ATMOSPHERIC
ENVIRONMENT
SERVICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PROJECT PLAN
for the
ACID DEPOSITION
EULERIAN MODEL
EVALUATION
and
FIELD STUDY
ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FLORIDA
ELECTRIC POWER
COORDINATING GROIUP
                    Prepared by
                    D. Alan Hansen

                    Prepared for
                    THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP
MINISTRY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
February 1989

-------
                                           100R891O9
                     PROJECT  PLAN
                       for the
       ACID DEPOSITION EULERIAN MODEL EVALUATION
                    AND FIELD STUDY

                     February 1989
                      Prepared by

                    D.  Alan Hansen
           Electric Power Research Institute
                 Palo Alto,  California
                   Prepared for the

               PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP:
                   Keith J.  Puckett
            Atmospheric Environment Service
                  Environment Canada
                  Downsv i ew,  Ontario

                    D.  Alan Hansen
           Electric Power Research Institute
                 Palo Alto,  California
       H. Michael Barnes,  Francis A.  Schiermeier
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment  Laboratory
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                    John J. Jansen
       Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group
                    Tampa, Florida

                      Maris Lusis
              Ministry of the Environment
                   Toronto, Ontario

-------
                                                        PMG PROJECT
                                                            Ver.  4, 2/89
           This report:  has  not  been  reviewed  to  determine
           whether it contains patentable subject matter, nor
           has the accuracy  of its information  or conclusions
           been evaluated.   Accordingly,  the  report  is not
           available to  the  public  and  its distribution  is
           limited to advisors and participants in the Eulerian
           Model Evaluation Field Study for the sole purpose  of
           evaluating its  progress and  future  course.   The
           Electric Power  Research   Institute  assumes   no
           liability for the  accuracy of the report's contents.
                          ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The  efforts  of the other members of the  Project Management
Group (Mssrs.  Barnes,  Jansen,  Lusis and  Puckett)  in supplying
information  and in reviewing various draft manuscripts  of
this plan are  gratefully acknowledged.   Without their support
and  the timely response of their staffs  and contractors to
information  requests,  completion of this plan would not have
been possible.

-------
                                                  PMG PROJECT PLAN
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                              PREFACE
The purpose of this project plan is twofold.  The first component

is to serve as a general source of guidance to the Project

Management Group (PMG) and its technical oversight Teams in their

quest for a successful evaluation — an outcome that depends

critically on the development or acquisition of well defined

evaluation methods, observational data of known uncertainty, and

the ability to interpret the results in a meaningful way.  The

second is to provide a framework for consolidating the activities

of the individual participants in the bilateral acid deposition

model evaluation study into a cohesive whole.



The field study components, in particular those relating to the

surface network, of the overall model evaluation effort are more

thoroughly described in this plan than are the procedures for

evaluating the Eulerian models.  This is a consequence of the fact

that the evaluation procedures were still evolving from concepts

to detailed implementation plans over the period this document was

produced.



Representatives of the participating organizations*  have agreed

that the following principles should guide the PMG:

     o  Each measurement activity will be operated according to a

        comprehensive quality assurance plan.
* Atmospheric Environment Service of Environment Canada, Electric
  Power Research Institute, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Ontario Ministry of
  the Environment

-------
                                                  PMG PROJECT
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

     o  Procedures will be developed and adopted by the

        participants that will ensure to the extent practicable

        the comparability of measurement methods.

     o  All activities related to model evaluation will be

        coordinated among participants.

The framework will be assembled by describing the genesis of the

model evaluation study, what data each of the participants are

collecting to support the model evaluation,  what the quality

objectives are for the data, how those objectives will be

achieved, where the data will reside, and how the model evaluation

will be carried out.




It is hoped that implementation of this plan will contribute to

achieving a scientifically credible and technically defensible

model evaluation.

-------
                                                  PMG PROJECT PLAN
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                           Page

PREFACE                                                     ii
LIST OF TABLES                                              vi
LIST OF FIGURES                                             vii

1. BACKGROUND                                               1-1
   1.1  Development of ADOM and RADM                        1-1
   1.2  Commitment to Model Evaluation                      1-3
   1.3  Types of Model Evaluation                           1-4
   1.4  Field Study Planning                                1-5

2. ORGANIZATION                                             2-1
   2.1  Overall Study Organization                          2-1
   2.2  Model Evaluation Team Support Organization          2-1

3. OBJECTIVES                                               3-1
   3.1  Project Management Group                            3-1
   3.2  Technical Oversight Teams                           3-2
        3.2.1 Operational and diagnostic measurements       3-2
        3.2.2 Emissions inventories                         3-3
        3.2.3 Model evaluation                              3-3

4. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES                                  4-1

5. DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULE                                5-1
   5.1  PMG                                                 5-1
   5.2  Technical Oversight Teams                           5-1
        5.2.1 Operational measurements                      5-1
        5.2.2 Diagnostic measurements                       5-1
        5.2.3 Emissions inventories                         5-5
        5.2.4 Model evaluation                              5-5

6. AEROMETRIC AND PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENTS                6-1
   6.1  Field Measurements                                  6-1
        6.1.1 EPA: ACID-MODES                               6-10
        6.1.2 OME: APIOS                                    6-12
        6.1.3 AES: CAPMoN, enhanced chemistry, aircraft     6-17
        6.1.4 EPRI: OEN                                     6-21
        6.1.5 FCG: FADMP                                    6-21
        6.1.6 Complementary programs                        6-21
   6.2  Emission Inventories                                6-27
   6.3  Data Base Management                                6-28
   6.4  Methods Characterization                            6-29
   6.5  Quality Assurance Auditing and Corrective Action    6-29
   6.6  Inter-network Comparisons                           6-36
        6.6.1 Colocation of field measurement systems       6-37
        6.6.2 NWRI QC comparison on precipitation samples   6-38
        6.6.3 Filter pack testing                           6-39
        6.6.4 AES/EPA airborne measurements comparisons     6-39

-------
                                                  PMG PROJECT PLAN
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                                                            Page

   6.7  Intra-network Colocation                            6-39
   6.8  Common Filter and TFR Supplier                      6-40
   6.9  Composite Data Archive                              6-40
   6.10 Individual Network Data Archives                    6-42

7. EMISSIONS                                                7-1

8. MODEL EVALUATION PROTOCOLS                               8-1
   8.1 Operational Evaluation                               8-2
   8.2 Diagnostic Evaluation                                8-4
   8.3 How Models Will be Run to Obtain Averages            8-5

9. REFERENCES                                               9-1

APPENDICES                                                  A-l

   A.  PMG Charter                                          A-2
   B.  Pertinent Quality Assurance Plans                    A-6

-------
                                                  PMG PROJECT PLAN
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                          LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                   Page

1-1     Planning and Design Meetings                    1-8

2-1     External Review Panel                           2-6

4-1     Data Quality Objectives                         4-2
        Air Quality                                     4-2
        Precipitation Chemistry                         4-4
        Meteorology                                     4-5

5-1     Schedule                                        5-2

6-1     Model Evaluation Field Study Site Locations     6-3
        APIOS (OME)                                     6-3
        CAPMoN  (AES)                                    6-5
        OEN  (EPRI)                                      6-6
        ME-35 (EPA)                                     6-7
        EPA Optional and Supplementary and TVA Sites    6-8
        EPA Gradient Resolution Network  (GRAD)          6-8
        EPA Sub-grid Variability Network (VAR)          6-9
        FADMP (FCG)                                     6-9

6-2     ME-35 Measurement Techniques                    6-11

6-3     Measurement Techniques During Intensives        6-13
        EPA                                             6-14
        AES Ground-based Measurments at Egbert          6-14
        Additional AES Measurements at Egbert           6-15
        OME Ground-based Measurements at Dorset         6-16

6-4     APIOS Measurement Techniques                    6-18

6-5     CAPMoN Measurement Techniques                   6-19

6-6     Airborne Measurements to be Taken by AES        6-20

6-7     OEN Measurement Techniques                      6-22

6-8     FADMP Measurement Techniques                    6-24

6-9     Georgia Tech Intensive Measurements             6-26

6-10    Methods Performance Characterization            6-30
        Laboratory Tests                                6-30
        Field Tests                                     6-32
        References                                      6-33

6-11    Filter Specifications                           6-41

6-12    Data Archive Contents                           6-43

-------
                                                  PMG PROJECT PLAN
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                          LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                               Page

 2-1    Model Evaluation Organization                2-2
 2-2    Model Evaluation Team Support Organization   2-3

 6-1    Surface Network Sites                        6-2

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


                             Section 1

                            BACKGROUND



This section provides a brief history of the events that have

culminated in the regional Eulerian model evaluation study

described in this document.  It begins with a description of why

comprehensive acid deposition models have been developed.  This is

followed by a statement of the rationale underlying our conviction

that it is necessary to thoroughly evaluate the performance of

these models.  Different approaches to model evaluation are then

described.  The section ends with a chronology of the more

significant steps that have been taken in planning the study-



1.1  Development of ADOM and RADM

The atmospheric deposition of acidic materials in precipitation,

gases and particles can damage sensitive components of terrestrial

and aquatic ecosystems.  The processes involved in converting

gaseous emissions to acids and their salts, and in transporting

and depositing them are so complex as to defy simple

interpretation based on field measurements, no matter how

carefully made.  What it takes, in principle, to predict reliably

how much emitted material will be deposited and where, is a

thorough understanding of the relevant processes and their

embodiment in computer simulation models.  This predictive ability

is necessary if cost effective measures are to be taken to protect

sensitive ecosystems by selectively controlling the emission of

acid precursors.

                                1-1

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


Mathematical models that incorporate our present understanding of

the governing processes  (e.g., horizontal and vertical transport,

gas phase chemistry, scavenging and subsequent chemical reactions

in clouds, and wet and dry deposition) have been, and continue to

be, developed to fill this need.  However, some of these models do

not capture the higher order complexity of the chemical processes

involved.  Rather, they treat all processes in a simple first-

order way.  This type of model has been rejected by many acid

deposition researchers as being an unreliable tool for predicting

deposition fields from arbitrary emission fields because it does

not capture the nonlinearities inherent in the natural system that

can give deposition responses that are not proportional to

emissions changes.  Although it may do a reasonable job of

reproducing present deposition patterns given present emissions,

there is concern as to whether this type of model can produce

realistic deposition patterns given different emissions.



What is needed are models that represent the higher order science

in as complete a fashion as is practicable within the constraints

of present knowledge and modeling resources.  Two of these higher

order, comprehensive models that are under development in North

America are the Regional Acid Deposition Model  (RADM) and the Acid

Deposition and Oxidant Model  (ADOM), respectively designated by

the U.S. and Canadian governments as potential emission control

policy assessment tools.  RADM has been developed under the aegis

of the American National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program

(NAPAP).  ADOM development was begun by the Ontario Ministry Of

                                1-2

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


the Environment and the Atmospheric Environment Service,

Environment Canada, with supplementary support subsequently

provided by the Federal Republic of Germany's Umweltbundesamt and

the Electric Power Research Institute.



These models are intended to provide a surrogate reality of such

fidelity that legislators, regulators, and those whose discharges

to the atmosphere are regulated will endorse their use for this

purpose.  Such acceptance by the community at large will make them

credible tools for exploring emissions change scenarios and

assessing source-receptor relationships.



1.2  Commitment to Model Evaluation

Although the RADM and the ADOM are the focus of the model

evaluation effort described here, other models will almost

certainly be evaluated once the proper tools (data and methods)

are available.  Model evaluation is viewed by the participants as

an essential element in the process that begins with model

development and ends with its application, because it is the step

that demonstrates how well the model mirrors the natural system.

Further, the economic and scientific motivations underlying this

demonstration are substantial.



Managerial and technical approaches for the regional Eulerian

model evaluation and  field study have been proposed earlier

(Durham et al., 1986) and serve as the basis for much of this

plan.

                                1-3

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      ver. 4, 2/89


1.3  Types of Model Evaluation

Although the lines of distinction are not always clearly drawn,

four broad categories of model evaluation can be defined:

mechanistic, diagnostic, operational, and comparative.



Mechanistic evaluations can be conducted by examining in detail

the fidelity of process representations in the model code with

respect to the best understanding available of the governing

mechanisms.  They can also involve an analysis of how well

specific parameterizations represent more mathematically exact

process representations.  They answer the question, "Is the

science correctly represented?"



Diagnostic evaluations would not normally involve the same level

of detail as mechanistic ones.  Rather, they examine the response

of model outputs to a wide range of model inputs to see how well

the model mimics perceived reality — as represented by theory and

careful observation.  One subset of this type of evaluation  is the

familiar sensitivity analysis, wherein the relative response  of a

specific output to changes in different inputs, or combinations of

inputs, is studied.  Another would be comparison of the serial

changes in species' compositions predicted by the gas phase

chemistry module with those involved in smog chamber experiments.

As used in the present context, diagnostic evaluations rely  in

large part on time-resolved (less than 24 hours), three-

dimensional observational data.  They answer the question, "DO the

parts of the model appear to be working correctly?"

                                1-4

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


A model's performance is operationally evaluated on the basis of

its ability to simulate observations of target variables  (such as

sulfate or nitrate deposition in precipitation) averaged over a

given period — generally several days to a year. (Because the

models are not intended to capture the fine-scale spatial and

temporal variability of rainfall and meteorological variables,

there is little point in operationally evaluating the models on a

shorter term).  Measurement data from the monitoring networks

described in this plan will be largely used for this type of

evaluation.  Over the range of conditions tested, operational

evaluation answers the question, "Is the model giving the right

answers?"



In a comparative evaluation the performance of a model or its

parts is compared with that of another model for an identical set

of inputs  (to the degree allowable by the models' formulations).

It answers the question, "If I use this model, will I get the same

results as if I had used that model?"



The primary use of the data expected from the  field study covered

by this project plan is intended to be for operational and

diagnostic evaluations.



1.4  Field Study Planning

A series of planning meetings and workshops, many of them jointly

sponsored, has been conducted to define goals  and methods for the

model evaluation.  They are listed in Table 1-1, together with

                                1-5

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
subsequent pertinent meetings.
At the Quality Assurance Workshop,  held 11-13 June 1986 in

Toronto, the attendees recommended the establishment of a Quality

Assurance Management Committee, composed of a representative from

each of the sponsoring organizations.  This recommendation was

implemented and a charter for the committee was subsequently

drawn up and endorsed by each of the organizations.



After several meetings had been convened to coordinate

preparations for the field study, it became apparent to the QAMC

members that activities other than field measurements —in

particular, emission inventories and model evaluation protocols—

were equally essential to the model evaluation process, but were

not receiving the same level of coordinated attention.  The QAMC

asked the Eulerian Modeling Bilateral Steering Committee (EMBSC)

to consider this problem and to make a recommendation for

addressing it.  Its recommendation was to rename the QAMC the

Project Management Group (PMG), to reflect a broader set of

responsibilities, and to set up three subsidiary teams to oversee

activities on the topics of measurements, emissions, and model

evaluation.



