
remains trapped at low levels producing significant
)»articulate values within several kilometers of the
.M>urce at the surface. Fig. 14b shows the calculated
jjarticulate x, y profiles at z = H for both piumes on 27
May 1970. Fig. 14c shows the .v, z profiles for par-
ticulates during the 25 June 1970 fumigation case.
Fig. 14d gives the calculated ground level (z = 0) con-
centrations of particulates from both plumes. Due to
ihe fairly high degree of control present on the power
plant stack as far as particulates were concerned, the
predicted peak ground level concentrations are not
excessive, only 215 jig m~3. The low-level source yields
quite high paniculate concentrations at the surface,
almost 400 fig m~3, 1.6 km downwind.
An estimate of the overall patterns that result from
these regimes can be made from the analysis of the
24-hr high-volume sampler data taken in Milwaukee
County on both days. Fig. 15a shows the average sus-
pended paniculate readings measured at ten siles
through Milwaukee County on 27 May 1970. It can
be seen that the air coming in off the lake had values
of 2(1 jig m~*, close to the typical background level
found in this area. High-level plumes from major
point sources located in the industrial valley that runs
through the center of Milwaukee were kept aloft in the
stable capping inversion. Numerous low-level sources
became trapped close to the surface and produced
average values in excess of 90 ^g nT3. No sulfur dioxide
was recorded in am of the three monitoring sites within
the county.
On 25 June 1970 (Fig. 15b) the surface pattern of
suspended paniculates looks very much the same. The
air corning in off the lake had values close to 30 ^ig m~3,
but as it passed through the industrial area, it rapidly
accumulated suspended particulates to produce a 24-hr
average of close to 90 ^g m~3 downwind of the major
industrial valley. In this case both the high- and low-
level sources were mixed together through the TIBL
which was progressively deepening as the air flowed
inland. Two stations reported significant sulfur dioxide
concentrations during the day, presumably from high-
level sources fumigating lo the surface.
5. Conclusions
Fumigation and plume trapping are not new phe-
nomena to the air pollution meteorologist. However,
their frequency and intensity near the shores of the
Great Lakes pose special problems to air quality regions
in these areas. The Air Quality Display Models (AQDM)
which are used to model air quality and implementa-
tion strategies for various areas across the count ry
generally use mean mixing depths supplied from a
climatology based upon standard radiosonde network
data. By interpolating values between Green Bay,
Wise., and Peoria, III., the mean summer mixing depth
should be approximately 1500 m in the Milwaukee
area. However, since neither of these radiosonde sta-
tions are affected by the presence of the Great Lakes.
it is obvious that inappropriate data is being put into
the AQDM. In fact, during the summer on many days
a value for the mean mixing depth of -fa the above
would probably be more appropriate near the shoreline.
Furthermore, if local air pollution forecasting in the
vicinity of the Great Lakes is to be successful, the low-
level EMSU radiosonde stations should be put in very
close proximity to the shoreline. Currently-operating
stations are too far inland to regularly observe the
intense lake inversions. The Chicago EMSU radiosonde
is usually launched some 15 km inland at Midwa\
Airport.
It is important to emphasize that the type of extreme
episode that can result from plume fumigations of tin-
types described here would very frequently be associ-
ated with synoptic-scale patterns that appear to pro-
mote good dispersion. Fumigation could occur on a
day when an Air Stagnation Advisory is least likely to
be issued, In fact, the sunniest days with generally
good dispersion over land are precisely the days with
strongest plume fumigation on the lee shore of a Great
Lake. As it is now written, the emergency episode
plans for the southeast Wisconsin Air Quality Control
Region do not take into account the intense short-
burst problems associated with large point source
plume fumigations. Even though episodic levels affect
areas of only several square kilometers, they can ver\
frequently occur in areas with very high population
density.
This study, though admittedly preliminary, suggests
some obvious problems for those concerned with lo-
cating permanent pollution monitoring stations in areas
adjacent to the Great Lakes. It also raises the much
larger question of what zoning restrictions should be
placed on the future development of shoreline areas.
The conditions associated with plume trapping during
spring must also be considered in terms of some future
proposed developments on the western shore of Lake
Michigan. As a result of the ongoing dispute aboui
thermal pollution of the lake by fossil fuel and nuclear
power plants, a move is underway to require the in-
stallation of cooling towers. One wonders what might
happen if a large wet cooling tower were placed along
the shoreline on a day such as 27 May 1970. Wet
cooling towers frequently emit several tens of thousands
of gallons of water into the atmosphere every minute.
