OSWER Models Study:
Promoting Appropriate Use of Models
in Hazardous Waste / Superfund Programs
PHASE I
FINAL REPORT
May 26,1989
Information Management Staff
Office of Program Management and Technology
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
OSWER Models Study:
Promoting Appropriate Use of Models
in Hazardous Waste / Superfund Programs
PHASE I
FINAL REPORT
May 26,1989
Information Management Staff
Office of Program Management and Technology
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The OSWER Information Management Staff (IMS) wishes
to thank all those who have contributed to this effort, especially
members of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund Research
Committee, OSWER's Technology Staff, the Office of Solid
Waste, the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA Regions ffl
and V, Office of Research and Development (ORD) Headquarters
offices and ORD laboratories in Athens, GA, Ada, OK,
Cincinnati, OH, and Research Triangle Park, NC. American
Management Systems, Inc. (AMS) assisted OSWER IMS in
preparing this report. AMS collected information, conducted
interviews with study participants, and provided analytical
support throughout the study. AMS services were provided
under Contract No. 68-01-7281.
-------
OSWER Models Study--
Promoting Appropriate Use of Models
In Hazardous Waste / Suoerfund Programs
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary i
1. Background and Methodology : 1-1
1.1. Purpose 1-2
1.2. Project Plan 1-3
1.3. Project Activities 1-4
2. Overview of the Modeling Environment 2-1
2.1. Scope and Size 2-1
2.2 Key Research Organizations and Modeling Centers 2-3
2.3. Computing Environment 2-5
2.4. Model Development, Verification, and Validation 2-6
2.5. Model Selection and Application 2-8
2.6. Levels of Usage 2-9
2.7. User Support 2-10
3. Modeling Environment Category Descriptions 3-1
3.1. Ground Water Modeling 3-2
3.2. Exposure Assessment Modeling 3-12
3.3. Air Dispersion Modeling 3-17
3.4. Modeling for Hazardous Waste Engineering 3-23
3.5. Surface Water Modeling 3-25
3.6. Drinking Water Modeling 3-28
-------
Table of Contents (cont'd)
Page
4. Review of Management Issues 4-1
4.1. Importance of Modeling 4-2
4.2. Need for Guidance 4-4
4.3. Model Development, Calibration,
Verification, and Validation 4-6
4.4. Hardware and Software 4-8
4.5. Model Selection and Application 4-9
4.6. User Support Organizations and Networks 4-10
5. Recommendations
5.1. Task Area 1: Initiation, Additional Studies,
and Preparation of Management Plan 5-1
5.2. Task Area 2: Development of Guidance 5-4
5.3. Task Area 3: Establishment of User Support Networks 5-6
Appendix A: Interview Guide A-l
Appendix B: Interview List. B-l
Appendix C: Bibliography C-l
Appendix D: OSWER Models Inventory - Abbreviated D-l
-------
Executive Summary
During the 1970s and 1980s, there has been a steady increase in
the frequency with which computerized, mathematical models are
used at EPA by program office staff as tools for supporting
regulatory decision-making. Models offer valuable new capabilities
and significantly increase predictive power under conditions of
incomplete information or uncertainty. On the other hand, as
model development and usage proliferates, senior managers and
technical staff are concerned about the difficulty in ensuring that
models will be applied in appropriate and valid ways. Many
models now run on Agency-standard personal computers and are
readily available to non-experts with no formal training in model
development or application. At EPA, these concerns are
underscored by recent cases in which the application of a model has
been challenged in court (e.g., McLouth Steel Products Corp. v.
Thomas. 1987).
Many of the model management issues affecting the Agency
as a whole are particularly relevant to the programs managed by
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and
mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The Information Management Staff in OSWER's Office of
Program Management and Technology (OPMT) has conducted this
Models Study in order to develop a better understanding of the
scope and size of the modeling environment of hazardous waste /
Superfund (HW/SF) programs, to identify associated management
issues, and to prepare a set of recommendations for promoting the
appropriate use of models. The scope of the study is on computer-
based mathematical models used to predict or simulate
environmental effects. Physical models are not included in the
study, and there is limited emphasis on management and
economic (i.e., "cost") models. The purpose of this report is to
describe the OSWER modeling environment, to identify
management issues, and to make recommendations for future
improvement initiatives.
The Information Management Staff coordinated this project
with the members of the HW/SF Research Subcommittees. Those
members have provided sources of information and comments on
the draft findings, issues, and recommendations. The project team
collected its baseline information through in-person and telephone
interviews at EPA Headquarters, Regional Offices, and several
Office of Research and Development (ORD) research facilities.
During these information gathering activities, the project team
-------
compiled the OSWER Models Library, a collection of over seventy
reference documents, and the OSWER Models Inventory, a
computerized database containing descriptive information on over
300 models.
The OSWER modeling environment is comprised of several
heterogeneous modeling categories focusing on different
environmental media, processes, and pathways. The six categories
are: Ground Water, Exposure Assessment, Air Dispersion, Surface
Water, Hazardous Waste Engineering, and Drinking Water. The
following observations are presented in this report:
• Scope and Size. There are more than 310 models of interest to
hazardous waste / Superfund programs.
• Key Research Organizations and Modeling Centers. The
primary organizations involved in development are the EPA
Office of Research and Development (especially through
research laboratories in Ada, Athens, Cincinnati, and Research
Triangle Park), EPA program offices (e.g., OSW, OERR, OPMT,
OAQPS), universities and affiliated academic institutions (e.g.,
International Ground Water Modeling Center), and private
scientific and engineering firms.
• Computing Environment. The majority of existing models
are written in FORTRAN. Older models run primarily on
mainframes or minicomputers, but many have been adapted
to run on microcomputers. Newer models are primarily
targeted for delivery on microcomputers or workstations,
using a variety of languages and tools.
• Development, Verification, Validation. Currently, efforts for
model development are evenly distributed between equation
development, software development, model modification,
and the combination of existing models. This is in contrast to
the past, when the major emphasis in modeling was on
equation development and programming. Model verification
and validation are topics of much discussion and some
controversy in the modeling community. There are no
universally accepted definitions of model verification and
validation.
• Model Selection and Application. Model selection requires
expert knowledge of both the process to be modeled and the
models available. Model application is the process of using a
particular model to make predictions and conduct analyses.
Depending on how well the model fits the scenario,
validation steps are often repeated as part of die model
application process. As a model becomes widely distributed
and applied in different scenarios, it becomes difficult to keep
track of its performance under different circumstances.
If
-------
• Levels of Usage. This study has not been able to determine
the exact frequency of model usage. There are no tracking
systems to monitor actual usage in the field, but the facts to
support the claim that model usage is widespread and growing
steadily include: (1) thousands of copies of models are being
requested yearly, (2) the availability of microcomputers and
microcomputer based models, (3) the scope and emphasis of
OSWER programs. Ground water, exposure assessment, and
engineering models appear to be the types most commonly
used for OSWER programs
• User Support. The need for user support has been recognized
by the modeling community, but a fundamental lack of
human resources limits the quality of support services.
Mechanisms such as technology transfer activities, training
seminars, electronic bulletin boards, user groups, and
clearinghouses for documentation are available to most
modelers, but flexible, application-specific support and
consultation with a modeling expert are needed in many
instances.
Based on the information gathered in describing the OSWER
modeling environment and following discussions at several
meetings with members of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund
Research Subcommittees from OSWER and ORD, the project team
identified and analyzed six major management issues:
• Issue #1: What is the relative importance of models in
supporting hazardous waste / Superfund program
activities?
• Issue #2: Is formal guidance on modeling necessary? If so,
how should the guidance be developed and by
whom?
• Issue #3: How should OSWER and ORD manage model
development, calibration, verification, and
validation?
• Issue #4: What types of standards should be imposed on
hardware and software?
• Issue #5: How should model selection and application be
occurring in the field?
• Issue #6: What types of user support organization and
products should be created for model users?
The analysis of these issues and discussions with OSWER and
ORD members of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund Research
Subcommittee generated a series of alternative action items. The
project team developed a recommended action plan that organizes
'" the various action items into a manageable sequence and
-------
recognizes the importance of obtaining endorsement from top
management in OSWER and ORD in order to carry out a multi-
year, interdisciplinary improvement effort. Three major task areas
are proposed:
• Task Area 1: Initiation/ Additional Study/ and Preparation
of Management Plan. This task area includes briefings for
OSWER and ORD senior management on results of the
Models Study/ development of a detailed management plan
for modeling improvements/ conducting additional studies of
the legal and policy issues related to modeling/ and gathering
more in-depth information on model usage in the Regional
offices. The overall purpose of the tasks is to educate senior
managers and obtain top-level endorsement for future plans/
including commitment of resources/ and clarification of roles
and responsibilities.
• Task Area 2: Development of Guidance for Modeling. This
task area covers the development of the various types of
guidance necessary for modeling in Hazardous Waste /
Superfund Programs. Three guidance products are specified:
(a) guidance on model development/ validation/ and
verification/ focused on the concerns of model developers and
addressing peer review and the relationship between
validation and Data Quality Objectives (DQO); (b) reviews of
the current and future computing approaches for models/
including periodic 'Technology Updates" and suggestions for
maintaining and distributing modeling software; (c) guidance
on selection and application of models/ focused on model
users in the Regional offices.
• Task Area 3: Establishment of User Support Network for
HW/SF Modeling. Several new user support mechanisms
and/or organizational relationships are called for. Regional
Modeling Groups (RMGs) are envisioned as a service bureau in
each Region/ providing a central pool of modeling expertise.
RMG staff will have a portion of their time dedicated to
fulfilling their RMG roles and will communicate directly with
the ORD Modeling Centers and the OSWER Modeling
Support Group. The ORD Modeling Centers will be the primary
source of scientific and technical support for Regional model
users. They will have a media orientation, reflecting the
strengths of different labs in different media/ and they will
develop models, modify codes, add enhancements, conduct
. training courses, consult with users about specific modeling
applications, and pro-actively monitor the field performance
of the models they are supporting. The OSWER Modeling
Support' Group will have a dual mission: first, it will be
primarily responsible for managing the development and
dissemination of guidance materials on modeling; second, it
will provide RMGs and other users with specific policy and
jv legal advice on model applications. This includes reporting
-------
on significant policy and legal events that affect the future use
of models (e.g., court cases, new regulations).
The anticipated timeline for the action plan covers the latter
half of FY '89 through FY '92. Preliminary resource estimates
include a minimum of 15 FTEs and at least $300K of extramural
funds. Both the timeline and the resource requirements will be
specified in greater detail in the OSWER-ORD Models
Management Plan which will be developed under Task Area 1 of
the Action Plan.
-------
Section 1. Background and Methodology
Senior EPA managers and Agency support groups such as the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) have recognized the increasing
frequency with which program office staff are using computerized,
mathematical models to predict environmental effects and make
regulatory decisions. Several major factors are contributing to this
trend, including:
• It is either technically infeasible or too costly to gather
complete data for some of EPA's newer, broad-ranging
programs, and the use of models helps to support decision-
making under conditions of incomplete information or
uncertainty.
• A larger proportion of environmental scientists and engineers
receive training in mathematical forrmilation and solution
techniques and are actively seeking ways to apply these
methods to EPA's regulatory programs.
• Developments in computer technology have increased the
number of tools available to the modeler, made it easier to
develop models, significantly increased their speed, and added
to output options (e.g., graphics, maps). In particular, the
wider availability and lower cost of microcomputers has
eliminated many of the barriers between modelers and
programmers and between programmers and end users.
Computing technologies such as artificial intelligence and
supercomputers have emerged from research labs and are
now being used to solve modeling problems.
• Scientific research on environmental processes during the
past several decades has steadily advanced modelers'
knowledge of physical and chemical processes and their ability
to predict the transport and fate of many pollutants.
As the number of models increases and users become a more
diverse group, with widely varying levels of knowledge and
experience, it becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that models
are used appropriately. At EPA, these concerns are underscored by
cases in which the application of a model has been challenged in
court. An example is the 1988 court decision in McLouth Steel
Products Corp. v. Thomas. No. 87-1049, that EPA failed to provide
sufficient public notice and opportunity for comment on its plan to
use the VHS model (Vertical Horizontal Spread model, EPA 1985)
to grant or deny a de-listing petition under the RCRA program.
1-1
-------
SAB's Environmental Engineering Committee has recently
produced a "Resolution on the Use of Mathematical Models for
Regulatory Assessment and Decision-Making." It identifies critical
issues that must be addressed in order to improve the use of
models throughout EPA. Included in the resolution are calls for
creating a central modeling coordination group to provide
guidance in model selection and validation; ensuring that EPA
hires and supports larger numbers of engineers and scientists with
appropriate model development and application skills; ensuring
that a systematic model management process is in place to respond
to the introduction of new computer technologies and modeling
approaches; and establishing proper peer review procedures at
various levels.
Section 1.1. Purpose
In the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), the programs mandated by RCRA and CERCLA
present unique opportunities to use models to improve
regulatory decision-making. Under RCRA, for example,
engineering models can help assess the costs and benefits of
alternative containment approaches at Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal facilities (TSDs). At Superfund sites, models can be used
to predict transport and fate of pollutants in multiple media —
ground water, air, surface water, and drinking water. For these
types of analyses, decision makers can rely on models to provide
predictive information and improve their understanding of the
environmental processes under consideration.
However, even though RCRA and CERCLA programs present
many opportunities for using models, there are no standards or
guidelines on when and where specific models should be used.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) is an
example of a program office that has developed guidelines for
applying models to specific types of regulatory decisions. One
modeling challenge for OSWER is to ensure that models are
being applied appropriately and consistently, while recognizing
that there may be hundreds of different scenarios and site-specific
issues affecting model usage under RCRA and CERCLA. In
addition, OSWER must address other modeling challenges, such
as providing adequate technical support, delivering sufficiently
powerful computers to model users, and training program office
staff.
The Information Management Staff in OSWER's Office of
Program Management and Technology initiated this models
study in October, 1988, in order to develop a better understanding
1-2 of the scope and size of the modeling environment for hazardous
-------
waste / Superfund (HW/SF) programs, and to identify associated
management issues. Project kick-off meetings were held with
OSWER and ORD members of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund
Research Committee. One of the products of these meeting was
the development of the following project charter:
For the purposes of this modeling study, the following
definition for the term model, as set forth b\j the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1984) in a
protocol for evaluating environmental chemical-fate
models, will apply: A model is an assembly of concepts in
the form of a mathematical equation that portrays
understanding of a natural phenomenon.
This study is concerned with models that are used by
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to
support programmatic decisions and compliance and
enforcement actions. In particular, the focus is on models
that use computer software to perform numerical
computations and prepare estimates based on physical
laws, probabilities, and statistics; the results of these models
help predict environmental or scientific effects. The scope of
the study may extend to economic and management
models (e.g., cost recovery, workload estimation), but
these are not the highest priority. Physical models will not
be addressed by the study.
The purpose of this report is to describe the OSWER modeling
environment, review various management issues associated with
modeling in HW/SF programs, and present a recommended action
plan for promoting appropriate model use.
Section 1.2. Project Plan
The project plan for the Models Study included three major
tasks:
• Task 1 — conducting interviews, reviewing reference materials,
and conducting analysis to accurately and concisely describe the
current modeling environment for hazardous waste /
Superfund programs;
• Task 2 — incorporating feedback received on the modeling
environment description and working with ORD and OSWER
managers to identify and prioritize management issues
associated with model development, usage, and support;
1-3
-------
Task 3 - preparing a final report and action plan specifying
future activities designed to further promote the efficient and
effective use of models to support OSWER program activities.
Section 1.3. Project Activities
Two kick-off meetings were held at the end of October, 1988, to
initiate the project. The first was attended by ORD subcommittee
members of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund Research
Committee and project team members from the OSWER
Information Management Staff and American Management
Systems, Inc.,. The second meeting was attended by OSWER
subcommittee members of the Committee and the project team.
The scope and priorities for the modeling study were key issues at
both meetings. Participants stressed the need to clarify terms and
establish basic definitions. As a follow-up activity, the project team
prepared the project charter presented above in Section 1,2.
Following the kick-off meetings, the project team collected
comments from the OSWER and ORD subcommittee members
and gathered information on important points of contact identified
during the meetings. A flexible Interview Guide (see Appendix A)
was prepared in order to ensure consistency for the interviews but
allow the project team to explore special topics in-depth with the
interviewee as appropriate. Beginning in November, 1988, and
through February 27,1989, the project team conducted forty-nine
in-person and three telephone interviews at EPA Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and several ORD research facilities, located in the
cities shown in Exhibit 1.3-1. Appendix B lists the names, dates,
and locations of the interviews.
During the interviewing sessions and through other
information gathering activities, the project team has also
compiled the OSWER Models Library, a collection of over seventy
reference documents such as model user's guides, modeling
studies, and research papers. Appendix C contains the current
bibliography for the OSWER Models Library. Another product
developed for this project is the OSWER Models Inventory, a
database of descriptive information on over 300 models of interest
for HW/SF programs. Appendix D confirms expects for the
OSWER Models Inventory.
At the conclusion of the information gathering phase in
March, 1989, the project team issued a draft report entitled
"Description of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund Modeling
Environment." That report described the OSWER modeling
environment, providing information on past and present
modeling activities and identifying over 300 models of interest to
-------
HW/SF programs. The information presented in that report has
now been updated to incorporate comments received from
document reviewers. Much of the content of that report is
reprinted Sections 2 and 3 of this document.
Philadelphia, PA
Washington, D.C.
Indianapolis, IN •
Cincinnati, OH •
Exhibit 1.3-1. Interview Locations
On April 4th, the project team met with members of the
HW/SF Research Subcommittees from OSWER and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The purpose of this meeting
was to review the draft report cited above and to begin identifying
management issues for modeling. The project team prepared a
Review of Management Issues which discusses six major issue
areas in a logical sequence. For each of the issue areas, this section
provides a re-cap of key findings related to the issues, presents a
preliminary conclusion/resolution for the issue, and identifies
several alternative action items. This review is now contained in
Section 4 of this document.
Following the April 4th meeting, the project team met again
with members of the ORD and OSWER HW/SF Research
Subcommittees on April 25th to discuss the management issues
identified earlier and prepare the recommendations now contained
in Section 5 of this document. The section on Recommendations
organizes the various issues and related action items into a concise
action plan for achieving the desired improvements for models
management and usage. It also outlines a suggested sequence of
events and describes responsibilities and specific products.
1-5
-------
Sections 4 and 5 are based primarily on the discussions that
took place at the April 4th and 25th meetings, and the project
team's subsequent analysis of those issues. Other sources of input
include individual meetings with key OSWER and ORD managers
and information gathered at a meeting of the Science Advisory
Board held on April 6th-7th to discuss Agency-wide modeling
issues.
1-6
-------
Section 2.
Overview of the Modeling Environment
Section 2.1
This section provides a high-level, comparative overview of
the HW/SF modeling environment. In keeping with the purpose
of this report, the information presented here and in Section 3 is
descriptive, not evaluative; it is the basis for the review of
management issues and recommendations presented in Sections 4
and 5.
The modeling environment includes several heterogeneous
modeling categories focusing on different environmental media,
processes, and pathways. The major categories comprising the
modeling environment are:
• Ground Water Modeling
• Exposure Assessment Modeling
• Air Dispersion Modeling
• Surface Water Modeling
• Modeling for Hazardous Waste Engineering
• Drinking Water Modeling.
The organization of modeling activities into these six
categories generally mirrors the way modeling activities are
organized within ORD and the way information was presented to
the project team. However, these categories are not mutually
exclusive, and there are numerous models that are relevant to
multiple categories (e.g., exposure assessment models focused on
surface water pathways). For a more detailed description of the
categories, see the individual, category-by-category sub-sections in
Section 3.
Scope and Size
2-1
This study has so far identified 311 models of interest to
hazardous waste / Superfund programs. This is a conservative
estimate, subject to several qualifiers. First, the estimate includes
only models that fit the definitions and focus for this project — i.e.,
computerized mathematical models used to make predictions
based on physical laws, probabilities, and statistics. Desk-top
-------
procedures are not included. Second, the estimate includes mostly
EPA related models identified through the interviews (see
Appendix B for a list of names and dates) and reviews of reference
documents listed in the Bibliography (Appendix C). A
comprehensive survey of academic institutions, government
agencies, and industrial organizations was not conducted. Finally,
because no tracking systems exist to monitor actual usage and
model validation experiences in the field, models included in this
total are only those cited by the interviewees as having been used
in hazardous waste / Superfund programs or those whose
functional description matches with one or more OSWER program
requirements. The total universe of all possible models could be
two or three times the initial estimate, depending on the
definitions and criteria used.
Among the universe of available models, a comparatively
small subset appears to be used intensively by OSWER program
staff at EPA Headquarters and in the Regions. For instance, of the
twenty eight air dispersion models identified, one model in
particular, the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model, is used
much more frequently than other air models because its
orientation and assumptions are more compatible with RCRA and
CERCLA program requirements.
As show in Exhibit 2.1-1, the largest single category of models
is ground water models, numbering over 240 and accounting for
nearly eighty percent of the total model inventory. None of the
other model categories contains more than 30 models. In terms of
scope, models exhibit a wide range of variability across several
dimensions:
• Temporal scales vary from minutes and seconds to decades
and even millennia (e.g., for some ground water models).
• Spatial scales vary from molecular sizes (e.g., for models of
chemical reactions) to hundreds of miles (e.g., for air
dispersion models).
• Numerical methods vary from simple analytical solutions to
complex, multidimensional numerical simulations.
• Models predict outcomes for events ranging from chemical
interactions to biological processes to physical movement of
particles and liquids through various media. Models also
address engineering problems (e.g., for landfills, incinerators).
• Models can be used to support decision-making for a wide
range of programmatic activities — from permitting to
compliance checking to enforcement to remediation.
