UNITED STATES - CANADA
MEMORANDUM OF INTENT
ON
TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION
1*1
ATMOSPHERIC MODELLING
INTERIM REPORT
FEBRUARY 1981
-------
430R81001
This is an Interim Report prepared by a U.S./Canada Work Group in
accordance with the Memorandum of Intent on Transboundary Air Pollution
concluded between Canada and the United States on August 5, 1980..
This is one of a set of four reports which represent an initial
effort to draw together currently available information on transboundary air
pollution, with particular emphasis on acid deposition, and to develop a
consensus on the nature of the problem and the measures available to deal with
it. While these reports contain some information and analyses that should be
considered preliminary in nature, they accurately reflect the current state of
knowledge on the issues considered. Any portion of these reports is subject to
modification and refinement as peer review, further advances in scientific
understanding, or the results of ongoing assessment studies become available.
More complete, reports on acid deposition are expected in mid 1981 and
early 1982. Other transboundary air pollution issues will also be included in
these reports.
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES
JAN I 4 ibC
D. L. Hawkins
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
R. M. Robinson
Assistant Deputy Minister
Environmental Protection Service
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada KlA 1C8
Dear Messrs. Hawkins and Robinson:
We are pleased to transmit under cover of this letter the
final interim report of Work Group 2 (Atmospheric Modeling) as
required by our terms of reference and work plan. We believe that
this report satisfies, in a scientifically responsible manner, our
Phase I objectives.
Sincerely,
cc: S.E. Ahmad
E.G. Lee
Lester Machta,
U.S. Chairman,
Work Group 2
Howard (JPSrguson
Canadian Chairman
Work Group 2
10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A young agency with a historic
tradition of service to the Nation
-------
WORK GROUP 2
ATMOSPHERIC MODELLING
INTERIM REPORT
-------
SUMMARY
As outlined in the Memorandum of Intent, the Atmospheric
Modeling Work Group was charged with describing the transport
of air pollutants from their sources to final deposition,
especially deposition in sensitive ecological areas. The
first phase of the work has been completed with the submission
of this report. The overall purpose of the report is.to
describe the development of state-of-the-art, source-receptor
relationships based on available model results and measured
deposition values from monitoring networks. Though this
exercise-is in a preliminary stage, it is believed that the
activities of the Group have produced the best available
information to guide transboundary air pollution control
strategies in both countries.
Several models have been developed in both Canada and
the U.S. which could be used for long-range transport studies.
The Group decided to use only models that met certain criteria.
In general, the models had to be fully operational, numerically
practical, flexible enough to include new data and other such
factors. Features of the individual models are reviewed in
this report.
The long-range transport models selected for intercom-
parison in this report have several important features. These
models use emission and meteorological data, and meteorological,
-------
- 2 -
chemical and empirical parameters to calculate the transport
of a given pollutant to a sensitive area. To date the models
have been successful in describing- sulfur deposition on an
annual basis. Hydrogen and nitrate ion deposition, two impor-
tant factors in acid rain, have not yet been successfully
incorporated in the models. Initial source-receptor relation-
ships for sulfur have been determined using model calculations.
If the models are to be useful to satisfy the require-
ments of the Memorandum of Intent, a-quantitative relationship
between pollution emissions and deposition in sensitive areas
must be established. To do this, a transfer matrix approach
has been adopted. Theoretically, by using this method, a
change in a source strength can be tied to a change in the
deposition amount of the given pollutant in a sensitive area.
Preliminary transfer matrix results are discussed in this
report, but these results are subject to future changes,
possibly significant, as modeling techniques are refined.
Though preliminary in nature, the report sets up the needed
framework to produce a more accurate transfer matrix during
Phase II.
In order to check the accuracy of the models, field
measurements of the deposition from the existing monitoring
networks in both countries are required. At present, wet
deposition/acid rain is being measured reasonably well.
-------
- 3 -
Dry deposition, an important factor in ecological effects, can
not yet be measured on a routine basis. Existing deposition
data will be used to evaluate the selected models utilized by
the Group throughout its Phase II effort.
Though the long-range transport models do have restrictions
on their usefulness, they are an important and possibly the
only guide to establishing source receptor relationships.
Their further development and intercomparison will be an
ongoing activity of the Group, in Phase II.
-------
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
This Phase I report was prepared by members of Work Group 2 as
listed below. Authors carried the primary responsibility for chapters
and monitors provided writing and reviewing assistance. Reviewers
provided comment on final draft sections. In all cases Canadian and
U.S. Work Group members worked closely on the preparation of individual
chapters and on the final construction of the complete report. Drs.
L. Smith and D. M. Whelpdale were responsible for coordinating the
preparation of the report.
Author(s)
Chapter Title
1 Introduction
The Role.of
Modeling in
the Development
of Emission
Control
Strategies
Summary of
Selected Models
D. Whelpdale
L. Smith
A. Venkatram
Monitor(s)
B. Niemann
B. Niemann
J. Young
Source Region and L. Smith
Sensitive Area B. Niemann
Development and
Transfer Matrix
Operation
M. Olson
J. Miller
D. Whelpdale
5
6
7
Source-Receptor
Relationships
Monitoring
Conclusions,
Recommendations
and Phase II
Work
P. Altshuller
P. Summers
J. Miller
D. Whelpdale
G. Van Volkenburgh
J. Miller
Reviewer(s)
P. Choquette
J. Blanchard
P. Choquette
R. Morris
G. Paulin
K. Demerjian
K. W. Yeh
G. Paulin
B. Silverman
K.W. Yeh
P. Choquette
R. Xane
G. Paulin
F. Burmann
-------
- 5 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No,
SUMMARY 1
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 4
LIST OF FIGURES . 7
LIST OF TABLES 8
INTRODUCTION 1-1
THE ROLE OF MODELING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSION
CONTROL STRATEGIES 2-1
Goals 2-1
What is a Long Range Transport Model 2-1
Present Limitations of LRT Models 2-4
Phase I Transfer Matrices 2-6
SUMMARY OF SELECTED MODELS 3-1
Types of Models Available 3-1
Discussion of Models Selected 3-2
AES-LRT Model 3-3
OME-LRT Model ' . 3-3
ENAMAP-1 Model 3-4
ASTRAP Model 3-5
RCDM Model 3-6
Discussion of Input Parameters Used 3-7
SOURCE REGION AND SENSITIVE AREA DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSFER MATRIX OPERATION 4-1
SOURCE-RECEPTOR RELATIONSHIPS • 5-1
Introduction 5-1
-------
- 6 -
The source-receptor relationships 5-2
Comparison of matrix outputs with each other and
observations 5-6
MONITORING 6-1
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PHASE II WORK 7-1
Conclusions 7-1
Recommendations 7-2
REFERENCES . 8-1
APPENDICES
1. Work Group 2 Terms of Reference and Additional
Guidance A.I
2. Membership of Work Group 2 A.2
3. Glossary of Terms A.3
4. ' Inventory of Available Models A.4
5. Descriptions of Selected Models A.5
6. Source Region and Inventory Description A.6
7. Matrix Operations A.7
8. • Transfer Matrices A.8
9. Workshop Summary Reports: Atmospheric and Science
Reviews Modeling Evaluation and Intercomparison A.9
-------
- 7 -
Figure 4.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Map of eastern North America showing the two . 4-3
sets of geographical regions used in Work Group
2 modeling. Light and heavy (solid in Canada;
slashed in U.S.) lines outline regions used by
U.S. and Canadian models, respectively. U.S.
aggregate SURE grid regions are identified by
2 or 3 character alpha-numeric labels (light),
with sensitive areas having 'SA1 as the first
2 characters. Canadian-model source regions
are identified by large numbers, in boxes in
the U.S. and in circles in Canada, and sensitive
areas are identified by small numbers in circles.
(See Appendix 6.)
Mean annual hydrogen ion (H+) deposition in 6-4
precipitation for period 1976-1979 (mg m~2 y-1).
Deposition values are derived from mean pH and
mean annual precipitation. Adapted from
Wisniewski and Keitz (1980).
Wet deposition of sulfate (804) in precipitation 6-5
in eastern North America for 1977 (g S m~2 y~M •
Adapted from Galloway and Whelpdale (1980).
-------
- 8 -
Table 3.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 6.1
Table 7.1
LIST OF TABLES
Regional model parameter values for eastern
North America transport simulations.
Total annual sulfur deposition as computed from
the ASTRAP model.
Example of Transfer Matrix from Appendix 8.
Total Annual Sulfur Deposition in kg ha~1yr~1
(Table A8-10).
Comparison of the predicted annual wet deposition
of sulfur (kgS ha~1yr~1) from selected LRT models
compared to the measured values.
Estimated annual wet deposition of hydrogen
and sulfate ion to specified sensitive areas.
Work Group 2 Activity Schedule (revised
12/19/80).
Page
3-8
5-3
5-5
5-7
6-7
7-6
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Atmospheric Modeling Work Group was established under
the Memorandum of Intent in order to provide information, based
on cooperative atmospheric modeling and analysis of monitoring
network and other data, which would lead to a further under-
standing of the transport of air pollutants between source
regions and sensitive areas. In addition, the Group was to
prepare proposals for the "Research, Modeling and Monitoring"
element of an agreement. The Terms of Reference of the
Group and Work Group membership are contained in Appendices
1 and 2, respectively.
The purpose of this Phase I report is to provide as
complete a response as possible to all the scientific and
technical areas identified in the Terms of Reference and as
specified in its approved work plan. During Phase I the
Work Group has devoted its efforts to:
(1) Preparing a work plan for the first two phases;
(2) Identifying required inputs from and outputs to
other Work Coups;
(3) Developing data bases and analytical methods which
will be required in subsequent work;
(4) Developing preliminary source-receptor relationships
based on available modeling results which can be
utilized in Phase II by other Work Groups; and
-------
1 - 2 .
(5) Developing a glossary of terms which all Work Groups
can use (see Appendix 3).
During Phase II, the Work Group will:
(1) Endeavor to evaluate several selected models against
available monitoring data sets and to intercompare further
these models and their results with one another;
(2) Review the science of atmospheric transport and
deposition of pollution in order to understand better
the applicability and limitation of available models to
predict the response in ambient pollutant concentrations
and deposition rates to changes in emission rates; and
(3) Review and improve the source-receptor relationships
to be used in the Phase III Work Group effort.
In this regard it is expected that some revision of designated
sensitive areas and source areas to be used following Phase II
will be accomplished by the appropriate Work Groups during
Phase II.
Many advances in understanding the regional and long-range
transport of air pollutants have been gained in recent years, in
large part due to an expansion of basic research efforts coupled
with the development and use of large mathematical models to
integrate available scientific information. Even so, it is not
possible to describe fully all aspects of air pollution transport
on a regional or continental scale. Consequently, many simpli-
fications have been made in the analyses of results presented
-------
1-3
in this report. A major effort will be made during Phase II
to review available research results, both published and
unpublished, in order to specify more precisely the validity
and range of uncertainty that characterize the methodologies
utilized and results presented in this and subsequent reports.
Although many substances may undergo transboundary atmos-
pheric transport and have harmful effects upon either the
atmosphere or surface receptors, acid deposition is the
phenomenon of primary concern for the first two phases of our
Work Group activities. As a consequence, highest priority
has been given to the study of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen,
the main precursors of acid precipitation. During this first
phase, emphasis has also been placed on the development of the •
"transfer matrix" concept. It is this application of estab-
lishing quantitative relationships between sources and sensitive
receptors for which mathematical models are uniquely suited,
and the development of useful, comprehensible display of this
information is of great importance.
This first report is structured to follow closely the terms
of reference for the Group. The following two chapters describe
the role of models in the particular application at hand, and
those models which have been selected for use in Canada and the
United States. In Chapter 4 source region and sensitive area
development and the source-receptor matrix concept are presented,
The fifth chapter, perhaps the most important of this Phase I
-------
1-4
report, presents source-receptor matrices from the five models
for a variety of concentration and deposition parameters.
Although these results are of a preliminary nature, they
provide a good indication of the values and limitations of
the approach, as well as some first estimates of the relative
importance of various source regions. Chapter 5 will form
the basis for refinements in Phase II, and for the work of
Work Groups 3A and 3B. Chapter 6 is a brief survey of avail-
able field data, which provide valuable comparisons for the
modeling results. The final chapter of this report, "Con-
clusions, Recommendations., and Work Plan", is of a preliminary
nature, but does chart the future course of action of the
Work Group. It is intended that the Phase II report will
primarily be an elaboration upon this Phase I report; for
this reason the report structure will remain the same/ with
upgrading of information and additions being made as necessary.
-------
1-5
A large amount of reference material is available for the
modeling work described in this report. This work draws
heavily upon what was accomplished in the Canada-United States
Research Consultation Group on the Long Range Transport of Air
Pollutants as described in their recent reports.* Complete
documentation of the models used herein is available, as are
references to much other modeling work underway at the present
time.
* Altshuller, A.P. and McBean, G.A., 1980. Second report
of the United States-Canada Research Consultation Group
on the Long-Range Transport of Air Pollutants. U.S.
. State Department, Canada Department of External Affairs,
November 1980, 40 pp.
Smith. L.F. and Whelpdale, D.M.. , 1980. Atmospheric
Transport and Deposition Modeling- Inventory, Analysis
and Recommendations. Report to the United States - Canada
Research Consultation Group on LRTAP. December 1980,
123 pp.
These two reports can be obtained from:
LPO Office,
Atmospheric Environment Service
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H5T4
Program Integration and Policy Staff, RD-681
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
Chapter 2
THE ROLE OF MODELING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSION CONTROL
STRATEGIES
Goals
Work Group 2 will provide several major output products
to Groups 3A and 3B. One of these, a review of experimentally
observed atmospheric loadings for hydrogen and sulfate ion,
is discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. These loadings
will be used by Group 3B as the starting point for planning
strategies to reduce loadings in sensitive areas. A second
major output is the transfer matrices (i.e., source-receptor
relationships) for acid-deposition-related species. These
matrices will be the major tool which Groups 3A and 3B will
employ to develop strategies for the control of acid deposition
species and precursors. Chapters 2 through 5 of this report
discuss the development of these matrices in some detail in
order that the present and future utility of this tool is
well understood.
What is a Long Range Transport Model
Before introducing the concept of a transfer matrix,
the concept of modeling in general will be reviewed.
A model is essentially a description of physical or
chemical processes in the language of mathematics. Relation-
ships between the variables of the system being modeled are
-------
2-2
replaced by logical connections or equations in the mathematical
model. The model can be used to study the complex cause-effect
relationships by well defined rules of mathematics. The long-
range transport (LRT) model is a combination of submodels
of the physical and chemical processes involved in long-range
transport of various species under consideration. In order
to keep the computing effort manageable, the submodels of a
LRT model are often simplified by parameterization. This
means that the LRT model may not reflect the degree of under-
standing we actually have of long-range transport. However,
it is generally believed that the errors introduced by
parameterization are not significant when the model outputs
are averaged over time scales of the order of several months.
The basic components of a LRT model are
(1) A submodel for the transport of pollutants;
(2) A submodel for the chemical transformations of the
pollutants to other (secondary) pollutants; and
(3) A submodel for the wet and dry removal of primary
and secondary pollutants as they are transported.
The main inputs to an LRT model are
(1) Emission inventory of pollutants;
(2) Meteorological data such as wind speed, precipitation,
boundary layer height and solar radiation;
(3) Ground cover data on the region of interest. This data
might include variables such as surface roughness,
-------
2-3
vegetative cover, type of surface (land, water),
etc.? and
(4) Parameter values.
The precise nature of the input data requirements is a function
of the complexity of the long-range transport model and its
application.
The main uses and advantages of LRT models include the
following:
(1) A model is a vital component of data interpretation.
For example, parameters such as the oxidation rate of
SC>2 to particulate-sulfate material can be inferred
by fitting model results to measurements.
•
(2) A model can be used to interpolate between monitored
observation points. This application is important
in the computation of deposition over an area covered
by a limited number of monitors.
(3) A model is an invaluable tool in the planning of
large scale field experiments and in the design of
monitoring networks. Sensitivity studies can be
done to determine the relative importance of physical
variables to be measured. Also, simulations can be
used to estimate the optimal location of monitors.
(4) The computer simulation is the only way to estimate
the relative contribution of many different source
areas to the deposition at a receptor of interest.
-------
2-4
For this last application, the contributions to the depositions
or ambient concentrations at a series of receptor areas of
interest from a series of specified source regions can be
displayed conveniently in matrix form. This format of presen-
tation is called a "transfer matrix" because each element of
the matrix expresses, quantitatively, the physical relationship
between a specified receptor area and a specified source area
for the species and variable of interest. One can thus relate
source to receptor, or "transfer" the effect of a change at
source to the receptor. The matrix elements can be made
independent of source strength, but they are functions of
the chemical species, the variable chosen, and the averaging
time used.
A transfer matrix is a convenient format in which to dis-
play changes in concentration or deposition patterns, corre-
sponding to various emission reduction scenarios. Details
of the use of the transfer matrix are given in Chapter 4.
The impacts of emission reduction scenarios depend upon the
formulation of the matrix, and the matrix in turn is only
valid within the limitations of the LRT model used in its
construction.
Present Limitations of LRT Models
Our incomplete understanding of the physical and chemical
process involved in long-range transport as well as limitations
on computing resources prevent us from constructing a "perfect"
-------
2-5
model. The necessary simplifications introduced into most
available models will lead to errors in model outputs.
Those areas in which simplifications are most likely to
affect model results and which are currently being improved
are
(1) The relationship between the H+ ion and precursor
sulfur compounds, especially SC^;
(2.) The characterization of the nitrogen-oxidants cycle
in connection with H+ ion; and
(3) The representation of the wet removal of pollutants
via scavenging processes during rain or snow events.
The availability, accuracy and resolution of field
measurements also limit both our ability to make reliable
model predictions (when the data are used as model inputs)
and our ability to assess the degree of uncertainty in model
outputs (when the data are used for comparison purposes).
In addition, the evaluation of model simulations of total and
dry deposition are difficult because dry deposition cannot
yet be measured reliably.
Typically, on an annual basis, model estimates and reliable
field observations are expected to agree to within a factor of
two. It is expected that this range of uncertainty will be
narrowed in the future.
-------
2-6
The above discussion points out the need for caution
when using small differences in model results as a basis for
choosing between alternate emission reduction scenarios.
For example, a small percentage difference in the deposition
contribution from two source regions could not be considered
significant; similarly, a small percentage difference at the
same receptor using different emission scenarios could not be
considered significant.
Phase I Transfer Matrices
• In Phases II and III, LRT model limitations will be
critically analyzed in terms of current research, and it is
expected that some limitations will be removed, and others
quantitatively defined. While the "transfer matrices" given
in this report must not be used as "final" in the strategy
development exercise, it is the opinion of this Work Group
that the present matrices can be used by Groups 3A and 3B to
begin to consider the major elements of strategies which
will alleviate excessive acid deposition. The present
matrices can be considered to be qualitatively correct,
based on evaluation work done to date by the various modeling
groups. Only by having information (albeit qualitative)
begin to flow among all the parties concerned in strategy
development, can the entire process begin to function in an
integrated fashion.
-------
Chapter 3
SUMMARY OF SELECTED MODELS
Types of Models Available
There are two basic types of LRT Models: Lagrangian
(trajectory)- and Eulerian (grid).
A Lagrangian Model solves the conservation equations in
a coordinate system fixed to each moving air parcel.
An Eulerian Model solves the conservation equations in
a fixed coordinate, system through which air masses are advected
and diffused. The computation points are usually arranged in
a fixed grid.
All models are then variations of these two basic
approaches. One can have, for example, a statistical Lagran-
gian model or an analytical Eulerian model, the choice being
made by the modeler to allow a certain form of output or to
use a given form of input data.
The basic types of LRT models can be applied to both
short-term (multi-day episodes) and long-term (monthly,
seasonal, and annual) simulation periods, and outputs of both
can be displayed as point values, areal values, or gridded
values.
Work Group II decided that the annual time period should
be the primary focus for modeling source-receptor relation-
ships and fluxes for Phases I and II due to the large amount
of preparatory work required to provide adequate shorter time
-------
3-2
period modeling results. A survey of modeling groups (see
Appendix 4) revealed that there are about fifteen active
modeling efforts in the U.S. and Canada and that the majority
of the models are of the Lagrangian type and have been applied
to monthly-to-annual time periods. The effort on Eulerian
and episode type models has increased during the past year,
providing more balance in the overall modeling effort.
Discussion of Models Selected
The models selected for this exercise fulfilled several
important criteria, namely:
(1) They are fully operational;
(2) They are numerically practical;
(3) They can be expanded as the knowledge base increases;
(4) They can be used over the geographical and temporal
time scales of interest; and
(5) They have each been at least partially evaluated.
through comparison with measurements.
Two regional air quality simulation models developed in
Canada and three developed in the United States were selected
for Phase I. It is conceivable that additional Canadian
and/or U.S. developed models could be added to or replace
this initial group of models as a result of the Phase II
work effort. Appendices 4 and 5 summarize current North
American modeling efforts and describe more fully those
models used in Phase I analysis.
-------
3-3
AES-LRT Model
The Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada (AES) has
developed and applied a Lagrangian box model' to simulate
ambient concentrations and deposition patterns of sulfur
throughout eastern North America (Olson et al. , 1979). The
AES-LRT model is based on trajectories, at approximately 600
meters above the surface, which are calculated from each
designated receptor four times a day using analyzed winds on
the standard numerical weather predicton grid covering North
America. As the air parcels follow the trajectories towards
the receptor points, sulfur dioxide emissions (1976-1980),
mixing heights and precipitation amounts along the path are
determined from gridded arrays. The transformation and
deposition processes are parameterized linearly. The concen-
trations at each receptor are combined to form daily, monthly,
and annual average concentrations and depositions. An
evaluation of the model is being conducted using measured
data from several American and Canadian networks for 1978.
OME-LRT Model
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME) has developed
and applied a simple statistical model to simulate long term
ambient concentration and wet deposition patterns on a regional
scale for eastern North America (Venkatram et al., 1980). The
dispersion and removal of pollutants and the required meteoro-
logical parameters in the OME model are specified in terms
-------
3-4
of the statistics of these physical processes from wind and
precipitation data. The source emission inventory corresponds
to the year 1977. The OME model estimates compare quite
favorably to measurements of annual wet deposition taken from
Canadian and U.S. networks for 1977. The OME model also has
been used to calculate the relative contribution from U.S. and
Canadian SC>2 emission sources to the sulfur concentrations
and wet deposition over eastern North America.
ENAMAP-1 Model
SRI International has developed a trajectory-type regional
air quality simulation model (Bhumralkar et al., 1980). This
model calculates monthly and annual average concentrations
and dry and wet depositions of SC>2 and 504. The basic element
of the ENAMAP-1 model is the emission of puffs of S02 at equal
time intervals from all source areas. The puffs are assumed-
to be well mixed in the horizontal and vertical and to be
transported by the mixed layer wind field.
The wind field is determined by objective analysis of
available upper-air observations approximately 1500 m above
mean sea level. Removal and transformation of the pollutant
mass is treated linearly.
S02 emissions from the SURE program were used in ENAMAP-1
model simulations. The months of January, April, August, and
October 1977 were chosen for model evaluation.
-------
3-5
ASTRAP Model
The Argonne National Laboratory has developed the Advanced
Statistical Trajectory Regional Air Pollution Model (ASTRAP)
under the MAP3S Program for simulating regional sulfur concen-
trations and depositions on a monthly and annual basis
(Shannon, 1980).
The ASTRAP model takes a statistical approach to long-term
regional modeling rather than a day-by-day simulation technique.
The ASTRAP model is based on the assumption that for long-period
averages, i.e., one month or longer, horizontal and vertical
dispersion processes can be separated.
The long term horizontal dispersion of individual puffs
is represented by dispersion statistics. Vertical dispersion
is simulated by numerically integrating the standard one-
dimensional diffusion equation to a height of 2100 m.
The transformation and dry deposition processes are
linearly parameterized. The wet deposition is a one-half power
relationship of precipitation rate. In the ASTRAP Model,
seasonal and daily variations in all parameters are taken
into account. A wind field is developed from National Weather
Service (NWS) data at 1000 metres in the winter and 1800
metres in the summer.
Preliminary model runs have been made in the eastern
United States and Canada using 1974 and 1975 meteorological
data. The emission inventory (MAP3S) consisted of both point
-------
3-6
and area sources emissions in the eastern United States and
Canada. The model results were then compared with measure-
ments from the SURE data network for 1977 and 1978.
RCDM Model
The Regional Climatological Dispersion Model (RCDM) of
Teknekron Research, Inc., (TRI) is an application of the basic
model developed by Fay and Rosenzweig (1980). Analytical
solutions to the coupled diffusion equations for sulfur
dioxide and sulfate concentrations are found through the use
of simplifying assumptions. The horizontal eddy diffusivity
and conversion and removal rates are uniform in space.
The TRI formulation of RCDM attempted to apply temporal
and spatial averaging of the wind data sufficient to eliminate
most of the detailed fluctuations while preserving the mean
transport field that results from a large number of trajectories
The compromise utilized was to create a seasonal and annual
resultant wind vector for each emission cell (state, province
or subunit thereof) by averaging available upper air wind data
for the eastern U.S. and southeastern Canada (Niemann, et
al.f 1980).
The conversion and removal parameters used in the RCDM
are the same as those used by Fay and Rosenzweig from the
literature with an annual mixing height of 1000 metres. The
RCDM uses a simple deposition velocity technique to calculate
dry and wet depositions of sulfur dioxide, sulfate and total
-------
3-7
sulfur. The RCDM has been evaluated against historical ambient
data and current sulfur dioxide and ambient sulfate and wet
sulfur deposition data.
Discussion of Input Parameters Used
Table 3-1 outlines the parameter values for the meteoro-
logical and chemical processes used in these models.
The sulfur dioxide transformation rate to sulfate is
set at 1%/hour in most models with some seasonal variability
allowed.
The sulfur dioxide dry deposition velocity for the Canadian
models and ASTRAP is set near 0.5 cm/s and double that for
RCDM and ENAMAP. The sulfate dry deposition velocity used
varies from 0.05 cm/s (OME-LRT) to 0.4 cm/s (ASTRAP) with
most models using 0.1 cm/s.
The parameterization of wet removal shows the greatest
variability. Some models use percentage removal as a function
of rainfall rate (with 100% removal occurring at rates ranging
from 0.67 to 14 mm/h), while others use a constant removal
rate during precipitation (with 100% removal occurring in
27.6 to 2.8 hours).
-------
TABLE 3-1. RH3ICNAL MODEL PARrtMCTER VALUliS FOR liASTKIW NORTH AMERICA TRANSPORT SIMULATIONS
PARAMETER RCDM
S02 transformation 2.4 x 105 f
rate
(%/hour)
SO, dry deposition 0.83 h
(1.7 x I05)g
velocity
(em/s)
SO,j dry deposition 0.63
velocity
(cm/a)
SO2 wet removal rate (1.2 x 105)g
(%/hour)
=
SO4 wet removal rate (1.6 x 105)g
(%/hour)
Mixing depth (m) 1000
Wind Data resultant
average
vector wind
field,
(J = 3.2m/s
"i = 265* True
ENAMAP - 1
1.0
1.0
0.2
28P(t) a
7P(t) a
Winter 1150
Spring 1300
Summer 1450
80 x 80 km grid.
repr eaentat ive
grid square
average
11 = 0.75 U85Qlt(
•—• •
9 = 9850nt> ~15
(1977)
ASTRAP
Diurnal Cycle
Sumner 1.1
Winter 0.55
Sumner 0.4 (avg.)
Winter 0.25 (avg.)
Summer 0.4 (avg.)
Winter 0.25 (avg.)
lOOfhAO1/2: h < 4 b
100 : h > 4 b
up to 2100 (10 levels)
191 x 191 km grid,
f/R2
analyzed to grid
points
(1975)
OME M-S
1.0 l.O
0.5 0.5
0.05 0.1
10.8 e 30,000 c
36 e 85O.OOO c
1000 Climatological d
by inontli "
(mean = 1200m)
long term objectively
wind analyzed at
statistics 4 levels on
381 x 381 km
o^ = U^T grid
IL, = 10 m/s
Vm = 6 m/s
(1978)
a Precipitation rate, P(t) in mm/hr.
^ Precipitation rate, h, in mn/6 hr.
c Scavenging ratio
d Based on Portelli (1977) & Iblrworth (1967)
e FVmction of average length of wet and dry periods
(applies during wet period only)
f CSianical conversion time scale (seconds)
g Total wet and dry depletion tine scale (seconds)
n Dry and wet combined
-------
3-9
The wind data varies from long-term statistical to 6-
hourly, objectively analyzed fields* on grids ranging in
size from 80 km x 80 km to 381 km x 381 km. Mixing depth
varies from climatological arrays through actual calculated
values (from upper air ascents) to fixed values between 1000-
1500 metres.
Appendix 5 gives a more detailed description of each of
the five selected models and a summary of some preliminary
comparisons with measured data.
* Objective analysis routines variously use inverse-square
averaging, arithmetic averaging within a grid square, and
a 3-dimensional data assimilation scheme that incorporates
hydrostatic and height-wind balance routines.
-------
Chapter 4
SOURCE REGION AND SENSITIVE AREA DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER
MATRIX OPERATION
The application of LRT models to the.development of
quantitative relationships between pollution source areas and
sensitive receptor areas in the form of transfer matrices
requires the identification of appropriate geographical
groupings of sources and the identification of sensitive
receptor areas.
The transfer matrix application is immediately amenable
to control strategy development in that manipulation of source
contributions to sensitive areas is easily carried out.
Because control strategies (i.e., emission limitations or
reductions) would most likely be implemented on a state or
sub-state basis in the U.S., and on a province or sub-province
basis in Canada, a thoughtful geographical aggregation of
sources or grid elements on such a basis is required for
model calculations.
This need was recognized early in the EPA/DOE Acid Rain
Mitigation Study (ARMS) when areas from the 80 km x 80 km
SURE emission grid were aggregated into 60 larger areas
which approximated state and provincial areas or represented
selected areas thought to be sensitive to acid deposition.
These 60 areas were constructed to reproduce total state
-------
4-2
S02 emissions and boundaries as closely as possible. A table
that compares the state and grid-aggregate SC>2 emission totals
along with percentage differences is presented in Appendix
6. In most cases differences were less than + 15% and the
largest was 32%.
For the present application the SURE grid has been expanded
(from 30 x 36 to 40 x 42 elements) to the north and east to
include more of southeastern Canada. The expanded grid is
now includes 63 aggregated SURE areas (see Figure 4.1), ten
of which have been selected to represent major sensitive
areas. The total SC>2 emissions in the SURE inventory for
the eastern U. S. are thought by EPA to be too high and this
situation is presently being reviewed by comparing the SURE
S02 emissions for the utility sector with those computed
using the EPA AIR-TEST program. As a result of this review,
revisions in the U.S. emissions inventory are likely to
occur during Phase II.
In Phase I and planned Phase II activities, U.S. and
Canadian modeling efforts have used different grid systems
and areas to generate source-receptor (transfer) matrices.
Canadian efforts, similarly based upon the aggregation of
sources, have resulted in the delineation of 11 regions.
Because of this difference, the 11 Canadian regions, which
are based on an aggregation of sources on a 127 km x!27 km
polar stereographic grid, were projected onto the 63 U.S.
-------
4-3
I :„•/!-
«
• 3 -I -2. -I •« -5 -6 -7 .3 -9 . 10. 11-12- 13- M
16-17. 18-19-20-21 -22-23-24-25-26-27-28-29-30- « -a • a-J« •:
Fiaure 4.1:
Map of eastern North America showing the two
sets of geographical regions used in Work Group 2
modeling. Light and heavy (solid in Canada;
slashed in U.S.) lines outline regions used by
U.S. and Canadian models, respectively. U.S.
aggregate SURE grid regions are identified by 2
or 3 character alpha-numeric labels (light), with
sensitive areas having 'SA' as the first two
characters. Canadian-model source regions are
identified by large numbers, in boxes in the U.S.
and in circles in Canada, and sensitive areas are
identified by small numbers in circles. (See
Appendix 6.)
-------
4-4
areas, which are based on the 80 km x 80 km Transverse Mercator
grid. This projection was necessarily done in an approximate
way and some mechanical difficulties and uncertainties still
exist in relating the 11 Canadian regions to the 63 U.S. areas.
S02 emissions in the 11 Canadian regions and in the 63
U.S. areas are given for comparative purposes in Appendix 6.
In addition, a comparison was made between S02 emissions
used in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME) and
the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) models. Basically,
the OME model used emissions that were about 80% of the
total emissions used in the AES model for the 8 regions in
the U.S., while the emissions used for the 3 regions in
Canada were approximately equivalent.
It is expected that early in Phase II, Work Group 2
will be provided with an "agreed" and ."unified" Canada/U.S.
emissions data base which will be made available to all
participating modeling groups. Such a common inventory
could be expected to lead to improved agreement in model
results.
-------
4-5
The Work Group will develop a common basis for specification
of source and sensitive areas during Phase II for use in the
development of refined transfer matrices for application in
Phase III and beyond. This effort will be coordinated with
other Work Groups as appropriate for their particular areas
of responsibility.
The specification of sensitive areas is primarily the
responsibility of Work Group 1, in coordination with Work
Group 2. However, in order to commence modeling work, Work
Group 2 chose sensitive areas that had been previously
identified in the work of ARMS and of the RCG.
The Canadian sensitive receptor areas, which are actually
specified as points by latitude and longitude coordinates,
and the ARMS sensitive areas are listed in Appendix 6. Six
of the 9 Canadian receptor areas fall within the 10 ARMS
sensitive areas; two of the Canadian receptor areas are
close to ARMS sensitive areas; and two of the ARMS sensitive
areas are not included in the Canadian list (Arkansas and
Florida). The ARMS sensitive areas were purposely selected
to include at least several SURE grid squares (usually 4)
and to include areas in which adverse ecological impacts
from acid deposition had been detected or were considered
probable. (The principal reason for selection of each of
the 10 ARMS sensitive areas is provided in Appendix 6).
-------
4-6
For future work during Phases II and III Work Group 2
expects that Work Group 1 will provide a list of candidate
sensitive areas together with their sensitivities and target
sulfur deposition objectives. It is expected that many of
these sensitive areas will coincide with those already selected
for initial analysis.
The development of quantitative relationships between
the sources and receptors identified above is an application
for which LRT models are uniquely suited. Specifically,
this entails computing how much pollution, in terms of
concentration or deposition, arrives at a specified receptor
area from a variety of source regions. This information can
be presented in matrix form for all parameters of interest,
as absolute values, percentages, or normalized values.
Mathematically, the transfer matrix concept may be
expressed as
Dj = fij Qi
where Dj is the deposition (or concentration) of the parameter
of interest at receptor ' j ' ;. Qj_ is the strength of source ' i ' ;
and f^j is an element of the transfer matrix which describes
the relationship between the two. The LRT models are used
to determine the transfer matrix, examples of which are
presented in Chapter 5.
An important future application would involve the estima-
tion of the reduction in Dj (concentration or deposition)
due to a reduction in emissions Q^. Examples of the manipu-
lations which can be undertaken with the relationship include:
-------
4-7
(1) The maximization of the reduction in deposition
with given constraints on emission reductions.
(2) The minimization of the cost of emission reduction
given constraints on the deposition reduction.
These applications are described in more detail in
Appendix 7.
Because of the large amount of data to be handled in
transfer matrix operations and due to the complexity of the
operations themselves, an integrated transfer matrix processing
system is under development. This system will be accessed
by Work Groups 3A and 3B during Phase II and beyond in order
to provide the rapid-response analyses required to support
the negotiations following Phase II. The integrated matrix
processing system has been designed to handle a variety of
inputs and to provide the specific outputs needed by Work
Groups 2, 3A, and 3B. At present the integrated processing
system consists of five computer programs which format,
intercompare, plot, and manipulate the matrices. It is
expected that the integrated matrix processing system will
be refined and that the operations in program five (least-cost,
source-receptor optimization) will be specified by Work Group 3B
in Phase II. This system is described in more detail in
Appendix 7.
-------
Chapter 5
SOURCE-RECEPTOR RELATIONSHIPS
Introduction
Several long-range .transport models are currently avail-
able for predicting sulfur deposition and for developing source-
repector relationships; these were described in Chapter 3.