The recommendations of the EMBSC were adopted with slight

modification: the Measurements Team was split into two, one each

for operational measurements and diagnostic measurements.  The PMG

felt that the distinction between routine, surface-based

                                1-6

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


(operational) and research-grade, airborne and ground (diagnostic)

measurements was sufficiently great to warrant separate teams.

The initial meetings of these groups are listed in Table 1-1. The

meetings will continue at approximately quarterly intervals until

the group's component of the model evaluation effort is completed.
                                 1-7

-------
                                                         Section 1
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                             Table 1-1

               PLANNING AND DESIGN MEETINGS FOR THE
                      MODEL EVALUATION EFFORT
DATE         TOPIC

30 OCT 84    EMBSC
19 FEE 85    EMBSC
   MAY 85    Technical Committee Workshop
             on Field Study Plan
   NOV 85    EPRI OEN Workshop
   FEE 86    Workshop on Model Evaluation
             Protocol
19 FEE 86    EMBSC
   MAR 86    Workshop on Field Study Design
   JUN 86    Workshop on Quality Assurance
25 AUG 86    EMBSC
   OCT 86    Methods Reconciliation
             Workshop
   MAY 87    RADM Peer Review
   JUL 87    QAMC
22 JUL 87    EMBSC
   AUG 87    Workshop on Diagnostic
             Evaluation
   OCT 87    PMG
   NOV 87    PMG and Team Conveners
   FEE 88    PMG and Teams
LOCATION

Washington, D.C.
Toronto, Ont.
RTF, NC

Seattle, WA
Raleigh, NC

Toronto, Ont.
Seattle, WA
Toronto, Ont.
Toronto, Ont.

Toronto, Ont.
Raleigh, NC
Chicago, IL
Washington, D.C.
Raleigh, NC

Chicago, IL
Chicago, IL
RTF, NC
Subsequent meetings of the PMG and teams have been convened
approximately quarterly-
                                1-8

-------
                                                         Section 2
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

                           Section 2

                          ORGANIZATION



2.1 Overall Study Organization

The organizational structure of the binational acid deposition

model evaluation effort is shown in Figure 2-1. Top level guidance

and liaison among high-level managers of the participating

organizations is provided by the EMBSC.  Reporting to the EMBSC,

the members of the PMG are managers responsible within their

organizations for the measurement networks and/or for their model

evaluation efforts.  The Team members, in turn, are managers

within their organizations of, or individuals with expertise in,

the appropriate program component.



The evolution of this organizational structure has been described

in Section 1.  The structure reflects the breadth and scope of the

agencies and technical disciplines involved in planning,

implementing, and completing this very complex undertaking.



The responsibilities of the PMG and the Teams are described in

Sections 3 (objectives) and 5  (deliverables).



2.2  Model Evaluation Team Support Organization

The Model Evaluation Team has set up an organizational structure

involving checks, feedbacks, high level oversight, and extensive

interactive peer review for conducting the performance evaluations

of the models.  The structure is illustrated in Figure 2-2 and  is


                                2-1

-------
                                                         Section  2
                                                      Ver.  4,  2/89
                     Eulerian Modeling
                Bilateral Steering Committee
                       J. Durham, EPA
                       G. Foley, EPA
                      R. Perhac, EPRI
                      E.W. Piche, OME
                     J.W.S. Young, AES
+
1
1
1
1
1
1
+

PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP
D.A. Hansen, EPRI**
J.J. Jansen, FCG
M. Lusis, OME
K.J. Puckett, AES
F.A. Schiermeier, EPA


1
1
1
1
1
1

          I
    OPERATIONAL
   MEASUREMENTS
       TEAM
 N. Bowne, ME-35 PI
   W. Chan, OME
   D. Daly, ADS
  •E. Edgerton, ESE
  J.Kruse, OEN PI
  S.McNair, CAPMoN
   F. Pooler, EPA
   N. Reid, OME
   R. Vet, AES**
 A. Olsen, ADS DBM
                    I
          |     EMISSIONS
          |        TEAM
          I  S. Heisler, ENSR
          |   M. Hodges, ESE
          |  N. Kaplan, EPA**
          j  J. McManus, AEP
          |   J. Novak, EPA
          j    D. Pahl, EPA
          j  F. Vena, Env.Can.
          |     D. Yap, OME
               DIAGNOSTIC
              MEASUREMENTS
                  TEAM
            J. Boatman, NOAA
            J. Bottenheim, AES
              N. Bowne, ENSR
             J. Ching, EPA**
           K. Demerjian, SUNYA
             J. Hales, PNL
             G. Isaac, AES
            L. Lindsey, PNL
           A. Olsen, ADS DBM
            W. Seiler, FRG
           C.Spicer, Battelle
+	+	+
       MODEL
    EVALUATION
       TEAM
  R. Barchet, PNL*
   J. Chang, SUNYA*
   R. Dennis, EPA
   T. Lavery, ESE
  D.A. Hansen, EPRI
  P.K. Misra, OME**
    J. Novak, EPA
  A. Olsen, ADS DBM
   K. Puckett, AES
  A. Venkatram, ERT*
*  Ex officio
** Chairman
               Figure 2-1. Model Evaluation Organization

                                2-2

-------
                                                         Section 2
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                                New Runs      |    MODEL    |
                           + ---------------- > | DEVELOPERS  |
                           |     Requested    + ---- + — I- ---- +
                           I                        I   I
                           I                        I   I
+ ----------- -i-       + ------ + ----- +          + ----- + — + ------- +
|  EXTERNAL  + ------ >|    MODEL   |  Protocol |     PROTOCOL     |
|   REVIEW   |         | EVALUATION + --------- >|  IMPLEMENTATION  |
I   PANEL    j< ------ +    TEAM    |           j      GROUP       |
+ ------------ 1-       H ----- + — + ---- +          + --- + ------- + ---- +
                          II                    II
                          II                    II
                          II                    II
                     ASSESSMENT AND  |            |   | Archived
                     INTERPRETATION  |< ---------- +   |  Field
                         GROUP       |  •             |   Data
      Figure 2-2.  Model Evaluation Team Support  Organization
                                2-3

-------
                                                         Section 2
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


designed to provide a highly visible, scientifically credible

evaluation process, in which all sponsors can participate.



Once the model evaluation protocol(s) has been completed under the

aegis of the Model Evaluation Team (MET) , it will be implemented

by the Protocol Implementation Group (PIG),  which will most likely

be made up of computationally oriented staff from a contractor.

The PIG will treat the protocol as a set of instructions that will

be carried out as written.  It will draw on the field data archive

as needed to meet the data requirements of the protocol.  It will

interact with the modelers to exercise the models as specified in

the protocol.  As the protocol itself is exercised, the results

of the observations-predictions comparisons, sensitivity analyses

and other possible activities specified by it will be fed by the

PIG to the Assessment and Interpretation Group (AIG).  The PIG is

viewed as something of a buffer between the AIG and the model

developers, reducing their interaction and the perception of those

outside the process that the modelers are overly influencing any

conclusions drawn by AIG.



The AIG will have the responsibility for interpreting the results

and producing evaluation reports, initially, in a preliminary

sense to NAPAP in time for incorporation in the 1990 final

assessment report, and finally as a report on the completed

operational and diagnostic evaluations.  The composition of the

AIG is not settled, but will probably be made up of contractor

staff supported by external expert consultants.  The AIG will

                                2-4

-------
                                                         Section 2
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89


likely be funded and managed in large part by the U.S. EPA, the

staff of which will frequently consult with the MET.


An international group of highly respected scientists (see Table

2-1), expert in various aspects of model evaluation, make up the

External Review Panel  (ERP).  They have been invited by the EMBSC

on behalf of the MET to serve on this panel.  They will work

closely with the MET not only reviewing the model evaluation

protocol before its implementation, but reviewing the interim and

final reports passed to it by the Team from the AIG.  It is

anticipated that the ERP will make recommendations from time to

time for course corrections that may involve protocol

modifications or additional model runs.  These recommendations

will be channelled through the MET.
                                2-5

-------
                                                        Section 2
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                            Table 2-1

                      External Review Panel



      Dr.  Peter Bloomfield,  North Carolina State University

     Dr.  William Chameides,  Georgia Institute of Technology

   Dr. Anton Eliassen,  the Norwegian Meteorological Institute

          Dr. Fred Fehsenfeld, NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory

Dr. Bernard Fisher,  Central Electricity Research Laboratories,  UK

             Dr. Dean Hegg,  University of Washington

        Dr. Dieter Kley,  Institut fur Chemie, Julich,  FRG

           Dr. Harold Schiff,  York University,  Canada

         Dr. Ted Yamada,  Los Alamos National Laboratory
                               2-6

-------
                                                         Section 3
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

                             Section 3

                            OBJECTIVES



3.1  Project Management Group

The objective of the PMG is to ensure that the Eulerian acid

deposition models are evaluated:

     o  according to a well-defined protocol,

     o  using input and evaluative data of defined precision

        accuracy, representativeness, and comparability,

     o  in such a way that uncertainties in model outputs can be

        distinguished from those in the input and evaluative data,

        and

     o  in terms of established  (to the degree possible)

        performance criteria.



The PMG will pursue this objective by:

     o  coordinating activities of the member organizations

        related to model evaluation, partly through

        approximately quarterly meetings;

     o  soliciting suggestions from the Eulerian Model Bilateral

        Steering Committee (EMBSC) when problems arise which are

        of interest to the PMG and require resolution at a higher

        management level;

     o  establishing four teams to assist the PMG by providing

        technical oversight of Study-related activities on the

        topics of operational (routine monitoring) measurements,

        diagnostic (airborne and enhanced chemistry site)


                                3-1

-------
                                                         Section 3
                                                      Ver.  4,  2/89
        measurements,  emission  inventories,  and model evaluation;
     o  meeting approximately quarterly  with the team chairs to be
        briefed on team activities;
     o  providing for the review and approval of the project
        quality assurance plans for  each of  the sponsor's1
        networks;
     o  encouraging standardization  of methods and protocols;
     o  encouraging member agencies  to practice active quality
        control; and
     o  specifying common data  base  characteristics and reporting
        protocols.

3.2  Technical Oversight Teams
The Teams will provide a broad  base  of technical expertise and
management skill to assist in meeting the PMG's objective.   They
will also be guided by specific objectives developed by the PMG in
consultation with each team.

3.2.1  Operational and diagnostic measurements teams.   The
objective of both of these teams will be to produce a standardized
data set of defined precision,  accuracy, representativeness, and
comparability* for the model evaluation  program through the
coordination and oversight of the measurements, data management
and quality assurance programs  of the individual participating
organizations.
*The terms defining data quality are discussed in Section 4.
                                3-2

-------
                                                         Section 3
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

The Operational Measurements Team will pursue its objective by:

     o  ensuring that the results of quality control studies are

        assessed and that recommended corrective actions are

        taken;

     o  reviewing and recommending for diagnostic studies the

        methods of establishing estimates of bias and variance;

     o  reviewing and recommending quality assurance and quality

        control methods for model development and evaluation; and

     o  designing inter-network and inter-laboratory studies

        of uncertainties.



3.2.2 Emissions inventories.  The objective of this team will be

to produce a standardized data set of defined uncertainty through

the coordination and oversight of NAPAP, EPRI, and Canadian

emission inventory acquisition, data management and quality

assurance programs.



3.2.3  Model evaluation.  This team's objective is to ensure that

the model evaluation methods are consistent with the model design

characteristics and appropriate in the context of their

application, that they can be objectively used and produce results

that are scientifically defensible.
                                3-3

-------
BLANK

-------
                                                         Section 4
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

                           Section 4

                    DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES



The data quality objectives stem directly from the PMG's

objective.  They will be achieved through implementation and

execution of this plan and the QA plans of the participating

organizations listed in the Appendix.  These plans should be

consulted for details.



Quantitative objectives may be stated for the precision, accuracy,

lower quantifiable limits and completeness of each measured

observable.   Ideally these would be specified in advance by the

model evaluators, based on their perception of the data quality

required for them to do an adequate job.  However, since no

comparable specifications have ever been formulated, such an

expectation is unrealistic.  Therefore, these data quality

objectives will be based instead on what are reasonable

expectations for the selected measurement methods under carefully

controlled field and laboratory conditions and on less

quantitative judgements of the methods' ability to provide data

with quality commensurate with that required by the evaluation

protocol.  They are given for precision, accuracy, lower

quantifiable limit, and completeness in Table 4-1.



Although numerical measures of data comparability and

representativeness may, in principle, be developed, to  do so a

priori appears to be impractical at this juncture.  They will


                                4-1

-------
                                  Table 4-1

                         DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR
                PRECISION, ACCURACY, LOWER QUANTIFIABLE  LIMIT
                              AND COMPLETENESS
                                                                    Section 4
                                                                 Ver.  4,  2/89
AIR QUALITY
Observable
(Interval)
Particulate
Mass
(24 Hr)
Particulate
Sulfate
(24 Hr)
Particulate
Nitrate
(24 Hr)
Particulate
Ammonium
(24 Hr)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(24 Hr)
Nitric
Acid
(24 Hr)
Ammonia
(24 Hr)
Expec
Method Upper
(Units) Range
FP/G 50
(ug/m3)
FPC/G 100
(ug/m3)
FP/AC 50
(ug/m3)
FP/IC
(ug/m3)
FP/AC 20
(ug/m3)
FP/IC
(ug/m3)
FP/AC 20
(ug/m3)
FP/AC 200
(ug/m3)
FP/IC
(ug/m3)
TFR/IC 20
(ug/m3)
TFR/AC
(ug/m3)
FP/AC
(ug/m3)
FP/IC
(ug/m3)
TFR/AC 20
(ug/m3)
FP/AC
(ug/m3)
Ozone Photometry 1000
(1 Hr) (ug/m3)
Nitrogen Luminol CL 100
Dioxide (ug/m3)
(1 Hr) TEA FP/IC 20
(24 Hrs) (ug/m3)
. Precision
(The
Larger of)
3 ug/m3
3 ug/m3
0 . 4 ug/m3
V-15%
0 . 3 ug/mj
V-15%
0.03 ug/mj
V-15%
0.4 ug/mj
V-15%.
0.4 ug/mj
V-15%
0 . 1 ug/m J
+/-10% or
10 ug/m3
V-io%
0.2 ug/mj
V-15%
0.4 ug/m3
Lower Quanti-
fiable limits C
Accuracy 3 x SD 10 x SD
(ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
+/-10% 0.3
(ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
+/-10% 0.02
(ug/m3)
+/-10% 0.3
(ug/m3 )
V-10% 0.3
(ug/m3)
+/-10% 0.07
(ug/m3)
V-10% 8
(ug/m3)
+/-10% 0.17
(ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
6
(ug/m3)
6
(ug/m3)
0.8
(ug/m3)
0.5
(ug/m3)
0.05
(ug/m3)
0.8
(ug/m3)
0.8
(ug/m3)
0.2
(ug/m3)
25
(ug/m3)
0.5
(ug/m3)
0.8
(ug/m3)
!omple
_ness
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
                                     4-2

-------
                                                                   Section 4
                                                                Ver. 4, 2/89
                            Table 4-1  (Continued)