2-2
-------
Hazardous
Waste
Drinking Engineering
Water
Exposure
Air Dispersion,
Emissions
27
Surface
Water
21
Exhibit 2.1-1. Number of models in each category
Section 2.2.
Key Research Organizations and Modeling
Centers
ORD laboratories are the lead EPA organizations for research
and model development. Individual laboratories focus on specific
categories of models — for example, the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL) is the lead lab for
ground water research and modeling, and the Environmental
Research Laboratory at Athens (ERL-Athens) is the focal point for
surface water models and a variety of exposure assessment models.
Some of the labs have established specialized modeling support
centers. RSKERL works closely with the International Ground
Water Modeling Center, which is part of the Holcomb Research
Institute at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana. ERL-
Athens has created the Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling
(CEAM). CEAM is a matrix organization that has established
relationships with researchers, modelers, and technical support
staff at Athens and other parts of ORD. Several of the labs are
involved in more than one type of modeling. Exhibit 2.2-1 shows
-------
the various relationships between model categories and ORD labs.
The specific types of modeling activities conducted by these labs is
described in more detail in Section 3.
c
Modeling Categories
Ground Water Modeling
ORD Labs and Affiliates
I Exposure Assessment Modeling
c
c
c
c
Air Dispersion Modeling
Modeling for Hazardous
Waste Engineering
Surface Water Modeling
Drinking Water Modeling
Robert S. Kerf ERL, Ada, and
Holcomb Research Institute
ERL-Athens and the Center for
Exposure Assessment Modeling
Air Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory, RTF
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati
Environmental Monitoring and
Systems Lab, Las Vegas
Air and Energy Engineering
Laboratory, RTF
Exhibit 22-1
In addition to the ORD laboratories, there are a variety of
other organizations that directly or indirectly support modelers and
model users. These include:
• The OSWER Office of Program Management and Technology
(OPMT). One of OPMT's main modeling activities has been in
the area of ground water modeling, where it procured and
deployed the Ground Water Workstation in each of the ten
Regions. The workstation provides a pre-packaged set of four
models and a limited set of other automated tools. OPMT has
established a network of Technology Support Centers for
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). This effort includes the creation of the
Ground Water Forum, Engineering Forum, and Exposure
Assessment Forum, designed to provide Superfund staff with
a convenient way to identify appropriate media or technology
experts.
• The Office of Solid Waste (OSW). OSW has been involved in
modeling to varying degrees over the past several years. OSW
currently maintains a modeling oversight role and sponsors
some model development efforts within ORD. In addition,
2-4
-------
OSW is supporting an internal effort to develop a ground
water model called the EPA Composite Landfill Model.
The Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI).
CERI is an ORD organization based in Cincinnati, Ohio, that
supports technology transfer throughout the Agency by
producing and distributing technical reports and sponsoring
various types of seminars and training courses. CERI is not
involved in model development directly, but can serve as a
distributor of models or documentation on models. CERI has
agreed to provide this type of support for expert systems being
developed by the ORD. CERI also assists with the testing of
expert systems in various stages of development.
The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS). OTS has supported the
development of GEMS, the Graphical Exposure Modeling
System. GEMS has been used by OSW for hazardous waste
incinerator regulations, unsaturated zone modeling, and
estimation of physical-chemical properties for waste
constituents.
Section 2.3. Computing Environment
The computing environment consists of the hardware,
software, and peripheral equipment used to develop and run
models. As a group, modelers have no established forum for
discussing new product offerings and alternative computing
approaches, but there are common characteristics and trends in
computing for the various model categories. The following
observations about computing environments are applicable to all
modeling categories, unless noted otherwise:
• The increasing availability and power of microcomputers has
had a major impact on model development and usage. Most
modelers now use microcomputers for development and
target micros as their delivery platform.
• DOS-compatible micros with math co-processors are now the
modeler's most common hardware unit. Other hardware
includes Apple Macintoshes, Hewlett Packard
microcomputers, SUN workstations, VAX minicomputers,
and IBM mainframes.
• No official software standard exists for models, but because of
its popularity and acceptance, FORTRAN has become a de facto
standard for some model developers. There is a high level of
interest in standardizing FORTRAN styles and selecting a
2.5 common version that will ensure portability across platforms
-------
(i.e., ANSI FORTRAN 77). This "standard" has been
promoted for hydrologic models by the U.S. Geological in a
report entitled "FORTRAN 77 Coding Conventions and
Documentation Software" (USGS Open File Report, Kittle,
Runbe, and Flyn, 1986).
• A variety of other programming languages are used as well,
including C, Pascal, and Basic. Some models draw upon the
capabilities of software packages for managing data and
improving input and output features. Packages include
dBASE, HyperCard, Lotus 1-2-3, and expert system shells.
• Supercomputer technology is not an immediate priority given
the current set of research initiatives and model development
priorities. There are a few exceptions to this, for example in
the air programs, where issues such as acid rain and global
warming may necessitate the development of a new class of
large-scale computer models.
Even though modelers rely on the same basic hardware and
software tools for computing, they employ different model
development approaches and place different degrees of emphasis
on software engineering issues. User interfaces and model output
capabilities vary significantly from model to model. Models
provide widely varying levels of on-line help, ease of entry for
input values, and elegance of reports. User interface issues are
resolved differently, depending on the sophistication of the model
and the orientation of the modeler. Some modelers have an "anti-
menu" philosophy and assume the user will be a proficient
programmer with in-depth understanding of the internal workings
of the model. In some cases, users must almost always consult
with the modeler on how to run the model. These types of models
typically run in batch mode on a mainframe while the inputs are
entered through an editor or through programming statements.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are model interfaces which
assume the user is a non-expert. These models may have
interactive front-ends with on-line help. Non-programmers can
easily enter and edit input values. A few recently developed
models have incorporated window-based, icon-oriented front-ends.
Section 2.4. Model Development, Verification, and
Validation
The term "model development" refers to: (1) initial
development of equations; (2) programming of computer code; (3)
modification of existing model codes to handle new types of
calculations and simulations; and (4) linking of previously
2-6 incompatible models. A significant amount of model
-------
development activity falls into the last two categories. The
impetus for model development comes as a response to events
such as:
• Outgrowths from primary research into some new area of
environmental science, hydrology, or other discipline (e.g., as
dissertation topics or EPA funded R&D projects)
• Requirements for analyzing contamination problems at a
particular site or group of sites with a certain set of
distinguishing characteristics (e.g., in response to requests
from EPA Headquarters or Regional offices)
• Needs for developing decision support tools in order to
implement programs, created by new legislation or sets of
regulations (e.g., Clean Air Act, RCRA, CERCLA).
The primary organizations involved in development of the
models identified in this study are the EPA Office of Research and
Development (primarily through its research, laboratories in Ada,
Athens, Cincinnati, and Research Triangle Park), EPA program
offices (e.g., OSW, OERR, OPMT, OAQPS), universities and
affiliated academic institutions (e.g., the International Ground
Water Modeling Center (IGWMQ), and private scientific and
engineering firms.
A significant amount of introspective analysis in the
modeling community has been devoted to addressing model
development, selection, verification, validation, and application
issues. Two recent reports touching on these issues are
"Groundwater Modeling: An Overview and Status Report" and
"Selection, Application, and Validation of Environmental Models"
(for references, see the Bibliography in Appendix C). The Agency's
Exposure Assessment Group (EAG) has produced some suggested
definitions and guidance on model validation. Ongoing efforts
include work by a Technical Panel of the Risk Assessment Forum
to develop an Agency position on model validation in predictive
exposure assessments. Despite these efforts, no hard and fast rules
yet exist to govern model development and validation processes.
The consensus among modelers is that this may not be desirable
anyway, as there are generally understood "rules of the road" and
principles of "good science." Moreover, the model development
and validation process is strongly influenced by institutional
factors such as who is sponsoring the effort, what type of standards
are imposed by the sponsor, and the intended use of the model.
For example, a researcher developing a model in art academic
setting (e.g., as a dissertation) may be subject to different peer
review requirements than a modeler working in an ORD
laboratory.
Controversy has sometimes surrounded the definition of
_ _ terms such as "verification" and "validation." The general
-------
consensus is that verification and validation address two separate
questions: (1) For verification, "Are the numerical equations of the
model properly captured in the computer code?" and (2) For
validation, "Not is the model absolutely valid, but is it being
applied in a valid manner?" As implied by these questions,
verification is more limited to development of model codes,
whereas validation takes place both as part of the development
effort and as part of the application process. Modelers typically
conduct some type of validation as part of their development
effort, but this is often limited by a lack of resource availability.
The validation of a model using "real" field data can take years of
effort. For example, the exposure assessment model PRZM
underwent five years of validation efforts (at considerable cost) to
determine the valid boundaries for the application of the model.
Section 2.5. Model Selection and Application
To select a model, an analyst must have information about
the particular site or scenario being studied, plus a thorough
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of available
models. A framework for model selection in the Superfund
program was developed in 1985 (see "Modeling Remedial Actions
at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites" in the Bibliography,
Appendix C). This framework is sufficiently general mat it could
be used by OSW with some minor modifications.
Responsibilities for model selection vary from case to case, but
an EPA project officer at Headquarters or in a Regional
office will be the final decision-maker. In some cases, contractors
make recommendations on appropriate models for a particular
analysis. EPA staff concur or disagree with these recommendations
based on their own experience or technical advice supplied by ORD
modeling experts. (ORD has developed a prototype expert system
which can help a modeler select the correct model).
Model application is the process of using a particular model to
make predictions and conduct analyses. Depending on how well
the model fits the scenario, validation steps are often repeated as
part of the model application process. As a model becomes widely
distributed and applied in different scenarios, it becomes difficult to
keep track of its validity under multiple stresses. Site-specific .
models must be both calibrated and validated every time they are
used at a new site.
Modelers and managers stress that there is no foreseeable way
to eliminate the possibility that models will be misused, but there
are ways to reduce the likelihood of this happening. Ensuring that
2-8 model users have the necessary knowledge and experience to
-------
properly apply the model and understand the limitations of its
predictive power is one crucial requirement for meeting this
challenge. In the Superfund program, the Regional Project
Managers (RPMs) rely on contractors to utilize models for various
parts of the Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
process. RPMs do not need to be modelers, but they must have a
clear understanding of how to apply models appropriately and
know when an in-depth review of a modeling exercise is
warranted.
Section 2.6. Levels of Usage
This study has not been able to determine the exact frequency
of model usage. There are no tracking systems to monitor actual
usage in the field, but several facts support the claim that model
usage is widespread and growing steadily:
• During FY '88, CEAM distributed over over 1,500 copies of the
dozen models it manages; over 1,900 copies were distributed
in FY '87.
• The increasing availability of microcomputers in the field and
the trend toward micro-based models has significantly reduced
entry barriers. OSWER's Ground Water Workstation
provides a readily accessible modeling tool for all ten Regional
offices.
• The scope of OSWER programs and the growing emphasis on
exposure- and risk-based decision-making make modeling the
only feasible course of action in many cases. Monitoring can
be too costly and take too long.
Even though model usage as a whole may be on the rise, the
usage of models by personnel in the Regional offices tends to be
restricted by a lack of time, computer availability, training, and
other resource issues.
Actual usage levels vary significantly from Region to Region
and across media. Ground water, exposure assessment, and
engineering models are the types most commonly used for
OSWER programs. Although modeling growth is difficult to
quantify, exposure modeling is probably the most rapidly
expanding category.
2-9
-------
Section 2.7. User Support
Numerous mechanisms are in place to support model users,
including:
• Technology transfer activities (e.g., the OSWER Technology
Support Project for RPMs and OSCs, which includes the
establishment of groups such as the Ground Water Forum
and Engineering Forum)
• Periodic training seminars and short courses (e.g., ground
water modeling courses sponsored by the Ada lab, short
courses taught by IGWMC)
• Electronic bulletin boards (e.g., the OSWER bulletin board at
Headquarters, the CEAM bulletin board in Athens, and the
UNAMAP bulletin board in RTF)
• Clearinghouses for documentation (e.g., the CERI, CEAM, and
IGWMC).
Despite the availability of this type of support, there is a
limited amount of coordination among the different activities.
Users often have difficulty determining where to go first for
various types of support.
The most pressing user support needs can be directly linked to
human resource issues. In conjunction with the installation of the
Ground Water Workstation, some Regions have established
dedicated modeling support groups, but other Regions have no
staff members devoted to modeling and very few staff with
modeling experience. Most Regional RCRA and CERCLA program
staff have heavy demands on their time (e.g., some RPMs manage
thirty or more sites simultaneously) and have no time to devote to
developing additional modeling expertise. Often, because of their
busy schedules, those who could benefit most from additional
training on modeling are the least likely to attend training when it
is offered. Managers in the Regions are sometimes reluctant to
allow their staff to attend modeling courses because it takes
valuable time away from day-to-day priorities.
2-10
-------
Section 3. Modeling Environment Category
Descriptions
This section provides individual descriptions for the six
modeling categories identified in this study:
• Ground Water Modeling
• Exposure Assessment Modeling
• Air Dispersion Modeling
• Surface Water Modeling
• Modeling for Hazardous Waste Engineering
• Drinking Water Modeling.
These descriptions offer an in-depth look at the types of
modeling and support activities being conducted by the various
EPA Headquarters, ORD research laboratories, and Regional offices.
Each description covers the size and scope of the modeling
category, the relationship of these types of models to OSWER
programs, the key organizations and modeling centers, and
individual findings on model development, usage, and support.
The organization of modeling activities into these six
categories generally mirrors the way modeling activities are
organized within ORD and the way information was presented to
the project team. In order to minimize confusion and avoid
double counting, models are assigned to only one of the categories,
although there are cases where a particular model could be
included in multiple categories. The Exposure Assessment and
Engineering categories, in particular, represent modeling disciplines
and cut across media such as surface water, drinking water, and air.
Later phases of this project will address the need to develop more
precise categories.
The documents referenced by footnotes in this section can be
found in the Bibliography in Appendix C. The convention used
for footnotes is (Xn), where X is a one-letter code for the model
category and n is a sequence number.
3-1
-------
Section 3.1.
Ground Water Modeling
Size and Scope
Ground water modeling is the largest single category of
models used to support OSWER program activities. Estimates vary
depending on how they are grouped and defined, but
conservatively, there are over 250 ground water models that are
related to OSWER requirements or have been used by OSWER
program staff. Ground water modeling is also one of the most
dynamic categories in terms of development of new model codes
and the increasing number of cases in which models are being used
to support programmatic decisions.
A major reason for the size of this category is the
of the medium itself. As Exhibit 3.1-1 shows, ground water models
simulate many different relationships between ground water and
other elements of the hydrosphere.
•vaporatloi
U DW A ER f Zft N /Q UJ F
3-2
Exhibit 3.1-1 (reprinted from G10)
Added to this set of relationships are the numerous temporal
and spatial scales which the models address. Spatial scales range
from less than a nanometer to hundreds of kilometers. Temporal
scales cover both steady-state and time-dependent conditions and
can range from minutes and seconds in real-time systems to
-------
hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly for field systems, to years,
decades, and millennia for long-term risk simulations (e.g., for
radioactive wastes).
Another dimension of the ground water modeling field is the
difference in characteristics between models describing hydraulic
behavior of fluids in various subsurface environments and models
describing the transport and fate of chemicals in the subsurface.
Finally, there is a distinction between site-specific and generic
models. Site-specific modeling is particularly relevant to
hazardous waste sites falling under the purview of RCRA and
CERCLA. Generic models are useful in situations where
environmental analysis must be applied to many sites where data
availability is limited or other constraints make site-specific
modeling infeasible.
Relationship to
OSWER Programs
Environmental legislation and regulations, including RCRA
and CERCLA, address four common requirements for managing
ground water quality:
• Establishment of criteria for location, design, and operation of
waste disposal activities to prevent contamination of ground
water or movement of contaminants to points of withdrawal or
discharge.
• Assessment of the probable impact of existing pollution on
ground water at points of withdrawal or discharge.
• Development of remediation technologies which are effective
in protecting or restoring ground water quality without being
unnecessarily complex or costly, and without unduly restricting
other land use activities.
• Regulation of the production, use, and/or disposal of specific
chemicals possessing an unacceptably high potential for
contaminating ground water when released to the subsurface
(G21).
Ground water models may address one or more of these
requirements in a variety of different applications. For example,
the predictive capabilities of ground water quality models are used
to evaluate design alternatives for waste disposal facilities, locate
areas of potential environmental risk, identify pollution sources,
and assess possible remedial actions.
3-3
-------
Key Ground Water
Research
Organizations and
Modeling Centers
Robert S. Kerr
Environmental
Research Laboratory
Holcomb Research
Institute
There are several key EPA and affiliated organizations
involved in ground water modeling. Because ground water
modeling is a broad, multidisciplinary field, this section focuses on
OSWER-related ground water modeling activities. For example,
the U.S. Geological Survey has been involved in ground water
modeling since the late 1960s and has developed a comprehensive
suite of generic simulation and parameter estimation models.
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL) in Ada, Oklahoma, is the lead ORD laboratory for
ground water research. RSKERL focuses on the transport and fate
of contaminants in the subsurface, development of methodologies
for protection and restoration of ground water quality, and
evaluation of the applicability and limitations of using natural soil
and subsurface processes for the treatment of hazardous wastes.
RSKERL carries out research through in-house projects and
cooperative and inter-agency agreements with universities,
national laboratories, and other research centers. Many of these
projects involve some type of research and development activity
related to the creation or refinement of ground water models.
The Holcomb Research Institute (HRI) at Butler University in
Indianapolis, Indiana, established The International Ground Water
Modeling Center (IGWMC) in 1978 to advance and support the
application of ground water models by regulatory and oversight
agencies involved in developing effective ground water
management programs. IGWMC is supported partly by HRI and
partly by EPA (through RSKERL in Ada). The Center operates a
clearinghouse for ground water modeling software, organizes and
conducts short-courses and seminars, carries out a research
program supporting its technology transfer and educational
activities, and does verification and validation for some models.
IGWMC also maintains close ties with ground water modelers
at USGS and has established an agreement to provide similar types
of support to the European Economic Community. In the future,
IGWMC will include European ground water models into its
existing model inventory and clearinghouse function.
3-4
-------
Athens Environmental
Research Laboratory
OSWER'sOfficeof
Program Management
and Technology
Office of Solid Waste
Findings
The Athens Environmental Research Laboratory (A-ERL)
collaborates with RSKERL in several ground water research and
model development efforts. In particular, A-ERL supports PRZM
and MINTEQ, both of which are used in ground water analysis, the
former for root zone soil/water exposure and the latter for
geochemical analysis. Later this year, A-ERL will begin supporting
RUSTIC, an integrated soil/ground water model.
The Office of Program Management and Technology (OPMT)
provides management and technical support for Headquarters and
Regional Offices. OPMT's primary involvement in ground water
modeling is through the deployment and support of the Ground
Water Workstation (GWWS) in each of the ten regions. GWWS is
a microcomputer (PC-AT) equipped with a math co-processor,
plotter, and light pen. Four models were supplied with the initial
release of the GWWS, and OPMT is now evaluating requirements
for the next generation of GWWS.
OPMT has also helped to establish a Ground Water Forum
through its Technology Support Project. The purpose of the
Forum is to provide a channel for communication on ground
water issues, including modeling. The Forum has one or more
representatives from each Region and two ORD representatives
(from RSKERL and the Environmental Monitoring and Systems
Laboratory in Las Vegas).
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has been involved in ground
water modeling to varying degrees in the past. Currently, the
Technical Assessment Branch in OSW's Characterization and
Assessment Division is developing a ground water model called
the EPA Composite Landfill Model (EPACLM). At one time, OSW
had a larger in-house modeling group, but now, OSW maintains
more of an oversight role, supporting the development of models
by ORD and supporting users of ground water models in the
Regional offices.
The findings presented below have been synthesized from
numerous interviews conducted at EPA Headquarters, RSKERL,
Regional Offices, and HRI (see Appendix B for names and dates)
and through the review of a variety of ground water modeling
reference materials (see Appendix C).
3-5
-------
Ground water modeling has matured rapidly since numerical
methods were first used in ground water hydrology in the mid-
Mode/ Developmen t 1950s. In the 1960s, the availability of computer technology made it
possible to simulate ground water systems efficiently through the
use of software instead of physical scale models or electric analogs
(G10). Today, IGWMC has identified approximately 800 ground
water models which are in various stages of development and
usage.
Models are being developed by a variety of government
agencies, such as EPA and USGS, universities, and industrial
organizations, such as energy and mining companies. One
example of the work being done within EPA is at RSKERL, where
recent model research and development efforts include:
• The Regulatory and Investigative Treatment Zone Model
(RITZ).
• OASIS
• Contaminated Profile (CONTPRO).
Some model development efforts begin in an academic setting
as research projects. These tend to be more focused on modeling
new processes or improving predictive power in ground water
systems. Other efforts are initiated as the direct result of requests
from program offices such as Regional Waste Management
Divisions. Such was the case for CONTPRO, which was originated
after a request from EPA Region nt. (CONTPRO is currently being
developed at Oklahoma State University and is written in
Microsoft C). Typically, before RSKERL staff get involved in a
modeling effort, requests for assistance are directed from the
Regional offices to their Ground Water Forum Representative and
then to the lab managers.
New modeling initiatives typically follow in the wake of
advances in primary research. RSKERL is actively participating
and/or sponsoring ground water research in several new areas,
such as flows of multi-phase fluids, fractured/structured rock
problems, biotransformations in ground water, and the mobility of
large molecules through the soil.
The increasing availability of microcomputers has had a
significant impact on model development. In ground water
modeling, there is a general consensus that microcomputers and
workstations are the preferred platforms for development and
delivery. Most ground water researchers are now targeting micros
as their delivery environment and there is a greater proportion of
modelers who develop their own code. At RSKERL, for example,
there are numerous IBM compatible microcomputers and one
Apple Macintosh, and the ratio of staff to micros is close to 1:1.