No models are currently available for predicting either
acidity or nitrate deposition.
Eastern North America can be divided up in a variety of
ways for purposes of source-receptor modeling as described
in Chapter 4. In the United States many modelers have used a
basic 80 km grid with the cells aggregated into 63
geographical areas. The ASTRAP and ENAMAP models have been
run using the original ARMS 60 areas to produce a 60 by 60
transfer matrix. Of particular interest in the present
context is the impact of individual or combined source areas
on the ten areas designated as sensitive receptor areas.
At a later date when other potential effects (e.g. on agri-
culture or buildings) are being considered, different sets of
receptor areas may be considered.
The Canadian approach has been to aggregate into 11 large
source regions, 8 U.S. and 3 Canadian, and 9 receptor areas.
Most of the receptor areas selected are the same as those
used by the U.S.
-------
5-2
The source-receptor relationships
a) United States Models
The results of running the three U.S. models are contained
in separate computer print-out files on a 60 by 60 matrix. The
matrices are to be consolidated into the eleven source areas
used for the Canadian models. These matrices also can be
reduced in size by selecting out the columns representing the
sensitive receptor areas from the set of all 60 areas. The
values are to be presented in the same three ways discussed
below for the Canadian models.
For the purpose of illustrating their use, a selected
portion of one of the U.S. 60 x 60 matrices is shown in
Table 5.1. The three largest U.S. emission source regions
(Southern Ohio, Southern Michigan and Southern Indiana) and
the largest Canadian emission source region (Sudbury) were
chosen, and 10 of the 60 regions were selected as receptors
because of their known sensitivity to acid deposition.
This resulted in the 4x10 matrix shown in Table 5.1,
and its use can be illustrated as follows. . If one is inte-
rested in the impact of a given source, for example S Ohio,
one reads down the column headed "46 S. Ohio" and the annual
deposition of sulfur at each receptor is given. Conversely,
if one is interested in the contribution to a given receptor
area, for example Adirondack, one reads across the row headed
"8 Adirondack".
-------
5-3
Table 5.1 Total Annual Sulfur Deposition as
Computed from the ASTRAP Model (KgSha"1 yr"1)
Selected Major Source Areas
Sensitive Receptor Areas
2. New Hampshire
8. Adirondack
15. Pennsylvania
25. S. Appalachia
33. Florida
39. Arkansas
53. Boundary Waters\
56. Ontario
58. Quebec
1. S.N.S.a
'
45 S. Ind.
ASTb
0.63
0.91
2.3
2.2
0.08
0.38
0.11
1.1
0.61
0.43
46 S. r-'n
AST
1.3
2.0
9.0
2.2
0.06
0.15
0.11
2.0
1.1
0.88
49 S. Mich.
AST
1.6
2.5
2.8
0.17
0.01
0.06
0.20 •
5.1
2.2
1.1
55 Sudburv
AST
1.0
1.3
0.15 .
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.01
6.4
3.5
0.83
a Sulfur deposition in, Southern Nova Scotia sensitive area assumed
same as for Maine.
fc Annual average: computed from winter and summer months.
-------
5-4
b) Canadian models
The results from the Canadian models are presented in
Appendix 8 in 11 x 9 transfer matrices; for each model annual
values of each of the following five variables are given:
(1) ambient S02 concentrations
(2) ambient 304 concentrations
(3) dry deposition of sulfur
(4) wet deposition of sulfur
(5) total deposition of sulfur
In each case information on the variable is presented
in three ways:
(1) normalized to a unit emission from each source
(2) as a percentage contribution from each source
(3) as an absolute value
This gives a total of 15 tables so that there is maximum
flexibility in how the results can be used. To provide an'
example, and to illustrate the use of source-receptor matrices
for the Canadian models, Table A8-10 from Appendix 8 is
reproduced below as Table 5-2. While the sensitive receptor
areas match fairly closely those used by the U.S. modelers, the
source regions differ and are much larger. Thus, a direct
comparison cannot be made between the results presented in
Tables 5-1 and 5-2.
Table 5-2 is used in exactly the same way as Table 5-1.
For example, if one is interested in the impact of a given
source region such as Ohio, one reads across the row headed
"3. Ohio".
-------
1
1
Source
Regions
1
iMich.
2
111.
Ind.
3
Ohio
4
Perm.
5
I N.York
to Maine
6
Kent.
iTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
I to N.C.
8
iRest of
1 (USA) Fid
|to Mo. to
|Minn.
1 9
| Ontario
I 10
I Quebec
1 11
[Atlantic
I Provinces
Western
Canada
Total
Concerv-
tration
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
"
AES
MOE*
AES
B.Waters
(1)
0.10
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.16
0
0.06
0
0.05
0
0.07
0
0.08
0
0.22
2.5
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.10
0
0
0.60
1.2
3.9
Alg.
(2)
0.75
4.5
1.3
3.5
0.65
0.90
0.26
0.40
0.18
0.40
0.23
0.30
0.27
0.10
1.1
4-2 ,
[ l.~2"|
3.9
0.25
0.50
0.01
0
0.20
6.2
18.8
Mask.
(3)
1.8
6.7
1.8
3.4
1.4
6.7
0.65
1.9
0.52
1.2
r ' "
0.35
1.3
0.57
0.50
0.94
1.8
r~3T7 ™
13.2
0.46
1.2
0.02
0
0.20
12.2
38.1
Recer
Qae.
(4)
0.58
1.7
0.78
0.80
0.77
1.8
0.46
1.2
0.66
2.5
0.21
0.10
0.46
0.60
0.37
0.40
2.3
3.1
2.3
4.3
0.07
0.10
0
8.9
16.7
>tor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.66
0.60
0.93
0.40
1.2
1.2
0.91
0.70
2.8
6.5
r ~
0.31
0.20
1.0
0.50
0.36
0.30
r "1.2
1.3
1.0
1.5
0.35
3.2
0
r ~"~
10.8
16.3
Vt. NH.
(6)
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.90
1.4
3.9
0.90
2.8
1.6
4.7
0.33
0.40
0.83
1.5
0.51
0.50
2.4 " 1
3.8
f 3.6 1
7.2
0.07
0.10
0
13.8
27.4
Adir.
(7)
[1.6 1
2.2
r ~ ~
1.7
1.4
2.2
5.9
1.4
4.3
r
2.3
6.1
0.44
0.90
1.1
2.0
0.68
0.90
"2.6 "
5.4
0.86
2.5
0.04
0
0.20
, -
14.9
31.8
Perm.
(8)
3.4
4.7
4.5
4.2
10.2
28.9
11.8
26.0
0.93
1.1
1.3
3.6
3.7
7.3
1.1
3.4
r 1.2
3.1
0.17
0.20
0.02
0
0
138.3
J82.5
Smokies
(9)
0.19
0.30
2.8
4.3
1.0
2.2
0.24
0.20
0.11
0
r
5.0
15.2
0.62
1.5
2.9
18.7
0.09
0.10
0.03
0
1
0
0
r~
0
13.0
42.6
CU
cr
00
I
o>
cr
en
ro
— -H m
-\ o x
ct- fa
f\l rj3
'TO
cu n>
n o
CU
in cu
-*> -h
c: n>
-$ ~s
O- 3
n> cu
T3 r*-
O -J
to —'.
-•• X
o -t
3 O
en
I
01
CU
fO
ex
—(.
IX
I—•
CO
*Note:
In order to calculate the total deposition at each site, the deposition resulting from
background in the amount of 0.2 g.m-2.yr-l (or 2.0 kg.ha-l.yr-1) should be added to this
row.
-------
5-6
Conversely, the contributions at a given receptor such as
Muskoka can be seen by reading down the column headed
"Muskoka".
A comparison of the predictions of the two Canadian
models shows that, whilst they agree reasonably well with
each other, the AES model generally predicts larger values
than the OME model for the absolute values and the emission-
normalized values in Tables A8-1 through A8-10.
Comparison of matrix outputs with each other and observations
Each of the models discussed in this Chapter has been
compared with observations as described in Appendix 5. But,
since the observations consist only of the deposition or
ambient concentration at a monitoring station due to all
sourdes, there is no way that each of the contributions in
the matrices can be directly verified. However, the total
contribution of all sources at each receptor predicted by
the models can be compared with the observations. If these
do not agree, then clearly there is no justification for
using the models further. If the predicted and observed
depositions do agree reasonably well, then in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed that the
individual contributions in the matrices will probably also
be realistic.
-------
5 - 7
Table S.3 - Comparison of the predicted annual wet deposition
of sulfur (XgSha—J-yr-1) from selected LRT models
compared to the measured values
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sensitive Areas
Boundary Waters
Algoma
Muskoka
Quebec - Montmorency
Southern Nova Scotia
New Hampshire
Adirondack - Whiteface
Pennsylvania - Penn State
Southern Appalachians
Florida
Arkansas
Model predictions
Canadian
MOE
2.6
4.7
7.1
5.9
6.8
7.9
8.3
17.2
7.4
AES
. 1.5
10.4
17.6
9.0
5.9
13.1
15.7
33.5
16.7
United
ASTRAP
< 5+
10
22
15
5
15
19
>25
9
< 5
< 5
*
Statest
RCDM
5
17
20
13
6
13
18
26
18
8
10
Observed
Values**
6
10
18
20
12
9
12
19
12
9
9
* Modeled values include wet deposition of S02 and 804 expressed as S.
** See Table 6.1
+ Uncertainty due to limited number of isopleths of model predictions.
t Final ENAMAP and ASTRAP results were not available when the report
was finalized.
In Table 5.3, the variations among the model predictions
are immediately obvious and are due to many diffences such
as: the variations in emission inputs; the differing meteo-
rology in the years chosen to run the models; the differences
in the values chosen for SO2 to S04 conversion rates and
wet and dry deposition. Resolution of these differences will
be the subject of a detailed model intercomparison by Work Group 2
as part of Phase II.
-------
5-8
The most detailed and reliable deposition observations
are for the wet component. The results presented in Chapter 6
for the estimated wet deposition rate at the sensitive sites
are compared in Table 5.3 with the predictions of the models
obtained from Appendix 8, Table A8-9, and from the U.S. model
outputs.
For many of the sensitive areas, the predictions of the
two Canadian models agree with the observations reasonably
well, with the AES model tending to overpredict and the MOE
model tending to underpredict.
We recognize the importance of advising the reader about
the confidence with which one can make use of the transfer
matrices -in this chapter and Appendix 8. These matrices
have not yet been thoroughly verified or intercompared, so
that it is difficult to assign a quantitative measure of
uncertainty to the matrix elements. The differences among
model estimates for individual matrix elements are perhaps
the best indication of the uncertainty in these values at
the present time. On the whole, the matrix elements repre-
senting transport between major source areas and those receptor
areas within reasonable transport range of the source areas
are in relatively good agreement across the models. Where
obvious differences exist, efforts have been initiated to
determine the cause for disagreement. These efforts are
expected to help us understand the reasons for most of the
major differences before the end of Phase II.
-------
5-9
In the meantime all the model results must be regarded
as preliminary. The results are presented here primarly to
indicate the type of information and the format that can be
provided for use by others. The results also give some useful
indications, or trends, regarding the relative importance
of various source regions on the sensitive receptor areas
presently of interest. But at this time the absolute values
of the numbers in the matrices, should not be given too much
importance and certainly the results of any one model should
not be taken in preference to the others. It is expected that
Work Group 2 in Phase II and beyond will provide "best estimates"
of the values in matrices based on the results of all models,
and that other Work Groups will still be advised not to use
results of individual models as definitive.
-------
Chapter 6
MONITORING
Whether needed for the study of atmospheric transport or
ecological and other effects, the measurement of atmospheric
pollutants and precipitation composition and deposition is
a vital aspect of understanding long-range transport and
acid rain. Modeling research and applications require ground
truth measurements with which calculations can be compared.
Ecological and other impact studies require the amount of
atmospheric input to relate quantitatively loadings to effects,
A multistage monitoring program is a necessity to understand
both the transport and chemistry in air and their trends as
well as the ecological consequences of atmospheric deposition.
In addition, during future Phases, two potential
applications of monitoring networks will require evaluation.
These are the possible use of monitoring networks to assess
the efficacy of control strategies, and the possible use of
meteorological and air quality networks as a supplemental
part of control strategies.
Monitoring, at least of the chemistry of precipitation,
has not been consistently maintained in North America.
European scientists began a large international network in
the mid-1950's which has been continued more or less intact
to the present. Only in recent years have limited commit-
ments been made to long-term monitoring in Canada and the
United States.
-------
6-2
Precipitation chemistry monitoring networks in Canada
and the United States are of three types: global background,
national trends and research support. The snail number of
global background sites are located in remote areas where
there is little or no local or even regional pollution.
Such sites include American Samoa, Barrow, Alaska, and others.
.These stations identify long-term trends in the global spread
of pollution.
Currently the national trends networks measure the
composition of precipitation and wet deposition using wet-
only collectors for both atmospheric and ecological purposes.
They are long-term, country-wide, national networks: the
Canadian Network for Sampling Precipitation (CANSAP), and the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), a cooperative
program involving several U.S. agencies. Several other
networks with similar objectives, including those of the
Tennessee Valley Authority, EPA Region V, the Ontario Ministry
of the Environment and the Great Lakes Precipitation Chemistry
Network, are more regionally oriented.
Other networks, such as those of the Electric Power
Research Institute (ERPI), of the Multi-State Atmospheric
Power Production Pollution Study (MAP3S), Ontario Hydro and
the Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (APN), fall
into the third category - research support networks. They
are designed primarily to support studies in atmospheric
transport, chemistry, and modeling.
-------
6-3
As a result of the increased activity in monitoring during
**•
the last five years, a combined set of data for North America
is now emerging from the Canadian and U.S. networks. Combining
several network data sets from 1976 to 1979, Figure 6.1 shows
a map of hydrogen ion (H"*") deposition over the North American
continent (Wisniewski and Keitz, 1980). The 50 and 10 mg m~2
lines represent approximately 4.3 and 5.0 pH lines, respectively,
The map shows large acidic deposition in the northeastern part
of the United States and southeastern part of Canada. It
has been postulated that the geographic extent of increasing
rain acidity is spreading toward the southeast and midwest
with all states east of the Mississippi River now receiving
some degree of rain acidity. Some west-coast sites in both
countries also show relatively large hydrogen ion deposition
based on recent measurements.
Since it will be some time before models will be able to
calculate hydrogen ion deposition, the sulfur deposition
values in precipitation may be the best data for comparison
with model results. A map of the wet deposition values of
sulfur for 1977 in eastern North America is given in Figure 6.2.
(Galloway and Whelpdale, 1980). The problem of comparing model
results with such data is obvious in view of the complexity of
the deposition field. Deposition fields of other substances
(e.g., nitrate and ammonium ion) are also necessary for a more
complete description of the acid deposition phenomenon. In
-------
6-4
Figure 6.1 : Mean annual hydrogen ion (H+) deposition in
precipitation for period 1976-1979 (mg m~2 y-1)
Deposition values are derived from mean pH and
mean annual precipitation. Adapted from
Wisniewski and Keitz (1980).
10
-------
6 - 5
Figure 6.2 :
Wet deposition of sulfate (S04) in precipitation
in eastern North America for 1977 (g S nr2 y1) .
Adapted from Galloway and Whelpdale (1980).
0.5
-------
6-6
any given year deposition patterns could be quite different
from a long-term average due to variations in meteorological
parameters, such as the wind and precipitation fields.
Besides the natural variability of precipitation chemistry,
the methods used to collect, transport, store, and analyze
samples contribute to possible errors in the final data. The
isopleths shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 were based on data from
networks with different measurement techniques. Also, the
level of quality assurance varied from network to network.
With these considerations in mind, a rough estimate of error
for individual data points used in the figures and for values
in Table 6.1 can be made of hydrogen deposition to be as high
as +50% and of sulfur deposition to be as high as +25%. As
better quality assurance techniques are applied and a large
statistical base established, error estimates can be refined.
One of the goal-s of this Canada - U.S. study is the
quantitative evaluation of transport of material through the
atmosphere and deposition on sensitive areas. The amount of
wet deposition to sensitive areas can be estimated from recent
monitoring data collected since 1977. Some such estimates of
annual wet deposition of hydrogen and sulfate ion to specified
sensitive areas are given in Table 6.1. As a more extensive
record of measurements is compiled, both our confidence
in average annual deposition values and our awareness of
possible deviations of individual yearly values will increase.
-------
6-7
Table 6.1 Estimated annual wet deposition of hydrogen
and sulfate ion to specified sensitive areas,
These data must be considered preliminary. Errors
in H and S04 values are estimated to be as high
. as +50% and _+25%, respectively.
Annual Wet Deposition
H+ S04
Sensitive Area* (my H m~2y~l) (y S m~2-y~l)**
Boundary Waters
AlijOma
Muskoka
Quebec - Montmorency
Southern llova Scotia
Uew Hampshire
Adirondack - Whiteface
Pennsylvania - Penn State U.
Southern Appalachians
Florida
Arkansas
10
30
70
40
30
50
50
90
60
30
30
0.6
1
1.8
2.0
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.9
1.2
0.9
0.9
* See Fiyure 4.1 and Appendix 6 for sensitive area locations
** To convert sulfate loadiny expressed in terms of S
(as shown in table) to loading in terras of 864,
multiply by 3.
-------
6-8
Seasonal and monthly deposition values may vary widely because
the amounts deposited depend not only on the varying composi-
tion of the rain but also on the highly variable amount of
rain that falls.
The measurement of the dry deposition component is at
present not possible because there exists no generally accepted
method for routine monitoring of dry deposited material.
-------
Chapter 7
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PHASE II WORK
Conclusions
Work Group 2 has reviewed the modeling, monitoring and
research aspects of the atmospheric behavior of acid-forming
pollutants, particularly sulfur, between their source regions
and deposition areas. The role, capabilities and applications
of selected transport models from both Canada and the U.S.
have been described. As a part of the Phase I work, "first
cut" transfer matrices to describe source-receptor relation-
ships have been constructed by the Group. Comparisons of
model results were made with deposition data collected by
networks in both countries.
The following are the major conclusions of the Group
(1) The source-receptor matrices obtained to date are
of an interim nature, and must be viewed as only a
first attempt to quantify relationships. Revisions
and refinements will be made in the transfer matrices
during future Phases.
(2) Monitoring data of high quality are crucial for the
evaluation of models, and, at present, significant
uncertainties exist in these data. The continuation
of existing monitoring networks, and of strong quality
assurance programs are essential to ensure that valid
monitoring data will be available for future in-depth
comparisons with model calculations.
-------
7-2
(3) The above uncertainties notwithstanding, the' results
from the models and the monitoring networks which
have been presented can serve for the initial develop-
ment of pollution control stratagies.
(4) A strong research and development effort is essential
for the continuing upgrading of routine modeling and
monitoring activities, and for the further develop-
ment of a sound base of scientific knowldge for the
agreement.
Recommendations
The first set of recommendations pertains to matters
requiring consultation or clarification among the various
Work Groups. Work Group 2 recommends that:
there be continuing consultation with Work Group 2
regarding the uses, results, and significance of
the Phase I transfer matrices;
a common glossary of terms be developed to insure
uniformity of technical language in all Groups
(see Appendix 3 to this report);
common units of measurement be used, preferably the
SI (International System) units;
- field, analysis, and interpretive activities of
Work Groups 1 and 2 be coordinated, as far as
possible, in order to gain maximum benefit from
the efforts invested.
-------
7-3
The second set of recommendations is directed to clarifying
aspects of Phase II (and beyond) work. We recommend that:
the relative importance of hydrogen and sulfate ion
deposition, as a measure of damage, be examined and
resolved, as far as possible at this time;
key atmospheric parameters, from an effects point of
view, be identified;
the urgency/importance of investigating nitrogen
oxide deposition be discussed and resolved, as far
as possible at this time;
the need for investigating the various time scales
of adverse effects from acid deposition, and
associated Work Group 1 priorities, be established;-
the priority of considering the long-range transport
of other materials (e.g., metals, synthetic organics,
particulates) be established;
the need to model past emissions and deposition of
sulfur and other species be reviewed, in view of
the paucity and uncertainty of past data, and the
likelihood of a poor return for our efforts;
the number and type of emission scenarios to be run
in future Phases be clarified;
the name of Work Group 2 be changed to "Atmospheric
Sciences and Analysis Work Group" to reflect more
accurately our charge;
-------
7-4
the following be added to our terms of reference:
" - evaluate and employ available field measurements,
monitoring data and other information;";
- a critical path analysis of tasks and information
needs be completed by the Coordinating Committee or
Work Group 3A and distributed to ensure a coordinated
effort;
The third set of recommendations are more general in
nature and concern the broader aspects of the acid deposition
problem. We recommend that:
a long-term commitment be made by governments to
the operation of national and regional precipitation
chemistry networks, specifically CANSAP and NADP,
with increased effort and resources being allocated
to quality assurance/control and data analysis/
interpretation aspects;
efforts be made to develop more comprehensive
deposition information, including that on nitrate
and ammonium ion, alkaline constituents, and dry
deposition;
- communications within and coordination of scientific
programs in the two countries continue and be
enhanced. (The structure for this exists: MOI
Work Groups provide the near-term reporting function,-
the RCG is structured to provide a longer-term
coordination function; and the NAS-RSC panel can
be expected to provide the important review function.)
-------
7-5
Phase II Work
The work plan of Work Group 2, prepared during Phase I,
outlined the major tasks of the Group and their timing.
Table 7.1 shows, as a'bar graph, a slightly revised set of
tasks and timing for Phase II and beyond.
In order to proceed in Phase II with a number of its
tasks, Work Group 2 requires, in addition to those items
identified as recommendations, several specific inputs from
other Work Groups. These are needed before further revision
of the transfer matrices is undertaken. They are
- . a current, agreed, 'unified' sulfur emissions
inventory for North America, on an annual and
seasonal basis by February 1, 1981 (from WG 3B); .
agreement on the number and delineation of source
regions in the two countries for use in transfer
matrix calculations (input from WG's 3A and 3B);
- agreement on sensitive receptor areas in both
countries (from WG 1).
-------
TABLE 7.1
WORK CROUP 2 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (REVISED 80/12/19)
ACTIVITY
T 1 1 I I I
Ittov 15 | Jan 15 I Mar 301 May ISlOct 811 Jan 82
1 Receive unified U.S. /Canada present S inventory (annual) from 3D
2 Receive unified U.S. /Canada present S inventory (seasonal) from 3D
3 Receive past/ future S inventories (annual and seasonal) from Group 3D
5 Final choice of source and receptor areas from Group I, 3A, and 3B
_
.
•
.
Timing of Riasos
_
complete
complete
complete
complete
complete
complete
7
7
.
rtiase I
'
X
Pnase II
--j
i
ttiase III
-------
7-7
Comments on the status of each of the tasks listed in
Figure 7.1 is given below.
Tasks 1-5: Inputs required' from other Work Groups
Task 6: The year 1978 was chosen. See Appendix 9.
Task 7: To be completed early in Phase II.
Task 8: Completed. See Chapter 3.
Task 9: Completed. See Appendix 5.
Task 10: Completed. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 5 and 8.
Task 11: Completed. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 5 and 8.
Task 12: A major Phase II activity. This will be the
subject of a series of workshops. See Appendix 9
for a report of the first workshop.
Task 13: Completed, but can be ammended. See Appendix 3.
Task 14: Completed for Phase I. See Chapter 6. This is a
continuing activity throughout all phases.
Task 15: Completed as an interim step. See Chapter 5 and
Appendix 8. Refinements will occur during Phase II.
Task 16: To be done in Phases II and III as determined in
consultation with Work Groups 3A and 3B.
Task 17: Initial reviews to be done during Phase II for
four topics: (i) the parameterization of chemical
processes in LRT models; (ii) historical trends
in precipitation composition and deposition data;
(iii) wintertime deposition and chemical processes;
and (iv) global and western North America rain pH.
Task 18: Ongoing.
-------
REFERENCES
BASS, A., 1980: Modeling long-range transport and diffusion.
Preprint, Procedings of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference
on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, 1980,
New Orleans, LA.
BHUMRALKAR, C.M... W.B. JOHNSON, R.L. MANCUSCO, R.H. THUILLIER,
and D.E. WOLF, 1980: Interregional exchanges of airborne sulfur
pollution and deposition in Eastern North America, Procedings
of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of Air
Pollution Meteorology March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
CROQUETTE, P.J. and VENA, F., 1980: Canadian S02 Emissions
Information Package. Environment Canada.
ELIASSEN, A., 1980. A Review of Long-range Transport Modeling.
J. Applied Meteorology, vol. 19, 231-240.
FAY, J.A. and ROSENZWEIG, J.J., 1980: An Analytical Diffusion
Model for Long Distance Transport of Air Pollutants. Atmospheric
Environment, vol. 14, 355-365.
GALLOWAY, J.N. and WHELPDALE, D.M., 1980: An atmospheric sulfur
budget for Eastern North America. Atmospheric Environment,
vol. 14, 409-417.
HOLZWORTH, A.C., 1967; Mixing depths, wind speeds and air
pollution potential for selected locations in the United States.
J. Appl. Met., vol. 6, 1039-1044.
NIEMANN, B.L., A.A. HIRATA, B.R. HALL, M.T. MILLS,
P.M. MAYERHOFER and L.F. SMITH, 1980: Initial Evaluation
of regional transport and subregional dispersion models for
sulfur dioxide and fine particulates, Procedings of the Second
Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of Air Pollution
Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
OLSON, M.P., VOLDNER, E.G., OIKAWA, K.K. and MACAFEE, A.W.,
(1979): A Concentration/Deposition Model Applied to the
Canadian Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants Project: A
Technical Description, LRTAP-79-5, Atmospheric Environment
Service.
-------
PORTELI, R.V., 1977: Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Ventilation
Coefficients for Canada. Atmospheric Environment Service,
Downsview, Ontario, Canada. Climatological Studies No. 31,
87 pages.
SHANNON, J., 1980: Examination of surface removal and horizontal
transport of atmospheric sulfur on a regional side, Procedings
of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of
Air Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
VENKATRAM, A., B.E. LEY, and S.Y. WONG, 1980: A statistical
model to estimate long-term concentrations of pollutants
associated with long range transport, to appear in Atmospheric
Environment.
VOLDNER, E.G., M.P. OLSON, K. OIKAWA, and M. LOISELLE, 1980:
Comparison between measured and computed concentrations of
sulfur compounds in Eastern North America, to appear in Journal
of Geophysical Research Procedings of CACGP Symposium on Trace
Gases and Aerosols, August 1979.
WISNIEWSKI, J. and KEITZ, L., 1980: The magnitude of the acid rain
problem from a monitoring viewpoint within the continental
U.S. (submitted to Science).
-------
Appendix 1
Work Group 2
Terras of Reference
and Additional Guidance
-------
A.I - 1
Terms of Reference from the MOI
The Group will provide information based on cooperative
atmospheric modeling activities leadiny to an understanding
of the transport of air pollutants between source regions and
sensitive areas, and prepare proposals for the "Research,
Modeling and Monitoring" element of an agreement. As a first
priority the Group will by October 1, 1980 provide initial
guidance on suitable atmospheric transport models to be used
in preliminary assessment activities.
In carrying out its work, the Group will:*
identify source regions and applicable emission
data bases;
- evaluate and select atmospheric transport models
and data bases to be used;
relate emissions from the source regions to
loadings in each identified sensitive area;
- calculate emission reductions required from source
regions to achieve proposed reductions in air
pollutant concentration and deposition rates which
would be necessary in order to protect sensitive
areas;
* proposed additional term of reference:
" - evaluate and employ available field measurements
monitoring data and other information;"
-------
A.I - 2
assess historic trends of emissions, ambient
concentrations and atmospheric deposition to gain
further insights into source-receptor relationships
for air quality, including deposition; and
- prepare proposals for the "Research, Modeling and
Monitoring" element of an agreement.
Additional Guidance from the Chairman of WG 3B
Each Work Group will be responsible individually for the
following.
a. Develop data needs and analysis methods for their Work
Group; identify required inputs from other Work Groups;
(due to the size of the Work Groups, the Chairmen will
have to very carefully orchestrate the Group°s activities
in order to accomplish their tasks).
b. The technical review (including peer review as necessary)
of their work products.
c. Maintaining agreed upon work schedules with prompt
notification to 3A Chairman in the event of any
significant deviation from Work Plan.
d. Responsible for coordination with their counterparts
from the other country in conducting full cooperative
analyses in order to fulfill the terms of reference.
e. Responsible for fulfilling requests for information
from other work groups in a timely fashion.
-------
A.I - 3
f. Be prepared to draft language for portion of agreement
that pertains to their tasks as directed by Coordinating
Committee.
-------
• Appendix 2
Membership of Work Group 2
-------
A.2 - 1
1. United States
Chairman:
Vice Chairman:
Members:
Lester Machta, Director
Air Resources Laboratory
NOAA Room 613
8060 13th Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Lowell Smith, Director
Program Integration and Policy Staff
U.S. EPA RD-681
Washington, D. C. 20460
Paul Altshuller
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Franz Burmann
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Robert Kane
Department of Energy
Office of Regulatory Affairs EV-21
1000 Independence Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20585
Roger Morris
Department of Energy
Office of Policy and Evaluation PE-83
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20585
Bernard Silverman
Water and Power Resources Services
E & R Center P. O. Box 25007
Department of Interior
Bldg. 67 - Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Alternate for Siverman
Richard Ives
Department of Interior, Code 124
Washington, D.C. 20240
-------
A.2 - 2
Yeh Rung-Wei
Council of Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Ken Demerjian
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triange Park, NC 27711
Dan Golomb
Office of Environmental Processes and
Effects Research RD-682
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Brand Niemann
Program Integration and Policy Staff
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Joe Tikvart
Office of Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
John Miller
Air Resources Laboratories
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
8060 13th Street
Silver Spring, MD. 20910
Jack Blanchard
OES/ENH Room 7820
State Department
2101 C Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20520
Liaison: Robin Porter
Department of State
EUR/CAN, Room 5227
2101 C Street, N.W .
Washington, DC 20520
Conrad Kleveno
Office of International Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
A.2 - 3
2. Canada
Chairman:
Vice Chairman;
Members:
Howard Ferguson, Director
Air Quality and Inter-environmental
Research Branch
Atmospheric Environment Service
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario M3H5T4
Greg Van Volkenburgh, Supervisor
Technology Development and Appraisal Section
Air Resources Branch
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
880 Bay Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M551Z8
Douglas M. Whelpdale
Air Quality and Inter-environmental
Research Branch
Atmospheric Environment Service
Environment Canada
4905 Duf.ferin Street
Downsview, Ontario, M3H5T4
James W.S. Young
Air Quality and Inter-environmental
Research Branch
Atmospheric Environment Service
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario, M3H5T4
Marvin P. Olson
Air Quality and Inter-environmental
Research Branch
Atmospheric Environment Service
Environment Canada.
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario M3H5T4
Peter W. Summers
Air Quality and Inter-environmental
Research Branch
Atmospheric Environment Service
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario, M3H5T4
-------
A.2 - 4
Paul Choquette, Chief
Pollution Data Analysis Division
Environmental Protection Service
Environment Canada
Place Vincent Massey
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A1C8
B. Power
Environmental Management and Control
Division
Newfoundland Department of Provincial
Affairs and Environment
Elizabeth Towers
St. John's, Newfoundland
G. Paulin
Director de la Recherche
Environnement Quebec
194 ave St-Sacrement
Quebec, P.Q. G1N4J5
A. Venkatram
Air Quality and Meteorology Section
Air Resources Branch
Ontario Ministry of Environment
880 Bay Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M551Z8
Liaison: R. Beaulieu
United States Transboundary Relations
Division
Department of External Affairs
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario, K1AOG2
Hans Martin
LRTAP Liaison Office
Atmospheric Environment Service
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario, M3H5T4
-------
Appendix 3
Glossary of Terms
-------
Introductory Comments
During the preparation of this glossary, use has been
made of terminology and definitions found in, inter alia, the
first two annual reports of the United States-Canada Research
Consultation Group on the Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants,
and the draft Federal Acid Rain Assessment Plan. An obvious
need exists for uniformity in terminology amongst all Work
Groups and others involved in activities related to the
Memorandum of Intent and subsequent developments. It is
anticipated that this glossary will grow and be refined as
further contributions from specialists in various disciplines
are received.
-------
A.3 - 1
Acid Deposition,; Collectively, the processes by which acidic
and acidifying materials are removed from the atmosphere and
deposited at the surface of the earth. Also, the amount of
material so deposited. (Units: ML"2?"1.)
Acid Precipitation; A more precise term than acid rain, it
usually refers to all types of precipitation with pH less
than 5.6.
Acid Rain; A popular term used to describe precipitation that
is more acidic than "clean" rain (pH-^ 5.6). It" is also used
more generally to describe other atmospheric deposition
phenomena involving acidity.
Analytical Model; A mathematical model in which the solution
to the system of governing equations is expressed in terms of
analytical functions. As such, these models are simplifications
of Lagrangian, Eulerian or statistical models.
Anthropogenic; Produced by man's activity.
Bulk Deposition; The term applied to atmospheric deposition
collected in a collector which is open at all times. Bulk
deposition consists of wet deposition, plus an unknown fraction
of the dry particulate deposition, plus an unknown and probably
very small fraction of the dry gaseous deposition.
Dry Deposition; Collectively, the processes, excluding preci-
pitation processes, by which materials are removed from the
atmosphere and deposited at the surface of the earth. Processes
include sedimentation of large particles, the turbulent transfer
-------
A.3 - 2
to the surface of small particles and gases, followed,
respectively, by impaction and sorption or reaction. Also,
the amount of material so deposited. (Units: ML~2T-1.)
Ensemble Mean: The average over a number of individual
model runs in which only one or a few adjustable parameters
are allowed to change.
Eulerian Model; A mathematical model in which computations
are made successively at fixed points in space (as opposed to
Lagrangian models where computations are made following an air
parcel). Computation points are usually arranged in a fixed
grid, and the model is also known as a grid model.
Flux; A physical quantity, the amount (mass) of material
passing through a unit area in a unit of time. (Units:
ML-2T-1.)
Individual Realization; The result from a single model run
with a given set of input parameters.
Inventory; A listing of emission source strengths of a
particular pollutant for a specified time period. Inventories
and parameters are normally organized on a point-source basis,
an area-source basis, or a combination of the two. Area
sources may be represented on a grid, urban-area, county,
state, province, or national basis.
Isopleth; A line drawn on a field of values which joins
points of equal value in time or space.
-------
A.3 - 3
Lagr.angian Model; A mathematical model in which computations
are made successively in the same air parcel(s) as it moves
along a trajectory. Because this type of model is based on
following an air parcel, it is also known as a trajectory model.
Loading (atmospheric); The amount of a pollutant in the atmos-
phere expressed in mass or concentration units. (May also be
expressed on a. per unit time and/or area basis.)
goading Surface; A term used interchangeably with deposition.
LRTAP: The long-ramje transport of air pollutants refers to
the processes, collectively, by which pollutants are transported,
transformed and deposited, on a regional scale (of the order of
hundreds to thousands of km).
.Mb (Millibar) Level; A surface of constant pressure in the
atmosphere, identified by the pressure expressed in mb.
(Common pressure levels used in air quality modeling are 925
and 850 mb levels.)
Mixing Height; The height above the earth's surface of a
boundary layer inversion which is usually the upper limit of
turbulent mixing activity, and which inhibits upward flux of
pollutant.
Model; A quantitative simulation of the behaviour of
a portion of the environment.
-------
A.3 - 4
Model Evaluation; A procedure by which the validity and sen-
sitivity of a model is assessed. Usually the validity is
ascertained by comparing model outputs with measurements,
and the sensitivity assessed through a series of model runs
in which input parameter values are altered in sequence, and
the results intercompared.
Model Intercomparison; A procedure of comparing the results
of several models which have been run on specified data bases
and with (usually) specified values of model parameters.
Model Resolution; The ability of a model to distinguish
(utilize) small spatial or temporal changes in input variables.
Model Sensitivity; A model characteristic which is described
by the response of an output parameter to a unit change in an
input variable or a model parameter.
Model Validation; The part of model evaluation in which modeled
results are compared with measured values.
Oxides of Nitrogen; This term usually denotes the sum of nitric
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NC^)- Other forms are
nitrate (N03), nitrous oxide (N2O), and dinitrogen pentoxide
(N205).