The fog formed may drift inland for many miles
diffusing only very slowly, presenting a hazard to road
travel, aircraft operations from nearby airports, and
A-l-14
-------
508
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
VOLUME U
CALCULATED PAKTICULATE PtOHlESlXZ) |i0m/m3
27 /*AY 1970
CALCULATED PA»T!CUlATii F*OFILES{XY)AT
25 JUNE 197d
CALCULATED PARTlCULATi
lake Michigan g
CALCULATED PARTICUIATI
— — 38 • — _____
Lefe*
Michigan
FIG. 14a. Computed ni^iended paniculate concentrations 0>B m~*) in *, * plane along plume cecterline from both
tourers repiaenting conditions on 27 May 1970.14b. Patterns in z, y plane of both plumes at their respective equivalent
A-l-15
-------
APRIL 1973
WALTER A. LYONS AND HENRY S. COLE
509
27 MAY 1970
25 JUNE 1970
• 24 H«. Ml-VOt SAMPLE!
* CONTINUOUS SOj MONITOR
] ic. 15. Analysis of 24 hr high-volume paniculate sampler readings (jig m~*) in the vicinity of downtown Milwaukee
(heavy lines are major expressways), for 27 May and 25 June, ]970, as well as traces of continuous SO: monitoring stations
for 25 June.
during winter, perhaps, result in icing conditions. Dry
cooling towers may represent a wiser choice.
In the Chicago area, Lake Michigan itself has been
considered the probable site for a major jetport, to be
built on a landfill approximately 5 mi offshore southeast
of downtown Chicago. With winds from the east to
southeast, which occur on more than half of all spring
and summer afternoons at the Chicago shore, the highly
odoriferous fumes from the jet aircraft fueling, taxiing,
and taking-oil would be trapped close to the surface
and drift inland directly onto a highly populated shore-
line. Unless significant advances in eliminating the
more offensive components of jet exhausts are made,
Chicago could have built itself a stench problem to
rival the Chicago stockyards of days gone by. Further-
more, the large increase in shoreline automobile traffic
stack heights //. 14c. Same as I4a except for continuous fumigations conditions observed on 25 June 1970. 14d. Same
as 141) except for continuous fumigation conditions of 25 June 1970.
A-l-16
-------
510
JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
YOLV.ML 12
that would accompany the operation of a jetport would
have further aggravated any photochemical smog prob-
lem, thus adding injury to insult.
Acknowledgments. This work was partially supported
by the Center for Great Lakes Studies, The University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, under Grant R-800873. Special
thanks are offered to Mr. Gary Keller and Mr. Andrei
Glasberg of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside
Computation Center for their programming support.
The Department of Geography Cartographic Sen-ice,
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and in par-
ticular, Mr. Donald Temple, prepared the illustrations.
The University of Michigan's Great Lakes Research
Division, with the assistance of Mr. H. K. Soo, graci-
ously loaned its wiresonde equipment for this program.
Supporting data for this paper were kindly supplied
by Dr. James E. Carson (Argonne National Labora-
tory), Dr. Alan E. Strong (National Environmental
Satellite Service, NOAA), Mr. Jack Condon (Chicago
EMSU unit, NOAA), and Mr. Robert Redovitch
(Milwaukee Count}- Department of Air Pollution
Control).
REFERENCES
Bellaire, F. R., 1965: The modification of warm air moving over
cold water. Proc. St/i Conf. Great Lakes Res., IAGLR,*
249-256.
Bierly, E. XV., 1968: An investigation of atmospheric discon-
tinuities induced by a lake breeze. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Michigan, 150 pp.
, and E. XV. Hewson, 1962: Some restrictive meteorological
conditions to be considered in the design of stacks. J. .Ippl.
Aftieor., I, 383-390.
Church, P. E., 1945: The annual temperature cycle of Lake
Michigan, II: Spring warming and summer stationary
1942. Misc. Rept. No. 18, Dept. Meteor., The-
University of Chicago, 100 pp.
Gifford, F. A., 1961: The use of routine meteorological observa-
tions for estimating atmospheric dispersion. Xnelear Safelv,
2, No. 4, 47-51.
Herkoff, D., 1969: Observed temperature profiles near the 1-akc
Michigan shoreline. Tech. Kept., Dept. Meteor. Oceanogr ,
University of Michigan, 37 pp.