RSKERL plans to continue to upgrade its computing capacity in the
3*6
-------
future, and is now considering the purchase of several more
Macintoshes. Currently, there are few models requiring significant
increases in computing capacity that would necessitate the use of
supercomputer technology, although in the future this technology
might be extremely valuable in answering long-term risk questions
for large areas and populations (e.g., predicting the long-term
effects of ground water contamination in a large aquifer on human
health in a metropolitan area).
Modelers report that data entry and user interface issues are
still a major obstacle affecting usability. They note the importance
of good software engineering practices in producing quality front-
end capabilities such as data entry screens in contributing to the
acceptance of a model by users. RTTZ is a PC-based model that
provides a good example of a simple and effective user interface
consisting of three data entry screens. OASIS is an example of an
effort designed to incorporate an icon-oriented user interface as a
front-end for ground water models: it is based on the Macintosh
and uses HyperCard software to provide users with simple point-
and-click commands. OASIS then passes the user inputs to a
model, which in this case, is a FORTRAN model called
BIOPLUME.
The ground water modeling community has devoted a great
deal of attention to analyzing development, application,
verification, and validation issues. IGWMC has taken the lead in
many of these efforts to describe and recommend standard model
development and application procedures (see documents in the
Bibliography under "Ground Water", Appendix C). These studies
and interviews with ground water modelers can be summarized as
follows:
• There are generally understood "rules of the road" and
principles of "good science," but there are no universally
accepted standards for model development, application, and
use.
• Managers and modelers do not always agree on definitions for
key terms such as "verification" and "validation." For EPA
purposes, the way around this controversy is to focus on
answering two questions: (1) For verification, "Are the
numerical equations of the model properly captured in the
computer code?" and (2) For validation, the key question is
whether the model is being applied appropriately, given the
model's assumptions and the characteristics of the specific
modeling case.
• There is no foreseeable way to entirely eliminate the possibility
that models will be misused, but there are ways to reduce the
likelihood of this happening. Some modeling experts feel that
the best way to do this is to focus on improving the knowledge
3-7
-------
Model Ueveiopmen t Ground water modeling has matured rapidly since numerical
methods were first used in ground water hydrology in the mid-
1950s. In the 1960s, the availability of computer technology made it
possible to simulate ground water systems efficiently through the
use of software instead of physical scale models or electric analogs
(G10). Today, IGWMC has identified approximately 800 ground
water models which are in various stages of development and
usage.
Models are being developed by a variety of government
agencies, such as EPA and USGS, universities, and industrial
organizations, such as energy and mining companies. One
example of the work being done within EPA is at RSKERL, where
recent model research and development efforts include:
• The Regulatory and Investigative Treatment Zone Model
(RITZ).
• OASIS
• Contaminated Profile (CONTPRO).
Some model development efforts begin in an academic setting
as research projects. These tend to be more focused on modeling
new processes or improving predictive power in ground water
systems. Other efforts are initiated as the direct result of requests
from program offices such as Regional Waste Management
Divisions. Such was the case for CONTPRO, which was originated
after a request from EPA Region ffl. (CONTPRO is currently being
developed at Oklahoma State University and is written in
Microsoft C). Typically, before RSKERL staff get involved in a
modeling effort, requests for assistance are directed from the
Regional offices to their Ground Water Forum Representative and
then to the lab managers.
New modeling initiatives typically follow in the wake of
advances in primary research. RSKERL is actively participating
and/or sponsoring ground water research in several new areas,
such as flows of multi-phase fluids, fractured/structured rock
problems, biotransformations in ground water, and the mobility of
large molecules through the soil.
The increasing availability of microcomputers has had a
significant impact on model development. In ground water
modeling, there is a general consensus that microcomputers and
workstations are the preferred platforms for development and
delivery. Most ground water researchers are now targeting micros
as their delivery environment and there is a greater proportion of
modelers who develop their own code. At RSKERL, for example,
there are numerous IBM compatible microcomputers and one
Apple Macintosh, and the ratio of staff to micros is dose to 1:1.
RSKERL plans to continue to upgrade its computing capacity in the
3*6
-------
future, and is now considering the purchase of several more
Macintoshes. Currently, there are few models requiring significant
increases in computing capacity that would necessitate the use of
supercomputer technology, although in the future this technology
might be extremely valuable in answering long-term risk questions
for large areas and populations (e.g., predicting the long-term
effects of ground water contamination in a large aquifer on human
health in a metropolitan area).
Modelers report that data entry and user interface issues are
still a major obstacle affecting usability. They note the importance
of good software engineering practices in producing quality front-
end capabilities such as data entry screens in contributing to the
acceptance of a model by users. RTTZ is a PC-based model that
provides a good example of a simple and effective user interface
consisting of three data entry screens. OASIS is an example of an
effort designed to incorporate an icon-oriented user interface as a
front-end for ground water models: it is based on the Macintosh
and uses HyperCard software to provide users with simple point-
and-click commands. OASIS then passes the user inputs to a
model, which in this case, is a FORTRAN model called
BIOPLUME.
The ground water modeling community has devoted a great
deal of attention to analyzing development, application,
verification, and validation issues. IGWMC has taken the lead in
many of these efforts to describe and recommend standard model
development and application procedures (sese documents in the
Bibliography under "Ground Water", Appendix C). These studies
and interviews with ground water modelers can be summarized as
follows:
• There are generally understood "rules of the road" and
principles of "good science," but there are no universally
accepted standards for model development, application, and
use.
• Managers and modelers do not always agree on definitions for
key terms such as "verification" and "validation." For EPA
purposes, the way around this controversy is to focus on
answering two questions: (1) For verification, "Are the
numerical equations of the model properly captured in the
computer code?" and (2) For validation, the key question is
whether the model is being applied appropriately, given the
model's assumptions and the characteristics of the specific
modeling case.
• There is no foreseeable way to entirely eliminate the possibility
that models will be misused, but there are ways to reduce the
likelihood of this happening. Some modeling experts feel that
the best way to do this is to focus on improving the knowledge
3-7
-------
and experience of the model users, not to worry about flawless
software.
• Model validation is a continual process. Modelers are typically
involved in some type of validation effort for their model, but
as the model becomes more widely distributed and applied in
different scenarios, it becomes difficult to keep track of its
successes and failures. Model clearinghouses and user support
groups can make a major contribution in this area.
• Peer review processes for models are mostly determined by the
organization sponsoring the development. For example, peer
review procedures within EPA are often different from those
followed by universities.
• Some modelers suggest that high level attempts to establish a
standard set of approved models may have the undesirable
effect of limiting innovation.
• Model selection is a complex issue that involves clearly
answering such difficult questions as: "What is the specific
question that must be answered?" and "What level of
uncertainty is acceptable?".
• Often there is a trade-off between selecting a model that best fits
the ground water conditions and one that best fits the regulatory
scenario.
Usage and Support The organizations identified earlier all directly or indirectly
support ground water modeling in the field: RSKERL, IGWMC,
OPMT, and the Ground Water Forum. RSKERL and IGWMC are
the main sources providing guidance on model selection,
application and validation. They also conduct training through
"short courses" and Regional seminars. OPMT supports the
Ground Water Workstation program which has deployed a
microcomputer equipped with a basic modeling tool kit in each of
the ten Regions. OPMT has also sponsored training on the
workstation and provided documentation. The Ground Water
Forum provides a central forum for the discussion of ground water
issues, including modeling.
IGWMC is the primary user support organization for ground
water modeling, maintaining a database of approximately 800
models, including documentation for approximately 300 models.
IGWMC manages and distributes codes for 50-60 models. IGWMC
has also provided testing and validation services to model users.
In the future, IGWMC would like to expand its offerings to include
an electronic bulletin board and maintain a more complete set of
QA information for each model (e.g., track records of model
performance under various scenarios). Some models may have
many different versions and changes are often managed on an ad
_ _ hoc basis.
3*8
-------
IGWMC also provides testing and validation services to
model users. At the high end, IGWMC works directly with the
model users and/or developers to discuss technical issues and
address requirements for refinement and validation. At the low
end, IGWMC may provide users with some limited
documentation and advise them to "use at your own discretion."
For IGWMC, it is becoming increasingly challenging to
effectively support non-expert users as ground water models
become more complex and incorporate new issues (e.g.,
microbiology). Therefore, developing and maintaining forums for
user and modeler communication, such as user groups and
bulletin boards, will be of greater importance in the future.
Regional office staff devote a significant portion of their efforts
to reviews of contractors' proposals, work plans, and remediation
efforts. Many contractors submit models and their results to the
EPA for review. The Regional office must determine if the proper
model has been chosen for the site, and whether or not the model
has been applied in a valid manner. Therefore, the EPA reviewer
needs to understand the available models and their valid
application, and be able to identify cases where an in-depth review
of a contractor's work is warranted. In some contested cases, EPA
reviewers may need to compare their own modeling results with
modeling results of regulated facilities, Principal Responsible
Parties (PRPs), and their consultants. Alternative model
assumptions, parameters, and boundary conditions must be
considered carefully in order to validate the model application.
In the Regional offices, the use of ground water models is
limited by constraints on time, human resources, and computer
resources. The following user support issues were identified by the
Regions:
• To be used effectively by staff in the Regional Waste
Management Divisions, models must be easy to learn and
significantly improve either the quality of decision-making or
the efficiency with which decisions can be made.
• The expertise and knowledge to use models cannot be
acquired quickly in most cases. In most cases, the users are not
modeling experts. They may have training in hydrology,
geology, toxicology, management, or environmental science,
but typically, they will not have in-depth modeling
experience. Models are just one of several tools they rely on to
perform their jobs.
• Limited availability of computer resources and lack of
computer skills increase the costs of using models both in
terms of time and money. Some models require users to
procure additional software packages or hardware (e.g., math
_ _ co-processors), and many models assume the user has a
3*9
-------
certain amount of computer expertise in order to input data
and run the model. These requirements and assumptions
create entry barriers for unprepared and uninitiated model
users.
In addition to these user support issues, Regional model users
identified a variety of entry barriers for modeling. These include:
• Data input is too time consuming.
• Data is not always available.
• The model does not make use of all the information available.
• The model makes too many assumptions.
• The model is too complex to understand.
• Debugging input files takes too much time.
Regional model users are satisfied with some of the types of
user support available to them. Some have contacts in ORD
laboratories or academia, whom they call on for assistance. Some
user groups and training classes are viewed as helpful, but only if
the modelers can return from the classes and immediately apply
what they have learned.
Some formal training in ground water modeling has been
attempted on a national scale. During the summer of 1988, for
example, RSKERL completed a series of three-day seminars in each
of the ten EPA Regions. These seminars provided attendees with
descriptions for a selected subset of models, explained model
assumptions and variability, and included some hands-on training.
Source code was distributed for some of the models. The seminars
were attended by a combination of Superfund and RCRA staff from
the Regions, as well as contractor staff The coordinator of these
seminars provided the following observations:
• Model usage varies significantly from Region to Region, and
depends on the level of expertise in the Regional or EPA-HQ
program offices, the availability of an appropriate model with
sufficient documentation, and the complexity of the problem
to be analyzed.
• Some Regions have in-house hydrologists and geologists who
are experienced modelers. Other Regions have practically no
staff with any in-depth modeling experience.
• On average, Regional staff involved in RCRA and CERCLA
programs face heavy demands on their time (e.g., some RPMs
manage more than twenty sites simultaneously) and have no
time to devote to acquiring additional modeling expertise.
3-10
-------
• Often, because of their busy schedules, those who could benefit
most from additional training are the least likely to attend
training when it is offered. Regional staff often skip modeling
courses because of more pressing day-to-day activities.
• Basic computer literacy is sometimes a significant obstacle to
making the training sessions worthwhile.
RSKERL and IGWMC agree that more technical expertise is
needed in all Regions. Regional staff do not need to be modelers,
but they need to be knowledgeable generalists who can make
decisions after reviewing information from a variety of sources
(e.g., ORD, PRPs, contractors). The Regions also need computer
support staff who can eliminate some of the confusion created by
difficult user interfaces and complex sets of operating instructions
for some models. RSKERL plans to continue sponsoring seminars
and training on ground water models and is now assessing
priorities and formats for future courses.
3-11
-------
Section 3.2.
Exposure Assessment Modeling
Size and Scope
Relationship to
OSWER Programs
Exposure assessment modeling is a growing category of
models useful for supporting OSWER program activities. This
study has so far identified more than a dozen readily available
models, not including the many under development by various
universities and research organizations. The number and variety
of available exposure assessment models has increased steadily in
recent years because they have proven to be valuable components
of risk-based decision processes. This trend is likely to continue in
the 1990s.
The majority of exposure assessment models identified so far
focuses on ecological exposure where water is the primary pathway.
They represent a wide range of analysis techniques, including
simple analytical procedures suitable for screening analysis,
computerized steady-state models, state-of-the-art continuous
simulation models, and interactive graphics. Exposure assessment
models relating to human exposure also exist for air and other
pathways. Exposure assessment modeling is usually directly
related to transport and fate modeling in various media, and
therefore, coordination and cross-fertilization among the various
research organizations with in-depth expertise in these media is
necessary.
Exposure assessment models have been used under various
legislative mandates, including RCRA, and CERCLA. Exposure
assessment models can be used by Regional RCRA and Superfund
staff and their consultants to make decisions on issues such as
human and ecological exposures resulting from contamination at
Superfund sites and emissions resulting from hazardous waste
incinerators. Examples of the types of capabilities available to
OSWER through the exposure assessment models identified so far
include:
• multimedia modeling of organic chemical and heavy metal
pollutant fate
• regional and local air contaminant modeling
• source and site characterization, monitoring, and
measurement
3-12
marine and estuarine pollutant fate modeling
-------
Key Exposure
Assessment
Research
Organizations and
Modeling Centers
pollutant dose-response modeling
ecological impact and ecological risk assessment. (El)
Center for Exposure
Assessment Modeling
This section briefly describes the major exposure assessment
modeling centers and research organizations identified in this
study. Exposure assessment can be applied to most environmental
media, and organizations other than those listed here may also be
engaged in exposure assessment modeling. An example of an
organization which has not been categorized here under exposure
assessment is the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory (AREAL) which was created recently to increase the
emphasis on developing exposure assessment models for air.
AREAL is categorized under Air Dispersion Modeling in this
report because it is not yet heavily involved in exposure modeling
and most of its prior modeling activities are related to air
dispersion analyses.
The Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) was
established in July, 1987 to meet the scientific and technical
exposure assessment needs of EPA program offices at both the
Headquarters and Regional levels, as well as state environmental
agencies. CEAM is the OSWER-designated Technical Support
Center for Ecological Risk Assessment. The Center is also the focal
point for a variety of general Agency support activities related to
the scientifically defensible application of state-of-the-art exposure
assessment technology for environmental risk-based decisions.
CEAM provides exposure assessment technology, training and
consultation for analysts and decision-makers operating under
various legislative mandates, including RCRA, and CERCLA.
CEAM is a matrix organization within ORD which draws its
exposure assessment expertise from its parent laboratory, the
Environmental Research Laboratory at Athens, Georgia (ERL-
Athens), plus affiliated laboratories including ERL-Duluth; the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
(EMSL-Las Vegas); ERL-Narragansett; the Atmospheric Research
and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL), Research Triangle
Park (formerly, the Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory and
the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at RTP); ERL-
Gulf Breeze;; and EMSL-Cincinnati.
CEAM currently supports twelve exposure assessment
models, six of which are related to remedial actions. Other models
are currently being integrated into the CEAM program.
3-13
-------
Office of Toxic
Substances
Atmospheric Research
and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory
Findings
Model Developmen t
The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) has supported the
development of GEMS, the Graphical Exposure Modeling System.
GEMS has been used by OSW for hazardous waste incinerator
regulations, unsaturated zone modeling, and estimation of
physical-chemical properties for waste constituents.
AREAL focuses on exposure assessments for air pathways and
is currently working on basic assumptions about units of exposure.
One existing model is called the Simulation of Human Activity
Patterns (SHAPE). SHAPE predicts carbon monoxide exposure for
humans under various activity scenarios. Field tests and data
collection for this model are now being conducted in Denver,
Colorado, and Washington, D.C.
The findings presented below have been synthesized from
numerous interviews conducted at EPA Headquarters and several
ORD laboratories (see Appendix B for names and dates) and
through the review of a variety of exposure assessment modeling
reference materials (see Appendix C).
In the exposure assessment category, recent model
development efforts have concentrated on the integration and
combination of existing models, rather than on the development
of entirely new models. New models are also being developed, but
a greater emphasis has been placed on conjunctive use of various
types of models addressing different exposure pathways and/or
environmental processes. For example, one research project under
way at ERL-Athens involves piecing together several models,
essentially using the outputs of one model as the inputs for the
next. This is a complex task which attempts to make estimates
based on estimates. One thrust of this project is to isolate and
identify the basic levels of complexity which can be handled within
acceptable bounds of uncertainty. Another thrust of the
investigation is to develop consistent interfaces between models.
Other model development projects focusing on ecological risk
assessment, land disposal of hazardous wastes, and exposure
assessment models for pesticides include:
• Multimedia Exposure Assessment Model for Hazardous
Wastes
• Pesticide Ground Water Exposure Assessment Model
• Terrestrial Environmental Exposure Assessment Model.
Another ERL-Athens research effort is focused on validating
certain model assumptions for Eco-Risk models such as FGETS.
For GEMS, recent development work has produced a PC-based user
interface which can be readily distributed and used.
3-14
-------
CEAM has established several basic development standards
for models distributed by the Center. These include hardware,
software, portability, and documentation guidelines and criteria
which must be met before the Center will accept a model for
support and distribution. The CEAM software standard is ANSI
FORTRAN 77; all models are compiled successfully using four
different FORTRAN compilers before they are approved for
distribution. This procedure assures portability between a variety
of hardware platforms including mainframes (IBM, PRIME, Cyber,
HP), minicomputers (VAX), and microcomputers (IBM PC/AT).
Comprehensive scientific and user documentation is also required
for acceptance.
CEAM also plays a significant role in the verification,
validation, and quality control of exposure assessment models. For
verification, CEAM undertakes a detailed code-level review of
models. This assures internal consistency and valid representation
of scientific equations. CEAM has worked with the EPA Office of
Water to develop waste load allocation guidance documents,
which address some model application and validation issues, but
do not provide specific guidelines. CEAM participates in validating
exposure assessment models primarily through two activities: peer
review journals and user group meetings. The issue of model
validation is itself a research topic at CEAM. For example, the
exposure model PRZM underwent five years of validation efforts
(at considerable cost) to determine the valid boundaries for the
application of the model.
Model Usage and Although CEAM functions influence the development of
Support exposure assessment models, the primary purpose of the Center is
to provide expert support services for the users of CEAM models.
CEAM provides services in three primary functional areas:
• Model Distribution and Maintenance. This functions
ensures that those conducting exposure assessments have
access to the necessary models, databases, and analytical
techniques. This involves model acquisition, preparation,
maintenance, distribution, support, and quality assurance.
CEAM distributes and supports a set of twelve exposure
assessment models; three to four models will be added to this
set during the next year. Distribution includes model codes as
well as documentation and reference materials. CEAM
distributed over 1,500 copies of models last year and over 1,900
copies in FY '87. One tool used to support the distribution and
support function is an electronic bulletin board. The bulletin
board enables callers to download model codes and some types
of documents, as well as leave messages and ask questions
about particular models. About one-third of the models
distributed last year were sent out electronically via the
bulletin board. The remaining two-thirds of the models were
distributed in user-requested formats on floppy disks or tapes.
3.15 Four full-time CEAM staff members, including contractors,
-------
are dedicated to the technical provision function. This
function also covers the maintenance of a user database,
model recalls, issuance of updated codes, and software reviews
to ensure uniform coding styles and constructs. CEAM
conducts line-by-line code reviews for some of the models it
distributes. The Center does not function as a clearinghouse
for all exposure assessment models. As research and
development lead to new or improved modeling capabilities,
CEAM updates presently supported models and adopts new
models.
• Technical Support. CEAM offers extensive technical support
for all of the models distributed by the Center. Support
includes training and seminars, phone support, input data
analysis and error correction through the bulletin board, site-
specific guidance, and access to subject matter experts. CEAM
emphasizes support because some type of technical assistance
is required for most model applications. Phone support is
provided mainly through contractor staff. CEAM staff
provides direct consulting support for those models they
thoroughly understand; they provide contact with outside
experts for other models. Training consists of three- to five-
day short courses in the use and application of certain CEAM
models. CEAM presented two short courses in FY88: "Models
of Exposure and Bioaccumulation of Organic Toxicants in
Surface Waters," held in Washington, DC, and Boulder,
Colorado, and the "Metals Equilibrium Speciation Model
(MINTEQA2)," held in Boulder, Colorado. Three short
courses are planned for FY89. CEAM provides site-specific
guidance in cases where the exposure assessment modeling
expertise of the CEAM staff is needed. An example of this is
the support requested by OSW at a wood preservative waste
site in Georgia. CEAM staff members used PRZM and FGETS,
two CEAM models, to assist with the analysis of the waste site.
CEAM staff may assist with model selection and application
when requested.
• Demonstration. The purpose of technical demonstration is to
specifically demonstrate the models and techniques supported
by the Center. Through these demonstrations, CEAM can
promote new analysis techniques and address specific
management issues. One technical demonstration currently
underway is an eco-risk analysis in the Clark Fork River,
Montana. The analysis team was drawn from the staffs of ERL
Athens and ERL Duluth.
CEAM currently supports only twelve models because of the
interest in providing solid technical support for each of the
available models. Therefore, models are added to CEAM inventory
at a gradual rate which ensures they can be effectively supported
with existing resources.