Oxides of Sulfur; This term usually denotes sulfur dioxide
(802). Other forms are sulfur trioxide (803) which is uncommon,
and sulfate (304).
parameterization; The representation of a physical, chemical
or other process by a convenient mathematical expression
containing quantities (parameters) for which measurements or
estimates are usually available.
-------
A. 3 - 5
Receptor; An organism, ecosystem or object which is the
direct or indirect recipient of atmospheric deposition.
Scavenging; The processes by which materials are incorporated
into precipitation elements and (usually) brought to the earth's
surface.
Scenario; In the modeling context, a set of specified conditions
(usually emissions inventory) for input to the model which usually
reflect some anticipated future situation (e.g., energy use or
pollution emissions).
Sensitive Area; A geographical area in which a receptor (or
receptors) exhibit damage in response to a (pollution-imposed)
stress.
Sensitivity Receptor; The degree to which a receptor exhibits
an adverse effect from a (pollution-imposed) stress.
Source-Receptor Relationship; An expression of how a pollution-
source area and a receptor region are quantitatively linked.
JSpatial Resolution; The minimum distance in space over which
meaningful differences in results can be determined (using a
particular model.) (For example, a model based on a 381-km
grid will provide no significantly different information for
two receptor points separated by less than approximately 381 km.)
-Statistical Model; A mathematical model which uses statistical
values of parameters as inputs for the computations.
-------
A.3 - 6
Surrogate; The term applied to a parameter which is used to
represent another. (For example, modeling hydrogen ion
behavior in the atmosphere is difficult, so that sulfate ion
is used as a substitute.)
Susceptibility: A receptor or receptor area is said to be
susceptible if it is both sensitive, and receiving a pollutant
loading or stress.
Temporal Resolution; The minimum time during which meaningful
differences in results can be determined (using a particular
model). (For example, models using upper air data which are
only available every six hours are limited in their temporal
resolution to about 6 hours.)
Trajectory; The path or track of an air parcel through the
atmosphere. It can be calculated from observed or gridded
wind data either forward or backward from a point (source or
receptor, respectively).
Transfer Matrix; A presentation of source-receptor relation-
ships in a matrix form. Matrix elements can be expressed
as percentage values, as absolute values, or as values
normalized by source strength.) Such a presentation provides
a means of easy comparison of the impact of a variety of
sources on a variety of receptors.
Transformation (chemical); The processes by which chemical
species are converted into other chemical species (in the
atmosphere).
-------
A.3 - 7
Variance; A measure of variability. It is denoted by O" 2
and defined as the mean-square deviation from the mean, that
is, the mean of the squares of the differences between
individual values of x and the mean value x.
d" 2 = E C(x-x)2], where E denotes the expected value.
Wet Deposition; Collectively, the processes by which materials
are removed from the atmosphere and deposited at the surface
of the earth by precipitation elements. The processes include
in-cloud and below-cloud scavenging of both gaseous and
particulate materials. Also, the amount of material so
deposited. (Units: ML-2T-1.)
-------
Appendix 4
Inventory of Available Models
-------
A. 4 - 1
Table 1. Summary of Principal Regional Air Quality Simulation Models
in the United States and Canada
Name of
Organization
3atelle-Pacific
Northwest Labs
Brookhaven
National Labs
Argonne
National Labs
ERT. Inc.
ERT, Inc.
Teknekron
Research, Inc.
Teknek-ron
Research! Inc.
"
Washington
University
SRI
International
EPA Meterology
Lab
Atmospheric
Environ. Service
Ministry of the
Environment
NOAA/ARL
Colorado State
University
University of
Wisconsin .
MEP, Ltd.
Environnement
Quebec
Model
Acronym
RAPT
AIRSOX
ASTRAP*
SURAD
MESOPUFF
RCDM*
REGMOD
CAPITA-
Monte Carlo
ENAMAP-1*
RPAQSM
AES-LRT*
OME-LRT*
ATAD
RADM
ATM-
SOX
LRT
TGD-EQ
Type of
Model
Lagrangian
Lagrangian
Lagrangian
Eulerian
Lagrangian
Analytical
Eulerian
Eulerian
Statistical
Lagrangian
Lagrangian
Eulerian
Lagrangian
Statistical
Lagrangian
Lagrangian
Lagrangian
Statistical
Eulerian
Lagrangian
Statistical
Lagrangian
Time Period
monthly to annual
monthly to annual
monthly to annual
episodes
episodes
annual
episodes
monthly to annual
monthly to annual
episodes
monthly to annual
annual
monthly
monthly
monthly
seasonal
seasonal to
annual
Principal
References
McNaughton (1980)
Kleinman et al
(1980)
Shannon (1980)
Lavery et al
(1980)
Bass (1980)
Fay and
Rosenzweig (1980)
Niemann et al
(1980)
Prahm and
Christensen (1977)
Niemann et al
(1980)
Patterson et al
(1980)
Bhumralkar et al
(1980)
Lamb (1980)
Voldner et al
(1980)
Venkatram et al
(1980)
Heffter (1980)
Henmi (1980)
Wilkening and
Ragland (1980)
Weisman (1980)
Lelievre (1981)
* Models selected for use by Work Group 2 as of January 15, 1981.
-------
A.4 - 2
BASS, A., 1980: Modeling long-range transport and diffusion.
Preprint, Proceedings of the Second Joint AMS/APAC Conference
on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, 1980,
New Orleans, LA.
BHUMRALKAR, C.M.., W.B. JOHNSON, R.L. MANCUSCO, R.H. THUILLIER,
and D.E. WOLF, 1980: Interregional exchanges of airborne sulfur
pollution and deposition in Eastern North America, Proceedings
of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of
Air Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
FAY, J.A.. and ROSENZWEIG, J.J., 1980: An Analytical Diffusion
Model for Long Distance Transport of Air Pollutants. Atmospheric
Environment, vol. 14, 355-365.
HEFFTER, J.L., 1980: Transport layer depth calculations, paper in
Proceedings of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Air Pollution
Meterology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
HENMI, J., 1980: Long-Range Transport-Model of SO2 and Sulfate and
its Application to the Eastern United States, Journal of Geophysical
Research, 85, C8,- 4436 - 4442, August 20.
KLEINMAN, L.J., J.G. CARNEY, and R.E. MEYERS, 1980: Time Dependence
on Averge Regional Sulfur Oxide Concentrations, Proceedings of
the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of Air
Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
LAMB, R.G., 1980: A Regional Scale (1000 km) Model of Photochemical
Air Pollution - Part I: Theoretical Formulation, draft report from
the Meteorology and Assessment Division, EPA Environmental Sciences
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
LAVERY, T.L., et al, 1980: Development and validation of a regional
model to simulate atmospheric concentrations of sulfur dioxide and
sulfate, paper in Proceedings of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference
on Air Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA, 236-247.
LELIEVRE, C., 1981: Modele simple de transformation chimique du
soufre lors de son transport dans 1'atmosphere, Rapport Interne,
Service de la Mete'orologie, Ministere de 1' Environnement du Quebec.
McNAUGHTON, D.J., 1980: Time series comparisons of regional model
predictions with sulfur oxide observations from the SURE program,
Paper 80-54.5 presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Montreal, Quebec, June 22-27, 1980.
-------
A.4 - 3
NIEMANN, B.L., AA. HIRATA, B.R. HALL, M.T. MILLS,
P.M. MAYERHOFER and L.F. SMITH, 1980: Initial Evaluation of
regional transport and subregional dispersion models for
sulfur dioxide and fine particulates, Proceedings of the
Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of Air
Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
PATTERSON, D.E., HUSAR, R.B., WILSON, JR., W.E. and SMITH,
L.F., 1980: Monte Carlo Simulation of a daily regional
sulfur distribution: Comparision with SURE sulfate data
and visibility observations during August 1977, Paper submitted
to J. Appl. Meteor., June.
PRAHM, L.V. and 0. CHRISTENSEN, 1977: Long-range Transmission
of Pollutants Simulated by a Two-Dimensional Pseudo-Spectral
Dispersion Model, J_. Appl. Meteor. , .16,9, 896-910.
SHANNON, J., 1980: Examination of surface removal and horizontal
transport of atmospheric sulfur on a regional scale, Proceedings
of the Second Joint AMS/APCA Conference on Applications of
Air Pollution Meteorology, March 24-27, New Orleans, LA.
VENKATRAM, A., B.E. LEY, and S.Y. WONG, 1980: A statistical model
to estimate long-term concentrations of pollutants associated
with long range transport, to appear in Atmospheric Environment.
VOLDNER, E.G., M.P. OLSON, K. OIKAWA, and M. LOISELLE, 1980:
Comparision between measured and computed concentrations of
sulfur compounds in Eastern North America, to appear in Journal
of Geophysical Research Proceedings of CACGP Symposium on Trace
Gases and Aerosols, August 1979.
WEISMAN, B., 1980: Long-range transport model for sulfur,
Paper 80-54.6 presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Montreal, Quebec, June 22-27, 1980.
WILKENING, K.E. and K.W. RAGLAND, 1980: Users Guide for the
University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sulfur Computer Model (UWATM-SOX),
draft report prepared for the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth, MN, November 12.
-------
Appendix 5
Descriptions of Selected Models
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.S-la
ASTRA?
ENAMAP-1 -
AES-LRT
OME-LRT
RCDM
Parameterizations
Comparisons with Data
Parameterizations
Comparisons with Data
Parameterizations
Comparisons with Data
Parameterizations
Comparisons with Data
Parameterizations
Comparisons with Data
PAGE
A.5-2
A.5-4
A.5-9
A.5-11
A.5-23
A.5-24
A.5-29
A.5-31
A.5-34
A.5-35
-------
A.5-lb
Figure A5-1
Figure
A5-2
Figure A5-3
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
A5-4
A5-5
A5-6
A5-7
A5-8
A5-9
A5-10
A5-11
A5-12
A5-13
FIGURE AND TABLE DESCRIPTIONS
Comparison of cumulative sulfate in
rain, expressed as total sulfur for
1977 with ASTRAP simulations (isopleths)
(Galloway and Whelpdale).
Comparison of Jan-Feb 1978 SURE average
sulfate measurements (number) with
ASTRAP simulations (isopleths) using
Jan-Feb 1975 meteorology. (Shannon)
Comparison of August 1977 SURE average
sulfate measurements (numbers) with
ASTRAP simulations (isopleths) using
July-August 1975 meteoroglogy. (Shannon)
SC>2 concentrations (ug/m3) for January
1977 from ENAMAP-1
Page
A.5-6
A.5-7
A.5-8
j
7
concentrations (ug/m3) for January
1977 from ENAMAP-1
SCu concentrations (ug/m3) for April
1977 from ENAMAP-1
SOj concentrations (ug/m3) for April
1977 from ENAMAP-1
U
77
concentrations (ug/m3) for August
1977 from ENAMAP-1
304 concentrations (ug/m3) for August
1977 from ENAMAP-1
S02 concentrations (ug/m3) for October
1977 from ENAMAP-1
SO^ concentrations (ug/m3) for October
1977 from ENAMAP-1
Calculated annual concentrations of S02
and S04 (ug/m-3) for 1977 from ENAMAP-1
Calculated annual dry and wet deposi-
tions of S02 (10 mg/m2) for 1977 from
ENAMAP-1
A.5-12
A.5-13
A.5-14
A.5-15
A.5-16
A.5-17
A.5-18
A.5-19
A.5-20
A.5-21
-------
A.5-lc
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Table
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
A5-14
A5-15
Figure A5-16
Figure A5-17
A5-18
A5-19
A5-1
A5-20
A5-21
A5-22
A5-23
A5-24
Calculated annual dry and wet depositions A. 5-22
of S04 (10 mg/m2) for 1977 from ENAMAP-1
AES-LRT computed and measured daily mean
SC>2 concentrations during October 1977 at
Albany, N.Y. (measured-solid, computed-
dashed)
A. 5-25
AES-LRT computed and measured daily mean
sulfate concentrations during October
1977 at Port Huron, Mich, (measured-solid,
computed-dashed) A. 5-26
Ratios of AES-LRT computed to measured
monthly precipitation weighted sulfate
concentrations in the rain and percent
contribution from direct sulfate scaveng-
ing (in parentheses) for October 1977. A. 5-27
Ratios of AES-LRT computed to measured
monthly mean sulfate concentrations in
the air for October 1977 A. 5-28
OME-LRT model predictions of annual wet
deposition of sulfur in gm/tpVyear. Stars
in figure correspond to monitors in the
CANSAP and U.S. networks. Numbers next
to stars are station codes referred to in
Table A5-1 A. 5-32
Comparison of OME-LRT model predictions
with observations of wet deposition of
sulfur for 1977 (Galloway and Whelpdale,
1980). A. 5-33
Isopleths of annual S02 concentrations
(ug/m3) simulated by the RCDM A. 5-38
Isopleths of annual sulfate concentrations
(ug/m3) simulated by the RCDM A. 5-39
Three-year average (1975-1977) of AQCR
average sulfate concentrations (ug/m3)
A.5-40
Annual average sulfate concentrations
(ug/m3) at Ontario Hydro monitors in 1978 A.5-41
"Annual average" sulfate concentrations
(ug/m3) at the SURE monitors
A.5-42
-------
A.5-ld
Figure A5-25 Isopleths of wet sulfur deposition
(g/m^yr) simulated by the RCDM A.5-43
Figure A5-26 Wet sulfur deposition (g/m^yr) at event
monitoring sites in the northeastern U.S.
(1976-1979) A.5-44
-------
A.5-2
Model; ASTRAP (Advanced {Statistical Trajectory Regional Air
pollution Control Model)
Modeling Group; Argonne National Laboratory, Jack Shannon
Model Type; Statistical Lagrangian
Emission Data; Point Sources or gridded virtual sources for a
normalized 60 x 60 transition matrix (emission height can be
variable)
Wind Data; uses 1/2 NMC* (191 km). Calculate mean transport
speed and direction from surface to 1800 metres
summer (1000 m. winter) for each Rawinsonde
Station. Use inverse distance squared to get
value at grid point (starting at radius = 381 km
and increase until at least two observing stations).
Precipitation Data; 6 hour amount within 1/4 NMC grid square
( 95 km). Used average precipitation from those
reporting precipitation, within a 1/4 square, and
those reporting zero to assign percentage removed
(i.e. 3 of 5 reporting precipitation means up to 60%
removal is allowed).
Mixing Height; not used directly - numerical integration
to 2100 metres using a diurnal pattern of
growth of a nocturnal stable layer followed
by breakup during the day to a maximum afternoon
value and repeating on an actual rawinsonde ascent
Chemistry; first order S02/SC>4, with diurnal variation.
* National Meteorological Center
-------
A.5-3
Dispersion; - horizontal from Lagrangian simulated tracers in
the mean wind field*
- vertical by one-dimensional numerical integration
(11 layers)
Removal Processes; Wet and dry deposition of S02 and 804,
diurnal and seasonal variations.
wet removal rate proportional to 1/2
power of 6-hourly precipitation amount
(4 mm in 6 hours removes everything
whereas 1 mm/hour removes 50%).
Model Outputs; Long term regional patterns of SC>2 and 804
surface concentration and cumulative wet and
dry deposition of total S.
Resolution; Monthly and 1/4 of an NMC grid (95 km).
Area of Application; Eastern North America
Parameter Values; Wind/Precipitation - 1975 Summer (July, August)
Winter (Jan., Feb.)
Average VDgQ2 an<3 s°4 = 0«4 cm/sec, (summer)
= 0.25 cm/sec, (winter)
Conversion 802/804 = 1.1%/hour (summer)
= 0.55%/hour (winter)
* calculation done on ensemble parameters only.
-------
A. 5-4
Descriptive Material;
Seasonal and diurnal cycles in the deposition velocities
of S02 and SO^ produced by vertical mixing and plant stomatal
activity are also provided for in the model. Sulfate deposi-
tion velocities used are the same order of magnitude as SC>2
velocities rather than an order of magnitude less as in other
modeling studies.
Wet removal is taken into account using the scavenging
ratio approach. This method relates wet deposition to the
ratio of field measurements of concentration of pollutant
measured in the air to that measured in rainfall at the same
time. Argonne National Laboratory has found that scavenging
rates are relatively constant, and sulfur deposition by wet
processes is a function of the half power of the amount of
precipitation.
The mixed layer is divided into 11 layers for the vertical
numerical integration. A wind field is developed at a specified
level in the atmosphere based on NWS data. Winds are inter-
polated between data points using a radius of influence inverse
square relationship.
Comparisons With Data,:
The model results were compared with measurements from the
SURE data network for 1977 and 1978. The average two-month
summer and winter sulfate fields show there are major discre-
pencies, particularly in the western part of the eastern
-------
A. 5-5
U.S. It must be kept in mind, however, that meteorology for
a different year was used in the model. The ASTRAP simula-
tions of wet deposition of total sulfur were scaled to a
one-year period and compared with observations during 1977
of annual accumulations of sulfate in precipitation, expressed
as total sulfur. There is some general agreement, but the
data shows a more complex distribution than that indicated
by the ASTRAP model results. On an annual basis, an estimated
5.4 million metric tons were deposited on the eastern United
States. Wet and dry removal were approximately equally
important. By season, dry deposition was equal to wet
deposition in the summer, but wet removal was approximately
twice dry removal in the winter.
Figures A5-1 through A5-3 show output from the ASTRAP
Model.
-------
A.5-6
Figure A5-1 Comparison of cumulative sulfate in
rain, expressed as total sulfur for
1977 with ASTRAP simulations (isopleths)
(Galloway and Whelpdale).
0.7 «
RNNURL RCCUMULflT 1 ON ',
G SULFUR/SOURRE METER.% ',
MflX - 3.39
-------
Figure A5-2 Comparison of Jan-Feb 1978 SURE average
sulfate measurements (number) with
ASTRAP simulations (isopleths) using
Jan-Feb 1975 meteorology. (Shannon)
A.5-7
2-MONTH RVG. CONC.
MG/CUBIC METER
MRX - 9.95
-------
A.5-8
Figure
A5-3 Comparison of August 1977 SURE average
sulfate measurements (numbers) with
ASTRAP simulations (isopleths) using
July-August 1975 meteoroglogy. (Shannon)
2-MONTH RVG. CONG
pG/CUBIC MFITER
MRX - 19.6
-------
A. 5-9
ModeLJ ENAMAP-1 (^Eastern North America Model of _Air Pollution)
Modeling Group; SRI International, Chandrakant Bhumralker and
EPA/ESRL, Ken Demerjian
Model Typet; Lagrangian Puff
Emission Data; - 80 km x 80 km UTM SURE grid extended
- SURE and NEDS
average (annual and seasonal)
12 hour puff
Wind Data; historical (retaining original temporal and spatial
detail) (1977)
3 hour time steps using objectively* analyzed
wind fields from surface (6 hour intervals) &
upper air data (12 hr. intervals) on 80 x 80
grid.
TT = 0.75 U (850mb); 9~ = 9 (850mb) - 15°
Precipitation Data; - objectively* analyzed onto 80 x 80 grid
using observed data.
Mixing Height; seasonal dependence varying from 1.15 km in winter
to 1.45 km in summer.
Chemistry; S02/SO4 first order
Dispersion; - Fickian (t1/2)
- horizontal - uniform
- vertical - mixing (instantaneous) to top of the
boundary layer
* least squares polynomial fit using at least 3 data points
within a radius of influence.
-------
A.5-10
Removal Processes: first order
Model Outputs: (1) S02, S04 Concentrations
(2) dry and wet deposition
(3) interregional exchanges
Resolution; monthly, 70 x 70 km grid square
Area of Application; Eastern North America
Parameter Values; S02/S04 1%/hour
L = 1.3 - 0.15 kn
where = + 1 in winter; -1 in summer and
0 in spring & fall
S02: dry deposition = 0.037 hr ~^
S02: wet deposition = 0. 28R hr ~^-
where R = mm/hr. of precipitation
S04 : dry deposition = 0.007 hr ~1
S04 : wet deposition = 0.07R hr -1
Descriptive Material;
ENAMAP-1 was originally developed for the Federal Republic
of Germany (as EURMAP-1) and has been adapted to the Eastern
North America region and renamed ENAMAP-1.
The wind field is determined by objective analysis of
available upper-air observations at the 850-mb level (approxi-
mately 1500 in above mean sea level). The resulting field
wind speeds are decreased by 1/4, and the wind directions are
rotated 15° counterclockwise to account for surface layer
friction effects. The wind fields are then interpolated
every 3 hours between 12-hour data intervals.
-------
A.5-11
The SC>2 transformation rate, the S02 and 804 dry deposi-
tion velocities and the mixing heights used in the ENAMAP-1
are generally similar to those used in other regional models.
The SC>2 and 804 wet removal rates are different than those
used in other regional models.
Comparisons with Data;
SC>2 emissions from the SURE program and NEDS were used in
ENAMAP-1 model simulations. The months of January and August
1977 were chosen for model evaluation, and the results were
compared with SURE and SAROAD air quality data. ENAMAP-1
predicted high sulfate in the northeastern states and relatively
low values elsewhere in January 1977. The observed concentra-
tion field was similar in the East but measured values were
higher than predicted in the Midwest. The model results
for August 1977 were in better agreement with observations.
Figures A5-4 through A5-14 are seasonal and annual verifi-
cation outputs from the ENAMAP-1 Model. Comparisons of modeled
804 against observed SURE data show very good agreement.
-------
A.5-12
Figure A5-4 S02 concentrations (ug/m^) for January
1977 from ENAMAP-1
444
CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SlCNS
*5f. ^/*~6U'4*-'i9 53*36 4fl
*J^ CJ * vAt..'
MEASURED
-------
Figure A5-5 S04 concentrations (ug/m3) for January
1977 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-13
4 4
2 Z
• CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SIGNS
A_ 3 ^4 3,1 6
»- .. ..-.
7 '8 "8 ; V-..T- 8 Y-9" \ 6\ 8 ...-•
: ; j -,,-« i V--'i ^y • •/-'
...;. y" •/ j?/^9 9lL^'
'yiQ. JO'.--'SHO'-U>-K> -.9 '.«-.9y;
O"' ' '.
12 II 10 IO .IO--"B
~
MEASURED
2 4
-------
Figure A5-6 SCU concentrations (ug/m3) for April
1977 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-14
22- 2 CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED 8Y PLUS SIGNS
fefea'- 1f /'Vejiz1
WT ..--••'. b-*' •
21'23; 22"z-'te rfSyjs
^ •! x
-------
Figure A5-7 SO^ concentrations (ug/m3) for April
1977 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-15
• CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SIGNS
MEASURED
-------
Figure A5-8 S02 concentrations (ug/m^) for Augusi
1977 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-16
1 CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SIGNS
MEASURED
-------
Figure A5-9 SO* concentrations (ug/m3) for August
1977 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-17
v ' CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS 3IONS
**»« ••ZV* ••«•> * \
* * **•• ^» a * *
V ..' *» «•. ', 8 .-••<---.'• *,
V ! A. V- A^ \ .'\ ,--
^ A\ '=\L^''9 ^^"?
^58=y£'*V>^a'1*. "."-'^
' f1617/15 15 li"'. 2*-'Tz
MEASURED
-------
Figure
A5-10 S02 concentrations (ug/m3) for October
19/7 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-18
0
' 2 CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES S«0*N APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SIGNS
884
MEASURED
-------
A.5-19
Figure A5-11 S04 concentrations (ug/m3) for October
1977 from ENAMAP-1
0
4 4 4 CALCULATED
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SIGNS
./.---,
'. . — *" ' .' *V ••'
?/ ^"7-''6 7\ S >—4
MEASURED
-------
Figure A5-12 Calculated annual concentrations of S02
and S04 (ug/m3) for 1977 from ENAMAP-1
A.5-20
LOCAL MAXIMUM VALUES SHOWN APPLY AT POINTS MARKED 8Y PLUS SIGNS
-------
Figure A5-13 Calculated annual dry and wet deposi-
tions of S02 (10 mg/m2) for 1977 from
ENAMAP-1
A.5-21
4 16
64
• DRY DEPOSITION
64
16
4 16 64
64 64
r
'WET DEPOSITION
LOCAL MAxiMJV VALUES SnOWfi APPLY AT POINTS MARKED BY PLUS SIGNS
-------
A.5-22
Figure A5-14 Calculated annual dry and wet depositions
of S04 (10 mg/m2) for 1977 from ENAMAP-1
32
DRY DEPOSITION
16
16
4)4
WET DEPOSITION
LOCAL VA>;VUV VALUES SnOWN APPLY AT POlhTS MARKED 3Y PLUS SIGNS
-------
A.5-23
Model; AES-LRT
Modeling Group: Atmospheric Environment Service, Marvin Olson
and Eva Voldner
Model Type; Lagrangian
Emission Data; 127 Km 127 km - polar stereographic CMC* grid
Wind Data; upper air observations, objectively** analyzed
at 6 hourly intervals at 4 levels on 381 x 381 km
CMC grid (1978)
Precipitation Data; 24 hour amount, objectively analyzed on
127 x 127 km CMC grid
Mixing Height; climatological (Portelli, Holzworth) as a function
of month averaged onto 127 x 127 km CMC grid
(mean daily = (morn. min. + aft. max.) /2)
Chemistry; first order 802/804
Dispersion; - instantaneously in a grid box (127 x 127 km)
- individual trajectories (96-hour backward)
Removal Processes; wet and dry deposition of 802 and SO4
Model Outputs; (1) concentration and deposition fields for S02/ S04
(2) source receptor matrix (11 x 9)
Resolution; 1 month, 127 km square.
Area of Application; Eastern North America
* Canadian Meteorological Centre
** 3-D data assimilation scheme that incorporated hydrostatic
and height-wind balance routines
-------
A.5-24
Parameter Values; 302/804 = 1%/hour
VDS02 =0.5 cm/sec.
VDS04 =0.1 cm/sec.
Scavenging ratio: S02 = 30,000 (.3 x 105)
S04 = 850,000 (8.5 x 105)
Descriptive Material:
Wet deposition is parameterized by using the scavenging
ratio approach and the 24-hour precipitation amount.
Dry deposition is parameterized through the use of fixed
deposition velocities.
Trajectories are calculated using winds interpolated to
the 925 mb level and using computed vertical motions.
Comparisons with Data;
Preliminary results indicate' some overprediction of
sulfur dioxide concentrations and some underprediction of wet
deposition, but generally the overall concentration patterns
and episode occurrences agree quite well with measurements
(correlations between 0.4 and 0.9).
Figures A5-15 through A5-18 compare daily average measured
and computed concentrations and ratios of computed to measured
monthly concentrations.
-------
Figure A5-15
030
.025
Q.
2: .020
LJ
O
o
.010
.005
0. 000
i r
t i
0.
AES-LRT computed and measured daily mean
S02 concentrations during October 1977 at
Albany, N.Y. (measured-solid, computed-
dashed)
A.5-25
i i I i
I
I
I i i i i I i l i i f l l l i I i i
I i till t t
i t
5. 10.
15. 20.
DflTE
25. 3C. 35.
-------
Figure A5-16
AES-LRT computed and measured daily mean
sulfate concentrations during October
1977 at Port Huron, Mich, (measured-solid,
computed-dashed)
A.5-26
35.
rn
»30.
*
I?
or
CD
5'
s.
•
O
2
010.
O
5.
0.
I T 1
1 I I
I 1
1
I
! t
0.
5.
I ( t 1 I L i I I I t I 1 I 1 t
10. 15. 20. 25. 33. 35.
DftTE
-------
A.5-27
Figure A5-17
Ratios of AES-LRT computed to measured
monthly precipitation weighted sulfate
concentrations in the rain and percent
contribution from direct sulfate scaveng-
ing (in parentheses) for October 1977.
-------
Figure A5-13 Ratios of AES-LRT computed to measured
monthly mean sulfate concentrations in
the air for October i977
A.5-23
-------
A.5-29
Model; OME-LRT
Modeling Group; Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Akula Venkatram
Model Type; Statistical Trajectory
Emission Data; - point source: a function of height
- area sources: in the form of effective point
source at emission weighted geometric
mean co-ordinates.
Vind Data; statistics of o~u and 2 & 504
Model Outputs; (1) concentration and deposition fields for
S02 & S04
(2) source receptor matrix (11 regions)
Resolution: Annual, 100 km.
-------
A. 5-30
Area of Application; North America
Parameter Values: o^ = UmT
where Um = 10 m/s
Vm = 6 m/s
S02/S04 = 1%/hour (dry & wet)
Effective washout rate for S02 = 3 x 10~^ I/sec.
Precipitation scavenging of SO^ = 1 x 10 "^ I/sec.
VDS02 =0.5 cm/s
VDS04 =0.05 cm/s
T£ = 46 hours - Langrangian dry period
Tw = 7 hours - Lagrangian wet period
L = 1000 m
U = 10 m/s .
Ratio of SO2 to 504 at the Source = 0.98/0.02
Descriptive Material^
The horizontal dispersion of pollutants is based on a
Gaussian puff whose mean motion follows that of large scale
synoptic flows. The standard deviations of the Gaussian
puff are related to the statistics of trajectories from the
source of interest. Scavenging of pollutants is treated
with a stochastic model which accounts for the distinctly
different probabilities of rain in synoptically dry and wet
-------
A. 5-31
regions. The model also allows for different S02 to 50^
conversion rates in wet and dry periods. The statistical
LRT model is a "convolution" of the dispersion and scavenging
sub-models.
Comparisons with Data;
Figure A5-19 shows modeled total wet deposition of sulphur
for 1977.
Table A5-1 details the verification data and correlation
coefficients for various agglomerations of sources from the
OME-LRT Model.
-------
A.5-32
Figure A5-19
OME-LRT model predictions of annual wet
deposition of sulfur in gm/m^/year. Stars
in figure correspond to monitors in the
CANSAP and U.S. networks. Numbers next
to stars are station codes referred to in
Table A5-1
91 90
89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72
19* 18 * 13* ' '
I
91 90
r i i v *^i iii I i i i t i i i
89 88 87 86 8S 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72
LONGITUDE
36
-------
A.5-33
Wet sulfur deposition
Station No Receptor Name OBS PREP OBS/PRED
(g/m2/yr)
1 Kingston, Ont 1.26 0.93 1-35
2 Moosonee, Ont 0.58 0.33 1.76
3 Mount Forest, Ont 2.32 0.96 2.42
* Peterbough, Ont 1.81 0.9* 1.93
5 Plckel Lake, Ont 0.39 0.28 1.39
6 Simcoe, Ont 2.3* 1.49 1.57
7 Wawa, Ont 0.91 0.52 1.75
8 Windsor, Ont 2.98 2.00 1.49
9 Chibougamau, Que 1.06 0.42 2.52
10 Maniwaki, Que 0.71 0.75 0.95
11 Montreal, 0,ue 2.35 0.88 2.67
12 Merrimach Cnty, N.Y. 0.91 0.93 0.98
13 Albany Cnty, N.Y. 1.20 1.21 0.99
1* Allegany Cnty, N.Y. 2.20 1.58 1.39
15 Dutchess Cnty, N.Y. 1.20 1.48 0.81
16 Essex Cnty, N.Y! 0.8* 0.8* 1.00
17 Oneida Cnty, N.Y. 1.70 1.08 1.57
18 Onondaga Cnty, N.Y. 0.79 1.19 0.66
19 Ontario Cnty, N.Y. 1.20 1.3* 0.90
20 St. Law. Cnty, N.Y. 1.00 0.89 1.12
21- Oak Ridge, Tenn 1.30 1.0* 1.25
22 Charlottesville Vir 0.91 1.31 0.69
23 Tucker Cnty, W.V. 2.00 1.9* 1.03
2* Washington, D.C. 1.00 1.83 0.55
25 Lewistown, Penn 0.98 2.21 0.**
26 Paducah, Kentucky 0.57 1.29 0.**
LINEAR ANALYSIS: OBSERVED DEPOSITION - a + b* PREDICTED DEPOSITION
Receptor Location
Canada
Canada
U.S.
U.S.
All PT
All PT
All PT Can Obs Reduced 30*
r2
0.76
0.8*
0.09
0.47
0.19
0.51
0.70
a(g/m2/yr)
0.2*
0.16
0.73
0.05
0.67
0.2*
0.12
b
1.49
1.48
0.3*
0.98
0.58
1.0*
0.97
Receptor Excluded
11
2*. 25, 26
11, 2*. 25,
. 11, 2*, 25,
26
26
Table AS-1 Comparison of OME-LRT model predictions
with observations of wet deposition of
sulfur for 1977 (Galloway and Whelpdale,
1980) .
-------
A. 5-34
Model: RCDM (Regional C_lima to logical ^Dispersion Model)
Fay and Rosenzweig
Modeling Group; Teknekron Research Inc., Brand Niemann and
Carl Benkeley
Model Type; Analytical Eulerian
Emission Data; - single or multiple point and area sources
- SURE inventory
Wind Data,; - resultant average vector wind field
Precipitation Data; seasonal, regional average
Mixing Height; use seasonal value at receptor point
Chemistry; slow and irreversible (eg. 302/804)
or fast and reversible (e.g. NO/N02)
- linear decay or equilibrium mass coefficient
Dispersion: - steady state diffusion equation (two-dimensional)
- regional scale diffusivity
Removal Processes; - uniform in space
- wet and dry
- first order rate constant
Model Outputs; (1) Long term average pollutant concentrations
and deposition patterns
(2) Gridded field
(3) Transfer matrix (arbitrary number of areas)
Resolution; >50 km from sources, regional scale.
Area of Application; Eastern North America
-------
A.5-35
Parameter Values: L = 1000 m
u = 3.2 m/ s
9 = 265° True
VDS02= .01 ra/s
Tw = 3 x 10^ seconds
= net depletion time = 10^ seconds
DH = Diffusivity = 6.4 x 10^ m^/sec.
Descriptive Material;
Fay and Rosenzweig assumed that the longer period sulfur
dioxide and sulfate concentrations from a point source can
be described by the 2-dimensional steady state advection-
diffusion equation in which the horizontal eddy diffusivity
and conversion and removal rates are uniform in space.
The RCDM is an appropriate compromise between the original
Fay and Rosenzweig application which used only one wind speed
and direction for the entire eastern U.S. and the NOAA/ARL
and ASTRAP models which use the highest temporal and spatial
resolution available in upper air data.
The compromise decided upon was to use the seasonal and
annual resultant wind vectors at all the upper air stations
in the eastern U.S. and southeastern Canada.
Comparisons with Data;
Fay and Rosenzweig found generally good agreement between
sulfur dioxide predictions from their analytical model and
numerical predictions from the NOAA/ATUL trajectory model.
-------
A.5-36
The sulfate predictions from the steady state model are
in general agreement with those from the ASTRAP model which
uses high resolution meteorological data to compute an ensemble
average of trajectory statistics.
Sensitivity analysis of the RCDM show in general that SC>2
concentrations are most sensitive to the mixing height and the
inverse total depletion rate while the sulfate concentrations
are most sensitive to mixing height and the inverse chemical
conversion rate. The RCDM has been evaluated against historical
sulfate data and current sulfur dioxide and sulfate data. The
RCDM predictions were found to be in generally good agreement
with regional sulfate concentrations during 1960-1974 and with
current sulfur dioxide and sulfate concentrations. Both the
historical and current regional sulfate concentrations show
a regional pattern of elevated sulfate concentrations which
are roughly symmetrical about the 11 contiguous states with
the highest sulfur dioxide emissions.
The RCDM also gives generally good agreement with winter
and summer season regional sulfur dioxide and sulfate concen-
trations when the seasonal mixing heights from climatological .
data are used and the inverse chemical conversion rate (i.e.,
S02 residence time) is decreased slightly for the summer and
increased slightly for the winter over the annual value.
-------
A.5-37
The predicted wet sulfur deposition values are in general
agreement with those computed from the MAP3S and EPRI precipi-
tation chemistry networks in the region of highest SC>2 emissions
However, the RCDM does not predict the observed maxima in wet
sulfur deposition in regions like southeastern Canada beyond
the region of highest S02 emissions in the eastern U.S.
Figures A5-20 through A5-26 illustrate the verification
data available for this model.