                         DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR
                PRECISION, ACCURACY, LOWER QUANTIFIABLE LIMIT
                              AND COMPLETENESS
AIR QUALITY

Observable
(Interval)

    PAN
  (24 Hr)

 Hydrogen
 Peroxide
  (1 Hr)
  Method
 (Units)
 FS/IC
(ug/m3)

  E/F
 (ppb)
Hydrocarbons GC/FID
             (ppbc)
Aldehydes
Der/HPLC
 (ppb)
Expec. Precision
Upper     (The
Range  Larger of)
                   Lower Quantifiable
                         Limits      Complete-
           Accuracv  3 x SD  10 x SD   ness
 40
 +/-15I    +/-10%     4       14
4 ug/mj            (ug/m-1'   (ug/mj'
90%
 FP/AC = Filter pack, automated colorimetric analysis
 FP/IC = Filter pack, ion chromatographic analysis
 Luminol CL = Luminol chemiluminescence
 TFR/IC = Transition flow reactor,  ion chromatographic analysis
 TFR/AC = Transition flow reactor,  automated colorimetric analysis
 FS/IC = Filter sampler, ion chromatographic analysis
 FP/G = Filter pack, gravimetry
 FPC/G = Fine particle collector, gravimetry
 PAN = Peroxyacetyl nitrate
 GC/FID = Gas chromatography analysis with  flame  ionization detection
 Der/HPLC = Derivatization with high performance  liquid chromatograhic
              analysis
                                      4-3

-------
                            Table 4-1 (Continued)

              DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PRECISION, ACCURACY,
                  LOWER QUANTIFIABLE LIMIT AND COMPLETENESS
                                                                   Section 4
                                                                Ver. 4, 2/89
PRECIPITATION CHEMISTRY (24 Hrs)
Expec. Precision L
Method Upper (The
Observable (Units) Range Laraer_of) Accuracy
Precipitation Rain 10,000 +/-10% +/-10%
Amount Collector 8 gm
(grams)
Field pH
Field
Conductance
Lab pH
Lab
Conductance
Sulfate
Nitrate
Chloride
Ammonium
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
pH Meter 14
(pH units)
Cond. Mtr. NA
(umho/cm)
pH Meter 14
(pH units)
Cond. Mtr. NA
(umho/cm)
1C 100
(umol/1)
1C 50
(umol/1)
1C 8
(umol/1)
AC 10
(umol/1)
AA 8
(umol/1)
AA 4
(umol/1)
I CAPES 9
(umol/1)
I CAPES 4
(umol/1)
+/-0.04 +/-Q.05
pH units pH units
0.2 umho/cm
+/-0.04 +/-Q.05
pH units pH units
0.2 umho/cm
0.2 umol/1
0.2 umol/1
0.1 umol/1
0.6 umol/1
0.5 umol/1
0.3 umol/1
0.3 umol/1
0.08 umol/1
ower Quantifiable
Limits Complete-
3 x SD 10 x SD ness
8
(gm)
NA
0.3
(umho/cm)
NA
0.3
(umho/cm)
0.1
(umol/1)
0.1
(umol/1)
0.1
(umol/1)
0.5
(umol/1)
0.4
(umol/1)
0.2
(umol/1)
0.2
(umol/1)
0.07
(umol/1)
24
(gm)
NA
1
(umho/cm)
NA
1
(umho/cm)
0.4
(umol/1)
0.4
(umol/1)
0.3
(umol/1)
1.4
(umol/1)
1.1
(umol/1)
0.6
(umol/1)
0.6
(umol/1)
0.2
(umol/1)
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
 1C = Ion chromatography
 AC = Automated colorimetry
 AA = Atomic absorption spectroscopy
 ICAPES = Inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopy
                                     4-4

-------
                                                                    Section  4
                                                                Ver.  4,  2/89
                            Table 4-1  (Continued)

                         DATA QUALITY  OBJECTIVES FOR
                PRECISION, ACCURACY, LOWER QUANTIFIABLE  LIMIT
                              AND COMPLETENESS
METEOROLOGY

Observable
(Interval)
 Method
(Units)
Precipitation Rain
 Amount       Gauge
   (1 Hr)       (cm)
Range
Upper
Lower

 NA
Wind Speed  Anemometer  50
   (1 Hr)
           540
Wind        Wind Vane
 Direction     (deg)
   (1 Hr)
Temperature Thermistor 122
   (1 Hr)      (deg  F)    -40
Dew Point
   (1 Hr)
  LiCl
(deg F)
Barometric  Capacit.
 Pressure    (in Hg)
   (1 Hr)
 104
 -22

  31
  22
Precision           Lower Quantifiable
   (The                  Limits      Complete-
Larcrer of) Accuracy  3 x SD  10 x SD   ness
                            +/-0.13  0.025cm  0.076cm
                   0.025cm
    1 mph

+/-100
                 +/-0.05in
                                      1 mph
                             NA
                                       NA
                      NA
                      NA
                                      NA
                               NA
                                      NA
NA
NA
                                        90%
                                        90%
         90%
                                        90%
                                       90%
                                       90%
                                      4-5

-------
                                                         Section 4
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

probably be developed a posteriori based on analysis of field

and laboratory measurement and quality control data.  In the

meantime, the PMG will attempt to ensure that the data are as

comparable and representative as possible by taking the steps

discussed below.



Representativeness will be judged both temporally and spatially.

With only two years of data expected from the model evaluation

field program a rigorous determination of temporal

representativeness will probably not be possible for all measured

observables.  However, inferential determinations can be made by

comparison with those observables for which longer term records

exist, in particular meteorological variables.  The actual

comparison methods remain to be defined by the measurements teams,



Spatial  representativeness can be assessed in at least two ways.

One will be based on the data collected in the VAR network and

will give insight into sub-grid cell variance.  The other will be

based on an analysis of paired-station covariance, using data from

the combined networks.  Higher covariance associated with stations

having smaller separations would indicate lack of an overriding

local source or topographical influence and therefore a higher

probability of the stations' spatial representativeness.



Comparability will be established in several ways:  by comparison

of quality control data among networks, by inter-laboratory

comparison studies involving the interchange of samples or the


                                4-6

-------
                                                         Section 4
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

challenging of samplers with common test atmospheres, by

comparison of measurement data from the Egbert and Penn State

inter-network colocation stations, and by comparison of standard

operating procedures among networks.  Development of procedures

for implementing these comparisons will be the responsibility of

the measurements teams.



Precision will be a measure of the reproducibility of

measurements.  Data from colocated samplers, replicate analyses,

duplicate samples and repeated span checks can be used to measure

reproduc ib i1ity.



Accuracy will be determined by comparison of measurements against

authoritative standards or, in their absence, against arbitrary

standards.  In the latter case, the determination will be referred

to explicitly as "relative accuracy."



Lower quantifiable limit will be determined as the minimum

concentration that a measurement process can distinguish  at a

specified confidence level above a background value.  The

procedure for determining an LQL may differ from observable to

observable.  It's value may vary with time, as the variables

involved in its determination may not be constant.



Completeness will be determined as the percentage of the  possible

reported values that are actually validated and entered into the

evaluation data sets.  A common set of data validation criteria
                                4-7

-------
                                                         Section 4
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
will be established by the measurements Teams.
                               4-8

-------
                                                         Section 5
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                           Section 5

                   DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULE
5.1  PMG

Deliverables from the PMG include the Project Plan and semi-annual

(or, as requested) briefings to the EMBSC on the project status.

The project schedule is shown in Table 5-1.



5.2  Technical Oversight Teams

5.2.1  Operational measurements.  The operational measurements

team will be responsible for producing:

     1.  a standardized data set from the surface networks for use
                                                           /
         in the model evaluation;

     2.  evidence of the comparability of data sets from the

         contributing networks;

     3.  quality-assured data on a schedule commensurate with the

         needs of model evaluators and preliminary, screened data

         from intercomparison sites within 3 months so that the

         comparability of data among networks may be assessed;

     4.  a QA Plan for the operational networks and evidence of

         its application;

     5.  Quarterly reports to the PMG until approximately August

         1988 and then Semi-annual reports thereafter.



5.2.2  Diagnostic measurements.  The diagnostic measurements team

will be responsible for producing:

    1.  a standardized data set from the airborne measurements,
                                5-1

-------
                                                         Section  5
                                                      Ver. 4,  2/89
                             Table 5-1

                             SCHEDULE

                         1988

Field Operations        IJa I Fe I Ma | Ap I Ma I Jn | .Tu I Au I Se I Oc I No I De |

 Snow Sampling Study    <	1  I   I   I   I   I   I    I   I   '

 OEN Precip Chem        |	>

 OEN Pilot Study        |	1   |   I   I   I    I   I   I

 ME-35 Pilot Study      |   I   I  I —I I   I   I   I   I   I    I   I   I

 FADMP Pilot Study      |   |   |	1   |   |   I   I    I   I   I

 Full Network Opns and  I   I   I   I   I   I	>
   U.S. cont. emissions +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
 Summer Intensive       I   I   I   I   I   I   I             III
   Canada               I   I   I   I   I   I   I  I	1       III
   U.S.                 I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I  I	1    I   I   I

 Draft report: hourly   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   "   I   I   I
  emissions data base   +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+	1	1	+
Canadian cont. emissions)   I   I   I   I   I   I  I	1    I   I   I

Quality Assurance

 NWRI Sample Distrib.   |   |   |   |A|«|A|A|^JA|AJAJA|

 Filter Sample Exchange |   |   TO BE DETERMINED  I   I    I   I   I

 Colocated Measurements I   I   I   |   |   | —•	>

 Field Audits           |   |   TO BE DETERMINED  I   I    I   I   I

Data Delivery

   FADMP data to ADS    I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    |   A   |

   NAPAP '85 emissions  I   I   I   I   I   I   |   |   |   |    ~   |   |
   inventory            +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+	+	+	+
 Enhanced surface data  |   |   TO BE DETERMINED  I   I    I   I   |

 Airborne data          |   |   TO BE DETERMINED  I   I    |   |   |

Model Evaluation

Workshop on measures of \   \   \   \   \   \   \   *  \   \    \   \   \
  model performance     +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+	+
Draft Protocol          I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   IA I    I   |   |
                        +	+	h	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Protocol review by      I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I I	1   I
 External Rev. Panel    +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+	+—+

                                5-2

-------
                                                         Section  5
                                                      Ver.  4,  2/89
                     Table 5-1  (Continued)

                            SCHEDULE

                         1989
                        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
Field Operations         Ua I Fe I Ma I Ar> I Ma IJu Uu I Au I Se I Oc I No I De I
                        +—|-—|-—+—+—(.—+—|-—+—+—+—+—\.
 Full Network Opns and  <	>
  continuous US emiss.  +—+—+—+—+—h—h—h—+—+—+—+—+
 Workshop: data          I  I    I   I   I AI   I   I   I   I   I   I   I
   collectors & modelers+—+—+—+—h—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
                         I  I    I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I
                        +—+—+—+—|-—+—+—(.—+—+—|-—+—+
Quality Assurance
                        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
 NWRI Sample Distrib     | ~|  ~| -| -| -|  ~| -| ~| - | ~|  ~|  -|
                        H	1-	+	+	1-	+	H	+	(.	+	+	1-	+
 Filter Sample Exchange  |  |   TO BE DETERMINED   I   I   I   I   I
                        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
 Colocated Measurements <	>
                        +—+	h—h—+—+—h
 Field Audits            |  |   TO BE DETERMINED   I   I   I   I   I
                        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
Data Delivery to ADS
                        +—+	+—h—h	+—+—+—+—+—h
 Six months network +    I  I   A   I   I   I  ~   I   I   I   I   I   I
  one intensive         H	1—U.S.H	1	1—Can.+—i	1	1—H	H
 One year network +      I  I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I  A   I
  two intensives        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
 FADMP data              I'll'll'll'll
                        +—+—+—+	+—+	+—+	+—+
 EPA and EPRI data       |  |   |/v~~~/v/v/v~~/v
                        +—+—|-—+—+—|-—(-—+—+—+—+—^	1-
 Hourly emissions        I  I   I   I   I   I" I   I   I   I   I   I   I
  1st six months        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
                         I  I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I
                        +__+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+

                         I  I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I
                        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
Model Evaluation
                        +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—(.—+—+—+
Final protocol           I  I   I   IA  I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I
  document              +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+
Preliminary model        I  I   I   I I	1  I   I   I   I
  evaluations           +—+—+—+—+—+—+	+—+—+—+—+
Continued model          I  I   I   I   I   I   I   I	>
  evaluations           +—+—+—+—H—+—+	+
                                 5-3

-------
                                                          Section 5
                                                       Ver. 4, 2/89
Field Operations
                     Table 5-1  (Continued)

                            SCHEDULE

                         1990

                         UaIFeI Ma IAPI MaIJuIJu|AuISeIOcI No IDeI
 Full network opns and  <-
  continuous US emiss.  +•
 FADMP network opns     <•
                                        1   I   I   I   I
                        + — + — + — + — + — + — + — + — + — + — H --- H --- +

                        I A| "I Al "I  ~l   I   I   I   I   I    I  I
Quality Assurance

 NWRI sample distrib
                        +	+	4.	+	4.	1-	+	H	+	4
 Filter sample exchange |  TO BE DETERMINED   |   |   |
                        +—+__+.._+—+.—+—+	1-	1-—4
 Colocated measurements <	1   I   I   I   I

 Field Audits

Data Delivery to ADS

                        <
                         |  TO BE DETERMINED   I   I   I   I   I    I
                        + -- + -- + -- + --- h --- h -- + -- + -- + --- h --- 1- -- + -- +
 Routine surface data

   FADMP data            |

 Enhanced surface data   |
 Day-specific emissions  |   |   |
  data set              +—+—4
Model Evaluation
                         I-	.	H	+	+	1-	4.	4.	+	+	(.



                           TO BE DETERMINED   I   I   I   I   |    |


                                  I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    A
 Continued model
  evaluations
                                                              I
                            I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    I   I
                         	+	+	4-	4-	+	+	h	+	h	+	+	+

                            I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    I   I
                            I   I   I   I   I   I
                            + — + — + — + — + — +

                            .....   I
                                                              I
                                                           I
                         I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    I   I   I
                        4-	h	+	+	+	h	+	h	+	h	+	1	+

                        I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    I   I   |


                         I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I    I   |   |
                        +	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	h
                                 5-4

-------
                                                         Section 5
                                                      Ver.  4,  2/89

         VAR network,  and enhanced chemistry stations;

     2.   evidence of the comparability of data sets from the

         contributing programs;

     3.   quality-assured data no longer than 6 months after

         completion of the measurements;

     4.   QA plan for the diagnostic measurements and evidence of

         its application; and

     5.   semi-annual reports to the PMG.



5.2.3  Emissions inventories.  The emissions inventories team will

be responsible for producing:

     1.   a standardized emissions data base for use in model

         evaluation;

     2.   evidence of the comparability of the constituent data

         sets;

     3.   quality assured data on a schedule that meets the needs

         of the model evaluation team;

     4.   QA plan for the emissions inventory and evidence of its

         application; and

     5.   semi-annual reports to the PMG.



