EPA-910/9-80-075
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
November I960
Attainment Status and
PSD Increment
Analyses for
Port Angeles,
Washington
-------
EPA-910/9-80-075
November 1980
ATTAINMENT STATUS AND PSD INCREMENT ANALYSES
FOR PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON
by
J. F. Bowers, A. J. Anderson,
H. E. Cramer and J. R. Bjorklund
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3532
Project Officer
Robert B. Wilson
Surveillance and Analysis Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region. 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
This Study Was Conducted in Cooperation With
National Park Service and Department of Ecology
U. S. Department of the Interior State of Washington
Denver, Colorado 80225 Olympia, Washington 98504
H. E. Cramer company, inc.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH PARK
POST OFFICE BOX 8049
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84108
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by Region 10, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not-signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This report describes a dispersion model analysis of the air
quality impact of emissions from the existing and proposed sulfur dioxide
(SO,.,) sources in the Port Angeles, Washington area. The existing SO^
sources are the Crown Zellerbach and ITT Rayonier Pulp Mills and the
proposed sources are the tankers involved in the Northern Tier Pipeline
Company (NTPC) project. The specific objectives of the study described
in this report were to: (1) determine, for the existing sources, the
attainment status of the Port Angeles area with respect to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for S0?; (2) evaluate the effects
of various emission control strategies for the existing sources if Port
Angeles is found to be a non-attainment area for the NAAQS; (3) determine
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increment consumption of
the proposed NTPC sources in Class I and Class II PSD areas; and, (4)
determine if the proposed NTPC sources will cause any area that currently
is an attainment area for the NAAQS to become a non-attainment area.
The NAAQS and the Class I and Class II PSD Increments for SO,-, are listed
in Table I. The State of Washington 1-hour ambient air quality standard
of 0.40 parts per million (ppm), not to be exceeded at any given point
more than once per year, is also considered in this report.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
As indicated by Table I, a short-term NAAQS or PSD Increment
is violated at a given point during the second short-term period in a
year with a short-term concentration above the corresponding NAAQS or
PSD Increment. In general, the same definition of a violation of a short-
term NAAQS or PSD Increment is applied to the results of dispersion model
111
-------
TABLE I
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND CLASS I AND
CLASS II PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
INCREMENTS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (S00)
Averaging
Time
A
3 Hours
24 Hours
Annual
NAAQS (yg'/m3)
Primary
-
365
80
Secondary
1,300
-
-
3
PSD Increments (l-lg/m )
Class I
25
5
2
Class II
512
91
20
The 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS and PSD Increments may be exceeded at any
given point once per year.
IV
-------
calculations. For example, the second-highest 24-hour average S0«
concentration calculated for a receptor during a year normally is used
to assess the compliance of the receptor with the 24-hour NAAQS for SO-
However, if the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional
Administrator identifies inadequacies in the data available for input to
the dispersion model (for example, poorly defined emissions data or an
insufficient period of record of meteorological data), the Administrator
may specify that the highest rather than the highest of the second-
highest short-term concentrations calculated for all receptors be used
to evaluate compliance with the short-term NAAQS and PSD Increments. As
of 18 November 1980, the Administrator of EPA Region 10 had not made any
determination about the adequacy of the emissions and meteorological
data available for the Port Angeles area. Consequently, this report
considers both the highest and the highest, second-highest calculated
short-term concentrations in evaluating compliance with the short-term
NAAQS and PSD Increments.
We point out that two different units for S0» concentrations
are used in this report. In the analyses of air quality data and the
comparisons of concurrent calculated and observed SO- concentrations,
concentrations are expressed in parts per million (ppm) because the
observed concentrations are recorded and reported in these units. In
the analyses of attainment status, PSD Increments and control strategies,
concentrations are expressed in micrograms per cubic meter because these
units are generally used for regulatory purposes.
CALCULATION PROCEDURES
The source data for the existing and proposed S0? sources were
provided by EPA Region 10. The dispersion model calculations were
performed using the Cramer, et_ al_. (1975) complex terrain dispersion
model, which is implemented by the SHORTZ and LONGZ computer codes.
This model has worked well in a similar application in the Puget Sound
-------
area (Cramer, et al., 1976) and, as discussed below, was also tested in
the Port Angeles area as part of this study. The meteorological inputs
to the SHORTZ and LONGZ programs were developed following the general
guidance given by Bjorklund and Bowers (1979). On the basis of our
meteorological site survey of the Port Angeles area and our analyses of
the available meteorological and air quality data, we selected the Ediz
Hook 10-meter tower wind data as most likely to be representative of the
winds affecting the initial dilution and transport of emissions from the
existing and proposed sources, all of which are located along the shoreline
or in Port Angeles Harbor. The Ediz Hook wind-speed data and concurrent
Whidbey Island cloud-cover data were used to assign the Pasquill stabiltiy
category to each hour during the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979
following the Turner (1964) stability classification scheme. Other
meteorological inputs used in the dispersion model calculations were
selected to be representative of the characteristics of the marine air
mass over the harbor and shoreline. Specifically, the Cramer, et al.
(1975) rural turbulent intensities were assigned to each hour on the
basis of the Pasquill stability category and, for each hour, the wind-
profile exponent was set equal to 0.10 and the vertical potential
temperature gradient was set equal to the moist adiabatic value of 0.003
degrees Kelvin per meter. Also, in the absence of any other mixing
depth estimates for Port Angeles, we used in the model calculations the
hourly mixing depths calculated by NTPC (1980) from Quillayute, Washington
upper-air data and Port Angeles wind-speed data following the procedures
described by Benkley and Schulman (1979).
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF MODEL TESTING
The highest measured SO,-, concentrations in the Port Angeles
area occur at the Third & Chestnut and Fourth & Baker monitors which are
located east-southeast of the largest existing S09 source, the ITT
Rayonier Mill. Because of time and level-of-effort constraints, model
testing was restricted to a detailed examination of 20 hours with relatively
VI
-------
high observed concentrations at both monitors. The following criteria
were used to select these 20 hours:
An observed 1-hour SO,, concentration greater than or
equal to 0.20 ppm at one of the two monitors and a
concurrent observed concentration greater than or
equal to 0.05 ppm at the second monitor
Availability of complete meteorological data for the
two meteorological towers operated by NTPC during the
period 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979
Operation of a minimum of three of the six ITT sources
for which emissions data were available
The third selection criterion was based on the fact that all of the ITT
sources were to be included in the attainment status analysis, and we
wished to test the performance of the short-term (SHORTZ) model under
conditions approximating the operating conditions for the attainment
status calculations.
After the selection of the 20 hours for model testing, we
learned that the black liquor holding pond at the ITT Mill is an important
source of SO emissions which may have a significant impact on ambient
air quality in the vicinity of the mill (Fenske, 1980). Inspection of the
Ediz Hook wind directions for the 20 hours selected for model testing
indicated that any emissions from the holding pond probably did not contribute
to the concentrations measured during these hours at the Third & Chestnut
monitor, but most probably did contribute to the concurrent concentrations
measured at the Fourth & Baker monitor. Because the emissions from the
holding pond are unquantified, we calculated centerline concentrations
at the Third & Chestnut monitor to test the performance of the SHORTZ model
for the stack emissions. Assuming a "perfect model" and representative
Vll
-------
model inputs as well as air quality observations, the calculated centerline
concentration plus the "background" concentration should be greater than
or equal to the corresponding observed concentration for each hour. Also,
the mean ratio (MR) of calculated centerline (plus "background")to ob-
served concentrations should be approximately equal to 1.75, as explained
in Section 3 in the main body of the report. (We define "background" as
ambient SCL concentrations attributable to emissions from existing sources
other than the ITT and Crown Zellerbach Mills.) The MR is given by the sum
of the calculated centerline concentrations (plus background), divided by
the sum of the observed concentrations. Estimates of the hourly SCL back-
ground concentration, which were generally less than 0.01 ppm, were obtained
from concurrent measurements made at the S09 monitor located at the Olympic
National Park Visitor Center.
Table II compares the calculated centerline and corresponding
observed 1-hour SO- concentrations at the Third & Chestnut monitor for
the 20 hours selected for model testing. With the exception of Cases 10,
11 and 15, all of the calculated centerline concentrations are greater
than or equal to the corresponding observed concentrations. According
to the Washington DOE (Fenske, 1980), the pollution control system used
by the ITT Mill during the period containing the hours selected for model
testing was unreliable, and SO emissions from several of the low-level
sources at the mill could have been higher than estimated by ITT without
ITT's knowledge. Thus, the three cases in which the calculated centerline
concentrations plus background are less than the corresponding observed
concentrations are possibly explained by the use of emission rates in
the model calculations which are less than the actual emission rates during
these hours. The MR of 1.85 is in close agreement with the expected
value of 1.75 and indicates that, on the average, the model is accurate to
within about 10 percent. This result is consistent with our previous
experience in testing the model in similar applications (Cramer, et al.,
1975; Cramer and Bowers, 1976; and Cramer, e_t^ _al_. , 1976). We point out
that the contribution of emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill to the
calculated concentrations in Table II is less than 0.01 ppm in every case.
viii
-------
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED CENTERLINE AND CORRESPONDING
OBSERVED 1-HOUR SO CONCENTRATION AT THIRD & CHESTNUT
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Concentration (ppm)
Observed
0.11
0.27
0.23
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.33
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.30
0.47
0.17
0.12
0.06
0.15
0.13
Calculated
Centerline*
0.32
0.32
0.30
0.22
0.18
0.35
0.37
0.37
0.56
0.23
0.17
0.36
0.43
0.30
0.44
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.32
0.24
Mean Ratio (MR)
Ratio of Calculated
and Observed Concentrations
2.91
1.19
1.30
1.69
1.38
3.89
4.63
5.29
4.31
0.70
0.89
1.80
2.26
1.00
0.94
2.18
3.08
6.00
2.13
1.85
1.85
*The calculated concentrations include background (the concurrent SOo
concentrations measured at the Visitor Center).