Hirt, M. S., L. Shenfeld, G. Lee, H. Uhaley and S. D. Juriors,
1971: A study of the meteorological conditions which de-
veloped a classic "fumigation"' inland from a large lake
shoreline source. Paper presented 64th Annual Meeting. Air
Pollution Control Assoc., Atlantic City, N. J.
Lyons, XX". A., 1970. Numerical simulation of Great Lakes sum-
mertime conduction inversions. Proc. Jjl/i (.'oni. droll Lakes
Res., IAGLR,* 369-387.
, 1971. Low-level divergence and subsidence over the Great
Lakes in summer. Proc. J-ltli Conf. Greal Lutes Res., IAGLR.*
467-487.
, 1972: Mesoscale transport of pollutants in the Chicago
area as affected by land and lake breezes. Proc. 2nd intern.
Clean Air Congress, New York, Academic Press, 973-97X.
Mortimer, C. H., 1968: Internal waves and associated currents
observed in Lake Michigan during the summer of 1963. S|x;c.
Rept. No. 1, Center for Great Lakes Studies, Universitj of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 145 pp.
Olsson, L. E., 1969: Lake effects on air pollution dis|>er
-------
A-2. On the Criteria for the Occurrence
of Fumigation Inland from a Large Lake*
There is no doubl that the occurrence of the Thermal
Internal Boundary Layer on the shores of large lakes pres-
ents adverse dispersion conditions which must be taken
into account in evaluating the dispersive capabilities of
such an area. However, the location and strength of the
fumigation depend in a complex way on the form of the
boundary, the height of the emission, the location of the
source with respect to the boundary, the stability in the
turbulent and the overlying layers, and the initial plume
conditions, so that full scak modelling is necessary to de-
rive meaningful results This, it seems to me, makes
rehance on oversimplified criteria inadvisable, especial!)
when these are derived from theoretical models based on
unverified or unrealistic premises
Thus, in the Boundary Layer model of Peters the
assumption is made that the land surface temperature
remains unmodified by the adverted air. In fact, due to
the low conductive capacity of the land surface, as well
as the solar heat input, such an assumption is unjustified
•Peters L. K. (1975) Atmospheric Encironmem 9,
809-816.
(Priestley, 1959). The imposition of this boundary condi-
tion then leads to the prediction that the temperatures in-
land tend to stable stratification, contrary to observations
such as those of Hirt et al. (1970).
In the derivation of the Flux Model, an oversimplifica-
tion in the derivation of the energy balance equation leads
to the result that the height of the Boundary [equation
(8)] varies linearly with inland distance.
By considering the energy flux needed to modify the
initial stably stratified layer to adiabatic conditions (which
is certainly a more reasonable assumption) and assuming
constant heat flux, it is found that
acfpn
where a is the potential temperature gradient in the stable
air mass (Plate, 1971). By this method, one avoids prescrib-
ing the surface temperature It is seen that the boundary
height now increases as the square root of inland distance
for given s. For the data of Hirt et al. the above relation
with a value of qk = 100 cal m~2s~' predicts a height of
boundary of 250 m at 10 km. in agreement with the obser-
vations.
The same value of
-------
Discussions
J73
Here
and the observations are averages for the day indicated
on the north shore of Lake Erie, where a parabolic bound-
ary was observed to form quile regularly. (The power of
x in - = px* varied from 037 to 0-67 with an average value
of 0 50).
In using a model of the boundary to delineate criteria
for the occurrence of fumigation, the location of the
sources with respect to the boundary is crucial. This factor
also influences the intensity of the fumigation, as does the
level of turbulence in the boundary layer. In view of such
considerations, the onl> reliable method available is to
model the situation as was done b> Lyons (1973) for
example. Such modeling of thr c" , of Hirt el al. leads
to good agreement with observations of SO2 dispersion
(Weisman and Hirt. 1975).
Acknowledgement—I would like to thank Dr R. E. Munn.
Dr. W. Murray and M S. Hin for valuable discussions.
The MEP Company. B. WEISMAN
Division of Meteorological &
Environmental Planning Ltd..
73. Alness Street.
Dovinsiirw.
Ontario MM 2H2,
Canada
REFERENCES
Lyons W. A. and Cole H. S. (1973) J. appl. Meieorol. 12,
494. See also Weisman and Hin above.
Plate E. J. (1971) Aerodynamic characteristics of atmos-
pheric boundary layers. U.S. AEC: Similar consider-
ations were used by: Leah) D. M and Friend J. P.