5.2.4  Model evaluation.  The model evaluation team will be

responsible for producing:

     1.   scientifically defensible model evaluation protocols;

     2.   establishment of a model evaluation advisory

         committee;

     3.   QA plan for model evaluation process and evidence of its

         application as part of the final report on model

                                5-5

-------
                                                    Section 5
                                                 Ver. 4, 2/89

    evaluation;

4.  statement of requirements and schedules for data delivery

    for model evaluation;  and

5.  semi-annual reports to the PMG.
                           5-6

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

                           Section 6

           AEROMETRIC AND PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENTS



This section describes what and where measurements will be made,

what tests have been conducted to characterize their performance,

what steps will be taken to achieve the data quality objectives,

and how the data will be archived.



6.1  Field Measurements

Observational data are to be collected over a two-year period

beginning in mid-1988 in at least five surface-based, cooper-

atively coordinated, measurement networks  (see Figure 6-1).  In

the U.S.A., the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), EPRI, and

the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG) will operate

networks, while in Canada the Atmospheric  Environment Service

 (AES) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment  (OME) will do

likewise.   (The door is being left open for participation by

other organizations, providing they meet the standards specified

for ensuring comparability of their measurements with those of

the existing participants.) Participating  sites and their

locations are listed in Table 6-1.  Sites  have been selected with

regard to their freedom from the influence of local emission

sources, their placement with respect to one another to ensure

that important spatial gradients in deposition predicted by the

models can be resolved, and other criteria as enumerated in

planning documents.  (See, for example, Operational Evaluation

Network Work Plan, ERT, 1987.)
                                6-1

-------
o\
10
                                                                                                                              OEN (EPRI)

                                                                                                                          V  ME-35(EPA)

                                                                                                                          O  GRAD(EPA)

                                                                                                                              VAR(EPA)
                                                                                                                              CAPMON (AES)

                                                                                                                              APIOS (OME)

                                                                                                                          A  FADMP (FCG)
                                                                                                                                                a\

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                           Table 6-1

                  MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY
                         SITE LOCATIONS

                          APIOS (OME)
SITE NAME
Longwoods
(with AES)
Wellesley
Balsam Lake
Dorset

Charlston Lake
Fernberg
Gowganda
High Falls
Egbert (with
AES, EPA, EPRI)
State College, PA
(with AES, EPA,
EPRI)
NO.
01

02
03
04

05
06
07
08
09

10


LATITUDE
42

43
44
45

44
47
47
46
44

40


53

28
38
13

30
50
39
20
14

47


LONGITUDE OBSERVABLES MEASURED
81

80
78
78

76
91
80
81
79

77


29

46
51
56

03
52
47
33
47

56


PC,

PC,
PC,
PC,
03,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,

PC,


S02

S02
SO2
S02
NOX
SO2
S02
SO2
SO2
S02

S02


, SO4

,SO4
,SO4
,S04
,PAN
,SO4
,S04
,SO4
,SO4
,S04

,S04


,tNO3

,tN03
,tNO3
,tN03

,tNO3
,tN03
,tNO3
,tNO3
,tN03

,tNO3


,RG

,RG
,RG
,RG

,03
,RG
,RG
,03
,RG

,03






i

,RG


,RG


,RG


Rural Ozone Onl>

Hawkeye Lake
Tiverton
Huron Park
Thedford
Parkhill
Mendaumin
Merlin
Long Point
Simcoe
Stouffville
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
48
44
43
43
43
42
42
42
42
43
40
18
18
10
10
57
15
35
51
57
89
81
81
81
81
82
82
80
80
78
26
35
30
51
41
12
13
23
16
36
03
03
03
O3
O3
03
O3
O3
O3
O3
                               6-3

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                     Table 6-1 (Continued)

                  MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY
                         SITE LOCATIONS

                     APIOS (OME),  Continued

Precipitation Chemistry Only*

SITE NAME         NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE OBSERVABLES MEASURED

                                 81 33   PC
                                 80 53   PC
                                 78 54   PC
                                 79 04   PC
                                 76 32   PC
                                 76 36   PC
                                 89 37   PC
                                 91 12   PC

PC:Precipitation chemistry: pH, conductivity, sulfate, nitrate,
   chloride, ammonium, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium
SO2:  Gaseous sulfur dioxide
S04:  Particulate sulfate
tNO3:  Gaseous nitric acid plus particulate nitrate
03:   Gaseous ozone
PAN:  Gaseous peroxyacetyl nitrate
RG:   Weighing bucket rain gauge
* Data delivery on slower schedule than from sites 1-10.
Melbourne
N. Easthope
Raven Lake
Nithgrove
Wilmer
Rail ton
Dawson
Quetico Centre
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
42
43
44
45
44
44
48
48
47
24
37
12
27
23
38
45
                               6-4

-------
                                      Section 6
                                   Ver. 4, 2/89
   Table 6-1 (Continued)

MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY
       SITE LOCATIONS

        CAPMON IAESJ.

NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE OBSERVABLES MEASURED

                              SO4,tN03,03,RG
                              S04,tN03,03,RG

                             ,SO4,tNO3,O3,RG
                             ,SO4,tNO3,03,RG
                             ,SO4,tNO3,03,RG
                             ,S04,tN03,03,PAN,

                             ,SO4,tNO3,03,RG
                             ,SO4,tNO3,O3,RG
SITE NAME

ELA
Algoma
Bonner Lake
Chalk River
Sutton
Montmorency
Kej imkuj ik

Chapais
Egbert (with EPA,
EPRI, OME)
State College, PA
(with EPA,EPRI, O]
Longwoods (with
OME)

PC:Precipitation chemistry: pH, conductivity, sulfate,
      nitrate, chloride, ammonium, sodium, potassium, calcium,
      magnesium
S02:  Gaseous sulfur dioxide
S04:  Particulate sulfate
tNO3: Gaseous nitric acid plus particulate nitrate
03:   Gaseous ozone
PAN:  Gaseous peroxyacetyl nitrate
RG:   Rain gauge
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

08
09
10
PPM
LC.;
11
49
47
49
46
45
47
44

49
44
40
42
39
06
23
04
05
19
26

49
14
47
53
93
84
82
77
72
71
65

74
79
77
81
43
06
07
24
42
09
12

49
47
56
29
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
RG
PC
PC
PC
PC
/
i
i
i
i
i
i

i
i
i
i
SO2,
S02,
RG
S02,
S02,
S02,
S02,

S02,
SO2,
S02,
S02,
             6-5

-------
                                                         Section 6
                                                     Ver.  4,  2/89
                      Table 6-1 (Continued)

                  MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY
                         SITE LOCATIONS
SITE NAME

Tunkhannock, PA
Ft. Wayne, IN
Gaylord, MI
Winterport, ME
Uvalda, GA
Marshall, TX
Lancaster, KS
Underbill, VT
Big Moose, NY
Yampa, CO
Shawano, WI
Round Lake, WI
Warwick, MA
Zanesville, OH
Leitchfield, KY
Pittsboro, NC
Moorhead, KY
Bells, TN
Marion, AL
Morton, MS
Due West, SC
State College, PA
Brookings, SD
Jerome, MO
Egbert, Ont.
         PEN (EPRI)

NO.  LATITUDE LONGITUDE  OBSERVABLES MEASURED

                          PC, APC, gases,  met
02a
07
10
13
14
17
18
20a
21
23
24a
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34^
36b
37
38^
39b
41
41
44
44
32
32
39
44
43
40
44
46
42
40
37
35
38
35
32
32
34
40
44
37
44
34
02
56
37
01
39
34
31
49
09
42
14
39
01
25
47
12
44
36
17
19
46
14
55
14
30
39
58
05
59
58
10
42
03
54
30
09
00
52
30
30
10
30
45
30
30
59
50
10
00
75
85
84
68
82
94
95
72
74
106
88
91
72
82
86
79
83
89
87
89
82
77
96
91
79
59
19
38
58
29
25
18
52
54
54
37
55
18
04
21
15
31
07
21
38
23
55
49
58
47
40
08
30
30
24
06
17
08
08
49
28
40
10
04
10
20
20
30
30
00
10
59
50
55
00
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                                    II
                          PC,APC,SO2,HNO3,NH3
3With ME-35
b  With APIOS, CAPMoN, ME-35
PC= Precipitation chemistry: pH, conductivity,  sulfate,  nitrate,
chloride, ammonium, sodium, potassium,  calcium,  magnesium; APC=
Aerosol particle chemistry:  mass,  sulfate,  nitrate,  ammonium;
Gases: Ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur  dioxide,  nitric acid,
ammonia; Met:  Precipitation amount, wind  speed, wind direction,
dew point, temperature, barometric  pressure
                                6-6

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-1 (Continued)

          MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY SITE LOCATIONS
  SITE NAME
Pittsboro, NC
Wartburg, TN
West Pt, NY
Whiteface Mtn,
                          ME-35 (EPA)

                 NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE OBSERVABLES MEASURED
               NY
State College, PA
Parsons, WV
Prince Ed. SF, VA
               NH
Hubbard Brook,
Ithaca/Danby, NY
Kane Forest, PA
Goddard SP, PA
Deer Cr. Park, OH
Newcomb Tract, MI
Beltsville, MD
Laurel Hill SP, PA 317
Tanners Ridge, VA  318
Cedar Creek SP, WV 319
Mountain Lake, VA
301
302
303
305
306a
307
308
309
310
312
313
314
315
316
                KY
320
321
322
323
324
326
35.67
36.08
41.35
44.38
40.78
39.10
37.17
43.80
42.35
41.60
41.35
39.64
42.42
39.03
40.01
38.52
38.88
37.37
37.09
39.53
40.92
43.63
36.11
36.04
39.92
37.68
40.05
40.80
45.20
46.62
35.05
38.78
40.32
41.45
44.13
44.53
41.58
44.71
44.14
PC= Precipitation  chemistry: pH,  conductivity,  sulfate,  nitrate,
chloride, ammonium,  sodium, potassium,  calcium,  magnesium;  PA=
Precipitation  amount; APC= Aerosol  particle  chemistry:  sulfate,
nitrate, ammonium;  FPM=  Fine particle mass;  Gases= Sulfur
dioxide, nitric  acid, nitrogen  dioxide,  ammonia
a With APIOS,  CAPMoN, OEN
b With OEN
*     Includes S(IV)
Lilley Cornett,
Oxford, OH
Brokensword, OH
Unionville, MI
Roaring Creek, NC
Edgar Evins SP, TN 327
Arendtsville, PA   328
Perryville, KY
Bondville, IL
Salimonie Lake, IN 333
                    329
                    330
                    334
                    335
Perkinstown, WI
Ashland, ME
Coweeta Forest, NC 337
Vincennes, IN      340
Washington Cr. NJ  344
University Park,IL 346
Cadillac, MI
Underbill, VT
Tunkhannock , PA
Shawano , WI
Egbert , Ont
349
395b
396b
397b
398a
79
84
74
73
77
79
78
72
76
78
80
83
83
76
79
78
80
80
82
84
83
83
82
85
77
84
88
85
90
68
83
87
74
87
85
72
75
88
79
.23
.54
.05
.85
.93
.66
.31
.00
.49
.77
.17
.22
.90
.82
.23
.48
.85
.52
.99
.72
.00
.38
.05
.73
.31
.97
.37
.60
.60
.41
.43
.49
.87
.72
.42
.87
.99
.62
.47
PC*
PC,
PC,
PC*
PC,
PC*
PC,
PC,
PC*
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC*
PC*
PC,
PC*
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC*
PC*
PC,
PC*
PC*
PC*
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
PC,
,PA,
PA,
PA,
,PA,
PA
,PA
i

PA,
PA,
,PA,
PA,
PA
PA
,PA
,PA
PA
,PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
,PA
,PA
PA
,PA
,PA
,PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
,
i
i
i
,
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
APC,
APC,
APC,
APC,
APC,
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC
APC


,

/
/
/
i
i
i
,
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
,
i
i
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
FPM, gases
gases
gases
gases
gases
gases
                                6-7

-------
                                                        Section  6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                     Table 6-1 (Continued)

          MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY SITE LOCATIONS
      EPA Optional (O),  Supplementary (S),  and TVA (T) Sites
NAME
                 SITE
                NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE
                                           OBSERVABLES MEASURED
            IL
Grant Fork,
Piseco, NY
Belleayre, NY
Plainview, IL
Breese, IL
Quabbin Res.,MA
Land Bet.Lakes,
  KY (LBL)
356(0)
357(0)
358(0)
359(S)
360(S)
393(S)
394 (T)
38.92
43.45
42.14
39.08
38.67
42.30
36.79
89.73
74.52
74.52
89.95
89.73
72.34
88.07
PC, PA, APC,
PC, PA, APC,
PC*,PA, APC,
PC, PA, APC,
PC, PA, APC,
PC, PA, APC,
PC, PA, APC,
gases
gases
gases, FPM
gases, FPM
gases
gases
gases
              EPA Gradient Resolution Network  (GRAD)
NAME
                SITE
               NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Ford City, PA
Hawthorne , PA
Pr.Gallitzin,
Shawnee SF, PA
Decatur , PA
Emporium, PA
Renovo , PA
Williamsport,
Wirt, NY
Little Marsh,
E. Smithfield,
Way land, NY
Brackney , PA
North Orwell,


PA




PA

PA
PA


PA
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
40.
41.
40.
40.
40.
41.
41.
41.
42.
41.
41.
42.
41.
41.
75
03
63
03
71
50
37
16
15
90
95
56
94
90
79.
79.
78.
78.
77.
78.
77.
76.
78.
77.
76.
77.
75.
76.
51
27
56
64
40
15
53
92
11
44
66
60
92
28
        OBSERVABLES MEASURED

        PC*,PA, APC, gases@
        PC, PA, APC, FPM,gases@
        PC*,PA, APC, gases@
        PC, PA, APC, gases@
        PC*,PA, APC, gases@
        PC  ,PA, APC, gases©
        PC*,PA, APC, FPM,gases@
        PC, PA, APC, FPM,gases@
        PC, PA, APC, gases@
        PC*,PA, APC, FPM,gases@
        PC, PA, APC, gases@
        PC*,PA, APC, gases@
        PC*,PA, APC, gases@
        PC, PA, APC, gases@
PC:
     Precipitation chemistry: pH, conductivity, sulfate,  nitrate,
     chloride, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium
*    Includes S(IV)
PA:  Precipitation amount
APC: Aerosol particle chemistry:  sulfate, nitrate
FPM: Fine particle mass
Gases:  Sulfur dioxide, nitric acid, nitrogen dioxide,  ammonia
@    Includes ozone
                               6-8

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-1  (Continued)

           MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY SITE LOCATIONS
NAME
EPA Sub-grid Variability Network (VAR)

  SITE
 NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE  OBSERVABLES MEASURED
Eddyville, Ky   381     37.07    88.03
Cadiz, Ky       382     36.77    87.73
New Concord,Ky  383     36.53    88.09
Benton, Ky      384     36.82    88.405
                            PC, PA, APC, gases@
                            PC, PA, APC, gases©
                            PC, PA, APC, gases©
                            PC, PA, APC, gases@
                          FADMP  (FCG)

                                       OBSERVABLES MEASURED

                                       PC, PA, APC, gases©

                                       PC, PA, APC*, gases*©

                                       PC, PA, APC, gases©

                                       PC, PA, APC*, gases*©
PC:  Precipitation chemistry: pH,  conductivity,  sulfate,  nitrate,
     chloride, sodium, potassium,  calcium,  magnesium
PA:  Precipitation amount
APC: Aerosol particle chemistry:   sulfate,  nitrate,  ammonium
Gases:  Sulfur dioxide, nitric  acid,  nitrogen dioxide,
     ammonia
*  Samples collected as 3-day averages
** Present location; may be  relocated within  1 km.
©  Includes ozone
TBD: To be determined
SITE NUMBER LATITUDE
2
5
g**
13
30
29
27
25
47
38
10
45
30
40
41
38
LONGITUDE
85
82
81
80
48
28
21
49
29
34
30
40
                                6-9

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

Embedded within these two years would be four periods in which

more intensive (higher sampling frequency)  and extensive

(additional variables) measurements would be taken from aircraft

and at special (enhanced) surface sites.  These intensive

measurement periods are planned to collect data for diagnostic

evaluations since the surface network does not provide the

relevant information.  The intensive periods will be scheduled to

sample important seasonal contrasts.