IX
-------
RESULTS OF THE ATTAINMENT STATUS ANALYSIS
The calculated maximum short-term and annual average ground-
level S09 concentrations produced by emissions from the ITT Rayonier
and Crown Zellerbach Mills are listed in Tables III and IV, respectively.
Tables III and IV also give background S0? concentration estimates
which are based on concurrent SO concentrations measured' upwind of the
existing sources, except that the minimum background is set equal to the
threshold and accuracy of the SO. monitors of about 13 micrograms per
cubic meter.
Inspection of Tables III and IV shows that the highest short-
term and annual average SO.-, concentrations calculated for the combined
stack emissions from the existing sources in the Port Angeles area are
almost entirely determined by emissions from the ITT Mill. Comparison
of Tables I and III shows that the calculated maximum annual average con-
centration is below the annual NAAQS. However, 3-hour average concentra-
tions above the 3-hour NAAQS are calculated to occur once per year in the
area east-southeast of the ITT Mill and 24-hour average concentrations
above the 24-hour NAAQS are calculated to occur once per year in the area
southwest of the ITT Mill and four times per year in the area east-southeast
of the ITT Mill. (The maximum 24-hour concentration-given in Table III is
calculated to occur 0.4 kilometers southwest of the ITT Mill.) Thus, if
any calculated short-term concentration above the corresponding NAAQS is
defined as a violation of the NAAQS, non-attainment areas for the 24-
hour NAAQS are located southwest and east-southeast of the ITT Mill and a
non-attainment area for the 3-hour NAAQS is located east-southeast of the
ITT Mill. Figure I(a) shows the areas within which 24-hour average con-
centrations above the 24-hour NAAQS are calculated to occur one or more
times per year. The area within which 3-hour average concentrations
above the 3-hour NAAQS are calculated to occur once per year is entirely
contained within the non-attainment area for the 24-hour NAAQS that is
east-southeast of the ITT Mill. If it is assumed that a short-term
NAAQS is violated at a given point during the second short-term period
-------
TABLE III
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM SHORT-TERM
AND ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED IN THE
VICINITY OF THE ITT RAYONIER MILL
Source
ITT Recovery Furnace
ITT West and East Vents
(Acid Plant)
ITT North Bleach Vent
ITT South Bleach Vent
ITT Power Boiler No. 4
ITT Power Boiler No. 5
ITT HF Boiler No. 5
ITT Rayonier Total
Crown Zellerbach Total *
Background Estimate
Total for Existing Sources
3
Concentration (yg/m )
1-Hour
4
734
14
50
877
537
18
2,234
3
13
2,250
3-Hour
33
457
9
31
493
384
17
1,424
5
13
1,442
24-Hour
0
171
5
18
367
19
0
581
12
13
606
Annual
0.94
17.51
0.39
1.45
7.19
3.11
1.40
31.99
0.48
13.00
45.47
^Contribution of emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill to the total
concentration calculated for the existing sources at the point of
maximum impact for the ITT Mill.
XI
-------
TABLE IV
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM SHORT-TERM
AND ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED IN THE
VICINITY OF THE CROWN ZELLERBACH MILL
Source
Crown Zellerbach HF Boiler No. 8
Crown Zellerbach Package Boiler
Crown Zellerbach Total
ITT Rayonier Total*
Background Estimate
Total for Existing Sources
3
Concentration (yg/m )
1-Hour
470
122
592
0
236
328
3-Hour
369
92
461
0
170
631
24-Hour
236
55
292
0
13
305
Annual
1.44
5.25
6.69
2.07
13.00
21.75
^Contribution of emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill to the total
concentration calculated for the existing sources at the point of
maximum impact for the Crown Zellerbach Mill.
Xll
-------
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
ITT RAYONIER PAPER MILL
3 RD and CHESTNUT SITE
4 TH and BAKER SITE
24 HR S0? NAAQS NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS
2 " " "200
- 5330
5327
468
FIGURE I (a)
473
Illustration of the two areas within which 24-hour average concentrations above the
24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SC^ are calculated to occur
one or more times per year. The area within which 3-hour average concentrations above
the 3-hour NAAQS are calculated to occur once per year is entirely contained within
the area east-southeast of the ITT Mill.
-------
in a year with a calculated concentration above the corresponding NAAQS,
the only non-attainment area is the non-attainment area for the 24-hour
NAAQS shown in Figure I(b).
We point out that the calculated non-attainment areas shown
in Figures I(a) and I(b) consider the effects of emissions from the
stacks alone. As noted above, emissions from the black liquor holding
pond at the ITT Mill are believed to have a variable, but sometimes
significant, impact on S0? air quality in the vicinity of the mill.
Thus, Figures I(a) and I(b) may underestimate the actual extent of the
non-attainment areas for the combined emissions from the stacks and the
black liquor holding pond. (The holding pond is shown in Figure I(b)
by the irregularly-shaped ellipse located north of the Third & Chestnut
monitor and the non-attainment area.)
The State of Washington 1-hour S0? ambient air quality standard
of 0.40 ppm corresponds to 1,048 micrograms per cubic meter in metric
units. This standard is violated at a given point if there are two or
more 1-hour concentrations in a year above 1,048 micrograms per cubic
meter. Because the 1-hour concentration calculated at the point of
maximum 3-hour impact for emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill exceeds
1,048 micrograms per cubic meter during each hour of the 3-hour period,
the results of the model calculations indicate that stack emissions from
the ITT Mill violate the 1-hour standard. However, the maximum 1-hour
concentration calculated for emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill
alone of 592 micrograms per cubic meter is well below the 1-hour standard.
It should be noted that non-compliance with the Washington 1-hour standard
does not affect the attainment status of the Port Angeles area for the
NAAQS.
xiv
-------
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
HTT RAYONIER PAPER MILL
5330
r-3RD and CHESTNUT SITE
-24 HR S02 NAAQS NON-ATTAINMENT AREA
468
-4TH and BAKER SITE
FIGURE I (b). Illustration of the area within which 24-hour average concentrations above the
24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SC^ are calculated to
occur two or more times per year.
-------
RESULTS OF THE PSD INCREMENT ANALYSIS
The "worst-case" emissions scenario for the proposed NTPC
sources consists of two tankers unloading at the berths and three fully-
loaded tankers idling in Port Angeles Harbor while they await berth
space. The maximum short-term and annual average ground-level SO,-,
concentrations calculated for the combined emissions from the five
tankers at the Class I and Class II PSD areas are listed in Table V.
The maximum concentrations calculated for Class I areas occur at the
Olympic National Park Visitor Center and the maximum concentrations
calculated for Class II areas occur in Port Angeles Harbor.
Comparison of Tables I and V shows that, for the "worst-case"
emissions scenario for the proposed NTPC sources, the short-term and
annual Class II PSD Increments are not exceeded in the Class II areas
and the annual Class I PSD Increment is not exceeded at Olympic National
Park. However, the 3-hour and 24-hour Class I PSD Increments are exceeded
at Olympic National Park. Additionally, 3-hour and 24-hour concentrations
above the corresponding Class I Increments are calculated to occur more
than once per year at the same point at Olympic National Park. Thus, if
the "worst-case" emissions scenario for the proposed NTPC sources is
assumed to exist throughout the year, emissions from the NTPC sources
will violate the 3-hour and 24-hour Class I Increments at Olympic National
Park.
Emissions from the proposed NTPC sources will not be constant
throughout the year, and the periods of "worst-case" emissions will not
necessarily coincide with the periods of "worst-case" meteorological con-
ditions. Consequently, we used the statistical procedures described
in Section 4.2.3 in the main body of the report to estimate the probability
that the 3-hour and 24-hour Class I PSD Increments will be violated at
the Olympic National Park Visitor Center. The results of these calcula-
tions are summarized as follows:
xvi
-------
TABLE V
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NTPC SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM
SHORT-TERM AND ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED
AT CLASS I AND CLASS II PSD AREAS FOR THE COMBINED
EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
o
3
Concentration (yg/m )
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
(a) Class I Areas (Olympic National Park)
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
Total for NTPC Sources
0
0
0
71
0
71
1.5
5.2
0.0
4.6
0.3
11.5
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.79
(b) Class II Areas
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
Total for NTPC Sources
0
0
43
51
129
222
2
2
7
15
51
75
1.34
1.55
1.26
2.22
3.37
9.74
XVll
-------
If a single occurrence of a calculated 3-hour or 24-
hour average concentration above the 3-hour or 24-
hour Class I Increment is interpreted as a violation
of the increment, the 3-hour Class I Increment might
be exceeded once every 2.0 years and the 24-hour Class
I Increment might be exceeded once every 5.6 years
If a violation of a 3-hour or 24-hour Class I Incre-
ment is defined as the occurrence at the same point of
two or more calculated 3-hour or 24-hour average concen-
trations above the 3-hour or 24-hour Class I Increment,
the 3-hour Class I Increment might be exceeded once every
6.8 years and the 24-hour Class I Increment might be
exceeded once every 58.8 years
To assess the compliance of the proposed NTPC sources with the
NAAQS for SO, we performed concentration calculations for the existing
and proposed SO,-, sources using the "worst-case" emissions scenario for
the NTPC sources. The results of these calculations indicate that
emissions from the proposed NTPC sources do not cause the occurrence of
any calculated concentration above the corresponding NAAQS that would
not otherwise occur as a result of emissions from the existing sources.