-------
A.5-38
Figure A5-20 Isopleths of annual SC>2 concentrations
(ug/m3) simulated by the RCDM
-------
A.5-39
Figure A5-21 Isopleths
of annual sulfate concentrations
(ug/m^) simulated by the RCDM
-------
A.5-40
Figure A5-22 Three-year average (1975-1977) of AQCR
average sulfate concentrations (ug/m3)
10
-------
Figure A5-23
Annual average sulfate concentrations
(ug/m^) at Ontario Hydro monitors in 1978
A(«2.3
ONTARIO
i
i
t
t
*
KEY
• SULPHATE SAMPLING
A PRECIPITATION
SAMPLING
QUEBEC
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
OHIO
-------
Figure A5-24 "Annual average" sulfate concentrations
(ug/m-3) at the SURE monitors
A.5-42
-------
Figure A5-25 Isopleths of wet sulfur deposition
^yr) simulated by the RCDM
-------
A.5-44
Figure A5-26 Wet sulfur deposition (g/m^yr) at event
monitoring sites in the northeastern U.S
(1976-1979)
EPA/DOE Multi-State Atmospheric Powtr
Production Pollution Study
Electric Power Research Institute
-------
Appendix 6
Source Region and Inventory Description
NOTE: An addendum to this appendix containing more detailed
information has been produced and will be updated
periodically.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE A6-1
TABLE A6-2
TABLE A6-3
FIGURE A6-1
TABLE A6-4
TABLE A6-5
TABLE A6-6
TABLE A6-7
PAGE
Comparison, of State Emissions Totals
and Aggregate - Grid Totals (based
on SURE Phase II Inventory) A.6-2
SURE II SC>2 Emissions Allocated to A.6-4
Grid Aggregate Areas. A.6-5
SURE II S02 Emissions Allocated to
Grid Aggregate Areas Subdivided by A.6-6,
by Stack Height A.6-7
S02 Emission Rate with Height (SURE II
Inventory) A.6-8
Principal Reason for Selection of
Sensitive Areas A.6-9
Relationship Between Area Numbers and
Abbreviations on Large Map A.6-10
Relationship Between Canadian Regions
and the 63 Aggregated SURE Grid Areas A.6-11
Relationship Between Canadian Receptor
Areas and ARMS Sensitive Areas A.6-12
-------
A. 6-1
A6.1 A Description of the SURE II Extended Grid: Source
Regions and Sensitive Receptor Areas
The 80km grid cells in the Sulfate Regional Experiment
(SURE) Phase II emission inventory have been aggregated to
define 63 distinct areas. These 63 areas have been selected
to include logical source regions or sensitive receptor areas
Each entire SURE II grid cell (undivided) has been assigned
to one of the 63 areas with attention being paid to matching
state emission totals and state boundaries as closely as
possible.
-------
TABLE A6-1
Comparison of Stare Emissions Totals
and Aggregate - Grid Totals (based
on SURE Phase II Inventory)
A.6-2
Difference
Emissions
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
mino1s
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland & D.C.
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
N. Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S. Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Ontario (part)
Quebec (part)
(1000s tons/year
SURE Data Files
1290
79
66
129
1788
916*
2344
2189
535
1824
636
337
352
666
2292
521
447
1288
169
555
974
984*
4533
2480
43
459
1332*
7
695
1349
937
2228
1017
35509
Aggregate of
Grid Squares
1209
90
45
131
1798
942*
1994
2545
557
1809
614
339
455
670
2627
508
501 .
1291
173
692
698
1004*
4759
2150
33
429
1360*
6
644
1355
935
2088
1020
35519
(Grid Aggregate -
1000 tons/year
-81
+11
-21
+2
+10
+26
-350
+356
+22
-15
-22
+2
+103
+4
+355
-13
+54
+3
+4
+137
-276
+20
+226
-330
-10
-30
+28
-1
-51
+6
-2
-140
+3
Data Base)
Percent
-6
+14
-32
+2
+1
+3
-15
+16
+4
-1
-3
+1
+29
+1
+13
•2
+12
0
+8
+25
-28
+2
+5
-15
-23
-7
+2
-14
-7
0
0
-6
0
+10
0.032
Emissions in S. Appalachain sensititve area excluded
-------
A.6-3
The SURE-II Extended Grid
The grid has an 80-km mesh, with41 cells east-west and 42north-south;
because it is an extension of an earlier version, the cells are numbered
0 to 40 and -9 to 32 in the X and Y, or east and north, directions respectively.
If the 0 to 30 E-W index is denoted I, and the -9 to 32 N-S index denoted J,
the one-dimensional index used is IDX = 1+41* (J-l).
The grid is "centered" around 81° west longitude, 39° 38' latitude, which
corresponds to x=500.0km, and y=4407.02 km in the transverse mercator (TM)
system used for the grid. This corresponds to the following TM coordinates
for the grid lines:
42 N-S lines at -780, -700, .H-2420, +2500 km
43 E-W lines at 2687.02, 2767.02, 5967.02, 6047.02 km
-------
A. 6-4
TABLE A6-2
SURE II SO2 Emissions Allocated to
Grid Aggregate Areas.
Area
1. Maine
2. New Hampshire SA*
3. Vermont
4. Southern New Hazicshire
5. Massachusetts
6. Rhode Island.
7. Connecticut
8. Adirondack SA*
9. Western New "ark
10. Southeastern New York
11. New Jersey
12. Southeastern Pennsylvania
13. Central Pennsylvania
14. Western Pennsylvania
15. Pennsylvania SA*
16. Maryland & DC
17. Delaware
18. Virginia
19. Northeastern West Virginia
20. Southwestern West Virginia
21. Eastern Kentucky
22. Western Kentucky
23. Western Tennessee
24. Eastern Tennessee
25. Southern Appalachain SA*
26. Central North Carolina
27. Eastern North Carolina
28. South Carolina
29. Northwestern Georgia
30. Southeastern Georgia
31. Southern Florida
32. Northern Florida
33. Florida SA*
34. Western Florida
35. Alabama
36. Mississippi
37. Louisiana
38. Arkansas
39. Arkansas SA*
40. Missouri
41. Iowa
SO2 Emissions AJEACENTROrD
1000s tons per year X Y
332.0
41.7
5.8
138.4
670.1
33.2
45.1
12.0
307.1
378.9
691.7
569.0
476.9
1075.8
55.2
428.2
130.5
643.8
1086.3
268.3
753.9
1054.6
726.2
633.2
72.8
512.4
473.2
423.0
620.8
321.4
647.7
179.8
59.6
9U.8
1208.5
500.6
614.1
67.4
10.6
1290.5
524.8
27.36
25.50
24.00
24.67
25.67
25.00
24.00
22.50
18.20
21.46
23.00
21.67
19.88
17.40
18.00
20.17
21.67
18.35
16.67
05.17
11.58
8.00
6.89
10.80
12.83
15.20
18.94
16.07
11.40
13.21
15.33
15.17
13.50
9.80
8.67
5.30
2.20
1.95
2.40
2.58
2.78
20.79
20.00
18.50
17.33
16.00
15.00
15.00
18.50
16.40
16.69
13.00
13.33
14.13
14.20
12.50
11.130
11.00
9.06
11.67
10.00
9.17
9.00
6.78
7.00
6.00
6.80
5.94
3.86
3.80
1.42
-5.89
-2.33
-1.50
-0.90
2.67
2.65
0.44
5.85
7.20
11.06
16.30
EMISSION
X
26.92
25.16
24.00
24.90
25.80
25.00
24.00
22.75
• 18.54
21.83
22.85
21.83
20.00
17.09
18.00
19.98
21.34
19.13
16.26
15.01
10.58
8.11
7.52
11.32
13.14
15.34
18.20
15.97
11.08
13.66
14.75
14.81
13.61 •
8.38
8.59
6.24
3.01
2.63
2.40
3.38
3.56
CENTROID
Y
19.45
19.40
18.29
17.28
15.98
15.00
15.00
18.54
16.88
16.08
13.64
13.35
13.46
13.42
12.51
11.11
11.66
8.91
11.89
10.11
9.87
9.00
7.17
7.42
6.35
7.12
6.25
3.96
4.40
1.74
-4.59'
-2.57
-1.52
-0.31
3.64
2.28
-0.20
5.24
6.66
11.00
16.10
-------
A.6-5
42. Southern Illinois
43. Northern Illinois
44. Northern Indiana
45. Southern Indiana
46. Southern Ohio
47. Northeastern Ohio
48. Northwestern Ohio
49. Southern Michigan
50. Northern Michigan
51. Wisconsin
52. Minnesota
53. Boundary Waters SA*
54. Central Ontario
55. Sudbury
56. Ontario SA*
57. Southern Ontario
58. Quebec SA*
59. Southern Quebec
60. Central Quebec
61. Southern Nova
Scotia*
62. Nova Scotia
63. Newfoundland
1065.6
959.9
751.4
1793.2
3014.2
1108.8
635.9
2310.5
316.4
935.5
487.3
20.2
433.5
1060.8
8.2
585.4
14.5
273.0
732.9
2.9
—
—
6.44
7.42
10.00
9.63
14.14
15.50
12.78
12.17
10.50
6.84
2.15
6.20
12.52
15.00
17.50
17.12
23.50
22.69
23.66
30.50
32.00
37.00
11.44
14.42
14.00
11.13
11.86
14.50
13.33
16.67
20.54
19.36
20.51
24.60
23.57
21.00
19.50
17.76
22.50
21.00
24.33
19.50
21.50
28.00
6.31
6.97
9.37
9.69
14.58
15.32
13.06
12.71
10.20
7.36
3.54
6.00
16.00
15.00
17.34
16.25
23.50
23.10
19.12
30.50
32.00
37.00
11.15
14.43
14.55
11.06
12.07
14.54
13.07
16.16
20.27
18.34
20.91
24.00
20.99
21.00
19.12
17.27
22.50
20.66
24.23
19.50
21.50
28.00
*SA = Sensitive Area
NOTE: Canadian emissions in areas 54-60 are also from the SURE inventory.
-------
A.6-6
TABLE A6-3
SURE II SC>2 Emissions Allocated to
Grid Aggregate Areas Subdivided by
by Stack Height
Area Number <100m
1 45
2 0
3 0
4 34
5 74
6 6
7 18
8 0
9 94
10 141
11 169
12 193
13 131
14 279
15 30
16 81
17 43
13 192
19 40
20 45
21 170
22 217
23 200
24 54
25 16
26 110
27 165
28 186
29 0
30 63
31 196
3-2 62
33 14
34 36
35 286
36 269
37 263
38 11
39 0
40 139
41 193
STACK HEIGHT
100m - 300m >300m
4 0
0 0
0 0
17 0
233 0
8 0
13 0
0 0
60 0
25 0
60 0
97 0
202 0
424 170
0 0
173 0
22 0
38 0
536 443
109 0
413 0
561 248
198 231
281 125
0 0
271 0
96 0
60 0
260 277
12 41
238 0
64 0
0 0
6 0
542 69
57 0
126 0
2 0
0 0
856 0
19 0
TOTAL
(103 tons)
49
0
0
51
307
14
31
0
154
166
229
290
333
873
30
254
65
230
1019
154
583
1026
629
460
16
381
261
246
537
116
434
126
14
42
897
326
389
13
0
995
212
-------
A.6-7
Area Number <100m
42 204
43 138
44 240
45 233
46 211
47 519
48 94
49 534
50 96
51 170
52 38
53 20
54 162
55 0
56 0
57 27
58 0
59 89
60 36
STACK HEIGHT
100m - 300m
>300m
TOTAL
(103 tons)
713
325
176
1254
2048
123
170
1253
78
355
285
0
264
0
0
345
0
0
650
0
0
0
0
403
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1059
0
0
0
0
0
0
917
463
416
1487
2662
642
264
1787
174
525
323
20
1485
0
0
372
0
89
686
7,076
14,122
3,066
24,264
-------
A. 6-8
FIGURE A6-1
S02 Emission Rate with Height (SURL II
Inventory)
1500
1000
0)
500
100,000 200,000
Emission Rate (g/s)
300,000
-------
A.6-9
TABLE A6-4
Principal Reason for Selection of Sensitive Areas
AREA NUMBER ' PRINCIPAL REASON
2 Hubbard Brook Studies by
Likens et al
8 Lake Studies by Scofield,
EPRI, etc.
15 River and Stream Studies by
Arnold et al
25 Great Smoky Mountain National
Park
33 Lake and Swamp Studies by
Brezonik et al
39 Ozark Mountain Soils and Forests
and Hot Springs National Park
53 Lake Studies by Gary Glass et al
56 Lake Studies by Canadians
58 Lake Studies by Canadians
61 Lake Studies by Canadians
-------
A. 6-10
TABLE A6-5
Relationship Between Area Numbers and
Abbreviations on Large Map
Ar ea Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Map Designation
ME
SA1
VT
NH
MA
RI
CN
SA2
NY1
NY2
NJ
PAl
PA 2
PA3
SA3
MD
DE
VA
WV1
WV2
KYI
KY2
TNI
TN2
SA4
NCI
NC2
SC
GA1
GA2
Area Number
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Map Designation
FL1
FL2
SA5
FL3
AL
MS
LA
AR
SA6
MO
IA
I LI
IL2
INI
IN2
OH1
OH2
OH3
Mil
MI2
WI
MN
SA7
ONI
ON2
SA8
ON3
SA9
QE1
QE2
SA10
NS
NF
-------
A. 6-11
TABLE A6-6 Relationship Between Canadian Regions
and the 63 Aggregated SURE Grid Areas
Canadian
Region I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Canadian SO?
Area Emissions^*
Represented ( kT/yr )
Michigan
(South Michigan)
Illinois, Indiana
(Southern Illinois)
Chio
(Southern Chio)
(Northeast Chio)
Pennsylvania
(Western Pennsylvania)
New York, New Jersey
bo Maine
Kentucky, Tennessee
(Western Kentucky)
West Virginia,
Virginia, N. Carolina,
Delaware, Maryland,
and D.C.
(Northern W. Virginia)
Rest of Eastern
United States
(Missouri)
(Alabama)
TOTAL EASTERN U.S.
Ontario
(Sudbury)
Quebec
Atlantic Provinces
TOTAL EASTERN CANADA
1946
(1762)
3874
(1050)
4762
(3092)
(1286)
2056
(1067)
2408
2835
(740) .
2446
(476)
7485
(1316)
(1525)
27,812
1970
(1001)
1037
469
3,476
Canadian SO? SURE SO?
Emissions (2* Emissions f3) Principal
(WATT) (kt/yr) SURE Areas
1566
5072
3961
2039
2281
2400
3400
2387
23,106
1809
1186
368
3,363
2627
(2311)
4570
(1066)
4759
(3014)
(1109)
2177
(1076)
2656
3241
(1055)
2557
985
(1086)
8803
(1291)
(1209)
32,375
2108
(1061)
1021
3129
49-50
(49)
42-45
(42)
46-48
(46)
(47)
12-15
(14)
1-11
21-25
(22)
16-20
26-27
(19)
28-41, 51, 52
(40)
(35)
53-57
(55)
58-60
1 kT= 1.1 kt
1 Used in AES-LRT Model
2 Used in OME-LRT Model
3 Used in ENAMAP, ASTRAP, and ROM Models
-------
A.6-12
TABLE A6-7 Relationship Between Canadian Receptor
Areas and ARMS Sensitive Areas
ARMS
Sensitive
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Name
New Hampshire
Adirondacks
Pennsylvania
Southern
Appalachia
Florida
Arkansas
Boundary Waters
Ontario
Quebec
Nova Scotia
Canadian
Receptor
Point
6
7
8
9
.
1
3
4
5
2
Area
Represented
New Hampshire
Adirondack
(Whiteface)
Pennsylvania
(Penn State)
Southern
Appalachia
( Smokies )
Boundary Haters
Muskoka
Quebec City
(Montmorency)
Southern Nova
Scotia
Algoma
Comments
in PA 2
Northwest
of SA 7
-------
A.6-13
A6.2 Canadian Emissions - Current Data Base
The data base for current emission rates in Canada represents
a mixture of information covering the period 1976 through 1980.
For sulphur dioxide, all area source data represent 1976
annual emission rates (1). Major point sources are at their
1979 annual emission rate and the most important copper-nickel
smelter complex, representing about twenty percent of eastern
Canada emissions, is shown at its 1980 emission rate (2). On
a weighted emissions basis the aggregated SC>2 data base closely
represents actual emissions for the year 1979.
In the case of nitrogen oxides all area source type
emissions are from the 1976 base year (1) and major point
sources are at their 1979 annual emission rate (2). On a
weighted emissions basis the aggregated Canadian NOX data
base probably represents actual emission rates in 1977.
The eastern Canada (including Manitoba) data is further
prorated on a grid array of 127 km x 127 km squares which is
the basic dimension for the emissions and meteorological data
used in the AES long-range transport model.
On a national basis the overall accuracy of the current
Canadian SO2 emissions inventory is estimated to be + 30% at
a 75% confidence level (2). The accuracy varies widely for
each sector of emissions and within each sector, and is far
greater for the major point sources (e.g. Cu-Ni smelters),
which together represent more than half of total Canadian
-------
A.6-14
emissions, than for sources of lesser significance. An
uncertainty analysis has not been carried out for NOX emissions
Seasonal variations data for use in detailed air quality
analysis have been developed for both SO2 and NOX emissions
for all contributing sectors (2). Nationwide inventories of
the natural emissions of sulphur and nitrogen compounds have
also been prepared (3,4)
-------
A.6-15
References
1. Environment Canada, Air Pollution Control Directorate, A
Nationwide Inventory of Emissions of Air Contaminants
(1976), Report EPS-3-AP-80-1 (December 1980).
2. Environment Canada, Air Pollution Control Directorate,
Data Analysis Division (Unpublished information)
(December 1980)
3. Environment Canada, Air Pollution Control Directorate,
National Inventory of Natural Sources and Emissions of
Sulphur Compounds, Report EPS 3-APA-79-2 (February 1980)
4. Environment Canada, Air Pollution Control Directorate,
National Inventory of Natural Sources and Emissions of
Nitrogen Compounds, Report EPS 3-AP-80-4 (January 1981)
-------
Appendix .7
Matrix Operations
-------
A. 7-1
A. MATRIX MANIPULATION PROGRAMS
The integrated analysis framework outlined in Table A7.1
has three major characteristics:
1. The ability to selectively combine information
from various sources such as emission inventories
and transport model transfer matrices to provide
estimates of resulting concentrations and
depositions.
2. The ability to support comparison and evaluation
of different data bases and models by converting
their results to common units and output formats.
3. The ability to combine emission projections with
cost implications data in order to identify cost-
effective answers to questions concerning how to
reduce atmospheric loadings and/or deposition.
With regard to the first characteristic, the integrating
framework could be used to combine utility, industrial,
combustion, and area source emission estimates from different
models in order to produce integrated emission estimates
from all sectors. The emissions can then be combined with
transfer matrices in order to estimate deposition.
With regard to the second characteristic, the integrating
framework can be used in converting data from different sources
to common units. For example, ENAMAP and ASTRAP results have
been converted to common units and comparison tables and
scatter diagrams prepared.
-------
Table A.7-1 Integrated ARMS/RCG/MOI
SOX Source - Receptor Matrix Processing System
External - prepare inputs
Work Group 2 - analyze
and intercompare
Work Groups 3A and 3B - develop
least cost control strategy
Emissions and control costs
Utility - USM, ICF, EPA
Industrial - ICF, IFCAM
Other - EPA Mobile, SEAS
- DOE Canada
- Work Group 3B
Run models with emissions
to meet specified target
loadings in sensitive
areas.
Re-run models to confirm
efficacy of emission
reduction scenarios to
meet specified target
loadings in sensitive
areas.
Program 4 - Format Emissions^4)
and Costs
Program 5 - Least-Cost Source-
Receptor
Optimization <5>
;»
i
LRTAP model matrices
Canadian - AES, OME
(11x9x5)
U.S. - ENAMAP, ASTRAP*
RCDM* (63x63x
VAR)
Other - CAPITA*. REGMOD
(episode), BWA,
PNL, BNL
Program 1 - Format
Matrices t1'
Program 2 - Intercompare
Matrices \2'
2A Convert: U.S.
to Canada
2B Plot Scatter
Figures
Program 3 - Same as for
Work Group 3A
and 3B
Program 3 - Compute Concentrations
and Depositions »3)
* NOX in progress
Status: (1) on-line
(2) in-process
(3) on-line
(4) to he developed
(5) modify existing program
-------
A.7-3
The final characteristic permits the combined assessment
of emissions, costs of controling emissions, and resulting
deposition. The development of cost-effective control
strategies is done using a nonlinear optimization model which
is being extended to consider regional scale problems. The
optimization model identifies a least-cost solution which
meets a combined set of emission quantity, ambient air quality,
and/or deposition constraints.
B. TECHNIQUE FOR IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE AREAS FOR EMISSION
REDUCTION
The deposition of sulphur Dj (or acid) at a receptor due
to a source can be expressed as
DJ = Qifij t (1)
where Q^ is the strength of source 'i', and 'j' refers to the
receptor. The transfer function fj_j establishes the physical
relationship between the locations of the source and receptor.
It is essentially the deposition at 'j' due to unit emissions at
'i1 and is dependent on the scavenging and dispersion processes
which affect the pollutants transported from 'i1 to 'j1. f^j
is the most important model result from the point of view of
emission control strategy.
The reduction in deposition A Dj due to a source reduction
A Qi follows from (1)
"AD = A Qf (2)
-------
A. 7-4
The deposition reduction associated with a number of sources
can be written as
A Dj = ^AQifij (3)
i i
Equation (3) can be conveniently written for several receptors
in matrix notation
AD = F? AQ (4)
where AD and &Q are column vectors and F is the so-called
transfer matrix and F^ is its transpose.
APPLICATIONS OF EQUATION (4)
There are any number of ways of looking at emission
reduction scenarios. Some possible methods are
1) Maximize the reduction in deposition given constraints on
emission reduction. This is a problem in linear programming
and can be stated as :
Maximize AD = - - Qj_fj_jaj ( 5a )
j i
Given ^__» a j A Q^ <_ QTJ? j = l,2....N (5b)
-------
A. 7-5
where QTJ is the specified emission constraint and N is •
the number of constraints. The number aj reflects the
importance assigned by the decision maker to the receptor j .
For example, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment might
want to give Ontario receptors three times more importance
than the other receptors of interest. Then we take aj = 3 for
Ontario receptors and aj = 1 for the others.
2) Minimize cost of emission reduction given constraints on
deposition reduction. This is also a problem in linear
programming which can be stated as
Minimize C = -> bj_ Q.J_ ( 6a )
Given Z~ a^Ao-^ > A DT j ; j = 1,2 ---- N (6b)
i
where bj_ relates cost to emission reduction. A possible
constraint corresponding to (6b) is
A Di > A Dpi (7)
Equation (7) states that the deposition reduction at each
receptor should be greater than or equal to a specified value.
Mote that /\ D± in ( 6b ) is related to A Qj through (2).
This discussion illustrates the importance of the transfer
matrix F in any emission reduction strategy.
-------
A.7-6
Another important "effect" variable is the frequency with
which a concentration or deposition is exceeded at a receptor
of interest. If we denote this frequency by F^j(c) we can
write
F (c) = y (Q , D ) (8)
ij i ij
Note that FJ_J is not expected to be a linear function of Qj_.
DJ_J is the physical relationship between 'i1 and 'j' which
can derived from Lagrangian model results for time scales for
which the concentration is important. Clearly the use of (8)
in emission control strategy requires non-linear optimization
techniques.
-------
Appendix 8
Transfer Matrices
NOTE: An addendum to this appendix containing the ASTRAP,
ENAMAP, and RCDM model matrices is in process.
-------
Table A8-1 Transfer Matrix ofs
Annual Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (ug/nT3)
per unit emission (Tg.S.yr"^)
1
1
1
1 Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
Illl.
llnd.
1 3
(Ohio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
1 to Maine
1 6
(Kent.
iTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
iRest of
|(USA) Fid
1 to Mo. to
iMinn.
1 9
1 Ontario
1 lo
1 Quebec
1 11
[Atlantic
I Provinces
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
. AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
1
MDE
AES
Emiss.
(Tg.S)
0.784
0.973
2.538
1.937
1.983'
2.381
1.021
1.028
1.143
1.204
1.202
1.418
1.703
1.223
1.196
3.743
0.906
0.985
0.595
0.519
0.187
0.235
I
B. Waters
(1)
0.08
0.16
0.07
0.07
0.04
0
0.03
0
0.02
0.01
0.03
0
0.02
0
0.12
0.53
0.10
0.11
0.06
0.08
0.01
0
Alg.
(2)
0.70
2.9
0.34
0.72
0.22
0.14
0.17
.06
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.68
0.61
1.6
2.5
6.30
0.91
0.03
0
Musk.
(3)
1.7
4.4
0.49
0.77
0.51
1.2
0.46
0.71
0.33
0,56
0.19
0.27
0.22
0.16
0.55
0.27
3.2
12.4
0.57
1.9
0.07
0.04
Recej
[ Que.
(4)
0.50
0..80
0.19
0.15
0.25
0.40
6.30
0.47
0.40
0.91
0.10
0.04
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.05
1.9
1.7
3.6
6.7
0.26
0.26
Dtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.57
0.38
0.22
0.11
0.40
0.32
0.62
0.44
1.9
4.2
0.15
0.04
0.40
0.18
0.18
0.03
0.91
0.78
1.3
2.3
1.5
13.6
Vt. Nil.
(6)
0.91
1.0
0.31
0.26
0.48
0.71
0.63
1.3
1.0
2.0
0.17
0.12
0.33
0.38
0.28
0.07
2.0
2.6
4.7
13.1
0.26
0.13
Adir.
(7)
1.5
1.4
0.46
0.42
0.78
1.3
0.99
2.2
1.6
3.2
0.23
0.22
0.46
0.64
0.38
0.13
2.2
4.2
1.1
3.9
0.15
0.09
Penn.
(8)
3.3
3.8
1.3
1.2
4.0
9.0
9.2
21.7
0.62
0.58
0.74
1.3
1.7
3.0
0.62
0.45
0.96
2.4
6.18
0.29
0.05
0
Smokies
(9)
0.16
0.16
0.80
1.6
0.37
0.80
0.16
0.12
0.06
0.04
3.2
9.3
0.26
0.90
1.9
3.0
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-------
Table A8-2 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual Sulfate Concentration (ug/m~3)
per unit emission CPgS.yr~l)
1
1
1
(Source
1 Regions
1 1
(Mich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
iChio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
jto Maine
1 6
(Kent.
iTenn.
1 7
iW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
iRest of
|(USA) Fid
Ito Mo. to
JMinn.
1 9
1 Ontario
1 10
1 Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
I Provinces
Models
MOB
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOB
AES
Emiss.
(Tg.S)
0.784
0.973
2.538
1.937
1.903
2.381
1.021
1.028
1.143
1.204
1.202
1.418
1.703
1.223
1.196
3.743
0.906
0.985
0.595
0.519
0.187
0.235
B. Waters
(1)
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.06
0
0.05 1
0
0.04
0.01
0.05
0
0.04
0
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.14
0.02
0
Alg.
(2)'
0.27
0.45
0.22
0.37
0.15
0.04
0.12
0.03
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.04
0.09
0
0.27
0.27
[ 0.23
0.67
0.14
0.42
0.04
0
Recei
Musk. | Que.
1
(3) I (4)
0.56 10.32
1.8 I0..55
1
0.29 10.18
0.41 10.12
0.26 10.20
0.59 10.16
0.23 10.21
0.29 (0.20
1
0.15 10.22
0.22 10.31
1
0.16 10.12
0.12 10.01
1
0.16 10.15
0.07 10.05
1
0.29 10.17
0.20 10.05
1
1
0.67 10.66
2.3 11.0
0.22 10.72
0.85 11.3
1
0.06 10.13
0 (0.13
>tor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.38
0.46
0.22
0.11
0.30
0.31
0.37
0.34
0.61
1.2
0.17
0.04
0.28
0.13
0.19
0.05
0.49
0.79
0.51
1.2
0.33
0.55
Vt. Nil.
(6)
0.46
0.80
0.25
0.22
0.30
0.41
0.33
0.50
0.35
0.55
0.17
0.06
0.22
0.17
0.22
0.08
0.69
1.4
.75
1.9
0.13
0.04
Adir.
(7)
0.61
0.94
0.31
0.34
0.38
0.63
0.41
0.91
0.38
0.70
0.20
0.11
0.26
0.27
0.26
0.13
0.69
1.9
0.34
1.4
0.10
0.04
Penh.
(8)
0.86
1.5
0.57
0.72
0.88
2.3
1.1
2.5
0.19
0.18
0.38
0.56
0.42
0.90
0.35
0.29
0.34
1.0
0.14
0.17
0.06
0
Smokies
(9)
0.13
0.25
0.36
1.3
0.19
0.63
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.02
0.07
2.6
0.13
0.70
0.44
1.2
0.07
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.03
0
-------
Table A8-3 Transfer Matrix oft
Annual Dry Deposition of Sulfur
per unit emission (Tg.S.yr"1)
1
1
1
1 Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
IChio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
I to Maine
1 6
|Kent.
JTenn.
1 7
iw.virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
iRest of
I(USA) Fid
I to Mo. to
JMinn.
I 9
[Ontario
1 10
KXiebec
1 11
(Atlantic
1 Provinces
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
. AES
MOB
. AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
Emiss.
(Tg.S)
0.784
0.973
2.538
1.937
1.983
2.381
1.021
1.028
1.143
1.204
1.202
1.418
1.703
1.223
1.196
3.743
0.906
0.985
0.595
0.519
0.187
0.235
B.Waters
(1)
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.04
0
0.03
0
0.02
0
0.03
0
0.02
0
0.10
0.43
0.68
0.10
0.05
0
0.01
0
Alg.
(2)
0.56
2.3
0.28
0.62
0.18
0.13
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.08
0
0.54
0.51
0.79
2.0
0.24
0.77
0.03
0
Recej
Musk. | Que.
1
(3) 1 (4)
1.4 10.41
3.7 . \OJ2
1
0.39 10.16
0.62 10.16
0.41 10.20
0.97 |0.29
0.36 J0.24
0.58 10.39
1
0.26 10.32
0.50 10.75
1
0.15 10.08
0.21 I 0
1
0.18 10.14
0.16 10.16
1
0.44 10.16
0.24 |0.05
1
1
2.5 (1.5
9.9 |1.4
0.45 |2.3
1.7 |5.4
1
0.05 10.21
0 10.43
jtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.46
0.31
0.18
0.10
0.32
0.29
0.49
0.39
1.5
3.4
0.13
0.07
0.32
0.16
0.15
0.03
0.73
0.71
1.0
1.9
1.2
10.6
Vt. NH.
(6)
0.73
0.92
0.25
0.21
0.39
0.63
0.50
1.1
0.82
1.7
0.14
0.07
0.26
0.33
0.22
0.05
l.S
2.2
3.7
10.6
0.21
0
Adir.
(7)
1.2
1.2
0.37
0.36
0.62
1.1
0.79
1.8
1.2
2.7
0.19
0.21
0.37
0.48
0.31
0.11
1.1
3.4
0.86
3.3
0.12
0
Penn.
(8)
2.6
3.1
1.0
1.0
3.1
7.4
7.2
17.4
0.49
0.50
0.59
1.1
1.3
2.5
0.50
0.37
fl. 76
2.0
0.15
0.19
0.04
0
Smokies
(9)
0.13
0.10
0.64
1.4
0.30
0.67
0.13
0.10
0.05
0
2.5
7.6
0.21
0.74
1.5
2.5
'0.05
0.10
0.02
0
0.01
0
-------
Table A8-4 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual Wet Deposition of Sulfur
per unit emission (Tg.S.yr~l)
Source
Regions
1
iMich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
lOhio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
Ito Maine
1 6
(Kent.
JTenn.
1 7
iW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
Ito Mo. to
JMinn.
1 9
1 Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
I Provinces
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
, AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
I AES
Emiss.
(Tg.S)
0.784
0.973
2.538
1.937
1.983
2.381
1.021
1.028
1.143
1.204
1.202
1.418
1.703
1.223
1.196
3.743
0.906
0.985
0.595
0.519
0.187
0.235
B. Waters
(1)
0.07
0.21
0.06
0.05
0.04
0
0.03
0
0.02
0
0.03
0
0.03
0
0.09
0.24
0.08
0.10
0.06
0
0.01
0
Alg.
(2)
0.40
2.4
0.23
1.2
0.15
0.25
0.12
0.29
0.07
0.17
0.10
0.14
0.08
0
0.39
0.61
0.51
1.8
0.18
0.19
0.03
0
Musk.
(3)
6.93
3.2
0.32
1.1
0.32
1.8
0.28
1.3
0.19
0.50
0.14
0.71
0.15
0.33
0.34
0.24
1.6
3.3
0.32
0.58
0.05
0
Recej
Que.
(4)
0.34
1.0
0.15
0.31
0.19
0.46
0.21
0.68
0.25
1.3
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.33
0.15
0.05
1.0
1.7
1.5
2.9
0.16
0.43
itor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
6.39
0.31
0.18
0.10
0.28
0.21
0.40
0.29
1.0
2.0
0.13
0.07
0.28
0.25
0.15
0.03
0.57
0.61
0.73
0.96
'
0.74
2.6
Vt. NH.
(6)
6.56
0.72
0.23
0.30
0.32
1.0
C.39
1.8
0.56
2.2
0.14
0.21
0.22
0.90
0.20
0.08
1.1
1.6
2.3
3.3
0.16
0
Adir.
(7)
0.86
1.1
0.31
0.36
0.47
1.3
0.57
2.2
0.80
2.4
0.18
0.42
0.29
1.1
0.26
0.13
1.2
2.0
0.59
1.5
0.10
0
Penn.
(8)
1.7
1.7
0.76
1.1
2.0
4.7
4.4
7.9
0.33
0.42
0.46
1.5
0.85
3.5
0.40
0.53
0.53
1.2
0.13
0.19
0.05
0
Smokies
(9)
0.12
0.21
0.47
0.77
0.23
0.25
0.11
0.10
0.05
0
1.6
3.1
0.16
0.49
1.0
2.5
0.05
0
0.03
0
0.01
0
-------
Table A8-5 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual To'tal Deposition of Sulfur (kg.ha-.l.yr~~l)
per unit emission (Tg.i
Source
Regions
1
Mich.
2
111.
Ind.
3
Ohio
1 4
Penn.
5
N.York
to Maine
6
[Kent.
Tenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
8
Rest of
(USA) FW
Ito Mo. to
(Minn.
1 9
Ontario
10 •
Quebec
1 11
Atlantic
1 Provinces
Models
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDB
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
Emisa.
(Tg.S)
0.784
0.973
2.538
1.937
1.983
2.381
1.021
1.028
1.143
1.204
1.202
1.418
1.703
1.223
1.196
3.743
0.906
0.985
0.595
0.519
0.187
0.235
B. Waters
(1)
0.13
0.31
0.11
0.16
0.08
0
0.06
0
0.04
0
0.06
0
0.04
0
0.19
0.67
0.16
0.10
O.ll
0.19
0.02
0
Alg.
(2)
0.96
4.6
0.50
1.8
0.33
0.38
0.26
0.39
0.16
0.33
0.19
0.21
0.16
0.08
0.93
1.1
1.3
4.0
0.42
0.96
0.06
0
Musk.
(3)
2.3
6.9
0.71
1.8
0.72
2.8
0.64
1.8
0.46
1.0
0.30
0.92
0.33
0.41
0.78
0.48
4.1
13.4
0.77
2.3
0.11
0
Recet
Que.
(4)
0.74
lr.7
0.31
0.41
0.39
0.76
0.45
1.2
0.57
2.1
0.17
0.07
0.27
0.49
0.31
0.11
2.5
3.1
3.8
8.3
0.36
0.43
>tor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.84
0.62
0.37
0.21
0.61
0.50
0.89
0.68
2.5
5.4
0.26
0.14
0.60
0.41
0.30
0.08
1.3
1.3
1.7
2.9
1.9
13.6
Vt. NH.
(6)
1.3
1.6
0.48
0.47
0.71
1.6
0.88
2.7
1.4
3.9
0.27
0.28
0.49
1.2
0.43
0.13
2.6
3.8
6.1
13.9
0.37
0.43
Adir.
(7)
2.0
2.3
0.68
0.72
1.1
2.5
1.4
4.2
2.0
5.1
0.37
0.64
0.66
1.6
0.57
0.24
2.9
5.5
1.5
4.8
0.23
0
Penn.