3-16
-------
Section 3.3
Air Dispersion Modeling
Size and Scope
Relationship to
OSWER Programs
3-17
Air dispersion models have been managed and used over a
longer period of time than most other model types. The core set of
EPA air dispersion models, called the Users Network for Applied
Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP), has existed since 1973.
UNAMAP consists of 23 air dispersion models of various types
which have been funded and/or developed by EPA.
Historically, air dispersion models have been used primarily
to support development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
mandated by the Clean Air Act, and to conduct new source
reviews. Because of the difficulty and high cost of collecting air
monitoring data with comprehensive spatial and temporal
coverage, models have been widely used in many air quality
^assessments, supported by actual air data where possible. The use
. of models is authorized by Federal regulations (40 CFR, Parts 51 and
52) issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act. These
regulations specify the EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models as the
official guidance document for determining which UNAMAP
models are best suited to a particular regulatory requirement.
Criteria influencing the selection of the preferred models include:
short-term (1-24 hours) vs. long-term (monthly, seasonal, or
annual); type of source (single, multiple, complicated, buoyant);
type of terrain (simple or complex); and land use (urban, rural).
Many of the widely used air dispersion models pre-date RCRA
and CERCLA and are oriented toward air regulatory programs
managed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS). In recent years, however, there has been increasing
interest in using air models to support OSW and OERR programs.
For OSW, one of the main areas of interest is in modeling air
dispersion patterns in order to predict the transport of pollutants
emitted from hazardous waste incinerators. For OERR's purposes,
air dispersion models can be valuable in assessing volatilization of
pollutants from Superfund sites. Exhibit 3.3-1 shows some of the
air contaminant pathways from a landfill. Models can sometimes
be the only feasible way to determine safe courses of action, such as
evacuation in emergency cases where there are sudden releases of
hazardous materials into the air. Air modelers in ORD have
identified some of the air models that are most directly applicable
to OSWER programs. These include a model that can be used at
landfill sites containing hazardous wastes and a model that
simulates instantaneous releases of hazardous materials and could
be used in an emergency response situation.
-------
DIRECT AIR EMSSKMS OF
VOLAT1LES * PARTCULATE MATTER
QA8VENTMQ
FROM VENTS
VOLATILIZATION
OF UNSOLVED SPECIES
M GROUND WATER
LATERAL HKIRATION
OFVOLATILES
FROM SOLID WASTE
LATERAL MIGRATION
OFVOLATILES
FROM CONTAMMATEO
SCNLSALEACHATE
Exhibit 33-1 (reprinted from A7)
Key Air Dispersion
Research
Organizations and
Modeling Centers
Atmospheric Research
and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory
3-18
Three major air dispersion modeling centers and research
organizations have been identified through the project team's
interviews at EPA Headquarters, ORD laboratories, and selected
EPA Regional Offices.
The Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory (AREAL), in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
formerly the Atmospheric Science Research Laboratory (ASRL),
and the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)
manage the UNAMAP set of models. Activities supporting
UNAMAP include software maintenance and issuance of new
model codes. AREAL is currently operating an electronic bulletin
board. The bulletin board is used to distribute copies of models and
a limited amount of documentation, and it provides a
communication channel for UNAMAP users. AREAL is now
assessing future plans for continued operation of the bulletin
board. One option under consideration is transferring
responsibility for the bulletin board to OAQPS (see below).
AREAL's research and model development activities include
application of existing models in new regulatory settings,
development of a climatological Point, Area, and Line Source
model (PAL), and research on indoor air pollution.
AREAL also provides technical support for other offices and
agencies such as the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
-------
Air and Energy The Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL)
Engineering Research conducts research on preventing Hazardous Air Pollutant /
Laboratory Volatile Organic Compound (HAP/VOC) emissions and ensuring
effective application of control devices. This research supports the
development of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
State Implementation Plans. AEERL also provides direct
engineering technical support to EPA Regional Offices and state
and local agencies.
One of AEERL's ongoing research projects with direct
relevance to OSW is the investigation of hazardous waste puffs
from rotary kiln incinerators. This project involves the use of a
small scale rotary kiln to measure the behavior of various
materials under different combustion scenarios. Later phases of
this project are likely to include some type of model development
activity.
Office of Air Quality The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in
Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, is the program office
responsible for developing the Guideline on Air Quality Models.
During the 1970s and 1980s, OAQPS has worked directly with
AREAL and AEERL (and formerly, with ASRL) on the
development, review, and application of many of the UNAMAP
models. OAQPS is now beginning work on updating the Guideline
and has established a work group, with OSWER membership, to
produce the revisions. OAQPS is also involved in the
development of several air emissions models (in collaboration
with the Risk Reduction and Engineering Laboratory in
Cincinnati).
OAQPS has relied in the past on AREAL and the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) to distribute the UNAMAP
models. Current initiatives include the establishment of a new
electronic bulletin board to replace AREAL's existing bulletin
board. AREAL will continue to be involved in model
development, application and validation and will continue to
provide technical support for UNAMAP users. OAQPS will
procure new hardware and establish a more formal user support
group to operate the bulletin board.
OAQPS has recently established a joint effort with OERR and
the EPA Regions called the Air/Superfund Coordination Program.
The purpose of this program is provide technical support in areas
such as using air models to predict volatilization at Superfund
sites.
Findings
The findings presented below have been synthesized from
numerous interviews conducted at EPA Headquarters and
3 19 Regional offices, AREAL, AEERL, and OAQPS (see Appendix B for
-------
names and dates) and through the review of a variety of air
dispersion modeling guideline documents and reference materials
(see Appendix C).
Model Development The major research initiatives likely to add to the inventory of
air models in the future are:
• indoor air pollution
• exposure assessments for air pathways
• source apportionment for air toxics
• studies of atmospheric transformations for ozone
• regional and national acid rain studies.
As for some of the other modeling categories, the trend in air
modeling is increased emphasis on microcomputers and
workstations for model development and delivery. Again, user
interfaces are a key issue. Because of the need for large, complex
regional air models to address issues such as acid rain and global
warming, air has a more immediate need for supercomputer
technology than some other areas.
One of the unique aspects of the air modeling environment is
the existence of OAQPS's Guideline on Air Quality Models which
specifies preferred models for certain types of applications. The
Guideline has the force of regulation since it is incorporated by
reference in the Federal Register sections addressing Clean Air Act
requirements. Two major factors led to the development of the
Guideline: (1) the requirements set forth by the Clean Air Act that
specified the use of models for developing air quality management
plans; (2) the characteristics of the air medium make effective
monitoring very difficult. OAQPS will be revising the Guideline
in the future and has established a work group to produce the
update. The work group will have three representatives from
outside of the air program, including two OSWER representatives.
3-20
-------
The core group of models contained in UNAMAP changes
periodically; the current version of UNAMAP is the sixth since its
Model Usage and inception in the early 1970s. Presently, the UNAMAP models are a
Support fairly stable set. UNAMAP is the main support mechanism for
users of air dispersion models. There is a steady demand for the
models and AREAL estimates that about half of all requests are for
regulatory purposes (e.g., Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) analysis). The National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) distributes the complete series of UNAMAP models on
magnetic tape at a cost of $1,285. The modeling codes available
through NTIS are written primarily in ANSI FORTRAN 77. Some
of the UNAMAP models are available in PC format, but this type of
customization is usually left to the users or to private companies
wishing to re-market the UNAMAP models. OAQPS has created
compatible mainframe and PC versions for some models (e.g., ISC).
A second option for obtaining the models is to use the AREAL
electronic bulletin board. The bulletin board provides mostly
source code, although AREAL intends to make more text files (e.g.
documentation) available in the future. AREAL is assessing
whether to continue its current use of the bulletin board, expand it,
or transfer this responsibility to OAQPS. OAQPS has begun
preparations for housing the bulletin board and plans to use a SUN
workstation with four external ports as the host. OAQPS is also
undertaking an initiative to improve the overall quality of
documentation for UNAMAP models.
AREAL issues periodic changes to UNAMAP through
Versions and within Versions, through Changes. The current
UNAMAP series is Version 6, Change 8. Mailing lists of all
requestors are maintained and changes are sent out automatically.
AREAL staff also provides consulting for users, although the
staff stresses they are only providing information on the technical
aspects of the models, not passing judgement on regulatory issues.
During recent years, the user profile has changed to include a larger
proportion of non-experts.
One of the modeling support areas of relevance to OSWER is
the Air/Superfund Coordination Program. This is a joint effort
between OAQPS, OERR, and the Regions to evaluate and assist
with the use of air models at Superfund sites;. The program is
funded with Superfund resources, including contract money and
Regional FTEs. Each Region has a designated Air/Superfund
Coordinator who facilitates the air analysis portions of Superfund
site investigations and remedial actions.
At the Regional offices, air models are often needed to
estimate the impacts of remediation efforts on air, including air
stripping, incineration, and volatilization. Six of the twenty-three
UNAMAP models have been identified as having applicability in
RCRA and Superfund remediation sites. Of these six models, one
-------
model, the Industrial Source Complex model (ISC), is the most
commonly used. Other UNAMAP models are not widely
applicable to Superfund and RCRA sites because of differences in
the focus of the models, such as the orientation toward tall stack
emissions versus wide area volatilization.
Region HI is one of the most active Regions in the
Air/Superfund Coordination Program, and has designated two
modelers from the Air Management Division to provide support
for Superfund analyses. These individuals spend approximately
twenty-five percent of their time on Superfund related air analysis
activities. Of this time, a little more than half is used for applying
air models at specific Superfund sites. Air models were used by
Region HI modelers at a total of twelve Superfund sites in 1988.
Modeling activities include both reviewing the modeling efforts of
contractors and hands-on modeling requested by the Remedial
Project Manager. The modeling tools and techniques required for
RCRA sites are similar to those of Superfund sites, but air models
were used at only one or two RCRA sites in 1988.
OAQPS's Guideline on Air Quality Models is not generally
applicable to modeling in OSWER programs because of different
regulatory requirements and different spatial scales. Currently,
Superfund air modelers depend on their own expertise and past
experiences with air models. OAQPS and the Regional offices are
developing a document titled Procedures for Conducting Air
Pathway Analyses for Superfund Activities, which addresses issues
of consistency and quality in Superfund air analyses. This four
volume document, currently in draft form, provides guidance on
modeling and monitoring procedures to be used at Superfund sites.
The document will also have relevance in RCRA air analyses.
3-22
-------
Section 3.4.
Modeling for Hazardous Waste Engineering
Size and Scope
Relationship to
OSWER Programs
Hazardous Waste
Engineering
Research
Organizations and
Modeling Centers
3-23
The project team has identified four engineering models that
are particularly relevant to Hazardous Waste Engineering /
Superfund programs. The models are useful in the evaluation of
earthen dike structures, hazardous waste incinerators, landfills,
and liners. Although numerous other engineering models have
been developed and may be in use by Regional offices, contractors,
or industry, these four were of primary interest to the interviewees
from OSWER and ORD:
• Geotechnical Analysis for Review of Dike Stability (CARDS) -
assists in the evaluation of existing and planned earth dike
structures at hazardous waste facilities;
• Energy-Mass Balance Model (EMBM) - simulates the
performance of industrial incinerators for a variety of
combustion scenarios;
• Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP n) -
models hydrologic effects at hazardous waste sites;
• Soil Liner Model (SOILINER) - simulates the dynamics of
infiltration through a compacted soil liner.
More detailed information on these models is provided in the
Models Inventory.
Engineering models are used to support decisions meeting
both RCRA and CERCLA requirements. For example, these types
of models can be used to evaluate the design and configuration of
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDs), as required by
RCRA. Incinerators, soil liners, dikes, and other hazardous waste
control technologies have been addressed by various types of
engineering models. CERCLA applications for engineering models
focus on containment approaches and remedial techniques such as
incinerators for contaminated soils, impermeable barriers, and
landfill caps.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in
Cincinnati, Ohio, which houses the former Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory (HWERL), is one of the key
organizations involved in engineering models. RREL is
responsible for the development and distribution of the four
models mentioned above.
-------
The Air and Energy Engineering Laboratory (AEERL) is also
involved in engineering research. One of AEERL's current
research projects is evaluating rotary kiln incineration of
hazardous wastes. This effort will most likely result in the
development of one or more models simulating various aspects of
incineration.
Other laboratories involved in engineering models include
the Las Vegas Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory
(EMSL), and the Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens,
Georgia (ERL Athens).
Findings
As compared to some other modeling categories, engineering
models are a small group in terms of numbers. The models vary
in terms of complexity according to the particular treatment
technology they simulate. A few engineering models such as HELP
n are widely distributed and account for the vast majority of total
models distributed. FORTRAN is the primary language used for
developing engineering models.
Interviewees identified less than five ongoing ORD research
projects that may lead to model development. Two examples are
AEERL's research on rotary kiln incinerators mentioned above and
an effort at RREL to develop a metals partitioning model mat
predicts how metals behave under a variety of incineration
scenarios.
There are no formal user support and model distribution
networks for engineering models. RREL typically provides copies
of models on blank diskettes supplied by the requestor. RREL is
considering establishing an arrangement with the Center for
Environmental Research Information (CERI) to provide
documentation and support. They have also considered providing
this type of service through the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), but feel that CERI will be more economical and
more responsive, (see the description of CERI in Section 2.3).
RREL is also working with the Office of Solid Waste to
investigate the use of expert systems technology for supporting the
evaluation of "Method 90-90" data on flexible membrane liners.
3-24
-------
Section 3.5.
Surface Water Modeling
Size and Scope
Surface water modeling covers a variety of processes which
occur in the surface bodies of water. Modelers group these water
bodies into three categories: rivers and streams, lakes and
reservoirs, and estuaries and bays. Within these categories, lakes
are sub-categorized into stratified or well mixed, and estuaries are
sub-categorized into stratified, well mixed, or partly mixed. Of the
three categories, estuaries and bays is the most complex because of
the numerous forces acting on the waters, including tides, thermal
mixing, and the Coriolis (spinning earth) effect. Because the
transport of hazardous materials in surface water pathways is
dependent on both the water and the underlying sediments, many
surface water models simulate processes both in the water and in
the sediments which underlie and intermingle with the water.
Exhibit 3.5-1 diagrams the chemical and biological processes which
occur in surface waters.
VOLATILIZATION
ATMOSPHERE
MATER
01
X SEDINEK
t DIRECT
PHOTOLYSIS
DISSOLVED
POLLUTANT
HYDROLYSIS-)
OXIDATION
FFUSION
-1
TS ^ N
BIODEGRADATION
1
ADSORPTION
«
DESORPTION
BIOACCUHULATION
'^Sp^
DISSOLVED
BIOTA
SENSITIZED
PHOTOLYSIS
P ARTICULATE
HYDROLYSIS
ADSORP
DESORPTION
* 1
L^«>4J
DEPURATION 1
<
01
PARTKULATE
POLLUTANT
TION
E-BI
TEJ '
^ACCUMULATION
SEDIMENTATION
-BIODEGRADATION
* DAUGHTER PRODUCTS
ALSO SUSCEPTABLE TO
CHEMICAL PROCESSES
3-25
Exhibit 3.5-1 (reprinted from H7)
This study has identified over thirty different surface water
models representing a variety of water body categories, temporal
scales, and dimensions. Other identifying characteristics of surface
water models include the type of contamination source, such as
-------
Relationship to
OSWER Programs
Key Surface Water
Research
Organizations and
Modeling Centers
Findings
Model Developmen t
non-point surface runoff or point sources, and the processes
modeled, such as water flow, contaminant transport, or
contaminant exposure.
Surface water models can be valuable tools for performing
analyses for both RCRA and Superfund programs. In cases
involving illegal dumping or accidental discharges of hazardous
wastes, there may be direct impacts on surface waters. Even for
many land-based containment and remedial actions, analysts must
often account for surface water runoff. For example, when
applying for permits under RCRA, TSD facilities must show that
surface water runoff from their sites will not pose any danger to
humans or the environment.
3-26
There are a variety of ORD organizations involved in the
development of surface water models and related research,
including the Environmental Research Laboratories (ERLs) at
Athens, Cincinnati, Narragansett, and Duluth, and the
Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas.
Historically, Athens-ERL has been the lead organization for
developing and supporting surface water models and conducting
related research. Athens-ERL's Center for Exposure Assessment
Modeling (CEAM) supports five surface water toxicant models:
WASP4, EXAMS H, HSPF9, SARAH,and DYNTOX It also supports
QUAL2E, a conventional pollutant model, and DYNHYD4, a
hydrodynamic model (see Section 3.2 for a more complete
description of the types of services provided by Athens - ERL).
CEAM evolved from the former Center for Water Quality
Modeling, which was also housed at Athens.
The findings presented below have been synthesized from the
project team's interviews and the review of several reference
documents on surface water modeling (see Appendices B and C).
Surface water models are developed by a variety of
organizations, including EPA and other Federal agencies such as
NOAA and the Department of Agriculture, national research
laboratories such as Oak Ridge, universities/ and private
companies. No widely recognized guidelines exist for the
development and validation of surface water models.
The computing environments for the surface water models
identified so far are similar to most other categories. Models have
historically been developed in FORTRAN, primarily on IBM
-------
mainframes. The current trend is a move towards microcomputer-
based models which can be more widely used.
Model Usage and Several guidelines partially addressing the selection and
Support application of surface water models have been produced by EPA in
recent years. These include Modeling Remedial Actions at
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites and Selection Criteria for
Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments. Surface
Water Models. These guidelines address the issues of proper
model selection, application, and on-site validation. Also provided
are case studies of example applications.
Surface water models are not used extensively by OSWER
program staff. They tend to be applied only in special cases. No
clearinghouses, user support groups, bulletin boards, or training
programs were identified as supporting surface water modelers.
3-27
-------
Section 3.6.
Drinking Water Modeling
Size and Scope
Relationship to
OSWER Programs
Key Drinking Water
Research
Organisations and
Modeling Centers
One drinking water model relevant to OSWER programs,
known as the Packed Column Air Stripping Model, has been
included in the Models Inventory. This model has been used in
determining the feasibility of air stripping for controlling
moderately volatile synthetic organic chemicals (VOCs). It models
the engineering process of air stripping VOCs from drinking water.
Numerous other drinking water models oriented to engineering
aspects of drinking water systems have been developed, but this
model has the greatest potential for use by OSWER programs.
Drinking water models relate to RCRA and CERCLA
programs in two areas: engineering and risk assessments. For
example, remedial actions at Superfund sites sometimes require
the use of an air stripper for the treatment of water. Drinking
water related engineering models can be used to estimate the
amount of hazardous effluent which may be produced during a
clean-up effort. Drinking water quality models may also be used in
exposure and risk assessments of TSDs regulated under RCRA.
There is no designated "lead" organization for drinking water
models. The Technical Support Division of the Office of Drinking
Water, Cincinnati, has been the key organization involved in
applying the Packed Column Air Stripping Model. Other EPA
organizations involved with drinking water research and model
development include the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, and the Health Effects Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park.
3-28
-------
Findings
Other than the use of the Packed Column Air Stripping Model
at certain Superfund cites, OSWER programs do not make heavy
use of drinking water models. No forums for the distribution or
support of drinking water models were identified. No specific
examples of OSWER related applications of drinking water models
were provided.
3-29
-------
Section 4. Review of Management Issues
This section presents six major management issues in a logical
sequence. These issues were identified through several meetings
with members of the Hazardous Waste / Superfund Research
Subcommittees from OSWER and ORD and through the project
team's analysis of the information presented above in Sections 1, 2
and 3. The six management issues are:
• Issue #1: What is the relative importance of models in
supporting hazardous waste / Superfund program
activities?
• Issue #2: Is formal guidance on modeling necessary? If so,
how should the guidance be developed and by
whom?
• Issue #3: How should OSWER and ORD manage model
development, calibration, verification, and
validation?
• Issue #4: What types of standards should be imposed on
hardware and software?
• Issue #5: How should model selection and application be
occurring in the field?
• Issue #6: What types of user support organization and
products should be created for model users?
For each issue, key project findings are recounted, a preliminary
conclusion is drawn, and alternative action items are suggested.
The recommendations presented in Section 3 are based on the
review of these issues.
4-1
-------
Issue #1: What is the relative importance of models
In supporting hazardous waste /
Superfund program activities?
Key Findings:
• Hundreds of computerized/ numerical models are available,
for many different processes and environmental media.
• In cases where collecting monitoring data is technically
difficult and too costly to provide the sole basis for exposure
assessment the use of models, either alone or in combination
with monitoring results, provides for reasonably informed
predictions about environmental processes.
• The need for models is generally acknowledged by program
managers, engineers, scientists, and the legal community.
Some managers are generally supportive of modeling,
allowing their staff to spend time using models and acquiring
necessary expertise. Other managers feel that modeling takes
too much time away from day-to-day activities such as writing
permits and performing inspections.
• Actual model usage levels are unknown, and there are no
mechanisms in place to keep track of performance of
particular models in the field.
Preliminary Conclusion;
In hazardous waste / Superfund programs (HW/SF), models are
not the only tools for supporting program decisions, but models are
sufficiently important decision-making tools that a coordinated
management strategy for modeling is necessary. Inappropriate use
of models results in wasted time and effort, ineffective
enforcement and remediation, and in some cases, embarrassments
for the Agency. The value of models and the importance of
appropriate model use need to be articulated by all levels of EPA
management. Managers, in turn, must provide their staff with
dear direction on modeling and its relationship to other program
activities.
Related Action Items;
• Increase awareness of senior managers (e.g., Assistant
Administrators, Division Directors, Office Directors, Regional
Administrators) about modeling issues, develop a
management strategy, and obtain key endorsements
supporting the use of models and emphasizing the
-------
importance of applying models in a valid and consistent
manner.
Maintain dialogue with Science Advisory Board on their
Agency-wide modeling resolution.