Also, the results of these calculations indicate that the addition of
emissions from the proposed NTPC sources does not affect the dimensions
of the calculated non-attainment areas shown in Figures I(a) and I(b).
The contribution of emissions from the proposed NTPC sources to the
maximum 3-hour average concentration calculated for the combined emis-
sions from the existing and proposed sources is only 1 microgram per
cubic meter. The contribution of emissions from the proposed NTPC
sources to the maximum 24-hour average concentration calculated for the
combined emissions from the existing and proposed sources is 6 micrograms
per cubic meter on one of the five days with calculated 24-hour concen-
trations above the 24-hour NAAQS, but is less than or equal to 2 micrograms
per cubic meter on each of the four remaining days. We point out that
xviii
-------
the simultaneous occurrence of the "worst-case" emissions scenario for
the proposed NTPC sources and the meteorological conditions leading to
the NTPC 24-hour contribution of 6 raicrograms per cubic meter at the
point of maximum impact for the combined emissions is likely to have a
low probability.
RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY EVALUATION
EPA Region 10 provided the eight emission control strategies
for the ITT Rayonier Mill that are described in Table VI. To assist in
determining how best to attain the 3-hour and/or 24-hour NAAQS in the
Port Angeles area, we repeated, for each emission control strategy, the
24-hour average SO concentration calculations for the five days with
calculated 24-hour average concentrations above the 24-hour NAAQS and the
3-hour concentration calculations for the single 3-hour period with cal-
culated 3-hour average concentrations above the 3-hour NAAQS. The results
of these calculations, which are listed in Table VII, may be summarized
as follows:
Control Strategy 7 is the only control strategy which
attains the 24-hour NAAQS if all cases of calculated
24-hour average concentrations above the 24-hour NAAQS
are defined as violations of the 24-hour standard
Control Strategies 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 attain the
24-hour NAAQS if it is assumed that a given point may
have one calculated 24-hour average concentration per
year above the 24-hour NAAQS without violating the 24-
hour standard
All of the control strategies preclude calculated
3-hour average concentrations above the 3-hour NAAQS
xix
-------
TABLE VI
DESCRIPTION OF THE EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR THE ITT
RAYONIER PULP MILL
Control Strategy
Number
1*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control Strategy Description
Duct S02 emissions from the West and East
Vents (Acid Plant) to the Recovery Furnace
Stack
Reduce the in-stack S02 concentration for
the West and East Vents (Acid Plant) to
250 ppm
Reduce the in-stack S02 concentration for
the West and East Vents (Acid Plant) to
100 ppm
Reduce the sulfur content of the fuel for
Power Boilers No. 4 and No. 5 to 1.0%
Reduce the sulfur content of the fuel for
Power Boilers No. 4 and No. 5 to 0.5%
Combine Strategies No. 2 and No. 4
Current Optimum ITT emissions
Reduce the in-stack S02 concentration for
the West and East Vents (Acid Plant) to
50 ppm
This control strategy is contrary to Section 123 of the Clean Air Act.
xx
-------
TABLE VII
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS
FOR THE ITT RAYONIER MILL
Control
Strategy
Number
Occurrences of
Short-Term Concentrations
Above the Short-Term NAAQS
SW of ITT
ESE of ITT
Maximum Concentration
(lJg/m3)
ITT
Crown
Zellerback
Back-
ground
Total
(a) 24-Hour Average Concentrations
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
4
1
4
1
2
1
0
0
1
581
480
551
508
472
423
397
139
495
12
12
12
12
18
18
12
18
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
606
505
576
533
503
454
422
170
520
(b) 3-Hour Average Concentrations
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,424
981
1,139
1,038
1,086
820
796
172
1,007
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1,442
999
1,157
1,056
1,104
838
814
190
1,025
XXI
-------
It is of interest to note that Control Strategy 7 yields the
lowest calculated concentrations. Control Strategy 1 corresponds to the
estimated current optimum emissions from the ITT Mill. Thus, if the ITT
Mill is able to achieve and maintain the mill's current optimum emissions,
the non-attainment problem will be eliminated (excluding the effects of
emissions from the black liquor holding pond at the ITT Mill).
We also considered the effects of emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources on the attainment status of the Port Angeles area for the
eight emission control strategies for the ITT Mill. Assuming the five-
tanker "worst-case" emissions scenario for the proposed NTPC sources,
Table VIII summarizes the results of the 24-hour and 3-hour average SCL
concentration calculations for the control strategies. Inspection of
the table shows that, if the "worst-case" emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources are assumed to apply throughout the year, emissions from the
proposed NTPC source cause the 24-hour NAAQS to be exceeded more than once
per year at the same point for Control Strategy 3. With this exception,
the addition of emissions from the proposed NTPC sources does not affect
the conclusions of the control strategy evaluation for the existing
sources that are given above.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE MODEL CALCULATIONS
The principal areas of uncertainty affecting the accuracy of
the results of the dispersion model calculations described above are the
representativeness of the source input parameters, the representativeness
of the meteorological input parameters and the accuracy of the Cramer,
e_t_ a.l_. (1975) complex terrain dispersion model. We assume that the
source input parameters used in the model calculations, which were
developed from information provided by EPA Region 10, are representative
of actual operating conditions. According to Region 10 (Boys, 1980), S0?
emissions from the ITT Mill are lower than assumed in this study during
periods of optimum emissions and higher than assumed in this study during
xxii
-------
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS
FOR THE ITT RAYONIER MILL WITH THE EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS
FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES INCLUDED
Control
Strategy
Number
Occurrences of
Short-Term Concentrations
Above the Short-Term NAAQS
SW of ITT
ESE of ITT
Maximum Concentration
(yg/m3)
ITT
Crown
Zellerback
NTPC
Back-
ground
Total
(a) 24-Hour Average Concentrations
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
4
1
4
2
3
1
0
0
1
581
480
551
508
472
423
397
139
495
12
12
12
12
18
18
12
18
12
6
0
0
0
6
6
0
6
0
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
612
505
576
533
509
460
422
176
520
(b) 3-Hour Average Concentrations
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,424
981
1,139
1,038
1,086
820
796
172
1,007
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1,443
1,000
1,158
1,057
1,105
839
815
191
1,025
XXlll
-------
periods when the SO control devices are operating at a decreased level
of performance or when there are process upsets. Because of the complex
meteorology and topography of the Port Angeles area, the meteorological
input parameters used in the model calculations may not always be repre-
sentative of meteorological conditions over the entire Port Angeles
area. However, we believe that the meteorological inputs generally are
representative of meteorological conditions in the areas of maximum
impacts for emissions from the existing and proposed sources. In previous
applications of the Cramer, ej^ al_. (1975) complex terrain dispersion
model, the model has, on the average, matched the observed SO- concentrations
to within about 20 percent. The results of the tests of the model in
the Port Angeles area described above indicate that the same accuracy
can be expected in the areas of maximum impacts for the existing and
proposed sources.
We conclude that the maximum concentrations calculated for the
existing and proposed sources probably are accurate to within about 20
percent for the source input parameters assumed in the model calcula-
tions. The uncertainties in the concentrations calculated beyond the
areas of maximum impacts for emissions from the existing and proposed
sources increase with distance from the sources because of the spatial
variability of meteorological conditions in the Port Angeles area.
Thus, the concentrations calculated at the Olympic National Park Visitor
Center are subject to greater uncertainty than the concentrations calcu-
lated in the vicinity of the existing and proposed sources. We estimate
that the concentrations calculated at the Visitor Center are accurate to
within about a factor of two.
xxiv
-------
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Page
3
4
5
6
Appendix
A
B
C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Purpose
1.2 Description of the Site 4
1.3 Report Organization 7
SOURCE AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA 10
2.1 Source Inputs for the Attainment Status
and PSD Increment Analyses 10
2.2 Meteorological Inputs for the Attainment
Status and PSD Increment Analyses 14
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF MODEL TESTING 54
CALCULATION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 65
4.1 The Attainment Status Analysis for the
Existing Sources 65
4.2 The PSD Increment Analysis for the Proposed
Sources 94
RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS 131
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAJOR AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
IN THE MODEL CALCULATIONS 142
REFERENCES 146
MATHEMATICAL MODELS USED TO CALCULATE GROUND-
LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS A-l
A.I Introduction A-l
A.2 Plume-Rise Formulas A-7
A. 3 Short-Term Concentration Model A-9
A.4 Long-Term Concentration Model A-16
A.5 Application of the Short-Term and Long-Term
Concentration Models in Complex Terrain A-21
SUPPLEMENTARY METEOROLOGICAL DATA B-l
SOURCE AND METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS FOR MODEL TESTING C-l
xxv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Air quality measurements in Port Angeles, Washington indicate
that the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
sulfur dioxide (S0?) was exceeded several times during 1979 near the ITT
Rayonier Pulp Mill. However, the manner in which the flue gas was
emitted from the ITT Mill was modified in December 1979. Consequently,
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 requires an
ambient air quality modeling analysis to determine if the mill can be
expected to continue to cause violations of the NAAQS and, if so, to
determine the extent of the non-attainment area.