6.1.1  EPA; ACID-MODES.  The EPA field measurement programs are

collectively referred to as the ACID Model Operational/

Diagnostic Evaluation Study.   Data for the operational aspect

will come from a 35-station network called the ME-35, located in

the eastern U.S.  The variables that will be measured in this

network, the measurement techniques, and the data averaging

intervals are listed in Table 6-2.



The issue of how representative of the total area within a

modeled grid cell are the measurements made at one station will

be explored using three to five additional measurement stations

clustered around three geographically dispersed ME-35 or TVA

stations.  As shown in Table 6-1, the exact locations of the

stations comprising this sub-grid variability network  (VAR) have

yet to be determined.  An additional set of 14 stations arrayed

in three parallel linear chains in a southwest-northeast

direction across Pennsylvania into New York will be operated by

EPA in a effort to resolve the steep depositional gradient

expected in that region.  This set is called the GRAD network,

                               6-10

-------
                          Table 6-2
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
OBSERVABLE

Air Quality
                 ME-35 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
TECHNIQUE
Particulate sulfate,     FP/AC
nitrate, ammonium

Nitric acid, ammonia     TFR/AC

Ammonia, sulfur dioxide, FP/AC
nitrogen dioxide

Precipitation Chemistry

Amount                   WOC

pH                       pH Meter

Conductivity             meter

Sulfate, nitrate,        AC
ammonium, chloride

Sodium, potassium        AA

Calcium, magnesium       ICAPES

Dissolved sulfur dioxide AC
  AVERAGING
PERIOD fhrs)
                          24


                          24

                          24
                          24

                          24

                          24

                          24



                          24

                          24

                          24
FP/AC = Filter pack, automated colorimetric analysis
TFR/AC = Transition flow reactor, automated colorimetry
TEA FP/AC = Triethanolamine impregnated filter in filter pack,
            automated colorimetry analysis
WOC = Wet-only collector
AA = atomic absorption spectroscopy
ICAPES = Inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopy
                               6-11

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

referring to its role in resolving depositional and concentration

gradients.  The locations of its stations are also given in Table

6-1.  In addition to the same measurements made at ME-35

stations, ozone will be measured at GRAD network stations.

Consideration is being given to the possibility of expanding the

number of GRAD stations at a later date.



EPA is also funding the operation of additional stations

cooperatively with state agencies in Illinois, New York, and

Massachusetts, and with the Tennessee Valley Authority in

Tennessee.  These sites are also listed in Table 6-1.



Plans call for collection of the data for diagnostic evaluations

primarily during 6-week-long intensive measurement periods at

least during the summer of 1988 and possibly spring of 1990.  The

emphasis during these "intensives" will be on the collection of

airborne measurement data to yield vertical profiles and

horizontal transects at a higher spatial and temporal resolution

than obtainable from the surface networks.  These data will be

supplemented with those from measurements taken at the less

numerous enhanced chemistry stations (see Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3

and 6.1.6) of a larger suite of variables at higher temporal

resolution than those taken at the majority of surface stations.

Descriptive information on the broad suite of variables to be

measured during intensives appears in Table 6-3.



6.1.2  OME: APIOS.  Eight stations of the existing Acid

Precipitation in Ontario Study daily sampling network have been

                               6-12

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                             Table 6-3

                 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES TO BE USED
                         DURING INTENSIVES
OBSERVABLE

Sulfur dioxide

Sulfur dioxide,
nitric acid

Ozone

Ammonia

Nitrogen dioxide

Hydrogen peroxide

Hydrocarbons
   (speciated)

Light scattering
  coefficient

Dew point

Broad band
  radiation

Ultraviolet
  radiation

Altitude

Position

Particulate
  sulfate, nitrate
  chloride

Particulate
  ammonium
TECHNIQUE

Flame photometry

FP/IC


Chemiluminescence

FP/AC

Luminol Chemiluminescence

E/F

Capillary column GC


Nephelometer


Chilled mirror

Pyranometer


Photocell
AVERAGING
  PERIOD

1 min (5 sec)

30 min


1 min (5 sec)

30 min

1 min (5 sec)

1 min

Integrated
(5 to 30 min)

1 min (5 sec)


1 min

1 min


1 min
Absolute pressure transducer  Continuous

Loran - C                     Continuous

FP/IC                         30 min
FP/AC
30 min
                                6-13

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-3 (Continued)

                MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES TO BE USED
                        DURING INTENSIVES

             AES Ground-based Measurements at Egbert

Same measurements shown in Table 6-5 plus:
OBSERVABLE

Sulfur dioxide


Ozone

NOy


Nitrogen
 dioxide

Nitric oxide

Ammonia


PAN

Nitric acid

Hydrogen
 peroxide


Formaldehyde

Aldehydes

Hydrocarbons
 (speciated)
TECHNIQUE

Pulsed fluorescence
Filter pack

UV photometry

Catalytic reduction,
chemiluminescence

Luminol chemiluminescence
Chemiluminescence

Filter pack
Denuder

GC/ECD

Filter pack

TOLAS
Coulometric peroxidase
Luminol chemiluminescence

TOLAS

GC

GC
Carbon monoxide  NDIR

Aerosol          Filter pack
 particles
AVERAGING
  PERIOD

Continuous
6 hrs

Continuous

Continuous


Semi-
continuous

Continuous

6 hrs
1 hr

(48/day)

6 hrs

5 min
Continuous
Continuous

5 min

1 hr

(3/day)


Continuous

6 hrs
GC/ECD = Gas chromatography with electron capture detection
TOLAS  = Tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy
NDIR   = Non-dispersive infrared
                               6-14

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-3 (Continued)

                MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES TO BE USED
                        DURING INTENSIVES

              Additional AES Measurements at Egbert
OBSERVABLE

Ozone profile

Ozone/SO2
  profile

Ozone profile

Temp., RH
  profile

Mixing depth
Micrometeor-
  ological
  variables
TECHNIQUE

Tethersonde

DIAL


Beukersonde

Beukersonde
Acoustic sounder
Mie lidar

Standard met tower
FREQUENCY OF
MEASUREMENT

Periodically

Periodically


2/day as appropriate

4/day as appropriate
Continuous
Continuous

Continuous
                                6-15

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-3 (Continued)

                MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES TO BE USED
                        DURING INTENSIVES

             OME Ground-based Measurements at Dorset

Same measurements shown in Table 6-4 plus:
                                                AVERAGING
OBSERVABLE       TECHNIQUE                       PERIOD

Ammonia          Filter pack                     24 hrs

NOy              Catalytic reduction with        Continuous
                 chemiluminescence

NO/NO2           Luminol chemiluminescence       Continuous

PAN              GC/ECD                          (48/day)

Hydrogen         TOLAS                           Continuous
 peroxide

Formaldehyde     TOLAS                           Continuous

Aldehydes        TAGA 6000                       Continuous

Hydrocarbons     GC                              (3/day)
 (speciated)
GC/ECD = Gas chromatography with electron capture detection
TOLAS  = Tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy
TAGA 6000 = A system based on mass spectrometry
                               6-16

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

adapted for operational model evaluation data collection.  OME

will also support colocated measurements with AES, EPA, and EPRI

at Egbert, Ontario and State College, PA.  Measuring capabilities

at these sites are summarized in Table 6-4.  One OME site —

Dorset — is being instrumented for  intensive atmospheric

chemistry measurements.  The measurements to be made there are

listed in Table 6-3.



6.1.3  AES; CAPMoN. enhanced chemistry sites and aircraft.  A 10-

station subset of the existing Canadian Air and Precipitation

Monitoring Network has been designated for operational evaluation

data collection.  AES will also support colocated measurements

with EPA, EPRI, and OME at the State College, PA site.

Measurement attributes are shown in  Table 6-5.  The site at

Egbert, Ontario, will not only serve as another location for

colocating one sampling system each  from AES, EPA, EPRI, and OME,

but will also have enhanced measurement capabilities  (listed in

Table 6-3) to provide data for diagnostic evaluation.



AES also is planning an airborne measurement campaign to collect

data for diagnostic evaluation as  summarized in Table 6-6.  To

the extent possible, the AES measurement campaign will overlap

with that of EPA.
                                6-17

-------
OBSERVABLE

Air Measurements

Sulfate and
 Nitrate

Ammonium
Nitric acid and
 Sulfur dioxide

Sulfur dioxide
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
          Table 6-4

APIOS MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES




 TECHNIQUE OR PROCEDURE
 AVERAGING
PERIOD fhrs)
 Teflon filter, extract in DDW      24
 Ion chromatography

 Teflon filter, extract in DDW      24
 Automated colorimetry

 Nylon Filter, extract in 0.003N    24
 NaOH, ion chromatography

 Whatman 41 impregnated with K2C03  24
 Extract with H2O2, ion chromatog.
N.B.  Sulfur dioxide is obtained as the sum of the nylon and
      Whatman 41 values.
Precipitation Measurements

PH
Total acidity

Conductivity

Sulfate, nitrate
 and chloride

Ammonium
 pH meter with low conductance
 combination electrode

 Gran titration

 Conductivity cell and meter

 Ion chromatography


 Automated colorimetry
Sodium, potassium   Flame atomic absorption
 calcium and
 magnesium
      24


      24

      24

      24


      24

      24
                               6-18

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                          Table 6-5

                CAPMoN MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
OBSERVABLE

Air Measurements

Sulfate and nitrate

Sulfur dioxide and
 nitric acid

Ozone
TECHNIQUE




FP/IC

FP/IC
UV Photometry
Precipitation Chemistry
pH

Sulfate, nitrate,
 chloride

Ammonium

Sodium, potassium

Calcium, magnesium
pH meter

Ion chromatography


Automated colorimetry

Flame photometry

Atomic absorption
 AVERAGING
PERIOD fhrs)
     24

     24


  Continuous



     24

     24


     24

     24

     24
FP/IC = Collection with filter pack, ion chromatographic
        analysis
                               6-19

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                          Table 6-6

           AIRBORNE MEASUREMENTS TO BE TAKEN BY AES
OBSERVABLE

Sulfur dioxide

Nitric oxide

Nitrogen dioxide,
 ozone

PAN

Hydrogen peroxide

Hydrocarbons
 (speciated)
TECHNIQUE

Pulsed fluorescence

Luminol chemiluminescence

Luminol chemiluminescence
AVERAGING
   PERIOD

   30 sec

   20 sec

    1 sec
GC, luminol chemiluminescence   5 min
Enzymatic fluorimetric

Cannister samples analyzed
by GC
Sulfate, nitrate,     Filter pack
 nitric acid, ammonia
Aldehydes

Solar radiation

Cloud/precipitation
 water

Aerosol size
 distribution

Cloud droplet size
 distribution

Precipitation
 particle size
 distribution

Cloud liquid water
 content
DNPH cartidges

UV radiometer

ASRC collector


PMS ASASP


PMS FSSP
2-D grey scale
2-D-P
PMS FSSP
King probe
   10 sec

  5x2 min


   50 min


   50 min

   30 sec

  <20 min


   <1 sec


   <1 sec


   <1 sec



   <1 sec
GC = Gas chromatography
                               6-20

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

6.1.4  EPRI; PEN.  The Operational Evaluation Network will

include 23 independent sites  (exclusive of the 2 colocated with

the other networks).  These are largely at or nearby former sites

in the Utility Acid Precipitation Study Program (UAPSP).  A

summary of OEN measurements is given in Table 6-7.



6.1.5  FCG; FADMP.  Four sites will be operated in Florida using

methods virtually  identical to those used in the OEN (see Table

6-8).  24-hour precipitation  samples will be collected at all

four sites.  24-hour air quality samples will be collected every

day at two of the  sites and 72-hour samples every third day at

the remaining two  sites (see  Table 6-1).



6.1.6  Complementary programs.  Several studies of various

aspects of the acidic deposition phenomenon will be taking place

concurrently with  the model evaluation field study.  Results from

some of these will be useful  supplements for model evaluation. In

addition, opportunities for collaboration with other

organizations are  being investigated.
                                6-21

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
OBSERVABLE

Air Quality

Particulate mass,
  sulfate, nitrate
  ammonium
        Table 6-7

OEN MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES




       TECHNIQUE




        FP/AC
Sulfur dioxide

Nitric acid, ammonia

Ozone

Nitrogen dioxide

Peroxyacetyl nitrate

Hydrocarbons, speciated

Carbonyls

Meteorology

Wind speed

Wind direction

Temperature

Dew point

Barometric pressure

Precipitation amount

Precipitation Chemistry

pH, field and lab

Conductivity, field and
  lab
                                                  AVERAGING
                                                 PERIOD  rhrs)
24
        FP/AC                      24

        TFR/FP/AC                  24

        UV Photometry               1

        Luminol chemiluminescence   1

        Alkaline filter/IC         24

        Canister/CCGC              24

        DNPH/HPLC                  24



        Cup anemometer              1

        Wind vane                   1

        Thermistor                  l

        LiCl cell                   l

        Capacitance                 l

        Weighing bucket             l



        pH meter                   24

        Conductivity meter         24
                               6-22

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                     Table 6-7 (continued)

                  OEN MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
                                                  AVERAGING
OBSERVABLE               TECHNIQUE               PERIOD  fhrs)

Precipitation Chemistry  (continued)

Sulfate, nitrate,         1C                         24
  chloride

Ammonium                  AC                         24

Sodium, potassium         AA                         24

Calcium, magnesium        ICAPES                     24

Precipitation amount      WOC                        24
FP/AC = Filter pack collection, automated colorimetric analysis
TFR = Transition flow reactor
1C = Ion chromatographic analysis
Canister/CCGC = Collection in passivated canister, capillary
     column gas chromatographic analysis
DNPH/HPLC = Collection on dinitrophenylhydrazine cartridge,
     analysis by high performance liquid chromatography
AA = Atomic absorption spectroscopic analysis
ICAPES = Inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopic
     analysis
WOC = Wet-only collector
                                6-23

-------
                            Table 6-8

                   FADMP MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
OBSERVABLE

Air Quality

Particulate sulfate
nitrate, ammonium

Nitric acid
TECHNIQUE
FP/AC
TFR/FP/AC
Ammonia, sulfur dioxide,  FP/AC
nitrogen dioxide
                                                   AVERAGING
                                                 PERIOD (hrs)
24


24

24
Precipitation Chemistry

Amount

PH

Conductivity

Sulfate, nitrate,
chloride

Sodium, calcium,
magnesium

Ammonium

Potassium
WOC

pH meter

conductivity meter

1C


ICAPES


AC

AE
24

24

24

24


24


24

24
FP    = Filter pack
AC    = Automated colorimetric analysis
TFR   = Transition flow reactor
WOC   = Wet-only collector
AE    = Atomic emission spectroscopy
1C    = Ion chromatography
ICAPES= Inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopy
                               6-24

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

The Department of Energy's acid deposition research program is

termed Processing of Emissions by Clouds and Precipitation

(PRECP).  Many of its researchers will have participated in a

multi-agency field investigation of convective storms in the

vicinity of Champaign, IL.  Dubbed 3CPO  (for Cloud Chemistry and

Cloud Physics Organization) it was planned for May through

July 1988 —coincident with the beginning of the model evaluation

field study.  The dynamics of convective storms and how they

process atmospheric constituents were to be studied with an eye

toward refining the parameterizations in the RADM scavenging

module.    The following year, in late Fall 1989, PRECP

researchers plan to similarly study stratiform cloud systems.