Initiate discussions with other offices which may be helpful in
managing /supporting modeling at an Agency level (e.g.,
ODRM/NDPD and the Agency-wide Technology Transfer
Staff).
4-3
-------
Issue #2; Is forma/ guidance on modeling
necessary? If so, how should the
guidance be developed and by whom?
Key Findings;
• There are no mandatory or recommended models for OSWER
programs.
• Guidance on model selection and application is very limited;
some is being developed for the use of air models at
Superfund sites.
• Some users oppose the establishment of strict model selection
standards and lists of prescribed models. They claim flexibility
is very important because of wide ranges of variation in site
characteristics and regulatory scenarios.
Preliminary Conclusion:
Guidance on modeling in HW/SF programs is necessary. The
guidance should be flexible, and it should be modular, addressing
the needs and multiple perspectives of those who will be affected.
Guidance on modeling should focus on core areas such as
development of algorithms and computer code, but it should also
recognize the importance of data collection and quality assurance
in the modeling process. Guidance will be valuable in at least three
areas: development, verification and validation (V&V) (primarily
for modelers); hardware and software standards (primarily for
modelers); and model selection and application (primarily for
users).
Related Action Items:
• Convene a group of modeling experts from different
disciplines and organizations to prepare guidance on model
development and V&V. The guidance will be applicable to all
models targeted for use in HW/SF programs, and should
describe the model development, calibration, verification, and
validation processes for all types of models, addressing
differences among media where necessary. (See Issue #3
below.)
• Consult with OIRM and information management groups in
other program offices about the need to develop standards for
hardware and software. Determine which types of standards
4-4 are desirable and feasible. (See Issue #4 below.)
-------
Establish a group of RCRA and CERCLA program experts and
selected modeling experts from each major modeling
discipline to develop guidance on model selection and
application. The guidance should include descriptions of
recommended models for different media and different types
of program decisions. (See Issue #5 below.)
4-5
-------
Issue #3: How should OSWER and ORD manage
model development, calibration,
verification, and validation?
Key Findings:
• Development procedures have been discussed extensively, but
there is no universal agreement on "the right way" to develop
models. There are no standard peer review procedures for
models.
• Most modelers agree on what verification is — in order for any
model to be credible/ the developer must verify that the code
performs its calculations and uses its equations as intended.
• Validation is more subjective because there are only degrees of
validity. It is rarely possible to do a complete validation effort
- it takes too much time and costs too much. For some
models, it is necessary to re-validate models with field data
every time they are applied.
Preliminary Conclusion:
Previously, discussion of standard modeling procedures has
occurred in a specific media context (e.g., ground water modeling,
air modeling). Validation is one of the most controversial areas,
but in this area as well as others, it should be possible to get
modeling experts in different domains to reach consensus on a
typical "life-cycle" for a model. The fundamental objective for
guidance in the area of development, calibration, and V&V is to
establish an agreed upon set of procedures for testing and review
that will provide users with models of known quality and
performance characteristics. Strengthened guidance in this area
will minimize the likelihood that models used by EPA will be
declared inaccurate or invalid in legal disputes with the regulated
community.
Related Action Items;
• Develop guidance in this area focusing primarily on model
developers (e.g, ORD labs, contractors). Such guidance should
describe the model development process, or life-cycle, in
general terms. Resolution of controversy on the issue of
validation should be based upon the principles of Data Quality
Objectives (DQO).
4-6
-------
Assess need to coordinate with other organizations involved
in environmental modeling (e.g., NOAA, USGS, USDA,
American Meteorological Society).
Specify requirements for peer review for all models intended
for use in OSWER programs.
Obtain endorsement of this guidance by leading modelers in
different fields and top level OSWER and ORD managers.
4-7
-------
fssue #4; What types of standards should bo
imposed on hardware and software?
Key Findings:
• Modelers are actively applying new computing technologies
in developing their models, including a variety of hardware
platforms and software packages.
• User interfaces, data input facilities, and programming styles
vary widely from model to model.
• Many models are developed outside of EPA, making it
difficult to tightly control hardware and software.
Preliminary Conclusion:
Setting strict hardware and software standards will impose
constraints on model developers and may be difficult to enforce
(e.g., for third-party developers). Different types of standards may
be appropriate for model developers vs. model users.
Related Action Items;
• Develop hardware and software standards, considering the
need for different standards for model developers and end
users.
• Stipulate when standards apply (e.g., for cases where EPA is
funding the development of a model for a particular
"intended use") and link to guidance on model development.
• Address need for ensuring that model distributors provide
software of the highest possible quality - i.e., standard
procedures for making updates, testing codes, and promoting
similar programming styles and practices.
4-8
-------
Issue #5: How should model selection and
application be occurring in the field?
Key Findings;
• Some users lack the technical background to know which
models are optimal for certain types of analyses.
• Staff do not always fully understand how their contractors or
the regulated parties are using models; contractors are heavily
involved in model selection and application.
Preliminary Conclusion;
There is a need for guidance on model selection and application
that is both media-specific (e.g., groundwater, surface water, air)
and program activity-specific (e.g., RCRA Corrective Action,
Superfund RI/FS). In some cases, there may be no substitute for
direct communication (e.g., via a hotline) between the user and the
model expert. There is a need for a more precise way to categorize
models.
Related Action Items;
• Conduct a study of how contractors are using models in
HW/SF programs, and ensure that contractors are selecting
models appropriately.
• Assess various options for providing guidance on model
selection and implement the most cost-effective solution.
Identify proportions of cases where different types of guidance
are most effective — e.g., written guidance vs. automated
systems vs. direct consultation with experts.
• As stated under Issue #3, ensure that Data Quality Objectives
are considered as part of the selection process — i.e., a model
should be selected before data is collected, not vice versa.
4-9
-------
Issue #6: What types of user support organization
and products should be created for model
users?
Key Findings;
• Staff need readily available support and the backing of their
management in order to use models effectively.
• Different types of support are needed: (1) scientific and
engineering expertise on models; (2) computer expertise on
how to run models; and (3) programmatic expertise on how to
make decisions based on model output.
• Model usage is limited by significant entry barriers - input
data is often not available, data takes too much time to enter,
or model documentation does not provide adequate or
understandable explanations.
• High turnover in Regional offices creates constant need to
train new staff.
Preliminary Conclusion:
The focus of user support should be on meeting the training and
technical support needs of the Regional offices and their
contractors. There is a need for better communication channels
between Headquarters (HQ), ORD, Regional office staff, and
Environmental Service Divisions (ESDs). ORD should play a
major role in user support. Existing modeling centers should be
strengthened and new centers established with incentives to pro-
actively communicate with users to document field experiences
and maintain "audit trails" for models.
Related Action Items:
• Establish a centralized modeling support group that can
interact directly with OSWER program users in the Regions
and at Headquarters. Ensure that this group has sufficient
resources to provide immediate response to Regional needs
and has well-established communication channels with
modeling experts for various media. Provide members of this
group with incentives for pro-actively supporting model users
and maintaining a track record of performance for specific
models.
4-10
-------
Encourage Regional offices to create modeling groups that
provide support for running models for a variety of program
activities and communicate regularly with ORD modeling
centers and OSWER support groups. Consult with Regions
that have formally or informally established these types of
groups (e.g., Regions HI and IV) to identify critical success
factors for this approach.
Ensure effective dissemination of information to model
developers and users through the issuance of newsletters,
maintenance of a models dearinghouse(s), and use of
electronic bulletin boards.
4-11
-------
Section 5. Recommendations
These recommendations are designed to improve the
management and use of models for HW/SF programs in the most
effective and efficient manner possible, addressing many of the
management issues presented above in Section 4. The
recommendations consist of a three-part action plan, incorporating
many of the action items identified in Section 4. The three major
task areas in the action plan are:
• Task Area 1: Initiation, Additional Study, and Preparation of
Management Plan
• Task Area 2: Development of Guidance for Modeling
• Task Area 3: Establishment of User Support Network for
HW/SF Modeling
Each of these is described below. Figure 5-1 provides an
overview of the tasks, responsibilities and suggested sequence of
events. Figure 5-2 provides initial resource estimates for
completing these tasks.
Task Area 1: Initiation, Additional Studies, and
Preparation of Management Plan
Task 1.1. Brief OSWER and ORD senior management on results of the
Models Study. The objectives for this briefing are to describe past
activities and project highlights, and to obtain top-level
endorsement for future plans, commitment of resources, and
clarification of roles and responsibilities.
Responsibilities, Products: The OSWER Information
Management Staff (IMS) will coordinate the preparation and
presentation for these briefings, coordinating with other OSWER
and ORD offices as necessary. Two products are envisioned for this
task: (a) briefing slides and other materials necessary to summarize
the results of the Models Study; and (b) a policy statement or
similar document, issued by the OSWER and ORD AA's offices,
endorsing this new effort to manage and use models more
effectively and outlining key roles and responsibilities. The
recipients of this memorandum will include Regional
Administrators, HQ Office Directors, and HQ and Regional
Division Directors.
5-1
-------
Figure 5-1
Overview of Action Plan
Task Area 1
1.1 Management Briefings
1.2 Study of Model Use
1.3 Management Plan
Task Area 2
2.1 Model Development,
Verification and
Validation Guidelines
f-
2.2 Computing Alternatives
Manual
2.3 Selection Guide
Task Area 3
3.1 Establish Regional
Modeling Groups
3.2 Define Roles, Working
Agreements for
Modeling Centers
3.3 Create OSWER Modeling
Support Group
Weeks from Start-up
8 16 24 32 40 48 56
H£-A
Ij^^^^j^^^^L
^•wk m^^^
I-A-A
I ±_
Organizations
OSWER
L
L
L
L
L
P
P
L
ORD
P
L
L
ROs
P
P
P
L
P
Key:
Briefings, Meetings
Draft Deliverable
L
P
Deliverable
Milestone
Lead
Participant
5-2
-------
Figure 5-2
Initial Resource Estimates
Task Area 1
1.1 Management Briefings
1.2 Study of Model Use
1.3 Management Plan
Task Area 2
2.1 Model Development,
Verification and
Validation Guidelines
2.2 Computing Alternatives
Manual
2.3 Selection Guide
Task Area 3
3.1 Establish Regional
Modeling Groups
3.2 Define Roles, Working
Agreements for
Modeling Centers
3.3 Create OSWER Modeling
Support Group
Weeks from Start-up
8 16 24 32 40 48 56
^
\-&r±
Subtotal
1 A A
1 f V ^L
h-iV-A
Subtotal
I ^
i _ ., ^
1 «™
Subtotal
Resources*
FTIis
.05
.05
.06
.16
.17
.17
.16
.5
6-15
8-10
2-3
16-28
$K
5-7
35-40
12-15
52-62
100-
150
40-45
100+
240-
295+
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
FY
89
89
89
90
90
90
91/92
91/92
91/92
Notes:
All estimates provided here are initial resource estimates only. More detailed
estimates for Task Areas 2 and 3 will be developed under Task 1.3, the OSWER/ORD
Management Plan for Models. Estimates provided here are for the tasks specified
in the proposed Action Plan; overlap with other initiatives has not been fully
considered.
* * TBD=To Be Determined
5-3
-------
5-4
Task 1.2. Complete an in-depth study of actual model usage in HW/SF
programs, focusing on Regional users and contractors. This
study will build upon the information already gathered for the
models study, including the national survey of modeling
conducted by Region V for the Groundwater Workstation. The
study will include an historical review of cases where modeling
has had significant resource impacts, both in terms of savings
attributed to the use of a model and costs of applying models and
performing V&V. Court cases involving disputes over models
will also be reviewed, and the Office of General Counsel will be
consulted to identify major legal issues related to modeling.
Another key component of this study will be the identification of
options for enhancing the skills and training Regional users.
Responsibilities, Products: The OSWER Information
Management Staff will be the lead organization for this study.
Regional offices will participate in this study by supplying
information about their usage of models and providing contacts for
contractors. The product will be a report providing an in-depth
analysis of Regional needs for models training, and identifying the
most commonly used models on a program-by-program and
media-by-media basis.
Responsibilities, Products: The OSWER Information
Management Staff will work with ORD to develop the OSWER
Management Plan for Models. The plan will specify roles and
responsibilities, resource requirements, and detailed time lines.
Task Area 2: Development of Guidance for Modeling
Task 2.1. Develop Guidelines for Model Development, Calibration,
Verification, Validation, and Peer Review. This guidance will
address two types of models: (a) new model development efforts
that are funded by OSWER or targeted for OSWER use; and (b)
existing models that are being modified for use by OSWER
programs. The target audience for this guidance is model
developers, within EPA and outside the Agency, who wish to
promote their models for use in OSWER programs. The resulting
guidance document will describe a typical model "life-cycle,"
addressing relevant differences for models in various media. Peer
review requirements will be specified, including acceptance criteria
for models (e.g., public domain software, documentation
standards). For validation, particular attention will be paid to data
collection issues and the relationship between validation and Data
Quality Objectives (DQO).
Responsibilities, Products: ORD will take the lead on developing
Guidelines for Model Development, Calibration, Verification,
-------
Validation, and Peer Review. The guidelines will be general
enough to apply them to models for different media and pathways.
Whenever possible, these guidelines will build upon existing
documents addressing these issues, including direct references to
other appropriate material.
Task 2.2. Develop a Manual on Alternative Computing Technologies for
HW/SF Models. This manual will directly complement the
guidance developed under Task 2.2, providing model developers
with information on the current and future state-of-the-art in
computing approaches for models. The current OSWER and
Agency-wide computing environments will be described in order
to ensure that model developers understand hardware and
software constraints from different perspectives (e.g., OSWER,
ORD, OIRM/NDPD, and Regional offices). The manual may be
supplemented with periodic "Technology Updates," issued
semiannually or annually. The manual may also include
descriptions of various "recommended" computing approaches
and suggestions for maintaining model codes and distributing
updated software.
Responsibilities, Products: The OSWER Information
Management Staff will develop the Manual on Computing
Technologies for Modeling. Model developers from ORD and
other sources will provide input for this manual. The Office of
Information Resources Management (OIRM) will assist in
reviewing the documents and provide information on Agency-
wide computing trends.
Task 2.3. Develop a Selection and Application Guide for Models in
Hazardous Waste / Superfund Programs. This guidance will be
focused on model users in the Regional offices. The Guide will
provide both a media and program orientation so that the user can
easily locate information on models that are appropriate for a
particular type of analysis and a particular program decision. The
effort to develop this Guide will include an in-depth review of the
Models Inventory by modeling experts and OSWER program
experts; the purpose of this will be to identify a subset of preferred
or appropriate models in various categories.
Responsibilities, Products: The OSWER Information
Management Staff will work with the OSWER Technology Staff
and appropriate ORD offices to establish a multidisciplinary project
team to develop the Selection and Application Guide for Models in
HW/SF programs. Development work will be coordinated with
related ORD and OSWER initiatives (e.g., ATTIC, OTTRS1
Information Clearinghouse, OSWER1 s Technology Support
Project). The Guide may either take the form of an automated
reference tool (e.g., an expert system) or a paper-based "modeler's
desk reference." The development team will include experts on
models and OSWER program experts, and may include system
i-_i- development personnel if an automated tool is chosen.
-------
Task Area 3: Establishment of User Support Network
for Hazardous Waste / Superfund Modeling.
Figure 5-3 provides an overview of the user support network
described below under Tasks 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
Task 3.1. Establish a Network of Regional Modeling Groups (RMGs).
These groups will act as a service bureau, providing a central pool
of modeling expertise in each Region. The RMGs will be staffed by
individuals with expertise in specialty areas (e.g., ground water, air,
computer skills), who may be drawn from programs outside the
Waste Management Division. The members should have a
portion of their time dedicated to fulfilling their RMG roles. The
RMGs will communicate directly with the ORD Modeling Centers
and the OSWER Modeling Support Group (see below). ORD will
provide the RMGs with scientific and technical expertise on how to
use models, how to interpret results, and ORD will educate users
on the assumptions of the models. OSWER will provide the
RMGs with guidance on selecting the most appropriate model for a
particular regulatory scenario and will assist the users in addressing
policy and legal issues related to the use of a model.
Responsibilities, Products: The Regional Offices, through the
Waste Management Division, ESDs, and other Program Divisions,
will have the lead for establishing the RMGs. OSWER will
coordinate with the Regional Offices and define relationships
between the RMGs, the ORD Modeling Centers, and the OSWER
Modeling Support Group (see below). The RMGs will meet on a
regular basis to discuss modeling issues, and they will actively
communicate with their counterparts in other Regions.
Task 3.2. Define Roles and Working Agreements With ORD
Modeling Centers. The Centers should have a media orientation,
reflecting the strengths of different labs in different media. The
Centers will be the primary source of scientific and technical
support for Regional model users. They will develop models,
modify codes, add enhancements, conduct training courses, consult
with users about specific modeling applications, and pro-actively
monitor the field performance of the models they are supporting.
Model developments in emerging areas such as exposure
assessment should be encouraged within the context of this media-
based organization (e.g., exposure assessments for surface water
pathways). Each Center should develop its own expertise in
multimedia and exposure assessment modeling, focusing
especially on linking the Center's models for one media with those
of a different media. The activities under this task should be
coordinated with establishment of other types of ORD support for
OSWER (e.g., the Alternative Treatment Technologies Information
Clearinghouse).
5-6
-------
Figure 5-3
User Support Network for HIV / SF Modeling
OSWER Modeling
Support Group
(OMSG)
OMSG conveys
program needs for
new models to ORD,
works with ORD to
develop training courses,
and refers user requests to
appropriate ORD experts.
ORD provides peer review,
supports OMSG in developing
guidance on model selection.
OMSG supports RMGs
in resolving policy and
legal issues related to
modeling; includes dis-
seminating information
an providing guidance
on model selection.
_L
Regional
Modeling
Groups (RMGs)
ORD provides
technical and/or
scientific support for
RMGs; includes model
documentation, training,
hotline support for users,
consulting, and code changes.
RMGs report on performance
attributes of models in the field.
ORD Modeling Centers
Air
Multimedia
and Exposure
Assessment
Surface
Water
Multimedia
and Exposure
Assessment
Ground
Water
Multimedia
and Exposure
Assessment
Drinking
Water
Multimedia
and Exposure
Assessment
Science Advisory Board Resolutions on Agency-wide Modeling
5-7
-------
Responsibilities, Products: ORD, through the HW/SF Research
Committee/ will establish the Modeling Centers, refining the
charters of existing modeling centers as necessary to address
OSWER's modeling needs. The role of these Centers is to be the
"keepers of the code" and the home of modeling experts for a
particular medium. They will respond to support requests from
RMGs and well as OSWER (see 3.3 below). The Centers will
produce new and revised models, documentation, technical
assistance, and training.
Task 3.3. Create an OSWER Modeling Support Group (OMSG). This
group's mission is two-fold. First, it will be primarily responsible
for managing the development of guidance materials on modeling
and disseminating this information to users. OMSG will be a
liaison between the ORD Modeling Centers and the RMGs, and its
staff will be knowledgeable about all of the modeling guidance
products described in Task Area 2. Second, it will provide RMGs
and other users with specific policy and legal advice on model
applications. This includes reporting on significant policy and legal
events that affect the future use of models (e.g., court cases, new
regulations)
Responsibilities, Products: OSWER will take the lead in
establishing OMSG, coordinating with related OPMT initiatives
(e.g, the Technology Support Project, Groundwater Workstation).
OMSG products will include information dissemination tools such
as the OSWER Data Resource Directory, a models clearinghouse, an
electronic bulletin board, or a periodic modeling newsletter.
5-8
-------
Appendices
A: Interview Guide
B: Interview List
C: Bibliography
D: OSWER Models Inventory
Abbreviated
-------
Appendix A
Interview Guide
• Information About the Interviewee
Name, organization, etc.
~ Major activities of your organization
~ Involvement in modeling activities
• Please describe any models used by you or your organization.
— Name of Model
Contact Person
Model Supports Which Program(s)?
Functional Description
application area
data used for input
end products
Technical Description
hardware and software
documentation
assumptions and constraints
types of calculations performed
Please outline the key milestones in model building in your organization from
inception through validation through use through termination. For a typical
modeling project, discuss the following:
~ staffing requirements?
— relationship and communication with program offices?
research and technical work?
A-1
-------
— review cycles?
On which steps in the life cycle does your work focus?
How consistent are modeling activities in terms of:
— development approach?
— tools (i.e., hardware and software)?
• Does your group have any guidelines for model development? Do you know of any
guidance documents?
— If not, how do you approach the modeling effort?
— If so, are the procedures followed? Which aspects are particularly valuable or not
valuable?
Where are the key bottlenecks or milestones which are difficult to traverse and
why? Where are the greatest difficulties encountered?
- research?
- development?
— implementation?
use and interpretation?
What are your suggestions for improvements to the modeling process in your
organization which would increase the quality and timeliness of models while
decreasing the cost and bureaucratic requirements?
• What is the best example of a successful model and why was it successful?
What attributes make some models unsuccessful? How can these pitfalls be
avoided?
A-2
-------
• Whom do you talk with or where do you go for information, assistance, or review
of your modeling efforts?
What results would you like to see from this effort?
A-3
-------
Appendix B
Interview List
1. Interviews at EPA-HO (Washington. DC)
Office of Research and Development
Name Date OfiFice
Tom Baugh 11/30/88 OMMSQA
Ray Thacker 11/17/88 OEETD
Will LaVeille 12/8/88 OEPER
Tom Miller 12/2/88 OHR
LeeMulkey 12/15/88 A-ERL
Anthony Donigian 12/15/88 Aqua Terra,
Inc.(for A-ERL)
Doug Ammon 12/9/88 Clean Sites, Inc.