The Northern Tier Pipeline Company (NTPC) is proposing to
build and operate a marine oil transhipment facility at Port Angeles.
NTPC must obtain from EPA a preconstruction permit for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD). To obtain the permit, NTPC must perform
an air quality impact analysis demonstrating that the proposed NTPC
sources will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or a PSD
Increment. NTPC submitted to EPA Region 10 the requisite analysis along
with an application for a PSD permit on 30 June 1980. Additionally, in
response to EPA comments on the 30 June 1980 analysis, NTPC submitted a
revised analysis on 26 September 1980. However, because of the complexity
of the topography and meteorology of the Port Angeles region, the potential
for a non-attainment area and the presence of a nearby Class I PSD area
(Olympic National Park), EPA Region 10 requires an independent air quality
impact analysis to obtain the additional information necessary to make a
decision on the approvability of the proposed NTPC project.
To satisfy the requirements for independent and objective assess-
ments of the compliance of the existing sources in the Port Angeles area
-------
with the NAAQS for SO and of the proposed NTPC project with the PSD
Regulations, EPA contracted with the H. E. Cramer Company, Inc. of Salt
Lake City, Utah to perform a detailed dispersion modeling analysis of
the air quality impacts of emissions from the existing and proposed SCu
sources. The results of the 11. E. Cramer Company's study are summarized
in this report. The specific study objectives were:
To determine, for the existing sources, the attainment
status of the Port Angeles area for the SO- NAAQS and,
if the area is found to be a non-attainment area, to
determine the extent of the non-attainment area
To evaluate the effects of various emission control
strategies identified by EPA if the existing sources
are found to cause a non-attainment area for the NAAQS
To determine the PSD Increment consumption of the pro-
posed NTPC sources in the Class I and Class II PSD areas
To determine if the NTPC sources will cause any area
that currently is an attainment area for the NAAQS to
become a non-attainment area
Table 1-1 lists the NAAQS and the Class I and Class II PSD Increments for
SCL. The State of Washington also has a 1-hour ambient air quality
standard for SCL of 0.40 parts per million (ppm), not to be exceeded at
any point more than once per year. The Washington 1-hour standard is
considered in this report, although non-compliance with the 1-hour
standard does not affect the attainment status of the Port Angeles area
for the NAAQS.
-------
TABLE 1-1
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND CLASS I
AND CLASS II PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
INCREMENTS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02)
Averaging
Time
3 Hours
24 Hours
Annual
NAAQS (yg/m3)
Primary
-
365
80
Secondary
1,300
-
-
PSD Increments (yg/m )
Class I
25
5
2
Class II
512
91
20
The 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS and PSD Increments may be exceeded at any
given point once per year.
-------
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Figure 1-1 is a topographic map of the Port Angeles, Washington
area. Elevations in the figure are in feet above mean sea level (MSL)
and the contour interval is 50 feet (15 meters). Ediz Hook, a spit pro-
truding into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, forms Port'Angeles Harbor. The
existing major SO.-, sources, the Crown Zellerbach and ITT Rayonier Pulp
Mills, are both located along the shoreline. As shown by Figure 1-1,
the Crown Zellerbach Mill is at the base of Ediz Hook and the ITT
Rayonier Mill is due south of the tip of Ediz Hook. The proposed NTPC
terminal site is on Ediz Hook at a point where the width of the spit is
less than 100 meters. In the "worst-case" emissions scenario for the
proposed NTPC sources, two tankers are assumed to be unloading and three
tankers are assumed to be idling in Port Angeles Harbor. The locations
of the two unloading berths and the assumed locations of the three
idling tankers are shown in Figure 1-1. It is the air quality impact of
SO,, emissions from the tankers that is of concern in .this study in assessing
the compliance of the proposed NTPC project with the PSD Regulations.
In general, the terrain in the Port Angeles area rises abruptly
near the shoreline from sea level to about 50 meters MSL. The Olympic
Mountains, which are south of the City of Port Angeles, rise to more
than 800 meters MSL within 8 kilometers of the harbor and to more than
1,500 meters MSL within 13 kilometers. These mountains effectively form
a barrier to storm systems from the south and significantly affect the
mesoscale winds in the Port Angeles area.
Figure 1-1 also shows the locations of the meteorological and
S0? air quality monitoring sites considered in the analyses described in
this report. The A symbols identify sites for which meteorological
data are available, symbols identify sites for which S0? air quality
data are available and the ^ symbols identify sites for which both
meteorological and air quality data are available. These sites include:
-------
PORT ANGELES WEATHER STATION
EDIZ HOOK TOWER
NORTHERN TIER
TANKER UNLOADING FACILITIES
IS ('
BERTH I BERTH 2
CROWN ZELLER8ACK PAPER MILL
HARBOR
ANGELES
PORT
CITY LIGHT BUILDING SITE
ITT RAYONIER PAPER MILL
-3RD AND CHESTNUT SITE
4TH AND BAKER
ONP"VISITOR CENTE
A SUBS
463
FIGURE 1-1.
Topographic map of the Port Angeles area. Elevations are in feet above mean sea level
(MSL) and the contour interval is 50 feet (15 meters).
-------
The Port Angeles weather station, which was operated by
the U. S. Weather Bureau at the Coast Guard Station on
Ediz Hook daring the period January 1948 through December
1952
The Ediz Hook 10-meter meteorological tower, which was
operated by NTPC during the period August 1978 through
August 1979
The BPA Substation 29-meter meteorological tower, which
was operated by NTPC during the period August 1978 through
August 1979
The Olympic National Park Visitor Center SCL monitor,
which was operated by NTPC during the period August 1978
through August 1979
The Third & Chestnut SO- monitor, which was operated
by the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority during
during the period January through August 1979 and is
still in operation
The Fourth & Baker SO- monitor and 10-meter meteorolo-
gical tower, which were operated by NTPC during the
period April through August 1979
The City Light Building S0« monitor and meteorological
mast, which were operated by the Washington Department
of Ecology (DOE) during the period August 1978 through
August 1979 and are still in operation (the SO,-, monitor
and meteorological mast were moved to West First Street
during October 1979)
-------
Table 1-2 gives the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) X (east-west)
and Y (north-south) coordinates and elevations of the various monitoring
sites. For convenience, the UTM X and Y coordinates in kilometers are
indicated on the sides of Figure 1-1.
With the exception of Olympic National Park, the entire region
covered by Figure 1-1 is currently designated as a Class II (moderate
growth) PSD area. Olympic National Park is a mandatory Class I (pristine
air quality) PSD area. As shown by Figure 1-1, the Olympic National
Park Headquarters and Visitor Center are located immediately to the
south of the City of Port Angeles. The distance between the proposed
NTPC tanker berths and the Visitor Center is about 4 kilometers. A
narrow corridor connects the Headquarters and Visitor Center section of
Olympic National Park to the main part of the park, which is about 6
kilometers farther to the south.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
In addition to the Introduction, this report contains five major
sections and three appendices. Section 2 discusses the source and meteoro-
logical data used in the model calculations, Section 3 describes compari-
sons of concurrent calculated and observed S0~ concentrations in the Port
Angeles area, Section 4 gives the calculation procedures and results for
the attainment status and PSD Increment analyses, Section 5 presents the
results of the model calculations for the emission control strategies,
and Section 6 identifies the major areas of uncertainty in the model calcu-
lations. The Cramer, et_ aL (1975) complex terrain dispersion model was
used in the concentration calculations described in this report. This
model is implemented by the SHORTZ and LONGZ computer codes, which are
documented by Bjorklund and Bowers (1979). Appendix A describes in
detail the equations of the Cramer, e_t aL (1975) model. The statistical
wind summaries used in the LONGZ calculations and the hourly meteorological
-------
TABLE 1-2
UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (UTM) COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ABOVE
MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL) OF THE METEOROLOGICAL AND AIR QUALITY
MONITORING SITES
Site
Port Angeles Weather Station
Ediz Hook Tower
BPA Substation Tower
Visitor Center S0? Monitor
Aug 78 - Jan 79
Jan 79 - Aug 79
Third & Chestnut S0? Monitor
Fourth & Baker S07 Monitor
City Light Building S02 Monitor
Coordinates
UTM X (km)
*
470.08
468.91
468.35
468.34
470.30
470.80
467.61
UTY Y (km)
*
5,331.70
5,327.36
5,327.21
5,327.41
5,328.74
5,328.61
5,329.63
Ground
Elevation
(m above MSL)
2
2
104
107
94
40
49
6
The exact location of the wind measurement site at the U. S. Coast Guard
Station on Ediz Hook is not known.
-------
inputs used in the SHORTZ calculations are listed in Appendix B. The
source and meteorological inputs for the model testing described in Section
3 are given in Appendix C.