(8)
4.3
4.8
1.8
2.2
5.2
12.1
11.6
25.3
0.82
0.91
1.0
2.5
2.2
6.0
0.90
0.91
1.3
3.1
0.28
0.39
0.09
0
Smokies
(9)
0.25
0.31
1.1
2.2
0.52
0.92
0.24
0.20
0.10
0
4.2
10.7
0.37
1.2
2.4
5.0
0.10
0.10
0.05
0
0.02
0
-------
Table A8-6 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (ug.nT3)
1
1
1
1 Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
till.
llnd.
1 3
lOhio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
Ito Maine
1 6
(Kent.
(Term.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
1 to Mo. to
JMinn.
1 9
(Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
1 Provinces
1 Western
I Canada
I Total
I Concen-
j tration
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE
AES
B. Waters
(1)
0.06
0.16
0.18
0.14
0.08
0
0.03
0
0.02
0.01
0.04
0
0.04
0
0.15
2.0
0.09
0.11
0.04
0.04
0
0
0.48
0.73
2.9
Alg.
(2)
0.55
2.8
0.87
1.4
0.43
0.33
0.17
0.06
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.17
0.02
0.81
2.3
0.91
2.5
0.18
0.47
0.01
0
0.14
4.4
10.3
Musk.
(3)
1.4
4.3
1.2
1.5
1.0
2.8
0.46
0.73
0.37
0.68
0.22
0.18
0.38
0.20
0.66
1.0
2.9
12.2
0.34
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.06
8.9
24.9
Recei
Que.
(4)
0.39
0.78
0.48
0.29
0.50
0.88
0.30
0.48
0.46
1.1
0.12
0.06
0.29
0.19
0.24
0.17
1.7
1.7
1.8
3.5
0.05
0.06
0.01
6.3
9.2
Dtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.44
0.37
0.57
0.21
0.79
0.77
0.63
0.45
2.1
5.1
0.18
0.06
0.68
0.22
0.22
0.13
0.82
0.77
0.76
1.2
0.27
3.2
0.01
7.5
12.5
Vt. NH.
(6)
0.71
1.0
0.78
0.50
0.95
1.7
0.63
1.3
1.2
2.4
0.20
0.17
0.56
0.46
0.33
0.26
1.8
2.6
2.8
6.8
0.05
0.03
0.02
10.0
17.3
Adir.
(7)
1.2
1.4
1.2
0.81
1.5
3.2
1.0
2.3
1.8
3.9
0.28
0.31
0.78
0.78
0.45
0.47
2.0
4.1
0.65
2.0
0.03
0.02
0.01
.
10.9
19.3
Perm.
(8)
2.6
3.7
3.3
2.3
7.9
21.5
9.4
22.3
0.71
0.70
0.89
1.8
2.8
3.7
0.75
1.7
0.87
2.4
0.11
0.15
0.01
0
0
29.4
60.3
Smokies
(9)
0.12
0.16
2.0
3.2
0.73
1.9
0.16
0.12
0.07
0.05
3.9
13.2
0.44
1.1
2.2
11.4
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.01
0
0
0
9.7
31.2
-------
Table A8-7 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual Sulfate Concentration (ug m-3)
1
1
1
1 Source
I Reg ions
! 1
iMich.
1 2
Illl.
llnd.
1 3
(Ohio
1 4
I Penn.
1 5
|N. York
1 to Maine
1 6
(Kent.
iTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
iRest of
|(USA) Fid
I to Mo. to
JMinn.
1 9
(Ontario
1 10
[Quebec
1 11
1 Atlantic
I Provinces
I Western
1 Canada
I Total
1 Concen-
1 tration
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOB
AES
AES
MOE
AES |
B. Waters
(1)
0.06
0.10
0.20
0.04
0.11
0
0.05
0
0.04
0.01
0.06
0
0.06
0
0.11
0.44
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.07
0
0
0.40
0.80
1.1
Alg.
(2)
0.21
0.44
0.54
0.71
0.30
0.10
0.13
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.05
0.16
0
0.32
1.0
0.21
0.66
0.08
0.22
0.01
0
0.20
2.2
3.5
Musk.
(3)
0.44
1.8
0.75
0.79
0.52
1.4
0.23
0.30
0.17
0.26
0.20
0.17
0.26
0.09
0.34
0.74
0.60
2.3
0.13
0.44
0.01
0
0.09
3.7
8.4
Rece|
Que.
(4)
0.25
0.54
0.46
0.24
0.40
0.39
0.22
0.20
0.25
0.37
0.15
0.01
0.26
0.06
0.21
0.18
0.60
0.98
0.43
0.66
0.02
0.03
1
0.07
3.3
3.7
Dtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.30
0.45
,»
0.56
0.21
0.59
0.74
0.38
0.35
0.70
1.5
0.20
0.06
0.47
0.16
0.22
0.17
0.45
0.78
0.31
O.J63
0.06
0.13
0.06
4.3
5.2
Vt. NH.
(6)
0.36
0.78
0.63
0.42
0.60
0.97
0.34
0.51
0.40
0.66
0.20
0.08
0.38
0.21
0.26
0.28
0.63
1.4
0.44
0.98
0.02
0.01
0.06
4.3
6.4
Adir.
(7)
0.46
0.91
0.79
0.65
0.76
1.5
0.42
0.93
0.44
0.84
0.24
0.16
0.44
0.33
0.31
0.48
0.62
1.9
0.20
0.75
0.02
0.01
0.04
4.7
8.5
Penn.
(8)
0.67
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.7
5.5
1.2
2.6
0.21
0.22
0.46
0.80
0.72
1.1
0.42
1.1
0.31
1.0
0.08
0.09
0.01
0
0.03
7.2
15.3
Shokies
(9)
0.10
0.24
0.91
2.5
0.38
1.5
0.12
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.84
3.7
0.23
0.86
0.52
4.3
0.06
0.11
0.03
0.02
0
0
0
3.3
13.3
-------
Table A8-8 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual Dry Deposition of Sulfur
1
1
1
(Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
(Ohio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
|N. York
(to Maine
1 6
1 Kent.
JTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
|to N.C.
1 8
iRest of
|(USA) Fid
Ito Mo. to
(Minn.
1 9
1 Ontario
1 10
1 Quebec
1 11
1 Atlantic
1 Provinces
1 Western
1 Canada
1 Total
1 Concen-
1 tration
1
1
1
1
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDB
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE
AES
1
B. Waters
(1)
0.05
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.08
0
0.03
0
0.02
0
0.03
0
0.03
0
0.12
1.6
0.08
0.10
0.03
0
0
0
0.40
0.60
2.4
Alg.
(2)
0.44
2.2
0.70
1.2
0.35
0.30
0.14
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.14
0
0.65
1.9
0.71
2.0
0.14
0.40
0
0
0.10
3.5
8.4
Recei
Musk. 1 Due.
1
(3) .1 (4)
1.1 10.32
3.6 10.70
1
0.99 (0.40
1.2 10.30
0.81 10.41
2.3 10.70
0.37 10.24
0.60 10.40
1
0.30 10.37
0.60 10.90
1
0.18 10.10
0.30 I 0
1
0.31 10.24
0.20 10.20
1
0.53 10.19
0.9 10.20
1
1
2.2 11.3
9.8 11.4
0.27 |1.4
0.90 12.8
1
0.01 10.04
0 10.10
1
0.10 1 0
1
7.1 15.0
120.5 |7.7
Jtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.36
0.30
**
0.47
0.20
0.64
0.70
0.50
0.40
1.7
4.1
0.15
0.10
0.55
.0.20
0.18
0.10
0.66
0.70
0.60
1.0
0.22
2.5
0
6.0
10.3
Vt. NH.
(6)
0.57
0.90
0.63
0.40
0.77
1.5
0.51
1.1
0.94
2.0
0.16
0.10
0.45
0.40
0.27
0.20
1.4
2.2
2.2
5.5
0.04
0
0
7.9
14.3
Adir.
(7)
0.93
1.2
0.94
0.70
1.2
2.7
0.80
1.9
1.4
3.2
0.23
0.30
0.63
0.60
0.37
0.40
1.6
3.4
0.51
1.7
0.02
0
0
8.6
16.1
Penn.
(8)
2.0
3.0
2.6
2.0
6.2
17.6
7.3
17.9
0.56
0.60
0.71
1.5
2.2
3.0
0.60
1.4
0.69
2.0
0.09
0.10
0.01
0
0
23.0
49.1
Smokies
(9)
0.10
0.10
1.6
2.8
0.58
1.6
0.13
0.10
0.05
0
3.1
10.8
0.35
0.90
1.8
9.5
0.04
0.10
0.01
0
0
0
0
7.7
25.9
-------
Table AB-9 Transfer Matrix of:
Annual Wet Deposition of Sulfur (kg.ha~l.yr~1)
1
1
1
1 Source
(Regions
! 1
iMich.
1 2
Illl.
llnd.
1 3
lOhio
1 4
|Penn.
1 5
|N. York
Ito Maine
1 6
(Kent.
JTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
jto N.C.
1 8
iRest of
1 (USA) Fid
1 to Mo. to
(Minn.
1 9
(Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
1 Provinces
1 Western
1 Canada
1 Total
1 Concen-
1 tration
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOB
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE*
AES
B. Waters
(1)
0.05
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.08
0
0.03
0
0.03
0
0.04
0
0.04
0
0.10
0.90
0.07
0.10
0.03
0
0
0
0.20
0.62
1.5
Alg.
(2)
0.31
2.3
0.58
2.4
0.30
0.60
0.12
0.20
0.09
0.20
0.12
0.20
0.13
0
0.46
2.3
0.46
1.8
0.11
0.10
0.01
0
0.20
1
2.7
10.4
Musk.
(3)
0.73
3.1
0.81
2.2
0.63
4.4
0.28
1.3
0.22
0.60
0.17
1.0
0.26
0.40
0.41
0.90
1.4
3.3
0.19
0.30
0.01
0
0.10
5.1
17.6
Rece{
Que.
(4)
0.26
1.0
0.39
0.60
0.37
1.1
0.21
0.70
'
0.29
1.6
0.11
0.10
0.22
0.40
0.18
0.20
0.94
1.7
0.90
1.5
0.03
0.10
0
3.9
9.0
>tor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.30
0.30
0.46
0.20
0.56
0.50
0.41
0.30
1.2
2.4
0.16
0.10
0.47
0.30
0.18
0.10
0.52
0.60
0.43
0.50
0.14
0.60
0
4.8
5.9
Vt. NH.
(6)
0.44
0.70
0.58
0.50
0.63
2.4
0.40
1.8
0.64
2.7
0.16
0.30
0.38
1.1
0.24
0.30
0.97
1.6
1.4
1.7
0.03
0
0
5.9
13.1
Adir.
(7)
0.67
1.1
0.79
0.70
0.93
3.2
0.58
2.3
0.91
2.9
0.21
0.60
0.50
1.4
0.31
0.50
1.1
2.0
0.35
0.80
0.02
0
0.20
6.3
15.7
Penn.
(8)
1.3
1.7
1.9
2.2
4.0
11.3
4.5
8.1
0.38
0.50
0.55
2.1
1.5
4.3
0.47
2.0
0.48
1.2
0.08
0.10
0.01
0
0
15.2
33.5
Smokies
(9)
0.09
0.20
1.2
1.5
0.45
0.60
0.11
0.10
0.06
0
2.0
4.4
0.27
0.60
1.1
9.2
0.05
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
5.4
16.7
*Note: In order to calculate the total deposition at each siba, the deposition resulting from
background In the amount of 0.2 g.m~2.yr~l (or 2.0 kg.ha~l.yr~l) should be added to this
-------
Table A8-10 Transfer Matrix of:
Total Annual Sulfur Deposition (kg.ha~l.yr~l)
1
1
1 .
(Source
(Regions
1 1
(Mich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
iChio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
I to Maine
1 6
iKent.
(Term.
1 7
IW.Virg.
|to N.C.
1 8
iRest of
|(USA) Fid
1 to Mo. to
(Minn.
1 9
I Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
1 Provinces
I Western
(' Canada
1 Total
1 Concen-
1 tration
Models
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MDB
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE*
AES
B. Waters
(1)
0.10
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.16
0
0.06
0
0.05
0
0.07
0
0.08
0
0.22
2.5
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.10
0
0
0.60
1.2
3.9
Alg.
(2)
0.75
4.5
1.3
3.5
0.65
0.90
0.26
0.40
0.18
0.40
0.23
0.30
0.27
0.10
1.1
4.2
1.2
3.9 .
0.25
0.50
0.01
0
0.20
6.2
18.8
Musk.
(3)
1.8
6.7
1.8
3.4
1.4
6.7
0.65
1.9
0.52
1.2
0.35
1.3
0.57
0.50
0.94
1.8
3.7
13.2
0.46
1.2
0.02
0
0.20
.
12.2
38.1
Recej
Que.
(4)
0.5d
1.7
0.78
0.80
0.77
1.8
0.46
1.2
0.66
2.5
0.21
0.10
0.46
0.60
0.37
0.40
2.3
3.1
2.3
4.3
0.07
0.10
0
8.9
16.7
Jtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
0.66
0.60
*•
0.93
0.40
1.2
1.2
0.91
0.70
2.8
6.5
0.31
0.20
1.0
0.50
0.36
0.30
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.5
0.35
3.2
'
0
10.8
16.3
Vt. Nil.
(6)
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.90
1.4
3.9
0.90
2.8
1.6
4.7
0.33
0.40
0.83
1.5
0.51
0.50
2.4
3.8
3.6
7.2
0.07
0.10
0
13.8
27.4
Adir.
(7)
1.6
2.2
1.7
1.4
2.2
5.9
1.4
4.3
2.3
6.1
0.44
0.90
1.1
2.0
0.68
0.90
2.6
5.4
0.86
2.5
0.04
0
0.20
14.9
31.8
Penn.
(8)
3.4
4.7
4.5
4.2
10.2
28.9
11.8
26.0
0.93
1.1
1.3
3.6
3.7
7.3
1.1
3.4
1.2
3.1
0.17
0.20
0.02
0
.0
38.3
82.5
Smokies
(9)
6.19
0.30
2.8
4.3
1.0
2.2
0.24
0.20
0.11
0
5.0
15.2
0.62
1.5
2.9
18.7
0.09
0.10
0.03
0
0
0
0
13.0
42.6
CO
o
*Note: In order to calculate the total deposition at each site, the deposition resulting from
background in the amount of 0.2 g.m~2.yr~l (or 2.0 kg.ha~l.yr~l) should be added to this
-------
Table A8-11 Transfer Matrix of:
Percent Contribution to Annual Sulphur Dioxide Concentration
1
1
1
1 Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
lOhio
1 4
|Penn.
1 5
IN. York
jto Maine
1 6
iKent.
iTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
Ito Mo. to
(Minn.
1 9
1 Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
(Provinces
1 Western
1 Canada
1 Eastern
1 U.S.A.
1 Contri.
1 but ion
1 Total
I Canadian
1 Contri.
1 but ion
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
B. Waters
(1)
8.2
5.4
24.7
4.8
11.0
0
4.1
0
2.7
0.3
5.5
0
5.5
0
20.5
68.0
12.3
3.7
5.5
1.4
0
0
16.3
82.2
78.5
17.8
21.4
1
Alg.
(2)
12.6
27.2
19.8
13.6
9.8
3.2
3.9
0.6
2.5
1.5
3.2
1.0
3.9
0.2
18.5
22.3
20.7
24.3
4.1
4.6
0.2
0
1.4
74.2
69.6
25.0
30.3
Musk.
(3)
15.7
17.3
13.4
6.0
11.2
11.2
5.2
2.9
4.2
2.7
2.4
1.5
4.3
0.8
7.4
4.0
•
32.5
49.0
3.8
4.0
0.1
0
0.3
63.8
46.4
36.4
53.3
Recef
Que.
(4)
6.2
8.5
7.6
3.2
7.9
9.6
4.8
5.2
7.3
11.9
1.9
0.7
4.6
2.1
3.8
1.9
26.9
18.4
28.5
38.0
0.8
0.7
0.1
44.1
43.1
56.2
57.2
>tor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
5.9
3.0
7.6
1.7
10.6
6.2
8.4
3.6
28.0
40.8
2.4
0.4
9.1
1.7
2.9
1.0
11.0
6.2
10.1
9.6
3.6
25.6
0.1
74.9
58.4
24.7
41.5
Vt. NH.
(6)
7.1
5.8
7.8
2.9
9.5
9.8
6.3
7.5
12.0
13.9
2.0
1.0
5.6
2.7
3.3
1.5
18.0
15.0
28.0
39.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
53.6
45.1
46.5
54.6
Adir.
(7)
11.0
7.2
11.0
4.2
13.8
16.6
9.2
11.9
16.5
20.2
2.6
1.6
7.2
4.0
4.1
2.4
18.3
21.2
6.0
10.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
75.4
68.1
24.6
31.8
Penn.
(8)
8.8
6.1
11.2
3.8
26.9
35.7
32.0
37.0
2.4
1.2
3.0
3.0
9.5
6.1
2.6
2.8
3.0
4.0
0.4
0.3
0
0
0
96.4
95.7
3.4
4.3
Smokies
(10)
1.2
0.5
20.6
10.3
7.5
6.1
1.7
0.4
0.7
0.1
40.2
42.3
4.5
3.5
22.7
36.5
0.5
3.0
0.2
0
0
0
0
99.1
99.7
0.7
0.3
-------
Table A8-12 Transfer Matrix of:
Percent Contribution to Annual Sulfate Concentration
1
1
1
1 Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
lOhio
1 4
I Penn.
1 5
IN. York .
1 to Maine
1 6
iKent.
iTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
1 to Mo. to
iMinn.
1 9
(Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
1 Provinces
(Western
(Canada
I Eastern
(U.S.A.
1 Contri.
Ibution
(Total
(Canadian
I Contri.
1 hi it ion
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOB
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AGS
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
B. Waters
(1)
7.5
9.0
25.0
3.6
13.8
0
6.2
0
5.0
0.9
7.5
0
7.5
0
13.7
39.6
8.8
4.5
5.0
6.3
0
0
36.0
86.2
53.1
13.8
46.8
Alg.
(2)
9.6
12.6
24.6
20.3
13.6
2.9
5.9
0.9
4.1
2.6
6.4
1.4
7.3
0
14.6
28.6
9.6
18.9
3.6
6.3
0.5
0
5.7
86.1
69.3
13.7
(30.9 .
Musk.
•
(3)
12.0
21.5
20.6
9.4
14.3
16.7
6.3
3.6
4.7
3.1
5.5
2.0
7.1
1.1
9.3
8.8
16.4
27.5
3.5
5.3
0.3
0
1.0
79.8
66.2
20.2
33.8
Recei
[ Cue.
(4)
7.7
14.5
•
14.2
6.4
12.3
10.5
6.8
5.4
7.7
9.9
4.6
0.3
8.0
1.6
6.5
4.8
18.5
26.3
13.2
17.7
0.6
0.8
1.8
67.8
53.4
32.3
46.7
Jtor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
7.1
8.6
13.2
4.0
13.9
14.1
9.0
6.7
16.5
28.6
4.7
1.2
11.1
3.1
5.2
3.2
10.6
14.9
7.3
12.0
1.4
2.5
1.1
80.7
69.5
19.3
30.5
Vt. NH.
(6)
8.5
12.2
14.8
6.6
14.1
15.2
8.0
8.0
9.4
10.3
4.7
1.3
8.9
3.3
6.1
4.4
14.8
21.9
10.3
15.4
0.5
0.2
1.0
74.5
61.3
25.6
38.5
Adir.
(7)
10.2
10.7
16.7
7.7
16.1
17.9
8.9
11.0
9.3
9.9
5.1
1.9
9.3
3.9
6.6
5.7
13.1
21.9
4.2
8.8
0.4
0.1
0.5
82.2
68.7
17.7
31.3
Penn.
(8)
9.3
10.0
19.5
9.0
23.7
35.8
16.7
16.9
2.9
1.4
6.4
5.2
10.0
7.1
5.9
6.9
4.3
6.8
1.1
0.6
0.1
0
0.2
94.4
92.3
5.5
7.6
Smokies
(10)
3.1
1.8
27.9
18.6
11.7
11.0
3.7
0.8
2.2
0.1
25.8
27.7
7.1
6.5
16.0
32.3
1.8
0.8
0.9
0.2
0
0
0
97.5
98.8
2.7
1.0
1
-------
•Bible A8-13 Transfer Matrix of:
Percent Contribution to Annual Sulfur Dry Deposition
1
1
1
(Source
(Regions
1 1
iMich.
1 2
1111.
(Irri.
1 3
(Ohio
1 4
|Penn.
1 5
IN. York
|to Maine
1 6
iKent.
(Term.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
Ito Mo. to
JMinn.
1 9
[Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
j Provinces
IWestem
(Canada
(Eastern
(U.S.A.
(Contri
(but ion
(Total
(Canadian
I Contri
(but ion
Models
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOB
AES
MOE
- AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
B.Waters
(1)
8.3
4.2
21.7
8.3
13.3
0
5.0
0
3.3
0
5.0
0
5.0
0
20.0
66.7
13.3
3.8
5.0
0
0
0
16.7
81.6
79.2
18.3
20.5
1 Alg.
(2)
12.6
26.2
120.0
14.3
10.0
3.6
4.0
\ 1.2
2.6
1.2
3.5
1.2
4.0
0
18.6
22.6
20.4
23.8
4.1
4.8
0
0
1.1
75^3
170.3
1
124.5
29.7
Musk.
(3)
15.5
17.6
14.0
5.9
11.4
11.2
5.2
2.9
4.2
2.9
2.6
1.5
4.4
1.0
7.5
4.4
31.0
47.8
3.8
4.4
0.1
0
0.4
64.8
47.4
34.9
52.6
Recef
Que.
(4)
6.4
9.2
8.0
4.0
8.2
9.2
4.8
5.3
7.4
11.8
2.0
0
4.8
2.6
3.8
2.6
26.0
18.4
28.0
36.8
0.8
1.3
0
45.4
44.7
54.8
56.5
ftor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
6.0
2.9
7.8
1.9
10.6
6.8
8.3
3.9
28.3
39.8
2.5
1.0
9.1
1.9
3.0
1.0
11.0
6.8
10.0
9.7
3.6
24.3
0
75.6
59.2
24.6
40.8
Vt. Nil.
(6)
7.2
6.3
8.0
2.8
9.7
10.5
6.4
7.7
11.9
14.0
2.0
0.7
5.7
2.8
3.4
1.4
17.7
15.4
27.8
38.5
0.5
0
0
54.3
46.2
(46.0
53.9
Adir.
(7)
10.8
7.5
10.9
4.4
13.9
16.8
9.3
11.8
16.3
19.9
2.6
1.9
7.3
3.7
4.3
2.5
18.6
21.1
5.9
10.6
0.2
0
0
75.4
68.5
24.7
31.7
Penn.
(8)
8.7
6.1
11.3
4.1
27.0
35.8
31.7
36.4
2.4
1.2
3.1
3.1
9.6
6.1
2.6
2.9
3.0
4.1
0.4
0.2
0
0
0
96.4
95.7
3.4
4.3
Smokies
(10)
1.3
0.4
20.7
10.8
7.5
6.2
1.6
0.4
0.6
0
40.2
41.5
4.5
3.5
23.3
36.5
0.5
0.4
0.1
0
0
0
0
99.7
99.3
0.6
0.4
1
-------
Table A8-14 Transfer Matrix of:
Percent Contribution to Annual Sulfur Met Deposition
1
1
1
(Source
(Regions
1 1
(Mich.
1 2
1111.
llnd.
1 3
(Ohio
1 4
|Penn.
i 5
IN. York
Ito Maine
1 6
(Kent.
iTenn.
1 7
IW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
1 to Mo. to
(Minn.
1 9
(Ontario
1 10
(Quebec
1 11
(Atlantic
I Provinces
1 Western
1 Canada
I Eastern
IU.S.A.
IContri
1 but ion
1 Total
I Canadian
IContri
I but ion.
1
1
Models
MDE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
-AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
B.Waters
(1)
8.1
13.3
24.2
6.7
12.9
0
4.8
0
4.8
0
6.5
0
6.5
0
16.1
60.0
11.3
6.7
4.8
0
0
0
13.3
83.9
80.0
16.1
20.0
Alg.
(2)
111. 5
22.1
21.5
23.1
[11.1
5.8
4.5
2.9
3.3
1.9
4.5
1.9
4.8
0
17.1
22.1
17.0
17.3
4.1
1.0
0.4
0
1.9
78.3
79.8
21.5
20.2
Musk.
(3)
14.3
17.6
15.9
12.5
12.3
25.0
5.5
7.4
4.3
3.4
3.3
5.7
5.1
2.3
8.0
5.1
27.4
18.8
3.7
1.7
0.2
0
0.5
68.7
79.0
31.3
21.0
Recei
Cue.
(4)
6.7
ni.i
10.0
6.7
9.5
12.2
5.4
7.8
7.4
17.8
2.8
1.1
5.6
4.4
4.6
2.2
24.1
18.9
23.1
16.7
0.8
1.1
0
52.0
63.3
48.0
36.7
itor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
6.2
5.1
9.6
3.4"
11.6
8.5
8.5
5.1
25.0
40.7
3.3
1.7
9.8
5.1
3.7
1.7
10.8
10.0
8.9
8.5
2.9
10.2
0
77.7
71.3
22.6
28.7
Vt. NH.
(6)
7.5
5.3
9.9
3.8
10.7
18.3
6.8
13.7
10.9
20.6
2.7
2.3
6.5
8.4
4.1
2.3
16.5
12.2
23.7
13.0
0.5
0
0
59.1
74.7
40.7
25.2
Adir.
(7)
10.6
7.0
12.5
4.5
14.8
20.4
9.2
14.7
14.4
18.5
2.3
3.8
7.9
8.9
4.9
3.2
17.5
12.7
5.6
5.1
0.3
0
1.2
76.6
81.0
23.4
19.0
Penn.
(8)
8.6
5.1
12.5
6.6
26.3
33.7
29.6
24.2
2.5
1.5
3.6
6.3
9.9
12.8
3.1
6.0
3.2
3.6
0.5
0.3
0.1
0
0
96.1
96.2
3.8
3.9
Smokies
(10)
1.7
1.2
22.3
9.0
8.3
3.6
2.1
0.6
1.1
0
37.1
26.4
5.0
3.6
20.4
55.1
0.9
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
98.0
99.5
1.3
0
00
I
-C.
-------
Table A8-15 Transfer Matrix of:
Percent Contribution to Total Annual Sulfur Deposition
Source
Regions
1
iMich.
2
1 111.
ilnd.
1 3
lOhio
1 4
iPenn.
1 5
IN. York
|to Maine
I 6
|Kent.
JTenn.
1 7
iW.Virg.
Ito N.C.
1 8
(Rest of
|(USA) Fid
jto Mo. to
JMinn.
9
1 Ontario
1 10
I Quebec
1 11
1 Atlantic
I Provinces
[Western
I Canada
(Eastern
IU.S.A.
IContri
I but ion
iTotal
I Canadian
IContri
(but ion
Models
MOB
AES
MOB
AES
MOB
ABS
MOB
AES
MOB
AES
MOB
AES
MOB
AES
MOE
•AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
MOE
AES
AES
MOE
AES
MOB
AES I
1
B.Waters
(1)
B.2
7.7
23.0
7.7
13.1
0
4.9
0
4.1
0
5.7
0
6.6
0
18.0
64.1
11.5
2.6
4.9
2.6
0
0
15.3
83.6
79.5
16.4
20.5
Alg.
(2)
12.2
23.9
21.1
18.6
10.5
4.8
4.2
2.1
2.9
2.1
3.7
1.6
4.4
0.5
17.8
22.3
19.5
20.7
4.0
2.6
0.1
0
1.0
76.8
75.9
23.6
24.3
Musk.
(3)
^4.7
17.6
14.8
8.9
11.5
17.6
5.3
5.0
4.2
3.2
2.9
3.4
4.6
1.3
7.7
4.7
30.3
34.7
3.8
3.2
0.1
0
0.5
65.7
61.7
34.2
38.4
Reoef
Que.
(4)
6.5
10.2
8.7
4.8
8.6
10.8
5.1
7.2
7.4 .
15.0
2.3
0.6
5.1
3.6
4.1
2.4
125.8
18.6
25.8
25.8
0.8
0.6
0
47.8
154.6
1
1
152.4
145.0
)tor Areas
S. N.Sc.
(5)
6.1
3.7
8.7
2.4'
11.1
7.3
8.5
4.3
26.0
39.9
2.9
1.2
9.3
3.0
3.4
1.8
11.1
8.0
9.3
9.2
3.3
19.6
0
76.0
63.6
23.7
36.8
Vt. NH.
(6)
7.2
5.8
8.7
3.3
10.1
14.2
6.5
10.2
11.6
17.1
2.4
1.5
6.0
5.5
3.7
1.8
17.4
13.9
26.1
26.3
0.5
0.4
0
56.2
59.4
44.0
40.6
Adir.
(7)
10.7
6.9
11.4
4.4
14.8
18.6
9.4
13.5
15.4
19.2
2.9
2.8
7.4
6.3
4.5
2.8
17.4
17.0
5.8
7.9
0.3
0
0.6
76.5
74.5
23.5
25.5
Perm.
(8)
8.9
5.7
11.8
5.1
[26.6
35.0
30.8
31.4
2.4
1.2
3.4
4.4
9.7
8.8
2.9
4.1
3.1
3.8
0.4
0.2
0
0
0
96.5
95.7
3.5
4.0
Smokies
(10)
1.5
0.7
21.5
10.1
7.7
5.2
1.8
0.5
0.8
0
38.5
35.6
4.8
3.5
22.3
43.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
98.9
99.4
0.9
0.2
:>
00
-------
Appendix 9
Workshop Summary Reports:
Atmospheric and Science Reviews
Modeling Evaluation and Intercomparison
»
(16-17 December 1980, Washington, D.C.)
-------
A.9-1
Atmospheric Science Review
At a Work Group 2 workshop meeting held in Washington, DC
on December 16, 1980, a wide-ranging discussion occurred regarding
the most important areas in the atmospheric sciences which were
closely connected with the use of long range transport models.
From that discussion emerged several topics on which Work Group 2
would prepare reviews for their May 15, 1981, Phase II report.
The purpose of these reviews would be to highlight the state of
knowledge in the particular topic areas, and to indicate how
that knowledge is reflected in various models being used by this
Work Group. The reviews are to be brief, comprehensive, reflect
recent literature and work in progress, and written in a manner
which is comprehensible to the educated layman.
The initial topics chosen are described briefly below, and
the lead authors are identified. First drafts of the write-ups
will be distributed to all Work Group 2 members for discussion
in the last half of February, 1981.
1) Sulfur and Nitrogen Chemistry in LRT Models .
(A.P. Altshuller) Homogeneous and heterogeneous reaction
mechanisms will be reviewed. The degree to which models
can treat sulphur chemistry as being first-order and indepen-
dent of other atmospheric cycles (e.g., oxidants, nitrogen,
particulates, visibility) will be discussed. Seasonal
differences will be mentioned. The ways in which S02 is
converted into sulphuric acid, as opposed to other sulfate
products, will be emphasized in all parts of the report.
-------
A.9-2
It is known that nitrogen chemistry is more complex
than sulphur chemistry, and that in many situations it
is not first-order. Additionally, other key species
involved in nitrogen chemistry are often not being
measured. This discussion will review the above issues,
as well as the aspects mentioned above for sulfur.
Finally, the possibility of crudely modeling nitrogen
reactions in a pseudo-first order way in existing
Lagrangian models will be discussed.
2) Trends in precipitation composition and deposition
(J. Miller) What data sets are available which have not
been discussed to date? Are the data sets reliable?
Is there any way to relate trends, which these and
newer sets of data may show, to estimates of past and
present emissions of SO27 should the comparison even
be made in view of the different spatial distribution
of the sources, the different release heights of the
SC>2, etc.
3) Deposition processes for sulphur and nitrogen compounds
(G. Van Volkenburg) Once atmospheric reactions have
occurred, how does one measure and model the various
pathways of deposition, both wet and dry? Are the
mechanisms and amounts of deposition radically different
because of seasonal changes?' What is the role of changing
-------
A.9-3
meteorological conditions (e.g., mixing height, tempera-
ture, type of storm, amount of precipitation) and surface
conditions (wet, snow-covered, vegetation-covered, etc.)?
How valid are the parameterigation of deposition being
used in models currently?
4) Global and western North American measurements of
precipitation pH (P. Summers) The strength of the
assumption of "unpolluted" rain having a pH of 5.6 will
be compared to recent global background measurements,
and these measurements will be interpreted in light of
current .assumptions about residence times of acid precursor
compounds and scavenging mechanisms for these compounds
over oceans, coastal regions, and over land. Recent
measurements from western North America will be examined
thoroughly.
-------
A.9-4
2. Evaluation and Intercomparison of Selected Models
On December 17, 1980, the first workshop of Group 2 was
convened to plan a comprehensive model evaluation and inter-
comparison program for the five-month period up to May 1981.
The follwing items wre agreed upon:
1) ^Management; J.W.S. Young and B. Niemann were appointed
as the Canadian and U.S. "whips", respectively, to insure
that, to the maximum extent possible, data, manpower,
and funding would be made available for this exercise by
the various agencies involved.
Agreement was reached among EPA (US), and AES and
OME (Canada) that if required, support for a contractor
to assist in assembling data sets would be made available.
2) Task scheduling; Once tasks had been outlined and
agreed to, it was agreed that the sponsoring agencies
would hold workshops to discuss progress on the tasks,
at approximately monthly intervals. The second workshop
was scheduled for January 13-14, 1981 in Washington, and
the third for the last half of February in Toronto.
3) Provision of an "Agreed", "Unified" North American
Sulfur Inventory; The crucial need for a current, unified
sulfur inventory for North America was raised again. It
is understood that Work Group 3B is responsible for the
provision of this inventory. It is to be published as a
-------
A.9-5
tabulation/ identifying for each point and area source:
location, most recent annual and seasonal emissions, and
other stack paramenters (where appropriate). Using the
inventory breakouts of emissions totals for point and
area sources will be undertaken for various georgraphical
regions, including continental, country, the 11 Canadian
source regions, the SURE approximations to states and
provinces, and the 63 SURE source regions.
4) Meteorological Year for Test Use; 1978 was chosen.
Annual, winter (Jan.-March), summer (July-September), and
monthly slices from seasons (January and July) will be used.
5) Meteorological Year for Greneral Use; To be decided
at second workshop. P. Summers will produce notes for
discussion.
6) Input data sets for testing: The 1978 data sets from
CANSAP, MAP3S, SURE, Ontario Hydro, and SAROAD archives
will be employed.
7) Parameters to be modeled for sulphur; Wet deposition,
and SC>2 and 50$ concentrations will be the three primary
outputs. Estimates of dry and total deposition are of
lower priority because they can not be validated against
field observations and they are, therefore, more uncertain.
-------
A. 9-6
8) Methods of Parameterization; A. Venkatrara and J. Shannon
will write a position paper for the January 13-14 workshop
to stimulate discussion on which, and how, parameters should
be "tuned" to data sets. Can statistics be generated from
this exercise which say anything about the confidence of
Nthe models?
9) Methods of Validation; A. Venkatram will prepare, for
the January workshop, a position paper for discussion which
indicates how the models can be validated in a uniform
manner, and how the measure of validity can be expressed
from model to model in a uniform manner.
10) Amount of Model "Production,, Usage"; The chairman of
Work Group 2 will extract from the chairmen of Work Group
3B the number of "full scenarios" to be run in Phase II.
This number, along with estimates of model usage for
validation and intercomparison, will identify the level of
effort required by each modeler.
-------
Addendum to Appendix 6
Source Region and Inventory Description
of the
Phase I Report on
Atmospheric Modeling
by
Work Group 2
-------
Preface
The purpose of this addendum is to provide more detailed
documentation of the emissions and their geographical assignments
than was possible in Appendix 6 of the Phase I report. The infor-
mation in this addendum is being used by the atmospheric transport
raodelers in Phase II for model intercomparisons, evaluations,
and production runs. It is expected that the material in this
addendum will be updated and supplemented from time to time.