(1971) J. appl. Meteorol. 10. 1162. in deriving their urban
heat island model: and b) Summers P. W. Paper
presented al the 1st Canadian Conference on Microme-
teorology. Toronto. 12-14 April.
Priestley C. H. B. (1959) Turbulent Transfer in the Lower
Atmosphere. University of Chicago Press. Chicago
Weisman B. and Hirt M. S. (1975) Dispersion governed
by the thermal internal boundary layer. Paper presented
at 68th Annual Meeting of APCA. Boston. June
1975.
AUTHORS' REPLY
We thank Dr. Weisman for his comments on our paper.
However, there are several points that we feel should be
^fanned.
Weisman states that the constant land surface tempera-
ture boundary condition is unjustified. While there can be
tome argument for a constant flux boundary condition.
the results of Moroz (1967) show that the temperature vari-
ations near the surface after the onset of lake breeze is
only a few degrees centigrade. This leads one to conclude
that the constant land surface temperature condition is
probably the better compromise if one wants to maintain
model simplicity until much more field data is available.
The second point made is that the imposition of the
constant land surface temperature boundary condition
leads to the prediction that the temperatures inland lead
to stable stratification. This statement is inaccurate. The
third boundary condition (i.e. for :—»x. 7= T, + a:)
leads to the stable stratification inland. This boundary
condition could have been made more general by presum-
ing T = T, + f(:) leading to other inland temperature pro-
files. The importance of this third boundary condition.
however, is that the model development is limited to inland
distances such that the thermal boundary layer is still con-
tained within the initial stable stratification. We would not
propose that this model would be valid for extremely large
inland distances where the initial stable stratification is
already dissipated.
After criticizing the simplicity of our model. Weisman
then proceeds to show the thermal boundary layer depth
for another model which is certainly no more complex
However, to obtain even rough agreement with the field
studies of Weisman ;md Hirl (1975). an unacceptably high
heat flux (100 cal m V ') must be used.
Our boundary layer model predicts that the thermal well
mixed layer. H*. varies as
which is approximately a square root dependence for rea-
listic system parameters. Values of p in agreement with
Weisman and Hirt (1975) would correspond to using typi-
cal values of CH in our model in the range of 1-10 m2s"'
These are not unreasonable values for the eddy diffusivity
(cf. Prophet. 1961 ; Smith and Niemann. 1969: Cowling and
White. 1941).
We will show in a future paper that this general
approach can also be extended to predict quite well the
early morning inversion breakup.
Department of Chemical Engineering.
Vnirersit\ of Kentucky.
Lexington. K. 40506. L.S..4.
L. K. PETERS
G. R. CARMJCHAEL
REFERENCES
Cowling T. G. and White A. (1941) The eddy diffusivity
and the temperature of the lower layers of the atmos-
phere. Q J R. met. Soc. 67. 276-286.
Moroz W. J. (1967) A lake breeze on the eastern shore of
Lake Michigan—observations and model J. Atmos.
Sci. 24. 337-355.
Prophet D. T. (1961) Survey of the available informa-
tion pertaining to the transport and diffusion of air-
borne material over ocean and shoreline complexes.
Tech. Rept. No. 89. Stanford University. Stanford. Ca.
Smith T B. and Niemann B. L. (1969) Shoreline diffusion
program. Oceanside. California. Tech. Rept. FT-860,
Meteorology Research. Inc.. Altadena. Ca.
A-2-2
-------
A-3. Cumulative Standardized Normal
Distribution
CUMULATIVE STANDARDIZED NORMAL DISTRIBUTION »(/)
This table gives #(0
for various values of t.