-------
SECTION 2
SOURCE AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA
2.1 SOURCE INPUTS FOR THE ATTAINMENT STATUS AND PSD INCREMENT
ANALYSES
Table 2-1 identifies the existing and proposed S0? sources in
the Port Angeles, Washington area by the source numbers used in the dis-
persion model calculations described in this report. The corresponding
source inputs used in the dispersion model calculations to determine
the attainment status of Port Angeles for the SO,, National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) as well as to determine the SO,, air quality
impacts on Class I and Class II Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) areas of the proposed Northern Tier Pipeline Company (NTPC) sources
are listed in Table 2-2. (The source inputs for selected historical
cases that were used to test the Cramer, e_t aL_. (1975) short-term dis-
persion model are discussed in Section 3 and Appendix C.) The source
inputs in Table 2-2 were developed from information provided by EPA
Region 10 (Courson, 1980 and Wilson, 1980a). Because the West and East
Vents at the ITT Rayonier Mill have identical emissions characteristics
and are located in close proximity, they were represented for modeling
purposes as a single stack (Source 002) with an SO,., emission rate equal to
the combined rate for the two stacks. The S0_ emission rates for the
current optimum operating conditions at the ITT and Crown Zellerbach
Mills are listed in Table 2-3. Although the optimum emission rates
were not used in the attainment status analysis described in Section 4.1,
the optimum emission rates were considered in the control strategy analysis
described in Section 5.
We point out that there are unquantified fugitive S0? emissions
from the black liquor holding pond at the ITT Rayonier Mill that were
not included in the attainment status analysis. The center of the holding
pond is only about 200 meters from the Third & Chestnut SO,, monitor and
10
-------
TABLE 2-1
IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING S02 SOURCES IN THE PORT ANGELES
AREA BY SOURCE NUMBER
Source Number
Source Name
001
002
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
ITT Rayonier Pulp Mill (Existing)
Recovery Furnace
West and East Vents (Acid Plant)
North Bleach Vent
South Bleach Vent
Power Boiler No. 4
Power Boiler No. 5
H. F. Boiler No. 5
Crown Zellerbach Pulp Mill (Existing)
H. F. Boiler No. 8
Package Boiler
Northern Tier Pipeline Company (Proposed)
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
11
-------
TABLE 2-2
PORT ANGELES SOURCE INPUTS FOR THE ATTAINMENT STATUS AND PSD INCREMENT CALCULATIONS
Source
Number
001
002
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
S02 Emission
(g/sec)
3-
Hour
41.3
20.8*
0.4
1.4
29.0
36.1
2.8
35.2
7.9
11.2
11.2
7.7
7.7
7.7
24-
Hour
41.3
15.8*
0.4
1.4
29.0
29.0
2.8
35.2
7.9
11.2
11.2
7.7
7.7
/./
Rate ! Source
: Coordinates
I !
! A , UTM X
Annual , , .
(m)
22.4
10.0*
0.4
1.4
13.7
6.4
2.8
3.0
7.9
11.2
11.2
7.7
7.7
7.7
469,790
469,753
469,758
469,769
469,720
469,718
469,698
465,300
465,300
468,020
468,500
467,300
UTM Y
(m)
5,329,250
5,329,185
5,329,184
5,329,183
5,329,194
5,329,183
5,329,165
5,331,150
5,331,150
5,331,610
5,331,610
5,331,100
468,400 ;5, 330, 900
469,500 5,330,800
i
Stack Base
Elevation
(m MSL)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
Stack
Height
(m)
96.0
33.5
35.7
35.4
35.1
35.1
45.7
36.6
30.5
46.0
46.0
35.0
0 35.0
Stack
Exit
Temp
(°K)
300
289
303
Stack
Radius
(m)
1.15
0.30
0.75
296 0.61
480
1.22
480 j 0.84
336
333
480
422
422
422
422
0 35.0 422
1.22
0.90
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Volumetric
Emission
Rate (m^/sec)
3-Hour &
24-Hour
50.00
5.90
9.90
Annual
50.00
5.90
9.90
9.20 9.20
37.80 29.30
45.80 22.20
77.40
30.35
13.70
28.00
28.00
6.00
6.00
36.20
21.95
13.70
28.00
28.00
6.00
6.00
6.00 6.00
^Emission rates are the combined emission rates for the West and East Vents (Acid Plant).
-------
TABLE 2-3
S02 EMISSION RATES FOR CURRENT OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS AT
THE ITT AND CROWN ZELLERBACH MILLS
Source
Number
001
002
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Source Name
ITT Rayonier Pulp Mill
Recovery Furnace
West and East Vents (Acid Plant)
North Bleach Vent
South Bleach Vent
Power Boiler No. 4
Power Boiler No. 5
H.F. Boiler No. 5
Crown Zellerbach Pulp Mill
H.F. Boiler No. 8
Package Boiler
Current Optimum S02
Emission Rate (g/sec)
22.0
*
5.0
0.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
7.9
The combined emission rate for the West and East Vents (Acid Plant).
13
-------
about 650 meters from the Fourth & Baker monitor. The pond is believed
to be a continuous and highly variable S0« source (Fenske, 1980), and
relatively high SO concentrations have been measured at the Third &
Chestnut monitor with north winds when the pond is the only upwind SO.
source. Although the range of S09 emissions from the pond is unknown,
significant increases in emissions are believed to occur when additional
black liquor is dumped into the pond. Using concurrent emissions,
meteorological, and air quality data with the Cramer, e_t^ a^. (1975)
dispersion model, estimates of the SO,, emissions from the pond were
calculated as part of the model testing effort and are presented in
Section 3.
The emissions data provided in Table 2-2 for the proposed NTPC
sources assume that two tankers are unloading at the berths shown in
Figure 1-1. Additionally, three fully-loaded tankers are assumed to be
idling in Port Angeles Harbor while they await berth space. According
to the U. S. Coast Guard, this five-tanker configuration represents the
maximum number of tankers that could be located within Port Angeles
Harbor without violating safety criteria. The assumed locations of the
idling tankers are also shown in Figure 1-1.
2.2 METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS FOR THE ATTAINMENT STATUS AND PSD INCRE-
MENT ANALYSES
The meteorology of the Port Angeles area reflects the complex
topography of the area to the south and the effects of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca to the north. Consequently, prior to performing the dispersion
model calculations for the existing and proposed S0? sources, we conducted
a meteorological site survey of the Port Angeles area, examined in detail
the meteorological data available for the area and analyzed the meteorolo-
gical conditions associated with relatively high observed S0« concentrations
in the area. Section 2.2.1 describes our analyses of the meteorological
data for the Port Angeles area and Section 2.2.2 discusses the meteorolo-
gical conditions associated with relatively high observed SO,., concentrations.
14
-------
The meteorological inputs used in the dispersion model calculations, which
were based on the results presented in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, are
given in Section 2.2.3.
2.2.1 Dispersion Meteorology of the Port Angeles Area
The following hourly meteorological data are available for 12
or more months for the Port Angeles area: *
Hourly surface weather observations made by the
U. S. Weather Bureau at the Coast Guard Station on Ediz
Hook during the period January 1948 through December
1952
Hourly wind, temperature and turbulence measurements
made on a 10-meter tower located near the tip of Ediz
Hook during the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August
1979
Hourly wind, temperature and turbulence measurements
made on a 29-meter tower located near the BPA Substation
during the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979
We obtained from the National Climatic Center (NCC) a magnetic tape con-
taining the hourly surface meteorological observations made at the Ediz
Hook Coast Guard Station -during the 5-year period from 1948 through 1952.
Although the official station history is ambiguous, we believe that the
wind measurements, probably were made at a height of 17 meters on top of
a hangar. Hourly meteorological data for the 10-meter and 29-meter towers
were provided to us on magnetic tape by NTPC's meteorological consultant,
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. (ERT). In addition to the
data for the Ediz Hook and BPA Substation meteorological towers, ERT pro-
vided us with limited wind data for NTPC's Fourth & Baker air quality
15
-------
monitoring site and for the Washington DOE's City Light Building air
quality monitoring site. Figure 1-1 shows the locations of the various
monitoring sites.
We used our Meteorological and Air Quality Statistical Analysis
Program (MAQSAP) to analyze the data from the Coast Guard Station, Ediz
Hook 10-meter tower and BPA Substation 29-meter tower. As discussed in
Section 2.2.2, the hourly S09 concentration data for the Olympic National
Park Visitor Center monitor were included in the MAQSAP analysis of the
BPA tower data and the hourly S0~ concentration data for the Fourth &
Baker monitor were included in the MAQSAP analysis of the Ediz Hook
tower data. The results of the MAQSAP analyses of the meteorological
data are summarized below.
Turbulent Intensities
The equation for the standard deviation of the lateral concentra-
ton distribution a in our short-term (SHORTZ) dispersion model includes
the effects of entrainment on initial plume growth and relates O
directly to the lateral turbulent intensity or standard deviation of the
wind azimuth angle a' (see Equation (A-ll) in Appendix A). Similarly,
A
the equation for the standard deviation of the vertical concentration
distribution o in our short-term (SHORTZ) and long-term (LONGZ) disper-
sion models also includes the effects of entrainment on initial plume
growth and relates a directly to the vertical turbulent intensity or
standard deviation of the wind elevation angle o' (see Equation (A-13)
LJ
in Appendix A). We originally planned to us-e the observed a' values
iT.
from the Ediz Hook and/or BPA Substation meteorological towers as direct
model inputs and to infer the corresponding a' values from the 0' measure-
LJ f\.
ments. However, the median a! values given by NTPC (1980, p. 5-44) for
A
Ediz Hook (0.20) and the BPA Substation (0.30) are larger than the
median values implicit in all but the most unstable Pasquill-Gifford
0 curve and are not consistent with measurements at other locations
(for example, see Luna and Church, 1972). The field experiments conducted
16
-------
at Millstone Nuclear Power Station by Johnson, e_t_ £il_. (1975) provide an
additional consistency check on the Ediz Hook a! values. The Millstone
Station is on the tip of a small peninsula that extends into Long Island
Sound, and the upwind fetch for all of the Millstone diffusion experiments
was over water. The median hourly 0\ for the 10-meter level of the
A
meteorological tower was about 0.07, or about a third of the median
value for Ediz Hook.