A large (30" x 40") map of the SURE grid system, 63 SURE
aggregate areas, and 11 Canadian regions, superimposed on State
and provincial boundaries is available for use with this appendix
Inquiries should be directed to:
Program Integration and Policy Staff
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
RD-681 Room 641 West Tower
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
202 426-9434
-------
Table of Contents
1. Relationships Between U.S. Counties, SURE Grids, Aggregated
SURE Grid Areas, and the 11 Canadian Regions
1.1 Counties and Sources in SURE Grids
1.2 Grids in 63 Aggregated Grid Areas
1.3 Aggregated Grid Areas in 11 Canadian Regions
2. Comparison of U.S. SURE, Canadian SURE, and NEDS 1976 on a State
Basis
3. New U. S. Total and Utility SOx Emissions for the Aggregated Grid
Areas in the United States
4. New Canadian SOx Emissions for the Aggregated Grid Areas in Canada
5. Primary 804 Emissions for the Aggregated Grid Areas
6. NOx and TEP Emissions for the Aggregated Grid Areas
7. Listing of Historical and Current Emissions by State and County
-------
1. Relationships Between U. S. Counties, SURE Grids, 63
Aggregated SURE Grid Areas, and the 11 Canadian Regions
1.1 Counties and Sources in SURE Grids
-------
STATE
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AUTAUGA
9ULLHC*
CALHOUN
CHAMflfOg
CHILTON
CLAY
CLIBURNE
COFFEE
COLBERT
CC1NECUH
COOSA
CRFNSHAW
CULL*AN
DALE
DALLAS
ETC1WAH
FRANKLIN
GENEVA
GREENE
MALE
HOUSTON
JACKSON
JEFFF.RSON
LAUDEROALE
LAWRENCE
LEE
LIMESTONE
MACON
F
ST
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IPS
CITY
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
i
43
45
47
no
UT
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
61
63
65
87
SURE II 5PTO
9
7
10
e
9
10
9
10
11
10
9
7
7
IP
10
10
8
6
9
9
9
9
10
8
10
0
8
10
8
8
10
7
8
10
10
10
9
7
6
8
10
9
9
10
2
0
1
3
a
2
1
4
3
5
3
2
1
3
a
l
5
1
3
1
1
5
1
2
5
2
0
a
a
5
0
3
3
1
0
5
a
a
6
5
2
6
2
2
351
287
321
381
«13
352
320
au
38
-------
Grid Square SC>2 Emission Data in the SURE II Inventory - Utility
Sector in the Major Point Source file
Sample Output
Individual Source Parameters
-------
SUHE-2 SO2 AND EMISSIONS
BV GRID MJMB0MIN GRAMS/SEC)
DOS
626
627
628
6? 9
630
631
632
613
634
639
636
637
638
639
6«0
641
642
643
644
649
646
64 T
646
649
690
491
692
693
694
GRID*
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
GO IDT
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
If.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16 •
STATE
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
PENNSVLVANI A
PFNNSrLVANI A
PENNSYLVANIA
PENN3TLVANI A
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSVLVANI A
PENNSYLVANIA
COUNT V
S*0
940.
940
9«0
9*0
940
940
940
3I6O
31 6O
31 6O
3160
3160
3160
3160
31 6O
3160
31 M»
3I6«
31 6O
3160
02 OO
92 OO
9?OO
92 OO
9200
9? 00
9200
92 OO
PLNTCI
9O O2
9002
9002
9OO?
50 O?
9O 02
9002
9OO2
9O02
9O 02
9OO2
9OIO
0010
9010
90 IO
9O IO
9010
9OIO
6012
9OI2
6012
T
T
T
T
12
It
12
If
ucoe
9
6
7
a
9
10
II
12
1
s
6
T
6
9
10
II
12
13
1
2
3
1
X
s
4
1
2
9
4
SOURCE
01
01
OT
in
UT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
in
OT
UT
UT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
UT
OT
OT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTMX
920.5
62 O. 5
520.9
520,9
92O. 9
. t>2O. 6
52 O. 9
620.6
5 JO. O
S2V. V
529.9
631.7
631. 7
931.7
931.7
5JI.7
631.7
931.7
933.9
933. 5
933.9
90 B. 3
388.3
588.3
538.3
992. 1
592. 1
592. 1
992. 1
UTMV
441 7.9,
4417.5
4417.5
4417.5
4417.5
4417.6
4417.5
4417.5
4459. B
4435.6
4459.6
4485.S
4489.5
4485.5
4485.5
4485.5
4489.5
4489.5
4481.8
4481.8
4481.8
4452. a
4452.8
4452. a
4452.8
4456.1
4*36.1
4456.1
4456.1
STACK rOT
259. 1
25V. 1
259. 1
259. 1
259. 1
269. 1
259. 1
259. 1
251.0
251.5
274.3
153.6
153.6
ISJ.t.
IS 3.6
259.1
259.1
304.8
198. I
198. 1
19U.I
51). a
So.o
sa.e
70. 1
82.9
O2. 9
82.9
89. O
S02EMI3
145.95
185.12
186. 77
176.77
270.27
29S. 7O
773.50
792.50
2O6&. IO
1629. 2O
433.63
531.90
760.87
1 OO 1 . 02
ICO 1.02
1634.90
349 J. 7O
3346. 7O
>45.o2
501.6O
50k. OS
30.85
3O. 8O
30. eo
1284.50
330. 52
330. 72
380.75
687. 7O
-------
1.2 Grids in Aggregated Grid Areas
-------
Explanation of Format
Column Definition Range Format
1 X index (west-east) 1:31 15
2 Y index (south-north) 1:36 15
3 Grid Scalor Index 1:1116 (D 15
4 X* index (west-east) 0:30 15
5 Y* index (south-north) - 9:26 15
6 ARMS area 0:60(2) 15
7 Sum of major
point sources SC>2 F10.1
8 Sum of all F10.1
sources SO2
(1) 1 is in the southwest corner of the entire grid system
(2) 0 is the ocean
* Original SURE Grid Numbering System
-------
1
2
^
V
5
«
7
8
1?
11
12
13
Ik
If
17
19
2r
21
?2
23
25
26
i"
2*
29
31
1
j
•?
i»
5
6
7
a
9
10
12
13
4 L
15
16
17
IS
19
2C
21
1
1
1
1
1
<
1
1
<
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
<
1
1
i.
4
?
9
•>
2
2
>
2
_2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
•»
<*
5
t
7
8
q
1?
11
1'
13
!<•
< e
16
17
1 A
19
2C
22
23
25
26
»7
?«
29
30
31
32
33
31*
35
37
38
'q
IK,
i»l
42
(.3
<»<»
"»5
U6
U7
I»8-
<»9
5C
...SI -
52
0
1
"»
3
U
f?
6
7
0
a
IP
H
12
13
1 it
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21.
25
?ft
?7
28
2°
30
C
2
j
i.
5
6
7
8
a
r p
11
12
< •»
!«,
15
16 ...
17
13
-19 .-.
2n
-9
-9
-3
-9
-9
1
-9
-9
a
-9
-9
_•!
-9
-9
T
-9
-9
-5
-9
-9
_«a
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-•.4
-3
-9
-9
-9
-9
-a
-5
-3
-S
-«
_a
-8
-3
_a
-3
-3
_a,
-3
-J
.)
-S
-3
. -3-.
-J
a
3
i
3
j
i
3
0
i
a
)
3
a
a
T
31
u
^
0
0
g
3
j
r
5
0
i
C
3
3 '
8
P
r
j
P
3
3
n
C
C
1
0
a
Q
0
31
•»!
9
3
g
0 .
0.0
0.0
" n
".0
(5.0
* n
9.0
0.0
On
0.0
3.:
J 3
9.0
0.0
i "
J.O
a.c
n n
0.0
C.C
0 C
0.1
•5.0
1 f,
0.0
0.0
il x3
0.0
o.:
1 *
C.C
P.O
n 0
3.0
0."
" «C
3.0
1.0
n n
O.C
0.0
n _ «
0.0
Q.C
0.0
3.G
a.o
",0
3.0
0.0
.....0.0
o.r
0.0
0.0
n p
0.0
c.o
C 3
0.0
0.0
n 1
0.3
C.C
C 0
O.C
c.o
n n
1.6
C.O
C 0
r.o
0.0
C «0
0 • u
c.o
r> . c
0 . j
0.0
n n
r.c
c.o
C i 0
0.3
C.O
p. rt
C.1
j.C
c.o
C.C
:.9
f . n
C • u
C.J
.'i . i
C.C
0.0
O.j
.5
1 1 . L
0.0
o.s
c.o.. . .. -
r.r*
-------
22
25
27
28
29
30
31
2
3
1.
5
6
7
8
9
lu
11
12
15
1ft
17
2?
21
2*
26
27
29
30
1
9
•J
If
5
6...
7
8
g
10
11
1 ?
13
17
1 ft
19
23
22
23
21-
25
2
JL
2
2
2
9
2
2
3
3
3
3
T
3
3
3
•»
3
3
3
3
— 3
T
3
-3-
ti
if
if
if
if
it
1+
(f
i»
i»
U
if
53
55
56
58
59
6"
61
62
66
67
68
69
7C
71
72
7?
76
77
7R
79
8C
82
81
a /.
85
86
•87-
•8
- 9C -
91
92
93
95
9'
98
99
ior
11 ?
1P3
i p 5
1C6
1C7
138 .._
IC9
110
111
112
11?
115
116
117-
118
21
77
23
7 e
?6
27
28
29
30
1
2
c
7
8
9
lu
11
€_
13
-llw.
17
.1 A
19
2C
?2
23
25
•27
29
35
0
1
3
5_
6
r
g
_4 J
12
13
1 *t
15
16
j 7
Ifl
19
-2C
21
22
?1
2 _^
' » - 6
-S
-S
t
-6
-5
-6
-5
-3
-6
-S
-6
0
n
J
0
0
0
J
u
0
n
0
0
B
JJ
0
3
i
•11
31
31
3
3
Q
a
3
*5
0
0
(J
3
I
0
3
u
0
j
0
i
n
0
Q
31
31
31
31
u
0
3
0
3
Q
3
0.0
3 j C • ii
O.n
0.0
f 0
3.0
0.0
0 j 0
9.0
0.0
0.7
3.0
Q Q
0.0
O.u
9 0
0.0
0.0
C C
0.0
0.0
•t n
3.0
0.0
0 C
4.0
22.8
n B
3.3
3.3
C ,"
0.0
a.o
o.c
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
p,p
3.0
0.0
0 t Q
3.3
0.3
1 > J
O.n
n.fl
n n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
jn .7
n.o
o.c
1 **
0.0
O.J
3.0
O.C
0.0
0.0
0.3
r.o
C 4 1}
0.0
0.0
0 i 0
Q .b
0.0
3 3
0.0
0.0
o t o
0.3
C.O
(j 1 r
0.0
0.0
i» n
c.c
o.c
g
19.3
51.5
n f.
C.3
C.3
P B
C.u
0.0
C D
u . J
C.O
0 ilj
G.Q
C.O
O.C
i.3
t.e
0 .5
0.3
0.0
Q , (J
5!o
0.0
3.0
n r
C.3
C.O
3.3
7.9
'1 1 2
C.O
C.fl . .
C .3
C.O
0.0
0 .0
C.3
-------
26
28
29
31
1
>
6
T
.9
10
12
15
15
16
18
19
2C
2?
25
27
28
*9
33
M
2
3
5
A
8
.9
10
11
12
IS
17
16
20
21
2?
27
26
27
29
U 119
'• 120
<» 121
k 12?
k 1*3
5 125
5 126
5 127
5 128
5 1?*)
5 13C
5 1*1
5 13?
5 13"*
5 1SU
5 136
5 1J7
5 138
* 139
* H»0
c ftl
5 1«»2
5 1U3
5 IMt
5 1<»5
«? 1U6
s i&a
5 1<»9
5 150
5 151
5 152
e ,153
5 155
g i?g
6 157
6 158
_6-_- 1JCO.
ft 130
6 161
6 163
ft !*•<*
-ft --165
6 1&6
6 167
-6 16 A
ft 169
6 170
-A.... 171
6 172
6 173
S 1 7U
ft- 175
6 17ft
-6 177
6 178
6 180-
6 181
6 182
_.& 183
e iau
25
27
28
C
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
19
11
12
15
17
18
19
20
21
23
26
27
?q
29
3C
Q
1
2
u
5
g
7
8
9
10
11
12
1*
It
16
17
1 °
19
23
?i
22
23
25
26
27
28
-5 .
-5
-5
-5
-5
•5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-9
-5
•5
-5
-5
-5
•5
-c
-5
-5
-5
-5
-3
-5
-5
:l
IS
:l
-»
-V
-'4
-'t
:t
-'+
0
3
3
A
J
0
0
0
9
0
3
j
. 0
w
31
31
31
a
n
0
0
3
jj
(1
fl
0
J
3
n
3
3
0
g
0
n
3
31
M
31
0
Q
J
jj
3
i
3
Q
3
0.0
« n
0.0
0.0
1 f
c.c
3.C
0 0
O.Q
O.C
0 0
0.0
0 C
1.0
0.0
1 «0
0.0
o.c
11 0
o.-o
0.0
O.Q
3.0
n • r
3.0
3.0
ij , p
3.C
3.0
O.U
n n
O.C
J.O
3.0
0.0
n n
O.G
3.0
" 0
0.0
0.0
0 »0
o.c
V.O
c.o
293*9
1 fi
0.0
il r.
0.0
3.C
P .0
0.0
0.0
j .C
0.0
n ,o
.1.0.
C.P
C t
O.Q
0.0
0 fl
o.c
C .0
0 0
c.o
o.c
0 0
0.0
0.0
C C
0.0
0.0
0 i 3
a.o
0.0
0 0
6.3
3.8
0.0
o.c
p.r
0.0
0.0
p.c
c.r
0.0
C .0
G.O
O.u
0 i 0
o.c
r.c
C i 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
3.3
o.c
c.o
t»7.3
3U2.8
'i 2 S •
61.1
3.0
r n
0.0
0.0
1 . p
c.c
c.o
n , 3
G.O
O.Q
0 .C
....]. 0..0
-------
30
•T.
1
2
j
5
.7
1C
11
13
4C
17
4 a
20
71
23
««.
25
26
28
29
3f
31
1
_2
3
5
6
7
9
1C
1?
I1*
15
16
I"'
18
19
20
21
22
2'
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
4
2
6 186
7 187
7 188
T iaa
7 190
7 191
7 1 a*
7 193
7 19<»
7 i T;
7 196
7 197
7 1 3fl
7 199
7 20?
•» 904
* 20?
7 2C3
7 2 ttli
» 205
' 206
•» 2D7
7 ?'"8
7 209
7 21 0
7 ni
7 212
7 ?t 3
29
* r
0
i
3
(*
6
T
a
9
1C
4 1
12
13
I'l
I?
16
17
IB
19
'0
21
22
23
24
25
ye.
7 21<» 27
7 215 28
7 216 29 .
7 217 3U
8 218 0
1 219 *
8 223
9 i?l
A 2??
8 223
8 ?2<»
«.— 225-
* 226
8 227
8 2?fr
« 2?9
8 210
8 231
8 2?2
8 233
8 2T«*
8 235
3 ?36
8 2*7
9 238
8 2*9
8 ?<»Q
3 2<»1
8 2b2
• • 8 2 '• T -
9 2<*J»
8 2<»5
8 2<«7
8 2*f8
9 2*t9
9 25 fl
2
3
5
6
9
10
11
12
1 *•
15
16
17
18
— 19 —
2C
21
22
23
2U
25
26
27
pa
29
30
$
1
-*
-J
-*
-3
-3
-t
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
- j
-3
-3
_ j
-3
-3
-3
_ j
-3
— T
-3
-2
-2
-2
-»
M 0
c.a
0.0
c.o
0.0
c.o
27.7
n.f
C.O
0 .u
0.0
c.o
25.3
0.0
c.o
C, 0
3.0
0.9
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . C
0.0
0.0
G. 0
.1
-------
3
997
I1? 298
1G 299
11 T2L
1C 331
10 302
1" TO 3
10 30<.
in 305
14 3J6—
10 =507
10 3G8
ir 3*0
1C 310
11 311
11 312-
11 313
11 31U
Uii c
11 316
2
S, ,
(»
5
*
7
8
q
IS
11
4 5
13
It
15
16
17
i a
19
20
21
22
23
2 <•
25
26
27
28
29
•* r
0
i
3
a
c
«.
7
g
9
10
4 1
12
13
1 't
15
16
47
18
19
2"
21
22
•»7
2*»
25
26
27
28
29
30
C
1
2
3
d
5
-1
-1
-1
t
-i
-1
-<
-I
-1
- 4
-1
-1
-]_
-I
-1
— 1
-1
-I
-j_
-1
-1
4
-1
-1
^
-1
•1
0
)
n
i
0
f
c
)
M
3'
9.»
3*
37
-1
0
3U
T'.
3k
3<»
"l
3^
33
32
J
0
Q
a
3
^
0
3
A
B
0
0
1
37
J7
TT
37
37
ii
3f>
»5
^i»
0 2k
3 3U
n •»".
P 33
P 31
1 'fl
0
}
5
9
0
1
0
0
}
0
0
g
J
a
o
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
)
n
3
0
]
3
0
.1
0
3
3
3
.9
0.0
» A
!<».<*
3.0
11 5
8.0
0.0
0 0
0.0
3.0
0 0
0.0
0.0
ft n
3.0
0.3
" G
0.0
3."
9n
O.C
1C9.I*
1 C
3* n
IS.?
1£.9
3ll 4 *t
0.3
O.G
n ^ n
O.C
3.0
C C
0.0
0.3
0 1
c.o
c.o
C j 3
L.O
c.o
r n
0 «u
122.1.
't- 7 -- -
13U.3
7,5
-.15.3
T3.i»
127.7
5^.1*5
13.6
6.9
1 n ., ?
1.8
6.C
T g
«»2.2
C.O
j ,0
c.o
e.c
c * c -
w.Q
0.0
r, .3 ...
••.?
C.o
0 i 0
c.o
c.o
C i u
O.C
c.o
l.p
63.3
13. fc
,7
36.5.
-------
7
9
10
' i
12
13
ft
15
£7
18
19
20
21
22
23
27
?8
30
31
1
2
3
5
6
9
.9
11
12
4 7
Ifc
15
18
1 1
20
21
P?
27.
26
27
2ft
29
30
1
3
c
7
R
a
10
11 317
1 1 51 8
11 319
11 32C
11 3^1
11 J22
11 327
1* 321!
11 325
11 326
11 7'7
11 328
11 329
1* 330
11 37.1
11 33?
11 3*3
11 33«t
11 335
11 336
11 337
11 338
11 3U1
1? 3*3
12 3Ui»
12 -S<»6
12 3*7
12 3^9
12 35C
i ? 751
1» »52
12 3 = J
i ? .S<;A
12 355
12 356
12 557
12 358
12 759
4 ? *6n
12 361
12 362
• 9 7f
12 36<.
12 7-65
12 . 366
12 367
12 368
12 3f>'3
12 370
12 371
1 ? 772
17 373
13 371,
13 376
13 777
13 '78
17 S'g
1,7 380
17 382
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
15
• C
17
18
1 9
2C
21
'2
23
25
26
27
*a
29
30
r
1
2
7
U
5
7
8
a
ir
11
1 ?
13
1 c
16
17
4 a
19
2P
94
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
C
1
3
6
7
9
1
1
1
«
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
5
1 t\i «\) f\
3
3
3
3
.7
—3
3
3
7
3
36
35
35
^ e
3u
Jj
T rt
3i
n
a
0
a
0
o •
a
ft
3
77
37
37
3"»
36
'&
T Q
35
35
*i
30
3C
73
23
i
3
3
3
Q
3
n
0
u
n
37
37
37
36
36
36
35
11. C
3.0
9.0
0 0
7.3
3.0
C L
O.C
7 0
0.0
o.r
j ,0
0.0
0.0
0 1 0
0 .u
0 il
3.0
0.3
n n
0 . u
e.o
3 -
s.c
0.0
1 .L.
1-+.5
3.C
n ,c
ll.l
i.3
ft n
O.C
u.S
7.C
O.C
0.0
(J ,IJ
9.0
o.r
3 0
0.0
O.C
n n
0.0
C.C
" «C
3.0'
0.0
c.c
n n
'S.O
0.0
S i 3
3.0
.1
3.8
0 .u
291.0
t .n
159.7
U3.2
12.2
1C. 5
8.1
8.0
3C.*
T ^
.8
38.7
0 i C
c.o
c.c
" 3
O.C
u.U
OiO
C.3
O.C
0.0
0.3
r r
C.C
W.C
0 0
i.k
1.1
22. <»
16.7
u . ?
20.0
6.5
T •
8.1
i,. t
1.7
6.1
'3.5
2.7
2.5
C 0
U.Q
C.C
O.C
c.o
t . C
c.e
0,0
r n
C.O
G.C
G , 5
O.C
1.3
9.7
18 .C
.6
.7
291.9
J-l.C
161.'
-------
11
13
It
17
ia
19
20
22
23
25
26
28
?9
Tf
31
1
3
U
q
6
T
a
9
1"
11
12
1*
4 L
15
16
4 T
19
19
••ft
21
22
25
?6
?8
30
31
4
2
3
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
« •>
It
13 383
1 * Jflt
13 385
13 3«6
I T 3 ft 7
17 788
I1* 389
17 J^C
13 391
13 J92
13 39'
1"* 3*t
f» 395
13 796
13 397
13 398
,13 ^99 .
13 400
1? tOl
13 l»33
It 43 t
... 1* i»05
1 1* *t Q 6»
1 i* u p ^
41. 1O fl
4 J» t P Q
m tic
it. i,i i
1«* Ui
-------
1&
IT
18
2C
21
2U
oe
Oft
29
30
•»<
1
2
T
5
i
7
9
10
11
4 C
16
1'
4 ft
19
20
y<
22
23
25
26
97
28
29
3C
1
3
c,
7
a
9
13
11
12
IT
1 f*
15
16
17
18
15 4if9
15 U5C
15 V51
15 t»52
15 i»c<»
15 i»55
1 5 +ffi
15 <»S"P
I1? U58
15 <*60
15 U61
1 5 (if.?
lc H63
15 -»6<»
• ••15 465
16 k*b
l«i ^fc7
1 1> 4tt> 8
16 U69
16 t70
1 A L. T *
16 <*72
16 473
1 t* (.7L.
16 !*?5
16 <»76
16 !»".?
16 :.79
1 A. I*. AY
16 HI
1 & J^JH
] c L.AA
16 U87
16 <»88
16 <*91
•16- <»92
16 <»93
16 (»95
16 i«96
17 (,07
17 J»98
17 '499
1^ 500
17 501
17 502
17 503
17 -R? L.
17 505
1' 5(36
17 5fi 7
1' 5T8
17 • 5T9
17 ? 1 fi
17 511
17 512
17 513
17 51k
* e
16
17
Ifl
19
20
22
23
»5
26
27
28
?9
C
1
3
e
6
7
9
10
12
13
4 1.
1?
16
A7
ie
2C
22
23
25
'26
27
28
29.
3P
ii
1
2
3
t.
6
8
9
in
11
12
1 3
15
16
17
5
5
5
e
i in in ii
5
5
> in in i
5
5
5
5
5
5
. 6
3
5
g
5
6
6
S
5
6
6
"6
5
5
"5
6
6
e.
6
7
7
7
7
7
r
7
7
7
7
r
7
7
7
7
7
28
•53
28
2T
27
27
9T
0
0
n
0
a
Q
J
0
33
33
33
38
9*
23
23
23
21*
25
25
26
27
37
27
27
27
27
0
3
0
5
0
0
38
35
39
39
33
33
23
2<»
2U
75
26
26
27
1 1 7
O.C
S.9
Ifl "5
20.6
O.C
i» n
o.a
0.0
9 a
0.3
0.0
o a
9.0
0.0
0 0
0.0
3.3
Ci 0
9.0
0.0
«« a
0.0
O.C
0.0
0.0
13.2
o.a
9."*
in o
100.7
23.0
3 «"
3.P
29.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3."
n.O
0.0
0.0
•? .0
C.O
3.0
0 t U
0.0
0.0
iJ .0
3.0
0.0
C 0
l.*5
0.0
0.0
153.1
0,7
3.0
0.0
15.9
35.6
h 6 'i
17.6
• 35.8
17 3
59.6
2.1
1
C.O
0.0
c.c
C.O
ft n
C.O
C.O
0 0
O.u
,5
8.1
6.0
QQ 1
19.3
:.7
21.0
136.6
51.9
3.3
16.9
55. •"
.7
G.O
C.O
C.O
0.0
C.O
0.0
C.O
u. C
3.0
1.2
3.6
2.9
2.6
3 » 0
2s!s
1. 0
7.0
223.6
12.2
21.8
?•*. (»
t»3.3
-------
21
22
2*
25
26
27
28
30
31
.'3
L
5
6
. 8
9
11
12
15
4 ft
2 C
21
2*
•)K
26
29
3C
•^ 4
1
2
i*
5
.7
10
11
1 2
13
1 5
16
17
18...
19
20
21
22
1" 515
17 517
1T 518
17 520
17 521
17 5 ** 2
f 523
17 52fc
1' 525
17 5?6
17 527
IB 528
18 529
1« 53"
-1 A 5^1
18 5J2'
18 533
1Q 53t
18 535
18 536
«5^^
18 53"
IB 539
18 5^2
Ifl 5 + k
in 5U5
i^ =; fi
18 5i»7
18 5i>8
«C,. Q
18 5<5C
18 5el
1« 553
18 55^
18 556
IS 557
19 559
19 560
1 O ^F.1
lo 5^2
19 563
. „ « a ^ ft /*,.,.
10 f?65
19 567
19 568
19 569
- 19 570
19 571
19 572
1 <1 S7T
10 57U
lo 575
-.19 ..576.—
19 577
19 578
19 579.
19 580
18
^-.c
I i\j IM r
23
25
26
27
90
29
3C
n
i
it
5
7
8
a
U
11
2.
13
< c
If
17
-A*.
19
2"
?1
23
2't
26
_77
28
29
7f
0
1
9
3
U
e
6
7
9
1C
1 i-
12
13
1 Ifc-
15
16
.17.
18
19
20
21
r
7
7
7
7
7
7
T
7
7
i
S
6
3
\
3
3
3
3
a
3
3
3
3
a
3
S
i
3
d
9
9
a
.9
9
9
9
a
9
9
3
9
3
9
3
.9
9
9
9
9
27
27
27
«
3
0
1
0
39
13
33
i*0
23
23
21
21
*M
1 *
13
13
1 ft
C
0
i
3
u
n
0
n
k n
/, n
22
2'
22
21
21
21
20
13
13
13
-11
13
10.3
0.0
r r
o!r
Q Q
3.0
O.C
n n
0.0
0 3
0.0
0.0
fl 0
J.O
o.c
0 u
0.0
233. •* c
0.0
a.c
3 C
' O.P
0.0
3.C
-, n
0.0
0.0
9n
u.C
O.C
fl *
5*22'.!
f* 3 * 9
55J.8
a.o
0.0
, c .0
C.Q
23. t
35. «.
0.0
3*4.1
"+.6
4 T f:
16. C
2.2
Q Q
C.3
C.O
C j
0.0
0.0
o n
olo
C Q
l.<*
.5
g
.3
1.3
3 •>
11.5
236.3
1 7T li
.7
.7
d"" fl
66.1
8
-------
23
^S
25
2*
28
29
**f*
31
1
•»
3
k
5
&
r
fl
q
10
12
1?
15
16
4 7
18
19
21
22
2-»
25
1*R
27
28
'1
30
71
•1
2
3
(j
5
c
^
a
9
If
11
12
« T
1<»
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
2?
?3
Zfc
jq
26
19 581
I'1 592
19 583
19 Stk
^^ 535
19 58*
19 58T
1 1 inn
19 5«9
20 590
30 531
20 5<»2
2? 593
•»r 531,
20 595
20 596
J»fl 597
20 538
20 599
2ii 6CO
2" 601
23 6C2
?n 6P3 •
2* &:•»
21 6C5
•> .-. c. !. c.
2Q 607
2? 608
-.— ? n A n Q
20 61"
20 611
2 " ... o 1 2
20 613
22 51U
Q&t c
2: 516
20 S17
21 ftl ft
2" 619
20 62?
31 A?1
21 622
21 623
71 fi?t»
21 525
21 626
?1 R?T
21 628
21 629
21- -630
21 631
21 632
, ?1 fi'T
21 6'a
21 615
21 6?6
21 6?7
21 6*8
?1 63<3
21 6UO
21 61.1
2t 6U2
21 6<»3
21 ei*'*
21 _fii»5-
21 *<*6
22
^ T
2<»
25
•*f
27
28
*0
3P
0
i
2
3
5
6
T>
8
9
1 C
11
12
13
It
15
1 C
17
18
1 Q .
2C
21
22
23
2U
26
27
3A
29
30
1
2
•»
if
5
p.
7
8
9
10
11
1 ?
17
It
15
16
17
1R.
19
20
2L
22
23
2«*
25
9
3
9
9
9
9
13
10
13
13
10
1 0
1C
10
10
10
1"
1C
10
* n
1J
13
* fl
13
lj
11 -—
10
1)
1 n
10
lu
< i
13
13
1,
11
11
1 4
11
11
11
11
it
11
11
< i
11
11
< 1
11
11
1 4
11
It
11
11
1^
11
0
a
i
n
j
a
j
0
V3
fa)
uq
<»3
ti j
H3
42
'i 2
<0
•»";
•»!_
21
21
21
21
2u
' 21
13
11
i ft
16
16
17
u
3
C
u
it
i
3
J
„ L r,
U3
i»?
(> I i
if 3
<»]
<»2
i»2
<»2
45
<»5
i»5
1»F.
1>6
lit
20
20
19
4 a
19
16
16
17
0
g
0
0.0
n i
0.0
O.1?
«A
0.0
0.0
3 Q
u.O
5<».9
(< n
o.r
0.0
n c
T8.1
7*0.0
0 0
33.2
*52.2
19 , n
'5.7
8.8
0 "
71.2
153.6
0 C
1.0
13.0
n n
50.7
C."
3 .C
C.Q
0.0
no
0.0
o.c
n r
0.5
0.0
n n
3.0
185.7
n n
272. <•
236.1
1 Uft j.6
3.0
29.3
272. *i
(i.O
i»a%.6
,. . uqt . 0
0.0
176.0
n .n
T7.3
125.6
IT. a
29.6
1.0
•j.O
c.o
o.:
Q C
0.3
0.0
n f1
0.3
0.0
r n
0.0
5<».9
8
8.7
2.9
c. ?
96.9
350.5
7 •»
7C.^
378.6
U97 9
79. G
12.9
i
-------
Z7
29
30
1
2
T
.%
5
6
.7
.8
9
to
11
13
it
1*
16
1^
18
19
2?
t*
22
23
25
26
2B
29
31
i
i .
3
.4
c
f,
7
g
9
10
12
1?
It
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
it
24
25
^t
27
28
30
21 6U7
21 649
21 650
*1 fi";!
22 652
22 653
9^ CCJ.
22 655
22 656
2"* 6e7
2? 658
22 659
22 6"iw
22 661
22 662
?2 663
2? 6*4
2' 665
?2 5*f
2? 667
2' 668
22 < 669
2' 6*0
^2 671
5? 672
22 673
22 674
?2 675
2? 676
22 6*7
tl C.T a
22 679
?2 680
22 68->
2* 633
... 9* fiftii
23 685
23 6«6
_?T _t«7
23 688
23 689
23 tan
23 631
23 592
'T f>1X
23 S94
23 695
23 696
23 697
23 698
3fc QQ
23 75T
23 731
93 7n •»
23 703
23 7G«»
? 7 7 r, e !
23 7G*
?3 7T7
9t 71 a
23 739
21 710
5f 71 1
23 712
2P
?7
28
29
T
0
1
•»
3
t
e
6
7
g
9
1C
11
12
13
1 k
15
If
1.7
18
19
•2G-
21
22
23
2<.
?5
1C
27
28
1L,
> 0 0 >
r^
2
3
^
5
6
7
3
9
1 n
11
12
13
Ik
15
• C
17
18
20
21
77
23
2t
^q
26
27
29
29
11
4 i
11
11
1 4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1 j
12
12
1 ?
12
12
1»
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1'
12
12
13
12
12
1 *
12
13
li
13
13
< T
13
11
13
13
13
IT
13
13
13
13
13
4 *
13
13
1 r
13
11
1 X.
13
13
• 1 T
13
13
IS
i?
i
3
a
i
to
VQ
, r
«.a
40
1,5
fe2
u?
1,3
k5
%5
i,i
V3
4^
ue,
l»6
19
19
I1?
16
1&
17
11
11
0
n
3
0
5
<»)
., »
i»"
<»3
),,. .
<»2
•»2
1,3
41
4'4
*tb
"»1»
43
'tS
4
i. £.
IV
15
* 1
1?
12
t *>
11
c
3
1
3
0
o.c
9«_ A-. .. .. .
0.0
5,5
f* n
0.0
H3.8
J fl
3.0
O.C
c e
81.7
232.7
16 «7
222.7
150.8
3.0
2?.'
V3.8
**.<;
U51.3
751.1
l&2i C
19.3
3.9
55.8
35.7
61.9
1 0
0.0
o.c
n n
0.0
fl.n
B t ft
G.C
G.C
(i r
P.C
0.0
'fl i (l
4,5
HI3.9
33 .T
29.4
0.0
e ?
Q.3
9.1
i) .0
0.0
315.1
9 U*i 0
57*. 9
11.1
i ,a
?26.«
'+3.4
< 1 1 1
o.a
J .0
n n
O.G
0.0
1 • 0
3.0
O.C
0.0
&.C
n PJ
c.c
172.7
? Q 1
6.3
5.0
6 '•
9P.7
235.6
17. c
284.2
243.6
3?.l
127. T
115.7
&?.?
50H.6
800. 0
1'lt 1
26.3
Tfi.Q
96 2
36.7
112.1
1 « *<
C.C
i). u
L a
0.&
o.c
r ,P • '
c.c
C.3
20.2
6.2
.5
"•l . ^
12.4
36.1
19.9
65.7
43.6
*tA . 8
5C.C
43.3
.51,5 _ _._. .
18. C
343.3
QA 1 . n
6'4.5
28.4
8 i 7
263.9
99.0
--269.2 - -
?3.9
r.o
C . j
c.o
0.0
c.o
o.c
-------
M
4
2
6
7
8
9
1"
11
12
13
15
< e
17
IB
19
- 22
23
-25
26
2'
-28
29
30
1
2
»
t
t.
T
8
10
11
1 2
It
1C
16
18
19
20
?2
23
25
26
57
23
31
1
2
3
23 713
2 't 7 1 *i
2** 716
2<* 718
?t 714
"t 7'C
2t 721
2t 722
?1« 723
2t 72«»
2"» 725
"t 726
2t 727
2A 728
? t 7? 9
?<» 770
2U T?l
? 1. T * 9
2U 73»
2«. 71*
3 1 »J[ K
2t 73*
2<* 737
2*t 739
21* 7*9
2t 7tO
2** -7tl
?i» 7t2
2 '« 7*f ^
2e 7t5
2«? 71,6
9«! 7L7
2e 7!»8
.? 5 75L
25 751
25 752
•>C 7CT
25 75U
25 755
25 756
25 7=7
25 75
-------
u
f
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
16
4 7
18
19
t&
21
?2
**T
2«*
25
27
24
30
71
2
.3
L
5
6
7
A
q
1 "
11
12
4 T
1<»
15
1 0
17
18
j rt
2C
21
,. <-
23
2V
?*;
26
27
29
31?
14
1
2
^
5
t
7
26 779
26 ^81
26 782
•IP »• •»
26 7*U
26 7*«5
it 7 ac .
26 787
26 7*8
?fi. TA°
2* 790
2* 791
if "5?
26 ^93
26 7
15
17
18
< a
2* 796 2T
26 737 2!
o t tn a -»^
?<> 799 33
26 arc 2u
26 802
2f JC3
, , f C fl 1 /.
26 875
2^ 3J6
? T A ft 7
27 80*
27 809
'7 ft 1 n
27 311
2T 812
?7 *« *
2' 31 a 4 /L n
2* 8i*l
2"1 8<»2
9O »ii1
28 3«»«»
1*
17
18—
19
2C
? 1
22
23
7U.
25
26
27
28
29
3.1
C
1
2
I
l»
5
6
15
IS
15
Ib
IS
• t
IS
IS
4t
IS
16
i fi
15
IS
41
15
IS
, , 1 ^ . _.