Although the results will be most useful to those developing

models, they may also find model evaluation applications.



NOAA — at the Scotia Range at Penn State;  SUNY  (Albany) — at

Whiteface Mountain, NY;  TVA — at Whitetop Mountain; and Georgia

Tech — at Brasstown Bald in north Georgia, operated specially

equipped ground stations and an aircraft  (NOAA) during the summer

1988 intensive measurement period.  As an example of the types of

measurements that are to be made at these locations, the

measurements planned for the Georgia Tech site are shown in Table

6-9.  Data will be used for diagnostic model evaluation and

refining estimates of inflow boundary conditions  for the modeling

domain.



American Electric Power Service Corporation is sponsoring the

collection of several hundred canister and sorbent samples  at

                               6-25

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                            Table 6-9
              MEASUREMENTS PLANNED FOR GEORGIA TECH
       SITE AT BRASSTOWN BALD DURING SUMMER 1988 INTENSIVE
OBSERVABLE
  SO-
   NO
  NO-
  NO.
    Y

   CO
TECHNIQUE

UV Photometry

Pulsed Fluorescence

Chemiluminescence

Photolysis/chemiluminescence

Au converter/chemiluminescence

GC/HgO detection
SAMPLE
PERIOD

12 sec

continuous

2 min

2 min

2 min

4-5/hr
  NMHC
(speciated)

  HNO3

  S04=
(particulate)
  NO3~
(particulate)
GC/FID
Nylon filter in filter pack
1C analysis
Teflon filter in filter pack
1C analysis
Teflon filter in filter pack
1C analysis
NMHC = Non-methane hydrocarbons
GC   = Gas chromatography
FID  = Flame ionization detector
1C   = Ion chromatography
2/hr (max)
30 min to
 2 hrs
30 min to
 2 hrs
30 min to
 2 hrs
                               6-26

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

five OEN stations during the Autumn 1988 and possibly the Spring

1990 U.S. intensives.  Plans call for the canister samples to be

collected over 24-hour period and analyzed by capillary column

gas chromatography for C2 through C12 hydrocarbons.  The sorbent

samples are to be collected over 12-hour periods and analyzed for

Cl through C5 carbonyl compounds.  The data will be used for

diagnostic model evaluation and for checks on the hydrocarbons

emissions estimates.



6.2  Emission Inventories

A necessary input for exercising the models is the gridded

emissions distribution.  Inventories for the U.S. and Canada have

been compiled for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile

organic compounds, soil dust, and ammonia separately by EPA and

EPRI with assistance from AES and OME.  EPRI's inventories are

for the year 1982.  EPA has compiled one set of inventories for

1980 and is in the process of developing another for 1985.



In addition, EPA plans to estimate the real-time SO2 and NOx

emissions from over 200 of the largest stationary sulfur dioxide

sources  (comprising about 100 power plants) over the course of

the field study to make this particular input to the model

evaluation data set as realistic as possible.  A similar activity

is underway in Canada for the largest 15 sources east of

Saskatchewan, but only during the intensive measurement periods.
                               6-27

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

6.3  Data Base Management

Each participating organization will maintain the data from its

own network in its own data base.  To facilitate easy access to

the data for model evaluation, a composite archive of commonly

formatted data will also be established within the Acid

Deposition System (ADS), maintained at the Battelle Pacific

Northwest Laboratory.   Realizing the data's unique value to the

model development community (because of their geographical

coverage, number of measured variables, duration, and quality

definition), the participants have agreed that data collected

during the first year of the field study (June 1988 through May

1989) will be available for model development following their

validation.



However, there may be some restrictions on the data's

availability for the following reasons:

1.  Much of the first six months' data will be used to conduct a

    preliminary evaluation of the RADM in time for the results to

    be included in the final assessment report from NAPAP  (Fall

    1990).

2.  Some of the data generators would like to have the initial

    opportunity to analyze the data in preparing reports of

    findings for publication in the technical literature.

Therefore, potential data users should be aware that it may be

necessary to gain approval from the data generators before the

data can be released.



The second year's data are to be sequestered and used initially

                               6-28

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

solely for a comprehensive model evaluation, the conduct of which

will probably extend beyond the lifetime of NAPAP.



6.4  Methods Characterization

Measurement methods used in the model evaluation field study must

be fully characterized in terms of their sensitivity (LQL),

precision, and accuracy — commensurate with estimated model

evaluation requirements — and influence of potential

interferences.  Many of the planned methods had not been

standardized at the time of their selection because no standard

methods existed for the observables of interest that had the

requisite characteristics: sensitivity, selectivity, simplicity,

reliability, economy, etc.  It was therefore necessary to conduct

the necessary characterization tests prior to the method's

adoption for use  in the field study-



The sample collection or measurement systems that have been

subjected to laboratory characterization tests specifically for

the model evaluation field study are the filter packs, transition

flow reactors  (TFR), PAN filter sampler, Luminox LMA-3 N02

analyzer, and an  automated colorimetry system.  Filter packs,

TFRs, the PAN filter sampler, and precipitation collectors have

been tested under field conditions as well.  The specific tests

and pertinent references to them are listed in Table 6-10.



6.5  Quality Assurance Auditing and Corrective Action

Performance and systems audits of field, laboratory, and data

management operations will be handled by a combination of

                               6-29

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                            Table 6-10

               METHODS PERFORMANCE CHARACTERIZATION

LABORATORY TESTS
System

Filter Pack
Test

Filter absorption capacity for
impregnating solution
Reference

        i
                SO2 collection efficiency of carbonate
                impregnated filters as function of
                temperature, relative humidity, and
                concentration

                NH3 collection efficiency of citric acid
                impregnated filters as function of
                temperature, concentration, and citric
                acid loading

                NO^ collection efficiency of triethanol-
                amine impregnated filters as function of
                filter type and face velocity

                SOo collection efficiency of triethanol-
                amine impregnated filters as function of
                concentration

                HN03 collection efficiency of nylon
                filters

                Flow resistance of various 47-mm filter
                discs, wet and dry

Integrated PAN  Efficiency of chilled water scrubbers for
                acetic acid removal

                Chilled scrubber temperature dependence on
                flow rate

                Determining analytical conditions for
                acetate analysis on ion chromatograph
Transition
Flow Reactor
HNO3 collection efficiency by nylon
inserts during dynamic sampling, dry
air and 50% RH

HNO3 collection efficiency by nylon
inserts during passive sampling

HN03 collection efficiency, blank levels
                               6-30

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-10  (Continued)

LABORATORY TESTS  (Continued)
System

Automated
Colorimetry
Luminox
(LMA-3)
Test
Reference

        i
Phosphoric acid interference with indol-
phenol blue method
                Comparison with ion chromatographic nitrate  i
                analyses

                Sample processing rate  for nitrate,          i
                ammonium, and  sulfate analyses

                Analysis  of TEA impregnated  filter           i
                extracts

                Optimization of analytical conditions  for    i
                sulfate,  nitrate, and ammonium analyses
Linearity, range, lower detection limit,
zero and span drift, interferences, RH
and temperature response

Linearity, duplicate sampling, zero and
calibration drift, interferences,
        11
                                6-31

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                      Table 6-10 (Continued)
FIELD TESTS

System

TFR/Filter Pack




Filter Packs
Precipitation
Collectors
Precipitation
Chemistry and
Deposition
Test
Reference
Check prototype performance and compare
with other methods during SCAQS

Duplicate sampling
     VI
Machined TFE vs injection molded PFA  iii,iv
filter holders

2-year comparison of AES and OME data     ix
at Longwoods

Methods characterization                   x

Comparison of HNO3 nylon filter method  xi,xiii
with spectroscopic and other methods    xiv

Comparison of NH3 impregnated filter       xv
method with spectroscopic and other
methods

Comparison of HNO3, NO3~ and NH4+         xii
methods

Snow sampling efficiency of different     vii
types of precipitation gauges and
samplers; influence on composition

Precision using Aerochem Metrics and     viii
MIC collectors. Examination of sources
of error
                               6-32

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89


                            Table 6-10

References

i.    Operational Evaluation Network Semi-Annual Progress Report,
      1 January - 1 August 1987, ERT Doc. No. P-E292-710,
      Concord, MA. October 1987.

ii.   D.W. Joseph, C.W. Spicer and G.M. Sverdrup.  Evaluation of
      Luminox LMA-3 NO2 Monitor for Acid Deposition Network
      Applications, Battelle Draft Topical Report, Columbus,
      Ohio.  July 1986.

iii.  W.J. Mitchell.  Comparative Testing of Machined and Molded
      Teflon Filter Holders for Dry Deposition -Preliminary
      Analysis.  EPA Memorandum dated 13 January 1987.

iv.   W.J. Mitchell.  Further Comparative Testing of Machined
      (Canadian) and Molded  (American) Teflon Filtger Holders.
      EPA Memorandum dated 20 February 1987.

v.    T.G. Ellestad.  ASRL Concentration Monitor.  Unpublished
      manuscript dated  6  February 1986.

vi.   K.T. Knapp, J.L.  Durham, and T.G. Ellestad.  Pollutant
      Sampler for Measurements of Atmospheric Acidic Dry
      Deposition.  Environ. Sci. Technol. .2_0:633-637  (1986).

vii.  L. Topol et al.   Investigation to be completed April 1988.

viii. A.J.S. Tang, W.H. Chan, D.B. Orr, W.S. Bardswick and M.A.
      Lusis.  An Evaluation of the Precision, and Various Sources
      of Error, in Daily  and Cumulative Precipitation
      Chemistry Sampling.  Water, Air and Soil Pollution 36;91
      (1987).

ix.   W. Fricke.  A Preliminary Comparison of APN and APIOS Data
      at Longwoods/Ont.   Internal AES memorandum, 23 December
      1986.

x.    K.G. Anlauf, H.A. Wiebe, and P. Fellin.  Characterization
      of Several Integrative Sampling Methods for Nitric Acid,
      Sulphur Dioxide and Atmospheric Particles. J. Air Pollut.
      Control Assoc. .36:715  (1986).

xi.   K.G. Anlauf et al.  Measurement of Atmospheric Nitric Acid
      and Ammonia by the  Filter Method and a Comparison to the
      Tunable Diode Laser Method.  Proceedings of the EPA/APCA
      Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related
      Air Pollutants, pp. 373-378.  May 1987.

xii.  K.G. Anlauf et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods  for the
      Measurement of Atmospheric Nitric Acid and Aerosol Nitrate
      and Ammonium.  Atmos. Environ. .19:325  (1985).

                               6-33

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89
                            Table 6-10

References (continued)

xiii. K.G. Anlauf, D.C. MacTavish, H.A. Wiebe, H.I. Schiff, and
      G.I. MacKay.  Measurement of Atmospheric Nitric Acid by the
      Filter Method and Comparison with the Tunable Diode Laser
      and Other Methods.  Accepted for publication, Atmospheric
      Environment, 1988.

xiv-  K.G. Anlauf, et al.  A Comparison of the Measurement of
      Atmospheric HNO3 at High Ambient Concetrations by Nylon
      Filter, Tunable Diode Laser, Transition Flow Reactor, and
      Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.  In preparation,
      1988.

xv.   H.A. Wiebe et al.  A Comparison of Atmospheric Ammonia by
      Filters, Transition Flow Reactor Tubes, Denuder Tubes, and
      Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.  In preparation,
      1988.
                               6-34

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

contractual and organizational arrangements.  AES and OME will

use their own staff members  (not directly involved in operations)

to conduct audits.



A subcontractor, Desert Research Institute  (DRI), to EPA's prime

contractor (ENSR), will conduct systems and performance audits of

ENSR's and Combustion Engineering Environmental's activities in

support of ME-35.  DRI will  also audit the airborne measurement

systems operated by Battelle Columbus Laboratories during the

intensives.



Within the OEN, the initial  plan called for quality assurance

staff from each of the two measurement contractors (ENSR as

prime, CE Environmental as subcontractor) to audit the operations

of the other.  This has been superseded by the use of internal

audits of each contractor's  operations by members of its own

staff, not directly involved in the the operations, and external

systems audits by a QA contractor common to all participants.

This use of a single contractor  (REA) to audit  all networks stems

from an awareness that establishing and maintaining comparability

of measurements among the networks over the course of the field

study would be simplified if the quality assurace audit planning

and execution  were centralized.  The nature of the external

audit is described below.



EPA was the first to contract with Research & Evaluation

Associates to perform management systems audits (MSA) and data
                                6-35

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

traceability audits on the prime contractor's activities.  The

MSAs will involve reviews of facilities, equipment, record

keeping, data validation, data management and reporting for the

entire QA system.  Traceability audits involve reviews of

operational, computational and recording activities of the

measurements.  Data points will be selected at random to trace

back from the central data base through the laboratory to their

origins in either the aircraft or field sampling sites.



The Diagnostic Measurements Team will assist in determining the

type and extent of quality assurance applied to the aircraft and

enhanced chemistry measurements.


Descriptions of the audit procedures are given in the respective

network QA Plans (see Appendix).



The results of all audits will be reported through the

responsible technical oversight team to the PMG.  Deviations from

standard operating procedures, results outside control limits,

and other indications of procedural weaknesses or circumstances

that could detract from measurement comparability among the

various activities will be dealt with at the appropriate level

required for corrective action at the earliest opportunity.



6.6  Inter-network Comparisons

These will be conducted by the participating organizations

through the operation of colocated measurement systems and by

interlaboratory comparisons.  The FADMP will not participate in


                               6-36

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

the field comparisons, but will participate in the other

activities designed to demonstrate or assess comparability of

measurements.  Having selected methods identical to those used in

the OEN the FCG decided that colocating FADMP equipment with the

other networks at State College and Egbert would be redundant

(see below).