For the reasons given above, we conclude that the a! measurements
t\
for the Ediz Hook and BPA Substation meteorological towers are not
representative of the turbulent intensities in the Port Angeles area.
Consequently, we selected the Turner (1964) stability classification
scheme for use in this study. This scheme utilizes wind-speed and
cloud-cover observations to estimate the Pasquill stability category and
hence the lateral and vertical turbulent intensities. The nearest site
for which hourly cloud-cover data are available is Whidbey Island, about
60 kilometers east-northeast of Port Angeles. We obtained the hourly
cloud-cover observations from the National Climatic Center (NCC) and
merged the observations with the concurrent wind data from the Ediz Hook
and BPA Substation towers. The 15-meter BPA tower wind speeds were used
to determine the stability category at the BPA Substation because this
height is close to the airport measurement height used by the Turner
scheme and to the 10-meter height used in the original Pasquill (1961)
approach. However, the BPA tower 29-meter level wind speeds and directions
were used in the comparisons of winds at the various locations in the
Port Angeles area.
Tables 2-4 and 2-5 list the parameters that define the Pasquill
stability categories following the Turner (1964) definitions. The
thermal stratifications represented by the Pasquill stability categories
are:
A - Very unstable
B - Unstable
17
-------
TABLE 2-4
PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORY AS A
FUNCTION OF ISOLATION
AND WIND SPEED
Wind
Speed
(Knots)
0,1
2,3
4,5
6
7
8,9
10
11
>12
Insolation Index
4
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
3
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
D
2
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
1
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
-1
F
F
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
_2
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
D
D
TABLE 2-5
INSOLATION CATEGORIES
Insolation
Insolation Category
Number
Strong
Moderate
Slight
Weak
Overcast < 7,000 feet (day or night)
Cloud Cover > 4/10 (night)
Cloud Cover < 4/10 (night)
4
3
, 2
1
0
-1
-2
18
-------
C - Slightly unstable
D - Neutral
E - Stable
F - Very Stable
Average Wind Directions and Speeds
Table 2-6 lists, by season and Pasquill stability category,
the average wind directions and wind speeds at the Coast Guard Station
(measurement height 17 meters above ground level) , the Ediz Hook meteoro-
logical tower (measurement height 10 meters above ground level) and the
BPA Substation meteorological tower (measurement height 29 meters above
ground level). Although the Coast Guard Station wind directions were
reported to the nearest standard 22.5-degree sector (north, north-
northeast, etc.) and the tower wind directions were reported to the
nearest 5-degree sector, the Coast Guard Station and Ediz Hook tower
average wind directions are in very close agreement. The average wind
directions at the BPA tower generally are consistent with the average
wind directions at the two sites on Ediz Hook. However, the differences
in average wind direction between the BPA tower and either of the two
sites on Ediz Hook are larger than the differences between the two sites
on Ediz Hook. If allowance is made for different measurement heights
and different periods of record, the Coast Guard Station and Ediz Hook
tower average wind speeds compare favorably. The average wind speeds at
the two Ediz Hook sites tend to be higher than the average wind speeds
at the BPA tower for the C, D and E categories, a result that is probably
explained by the fact that the surface roughness elements at Ediz Hook
are much smaller than at the inland BPA tower. During periods of fair
weather and light winds (the A, B and F categories), the average wind
speeds at the BPA tower are higher than the average wind speeds at the
two Ediz Hook sites. As discussed below, the winds at the BPA tower
during hours with the A, B and F categories appear to be primarily de-
termined by localized circulations.
19
-------
TABLE 2-6
AVERAGE WIND DIRECTIONS AND WIND SPEEDS IN METERS PER SECOND
BY SEASON AND PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORY
Pasquill Stability
Cagegory
Wind Direction (deg)/Wind Speed (m/sec)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
(a) Coast Guard Station
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
*
OA8/0.9
065/1.7
216/4.6
200/3/4
194/1.4
201/3.8
096/0.8
048/1.9
025/3.1
275/5.6
224/3.7
204/1.4
266/4.4
037/1.3
033/2.3
304/4.2
278/6.2
260/4.2
221/1.4
278/5.2
076/0.1
073/1.5
057/2.1
263/4.5
213/3.6
197/1.2
231/3.3
049/1.0
053/1.8
360/2.9
271/5.2
223/3.6
201/1.3
259/4.2
(b) Ediz Hook 10-Meter Tower
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
*
095/1.2
066/2.6
234/4.0
172/3.0
196/2.1
201/3.5
091/2.0
067/2.1
016/2 7
273/4.8
232/3.1
204/1.9
257/3.7
096/1.9
005/2.1
298/3.9
278/5.9
257/3.4
216/1.8
278/4.8
A
093/1.5
070/2.1
273/3.4
217/2.5
193/1.7
216/2.7
094/2.0
058/2.0
359/2.9
271/4.6
219/3.0
199/1.9
252/3.7
(c) BPA Substation 29-Meter Tower
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
*
043/1.5
044/2.1
210/2/6
183/2.8
161/2.2
179/2.4
013/2.0
017/2.3
357/2.6
291/3.2
231/3.1
184/2.2
290/2.8
018/2.1
005/2.4
335/3.0
295/3.7
256/3.3
232/2.3
309/3.0
A
038/1.9
028/2.2
230/2.4
191/2.7
174/2.2
173/2.2
017/2.1
014/2.3
002/2.5
266/2.9
213/2.9
178/2.2
243/2.6
No hours with A stability.
20
-------
Table 2-6 shows that the unstable A and B Pasquill stability
categories usually are associated with light winds from the northeast
quadrant at Ediz Hook and the BPA tower. The slightly unstable C stability
category also tends to be associated with light winds from the northeast
quadrant except during the summer when moderate west-northwest winds at
Ediz Hook are most common for this stability category. The tendency of
the unstable Pasquill stability categories to occur with winds from the
northeast quadrant may be indicative of daytime upslope winds. Sea-
breeze circulations are another possible explanation for this tendency.
The neutral D stability category is usually associated with moderate or
strong winds at Ediz Hook from the southwest through west-northwest
during all seasons. Depending on the season and the wind measurement
site, the stable E and F categories generally occur with light or moderate
winds from the south-southeast through south-southwest. These winds are
probably nighttime drainage winds, although land-breeze circulations are
another possible explanation.
Annual Wind-Direction Distributions
Figure 2-1 shows the annual wind-direction distributions for
the Coast Guard Station, the Ediz Hook 10-meter tower and the BPA Substation
29-meter tower. The directions in Figure 2-1 are reversed 180 degrees
in order to show the annual wind-trajectory distributions. The Coast
Guard Station and Ediz Hook tower annual wind-trajectory distributions
in Figure 2-1 are in close agreement. However, the BPA tower annual
wind-trajectory distribution shows a much higher frequency of occurrence
of winds toward the north-northwest, southwest and south-southwest and
a much lower frequency of occurrence of winds toward the east than the
annual wind-trajectory distributions for the two sites on Ediz Hook.
The winds toward the north-northwest at the BPA tower, which are almost
entirely restricted to hours with the stable E and F Pasquill stability
categories, probably are nighttime drainage winds. The winds toward
the southwest and south-southwest, which occur primarily with the unstable
21
-------
COAST GUARD STATION: January 1948-December 1952
EDIZ HOOK 10m TOWER: August 1978-August 1979
BPA 29m TOWER: August 1978-August 1979
NW NNW N NNE
NE
WNW
WSW
ENE
ESE
SSW
SSE
SE
FIGURE 2-1. Annual wind direction distributions at the Coast Guard Station
(dashed line), the Ediz Hook 10-meter tower (solid line) and the
BPA Substation 29-meter tower (dotted line). The directions are
the directions toward which the wind is blowing, and the percentage
frequency scale is shown at the right center of the figure.
22
-------
A, B and C stability categories, probably are daytime upslope or sea-
breeze winds. Thus, Figure 2-1 indicates that the winds at the inland
BPA tower are more significantly affected by local influences such as
nighttime drainage winds and daytime upslope winds than are the winds at
Ediz Hook.
The most frequent winds near the shoreline and in the harbor,
as indicated by the Coast Guard Station and Ediz Hook tower winds, are
from the west and west-northwest. Table 2-7 gives the seasonal and
annual occurrence frequencies of west and west-northwest winds at the
two Ediz Hook sites and at the BPA tower. At all three wind measurement
sites, winds from the west and west-northwest are most frequent during
the summer and least frequent during the winter. Winds from the west-
northwest clockwise through east-southeast are required for SCL emissions
from the Crown Zellerbach Mill and/or the ITT Rayonier Mill to affect ambient
SC" concentrations in the Port Angeles area. On the basis of the occurrence
frequencies of west-northwest winds listed in Table 2-7, relatively high
short-term S0« concentrations in the areas east-southeast of the two
mills are far more likely during the summer than during any other season.
Wind Persistence
Table 2-8 lists, for each wind measurement site, the estimated
number of cases per year with winds above 3.1 meters per second persisting
within one of the sixteen standard wind-direction sectors for 12 or more
hours. We point out that Table 2-8 underestimates actual wind persistence
within a narrow angular sector because the table does not consider
cases with mean wind directions near the boundary between two standard
wind-direction sectors. However, Table 2-8 provides a relative indication
of the most persistent wind directions. The results given in Table 2-8
for the Coast Guard Station and the Ediz Hook tower indicate that the
most persistent wind directions along the shoreline are west and west-
northwest. Persistent wind directions at the BPA Substation are rare.