rrfiun - • I
t
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
J.O
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
.00
.5000
.5398
.5793
.6179
.6554
.6915
.7257
.7580
.7881
.8159
.84131
.8643
.8849
.9032
.9192
.9332
.9452
.9554
.9641
.9713
.9772
.9821
.9861
.9893
.9918
.9938
.9953
.9965
.9974
.9981
.9987
.9990
.9993
.9995
.9997
.01
.5040
.5438
.5832
.6217
.6591
.6950
.7291
.7611
.7910
.8186
.8438
.8665
.8869
.9049
.9207
.9345
.9463
.9564
.9649
.9719
.9778
.9826
.9864
.9896
.9920
.9940
.9955
.9966
.9975
.9982
.9987
.9991
.9993
.9995
.9997
.02
.5080
.5478
.5871
.6255
.6628
.6985
.7324
.7642
.7939
.8212
.8461
.8686
.8888
.9066
.9222
.9357
.9474
.9573
.9656
.9726
.9783
.9830
.9868
.9898
.9922
.9941
.9956
.9967
.9976
.9982
.9987
.9991
.9994
.9995
.9997
.03
.5120
.5517
.5910
.6293
.6664
.7019
.7357
.7673
.7967
.8238
.8485
.8708
.8907
.9082
.9236
.9370
.9484
.9582
.9664
.9732
.9788
.9834
.9871
.9901
.9925
.9943
.9957
.9968
.9977
.9983
.9988
.9991
.9994
.9996
.9997
.04
.5160
.5557
.5948
.6331
.6700
.7054
.7389
.7704
.7995
.8264
.8508
.8729
.8925
.9099
.9251
.9382
.9495
.9591
.9671
.9738
.9793
.9838
.9875
.9904
.9927
.9945
.9959
.9969
.9977
.9984
.9988
.9992
.9994
•999\)
.9997
.05
.5199
.5596
.5987
.6368
.6736
.7088
.7422
.7734
.8023
.8289
.8531
.8749
.8944
.9115
.9265
.9394
.9505
.9599
.9678
.9744
.9798
.9842
.9878
.9906
.9929
.9946
.9960
.9970
.9978
.9984
.9989
.9992
.9994
.9996
.9997
.06
.5239
.5636
.6026
.6406
.6772
.7123
.7454
.7764
.8051
.8315
.8554
.8770
.8962
.9131
.9279
.9406
.9515
.9608
.9686
.9750
.9803
.9846
.9881
.9909
.9931
.9948
.9961
.9971
.9979
.9985
.9989
.9992
.9994
.9996
.9997
.07
.5279
.5675
.6064
.6443
.6808
.7157
.7486
.7794
.8078
.8340
.8577
.8790
.8980
.9147
.9292
.9418
.9525
.9616
.9693
.9756
.9808
.9850
.9884
.9911
.9932
.9949
.9962
.9972
.9979
.9985
.9989
.9992
.9995
.9996
.9997
.08
.5319
.5714
.6103
.6480
.6844
.7190
.7517
.7823
.8106
.8365
.8599
.8810
.8997
.9162
.9306
.9429
.9535
.9625
.9699
.9761
.9812
.9854
.9887
.9913
.9934
.9951
.9963
.9973
.9980
.9986
.9990
.9993
.9995
.9996
.9997
.09
.5359
.5753
.6141
.6517
.6879
.7224
.7549
.7852
.8133
.8389
.8621
.8830
.9015
.9177
.9319
.9441
.9545
.9633
.9706
.9767
.9817
.9857
.9890
.9916
.9936
.9952
.9964
.9974
.9981
.9986
.9990
.9993
.9995
.9997
.9998
The entries from 3.49 to 3.61 fell equal .9998.
The entries from 3.62 to 3.89 all equal .9999.
All entries from 3.90 and up equal 1.0000.
A-3-1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
KPA-4Sn/2-81-075
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
APTI Course 423
Dispersion of Air Pollution: Theory and Model
Application Student Workbook
7. AUTHOR(S)
D.R. Bui lard
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Northrop Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 12313
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Manpower and Technical Information Branch
Air Pollution Training Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer for this Student Workbook is R.E
MD-17, RTF, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November , 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
B 18A2C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2374
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Student Workbook
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-OANR-OAQPS
. Townsend, EPA-ERC ,
16. ABSTRACT
The Student Workbook is to be used with course 423, "Dispersion of Air Pollution -
Theory and Modeling Application", as designed and presented by the EPA Air
Pollution Training Institute (APTI) . The Student Workbook contains introductory
material, lesson outlines, problem sets, and class exercises.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFI
Air Pollution Training Train]
Modeling Studei
Dispersion
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 1 ' mited 19.SECURI
Available from National Technical Unc,
-. 2O. 5ECUHI
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd
Spr-ingf ip]d. VA 22161 Tine"
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS ATI Field/Group
ing Course 13B
it Workbook 51
68A
TY CLASS (ThisReport) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Lassified 235
TY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
sssi f ipd
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
A-3-2
------- |