6.6.1  Colocation of  field measurement systems.  Two sites

(Egbert, Ontario  and State College, PA) will be equipped with

measurement systems from AES, EPA, EPRI, and OME.  At Egbert,

each of these organizations will install one air quality sampler

(filter pack or filter pack/TFR combination), one precipitation

collector, and one rain gauge.



At State College, the complete suite of samplers and analyzers

used by each of these organizations at its network sites will be

installed  in duplicate, exclusive of those instruments used by

only one of the participants  (such as analyzers for ozone, by

EPRI, and, possibly, hydrogen peroxide, by EPA), of which only

one will be installed.  The colocation of duplicate measurement

systems will allow the inter-network deviations to be

distinguished from the intra-network measurement precision.




At Longwoods, Ontario, OME and AES will operate colocated

sampling systems to provide a third site to allow possible  bias

between their air quality measurements to be assessed.
                                6-37

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

6.6.2  NWRI QC comparison on precipitation samples.   The National

Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, has been contracted

to provide external quality assurance services by providing 10

certified precipitation test samples per month to each of the

participating laboratories and to approximately six other

laboratories shown to have performed reliably in previous inter-

laboratory comparisons.  NWRI will monitor the stability of the

test samples.



The analytical results will be used to assess inter-laboratory

bias.  Inclusion of the other six high-performance laboratories

is expected to provide a stable and reliable median for bias

assessment.  Two or three artificially prepared standard mixtures

of known stability would also be distributed monthly to allow

analytical accuracy also to be assessed.



Criteria will be established to define very good, average, and

poor performance.  Verified instances of poor performance by a

participating laboratory will be communicated as soon as

practical to the laboratory so that corrective action may be

taken.  Concurrently, the measurements team representative

responsible for the laboratory will be notified so that he can

ensure that corrective action has been taken.  Such instances

will be brought to the attention of the measurements team and the

PMG so that further assurance is gained that measurement

discrepancies are resolved.
                               6-38

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

Reports on the inter-comparison procedures and results will be

issued annually by the NWRI and at the end of the study.



6.6.3  Filter pack testing on common test atmospheres.  In

addition to the comparisons conducted under field conditions at

the colocated sites, the filter packs used by the participating

networks are to be challenged under controlled conditions with

test atmospheres containing nitric acid, sulfur dioxide, and

ammonia  (either in combination or individually) as a further test

of their relative performance.



The protocol for testing the filter packs will be developed by

ENSR in  consultation with the Operational Measurements Team and

the actual tests will be performed using the test atmosphere

generation and exposure system at ENSR's Camarillo, CA

laboratory.  ENSR will provide a report of the test results to

the Team through the Teams's OEN representative.



6.6.4  AES/EPA airborne measurements comparisons.

The airborne measurement systems used by the AES and EPA will be

subjected to intercomparison testing according to a protocol to

be developed under the auspices of the Diagnostic Measurements

Team.



6.7  Intra-network Colocation

In addition to the data from the duplicate samplers at  the  State

College  inter-network comparison site, intra-network precision

assessments will rely on data from 4 APIOS, 2 OEN, 6 EPA, and  1

                               6-39

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

FADMP colocated stations.   The stations will be geographically

dispersed and will be changed in the OEN after the first year and

in the ME-35 every six months.



6.8  Common Filter and TFR Supplier

By agreement among participants, all Teflon, nylon, and

impregnated filters used in the field study will be supplied by a

common vendor.  Following a competitive procurement, ENSR was

selected as the filter supplier.  Each participating organization

will contract separately with ENSR for its supply of filters.

Filter specifications are given in Table 6-11.



The Teflon and nylon filters will be shipped in yearly batches

to each sponsor.  Impregnated filters will be supplied in monthly

batches because their greater propensity for contamination limits

their shelf life.  Nylon and Naphion filter-material inserts for

the transition flow reactors will also be provided by ENSR to the

ME-35, OEN, and FADMP.  As the surface area of the inserts is 70%

of that of the 47-mm filters, the blank levels for nitric acid

(nylon inserts) and ammonia  (Naphion inserts) will be

proportionately smaller than the values shown in Table 6-11.



6.9  Composite Data Archive

Site descriptions, all measurement data taken during the model

evaluation field study, and quality control data and sample

status codes that support data quality estimates will be archived

together in the Acid Deposition System (ADS) data base at

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.  This archive, compositing

                               6-40

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver.  4,  2/89
                            Table 6-11

                      FILTER SPECIFICATIONS
                       (All 47-mm diameter)
Filter
 Type

 Teflon
Membrane
 1 urn
Zefluor

 Nylon
Membrane
S&S 1 urn
Nylon 66

Whatman
  41

Whatman
  41

Whatman
  41
Target
Species

Sulfate
Nitrate
Ammonium
Nitric acid
Blank Levels
(ug/filter)

   1.1
   1.3
   1.0
   1.0
Sulfur Dioxide   2.1
Ammonia
PAN
   1.0
   1.0
Recipe

 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
15% K2C03
 5% Glycerol

25% Citric acid
 5% Glycerol

10% KOH
 2% Glycerol
                                6-41

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver. 4, 2/89

data from all participating networks and laboratories, will

ensure common data formats for like variables, irrespective of

source, and facilitate access by prospective data users.  Data

will be transmitted to ADS by each participating organization on

differing schedules, but not to exceed quarterly for the

preceding quarter.  Thus, the longest time interval between

sample collection and transmittal of its measurement data to ADS

should be about 6 months.



The contents of the data archive are summarized in Table 6-12.

Functional specifications for the data archive have been

developed under contract from OME and are given by Daly and Olsen

(1988) along with a detailed description of its contents.  The

archive will be established under contract from EPA and will be

maintained for two years after the completion of the study.

Thereafter, users may still obtain copies of the data on tape,

but will probably have to sort it themselves to access specific

subsets.



6.10   Individual Network Data Archives

Each of the data-generating organizations will maintain an

archive of its own data.  The archive will contain not only all

the original validated data that the organization transfers to

the ADS composite archive but also the quality control data  (such

as from analysis of blanks, replicates, spikes, and standards)

and field logs and zero, span and calibration data that are used

for the data quality assessments and for data validation.  Also
                               6-42

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver.  4,  2/89
                            Table 6-12

                      DATA ARCHIVE CONTENTS

o Support Documentation
  - Program overview
  - Sampling platform descriptions
  - Data processing manual
  - Data transfer description
  - Quality control procedures manuals
  - Quality control reports
  - Quality Assurance reports
o Site Data Base
  31 variables
o Precipitation Chemistry Record Variables
  147 variables
o Filter/Transition Flow Reactor Chemistry Record Variables
  97 variables
o Continuous Gas Phase Chemistry Record Variables
  22 variables
o Hourly Precipitation Record Variables
  12 variables
o Hourly Meteorology Record Variables
  52 variables
o Aircraft Filter Chemistry Record Variables
  53 variables
o Aircraft Continuous Sampling Record Variables
  124 variables
                               6-43

-------
                                                        Section 6
                                                     Ver.  4, 2/89

archived will be the data from quality auditing of lab and field

performance.
                               6-44

-------
                                                         Section 7
                                                      Ver.  4,  2/89
                           Section 7

                           EMISSIONS
Comprehensive emissions inventories have been, and are being

compiled under programs distinct from the model evaluation

program.  As such they are not strictly under the aegis of the

PMG.  Nonetheless, these inventories will serve as the major basis

for emissions data inputs to the models during their evaluation.

For this reason, the PMG plans for the Emissions Inventory Team to

ascertain the uncertainties associated with these emissions data

to the extent possible and to work with the Model Evaluation Team

to determine how the emissions uncertainties propagate through the

models to influence the output uncertainties.  Of course, these

considerations also apply to the real-time emissions estimates,

gathered over the duration of the field study by EPA in the U.S.

and during the intensives by AES and OME in Canada  (see Section

1.5) .



The Team has been asked to determine to what extent quality

control has been exercised in the compilation of the inventories

in terms of checking for consistent application of emissions

calculation procedures, for data entry errors, and for

reasonableness of the values.



With respect to the volatile organic compounds, ammonia,  and  soil

dust inventories there is little independent data available with

which to gauge uncertainties.  At a minimum, the relative

magnitudes of the values in inventories of the same species,


                                7-1

-------
                                                         Section 7
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

compiled by different organizations,  should be compared.  When

discrepancies judged to be significant are noted, their causes

should be investigated and the discrepancies resolved, when

possible.  When unresolvable, the influence of using the different

values as model inputs on the output uncertainty should be

ascertained by the model evaluators.
                                7-2

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                             Section 8

                    MODEL EVALUATION PROTOCOLS



RADM and ADOM may be evaluated in a number of ways, as outlined in

Section 1.3.  Their comparative evaluation is underway at Battelle

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, with subcontracts to the model

developers, SUNY Albany and ENSR.  Protocols for evaluation of the

gas phase chemistry, scavenging (including cloud physics and

aqueous phase chemistry), and atmospheric transport modules are

being developed.



The observational data collected in the model evaluation field

study are to be used to operationally and diagnostically evaluate

the models.  These evaluations will involve in one way or another

the comparison of model output with observational data.



Model evaluation is an important component of the NAPAP

assessments.  For model evaluation results to be incorporated into

the 1990 NAPAP final assessment report, they should be received by

NAPAP in October 1989 although some schedule slippage is possible.

This schedule necessitates a  "preliminary" evaluation of RADM and

ADOM.  Over the period April  through June 1989 both models will

undergo the same evaluation process, which will use data  from the

first six months of the field study, including those from the

summer 1988 intensive measurement campaigns in Canada and the U.S.

The nature of the preliminary evaluation will be specified in a

model evaluation protocol document, which is scheduled for

completion in April 1989.


                                8-1

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

The protocol for the more comprehensive evaluation that motivated

the field study in the first place is only at a conceptual stage

of development.  Its completion will probably take place after

gaining experience with the "preliminary" NAPAP evaluation.



It is the responsibility of the Model Evaluation Team to propose

these protocols and then to expedite their implementation.  In the

meantime, the general aspects of the model evaluations, as

described in this section, are sufficiently understood to help

guide the design of the field study.



8.1  Operational Evaluation

Several approaches to operational evaluation have been

considered: geographical pattern comparison, point-to-grid-cell

comparison, and multivariate analysis.  Condensed descriptions of

these are provided below.



The first one, pattern recognition, involves use of an

interpolation/extrapolation scheme to construct gridded data maps

based on the time-averaged field measurements and then comparison

of these gridded values with those calculated from the Eulerian

model output.  A presumed advantage of this approach is that the

spatially interpolated patterns are better able to represent the

actual deposition and air quality distributions than the discrete

data from which they are derived.  Seasonal or longer averages of

observed and predicted precipitation constituents such as  sulfate,

nitrate, and ammonium, and air quality variables such as sulfur

dioxide, nitric acid, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia and particulate

                                8-2

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium would be compared.
An interpolation method under serious consideration for this

application is kriging.   (See, for example, Seilkop and

Finkelstein, 1987, for a brief explanation of simple kriging and

its application to precipitation data.)   Although simple kriging

has some restrictive assumptions (e.g., Philip and Watson, 1986)

that detract from its utility for model evaluation, it has the

advantage that it yields estimates of interpolation uncertainty

for each interpolated value.  This is an important attribute

because, in principle, it allows this source of variance to be

distinguished from others such as measurement uncertainty,

"subgrid" variability, and meteorological stochasticity.   An

attempt to identify and use elaborations of the method that avoid

the restrictive assumptions of simple kriging will be made.  The

Model Evaluation Team will decide what the preferred interpolation

method or methods will be.  It must also resolve the question of

what statistical measures will be used for assessing spatial and

temporal comparability between the observational and model output

fields.



A more traditional approach to operational model evaluation is  the

so-called point-to-grid-cell  (or "point-to-node")  comparison in

which averaged observational data at the measurement locations  are

compared with the averaged model predictions  for the grid  cell

containing each location.   Several performance measures based  on

this approach were recommended by an American Meteorological

Society workshop  in 1980  and are described by Fox  (1981).

                                8-3

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

A third way that has been discussed is the use of principal

component analysis of both the observational and model output

data.  (See Henry and Hidy, 1979, for an example of PGA

application to environmental data.)  This multivariate analysis

approach takes a large number of variables, many of which may be

temporally correlated, and groups them into a smaller number of

uncorrelated variables (principal components).  The correlations

result from physical and chemical associations of the variables.

Measurement data from two identical natural systems will yield

identical variables and weights in their separately calculated

principal components.  Therefore, the similarity between the

principal components calculated from the observational data and

those calculated from the model output data should provide a

measure of how well the model is capturing the physical and

chemical essence of the natural system.   How the degree of

similarity would be judged and interpreted remains an unresolved

issue.



These three general approaches to model evaluation should not be

considered exhaustive.  The Model Evaluation Team is considering a

number of other statistical and subjective measures of model

performance and will be receptive to any further suggestions that

appear promising.



8.2  Diagnostic Evaluation

Diagnostic evaluations will rely principally on measurement data

from the aircraft, VAR surface stations, continuous analyzers at

surface network stations in the vicinity of measuring aircraft  and

                                8-4

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

enhanced chemistry sites operated by cooperating agencies.

Protocols for conducting the diagnostic evaluations have not been

completed, but will almost certainly involve some form of point-

to-grid-cell comparisons for vertically resolved data and line-to-

linearly-grouped-grid-cells comparisons for horizontal transect

data.  Protocol completion will be the joint responsibility of

Model Evaluation and Diagnostic Measurements Teams.
8.3  How Models Will be Run to Obtain Averages

Operational evaluations rely on comparing temporally averaged

data.  The methods  for obtaining the observational averages are

straightforward.  Those for the model outputs are not, because of

presumed modeling resource constraints.



Four techniques for obtaining long term averages are under

cons ideration:

o  direct simulation of seasonal and annual cycles using the

   models as presently configured,

o  aggregation of episodic model runs to statistically represent

   average behavior,

o  interactive use  of a comprehensive model and a simpler, less

   computationally  intensive model, whereby the comprehensive

   model establishes typical chemical environments across the



   modeling domain  and the simpler model works within that

   framework  to calculate the actual long-term averages,  and

o  reconfiguration  of model architecture to run more speedily  and

                                 8-5

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

   efficiently on a parallel processing machine.   Each technique

   has its advantages and disadvantages.



Direct simulation is expected to be the most expensive and time

consuming of the alternatives.  The cost of supercomputer running

time and the effort expended in compiling and manipulating the

requisite input data would be relatively considerable.  On the

other side of the coin, no major new software development would be

required and there is a current familiarity with running the

models as presently configured.



EPA and OME have been funding examinations of the feasibility of

breaking down the full range of meteorological variability into a

set of meteorological classes, each of which contributes some

characteristic fraction of the total wet and dry deposition to the

ground and within which exist characteristic aerometric

conditions.  Feasibility would mean that by weighting the

deposition and concentrations associated with each class by its

frequency of occurrence, the long term totals and averages could

be estimated.   The disadvantages of this technique are that its

feasibility has yet to be established and that because it is an

indirect method of estimating averages, it lacks the credibility

of the direct method.  Its advantage is that it is less costly in

terms of money and manpower than the direct method, because it

requires less computing time and data assimilation effort.