23
-------
TABLE 2-7
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WEST AND WEST-NORTHWEST WINDS
tfind Direction
(Sector)
Percent Frequency of Occurrence
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
(a) Coast Guard Station
W
WNW
W & WNW
10.89
5.60
16.49
22.54
16.65
39.19
38.32
30.74
69.06
16.92
10.05
26.97
22.05
15.65
37.70
(b) Ediz Hook 10-Meter Tower
W
WNW
W & WNW
12.86
5.44
18.30
23.36
16.74
40.10
36.96
26.75
63.71
13.41
8.79
22.20
21.76
14.53
36.29
(c) BPA Substation 29-Meter Tower
W
WNW
W & WNW
8.08
3.17
11.25
13.53
10.05
23.58
18.15
16.37
34.52
8.36
4.38
12.74
11.73
8.13
19.86
24
-------
TABLE 2-8
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CASES PER YEAR OF WINDS ABOVE 3.1 METERS
PER SECOND PERSISTING WITHIN A STANDARD WIND-DIRECTION
SECTOR FOR 12 OR MORE HOURS''5
Wind Direction (Sector)
NNE
NE
wsw
w
WNW
(a) Coast Guard Station
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
3.2
4.8
1.2
9.8
0.0
1.2
7.0
0.8
9.0
(b) Ediz Hook 10-Meter Tower
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
5.0
9.0
2.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
(c) BPA Substation 29-Meter Tower
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
*0nly the wind-direction sectors which satisfy the specified persistence
criteria are listed.
25
-------
Assuming that the Coast Guard Station and/or Ediz Hook tower wind directions
are representative of the winds affecting the initial transport and
dispersion of S0? emissions from the Crown Zellerbach and ITT Rayonier
Mills, Table 2-8 indicates that the highest 24-hour SCL concentrations
in the Port Angeles area attributable to these emissions generally can
be expected to occur during the summer in the areas east and east-
southeast of the two mills.
Wind-Speed Distributions
The seasonal and annual wind-speed distributions for the Coast
Guard Station, the Ediz Hook tower and the BPA Substation tower are given
in Table 2-9. For wind speeds above 3 meters per second, the wind-speed
distributions at the Coast Guard Station and the Ediz Hook tower are similar.
Also, the occurrence frequencies of wind speeds between 3 and 5 meters per
second at the Coast Guard Station, the Ediz Hook tower and the BPA tower
are all similar. However, wind speeds above 8 meters per second are far
less frequent at the inland BPA tower than at the two Ediz Hook sites, and
no wind speeds above 10.8 meters per second were measured at the BPA tower
during the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979. The differences in
surface roughness between Ediz Hook and the BPA tower probably account for
the absence of high wind speeds at the BPA tower.
Stability Distributions
Table 2-10 lists, for each wind measurement site, the seasonal
and annual occurrence frequencies of the Pasquill stability categories.
Because the same cloud cover observations were used to estimate the sta-
bility categories at the Ediz Hook and BPA Substation towers, the dif-
ferences in the distributions of stability categories reflect differences
in concurrent wind speeds. The 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979 stability
distribution for the Ediz Hook tower is in excellent agreement with the
January 1948 through December 1952 distribution for the Coast Guard
26
-------
TABLE 2-9
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND-SPEED CATEGORIES BY SEASON
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
Percent Frequency of Occurrence
Winter
Spring
Summer Fall
Annual
(a) Coast Guard Station
0.0 - 1.5
1.6 - 3.0
3.1 - 5.1
5.2 - 8.2
8.3 - 10.8
>10.8
27.12
22. 92
30.29
12.79
3.95
2.93
23.01
18.70
27.76
20.27
6.97
3.28
16.47
11.58
27.37
32.49
9.85
2.24
38.35
19.31
24.68
13.51
2.81
1.33
26.22
18.19
27.57
19.69
5.88
2.45
(b) Ediz Hook 10-Meter Tower
0.0 - 1.5
1.6 - 3.0
3.1 - 5.1
5.2 - 8.2
8.3 - 10.8
>10.8
11.26
45.63
26.75
10.34
4.27
1.75
10.68
41.29
23.91
18.16
5.38
0.59
8.76
23.56
27.72
26.75
11.42
1.79
22.45
52.58
14.21
7.38
2.71
0.65
13.17
40.66
23.24
15.78
5.97
1.19
(c) BPA Substation 29-Meter Tower
0.0 - 1.5
1.6 - 3.0
3.1 - 5.1
5.2 - 8.2
8.3 - 10.8
>10.8
29.38
57.61
16.76
5.01
0.25
0.00
12.81
54.10
25.73
6.58
0.78
0.00
9.79
51.98
27.25
9.50
1.49
0.00
22.96
56.49
16.47
3.74
0.34
0.00
16.91
55.20
21.14
6.07
0.68
0.00
27
-------
TABLE 2-10
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORIES BY SEASON
_ .,-,,-, , . -, Percent Frequency of Occurrence
Pasquill Stability
Category ...
b J Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
(a) Coast Guard Station
A ] *
B
C
D
E
F
0.92
5.89
68.56
11.23
13.41
0.28
6.26
10.57
62.14
8.98
11.77
1.22
7.02
10.51
68.08
6.60
6.56
0.42
6.19
8.78
53.89
9.18
21.54
0.48
5.04
8.90
63.26
9.02
13.30
(b) Ediz Hook 10-Meter Tower
A
B
C
D
E
F
*
0.63
6.21
60.39
17.82
14.95
0.32
9.31
10.90
52.83
12.55
14.10
1.16
8.85
12.05
61.88
9.68
6.39
&
3.92
10.40
50.53
12.66
22.50
0.37
5.75
9.90
56.40
13.16
14.40
(c) BPA Substation 29-Meter Tower
A
B
C
D
E
F
*
1.54
8.78
47.74
14.33
27.62
0.18
12.45
16.04
39.86
10.59
20.89
2.35
17.80
16.54
36.12
12.14
15.05
*
4.23
12.34
41.00
11.80
30.63
0.59
8.52
13.19
41.43
12.29
23.99
No hours with A stability.
28
-------
Station. This result indicates that, on the average, the Whidbey Island
cloud cover data used to determine the stability categories at the Ediz
Hook tower are representative of the cloud cover at Ediz Hook. The
most frequent stability category throughout the year at the two sites on
Ediz Hook is the neutral D category, which occurs over 50 percent of the
time during every season. The neutral U category is also the most
frequent stability category at the inland BPA tower. However, unstable
and stable conditions are more frequent at the BPA tower than at the two
Ediz Hook sites.
Ambient Air Temperatures
Table 2-11 lists, by Pasquill stability category, the seasonal
and annual average ambient air temperatures at the Coast Guard Station,
the Ediz Hook tower and the BPA Substation tower. Inspection of the
table shows that the average ambient air temperatures at the Coast Guard
Station and the Ediz Hook tower are nearly identical. For each of the
two Ediz Hook sites, the range of average ambient air temperature between
seasons for a given stability category or between stability categories
for a given season is less than 10 degrees Kelvin, reflecting the moderating
influence of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. At the inland BPA tower, the
range of average ambient air temperature between seasons for a given
stability category or between stability categories for a given season is
less than or equal to 15 degrees Kelvin. In general, the average
ambient air temperature at the BPA tower is greater than or equal to the
corresponding average ambient air temperatures at the two Ediz Hook
sites for all stability categories except the very stable F category.
2.2.2 Meteorological Conditions Associated with High Observed
SO.-, Concentrations in the Port Angeles Area
2.2.2.1 Maximum Average S0~ Concentrations
Table 2-12 lists the seasonal and annual averages of the 1-
hour SO- concentrations at the Visitor Center and Fourth & Baker monitors
29
-------
TABLE 2-11
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES KELVIN BY PASQUILL
STABILITY CATEGORY AND SEASON
Pasquill Stability
Category
Ambient Air Temperature ( K)
Winter
Spring |
Summer
Fall
Annual
(a) Coast Guard Station
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
*
279
278
278
287
284
283
281
276 280
277 281
278
281
290
289
288
286
285
284
286
290
287
285
283
282
283
283
289
286
283
282
280
280
282
(b) Ediz Hook 10-Meter Tower
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
k
278
277
278
276
275
277
287
284
283
282
281
281
282
(c) BPA Substation
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
*
276
277
278
275
273
276
290
286
284
283
281
279
282
289
*
288 284
287
286
285
285
286
284
283
282
282
283
288
286
283
282
280
280
282
29-Meter Tower
292 * 292
291
290
288
286
286
289
285
285
283
282
288
285
282
281
281 279
283
282
No hours with A stability.
30
-------
TABLE 2-12
AVERAGE 1-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS AT THE VISITOR CENTER AND FOURTH
& BAKER MONITORS BY PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORY AND SEASON
Pasquill Stability
Category
Average S09 Concentration (ppm)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
(a) Visitor Center
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
*
0.013
0.006
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.035
0.022
0.015
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.010 *
0.014
0.010
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.014
0.006
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.012
0.017
0.010
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.004
(b) Fourth & Baker
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
0.001
0.014
0.030
0.038
0.012
0.009
0.027
0.004
0.010
0.055
0.064
0.012
0.005
0.050
A *
>v*
**
**
**
**
*ft
AA
**
**
-k-k
**
**
**
No hours with A stability.
k
No data or insufficient data.