16
15
1 P,
IS
li
IS
IS
__ 4 T
17
17
• 7
17
17
< T
17
1T
17
If
17
<7
17
17
4 7
17
17
4 "9
17
17
4 T
17
17
\ f
17
17
17
17
17
1 7
13
U
' • «
13
13
19-
13
Ul
t»l
M
U3
".3
1. 3
V9
i»9
L n
57
57
ey
9
9
i)
10
10
1^
13
5
(•
5
3
K
3
0
i. •
«»1
VI
(it
i»l
!»1
ci
51
51
51
<»9
<*9
L,(J
'*9
•»9
5^
57
57
9
1?
1 ,",
13
13
!»
5
A
0
0
n
<»1
Ui
1x1
M
<*1
M
51
5.i»
0.0
50.1
7. ft
0.0
i n
0.0
97. k
7 • i. •»
99. ^
3.0
n- •
0.0
0.0
11 Q
i*l».8
11.5
g
0.0
25. <»
« ft
56.6
73.5
fi f
0.0
0.0
1.1 a
o.c
o.c
J "
9.0
O.C
36^5
31.0
237.6
0 0
219.5
g.o
1 P
.<*
335.9
j r
li»5.5
11.2
n n
142.7
30.3
Of
0.0
25.1
n n
17.7
<»3.1
3 i 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
1 .Q
5.2
1,0
9 t«;
50.5
2". 2
2<».Q
52.6
63.9
11.6
7 8
55.7
127.3
ea •> 7
112.6
2.7
9
.8
2<».<*
13*1
51.3
1<».2
26 1
70.2
68.7
77 fi
13.f>
IT fi
95. W
121.3
0 . C
0.0
c.o
C . 1
0.0
8.0
22, 4
25.1
2.7
23,9
' 5I..9
-------
6
10
11
c
13
!<•
'
16
\7
19
20
22
23
25
26
28
?9
31
1
*>
3
<»
|f?
*
7
8__
.9
1C
12
1*
1 I,
15
15
1?
19
-*r
21
22
2«»
25
2ft .-
zr
28
30
31
1
.2
.3
5
6
7
,8
. q
10
11
2* 8<»5
28 8t7
28 8U8
2°. 850
28 831
'ft On "
2P 8C3
28 85*i
A • * •» e
2* 856
28 857
->a ae a
2* 859
2* 460
28 86?
2« 863
2ft 865
2« 8S6
•* a «.fi7
2S 868
29 869
""\ fl7Q
29 5M
29 872
jq 87T
29 »7fc.
29 8^5
•tn a »e
29 J77
29 97R
•*a _ » 7 n
29 480
29 Idl
?Q All ?
29 883
29 88<»
•>« ftac
29 8A6
29 887
— 29 — »88—
29 899
29 890
•>o «a 4
29 392
29 393
?q «Q^
29 899
30 9°&
3P 9"!
30 902
11 3"3
30 901*
30 9G«!
30 9flft
39 937
30 9"8
30 OO 9
30 91C
7
9
1C
12
I?
15
16
18
19
. ?F
21
?2
0»
2«»
2 =
27
28
^jrt
3C
r
1
2
3
d
5
6
7
ft
9
11
12
i •»
11*
15
-46-
17
IS
-19-
20
21
yy
23
2<»
-21
26
27
** P
29
3C
g
1
2
3
<*
5
A
7
8
IP
13
1)
15
1)
13
18
1)
13
1)
i i
IS
15
4 •
13
IS
IS
13
1 q
13
1?
1 ^
19
13
1 1
19
19
1 •>
19
13
4 ^
1)
13
11
13
13
19-
13
13
4 3
19
13
1 3
13
13
1 3
19
19
1 ^
13
13
25
29
20
25
20
20
' 2i
2}
?0
20
?3
51
C t
51
50
*" A
5"
U9
e/
57
*1 7
5'
57
1 1
15
5
9-
?
tf
]
C
n
C
52
g'*
52
52
C-9
51
51
t. .
51
51
"?.i
'5j
5-:
5V
5<»
Cf.
?3
56
57
57
10
a
3
3
2
1
1
.-»
Q
0
52
52
52
C3
5?
51
Ri
51
51
^1
, ."
u. C
9-
6U.b
9.0
S?.l
U3«9
0.0
0.0
3.C
0.0
^ n
0.0
0.0
n n
0."
?3.8
5T I
3.0
O.C
1 rt
O.J
C.&
1 P
0.-
0.0
0 Q
2U.5
o.n
15 P,
7,k
70.2
« n
a.i
fl.?
r n
0.0
0.0
* 0
c.c
0.0
1 =1 'l
0.0
0.0
n n
0.0
0.0
3 .C
".0
15. «»
c.c
9. a
5.0
0.0
.6
''j .?
!?<».<•
C.O
5.0
13.1
1.0
t. 3
<*5. **
18C.7
13.7
1C .<»
87.7
11.0
11.6
r.c
-------
12
i 3
15
17
18
i a
20
21
**->
23
25
26
27
29
70
1
2
3
5
i
r
8
a
i?
11
13
It*
18
1ft
19
2P
22
23
25
25
28
29
31
.1
.3
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
3u
in
30
3d
W.
30
30
30
30
3 Q
30
30
3"
30
3P
30
3"
30
31
31
31
31
31
•»«
31
31
¥4
31
31
T4
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
11
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
3?
79
32
... 19
72
32
32
32
3?
911
91?
916
11 ft
919
92f
. fl^1
922
923
92<»
925
926
928
929
931
932
93U
9*5
O1A
937
9*8
rtT Q
9t»C
9<*1
9M»
9<*6
9(*9
950
Q5 1
952
953
net
955
956
a 5 7
95d
959
Qfei'. _
961
962
Qfet
96<>
965
si Afi.
967
QCQ.
970
971
379
973
976
11
13
13
1 c
. 16
17
1 A
20
^«
22
23
25
26
- -27
28
0
1
2
3
b
6
7
9
10
1 4
12
1?
1 It
15
16
17
18
19
2 C
21
22
91
25
95
27
28
30
0
3
5
6
7
8
9
11
11
12
13,
?C
ha»d
J CM CM r
20
29
20
•3H
28
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
M
'i
21
? 1
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
91
21
21
9<
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
9 •*
i fvi CM r
j
52
52
e ^
51
51
50
51
50
50
5'+..
O.G
19. C
0.0
9~ n
0.0
0 .0
fl 3
0.0
0.0
n n
2.5
31.2
C C
O.Q
0.0
0*0
10.6
1.0
3 iP
O.D
1.0
0 0
105.5
Q.P
n C
O.Q
0.0
n n
0.0
".0
n n
0.0
?.Q
3.1
1753. U
V2-.7
3.3
3.0
0.0
0 mC
O.Q
0.0
•,5.2
o.'o
0.0
3.0
0.0
i n
1.0
O.Q
u. 0
3.0
0.0
0.0
"I p
67.7
n n
0.0
3.0
1 .0
n.c
2l.<*
0.0
.9
.2
1.9
•« o •»
6.3
109.1*
10.0
6.2
. .. 25.8
56.1*
.9
r. 5
G.O
3.8
5.9
118.7
5.1
.5
3.C
3
6.1
7.7
« 4
2.5
.1
<*27.2
.2
1.2
0.0
8.8
1.3
, 3
21.'
12.6
.A
o.c
c.o
"3 ft
1.7
1.5
'• 7
10.7
21.1
•» rj
75.1
3 1 7
.5
.2
0."
-------
16 32 977
1' 32 a-T8
11 32 979
lo 3? 960
?f 3? IB 1
21 32 982
22 32 98»
;»* *•» AAL.
2V 32 985
25 32 986
7*F. . 1? QA 7
ZT 3? 988
28 3Z 989
— 29 32 -49i--
30 32 991
71 32 992
ITT aa* ,
2 33 99V
3 31 995
'» " Q Q A
5 33 997
6 33 998
.... 7. 53 999-
8 33 1000
9 33 1301
10 43 1002-
11 ?3 1093
12 33 -109V
13 T3 inn1;
IV 33 l»aft
15 31 1007
1 e. IT 1 . i n o
17 33 10T9
18 33 101*
1Q 3T till
20 33 1012
21 53 1013
?2 37 10 lA-
23 3*3 1315
2V 33 1316
?c , .« i ni 7
26 33 1018
27 3? 1319
29 3-» 1J21
30 33 1122
1 3V 1??V
2 3V 102?
V 3V 1027
5 3V 1028
e -ij. 1 i ?q
7 3V 103"
.8 3V 1031
n 71^ i .1 •» *
10 3V 1033
11 3V 107V
19 111 1 fl 7C
13 3V l^-!6
IV 3V 1037
1C 7L 1 [1 7A
16 3V 1039
17 J'fc 10VO
1* ? h. i n it 1
19 3V 10V2
15 22
1 t •*•*
17 ?»
IB 2?
20
21
23
2V
»e
26
27
9 g
29
30
1
2
•»
5
g
7
6
9
19
11
12
13
1C
16
17
1 A
19
2C
22
23
2U ...
25
26
28
29
30
C
1
9
3
V
— -5
6
7
4.
9
10
12
13
1 1»
15
16
17
18
22
22
tt
22
-S3-
22
22
?2
23
23
23
23
2?
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
-23
23
23
-23
2'4
2V
-2V-
2V
-2>
2V
2V
^2V.
2V
2V
-2V.
2'*
c 4
5V
60
5S
61
en
59
53
C3
1
1
69
63
5'
52
52
e?
52
52
5»
5u
50
5V
5V
51,
5V
5V
5't
5V
63
C ^
58
53
AT.
63
60
ci
61
1
63
-6ft
52
5?
52
52
52
5?
53
5'i
5V
5V
5V
5V
51,
5V
5V
en
60
3.1!
0 0
0.9
0.0
0.0
o.a
n f
9.0
V.6
e •
0.0
O.Q
Q 0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0.3
0.0
0 0
o.c
9.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0 >u
0.0
1.0
0.0
J.O
1 c
3.0
0.0
a n
n • ^
3.C
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
3.0
31.0
1 n q
19.9
0.0
Q 0
0.0
0.0
9 .0
9.0
0.0
Q .0
0.0
a.o
= 3i ,2
0.0
O.C
ft n
o.a
C.O
Q G
O.Q
n n
2.8
1C. 9
a *
.V
.8
Q T
G.O
O.J
0 0
1.8
1.2
c
1?.*6
0.0
2.5
C.O
C.O
u.O
0.0
.2
0.0
O.G
.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
o.c.
G.O
.8
n n
26.2
.8
3 5
3.6
& . 0
o.o
0.0
2.2
.2
3V. 1
in c
2C.2
G.O
n n
G.O
0.0
0.0
C.O
o.c
C • a ... — ., ._
0.0
0.0
583. 0
.3
-------
20
22
23
25
?6
28
29
31
1
3
k
6
9
10
12
15
16
4 »
18
19
'1
22
25
27
28
4A
30
71
2
3
5
6
..8
.9
«. n
11
12
13
15
1 ft
18
1 Q
20
2'
23
21*
26
27
29
*4_
3i» 10t5
3<* 10V6
•» r 1 fl fc7
T I» 1 ft *i ft
3* 1151
3U 1052
»-- 1 A fiT
5e 1355
35 1056
35 1057
35 1058
•*e « • •SO
35 1260
35 1061
7 C 4 ft ftO
35 USS
35 l"5fc
•»«: if, cc
15 1066
15 1067
•te 1 .. Afl
35 1069
35 107C
ae 4 ft 74
35 1372
35 10'-*
35-167-*.-
35 1075
35 1176
^ «; 1 .1 77
35 1.78
35 i.079
51fl »fl
35 1381
35 1182
T = 1 i a 7
3<5 10B<»
35 1085
36 1^87
36 1988
7fi 4 n fll
36 109C
36 1391
.. , If. 1 ,13?
36 1093
36 1P9V
•tc 1 aaq
36 1096
16 1097
.JP, 1398
3* 1IJ99
36 113"
T t 1 1 « 1
36 1102
36 1103
•? ft 1 1 n i*
36 110*
^A H£7
36 11"8
36 1109
16 1111
36 1112
36 111«»
36 1115
.-1C,-. 4.1 4 A-
19
3 fl
21
22
25
27
28
3C
4
2
3
5
6
•y
8
9
i "
11
12
W_
4 e.
17
18
19
2u
21
23
25
26
27
29
3?
1
2
J.
5
g
7
8
10
11
12
13
1 C
16
17
i A
19
20
51
22
23
? i^
25
26
28
?9
7IV-
2«
2V
2V
2'+
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2*5
?5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
25
26
25
?6
25
26
gc
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
2S
cu
25
26
? *"
63
60
63
60
60
63
60
52
52
52
53
53
e »
5<*
5V
5V
c .
63
63
63
63
63
t p
6"
63
60
6}
ft**
63
52
52
it
5V
5V
C r.
5V
It
5V
63
60
60
63
60
61
6P
Z.SI
3.0
fl.n
D.O
n n
9 A
0.0
0.?
A M
0.0
3.0
T n
0.0
0.0
ft 11
O.C
c.:
Or
9.0
o.n
o.a
0.0
n n
0.0
0.0
n n
0.0
c.o
3 0
0.0
0.0
n ,-.
9.0
5.1
2? ,0
O.C
3.0
n P
0.0
O.C
? . «
c.o
0.0
i n
0.0
o.a
n n
0.0
O.C
1 0
O.Q
* p
0.0
0.0
fl 1
3.0
0.0
0.0
O.C
3.1
3.0
a.o
c.o
3.0
j .0
. c. 3 .e,
1.3
n ft
0.0
O.C
O.C
0.0
17 ,
O.C
0.0
6*1 . . ,
C.Q
c.o
.3
1.0
1-J , _,„. ,. .,
c.o
o.O
n r
C.Q
O.C
fl n
C.O
C.O
L fl
c.c
0.0
f n
.3
l«3
a.o
C.i
6 • 3
If. 2
.5
2.2
0 • P
c.:
w . C
c. * c
.2
.1
C.C
C.G
3 3
C.I
C.O
c.c •
c.o
c.:
c.c
C.Q
0.3
r n
C.C
u.O
P . n
C.O
0.0
n . 1 ...
C.O
C.O
C.O
.9
C.O
fl 1 ft ii.
-------
AREA 1 HE MAIN?
ifc.la. it. •»$"
GRID CELLS INCLUDED*
86H2*,ia» -- 895-U^O-M - 896(27,191 - QZT t2f,Z8l - 928(28,20)
929(29,33) 951(27,21) 959(29,311 961(29*21) 989(26,22)
«I89(2?,221 995(23,221 1020(27,21) 1021(29,23)
. SAi u"
A^EI CEXMOTO (X,r) s 25.5}, 24. JO
-1ISSION CEMfROIO - »C. fi,
CEH.S I«LUfl£aJ i
89<»(25,191 925(25*20) 926(26,201 95^(26,21)
A«»EA 3 VT 7-B10MT
£HTSSION CENTROTO = a*.** it.
G*IO CELLS INCLUDED*
862(2i».181
AREA <» HH SOUTHtRN M;M HAMPSHIRE
A7EA r^MTlOIO (X,T) * 2
-------
AREA 7 C* CONNECTICUT
, 15.80
EMISSION CENTROIO = JLV.oo |V. «o
GRID CELLS IN<*UJDE01
AREA < SA2 AiJI»ONOAC -- 7*S(23r4S4 - J96420^1W - 7W421,16» - 798(22,161
799<23,16) 82f^2n,17) 825(21,171 823(22,171 833123,171
858(20,18) 859121,181 890(21,191
-AREA -1-1—MJ NEW.
S?£A CENTROIO (X,Y) s 23.00, 13.00
EMISSION CENTROIO « aa J5* l». *f
CELLS IN;4.yO€8«-
67i,<22,12) 673(23,12) 706(23,13» 7?7<23,U) 739(2'»,1'»)
AREA 12 »>Al SOUTHEASTi^N PENNSYLVANIA
CEHTROIO s V.tJ
GRID CELLS INJLUOEOl
7 0 <• (21,1-3 )
-------
IKEA 1?
PENNSriJAITS
CENT^OID (X*V) = 19.98, 1<».13
N SENraoio
G*IO C'LLS INCLUDED!
'02(19,131 703(20*13*
2£J^ 1 a l_sa 7ee«*n i c«
733(19*1%)
•7SS421.1S*
73V(28,1M
715(21,!<>•
»RE» 1* PA3
CENTROIO tX*>M
g*TS5TOM CaMfgOIO »
17.V3, 1U.20
730(17,131
.73l(17,li»)
732(18,1^1
762(17,151
763(18,15)
SENSI-TIUS
4R-» C>:HT?OIO (X,f1 a 18.00, 12.50
EMISSION SENTROin « ir ««
'
670(18,121
701(in,13)
AREA 16 MH NB9VLANO <• DC
GRID CELLS TNCLJDEOl
- 61 Of 20, 101
l7, 11.
&<».?.( 2
671tl9,l2J-
672(20,12)
AREA
OE OELAHAPE
.»67«—11«A4
C^LLS IN:LJOEOI
-612(22^10) 645122*444-
-6Z3-t-2-l»
AREA IB i*A VIRGINIA
AREA CENfROIO (X,r)
CELIS INOLUOEOl
5<*3(15, 8)
13.35, 9.06
-H1./V f.-'U-
8)
*-94-
51*6(18, 8)
LZ*-94-
579(2", 9)
639(18,11)
580(21, 91
6 (.0(19, 11)
607(17,13)
81
_57-r.(t«^-!J»-
633(13,10)
5<*)(20, 8)
-578 (19,-91
603(19,10)
-------
SREft CENTROIO '(X.T) a 16.i7, 11.67
TMISSION C?NfROIO = |.».t I«.t1
631(17,111 665(16,121 669:(ir,12»
»*E8 20 HV2 SOUTHWcSTi** WEST VIRGTNI4
" E1IS3IOM CEHTROIO = tC.«i /».
GRID CELLS INILUOEOt
9*
637(16,11')
21 00<19,10) 601(11. 1CI 602(12,10)
603(13,10) 60^(14,101
—MEA-22--KY2 -H£STERN-
4?i4 CENTR9IO '(X,r) s 3.10, 9.00
EMISSION CE'UROIO » ?.|| S.oo
GRID CH.LS
566( 7, 91 56M 8, 9) 568( 9, 9')
23 TNI WESTERN TENNESSEE
AaSft-C£HT.RO-ia-«»W—s %,89,— 6.7«
EMISSION CEMTROTO s !•«». 1. ft
GRIO CTLLS INCLUOEOt
i»71( 5, 6) 1»72<--6»-4» 1»73( 7, 6J (»7.^_A^_^J. 503< -6, 7)
5fl<»( 7, 7) 5u5( 8, 7) 535( 7, 8) 535( S, 8)
4R£a 2<» TN2 E4STERN TENNESSEE
f4—= 10,-80» 7.80-
•1ISSION CEHTROIO = (l.J^ 1. •#v
GRID CELLS INCLUDED!
«»75(-9,-M 1»75( 10»—W it7TU-!U_4J 5Ci-t-9,-7) — 507(10,- 71
508(11, 71 509(12, 7) 537( 9, 8) . 5i»l(13, 8) 5i»2
-------
AREA 25 SAfc SOUTHERN ARPALACHAIN SENS AREA
._,__,._,. ft9£H CgHT-3-Q-ID-.-^X-t-Vt m- l?i§5> ftifffl
•• u. i* t.&r
G*in SELLS INCLUOEOt
-M>7 (4£*-&4 i>mU3, Bi i>7iU2, 6> <>7JU3, 61 544(13, *»
511(1** r»
AREA 26 NCI CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA
A3SA CEMTROIO (X.TI T 15»«^ 6.43 •
EMISSION 5EHTROIO » lf.*» •?.»!.
G»IO CELLS INCLUDED*
Jt«g (!>«_*» »ai<15. S> 512U6, Tl Sit (16, ft 5UMI&, 4»
AREA 27 NC2 EASTERN N3RTH CARJLIHA
AREA CENTROIO tX,TI a 18.91,, 5.9V
GRID CELLS INCLUOEOt
%23(19, «,) i»M(18, 51 «»5I.<19, 5) V5;(20, 5) <»5S(21. 51
-- U82(l^-61 V85U7,—63 V8J.U8. 6) (19, 71 517(23, 7)
519(21, 71
- ARTS 28—SC - - SOUTH-CAf-DL-WA-
A7EA CENT?OIO (X,YI 3 16.37, 3.86
E1ISSION CENTROIO «
G»IO CELLS T*»;L'jn?0«
759(17, 21 381(15, 31 389(16, 3) 390(17, 31 391(18, 3)
<»13(ie,, M ui9(15, H) 1.23(16, <»1 V2K17, k» 1.22(18, <»)
*<,9(1<*, 51 V5J(1?T-51 V$l-(-16v—5-1 <»52417-,—51
AREA 29 CA1. N3RrHMESTiRN GTOR3IA
AR£» CENTROIO (X,Y) = ll.i»C. 3.90
— iHisstow-cs.'u.ao w-= u. * *—.«* •**
GRIP CELLS INCLUOEOt
38<*U1, 31 3«5(12, 3« t»15(li, %l *1>(12, *) <*<»&< 11, 5)
AREA 53 GA2
AR£A CENTROIO (X.Y1 = 13.21, l.<»2
ENISSION CENTROIO » 13, bfc ,. T f
GRID CFLLS
01 292(12, 61 293(13, 01 29Mil,, 91 295(15, 0)
322(11, 11 323(12, 1) -32M13, 11 325(1^, U 32SU5, II
3S3U1. 2J S5V112,—3-1 lS^U3^-2^) 35-i-(lU»—2-) 357(15,-21-
358(16, 21 385(13, 3) 387(11,, 31 <,IM15, (»l
-------
AREA 31 FL1 SOUTHERN FLORIJ8
«ac^ C^NT?OID tX.T? g l?i??t ~5<89—
EMISSION SENTROTO =
GRID CELLS IN:LUOED»
»1 i.«t < e,. -«i
80(17,-71 103(1<»,-6I 109(15, -6 » 110(16,-6» 111(17,-6)
l*9(l»»,-5) 1
— .. 26»tl5,-tJ i
ARtA 33 sa; FLORIDA SENSITIVE A?-A
»?-A CENTOIO XX,T) * 13.50, -1.50
SJHss-uw-ii-MrRoio-s ri.fci—-
GRIO CELLS IN:LUOED«
231(13,-2) 232(1*, -2» 262(13,-1') 265(1U,-U
A?£A CENTROID (X,Y) = 9.S3, -.90
EMISSION CE4TROIO =' J.J> -.1'
228(10,-2) 229(11,-21 257< 8,-11 25»( 9,-11 259U3,-11
?60(11,-1) 261(12,-!) 28B( 8, 01 289(9, C1 293(13. 3)
AREA 35 AL ALAQAHA
A?£A C<-NT?OIO (X,r» = 9.57, 2.67
EMISSION CENTROIO s f.^i J.4V
- GRin CELLS IfOLUOEnt
287'( 7, 0) 3H( 7, 11 - 319( 8, II 323 ( 9, II 321(13, U
3i»9( •>•, 21 353( 4, 2) 35H 9, 21 35>(1B, 21 J8K 8, 31
3P2« 9, 39 3«3(1J,-31 1*121-8^*4 <»1 J <— 9,-i»4 !»1»»(10, <»l
«»i»3( 8, 5) <»i»V( 9, 51 U<»5(13, 5D
-------
AREA 36 HS
GRID CELLS
9M C I -C _
31T( 6,
378( 5,
4.1 ft f A .
AREA 3? LA
G?IO CELLS
9cii y.
512< 1,
3LC< 3.
A»EA 3« AR
GRID CELLS
bOM 0,
«*67t 1,
501( <»,
AREA 39 .. SAS
- GRID CELLS
»ISSISSIP»I
IN:
A\
11
t »
LUOEOf
9m f If. H •
^i»S( it, 2)
S79< 6, 91
1. 1 4 1 •» 1. 1
LOUISIANA
INS
-21
_1 1
01
11
-21-
LUOEO*
2231 5. -21
282< 2. 01
31»l 2, 1)
ARK1NSAS
&')
71
.....AS
TN:
k05l 1, <»1
i,37( 2» 51
(»69( 3, b<>
5021 5. 71
KANSAS— SEN5IT-£U£
L'JQEOt
A1EA CENTitOIO IXtlTJ
EMISSION CENrtOIO =
31 1 t «
-------
AREA i»0 10 HISSOU'I
>3r\ rcurjnTn tv.yi g
6RIO CrLL"? TN3LU
33 ( 5* 81
5621 3, 9»
?91< 1,101
621( 0,11)
626t 5,111
656( i»,12)
686 ( 3,131
71* ( 3,1*.)
AREA
-------
kk INI NORTHERN IMHIANA
A?~A CENTROID (X,T) a 10.10* 1<».00
CELLS imxtiBEm
692( 9,131 695(10,151 69t(ll,13t 72J( 9,1%) 72V(13,1(»)
*25< 11 ,-1 A» T5K i?, 15) 7S5(t8,lS1 Z&i444«-tS)
AREA *5 IN2 SOUTHERN INDIANA
AREA CENrROID (X,ri a 9.53, 11.13
; gllSSIO* SgNTROia « ^-^ f^^fc
GRID CELLS IN^LUOEOJ
598( 8,10) 5991 9,10) 633 ( 9,111 631X10*111 632(11,11)
AREA «»6 OH1 SOUTHERN OHIO
AREA CENTROIO tX,TI = li».ll», 11.36
SRIO CELLS I
633(12,111 63"»(13,11) 635 * 15.50, H».50
GRID CCLLS
729(15, 1M 738(16, Ifc) 750(15,15* 751(16,15)
ARiA CTNT^niO (X,r) s 12.78, 13.33
"MISSION CEMTROIO = t$.«i lj.»t
-GRID-CELLS INCI.UOEO*-
66^(12,121 665(13,121 695(12,131 69i(13,l?) 697tlt»,13)
726(12,1M 727(13,mi 723(1«»,1<») 75M12,t51
-AREA-<»»—Nil— SOUTHESM-1ICHICAN ;
A3EA CENTSOIO (X,T) » 12.17, 16.57
EMISSION 5ESTROIO = ,a 7> |4.)t
GPIO CELLS INCLUDED* '-
758(13,151 735110,16) 787(11,16) 78J(12,16» 783(15,16)
817(10,171 813(11,171 819(12,171 821(13,17) 821(li»,17)
-------
AREA 50 112 NORTHERN MICHIGAN
G?IO CEI.LS iNrmoEoi
81,8 UO. IB) ' auXll.18)
913(11,20) 9!»0< 9,21)
AREA 51 HI WISCONSIN
GRIP CrlLS IN^LUOETJI
813( 6*171 81. < 7,17)
Al.e ( 7.1)11 flb^l Axtftl—
8'6< 7,191 »7M fl, 19)
965 < 3,22)
99&f 7,23)
1025< 1,2V)
ll?^5< 0,25) .
= 10.50.
879(10,19)
q< | f 4 t 9*k
9i»2(il.21)
971C 9,22)
, nm i a . »»«
T If.
815( 9,171
935( 5.20)
933 ( <»*21)
= 2.15,
«72( 3,19)
-.-901 ( . 3*20)-
93. ( 3,21*
96i( <*,22)
99 7 ( U, 23)
102i( 2,2d1
105S1 1,25)
1C87( 1,25)
20.5<»
889(11,19*
9>»3(12,21)
973(10,22)
19.36
1 1 14-
BI»!»( 6,18)
8751 6 j 19)
9061 6,20)
93S( 5,21)
oca « c 39 1
22.51
« - *l
873< (»,19)
962( 3,221
993 t 0,23)
993 ( 5, 23)
1027( 3,2<»t
1C57( 2,25)
lOSSf 2,26)
ARES 53 SA7 83UNOA"Y
SENS 4^EA
-(x,y>
-6.20,-2^.6»-
GRID CELLS IM3LJOED1
1C30( 6,2«») 103H—T»-2<»)
•1ISSION CcNTROIO s I.. »o !•*.»•
!-«&« <-5 r^S1) 106 H-6, 251 10 621 -7 , 25»
-------
AREA 5k ONI CENTRAL OMTA9IO
12.32. 23.57
GRID C*ULS INCUUOEOt
883 (I"*, 191 88i»( 15,191
91.9(18,21) 9'3(13,22)
1C02( 9,231 1003(10,23)
1039(15, 2M 10--
1071(16,25) 109J( <»,»6>
1099(13,26) 11C J ( lk-,-261—
AREA 55 ON2 SU03U?" SOURCE ARE
GRID CelLS I*:LUOEO)1
977(15,221
-AREA 56 SA8 ONTARIO 3IXSIIU/£-
836(17,19) 887(18,19)
AREA 57 ON3 SOUTHERN 3NTARIO
GPIP CELLS TN-LU9EOI
759(lt,15) 793(14,16)
823(16,171 82M17.171)
P56<1«,181 S5M19,18)
920(20.20)- 921(21,204
AR^a 58 Sfl9 OJ£3£C S£^STTI\/E 4
885(16.191
*}S 6 1 15i 211
976(K», 22)
1 009 ( 16. 234
1036*12, 2M
1C6!( 8,25)
., 1068 1 13, 25)
1091'( 5,26')
1C9SI1U , 261
1101(15. 26)
A
4?-S CENTR3ID (X,T)
EUSSION JESTROIO -s
43C^
A?E» CENTROIO (X,Y)
ETSSIOM Cr'ITROIO a
917(17,20)
i"IS3ION aENfROIO s
8«53(15,181
898(19,191
S A
A?r4 CENTROIO (X,f)
91 ^Cl^»20)
OI.F « 1 =,. ?i i
97)(15,22i
1005(12,231
-l-03'-( 4-.2M
1037(13, 2%)
106H 9,251
1069-( 1<»*^S4-
1C9?( 6.J61
1097(11,26)
= 15.00,
s 17.33,
IT, »•/
913(13,20)
• 17.12,
U.JC
79? (16, 16)
85«(la,18l
8fl)(20,l9>
3 13.50,
«^.ff».
915(15,201
9V4U7.211
979(17.22)
1003(13.23)
10 35 ( 9,2V)
10 38 (li»,2i»)
1065(13,251
... _ 1078 (15, 251
1393( 7,26)
1098(12.26)
21.00
Hj • o
19.50
n. ia.
17. r*r
Jl.if
822 (15. 17)
855(17.131
914(19.20)
22.59
GRTO C£LLS T^
961(19,221 982(20,22) 1012(19,231 1015(20,231
-------
59 aEi_
a»i» C?NT*OIO (X.r) = 22.69, 21.30
ilTSSION C^NTROIO = l|.to 1«. (i.
fi?IO CELLS .INCLUDED! ;
922(22,201 925(23,201 92M2<»,23I 951(19,211 951(20,211
952(21,211 9?S(22,21) 95M2%21) 955(2^,211 956(25,211
9.e5(23.2-2J «
»R£« 69 QF2 P-NTRftU OJE1EC
ft
GPID fELLS IN
961(30,21)
1023(30,23)
11353(26, ?«»)
1C82T27,25)
ill 1 . .
1115(29,26)
li* CENT^OIO «,Y) » 23.66, 2<».33
ITt^TOM rFMTBflTT^ * — - — -* -*
983(21,22)
iniiiin»??»
1011(25,231
10<»2(1S,2M
1 PUT i ;>». ?fc«
1C52(29,2U)
1C7U(19,25'»
!Cflt«(29,25)
1106(20, 26)
till (25. 261
1116(30,261
98* (22, 22)
i n i 'i i ? i .-? 11
1019(26,23)
1C53(29,2<»)
1C73 (23,25t
i n as i ?s . ?
-------
1.3 Aggregrated Grid Areas in 11 Canadian Regions
-------
Relationship Between U.S. 63 Areas
and Canadian 11 Regions
Canadian
Region
Number
Canadian SC>2
Emissions
(kT/vr)
1946
3874
4762
2056
SURE
Aggregate
Areas
Mil
MI2
Subtotal
I LI
IL2
INI
IN2
Subtotal
OH1
OH2
OH3
Subtotal
PA1
PA 2
PA3
SA3
Subtotal
Area
Number
49
50
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
12
13
14
15
SURE S02
Emissions
(kt/yr)
2311
316
2627
(2388)
1066
960
751
1793
4570
. (4154)
3014
1109
636
4759
(4326)
569
477
1076
55
2177
(1979)
2408
NY1
NY2
VT
NH
MA
RI
CN
SA2
NJ
SA1
ME
Subtotal
9
10
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
2
1
307
379
6
138
670
33
45
12
692
42
332
2656
(2415)
%
Difference*
+19
+ 7
-10
-4
-------
(continued)
Canadian
Region
Number
Canadian SC>2
Emissions
(kT/yr)
2835
2446
SURE
Aggregate
Areas
KYI
KY2
TNI
TN2
SA4
Subtotal
DE
MD
NCI
NC2
VA
WV1
WV2
Subtotal
Area
Number
21
22
23
24
25
17
16
26
27
18
19
20
SURE SO2
Emissions
(kT/yr)
%
Difference*
+4
+24
8
7485
Total
Eastern U.S.
27,812
SC
GA1
GA2
SA5
FL1
FL2
FL3
AL
MS
LA
AR
SA6
MO
IA
WI
MN
SA7
Subtotal
28
29
30
33
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
51
52
53
32,398
(29,453)
+ 7
+6
-------
(continued)
Canadian
Region
Number
Canadian S02
Emissions
(kT/yr)
1970
10
1037
11
Total
Eastern
Canada
469
SURE
Aggregate
Areas
ONI
ON2
ON 3
SA8
Subtotal
QE1
QE2
SA9
Subtotal
NS
NF
Subtotal
Area
Number
54
55
57
56
59
60
58
62
63
3,476
SURE SO2
Emissions
(kT/yr)
%
Difference*
-4
-12
3,109
(2826)
-23
TOTAL
31,288
35,507
(32,279)
+3
* US - CAN x 100
US
Number in parenthesis are in units of kT/yr where 1 kT = 1.1 kt
-------
2. Comparison of U. S. SURE, Canadian SURE,
and NEDS 1976 on a State Basis
-------
Table. Comparison of U.
Basis
S. SURE, Canadian SURE, NEDS 1976 on a State
States
SURE Major
Point (kt)
Alabama 939
Arkansas 13
Connecticut 39
Dist. Columbia 0
Delaware 65
Florida 605
Georgia 587
Illinois 1635
Indiana 1601
Iowa 228
Kentucky 1613
Louisiana 377
Maine 50
Maryland 248
Massachusetts 306
Michigan 1294
Minnesota 339
Mississippi 209
Missouri 975
New Hampshire 52
New Jersey 194
New York 383
North Carolina 645
Ohio 3310
Pennsylvania 1795
Rhode Island 0
South Carolina 242
Tennessee 1046
Vermont 0
Virginia 261
West Virginia 1086
Wisconsin 512
TOTAL 20,644
SURE Major
Point (kt)l2.).