The feasibility of interactively using comprehensive and simpler

models to obtain long-term averages has not been explored in

                                8-6

-------
                                                         Section 8
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

depth.  The approach was suggested by analogy to the solution to a

related problem suggested by Kleinman (1988) whereby he would use

RADM to establish a chemical environment and then a simpler model

to evaluate SO2 emissions change scenarios.



The possibility of running the models on a parallel processing

machine has only recently been brought under consideration. Its

feasibility is being explored by the RADM development staff in

separate consultations with Argonne National Laboratory and with

IBM.



This approach would require substantial modification of the

computer code and the acquisition of an appropriate existing

computer or the development of one custom-designed for this

application.  The expense and effort to meet these requirements

are an obvious disadvantage, but its relative magnitude versus

direct simulation remains to be determined.



On the positive side, the very nature of the Eulerian  (gridded)

approach and the processes being simulated  in the models  — they

are inherently multitudinous and parallel — makes them   ideal

candidates for parallel processing.  If appropriate hardware had

been available at the inception of the models'  development,  it  is

likely they would have been written in parallel mode.
                                 8-7

-------
                                                         Section 9
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                             Section 9

                            REFERENCES
Daly, D.S. and A.R. Olsen, 1988.  Data Integration System for the
Eulerian Model Evaluation Field Study. Draft Report, June 1988.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA 99352.

Durham, J., R. Dennis, N. Laulainen, D. Renne, B. Pennell, R.
Barchet, and J. Hales, 1986.  Regional Eulerian Model Field Study;
Proposed Management and Technical Approaches.  Atmospheric
Sciences Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC.  August 1986.

Fox, D.G., 1981.  Judging Air Quality Model Performance.  Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc. 62:599-609.

Henry, R.C. and G.M. Hidy, 1979.  Multivariate Analysis of
Particulate Sulfate and Other Air Quality Variables by Principal
Components - Part I.  Annual Data from Los Angeles and New York.
Atmos. Environ. 13:1581-1596.

Kleinman, L.I., 1988.  Evaluation of SO2 Emission scenarios with a
Nonlinear Atmospheric Model.  Atmospheric Environment, in press.

Philip, G.M. and D.F. Watson, 1986.  Comment on "Comparing Splines
and Kriging"-  Computers & Geosciences 12.' 243-245.

Seilkop S.K. and P.L. Finkelstein, 1987.  Acid Precipitation
Patterns and Trends in Eastern North America, 1980-84.  J.
Climate Appl. Meteor. 26:980-994.
                                 9-1

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
APPENDICES

     A.  PMG Charter

     B.  List of pertinent quality assurance plans
                                 A-l

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
                          CHARTER OF THE
                     PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP
           FOR REGIONAL EULERIAN ACID DEPOSITION/OXIDANT
                     MODEL EVALUATION STUDIES
SPONSORS

Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada

Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Tampa, FL

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Each of the sponsoring agencies and institutions is operating or
plans to operate an acid deposition monitoring network and to make
additional measurements for model evaluation.  Each of these
approaches has independent sampling procedures.  For effective
model evaluation against the common monitoring data, differences
among methods applied by the various sponsors to measure the same
variable must be defined and minimized.

The Regional Model Evaluation Quality Assurance Workshop (Toronto,
10-13 June 1986) recommended that the Sponsors establish a Quality
Assurance Management Committee  (QAMC) to function as described in
the workshop report (Olsen, 1986) and proposed QA management
approach (Cox, 1986).  This QAMC was constituted immediately
following the workshop and by October 1986, EPA, EPRI, and OME had
become signatories to the QAMC charter.  In 1987 AES became a
signatory to the charter, bringing the committee to full
membership.

In response to a recommendation solicited by the QAMC
from the Eulerian Modeling Bilateral Steering Committee  (EMBSC),
  o  the QAMC was renamed the Project Management Group  (PMG);
  o  its purview enlarged from network monitoring to also
     encompass emissions inventories, measurements  for diagnostic
     evaluations, and the model evaluation process  itself; and
  o  four teams were established to assist the PMG  in organizing,
     coordinating, and assuring the quality of operational
     measurement, diagnostic measurement, emissions estimation,
     and model evaluation activities as described in the Project
     Plan.
                                A-2

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
Subsequently, the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG)
adopted sampling methods identical to those used by EPRI and
joined the model evaluation field study.


PURPOSE OF THIS CHARTER

The purpose of this Charter is to:

  o  express the agreement of intent among Sponsoring Agencies and
     Institutions to establish the Project Management Group, and

  o  express the extent of cooperation and obligations of the
     Sponsors and the members of the Group.


OBJECTIVES

With assistance from the Teams providing technical oversight of
the Operational Measurements, Diagnostic Measurements, Emissions
Inventories, and Model Evaluation, the Group shall act to provide
a quality assured data set for model evaluation.  It shall provide
well documented, scientifically credible operational and
diagnostic evaluations of RADM and ADOM.


FUNCTIONS

The Group shall:

  o  constitute the four Teams described in the preceding
     background statement and convene them at periodic intervals;

  o  receive status reports from the Teams and recommend
     corrective action as needed;

  o  produce a Project Plan for the model evaluation studies;

  o  direct the Teams in establishing mechanisms to:

     -  review and approve Sponsors' Quality Assurance Plans for
        measurements and data reduction, validation, and
        management;

        review and recommend the methods of establishing estimates
        of bias and precision;

     -  encourage  standardization of methods and protocols;

        encourage member agencies to practice active  quality
        control;

                                A-3

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

     -  design inter-network and inter-laboratory studies of
        uncertainties; and

        specify common data base characteristics and protocols.
MEMBERSHIP

The Group membership shall consist of one member from each
Sponsoring agency who possesses these characteristics:

  o  has a detailed knowledge of the monitoring and research tasks
     of the model evaluation project;

  o  is not directly related to data generation from tasks; and

  o  is knowledgeable in quality assurance or has support of a
     quality control staff or contractor.

It is desirable, but not essential, that each Sponsor's member be
in a management position that is effective in recommending
reprogramming of resources to bring about timely corrective
action.
CHAIRMAN

The Group shall elect its chairman, who will serve a term as
agreed upon by the Group members.  The chairman's duties will be
to:

  o  schedule regular quarterly meetings;

  o  prepare and provide an agenda in advance of each meeting;

  o  moderate the meeting;

  o  provide a written summary of the meeting; and

  o  report on Group accomplishments and model evaluation study
     status to the EMBSC.


FINANCIAL SUPPORT

The Sponsoring agencies agree to support this Group in these ways:

  o  Provide travel and per diem for their members of the Group
     and the Teams to attend four meetings per year.  These
     meetings may be held at one of the agency's facilities or at
     a mutually convenient intermediate location such as Chicago,
     IL«

  o  Provide 20% of their member's (or the equivalent in staff's

                                A-4

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89
     or contractor's) time for conducting the functions of a Group
     member.

     Provide internally a Quality Assurance Officer (staff or
     contractor) to assess their quality control data
     interactively with the appropriate Measurements Team.
The Group shall not request the Sponsoring agencies to provide any
support or funds other than identified above.  The Sponsoring
agencies will fund and manage bias and precision data experiments,
partitioning of precision experiments, and internal quality
assurance and quality control within their respective programs.


DURATION

The Sponsoring agencies may withdraw membership at any time.
This charter expires annually on 1 January, unless its Sponsors
specifically approve its continuation.  A record of such action
will appear in the minutes of the fourth quarter's meeting.


APPROVAL

Designated and Approved by Agency's or Institution's Manager
Responsible for the Model Evaluation Studies.


AES  Member:

     Approved by:                              Date:


EPA  Member:

     Approved by:                              Date:


EPRI Member:

     Approved by:                              Date:


FCG Member:

     Approved by:                              Date:


OME  Member:

     Approved by:                              Date:
                                A-5

-------
                                                Appendices
                                              Ver. 4, 2/89
                    Appendix B
        QUALITY ASSURANCE-RELATED DOCUMENTS
IN USE IN THE EULERIAN MODEL EVALUATION FIELD STUDY
                        A-6

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

Listed here are the quality assurance plans, work plans, operating
(procedures) manuals, and other pertinent documents that dictate
and describe how activities are to be conducted in support of the
Eulerian Model Evaluation Field Study-  They are listed by the
organization to whose operations they apply.

1.  Atmospheric Environment Service. Environment Canada

    Quality Assurance Reports

    The Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN)
    Quality Assurance Plan for Precipitation Monitoring Systems.
    R.J. Vet and S.G. Onlock, Report CSC 110.194-3-1 Concord
    Scientific Corporation, 2 Tippett Road, Downsview, Ontario M3H
    2V2, March 1983.

    The Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN)
    Quality Assurance Plan for Air Monitoring Systems. R.J. Vet,
    Atmospheric Environment Service.  TO BE WRITTEN

    The Canadian Aircraft Program Quality Assurance Plan.
    Atmospheric Environment Service.  TO BE WRITTEN

    Procedures Manuals

    Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN)
    Operator's Instruction Manual - Precipitation.  Air Quality
    and Inter-Environmental Research Branch, Atmospheric
    Environment Service, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario
    M3H 5T4, April  1985.

    Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN)
    Operator's Reference Manual - Precipitation.  Air Quality and
    Inter-Environmental Research Branch, Atmospheric Environment
    Service, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4,
    April 1985.

    Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN)
    Precipitation Sampling Instruments Operation and Maintenance
    Manual - Operator's Edition.  Atmospheric Environment Service,
    4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4, April  1985.

    Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN)
    Inspector's Reference Manual - Precipitation.  Air  Quality  and
    Inter-Environmental Research Branch, Atmospheric Environment
    Service, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4,
    April 1985.

    Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network  (CAPMoN)
    Precipitation Sampling Instruments Operation and Maintenance
    Manual  - Inspector's Edition.  Atmospheric  Environment
    Service, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H  5T4,
    April 1985.
                                 A-7

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

    Preliminary Draft - Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring
    Network (CAPMoN)  Site Operator's Manual - Air and Ozone
    System, Belfort gauges.   Atmospheric Environment Service,
    March 1988.

    Preliminary Draft - Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring
    Network (CAPMoN)  Inspector's Manual - Air and Ozone System,
    Belfort gauges.  Atmospheric Environment Service, March 1988.


2.  Electric Power Research Institute

    EPRI-OEN Field Operation and Maintenance Manual.  Document No.
    2460-003-332, April 1988.  ERT, Inc., Concord, MA and
    Environmental Monitoring and Services, Inc.,  Camarillo, CA.
          Volume I:   Training and Precipitation Measurements
          Volume II:   Meteorological Measurements
          Volume III: Aerometric Measurements

    Operational Evaluation Network Quality Control Procedure
    Manual (Draft).  Document No. 2460-003-800, May 1988.  ERT,
    Inc., Concord, MA.

    Operational Evaluation Network Work Plan (Draft).  Document
    No. P-E292-100, August 1986.  ERT, Inc., Concord, MA.

    Operational Evaluation Network Siting Manual. January 1987.
    ERT, Inc., Concord, MA.


3.  Environmental Protection Agency

    Quality Assurance Reports

    Acid Model Operational Diagnostic Evaluation Study Quality
    Assurance Project Plan, Document No. 9100-014-800,  June 1988.
    ERT, Inc., Concord, MA, and Environmental Monitoring and
    Services, Inc., Camarillo, CA.

    Acid Model Operational Diagnostic Evaluation Study: Option XI
    - The Measurement of S(IV) in Precipitation Quality Assurance
    Project Plan  (Draft), February 1988.  Combustion Engineering,
    Environmental Monitoring and Services, Inc.,  Camarillo, CA.

    Acid Model Operational Diagnostic Evaluation Study: Option XI
    - The Measurement of S(IV) in Precipitation Work Plan  (Draft),

    January 1988, Combustion Engineering, Environmental Monitoring
    and Services, Inc., Camarillo, CA.


    Procedures Manuals

    Acid MODES Network Siting Manual  (Draft), October  1987.  ERT,
    Inc., Concord, MA.

                                A-8

-------
                                                        Appendices
                                                      Ver. 4, 2/89

    Acid MODES Field Operations and Maintenance Manual  (Draft),
    February 1988.  ERT, Inc., Concord, MA.

    Acid Model Operational Diagnostic Evaluation Study Standard
    Operating Procedures Field Measurements (Draft), Document No.
    G418-800, February 1988.  ERT, Inc., Concord, MA. (Revised
    version in preparation)

    Acid Model Operational Diagnostic Evaluation Study Standard
    Operating Procedures Laboratory Analysis and Data Management
    (Draft), Document No. G418-800, February 1988.  ERT, Inc.,
    Concord, MA.  (Revised version in preparation)


4.  Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group

    Laboratory Operations Manual.  Florida Acid Deposition Study.
    ESE Document No. 006F/80-610-111.  Environmental Science and
    Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL. September 1981.

    Environmental Monitoring Project Quality Assurance Plan.
    Florida Acid Deposition Study.  ESE Document No. 004F/80-610-
    111.  Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
    Gainesville, FL. September 1981.

    Field Operator's Instruction Manual (Phases I and II).
    Florida Acid Deposition Study.  ESE Document No. 004F/80-610-
    600.  Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
    Gainesville, FL. September 1981.

    Field Operator's Instruction Manual Appendices  (Phases I-IV).
    Florida Acid Deposition Study.  ESE Document No. 004FS/82-615-
    101.  Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
    Gainesville, FL. September 1982.

    Field Operator's Instruction Manual (Phase III).  Florida Acid
    Precipitation Study.  ESE Document No. 004FS/82-615-101.
    Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL.
    October 1982.


5.  National Water Research Institute. Environment Canada

    External Quality Assurance.  Cost Factors and Work Plans to
    Examine Specific Laboratory Performance of those Laboratories
    Providing Precipitation Data to Test the Eulerian Model
    (Aqueous Phase).


6.  Ontario Ministry of the Environment

    Quality Assurance Plan - APIOS Deposition Monitoring Program.
    Report ARB-76-84-ARSP-  Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
    1984.
                                A-9

-------
                                                    Appendices
                                                  Ver. 4, 2/89

Acidic Precipitation in Ontario study, Quality Assurance
Manual: Deposition Monitoring Network.  Report ARB-051-85-AQM.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1985.

Technical and Operating Manual APIOS Deposition Monitoring
Program (1st Revised Edition).  W.S. Bardswick. Report ARB-
082-87-AQMo  Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1987.

1986 Performance Report:  Water Quality Section, Laboratory
Services Branch.  W.M. Wright, Ed.,  1987
                           A-10

-------
                    ATMOSPHERIC
                    ENVIRONMENT
                    SERVICE
                    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION
                    AGENCY
EPRI
ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
                    FLORIDA
                    ELECTRIC POWER
                    COORDINATING GROIUP
                    ONTARIO
                    MINISTRY OF THE
                    ENVIRONMENT
Ontario

-------