(formerly ORD)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Name
Meg Kelly
Rich Steimle
Ron Wilhelm
Bill Wood
Larry Zaragoza
Jennifer Haley
Alec McBride
Zubair Saleem
B-1
Date
1/26/89
11/18/88,1/26/89
2/13/89
11/30/88
11/18/88
12/2/88
12/6/88
12/7/88
Office
OPMT
OPMT
OPMT
Risk Assessment
Forum
OPMT
OERR
OSW
OSW
-------
Interviews at Robert S. Kerr Environment Research Laboratory. ORD (Ada.
OK)
Name Date
Joe Williams 12/19/88
Tom Short 12/19/88
Carl Enfield 12/19/88
Dick Scalf 12/19/88
Jim Mercer 12/19/88 (GeoTrans, Inc.)
3. Interviews at International Groundwater Modeling Center. Holcomb
Research Institute (Indianapolis. IN)
Name Date
Paul van der Heijde 12/20/88
Stan Williams 12/20/88
4. Interviews at Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Lab (AREAL).
ORD (Research Triangle Park. NO
Name Date
Gary Foley 1/11/89
Jack Shreffler 1/11/89
Bill Nelson 1/11/89
Bill Mitchell 1/11/89
Bill Peterson 1/11/89
Bruce Turner 1/11/89
B-2
-------
5. Interviews at Air and Energy Engineering Research Lab (AEERL), ORD
(Research Triangle Park. NO
Name Date
Bill Linak 1/11/89
6. Interviews at Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAOPS). OAR
(Research Triangle Park. NO
Name Date
Joe Tikvart 1/11/89
Joe Padgett 1/11/89
7. Interviews at Athens Environmental Research Lab (A-ERL). ORD. including
the Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (Athens, GA)
Name Date
Bob Ambrose 1/12/89
Dave Disney 1/12/89 (CSC)
Tim Wool 1/12/89 (CSC)
Craig Barber 1/12/89
Tom Barnwell 1/12/89
Dave Brown 1/13/89
B-3
-------
8. Interviews at Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL). ORD
(Cincinnati. OH)
Name Date
John Convery 1/23/89
Bob Landreth 1/23/89
Dan Greathouse 1/23/89
Richard Eilers 1/23/89
Jim Goodrich 1/23/89
Jeff Adams 1/23/89
C.C. Lee 2/7/89 (via telephone)
9. Interviews at Technical Support Division. ODW (Cincinnati. OH)
Name Date
Jim Westrick 1/23/89
Mike Cummins 1/23/89
10. Interviews at Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI). ORD
(Cincinnati. OH)
Name Date
Cal Lawrence 1/23/89
Clarence demons 1/23/89
Fran Kremer 1/23/89
Orville Macomber 1/23/89
B-4
-------
11. Region HI
Name
Mark Garrison
John Nevius
Fred Sturniolo
Gail Carron
Mike Towle
Joel Hennessey
Date
2/27/89
2/27/89
2/27/89
2/27/89
2/27/89
2/27/89
Air Management
Division
Waste
Management
Division
Waste
Management
Division
Waiste
Management
Division
Waste
Management
Division
Waste
Management
Division
12. Region V
Name
Carol .Witt
Date
2/8/89,
3/10/89
Region V, Waste
Management
Division (via
B-5
-------
Appendix C
Bibliography
Policv/Manaaement/Proaram Issues
PI. Briefing Slides on Modeling and Other Research at Athens ERL, November, 1988.
P2. Conceptual Approach to Collecting and Managing Data for OSW, BAH.
P3. "EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Research Program, October 1985 - March 1988,"
Environmental Research Brief, EPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, Georgia, August, 1988.
P4. EPA Research Program Guide, FY '89, Office of Research and Development,
September, 1988, EPA/600/9-88/017.
P5. RCRA Orientation Manual. OSW/OSWER, January, 1986.
P6. "Resolution on the Use of Mathematical Models by EPA for Regulatory Assessment
and Decision-Making" (Draft), Science Advisory Board, December, 1988.
P7. "Selection, Application, and Validation of Environmental Models," presented at the
International Symposium on Water Quality Modeling of Agricultural Non-
Point Sources, A.S. Donigian, Jr., Logan, Utah, June, 1988.
P8. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
P9. Superfund Risk Assessment Information Directory, OERR, November, 1986.
P10. "Technology Support Project Guide for OSC/RPMs," Superfund Technology
Support Project, Booz* Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Pll. "Technology Transfer and the EPA Library Network"
P12. "U.S. EPA On-Scene Coordinator Communications and Computer Hardware and
Software Needs: A Review," Meinhold, Moskowitz, Birnbaum, and Salgado,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, OSWER, December, 1988.
C-1
-------
Ground-Water Models
Gl. "Agency Procedures and Criteria for the Selection and Application of Groundwater
Models/' OWPE, June 21,1985.
G2. "Applying the USGS Mass-transport Model (MOC) to Remedial Actions by Recovery
Wells/1 Aly I. El-Kadi, IGWMQ Indianapolis, Indiana, September, 1987.
G3. Background Document on Subsurface Fate and Transport Model, July, 1988.
G4. Compendium of Methods to Determine Contaminated Soil Response Action Levels
Based on Potential Migration to Ground Water, OERR/OSWER (by BAH),
November, 1988.
G5. IGWMC Ground Water Modeling Newsletter, June, 1988.
G6. General Information, International Groundwater Modeling Center, Butler
University, Indianapolis, IN.
G7. Groundwater Requirements Study, 1988, AMS.
G8. "Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling," Leonard F. Konikow and James W.
Mercer, Reston, Virginia, December, 1987.
G9. Groundwater Management; the use of numerical models. (Second Edition) Paul
van der Heijde, Yehuda Bachmat, John Bredenhoeft, Barbara Andrews, David
Hotz, and Scott Sebastian, published by American Geophysical Union,
Washington, DC, 1985.
G10. "Groundwater Modeling: An Overview and Status Report," Paul K. M. van der
Heijde, Aly I. El-Kadi, Stan A. Williams, IGWC, R.S. Kerr ERL, December,
1988.
Gil. Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals During Land Treatment
of Oily Wastes; RTTZ User's Guide. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, January, 1988.
G12. International Projects in Validating Ground-Water Flow and Transport Models
(Abstract), U.S. NRC and Sandia National Laboratories
C-2
-------
G13. "Lessons Learned from Hydrocoin and Intraval," U.S. NRC, September 20,1988.
G14. Model Assessment for Delineating Wellhead Protection Areas, Final Report, Paul
K.M. van der Heijde and Milovan S. Beljin, IGWMC, Indianapolis, Indiana,
July, 1987.
G15. "A New Annotation Database for Groundwater Models," Paul K.M. van der Heijde
and Stan A. Williams, IGWMC, Indianapolis, Indiana, February, 1987.
G16. "NRC Experiences in Hydrocoin: An International Project for Studying Ground-
Water Flow Modeling Strategies," (Abstract) Thomas J.. Nicholson, Timothy J.
McCartin, Paul A. Davis, and Walt Beyeler.
G17. "OASIS: A Graphical Hypertext Decision Support System for Ground Water
Contaminant Modeling," (Draft) Charles J. Newell and Philip B. Bedient,
December, 1988.
G18. "Price List of Publications and Services Available from IGWMC," IGWMC,
Indianapolis, Indiana, December, 1988.
G19. "Quality Assurance in Computer Simulations of Groundwater Contaminations,
Paul van der Heijde, IGWMC, Holcomb Research Institute.
G20. "Remedial Actions Under Variability of Hydraulic Conductivity," Aly I. El-Kadi,
IGWMC, Indianapolis, Indiana, February, 1987.
G21. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory: a description of the lab's history,
current activities, organization, and publications; produced by ORD in Ada,
Oklahoma; March, 1988.
G22. "The Role of the International Ground Water Center (IGWMC) in Groundwater
Modeling," Paul K.M. van der Heijde, IGWMC, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1987.
G23. Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments:
Ground-Water Models, EPA, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC, May, 1988.
G24. "Simulation of Biodegradation and Sorption Processes in Ground Water," P.
Srinivasan and James W. Mercer, Ground Water, July-August, 1988.
C-3
-------
G25. "Standards of Performance for Investigative Methods Used in Assessing
Groundwater Pollution Problems with Emphasis on the Use and Abuse of
Numerical Models/' presented at the Water Pollution Control Federation
Pre-Conference Workshop, James W. Mercer, GeoTrans, Inc., Herndon,
Virginia, October, 1988.
G26. Technical Assistance Directory, Groundwater Research, OEETD/ORD, March 27,
1987.
G27. 'Testing, Verification, and Validation of Two-dimensional Solute Transport
Models," Milovan S. Beljin and Paul K.M. van der Heijde, IGWMC,
Indianapolis, Indiana, December, 1987.
G28. U.S. EPA Ground-Water Modeling Policy Study Group: Report of Findings and
Discussions of Selected Ground-Water Modeling Issues; Paul K.M. van der
Heijde and Richard Park, International Ground-Water Modeling Center,
Holcomb Research Institute, Butler University; November, 1986.
G29. The Use of Models in Managing Ground-Water Protection Programs; Joseph F.
Keely, Ph.D., Robert S. Kerr ERL, U.S. EPA, Ada, OK; January. 1987.
Exposure Assessment Models
El. Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling; Mr. Robert Ambrose, Jr., U.S. EPA ERL,
Athens, GA
E2. "Draft CEAM Policy on Support and Distribution of New Models"
E3. "A Method for Testing Whether Model Predictions Fall Within a Prescribed Factor
of True Values, with an Application to Pesticide Leaching," Rudolph S.
Parrish and Charles N. Smith, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens,
Georgia.
E4. Report on Proceedings: Aspects of Model Validation for Predictive Exposure
Assessment, Risk Assessment Forum Colloquium, ORD, September 20,1988.
E5. "Technical Support to Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and EPA
Regional Offices for Multimedia Exposure Assessment Related to Remedial
Action, FY88," Robert B. Ambrose, Jr., November, 1988.
C-4
-------
E6. User's Guide for PCGEMS. the Personal Computer Version of the Graphical
Exposure Modeling System. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA; August, 1988.
Air Dispersion Models
Al. Environmental Research Brief: Description of UNAMAP (Version 6); D.Bruce
Turner and Lucille Bender, U.S. EPA ERL, Research Triangle Park, NC;
December, 1986.
A2. Evaluation and Assessment of UNAMAP. R. Ernest Baumann and Rita K. Dehart,
Battelle, Washington, DC, February, 1988.
A3. Federal Register; Environmental Protection Agency; 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52; "Air
Quality Models Guideline"; SeptemberX 9,1986.
A4. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised); U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC; July, 1986.
A5. Handbook for Preparing User's Guides for Air Quality Models: William Petersen,
John S. Irwin, D. Bruce Turner, Meteorology and Assessment Division,
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC; May, 1983.
A6. "The NAAQS Exposure Model (NEM) Applied to Ozone," (Draft) Roy A. Paul, Ted
Johnson, Anne Pope, and Alicia Ferdo, PEI Associates, Inc., Durham, North
Carolina, February, 1986.
A7. "Procedures for Conducting Air Pathway Analyses for Superfund Activities,
Volume n, Estimation of Baseline Air Emissions at Superfund Sites," U.S.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC, February, 1989.
A8. "Procedures for Conducting Air Pathway Analyses for Superfund Activities,
Volume in, Estimation of Air Emissions from Clean-up Activities at
Superfund Sites," U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, January, 1989.
A9. "Validation of the Simulation of Human Activity and Pollutant Exposure (SHAPE)
Model Using Paired Days from the Denver, CO, Carbon Monoxide Field
Study," Wayne Ott, Jacob Thomas, David Mage, and Lance Wallace, February,
1987.
C-5
-------
Surface Water Models
SI. "Development of a Prototype Expert Advisor for the Enhanced Stream Water
Quality Model QUAL2E," Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr., Linfield C. Brown, and
Wiktor Marek, September, 1986.
S2. "Dynamic Estuary Model Performance/' Robert B. Ambrose, Jr. and Stephen E.
Roesch, February, 1982.
S3. Proceedings of Stormwater and Water Quality Model Users Group Meeting (March
23-24,1987, Denver, CO); ed.by William James, University of Alabama, and
Thomas Barnwell, Jr., Center for Water Quality Modeling, U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA; August, 1987.
S4. Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments; Surface
Water Models. EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, July,
1987.
Drinking Water Models
Dl. "Feasibility of Air Stripping for Controlling Moderately Volatile Synthetic Organic
Chemicals," Michael D. Cummins, James J. Westrick, and US EPA Office of
Drinking Water.
D2. "Packed Column Air Stripping Cost Model," Michael D. Cummins and James J.
Westrick, June, 1988.
D3. "Packed Column Air Stripping Preliminary Design Procedure," Michael D.
Cummins and James J. Westrick, presented at 1986 Water Pollution Control
Federation Conference, October, 1986.
Hazardous Waste Engineering
HI. "Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste Sites Workshop," a workshop brochure, EPA,
Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio.
H2. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. EPA,
Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio,
September, 1987.
C-6
-------
H3. Completed Interview Guide from Albert J. Klee, WMDDRD/RREL on the D-SSYS
model.
H4. Handbook, Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites (Revised), EPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, October, 1985.
H5. "Hazardous Waste Management On the Occurrence of Transient Puffs in a Rotary
Kiln Incinerator Simulator," William P. Linak, James D. Kilgroe, Joseph A.
McSorley, Jost O.L. Wendt, and James E. Dunn.
H6. "Mechanisms Governing Transients from the Batch Incineration of Liquid Wastes
in Rotary Kilns," Jost O.L. Wendt and William P. Linak, June, 1988.
H7. Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites.
OERR/OSWER, April, 1985.
H8. "Project Summary: d-SSYS, A Computer Model for the Evaluation of Competing
Alternatives," Albert J. Klee, EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, August, 1988.
H9. (Proceedings) Seminars — Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design,
Construction and Closure Presentations, EPA, Center for Environmental
Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, June, 1988.
H10. "Waste Minimization Workshop, An Opportunity to Promote Waste Minimization
through Auditing and Process Analysis Procedures," a workshop brochure,
EPA, Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Hll. Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual, EPA, Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 1988.
Information Technology
II. "Advanced Computer Applications (ACA)", International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (RASA), Laxenburg, Austria; March, 1988.
12. "Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems",
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
C-7
-------
Appendix D
OSWER Models Inventory - Abbreviated
Background
The OSWER Models Inventory is a database containing information on models
identified by this study. The information is not focused on the technical aspects of the
model, but on usage and availability. The database contains models from each
modeling category: Ground Water, Exposure Assessment, Air Dispersion, Surface
Water, Hazardous Waste Engineering, and Drinking Water. The information in the
database was gathered from both the interviews and the documents recommended to
the project team.
Type of Information in the Database
The database contains a variety of information on each model, including:
• Name, including the formal name, acronyms, and aliases.
• Purpose, including the category, methods, and a text description.
• Computer environment, including type of hardware, software used, and
available documentation.
• Developer information, especially who developed the model, where it
was developed, and when it was completed or updated.
• Distributor data, specifically whether or not the model code is available,
and a source of distribution for the model and its documentation.
• EPA organizations in OSWER, ORD, or elsewhere which are known to
have either used the model or supported its development.
Description
The following lists of models were extracted from the OSWER Models database.
All of the model information came from documents in the Bibliography (Appendix
C). These documents can be a source of further information on these models.
Model Name, Full Name — uniquely identify the model.
Purpose — gives a short description of the model's function and application
Developer ~ describes who developed the model.
Affiliation — identifies the organization of the developer.
Distributor — gives a point-of-contact for the model when the software is
available for distribution.
Source ~ provides the name of an organization which has further model
information when the software is not available for distribution.
For Further Information
For further information on the OSWER Models Inventory, hardcopy or
database, contact Mary Lou Melley of the Information Management Staff, OPMT,
OSWER, 401 M St., SW, OS 110, Washington, DC, 20460, FTS 475-6760 ((202) 475-6760).
D-1
-------
Ground Water Models
1.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
2.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
3.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
4.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
5.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
6.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
7.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: AGU-1
: saturated flow
; K.R. Rushton, LM. Tomlinson
: Dept. of Civil Engineering University of Birmingham
: IGWMC
: AGU-10
»
: solute transport
: I. Javandel, L. Doughty, C.F. Tsang
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
:AQSIM
: saturated flow
: D.A. Blank
: Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd.
: IGWMC
:AQUIFEM
i
: saturated flow
:G.F. Finder, CLVoss
: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division
: IGWMC
: AQUIFEM-1
: saturated flow
: L.R. Towney, J.L. Wilson, A.S. Costa
: Lab. for Water Resources & Hydroynamics, MIT
: IGWMC
; AQUIFER
: saturated flow
: B. Sagar
; Anaytic and Computational Research, Inc.
: IGWMC
; AQUIFLOW
: saturated flow
: G.T. Yeh, CW. Francis
: Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory
; IGWMC
D-2
-------
8.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
9.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
10.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
11.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
12.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
13.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
14.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: ASCOT
: solute transport
; A.B. Gureghian
: Office of Crystalline Respository Development Battelle Memorial Ins
: IGWMC
; ASSP
: AQUIFER SIMULATION SUBROUTINES PACKAGE
: multiphase flow
: Giesel, W., Schmidt, G., Trippler, K.
: Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe
: IGWMC
:BACRACK
: fractured rock
: Strack, O. D. L.
; Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
: IGWMC
: BALANCE
: hydrochemical
; Parkhurst, D.L., Plummer, L.N., Thorstenson, D.C.
: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division
: IGWMC
; BASIC GWF
: saturated flow
: A. Verruijt
: IGWMC, Holcomb Research Institute
; IGWMC
: BEAVERSOFT
: solute transport
: J. Bear, A. Verruijt
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
; IGWMC
: BIDAT-HS2
: saturated flow
; P. Prudhomme, J.L. Henry, F. Biesel
: Laboratoire Central D'Hydraulique De France
; IGWMC
D-3
-------
15.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
16.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
17.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
18.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
19.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
20.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
21.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: BIO-ID
•
: solute transport
: P. Srinivasan, J.W. Mercer
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
; BURGEAP-1
: Burgeap 7600HYSO Package
: multiphase flow
: D'Orval, M. douet
: Burgeap
: IGWMC
; BURGEAP-2
; BURGEAP 7600HYSO (TRABICO MODEL)
: saturated flow
: M. Clouet, D'Orval
: Burgeap
: IGWMC
; BURGEAP-3
; BURGEAP 7600 HYSO (TRABISA MODEL)
: saturated flow
: M. Clouet, D'Orval
; Burgeap
: IGWMC
:CADIL
: solute transport
: C.J. Emerson, B. Thomas, R.J. Luxmoore
: Computer Sciences Oak Ridge National Lab.
: IGWMC
iCATTI
: solute transport
; J.P. Sauty, W. Kinzelbach
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
iCCASM
: Cape Cod Aquifer System
: multiphase flow
: Guswa, J. H., LeBlanc, D. R.
: U.S. Geological Survey
: IGWMC
Models
D-4
-------
22.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
:CFEST
: heat transport
: S.K. Gupta, C.R. Cole, C.T. Kincaid, A.M. Monti
; Water & Land Resources Division, Battelle Pacific NW Lab
: IGWMC
23.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
iCFTTIM
: solute transport
: M.Th. van Genuchten
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
24.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
25.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: CHAINT
; fractured rock
: Kline, N. W., England, R. L., Boca, R. C.
: Rockwell International, Rockwell Hanford Operations
: IGWMC
:CHARGR
: multiphase flow
: Pritchett, J. W.
: Systems, Science and Software
: IGWMC
26.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: CHEMRANK
: solute transport
: D.L. Nofziger, P.S.C. Rao, A.G. Hornsby
: Institute of Food & Agric. Sciences University of Florida
: IGWMC
27.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
28.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: COLUMN2
: solute transport
: O.D. Nielsen, P. Bo, L. Carlsen
: Chemistry Dept. Riso National Laboratory
IGWMC
CONS2-1D
saturated flow
C.S. Desai
Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
IGWMC
D-5
-------
29.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
30.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
31.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
32.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
33.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
34.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
35.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: CONSOL-1
: saturated flow
: K. Ueshita, K. Sato
Dept. of Geotechnical Eng. Nagoya University
IGWMC
: CONSP(L/NL)-2D
: saturated flow
: C.S. Desai
: Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
: IGWMC
:CRACK
: fractured rock
: Sudicky, E. A.
: Institute for Groundwater Research, Univ. of Waterloo
: IGWMC
:CRREL
: saturated flow
: CJ. Daly
: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research & Eng. Lab
: IGWMC
iCXTFIT
• .
: solute transport
: J.C. Parker, M.Th. van Genuchten
: Dept. of Agronomy Virginia Polytechn. Inst. and State Univ.
: IGWMC
:DELPET
: DELPET-DISCRETE KERNEL GENERATOR
: saturated flow
: HJ. Morel-Seytoux, CJ. Daly, G. Peters
: Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University
: IGWMC
: DELTA
: saturated flow
: H.J. Morel-Seytoux, C. Rodriquez, C. Daly, T. Illangasekare, Peters
: Colorado State University Engineering Research Center
: IGWMC
D-6
-------
36.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
37.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
38.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
39.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
40.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
41.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
42.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: DELTIS
: Deltis-Stream Aquifer Discrete Kernel Generator
: saturated flow
: H.J. Morel-Seytoux, T. Illangasekare
: Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University
: IGWMC
DEWATER
saturated flow
B. Sagar
Analytic and Computational Research, Inc.
IGWMC
DFT/C-1D
: saturated flow
C.S. Desai
Dept. of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
IGWMC
: DISIFLAG
: saturated flow
: O. Berney
: Land & Water Dev. Div. Food & Agriculture Organization
: IGWMC
; DISPEQ
: solute transport
: H. Fluhler, W.A. Jury
Swiss Federal Inst. of Research
: IGWMC
: DOSTOMAN
: solute transport
: King, Wilhite, Root Jr., Fauth, Routt, Emslie, Beckmeyer
: E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Corp. Savannah River Lab.