944
13
45
0
65
630
643
1650
1610
234
1621
391
49
252
307
1686
343
281
995
51
214
398
651
3423
1812
0
246
1075
0
263
1099
521
SURE
Total(kt)
NEDS
1976(ktl
1028
111
92
40
166
969
710
2771
1977
344
1644
303
152
363
332
1221
349
227
1395
121
317
1129
620
3342
2443
28
265
1281
3
403
1211
674
21,512
26,036
(1) Canadian Aggregation
(2) U.S. Aggregation
* Emissions in S. Appalachian sensitive area excluded
-------
3. New U. S. Total and Utility SOx Emissions for
the Aggregated Grid Areas in the United States
-------
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
Table . New U. S. Total and Utility SOx Emissions for the Aggregated Areas in the United
States (kt/yr)
New New
Total Point UTL AIRTEST BO Total Area Total Point UTL AIRTEST 80 Total
332.0
41.7
5.8
138.6
670.7
33.2
45.1
12.1
307.1
379.0
693.4
569.8
477.2
1075.8
55.3
428.5
130.6
644.2
1006.9
268.5
754.5
1054.3
727.0
633.3
72.7
512.7
473.3
423.2
620.7
321.4
648.1
179.8
49.3
0.0
0.0
51.5
307.4
13.1
31.4
0.0
153.7
166.7
231.6
291.6
333.5
874.1
30.4
254.5
65.3
231.1
1019.5
153.8
583.3
1026.4
629.5
461.5
16.1
380.4
261.2
246.3
537.8
115.9
435.1
126.2
96. 5
20.7
0.2
86.9
410.7
15.2
27.4
0.0
70.9
167.9
222.3
245.7
332.2
817.6
13.4
284.6
40.9
172.7
1025.5
137.2
544.5
1026.9
600.1
419.0
0.8
385.2
216.1
215.9
554.4
139.4
456.4
127.5
25.6
O.O
0.0
50.0
189.1
2.0
12.3
2.6
166.3
195.4
267.1
143.6
373.7
692.4
2.0
243.6
95.0
211.3
1039.0
108.9
619.9
838.2
724.9
342.5
0.0
283.1
45.5
225.6
500.5
65.5
420.1
151.8
261.3
21.0
5.7
101.7
449.1
20.0
30.0
14.7
402.5
406.5
738.2
467.7
518.7
950.6
43.9
387.5
184.7
682.8
1100.4
240.2
829.9
865.6
851.8
556.8
71.9
410.6
302.7
432.9
566.8
247.5
611.8
204.1
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
TOTALS
59.6
911 .9
1208.4
500.1
614.1
67.6
10.6
1291.4
525.3
1065.5
960.3
752.2
1794.0
3014.3
1109.5
636.6
2311.7
316.5
936.0
487.8
20.2
433.8
1060.8
8.2
587.5
0.0
287.7
734.2
35,504.6
14.4
43.3
897.9
325.9
391.2
13.4
0.0
994.8
212.5
917.4
463.1
418.4
1487.7
2663.8
643.7
264.7
1789.4
173.5
526.1
322.7
19.9
425.7
1058.4
0.0
372.6
0.0
89.3
686.4
24,293.9
25.4
57.5
822.3
94.3
243.0
28.0
2.4
827. 1
334.6
858.8
463.4
311.0
1547.5
2626.6
435.3
278.0
437.8
6.7
552.2
356.1
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
348.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
19,533.9
9.1
184.0
508.3
230.5
27.1
27.1
0.3
1357.9
176.2
961.1
331 .3
281.0
1530.7
2391.0
325.5
169.8
810. 1
31.2
494.4
178.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18,063.0
43.3
1038.4
894.4
636.3
398.2
66.7
8.5
1822.2
366.9
1 167.0
828.2
722.2
1777.2
2778.7
999.7
528.4
2684.0
341.0
878.2
310.6
17.3
433.8
JO60.8
8.2
239.2
0.0
287.7
34.2
33, 147.6
NEW TOTAL
Total - UTL + AIRTEST 80
-------
SENS 111 VI AKIA EMISSION RATES FOP S0?(lh K11010NS)
ARIA SOURCES MAJO» IOIHI SCUKLtS
INDUSTRIAL J11LITV COMMIKC1AL IKANSPURIAT|UN FCSK.INIIAL HlPUSlMAL UTILITY I I'll £1
0.0 0.0 U.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (..I.
169.B 79.2 D.T 1.4 fc.fl 32.0 17.3 332.2
1C.4 20.7 1.7 0.3 (1.6 0.0 0.0 «41.7
l.B 0.2 2.3 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 fj.{>
30.2 35.7 lfc.5 1.5 3.2 0.3 51.2 138. l>
120.9 103.7 nE.l 10.4 12.2 0.4 3u7.0 670.7
12.0 3.4 2.5 0.5 1.7 1.3 11. B j.3.2
2.9 0.3 0.6 2.6 7.4 4.3 27.T 45.1
B.7 0.0 1.1 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 12.1
124.7 15.0 3.7 7.9 2.1 97.8 55.9 3(7.J
143.3 32.3 'J.9 15.7 11.I 31.1 135.6 374.i
153.2 26.8 214.6 43.6 23.7 36.) 195.5 6S3.4
16B.4 16.5 54.0 23.7 16.7 62.4 229.2 5t9.fc
70.3 17.d 21.0 12.6 21.2 19.1 314.4 477.2
164.7 5.8 15.5 10.0 5.6 62.3 611.6 10)5.t.
7.3 7.6 3.7 2.3 4.0 ?4.6 5.B i$.3
5?.0 71.5 1I2.9 3.1 9.6 41.4 213.1 4 ifl. *>
36.4 11.3 13.6 1.2 2.7 35.7 29.6 pO.i.
33(1.6 24.4 60.n 12.6 7.0 62.B 148.3 644.^
33.9 26.8 3.3 1.3 2.0 20.H 99B.7 Iut6.'«
95.9 12.6 2.1 2.0 2.1 29.2 ]?*•<> 2(B.'j
139.9 12.5 7.7 8.4 J.7 51.3 532.0 7!4.5
24.6 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 K'2tj.4 10?4.J
BO.5 0.9 2.B 5.2 0.4 30.2 599.2 7i7.«-
138.1 12.4 9.0 9.2 3.1 54.9 406.6 633. i
47.6 0.8 2.6 3.6 1.8 16.1 0.0 72.7
112.3 4.9 5.5 5.6 3.9 O.I 3B0.3 512-J
174.3 1.0 19.1 11.8 6.1 46.0 215.1 4/3.3
152.6 8.4 7.9 5.5 2.5 38.8 207.5 4/3.2
4E.3 16.6 9.2 8.6 0.3 0.0 537.B 62O.7
139.9 48.4 H.O 8.9 0.3 24.9 91.0 311.4
162.4 23.8 9.7 12.1 0.0 7.5 *27.6 646.1
23.2 24.Q 2.2 4.2 b.O ^ .1 Io3.5 lV9.b
AQ It (\ f\ Q ft *i 4 * O /
"1 • * 1 • H II • V ~ • U -> • f .•'•!'
29.0 911.'>
_. .- . .- ... .-- ... U03.7 1216.*
133.4 34.6 2.4 3.9 0.0 2(.6.2 59.7 5;.0. I
z5:J
6.3 2.4 0.9 I.I n.O 0.0 0.0 10. i.
164.1 93.6 1-J.4 15.7 2.7 261.3 7>3.5 12S1.''
142.9 153.2 4.3 8.2 4.1 31.1 161.4 5^5.j
35.3 35.0 17.7 8.6 1.6 '>3.6 623.8 10<5.5
319.6 00.5 52.6 36.6 7.B bO.2 3B2.9 'Jt.O.i
199.3 46.5 71.3 20.1 /.7 153.9 264.5 7t2.2
148.9 94.1 52.6 7.8 2.7 34.3 J453.4 I7S4.1.
2B6.2 ^7.5 Si.3 11.4 3.9 64.7 ^599.| 3014.3
376.9 46.5 20.2 18.0 4.3 251.9 3Hfi.8 ll('9.'j
19B.O 04.3 63.9 20.1 5.5 71.0 l^S.J 636.«
44«.l 6.6 27.0 34.6 12.0 135B.2 431.2 2311.7
127.2 4.5 2.6 5.0 3.B 171.3 2.2 316. •>
302.7 68.7 16.2 10.6 11.8 42.6 4h3.5 936. »•
73.9 53.7 16.7 10.0 If-.9 20.3 3O2.4 4i7.t
0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 t.l 17.2 2.7 .'(<.(.
2.0 0.0 1.4 3.6 I.I 425.7 0.0 4b3.»
-------
SEHS1TIVI ARtA EMISSION RATES FOP SdPNli KILfllfiNSl
ARtA SOURCES MAJfU POINl
ARIA IMJUSmAL UTILITY COHII1 kC I «L IK AUSPURI A| | UN ftSlPlNJUl IMOIMTKIAL UTILITY HlML
5rJ 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 C.«i lO'jB.'i 0.0 10(0.ti
56 2.1 0.0 1.1 4.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 8.<
57 91.7 0.0 41.0 51.3 3C . C 24.3 34B.3 t.b7.1<
56 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
59 35.2 0.0 S-fc.2 17.1 40.0 b9.3 0.0 £1:7.7
60 14.7 0.0 14.4 8.4 10.2 (,fi6.4 0.0 7 _•<...
-------
4. New Canadian SOx Emissions for the Aggregated Grid
Areas in Canada
-------
In Process'
-------
5. Primary SOx Emissions for the Aggregated Grid Areas
-------
SENSITIVE AKLA tHISSlQN RATES FOR S04(irj KILOTCINS)
AREA SOURCES h-AJOK PfJlNI SOUKCbS
A*EA INDUS1S1AL UTILITY COMMIHC{«L TRANSPORTATION PFSlCfNIIAL INOUSlkUL UTILITY IOI/1
b o.o "o.o "5.5 6.6"~ olo
i IM i'« 2°:> 8:J : i:l
?:$ 8:8 S:i 8:? ?:! 8:8
5 ll:3 9.0 10.3 0.7 1.2 0.0
6 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 Q.]
7 6.5 0.0
8 0.4 0.0
8:?
'•J
0.6
v •
8:
6
0.2 0.2 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
0.2 0.5 2-S S'l
0.1 1.4 5.8 0.5
0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2
0.5 0.9 0.6 0.0
2.7 0.7 0.6 0.0
2.4 0.9 O.Q 0.0
2.0 0.2 0.3 0.0
1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0
1:1 8:1 8:1 8:8
4:1 ?:l 8:1 8:8
1.3 0.3 0.2 0.0
0.2 0.1 0.1 f'.O
3.3 1.0 1.0 0.1
}.2 0.3 0.5 0.3
:1 5:1 8:S 8:J
M M II l:\
0.4 0.7 5.8 0.3
:3 1:« |:« 8:3
.2 2.3 2.3 0.9
¥. 1 U.2 0.3 0.3
4 O.V 0.7 0.9
1.5 1.1 0.6 1.0
0.0 C.O 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
-------
Sr.USlllVl ikIA HUSSION RATES f W 504(11' KIlimiNS)
ARCA SOURCES MAJUf FOIN1
ARIA IKDUSmAL UTILITY CdMMIkCUL 1K ANSPfW T A TI ON PrSIDIMIIAL INnUSIhUL UTlllIY I01AL
5b 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 63.6 0.0 U3.t>
!>6 O.J 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7
b7 7.) 0.0 3.4 3.5 2.9 1.1 9.2 b 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
5v 5.0 0.0 «i.6 1.1 3.1 6.7 0.0 ^0.6
60 0.9 0.0 1.2 0.6 O.fl t>2.5 0.0 ?.b.c-
-------
6. NOX and TEP Emissions for the Aggregated Grid Areas
-------
ARIA
0
f
8
9
10
1 J
u
i!
24
\l
32
37
19
40
41
42
43
INDUSTRIAL
0.3
'!:?
6°:*
39.1
\:\
o.i
M
tt:8
15.4
2§:&
ll'\
&8.0
.
3G.3
-
473
?:
3
o9:
9.9
.1
20.4
4.7
39. C
?i:i
59.4
SENSITIVE
AREA SOURCES
UTILITY CUMMl
0.0
16.6
3.2
0.1
6.)
61.0
5:?
°«i
3.9
6.0
fl:?
8.5
?:!
3^:o
5.9
1:1
E:o
0:3
0'3
U • 3
i:I
3:1
«:1
2.3
1.6
11.9
i!;i
14.4
1.6
20.7
31'9
8.4
13.3
ifUA
I.e
0.7
.
2.4
oU
1.8
C.7
?:t
!:?
5.5
1:2
1:5
5.6
'?:?
6.2
U
HAjn
INDU
fr I'OINl
STK1AL
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.5
0.2
1.5
0.0
21.3
4.1
!1:J
2.5
t.H
.2
21.4
Z.4
14.1
3.0
1.3
10.2
i?:?
20.2
rouKCts
UTILITY
0.0
3.5
O.C
0.0
14:2
2!:9
0.0
9.9
36.2
228. B
74.0
38.7
105.4
0.9
55.7
4.5
39.7
165.9
43.3
67.5
174.7
64.7
95.1
TOTAL
O.o
64.4
1C. 6
3.0
34±$
21.9
65.^
10.5
135.7
257.5
905. «>
434.7
•5 *I « *
2 1 1 . 4
2^'I
a7.5
216.9
3fc.ti
279.7
216.2
66.4
206.5
197.5
162.2
2*t" •
4.6
10.9
0.0
iS:I
6.7
i:*
ii;I
8:8
8.1
8.9
19.7
15.2
'1:!
fr-i
10.9
2Sf:i
n.i
1:1
i
'IJij
186.3
'a
135.2
i2i:f
110.9
181:1
32J:i
24.2
65.0
0.5
U9.2
120.5
25t.l
-
30t.6
195.6
465.9
b6.0
16.2
379.1-
219.0
330.1
617.>
1«:*3
543. 3
346.5
34'j. 7
B39.S
2fcB./
-------
SEIJSJIIVI ARtA IMISSIUN RATtS FOP NOUN KIUITONS)
ARIA SOURCES MAJO> POINI SOURLIS
AKI.A ItfiUSmAL U1ILITY CflMIIK fcC I AL IkANSf'ORI AI I ON ^LSIOFNTIAl INOUSlkTAl UTILITY 101/1
Sb 0.4 0.0 0.2 4.4 0.1 6.0 6.0 b.
bt 0.7 0.0 0.3 55.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 tt.
27.4 0.4 11.b 626.a 6.0 4.1 41.6 719.1
" ' ",0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
_.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
59 24.3 0.0 U.I 193.1 4.2 12,.0 0.0 241.7
60 5.1 0.0 . 2.0 136.7 1.0 b.5 o.O li.C./
-------
SENSITIVE ARIA LHISSIUN RATES FOR N(I2(I»; KILOTONS)
AREA SOURCES MAJO& POINT SOURCES
AREA ICDUSHIAL UTILITY CUMHLKC1AL TRANSPORTATION rfSlPINllAL INDUSTRIAL UTILITY TOTAL
0 0.0 0.0 C.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 2.0
2 5.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 G.3
4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 O.C 0.0 0.6 2.3
5 1.9 1.9 1.3 0.2 4.1 0.0 2.5 11.h
6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.9
7 0.2 0.0 p.I 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 2.3
a o.o o.o o.c o.o 0.5 o.o o.o 0.3
9 0.2 O.T 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.4 3.1
10 0.7 0.2 O.i 0.3 2.7 0.2 1.2 5.4
11 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.8 6.7 3.4 5.8 i2.5
J2 3.J O.| (KB 0.3 3.8 O.f 2.6 12.<
5.*>
15 0.2 o'.Q o.o O.'O 6.3 0.1 6.6 o.k
14 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3 0,4 4.J ?.9
0.
4:?
2.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 6.4
8.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.1 7.3 D.<>
.6 O.I 0.0 0.0 0.3 O.i 1.7 3.0
21 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.4 2.7 J.}
22 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.9 7.3
23 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.7 4.6
24 £.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 4.0 3.7 11.4
25 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 C.3 0.2 0.0 1.6
26 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 4.5 7.2
27 4.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 2.4 6.3
2fc 3.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 2.9 7.3
29 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 2.9 4.4
30 2.4 1.1 0.0 O.I 0.4 6.2 1.0 11.1
0.4 0.1 0.0 Q.I 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.3
34
0.0
.6
35 4.9 0.4
36 2.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 10.3 0.6 14.V
37 4.7 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 8.8 10.1 25.6
36 • 1.6 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 3.5
39 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4
40 10.3 1.1 0.6 0.2 1.7 0.5 6.2 .$
41 2.B 1.6 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.8 2.4 &.*>
42 C.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 f'.fi 1.0 7.6 10.7
43 9.6 1.0 . 1.2 0.6 3.7 6.0 4.4 ifa.7
44 2.6 0.3 0-6 0.3 2.5 6.3 4.5 I'.0
45 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 1.1 5.1 0.1 Ih.a
46 4.5 O.j u.2 O.| J.-3 0.9 13.2
50 1.7 0.1 0.0 O.I 0.7 2.0 0.0 4. «•
51 3.5 1.1 0.3 O.J 2.5 0.5 3.6 12.1
52 1.3 1.0 0.4 O.I J.fi 1.6 4.7 II.1
53 0.3 6.0 0.0 0*0 b.O 0.1 0.1 O.i
54 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 O.t
-------
SENSITIVE AKLA LH1SSION RATES FOR KP2UK KILOTllNS)
ARIA SOURCES MAJO* POINI SUUfiCES
ARIA INDUSTRIAL UTILITY COMMFt.C|AL TRANSPORTATION FrSlOENMAL 1NOIIETKIAL UTILITY TUUL
55 0.0 6.0 u.O 0.0 6.C 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.1 C.I 0.0 O.C 0.^
1.0 2.1 0.6 2.0 ti.ii
0.0 6.
56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 O.C
!>7 1.7 0.0 O.B 1.0 2.7 0.6 2.
56 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
59 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.7 0.6 0.0 «.u
60 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 l.o
-------
1500
1000
Oi
•^
v
100,000 200,000
Emission Rate (g/s)
300,000
-------
ARI A
U
le
P
20
23
II
8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
M
39
40
\\
49
52
1NHUST3IAL
0.0
70.9
16.6
104.2
6.2
ill*
101.3
\m
223.6
221.3
192.9
75.5
21:1
Io8:i
136.<
133.7
*8?:l
f?:i
294.
126.5
233.3
37.2
435.5
535.5
135.3
496.9
256.5
245.9
25-e:§
223.6
0.5
0.7
SENSITIVI ARLA
ARCA SOURCES
UTILITY
0.0
5.3
1.5
3.0
4.8
15.9
0.3
0.1
0.0
1.7
5.4
2.5
0.6
6.0
24.3
25.0
!f:8
J:f
3.4
13.6
6.0
0. 1
4.1
0.4
3.2
0.1
1"> 4
£ . 3
1.8
15.9
2.9
CUMMUC1AL
0.0
H.9
?:7
9.3
68.8
1.0
o:e
3.6
9.0
175.4
39.8
11:*
1.6
2J:I
3f:J
1.6
5.3
O.f
1 .8
$:?
2.5
H
i .6
6.9
5-.I
EMISSION RATES FOP
TRANSPORTATION
1.7
3.6
0.2
27.3
14.
16.6
ai.9
4.2
16.7
0.5
0.0
i *u
!;!
0.7
13
!:?
34.3
l\'l
44:9
16.3
lu.f
8.1
0.6
0.2
2.7
8:!
3.4
"•1
1.0
{*?
20:!
38.4
'18:8
i!.^
5.4
!5:t
lil
^.-f
n'-i
a.4
n
.:
S:!
•l:J
8.6
»5:i
1.6
M
I*2:?
ii:l
J^:9
34.8
||:1
1:
TCFdK1 K ILDTONS)
FCSUKNTIAL
8:?
8:J
0.7
3.2
0.3
ill
I-6
rf:?
«:1
16.9
1:1
3.6
1:1
4.5
0.6
0.5
4.5
1.8
3.2
3.9
1 .4
6.9
0.4
C.O
8:8.
0.0
S'?
0. 1
8.4
.2
0.0
1:8
i*:i
9.2
M
l:\
lfi.3
i6:f
1 .5
8:?
MAJOP F01N1
INDUSTRIAL
0.0
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
3.1
76.0
6.9
110.2
Ifcj
1S:(
3.6
21.6
0.1
0.4
352.2
103.5
2.9
45.3
31.0
0.0
28.5
66.8
?:?
3.3
32.2
0.4
4.4
43.)
51.0
76.5
0.0
0.0
8:3
,432:3
227.7
32.6
230.0
m-.i
411.4
nil
84.7
1W
SOURCES
UTILITY
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
l.b
5.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
23.6
47.4
!!:i
21.4
»1|.4
33:7
0.6
55:?
4.5
38.3
25.0
6.3
69.6
0.0
101.7
30.4
75.2
fl.p
10.4
16.0
1UTAL
O.d
24.9
32.6
1.
1:
!;«
il!:a
163.6
!J:8
53.4
222.7
~ »
310
47B
466
146.
162.
31.6
.9
,2
4il.9
lii. 2
259.4
949
333
162. !i
468.2
f>9.7
217.3
3C.0.3
266.0
129.3
4:2
,360.4
247.o
246. b
39.7
597. t>
678.4
6l'2.V
3( 6.0
7b0.1
57C.6
545.2
834.4
ill: I
370.6
19.7
. ?O.u
-------
SENSmvf ARIA IMISSIUN
-------
7. Listing of Historical and Current Emissions by
State and County
LIBRARY SERVICES RTF NC
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT COLLFCTION
-------
The Phase I report of work Group III B contains sections
on historical, current, and projected emissions in the eastern
United States and Canada. Some of the historical and current
emissions data from that report is included in this addendum
for the convenience of the modelers.
The primary objective in developing historical emission
trends is to recreate the emissions situations of several
decades ago so that such data can be used in atmospheric models
to provide an insight into sulfur deposition rates for those
periods. These rates can then be compared to current deposition
rates for an indication of the rate of degradation of the
environment with time.
-------
To examine emission trends on a regional basis in the
United States, a data file has been constructd which also uses
historical fuel usage fiqures to calculate emissions of S02 and
NOX from various categories of sources. The basis file contains
emissions at the individual state level for the following source
categories:
Electric Utilities
Industrial
Commerical/Residential
Pipelines
Highway Vehicles
Gasoline-Powered
Diesel-Powered
Miscellaneous
Railroads
Vessel
Misc. Off-Highway Mobile
Chemicals
Primary Metals
Mineral Products
Petroleum Refineries
Others
The file currently contains data for 33 eastern states
plus the District of Columbia. Years on record for the file
are 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, and 1978.
For the electric utility sector, all power plants greater
than 25 megawatts have been identified and located by the
appropriate county within each state for each year of record.
Emissions of S02 and NOX have been determined for each year for
all such power plants. Consequently, it is possible to identify
power plants emissions on a county-by-county level for each
year of record for all 33 states.
The file identifies each power plant by name, size, county
location, and S02 and NOX emissions from coal, oil, and natural
gas consumption. The file also contains fuel usage information
and has some limited data on stack height.
To distribute the non-power plant emissions to a county
level, work is underway using historical census data to assign
the statewide emissions to the county level. The technique to
be used is to apportion the emissions to the county base on a
historical population basis. The Brookhaven National Laboratory
is currently conducting this work. A partial file is currently
available from Carmen Benkovitz and it is expected that
EPA/OAQPS will complete this file for Work Group 2. A paper
describing "the methodology is currently being prepared by a
contractor for EPA/OAQPS.
-------
As an example of the information from this file, a sample
state and county are provided.
To assist in examining the historical emission trends on a
regional scale, tables have been prepared in which the states
are grouped according to the appropriate EPA regional offices
(Regions I through V). Trends in SOX and NOX emissions for
each state along with a summary for each grouping of the states
(by regional office) are shown in the tables.
The current emission rates reported here for the United
States are based on estimates of actual rates for numerous
sectors of the economy. The values used in this summary are
taken from National Air Pollution Emission Estimates (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency). Basically, the methodology
for deriving these estimates used an inventory of sources,
determinations of fuel consumption, and air pollution emission
factors.
The inventory of sources, and associated fuel consumption
rates, were taken from the National Emissions Data System
(NEDS). The data in NEDS were provided by State agencies as an
inventory of sources for each state. NEDS is constantly being
updated and the version used here reflects values for 197P.
However, NEDS is not complete and some source categories are
more accurate than others. Estimates of the accuracy of this
information are unavailable at this time.
The emissions factors used in developing these emission
estimates are from the U.S. EPA report AP-42. The emission
factor is an average estimate of the rate at which a pollutant
is released to the atmosphere as a result of some activity.
The emission factors are estimates based on source testing,
process material balances, and engineering apparaisals. As a
result, some emission factors are more accurate than others.
In general, the emission factors are more ofter applied to
regional or national emission estimates, than to single source
estimates where the inaccuracies would be considerable.
SO2 and NOX emissions are shown on a state-by-state basis
in the table. Only 33 states are represented in the table.
Data for the 15 Western States and Alaska and Hawaii are
unavailable at this time. The values in table represent 80% of
the SC>2 and 76% of the NOX emissions for the entire United States,
The emissions estimates can be further disaggregated to
show emissions by source category for each state.
-------
SOy Emissions in 1000's of Tons
State of Kentucky
Non PP
Power Plant
Total
County of Jefferson
Power Plant
Canal
Cane Run
Mill Creek
Paddy's Run
Waterside
Total PP
1950
34.5
28.6
"6TTT
, KY
1950
1.9
—
-
7.4
.9
10.2
1955
153.6
251.2
404.8
1955
1.5
3.0
-
10.4
.8
1577
I960
262.3
368.8
T3T7T
I960
—
11.4
-
9.4
2078
1965
310.7
603.3
914.0
1965
^
17.0
-
4.1
21.1
1970
198.4
1082.5
1280.9
1970
—
27.1
-
3.5
3(T.6
1975
117.7
1349
.1
1466.8
1975
—
22.
17.
•
4?.
4
8
7
9
1978
108.
1221.
1330.
1978
—
19.1
21.0
2.3
4274
8
2
0
Non Power Plant - Jefferson County, KY
Work not complete on this portion of file as yet,
-------
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN SC>2 EMISSIONS
in 1000's tons
EPA - REGION I
State
Conn.
Maine
Mass.
New Hamp.
Rhode Island
TOTAL
New York
New Jersey
TOTAL
Delaware
D.C.
Maryland
Penn.
Va.
West Va.
TOTAL
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Kentucky
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tenn.
TOTAL
1950
130.3
37.8
906.*
73.3
67.7
1215.5
8*7.0
*1308.8
*2155.S
105.*
32.*
398.9
* 970.2
157.2
2*3.5
*1907.6
139.5
225.5
119.9
*6.9
113.1
306.1
**.5
97.3
1092.8
1955
139.1
*5.6
956.7
89.7
80.2
1311.3
1126.0
*1*86.2
*2612.20
136.0
31.0
515.5
2138.*
277.*
617.8
3716.1
522.7
350.5
163.6
*3.3
*0*.8
3*7.*
8*. 3
369.2
2285.8
1960
2*1.6
70.2
37*. 6
29.1
87.3
802.8
EPA-
1*27.*
*82.6
1965
*57.6
97.0
**3.2
*1.2
*1.2
1080.2
REGION II
16*5.*
623.*
1910.00 2268.8
EPA - REGION III
196.1
38.5
518.2
2362.2
171.*
529.7
3816.1
EPA-
613.5
3*1.1
198.2
*1.1
631.1
232.*
115.9
731.2
290*. 5
217.8
*7.9
588.1
25*6.8
188.1
776.8
*365.5
REGION IV
892.3
501.6
303.0
**.6
91*. 0
29*.*
121.7
771.5
38*3.1
1970
317.3
82.0
58*.*
95.9
60.1 .
1139.1
1*55.0
590.2
20*5.2
223.*
78.0
*67.7
22*5.7
*75.2
979.7
**69.7
979.1
862.3
*10.*
79.*
1280.9
533.2
185.*
988.1
5318. S
1975
191.0
67.8
362.2
75.*
2*. 3
720.7
1079.0
3*1.0
1*20.0
193.6
27.1
322.3
2130.8
381.0
1220.0
*27*.8
986.5
827.9
571.*
193.0
1*66.8
500.5
202.3
11*1.9
5890.3
197S
112
66
*02.2
67.8
19.7
667.7
10*1.1
323.7
136*. 8
188.2
17.6
357.3
1900.0
359.9
10*9.5
3872.5
762.1
685.9
707.0
26*. 3
1330.0
562.3
288.6
1162.8
5763.0
-------
ORICAL TRENDS IN SO. EMISSIONS (Cont.)
in 1000's tons
Stats
1955
i960
1965
1970
1975
197S
EPA - REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Mich.
Minn.
Ohio
Wise.
TOTAL
Arkansas
Iowa
Louisiana
Missouri
Texas
*!172.1
.174.2
702.7
536.4
*!344.9
304.2
T2J4J
36.7
258.0
261.2
'155.1
!073.8
2452.9
1840.8
1085.5
391.8
2933.2
604.0
9308.2
OTHER
26.1
364.5
219.4
582.6
900.0
2791.4
2180.3
1521.7
419.8
3181.2
703.8
10798.2
STATES
29.9
440.8
268.7
674.9
1074.3
2506.5
1941.5
1520.9
450.7
3125.2
322.3
9867.1
37.0
370.2
318.0
1107.3
1136.8
1950.6
1980.0
1450.6
382.3
3271.2
166.6
9261.3
68.6
314.0
295.1
1174.3
1123.8
1747.2
1848. 2
1117.8
379.0
3115.3
663.6
8S71.1
121.6
3S5.0
359.0
1307.7
1244. S
*Questionable Data
-------
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN NO EMISSIONS
X
in 1000's tons
EPA - REGION I
State
Conn.
Maine
Mass.
New Hamp.
Rhode Island
TOTAL
New York
New Jersey
TOTAL
Delaware
D.C.
Maryland
Penn.
Va.
West Va.
TOTAL
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
N.C.
S.C.
Tenn.
TOTAL
1950
85. 7
44.6
164.2
18.2
33.5
346.2
493.6
281.5
775.1
19.8
30.8
108.9
479.1
183.8
118.9
941.3
172.6
206.8
170.8
145.4
97.1
192.0
87.4
164.9
1237.0
1955
100.0
46.7
195.0
22.6
32.9
397.2
606.5
319.1
925.6
30.1
34.3
138.5
693.2
228.0
217.4
1341.5
367.0
263.4
198.9
208.0
80.8
210.7
125.4
232.7
1686.9
1960 1965
152.6 169.0
49.1 60.2
254.9 303.4
31.1 39.7
45.2 36.4
532.9 608.7
EPA - REGION II
767.0 919.1
362.7 439.1
1129.7 135S.2
EPA - REGION II!
51.2 61.1
35.0 3S.1
222.9 292.5
1020.2 1143.1
259.9 361.8
225.0 322.3
1814.2 221S.9
EPA- REGION IV
308.6 44S.3
321.5 420.8
226.9 296.7
279. I 377.6
151.2 196.4
290.0 376.2
150.2 178.2
335.9 380.3
2063.5 2674.5
1970
202.0
75.8
359.9
63.7
55.2
756.6
1000.3
53S.3
1538.3
71.9
58.3*
298.8
1089.2
433.5
346.9
2298.6
416.1
552.1
398.1
497.2
304.5
546.4
237.3
467.1
3418.8
1975
1S2.0
72.7
340.2
67.5
44.9
707.3
869.3
462.0
1331.3
65.2
36.5
294.9
1093.1
420.8
470.8
2381.3
580.8
733.2
520.5
567.3
243.5
568.0
253.7
615.5
40S2.5
197S
183.0
76.7
364.3
66.9
42.4
733.3
90S. 9
49-V.t
1403.3
70.6
33.5
. 313.9
1120.7
435.2
462.4
2436.3
473.0
777.4
548.8
563.0
272.8
591.0
300.2
592.9
4119.1
-------
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN NO EMISSIONS (Cont.)
State
1950
1955
in 1000
1960
's tons
1965
1970
1975
1978
EPA - REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Mich.
Minn.
Ohio
Wise.
TOTAL
Arkansas
Iowa
Louisiana
Missouri
Texas
600.1
296.6
318.3
164.7
498.2
196.5
2074.4
112.6
167.2
283.5
198.1
876.5
89CU4
447.2
382.9
187.6
771.5
215.4
2895.0
122.9
203.6
330.2
251.0
933.1
895.9
584.9
587.3
240.1
960.5
296.6
3565.3
OTHER
115.9
216.4
535.8
294.6
I65S.O
1063.7
555.2
746.4
275.5
1082.3
367.4
4090.5
STATES
147.6
248. 1
760.1
'539.1
2044. 6
1119.8
576.4
846.6
331.3
1165.1
455.0
4494.2
193.2
309.6
1016.9
424.6
2551.3
1129.1
631.7
840.7
370.0
1221.0
445.7
4638.2
171.4
308.8
1072.0
593.6
2S33.9
1129.9
600.6
843.1
399.6
1277.1
473.2
4723.5
217.9
321.0
1593.7
563.0
3309.5
*Questionable Data
-------
Table. 1978 SC>2 and NOX Emissions by State,
(kt/yr)
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hamsphire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
SO 2
762.1
121.6
112.0
188.2
17.6
685.9
707.0
1747.2
1848.2
385.0
1330.0
359.0
66.0
357.3
402.2
1117.8
379.0
264.3
1307.7
67.8
323.7
1041.1
562.3
3115.3
1900.0
19.7
288.6
1162.8
1244.8
359.9
1049.5
663.6
NOX
473.0
217.9
183.0
70.6
33.5
777.4
548.8
1129.9
600.6
321.0
563.0
1593.7
76.7
43.9
364.3
843.1
399.6
272.8
563.0
66.9
494.4
908.9
591.0
1277.1
1207.7
40.4
300.2
592.9
3309.5
435.2
462.4
473.2
TOTAL
23957.2
19420.6
-------
1978 Emissions
National
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Oist. of Columbi
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia.
Wisconsin
TSP
353,760
8,504
4,249
3,202
640
a 612
65,291
7,298
16,606
12,438
8,324
5,927
5,739
2,719
3,806
7,794
19,415
11,634
6,360
10,158
1,836
10,063
16,216
11,159
21,098
4,473
1,187
7,676
9,366
12,820
1,479
6,786
3,947
11,907
S0x
237406
407
259
131
53
179
1,126
445
1,186
877
634
398
28.2
182
257
420
2,503
426
339
429
123
2,074
1,453
865
13,046
1,291
48
390
507
784
95
590
237
995
lercial /Resident!'
NOV
X
al
HC
«^^
100,672 742,054
2,314
1,375
686
229
214
1,870
2,646
2,981
3,718
2,134
2,192
1,723
776
1,351
1,501
15,557
2,211
1,831
2,100
505
3,348
4,718
4,106
4,789
1,531
208
2,230
2,601
3,539
444
2,547
1,434
3,208
18,285
8,417
7,103
1,064
477
9,906
13,833
39,490
25,938
17,083
11,170
11,753
5,5.79
7,199
17,869
41,699
18,010
13,403
23,533
3,799
12,415
27,866
20,296
45,654
1,832
2,856
16,185
20,165
26,742
2,995
12,661
7,505
23,524
CO
,152,169
18,285
23,968
20,738
29,089
7,482
28,251
39,126
116,353
75,007
49,374
32,107
33,316
16,072
20,439
52,370
115,990
52,287
38,451
68,831
10,965
33,673
79,280
57,248
132,886
15,499
8,403
46,695
59,487
76,609
8,590
35,788
21,236
67,860
SOURCE: National Emissions Data System (NEDS).
-------
1978 Emissions
Transportation
TSP
SO.
NO.
HC
CO
National
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
6,286,087
110,642
63,752
81,687
16,283
15,214
298,690
155,564
286,009
155,893
60,897
90,950
113,812
23,288
113,453
158,713
269,852
103,899
53,514
151,023
21,252
221,443
340,260
143,885
321,708
282,530
28,389
76,807
129,396
455,232
9,794
135,464
17,147
87,749
955,767
25,892
9,921
6,622
2,823
1,197
30,889
20,212
30,472
18,838
9,805
14,480
43,953
3,727
14,795
10,765
46,761
14,320
12,257
17,041
1,627
27,381
34,575
19,485
36,836
38,406
1,679
9,897
19,506
111,334
1,383
19,047
5,663
13,941
9,355,943
205,541
128,555
100,103
28,039
17,111
362,730
270,023
398,479
255,218
135,773
189,160
202,170
50,419
152,485
161,017
350,936
198,444
123,978
235,436
29,361
248,805
419,157
284,714
433,805
435,991
29,380
136,873
250,647
704,565
21,363
237,600
69,521
198,364
12,549,131
241,841
144,749
152,975
35,773
24,235
557,336
323,335
518,854
320,855
157,697
204,932
240,994
59,136
207,733
278,951
482,683
254,163
129,197
306,040
41,446
375,900
634,875
334,094
507,312
531,822
53,827
173,858
274,032
897,667
22,453
286,300
51,699
231,295
97,801,165
1,754,292
1,049,778
1,235,652
275,377
202,223
4,269,119
2,430,711
4,112,325
2,519,201
1,218,841
1,508,128
1,754,474
428,545
1,609,040
2,314,969
3,869,142
1,947,578
943,985
2,367,375
330,946
3,069,379
5,114,336
2,477,393
4,582,071
4,196,933
444,384
1,258,446
2,038,819
6,744,339
162,963
2,147,509
326,512
1,657,454
SOURCE: National Emissions Data System (NEDS).
------- |