; IGWMC
; DRAINMOD
: estimate position of water table
: W.R. Skaggs
: Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Eng. North Carolina State Univ
: IGWMC
D-7
-------
43.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
44.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
45.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
46.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
47.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
48.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
49.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
:DSTRAM
: solute transport
: P.S. Huyakorn
; HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
: IGWMC
: ECPL 704-F3-RO-011
: saturated flow
; F.T. Tracy
: US. Army Engineer Waterways Automatic Data Processing Division
: IGWMC
:ECPL723-G2-L2440
: saturated flow
: R.L. Cooley, J. Peters
: Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
: IGWMC
: EP21-GWTHERM
: heat transport
: A.K. Runchal, J. Treger, G. Segal
: Dames and Moore Advanced Technology Group
: IGWMC
: EQ3NR/6
: hydrochemical
: Wolary, T. J.
: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
: IGWMC
: EQUILIB
: hydrochemical
: Morrey, J. R., Shannon, D. W.
: Electric Power Research Institute
: IGWMC
:FE3DGW
: saturated flow
; S.K. Gupta, C.R. Cole, F.W. Bond
: Water & Land Resources Division Battelle Pacific NW Lab.
: IGWMC
D-8
-------
50.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
51.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
52.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
53.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
54.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
55.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
56.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
: FEATSMF
: variably saturated flow
J.L. Neiber
: Dept. of Agriculture Engineering, Cornell University
:FEM301
: fractured rock
: Kiraly, L.
; National Cooperative for Storage of Radioactive Waste-NAGRA
: IGWMC
;FEMA
: solute transport
; G.T. Yeh, D.D. Huff
: Environmental Sci. Div. Oak Ridge National Lab.
: IGWMC
; FEMSAT
: saturated flow
; P.J.T. van Bakel
; Institute for Land and Water Management Research
; IGWMC
;FEMTRAN
: solute transport
: M.J. Martinez
: Fluid Mechanics & Heat Transfer Div. Sandia National lab.
: IGWMC
: FEMWASTE
: solute transport
: G.T. Yeh, D.S. Ward
: Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Lab
: IGWMC
: FEMWATER
: variably saturated flow
: G.T. Yeh, D.S. Ward
: Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Lab
: IGWMC
D-9
-------
57.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
58.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
59.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
60.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
61.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
62.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
63.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
; FESOSPF
: FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION OF STEADY-STATE POTENTIAL FLOW PROBLEMS
: saturated flow
: R.L. Cooley, J. Peters
: Hydrologic Engineering Center U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
: IGWMC
:FEWA
: saturated flow
; G.T. Yeh, D.D. Huff
: Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Lab
: IGWMC
: FIELD-2D
: saturated flow
: C.S. Desai
: Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
; IGWMC .
: FLAMINGO
: solute transport
: P.S. Huyakorn
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
;FLO
: variably saturated flow
: A. Vanderberg
: National Hydrology Research Institute Inland Waters Directorate
: IGWMC
:FLOP
: saturated flow
: C. van den Akker
: National Institute for Water Supply
: IGWMC
:FLOTRA
: heat transport
Sagar, B.
: Analytic & Computational Research, Inc.
: IGWMC
D-10
-------
64.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
65.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
66.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
67.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
68.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation.
Source
69.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
70.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
; FLOWVEC
; variably saturated flow
: R-L U, K.G. Eggert, K. Zachmann
; Simmons, Li & Associates, Inc.
: IGWMC
: FLUMP
: variably saturated flow
: T.N. Narasirnhan, S.P. Neuman
; Earth Sciences Division Lawerence Berkeley Laboratory Univ. Cailif.
: IGWMC
: FRACFLOW
: fractured rock
: Sagar, B.
: Analytic & Computational Research, Inc.
: IGWMC
: FRACPORT
: fractured rock
: Deangelis, D.L., Yeh, G.T., Huff, D.D.
: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
: IGWMC
FRACSL
fractured rock
Miller, J. D.
Idaho National Engineering Lab.
IGWMC
: FRACSOL
: fractured rock
: Pickens, J. F.
: INTERA Technologies, Inc.
: IGWMC
iFRACT
: fractured rock
: Pickens, J. F.
: INTERA Technologies, Inc.
: INTERA Technologies, Inc.
D-11
-------
71.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
72.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
73.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
74.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
75.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
76.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
77.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
;FRACTEST
i
: fractured rock
; Karasaki, K.
: Lawrence Berkeley Lab., Univ. of California
: IGWMC
; FREESURF-1
i
: saturated flow
; S.P. Neuman, P.A. Witherspoon
: Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona
: IGWMC
: FRONT
i
: saturated flow
: C van den Akker
: National Institute for Water Supply
; IGWMC
FRONTTRACK
solute transport
S.P. Garabedian, L.F. Konikow
Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey
IGWMC
iGAFETTA
: heat transport
: G.F. Finder, P.E. Kinnmark, C.I. Voss
: Dept. of Civil Engineering
: IGWMC
: GASOLINE
: multiphase flow
: Baehr, A. L.
: U.S.G.S. Water Resources Div., National Center
: IGWMC
:GEOCHEM
: hydrochemical
: Sposito, G., Mattigod, S. V.
: Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences
: IGWMC
D-12
-------
78.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
79.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
80.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
81.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
82.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
83.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
84.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: GEOFLOW
: solute transport
: S. Haji-Djafari, T.C. Wells
: D'Appolonia Waste Mngmt. Services, Inc.
: IGWMC
:GEOTHER
: multiphase flow
: Faust, C. R., Mercer, J. W.
: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle
: IGWMC
:GETOUT
: solute transport
: Burkholder, Cloninger, Dernier, Jansen, Liddell, Washburn
: Nat'l Energy Software Center Argonne Natl. Laboratory
: IGWMC
:GGCP
: Colder Groundwater Computer Package
: solute transport
: I. Miller, J. Marlon-Lambert
: Colder Associates
: IGWMC
:GM5
: saturated flow
: J.A. Liggett
: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Cornell University
: IGWMC
: GREASE-2
: heat transport
: Huyakorn, P.S.
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
GROMAGE
saturated flow
B.H. Gilding, J.W. Wesseling
Delft Hydraulics Lab
IGWMC
D-13
-------
85.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
86.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
87.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
88.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
89.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
90.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
91.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
iGROMULA
»
*
: saturated flow
: A.P.M. Broks, D. Dijkstra, J.W. Wesseling
: Delft Hydraulics Lab
; IGWMC
: GROWKWA
: solute transport
: J.W. Wesseling
: Delft Hydraulics Lab.
: IGWMC
: GRWATER
: variably saturated flow
: D.K. Sunada
: Dept. of Civil Eng. Colorado State University
: IGWMC
:GS2
: solute transport
: L.A. Davis, G. Segol
: Water, Waste and Land, Inc.
: IGWMC
;GS3
i
*
: solute transport
: L.A. Davis, G. Segol
; Water, Waste, and Land, Inc.
: IGWMC
:GW1
: calculation of heads for dewatering
: B. Boehm
: Abteilung Wasserwirtschaft Rheinbraun
: IGWMC
; GWEFLOW
: saturated flow
: P.K.M. van der Heijde
: Int'l Ground Water Modeling Ctr. Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
D-14
-------
92.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
93.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
94.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
95.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
96.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
97.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
98.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
; GWMD-3
: GWMD3-APPROPRIATION MODEL
: saturated flow
: D.G. Jorgensen, H. Grubb, C.H. Bakerjr., G.E. Hilmes, E.D. Jenkins
: U.S. Geological Survey Water Research Dept. University of Kansas
: IGWMC
: GWPATH
: saturated flow
: J.M. Shafer
: Illinois State Water Survey Ground Water Section
: IGWMC
: GWSIM
: saturated flow
: T.R. Knowles
: Texas Department of Water Resources
: IGWMC
: GWSIM-2
: solute transport
: T.R. Knoles
: Texas Dept. of Water Res.
: IGWMC
: GWUSER
: saturated flow
: C.R. Kolterman
: Water Resources Center Desert Research Inst. Univ. of Nevada System
: IGWMC
HOTWTR
heat transport
J.E. Read
U.S. Geological Survey
IGWMC
: HSSWDS
: variably saturated flow
: E.R. Perrier, A.C. Gibson
; Solid & Hazardous Waste Research Div. Municipal Env. Research Lab.
: IGWMC
D-15
-------
99.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
100.
Model Name
Full Name
MODEL
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
101.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
102.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
103.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
104.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
105.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
;HST3D
: heat transport
; K.L. Kipp
: U.S. Geological Survey and IGWMC
; IGWMC
; IASIPMAM
: ITERNATIVE ALGOITHM SOLVING INVERSE PROBLEM MULTICELL AQUIFER
: saturated flow
: Y. Bachmat, A. Dax
: Hydrological Service of Israel
: IGWMC
:IDPNGM
: I.D.P.N.G.M.
: saturated flow
: V. Guvanasen
: Dept. of Civil & System Engineer. James Cook Univ. North Queenlands
: IGWMC
:INFGR
: variably saturated flow
: P.M. Craig, E.G. Davis
Environmental Science Division Oak Ridge Nat'l Laboratory
: IGWMC
: INFIL
: variably saturated flow
: M. Vauclin
: Institute De Mecanique De Grenoble
; IGWMC
: INFIL
: variably saturated flow
: A.I. El-Kadi
: IGWMC, Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: INTERFACE
i
: multiphase flow
: Page, R. H.
: Water Resources Program, Princeton University
: IGWMC
D-16
-------
106.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
107.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
108.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
109.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
110.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
111.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
112.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: INVERS
: saturated flow
: W.I.M. Elderhorst
: Institute for Applied Geosciences
: IGWMC
: IONMIG
: solute transport
: A.J. Russon
: Fluid Mechanics & Heat Transfer Division Sandia National Lab.
: IGWMC
: ISL-50
: solute transport
: R.D. Schmidt
: U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Mines
: IGWMC
: ISOQUAD
; saturated flow
: G.F. Pinder, E.O. Frind
; Department of Civil Engineering Princeton University
: IGWMC
: ISOQUAD-2
: solute transport
: G.F. Pinder
: Dept. of Civil Eng. Princeton University
: IGWMC
:KRGW
i
: saturated flow
: H.N. Tyson
: Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations
: IGWMC
LAFTID
saturated flow
I. Herrera, J.P. Hennart, R. Yates
Intituto De Geofisica Ciudad Universitaria
IGWMC
D-17
-------
113.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
.Source
114.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
115.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
116.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
117.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
118.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
119.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
iLANDFIL
i
: variably saturated flow
: G.P. Korfiatis
: Civil and Environmental Engineering Rutgers University
; IGWMC
: LAS
: LEAKY AQUIFER SIMULATION
: saturated flow
: T. Maddock
: Water Resources Dev. & Mgt. Svc. Land & Water Dev.Org. Food & Agric
: IGWMC
MAGNUM-2D
heat transport
: England, R.L., Mine, M.W., Ebblad, K.J., Bace, R.G.
: Rockwell Hanford Operations
; IGWMC
:MAQWF
: saturated flow
; D.N. Contractor, S.M.A. El Didy, A.S. Ansary
: Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
: IGWMC
; MAQWQ
: solute transport
: D.N. Contractor, S.M.A. El Didy, A.S. Ansary
; Dept. of Civil Sc Mechanical Engineering University of Arizona
: IGWMC
MARIAH
heat transport
D.K. Gartling
Sandia Nat'l Labs
IGWMC
:MATTUM
: heat transport
: Yeh, G. T. & Luxmoore, R. J.
: Environmental Sci. Div., Oak Ridge National Lab
: IGWMC
D-18
-------
120.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
121.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
122.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
123.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
124.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
125.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
126.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: MINEQL2
»
; hydrochemical
: Westall, J. C, Zachary, J. L., Morel, F. M. M.
: Dept. of Civil Engineering, Mass. Institute of Technology
: IGWMC
;MMT-1D
: heat transport
; F.E. Kaszeta, C.S. Simmons, C.R. Cole
; Battelle Pacific NW Labs
: IGWMC
MMT-DPRW
heat transport
S.W. Ahistrom, H.P. Foote, R.J. Serne
Battelle Pacific NW Labs
IGWMC
: MODFLOW
: saturated flow
: M.G. McDonald, A.W. Harbaugh
; Ground Water Branch, WRD U.S. Geological Survey
; IGWMC
: MOTGRO
: multiphase flow
: Van Der Veer, P.
: Rijkswaterstaat, Data Processing Division
: IGWMC
: MOTIF
: fractured rock
: Guvanasen, V.
: AECL Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment
: IGWMC
iMULKOM
; multiphase flow
: Pruess, K.
: Lawrence Berkeley Lab
; IGWMC
D-19
-------
127.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
128.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
129.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
130.
Model Najne
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
131.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
132.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
133.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
iMUSHRM
: multiphase flow
; Pritchett, J. W.
: Systems, Science and Software
: IGWMC
:MUST
: variably saturated flow
: P.J.M. Delaat
: International Inst. for Hydraulic and Environm. Engineering
iIGWMC
iNETFLOW
: fractured rock
; Pahwa, S. B., Rama Rao, B. S.
; Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle
: IGWMC
iNTTROSIM
: solute transport
: P.S.C. Rao
: Soil Science Dept. University of Florida
: IGWMC
iNLRGFM
: NON-LINEAR REGRESSION GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
: saturated flow
: R.L. Cooley, R.L. Naff
: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division
; IGWMC
: NMFD-3D
N.M.F.D.3D
: saturated flow
D.R. Posson, G.A. Hearne, J.V. Tracy, P.F. Frenzel
; U.S. Geological Survey
: IGWMC
: NMODEL
: solute transport
: H.M. Selim, J.M. Davidson
: Louisana Agricultural Experiment Station Louisana State University
; IGWMC
D-20
-------
134.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
135.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source •
136.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
137.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
138!
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
139.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
140.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: ONE STEP
: variably saturated flow
: J.B. Kool, J.C. Parker, M.Th. van Genuchten
: 245 Smyth hall Va. Polytechnic Inst.
: IGWMC
:ONE-D
: solute transport
: M.Th. van Genuchten, W.J. Alves
; IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: PATHS
: solute transport
: R.W. Nelson
: Battelle Pacific NW Labs
: IGWMC
:PE
: PARAMETER ESTIMATION PROGRAM
: saturated flow
: J.V. Tracy
: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Dept. National Center
: IGWMC
:PEP
: saturated flow
: D.E. Evenson
: CDM Water Resources Engineers
: IGWMC
: PHREEQE
: hydrochemical
: Parkhurst, D. L., Thorstenson, D. C, Plummer, L. N.
: U.S. Geological Survey, Wter Resources Division
; IGWMC
: PISTON
: solute transport
: H. Fluhler, W.A. Jury
; Swiss Federal Inst. of Research
: IGWMC
D-21
-------
141.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
142.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
143.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
144.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
145.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
146.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
147.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: PLASM
: saturated flow
: T.A. Prickett, CG. Lonnquist
: Consulting Water Resource Engineers
: IGWMC
:PUN
: saturated flow
: A. Levassor
: Centre D'lnformatique Geologique Ecol Des Mines De Paris
: IGWMC
; PLUME-2D
: solute transport
: P.K.M. van der Heijde
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
; PORFLOW
: heat transport
: Kline, N. W., Runchal, A. K., Baca, R. G.
: Energy Systems Group, Rockwell International
; IGWMC
; PORFLOW H
: solute transport
: A.K. Runchal
: Analytic & Computational Research, Inc.
: IGWMC
iPORFREEZE
»
: heat transport
: Runchal, A. K.
: Analytic & Computational Research, Inc.
: IGWMC
: PROTOCOL
: hydrochemical
; Pickrell, G., Jackson, D. D.
; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
: IGWMC
D-22
-------
148.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
149.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
150.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
151.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
152.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
153.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
154.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
:PT
: heat transport
: Bodvarsson, A. S.
: Lawrence Berkeley Lab., University of California
: IGWMC
:PT/CCC
: heat transport
: M.J. Lippman, T.N. Naraimhan, D.C. Mangold, G.S. Bodvarsson
: Nat'l Energy Software Center Argonne Nat'l Lab.
: IGWMC
:PUMPTEST
: saturated flow
: M.S. Beljin
: IGWMC, Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: QTDMA
: Quasi Three-Dimensional Multi-Aquifer Model
: saturated flow
: J.B. Weeks
: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division
: IGWMC
RADFLOW
saturated flow
K.S. Rathod, K.R. Rushton
Int'l Ground Water Modeling Center Holcomb Research Institute
IGWMC
: RANDOM WALK
; solute transport
: T.A. Prickett, T.G. Naymik, C.G. Lonnquist
: 111. State Water Survey
: IGWMC
: REDEQL-UMD
: hydrochemical
: Harriss, D.K., Ingle, S.E., Taylor, D.K., Magnuson, V.R.
: Dept. of Chemistry, University of Minnesota
: IGWMC
D-23
-------
155.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
156.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
157.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
158.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
159.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
160.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
161.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: REDEQL.EPA
: hydrochemical
: Ingle, S.E., Schuldt, M.D., Schults, D.W.
: Hatfield Marine Sci. Cntr., U.S. EPA
: IGWMC
:RESTOR
: solute transport
; J.W. Warner
: Civil Engineering Dept. Colorado State Univ.
: IGWMC
:RTTZ
: solute transport
: D.L. Nofziger, J.R. Williams. T.E. Short
; Robert S. Karr Environmental Research Lab U.S. EPA
: IGWMC
: ROCMAS-H
: fractured rock
: Noorishad, J., Witherspoon, P. A.
: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Univ. of California
: IGWMC
: ROCMAS-HM
: fractured rock
: Noorishad, J., Ayatollahi, M. S., Witherspoon, P. A.
: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Univ. of California
; IGWMC
: ROCMAS-HS
i
: fractured rock
: Noorishad, J., Mcnran, M.
; Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Univ. of California
: IGWMC
: ROCMAS-HW
: saturated flow
; J. Noorishad, M.S. Ayatollahi, P.A. Witherspoon
: Earth Sciences Division Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Univ. of California
: IGWMC
D-24
-------
162.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
163.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
164.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
165.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
166.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
167.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
168.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: ROCMAS-THM
: fractured rock
: Noorishad, J., Witherspoon, P. A.
: Lawrence Berkeley Lab., Univ. of California
: IGWMC
:SANGRE
: heat transport
: Anderson, CA.
: Los Alamos Nat'l. Lab.
: IGWMC
; SATRA-CHEM
: solute transport
: P.M. Lewis, C.I. Voss, J. Rubin
: U.S. Geological Survey National Center
: IGWMC
: SATURN-2
: solute transport
: P. Huyakom
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
: SBIR
; solute transport
: R.M. Li
: Simous, Li & Assoc., Inc.
: IGWMC
: SCHAFF
: heat transport
: M.L. Sorey, M.J. Lippman
: Nat'l Energy Software Center Argonne Nat'l Lab
: IGWMC
: SEAWTR
: multiphase flow
: Allayla, R. I.
: Civil Eng. Dept, Colorado State Univ.
: IGWMC
D-25
-------
169.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
170.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
171.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
172.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
173.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
174.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
175.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
; SEEP(VM)-3D
saturated flow
C.S. Desai
: Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
:IGWMC
: SEEP2(VM)-2D
: saturated flow
: C.S. Desai
: Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
iIGWMC
;SEEPV
: variably saturated flow
: L.A. Davis
: Water, Waste and Land, Inc.
: IGWMC
:SEFTRAN
: heat transport
: Huyakorn, P.S.
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
; SESOIL
: solute transport
: M. Bonazountas, J.M. Wagner
: Office of Toxic Substances U.S. EPA
: IGWMC
:SGMP
: S.G.M.P.
: saturated flow
: J. Boonstra
: Inter'l Inst. for Land Reclamation and Improvement
: IGWMC
: SHAFT-79
: heat transport
: K. Pruess, R.C. Schroeder
: Nat'l Energy Software Center Argonne Nat'l Lab
: IGWMC
D-26
-------
176.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
177.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
178.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
179.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
180.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
181.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
182.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: SHALT
: heat transport
: J.F. Pickens, G.E. Grisak
: INTERA Technologies, Inc.
: IGWMC
: SICK-100
: saturated flow
: G. Schmid
; Ruhr-University Bochum Institute F. Konst. Ingenieubau AGIV
: IGWMC
;SOIL
: variably saturated flow
: A.I. El-Kadi
: Int'l Ground Water Modeling Center Holcomb Research Institute
; IGWMC
; SOILMOP
: variably saturated flow
: D.L. Ross, HJ. Morel-Seytoux
; Dept. of Civil Eng. Colorado State University
: IGWMC
: SOLMNEQ
: hydrochemical
: Kharaka, Y. K., Barnes, I.
U.S. Geological Survey, MS/427
: IGWMC
: SOLMNQ
: hydrochemical
: Goodwin, B. W., Munday, M.
: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Whiteshell Nuc. Res. Establishment
: IGWMC
: SOLUTE
: solute transport
: M.S. Beljin
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
D-27.
-------
183.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
184.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
185.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
186.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
187.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
188.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
189.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
;SOMOF
: variably saturated flow
: J.W. Wesseling
: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory
: IGWMC
SOTRAN
solute transport
I.L. Nwaogazie
I.L. Nwaogazie Dept. of Civil Eng. Univ. of Port Harcourt
IGWMC
: SPLASHWATR
: heat transport
: Milly, P.C.D.
: Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, Dept. of Civil Eng.
: IGWMC
:ST-2D
; saturated flow
; A.I. El-Kadi
; Int'l Ground Water Modeling Ctr. Holcomb Research Inst. Butler Univ
: IGWMC
STAFAN-2
fractured rock
Huyakorn, P.S.
Office of Nuclear Waste Isoliation, Battelle
IGWMC
: STAFF-2D
: fractured rock
: Huyakorn, P. S.
: HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
: IGWMC
iSTFLO
: saturated flow
: C.R. Faust, T. Chan, B5. Ramada, B.M. Thompson
: Performance Assest. Dept.of Nucl. Water Isolation Battelle Prj. Mgt
: IGWMC
D-28
-------
190.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
191.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
192.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
193.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
194.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
195.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
196.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
; STRESEEP-2D
: saturated flow
: C.S. Desai
: Department of Civil Engineering University of Arizona
; IGWMC
: SUGARWAT
: fractured rock
: Holditch, S. A., and Associates
: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology Center
: IGWMC
:SUTRA
: heat transport
; Voss, C. I.
: U.S. Geological Survey
: IGWMC
: SWANFLOW
: multiphase flow
: Faust, C. R., Rumbaugh, J. D.
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
; SWATRE
: variably saturated flow
: R.A. Feddes
; Inst. for Land and Water Management Research
; IGWMC
: SWENT
: heat transport
: INTERA, Inc.
: INTERA Technologies, Inc.
: IGWMC
SWIFT
heat transport
Dillion, R.T., Cranwell, R.M., Lantz, R. B., Pahwa, S.B., Reeves M.
Argonne National Lab.
IGWMC
D-29
-------
197.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
198.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
199.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
200.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
201.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
202.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
203.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
; SWIFT
: multiphase flow
Verruijt, A., Can, J. B. S.
: Technical University of Delft, Department of Civil Engineering
: IGWMC
: SWIGS-2D
: multiphase flow
: Contractor, D. N.
: Water and Energy Research Inst. of the Western Pacific, U. of Guam
: IGWMC
:SWIM
: multiphase flow
: Sada Costa, A. A. G., Wilson, J. L.
: Lab. for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, MIT
; IGWMC
: SWIPR
: solute transport
: INTERA Environmental Consult., Inc.
: U.S. Geological Survey Denver Federal Center
: IGWMC
: SWSOR
»
: multiphase flow
: Mercer, J. W., Faust, C R.
: GeoTrans, Inc.
: IGWMC
SYLENS
saturated flow
H.M. Haitjema, O.D.L. Strack
School of Public & Environmental Affairs Indiana University
IGWMC
: TERZAGI
: saturated flow
: T.R. Narasimhan
: National Energy Software Center (NESC), Argonne National Laboratory
: IGWMC
D-30
-------
204.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
205.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
206.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
207.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
208.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
209.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
210.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
:TETRA
: saturated flow
: L.A. Abriola, G.F. Finder
: Int'l Ground Water Modeling Center Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: TEXASHEAT
: heat transport
: Grubaugh, E. K., Reddell, D. L.
Texas Water Res. Inst, Texas A&M Univ.
IGWMC
iTGUESS
: saturated flow
: K.R. Bradbury, E.R. Rothschild
; Int'l Ground Water Modeling Center Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: THCVFIT
: saturated flow
: P.K.M. van der Heijde
; Int'l Ground Water Modeling Center Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: THWELLS
: saturated flow
: P.K.M. van der Heijde
: IGWMC, Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
:TIMLAG
: saturated flow
: D.B. Thompson
: IGWMC, Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: TOFEM-N
: saturated flow
: T.N. Olsthoorn
: Nansenlael W.
: IGWMC
D-31
-------
211.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
212.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
213.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
214.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
215.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
216.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
217.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: TOUGH
t
: fractured rock
: Pruess, K., Tsang, Y. W., Wang, J. S. Y.
: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California
: IGWMC
; TRACR-3D
: fractured rock
; Travis, B. J.
: Los Alamos National Laboratory
; IGWMC
: TRAFRAP-WT
: fractured rock
: Huyakorn, P. S., White, H. O., Wadsworth, T. D.
: Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
TRANQL
; solute transport
; G.A. Cederberg, R.L. Street, J.O. Leckie
: Los Alamos National Lab.
; IGWMC
: TRANS
: heat transport
: W.R. Walker, J.D. Sabey
: Water Resources Research Ctr. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
: IGWMC
TRIGAT-HSI
saturated flow
P. Prudhomme, J.L. Henry, F. Biesel
Laboratoire Central D'Hydraulic De France
IGWMC
;TRIPM
: solute transport
: A.B. Gureghian
: ONWI, Battelle Memorial Institute
: IGWMC
D-32
-------
218.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
219.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
220.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
221.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
222.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
223.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
224.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
: TRUCHN/ZONE
: fractured rock
: Resmuson, A., Neretnieks, I.
: Royal Institute of Technology
: IGWMC
; TRUMP
: fractured rock
: Edwards, A.L., Rasmuson, A., Neretnieks, I., Narasimhan, T.N.
: Royal Inst. of Technology
: IGWMC
TRUST
: variably saturated flow
T.N. Narasimhan
: Water and Land Resources Division Battelle Pacific NW Lab.
: IGWMC
: TSSLEAK
: saturated flow
: P.M. Cobb, C.D. Mcelwee, M.A. Butt
: Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas
: IGWMC
: TSSLEAK
: saturated flow
: P.K.M. van der Heijde
; IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
: UNSAT-1
; variably saturated flow
: M. Th. van Genuchten
: U.S. Salinity Lab U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
; IGWMC
: UNSAT-1D
: variably saturated flow
: S.K. Gupta, C.S. Simmons
: Battelle Pacific NW Labs
: IGWMC
D-33
-------
225.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
226.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
227.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
228.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
229.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
230.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
231.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
; UNSAT-2
i
: variably saturated flow
: S.P. Neuman
: Dept. of Hydrology and Water Resources Univ. of Arizona
: IGWMC
: UNSAT-H
: variably saturated flow
: MJ. Payer, G.W. Gee
: Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab
: IGWMC
: USGS-2D-FLOW
: saturated flow
: P.C. Trescott, G J. Finder, S.P. Larson
: VS. Geological Survey Branch of Groundwater
: IGWMC
: USGS-2D-TRANSPORT/MOC
: solute transport
: L.F. Konilow, J.D. Bredehoeft
: U.S. Geological Survey
: IGWMC
: USGS-3D-FLOW
i
: saturated flow
: P.C Trescott, S.P. Larson
: US. Geological Survey Branch of Groundwater
: IGWMC
: UWIS-2D-TRANSPORT
: heat transport
: C.B. Andrews
: Woodward-Clyde Cnslt.
: IGWMC
:VADOSE
»
: heat transport
: Sagar, B.
; Analytic & Computational Research, Inc.
: IGWMC
D-34
-------
232.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
233.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
234.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
235.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
236.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
237.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
238.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: VAM-2D
: solute transport
: P.S. Huyakorn
: HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
: IGWMC
: VAM-3D
: solute transport
: P.S. Huyakorn
: HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
: IGWMC
: VARQ
; saturated flow
: M.A. Butt, C.D. McElwee
: Int'l Ground Water Modeling Center Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
:VDM
: VARIABLE DENSITY MODEL
: saturated flow
: L.K. Kuiper
: U.S. Geological Survey
: IGWMC
: VS-2D
: variably saturated flow
: E.G. Lappala, R.W. Healy, E.P. Weeks
: U.S. Geological Survey Denver Federal Center
: IGWMC
VTT
: saturated flow
: A.E. Reisenaurer, C.R. Cole
: Water & Land Resources Division Battelle Pacific NW Lab.
: IGWMC
: VTTSS-2
: saturated flow
: A.E. Reisenauer, C.R. Cole
: Water & Land Resources Division Battelle Pacific NW Lab.
; IGWMC
0-35
-------
239.
Model Name
Full Name
Putpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
240.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
241.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
242.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
243.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
244.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
245.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Source
: VTTSS-3
: saturated flow
; A.E. Reisenauer, C.R. Cole
Water & Land Resources Division Battelle Pacific NW Lab.
: IGWMC
: WALTON-35
: solute transport
: W.C. Walton
: IGWMC Holcomb Research Institute
: IGWMC
; WASTE
: solute transport
: B. Ross, CM. Koplik
: Analytical Sciences Corp. Energy & Environment Div.
; IGWMC
: WATEQ-2
: hydrochemical
; Ball, J. W., Jenne, E. A., Nordstrom, D. K.
; U.S. Geological Survey
: IGWMC
: WATEQ-3
>
: hydrochemical
: Ball, J. W., Jenne, E. A., Cantrell, M. W.
: US. Geological Survey, MS/21
: IGWMC
: WATEQF
i
: hydrochemical
: Plummer, L. M., Jones, B. F., Truesdell, A. H.
: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division
: IGWMC
: WATERFLO
: variably saturated flow
: D.L. Nofziger
: Institute of Food & Agriculture Sciences University of Florida
: IGWMC
D-36
-------
Exposure Assessment Models
1.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
2.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
3.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
4.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
5.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
6.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
7.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
: DYNHYD-4
: Dynamic Estuary Model
: flow, transport, and degradation in rivers and estuaries
; Feigner, K.D., Harris, H.S.
: Federal Water Quality Administration, U.S. Dept. of Interior
: David Disney, CEAM
:DYNTOX
: Dynamic Toxicity Model
: predict concentrations of contaminants in surface waters
: Limno-Tech
: David Disney, CEAM
:EXAMS-2
: Exposure Analysis Modeling System, Version 2.92
: predict concentrations of contaminants in surface water
: Burns, L.A., Cline, D.M., Lassiter, R.R.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
:FGETS
: Food and Gill Exchange of Toxic Substances
: predict bioaccumulation of nonpolar organic pollutants in fish
David Disney, CEAM
:GEMS
: Graphical Exposure Modeling System
: air, soil, and groundwater analysis
: ERL-Athens, GA
: Russell Kinerson, EPA OTS, (202) 382-3928
:HSPF
: Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN
: predict contaminant concentrations in runoff, surface, ground water
• U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
: MINTEQA-2
: Equilibrium Metal Speciation Model
: predict concentrations of contaminants in surface and ground waters
: Felmy, A.R., Girvin, D.C., and Jenne, E.A.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
D-37
-------
8.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
9.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
10.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
11.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
12.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
13.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
:PRZM
: Pesticide Root Zone Model
: predict concentrations of contaminants in ground waters
: Carsel, R.F., Smith, C.N., Mulkey, L.A., Dean, J.D., Jowise, P.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
: SARAH-2
: Surface Water Assessment Model
: predict concentrations of contaminants in surface waters
: Ambrose, R.B. and Vandergrift, S.B.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
: SHAPE
: Simulation of Human Activity and Pollutant Exposure
: model distribution of population exposures to carbon monoxide
: Ott, Wayne
: U.S. EPA, ORD
: Ott, Wayne, U.S. EPA, ORD
:SWMM-4
: Storm Water Management Model
: nonpoint source runoff from urban areas
: Huber, W.C., Heaney, J.P., Nix, S.J., Dickinson, R.E., Polmann, D.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Cincinnati, OH
: Tom Barnwell, U.S. EPA, ERL, Athens, GA
: WASP-4
: Water Analysis Simulation Programs
: predict concentrations of contaminants in surface waters
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
:WQA
: Water Quality Assessment
: predict cncntrtions of cntmnts in runoff, surface, and ground water
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
: David Disney, CEAM
D-38
-------
Air Dispersion Models
1.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
2.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
3.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
4.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
5.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
6.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
7.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
: APRAC-3
: computes hourly average carbon monoxide concentrations
: Simmon P.B., Patterson, R.M., Ludwig, F.L., Jones, L.B.
:SRI
: AREAL, NTIS
:BLP
: Buoyant Line and Point Source Dispersion Model
: plume rise and downwash effects from stationary line sources
: Schulman, L. L., and Scire, J. S.
: Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.
: AREAL, NTIS
: CALINE-3
: California Line Source Dispersion Model
: predict carbon monoxide concentrations near highways
: Benson, P. E.
: California Department of Transportation
: AREAL, NTIS
: CDM-2
: Climatological Dispersion Model-Version 2.0
: predict pollutant concentrations in rural or urban settings
: Irwin, J. S., T. Chico, and J. Catalano
: U.S. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
: CHEMDAT6
: estimate volatile organic compound emissions from TSDF processes
:OAQPS
:OAQPS
: COMPLEX-1
: estimate concentrations of inert pollutants
; U.S. EPA, ASRL
AREAL, NTIS
: CRSTER
: Single Source (CRSTER) Model
: calculate concentrations from point source at polar coord, receptor
: Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
: U.S. EPA, OAQPS
: AREAL, NTIS
D-39
-------
8.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
9.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
10.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
11.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
12.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
13.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
14.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
: HIWAY-2
: Highway Air Pollution Model
: estimate concentration of non-reactive pollutants downwind of roads
: Petersen, W.B.
: US. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
: INPUFF
: Multiple Source Gaussian Puff Dispersion Algorithm
: estimate pollutant concentrations downwind of incinerator ships
: Petersen, W.B., and Lavdas, L.G.
: US. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
:ISC
: Industrial Source Complex
: assess pollutant concentrations associated w\ an industrial source
: Environmental Protection Agency
: US. EPA, OAQPS
: AREAL, NTIS
:LONGZ
: calculate long term concentrations at receptors
: Bjorklund, J.R., Bowers, J.F.
: H.E. Cramer Co.
: AREAL, NTIS
: MESOPUFF-2
: Mesoscale PUFF Model
: model the transport, diffusion and removal of air pollutants
: Scire, J.S., Lurmann, F.W., Bass, A., and Hanna, S.R.
: ERT, Inc.
: AREAL, NTIS
iMPTDS
: Multiple Point Source Model With Deposition
: estimate concentrations for inert pollutants
: Rao, K.S., Satterfield, L.
:ONRL
: AREAL, NTIS
:MPTER
: Multiple Point Gaussian Dispersion Algorithm with Terrain Adjustmen
: estimate concentrations for inert pollutants
: Pierce, T.E., and Turner, D.B.
: US. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
D-40
-------
15.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
16.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
17.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
18.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
19.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
20.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
21.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
: PAL-2
: Point, Area, and Line Source Algorithm
; estimate short term concentrations of non-reactive pollutants
; Petersen, W.B., and Rumsey
: U.S. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
:PBM
: Photochemical Box Model
: estimate ozone and other smog pollutants in an urban area
: Schere, K.L., and Demerjian, K.L.
: US. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
: PEM-2
: Pollution Episodic Model
: predict short-term surface concentrations of two pollutants
: Rao, K.S.
: U.S. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
: PLUVUE-2
; Plume Visibility Model II
: predict transport and fate of point-source emissions
: Seigneur, C, Johnson, G, Latimer, D., Bergstrom, R., Hogo, H.
: SAI, Inc.
: AREAL, NTIS
PTPLU-2
estimate maximum surface concentrations
Pierce, T.E., Turner, D.B., Catalano, J.A., Hale, F.V. HI
U.S. EPA, ASRL
AREAL, NTIS
:RAM
; Gaussian-Plume Multiple Source Air Quality Algorithm
: estimate concentrations of stable pollutants from urban sources
: Catalano, J. A., D. B. Turner, and J. H. Novak
: U.S. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
ROADWAY-2
predict pollutant concentrations near highways
Eskridge, R.E., and Catalano, J.A.
U.S. EPA, ASRL
AREAL, NTIS
D-41
-------
22.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
23.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
24.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
25.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
26.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
27.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
:RTDM
: Rough Terrain Diffusion Model
: estimate ground-level pollutant concentrations in rough terrain
!ERT,Inc.
:NTIS
: SHORTZ
: calculate short-term pollutant concentration
: Bjorklund, J.R., Bowers, J.F.
: H.E. Cramer Co.
: AREAL, NTIS
:TECJET
: Advanced Jet Dispersion Model
: modeling free jets of toxic and flammable substances
: Technica International, Fullerton, CA
: Technica International
:TUPOS-2
: Multiple Source Gaussian Dispersion Algorithm Using On-Site Turbule
: short-term impact assessment of inert pollutants
: Turner, D.B., Chico, T., and Catalano, J.A.
: US. EPA, ASRL
: AREAL, NTIS
:UAM
: Urban Airshed Model
: computing ozone concentrations in urban areas
: Ames, J.S., Hayes, R., Myers, T.C., Whitney, D.C.
: SAI, Inc.
:NTIS
: VALLEY
•
: estimate concentrations from point or area sources in complex terra
: Burl, E.W.
: US. EPA, OAQPS
: AREAL, NTIS
D-42
-------
Hazardous Waste Engineering Models
l.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
2.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
3.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
4.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
:EMBM
: Energy-Mass Balance Model
: simulation of industrial incineration
: Lee, C.C
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati
: Sonya Stelmack, U.S. EPA, RREL-Cincinnati
CARDS
: Geotechnical Analysis for Review of Dike Stability
: evaluate earth dike structures at hazardous waste facilities
U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste ERL, Cincinnati, OH
Landreth, Robert, U.S. EPA, HWERL, Cincinnati, OH
:HELP
: Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance Model
: models the hydrologic effects at hazardous waste sites
: Schroeder, P.R., Morgan, J.M., Walski, T.M., Gibson, A.C.
: U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste ERL, Cincinnati, OH
; Landreth, Robert, U.S. EPA, HWERL, Cincinnati, OH
SOILINER
Soil Liner Model
simulation of liquid infiltration through compacted soil liner
U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste ERL, Cincinnati, OH
Landreth, Robert, U.S. EPA, HWERL, Cincinnati, OH
D-43
-------
Surface Water Model*
1.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
2.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
3.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
4.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
5.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
6.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
7.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
lACTMO
: Agricultural Chemical Transport Model
: nonpoint source model applicable to agricultural areas
: Frere, M.H.; Onstad, C.A.; Holtan, H.W.
: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
: Agriculture Research Service, U.S.D.A., Hyattsville, MD
:AGRUN
: Agricultural Watershed Runoff Model for the Iowa-Cedar River Basins
: nonpoint source model applicable to agricultural watersheds
: Roesner; Zison; Monser; Lyons
: Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
:ARM-2
: Agricultural Runoff Model
: estimate pollutant loadings in agricultural areas
; Crawford, N.H., Donigian, A.S., Jr.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens, GA
:CAFE
: two dimensional hydrodynamics simulation in estuaries
: Pagenkopf, J.R., Christodonlou, G.C., Pearce, B.R., Connor, J.J.
; Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA
; Pagenkopf, J.R., Dept. of Civil Eng., MIT, Cambride, MA
:CHNHYD
: Channel Hydrodynamic Model
: simulating flows and water surface elevation in river networks
; Yeh, G.T.
: Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
Yeh, G.T., ESD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
rCHNTRN
: Channel Transport Model
: sediment & contaminant transport in rivers & well-mixed estuaries
: Environmental Systems Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
: Yeh, G.T., ESD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
: CREAMS
: Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion From Agricultural Management Systems
: estimate pollutant loadings from agricultural areas
: Knisel, W.G.
: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration
: Walter Knisel, Southeast Watershed RL, U.S.D.A.
D-44
-------
8.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
9.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
10.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
11.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
12.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
13.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
14.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
:CTAP
: Chemical Transport and Analysis Program
: concentration distributions in water column & sediments
i
: HydroQual, Inc.
: Gulledge, William, Chemical Manufacturers Association
DWOPER
Dynamic Wave Operational Model
simulating river flow
Fread, D.L.
Hydrologic Research Laboratory, National Weather Service, NOAA
Fread, D.L., NWS, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
iFETRA
: transport of contaminants, sediments, in well-mixed estuaries
; Onishi, Y., Thomson, F.L.
: Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
: Onishi, Y., Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, WA
:HEC-2
; water surface profile in rivers for a steady flow discharge
: Hydrologic Engineering Center
: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA
: HEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA
:HEC-6
: profile water surface and stream bed
: Hydrologic Engineering Center
: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA
: HEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA
iMEXAMS
: Metals Exposure Analysis Modeling System
: fate and transport of metals in aquatic systems
: Felmy, A.R., Brown, S.M., Onishi, Y., Argo, R.S., Yabusaki, S.B.
: Battelle Pacific NW Lab
: MICHRIV
: transport in water & sediment in streams & nontidal rivers
: DePinto, J.V., Richardson, W.L., Rygwelski, K.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Duluth
D-45
-------
15.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
16.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
17.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
18.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
19.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
20.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
21.
Model Name
Full Name
Purpose
Developer
Affiliation
Distributor
:NPS
: estimate nonpoint source pollutant loads in urban and rural areas
: Donigian, A3., Jr., and Crawford, N.H.
: U.S. EPA, ERL-Athens,GA
:SEDONE
: simulating hydrodynamic flow and sediment transport
: Hetrick, D.M., Eraslan, A.H., Patterson, M.R.
: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
;SERATRA
: Instream Sediment-Contaminant Transport Model
: transport of contaminants & sediments in rivers
: Onishi, Y., Wise, S.E.
: Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. EPA
: Onishi, Y., Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory
:SLSA
: Simplified Lake/Stream Analyses
: concentration distribution in water and sediments of rivers & lakes
; HydroQual, Inc.
: Gullege, William, Chemical Manufacturers Association
iTDMECS
: Three-Dimensional Model for Estuaries and Coastal Seas
: flow and contaminant transport in estuaries and coastal seas
: Leendertse, J.J., Liu, S.K.
: Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
: Liu, David, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
: WATFLOW
»
: hydrodynamic flow in rivers and estuaries
: Leendertse, J.J.
: Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
; Charles Sweeney, Engineering Hydraulics, Inc., Redmond, WA
: WQSM
; Water Quality Simulation Model
: flow and transport in well-mixed estuaries and costal seas
: Leendertse, J.J.
: Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
: Liu, David, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
D-46
-------
Drinking Water Models
1.
Model Name : PCAS
Full Name : Packed Column Air Stripping Model
Purpose :
Developer : Cummins, M.D.
Affiliation : U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, Cincinnati, OH
D-47
------- |