31
-------
by Pasquill stability category. (The concentrations in this section are
given in units of parts per million (ppra), the units in which the concen-
trations were provided on computer tape.) The BPA tower wind data were
used to estimate the stability categories at the Visitor Center and the
Ediz Hook tower wind data were used to estimate the stability categories
at Fourth & Baker. As shown by Table 2-12, the highest average SO,.,
concentrations at the Visitor Center occur during the spring and the
highest average S0? concentrations at Fourth & Baker occur during the
summer. (Although no concentration data are available for the Fourth &
Baker monitor for the fall and winter months, we believe that the highest
average concentrations occur at this monitor during the summer for the
reasons given in Section 2.2.1.) The highest average concentrations at
the Visitor Center occur with the unstable Pasquill A, B and C stability
categories, a result that is consistent with daytime upslope winds or
sea-breeze circulations transporting emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill
or the Crown Zellerbach Mill to the monitor. The average concentrations at
the Visitor Center with the stable E and F Pasquill stability categories
are near zero, reflecting the fact that these stability categories are
almost always associated with offshore winds at the BPA tower. The
highest average concentrations at the Fourth & Baker monitor are associated
with the slightly unstable C and neutral D stability categories. With
the exception of the unstable A and B stability categories, the average
concentrations at Fourth & Baker are significantly higher than at the
Visitor Center.
Table 2-13 gives the average of the 1-hour SO,, concentrations
at the Visitor Center monitor by wind direction and stability at the BPA
Substation tower. The highest concentrations occur with the unstable A,
B and C and the neutral D stability categories when the winds are from
the northeast quadrant. Because northeast winds are required for the
direct transport of emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill to the monitor,
the results presented in Table 2-13 suggest that the ITT Mill is the
principal contributor to relatively high 1-hour S0? concentrations at
the Visitor Center.
32
-------
TABLE 2-13
AVERAGE 1-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS AT THE
VISITOR CENTER MONITOR BY WIND DIRECTION AND STABILITY AT THE
BPA SUBSTATION TOWER
Direction
(Sector)
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
All
Directions
Average S09 Concentration (ppm)
A i B
0.005
0.019
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.012
0.020
0.031
0.009
c
0.018
0.035
0.010
0.011 0.009
]
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.008
1
0.017 0.010
D
0.013
0.018
0.012
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.003
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
F
0.003
0.003
0.009
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.001
All
Stabilities
0.016 '
0.027
0.010
0.005
0.002 '
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.004
33
-------
Table 2-14 gives the average of the 1-hour S02 concentrations.
at 'the Fourth & Baker monitor by wind direction and stability at the
Ediz Hook tower. The overall average of the 1-hour concentrations at
Fourth & Baker during the monitor's approximate 4-month period of record
exceeds the annual average S0? concentration at the Visitor Center by a
factor of 10 (see Table 2-13). However, as discussed in Section 2.2.1,
the highest 1-hour S0.; concentrations at the Fourth & Baker monitor are
expected during the summer (the majority of the period of record for the
monitor), and the overall average concentration given in Table 2-14
probably overestimates the annual average concentration. As shown by
the bottom line of Table 2-14, the highest average concentrations at
Fourth & Baker are associated with the slightly unstable C and neutral D
stability categories and the lowest average concentrations are associated
with the very unstable A category. The critical wind directions are
west-southwest through northwest and the highest average concentration
for all stabilities combined occurs with west-northwest winds, the winds
required for the direct transport of SO,, emissions from the ITT Rayonier
Mill to the Fourth & Baker monitor.
2.2.2.2 Maximum Short-Term SO,-, Concentrations
Definition of Critical Meteorological Regimes
The following terms are used in this section to describe
meteorological regimes associated with high ground-level S09 concentra-
tions: (1) the critical wind-speed condition, (2) the limited-mixing
condition, (3) transition periods, and (4) sea-breeze fumigation. The
critical wind-speed condition is defined as moderate or strong winds
persisting within a narrow angular sector for a number of hours. In
general, the critical wind-speed condition is associated with neutral or
slightly unstable meteorological conditions. We define limited mixing
as a period of light or moderate winds in combination with neutral or
slightly stable conditions with plumes contained within a relatively
shallow mixing layer. (This definition of limited mixing differs from
34
-------
TABLE 2-14
AVERAGE 1-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS AT THE FOURTH
BAKER MONITOR BY WIND DIRECTION AND STABILITY AT THE EDIZ HOOK TOWER
Direction
(Sector)
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
All
Directions
Average S0« Concentration (ppm)
A
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.055
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.003
B
0.004
0.019
0.017
0.005
0.011
0.005
0.008
0.019
0.007
0.010
0.047
0.165
0.039
0.022
0.006
0.002
0.012
C
0.016
0.002
0.007
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.000
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.112
0.050
0.092
0.023
0.000
0.048
D
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.007
0.013
0.002
0.005
0.018
0.044
0.100
0.039
0.004
0.005
E
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.056
0.000
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.012
0.003
0.013
0.046
0.002
0.000
0.012
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.007
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.015
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.008
All
Stabilities
0.007
0.011
0.008
0.004
0.007 ,
0.007
0.004
0.009
0.007
0.002
0.008
0.019
0.040
0.093
0.021
0.002
0.042
35
-------
the TVA definition (Carpenter, ^t al., 1971) which is restricted to
daytime hours during periods of fair weather with light-to-moderate
winds below an elevated subsidence inversion.) A transition period is a
relatively short period of change from a stable thermal stratification
to an unstable stratification or vice versa. When the land is signifi-
cantly warmer than an adjacent Icirge body of water and a sea breeze
transports the stable-to-neutral air mass that has formed above the
water over land, a new unstable boundary layer begins to form at the
land-water interface. A stack plume emitted near the shoreline that
stabilizes above the new unstable boundary layer will travel inland with
growth determined by the turbulent intensities in the marine air mass
until it intersects the thermally-unstable boundary layer. The plume is
then quickly mixed to the ground in a process termed sea-breeze fumigation
(see Lyons and Cole, 1973).
Maximum Observed 1-Hour S00 Concentrations at Each S0?
Monitor in the Port Angeles Area
To gain insight into the meteorological conditions associated
with the highest observed 1-hour S0~ concentrations in the Port Angeles
area, we examined, for each SCL monitor, the meteorological data for the
hour during each month with the highest observed 1-hour concentration.
The period of record for the Olympic National Park Visitor Center (NTPC)
and City Light Building (Washington DOE) monitors was 15 August 1978 to
15 August 1979. The period of record for the Third and Chestnut (Olympic
Air Pollution Control Authority) monitor was 1 January to 15 August 1979
and the period of record for the Fourth & Baker (NTPC) monitor was 16
April to 15 August 1979. Wind data were available from the Ediz Hook
(NTPC) and BPA Substation (NTPC) meteorological towers for the period 15
August 1978 -to 15 August 1979. Additionally, wind measurements were
made by NTPC at Fourth & Baker during the period of air quality monitoring
at that site. We did not use the wind data from the City Light Building
(Washington DOE) because it is our understanding that the wind measurements
during this period were made by a mechanical weather station on a 1.5-meter
36
-------
(5-foot) mast on top of the building, and we consider such data to be
unreliable.
The highest 1-hour concentrations at the Visitor Center occur
during the period 0800 to 1700 Pacific Standard Time (PST). The occurrence
of these maximum concentrations, which typically are about 0.20 parts
per million (ppm), does not show any other diurnal or seasonal trends.
The only feature common to these rare cases of relatively high concentra-
tions is the presence of light wind speeds at both the coastal and inland
wind measurement sites. The wind-direction measurements for many of these
cases indicate that emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill initially traveled
toward the west or southwest and then traveled upvalley to the Visitor'
Center. However, the ambiguity in the wind data precludes any definite
statements about source-receptor relationships. On the basis of the sta-
bility categories before and during the hours with the maximum concentra-
tions, the critical meteorological regimes for the Visitor Center are
limited mixing and transition periods.
The highest 1-hour concentrations at the Third & Chestnut monitor
tend to occur in the spring and summer during the period 0800 to 1700 PST.
Three different meteorological regimes account for these high observed
concentrations, which range from about 0.40 to 0.70 ppm. Based on the Ediz
Hook wind data, the first important meteorological regime is the critical
x^ind-speed condition with the west-northwest winds required for the direct
transport of emissions from the ITT Mill to the monitor. Although the
concurrent wind speeds at the inland BPA Substation tower are light, the
BPA tower winds also tend to be from the west-northwest during these periods.
The two other important meteorological regimes, which appear to be most
frequent during the late winter and early spring, are limited mixing and
transition periods. The wind speeds during these periods are light at both
the Ediz Hook and BPA towers. Although the wind directions at Ediz Hook
are not necessarily consistent with the directions required for the direct
transport of emissions from the ITT Mill to the monitor, the BPA tower
wind directions are consistent with the transport of emissions from the
ITT stacks or the ITT black liquor holding pond to the monitor.
37
-------
The highest 1-hourS0? concentrations at the Fourth & Baker
monitor tend to occur during the period 0800 to 1700 PST. These concen-
trations range from about 0.30 to 0.50 ppm. Although insufficient data
are available to determine seasonal trends, it is reasonable to assume
that the seasonal trends at Fourth & Baker are the same as the seasonal
trends at Third & Chestnut. Thus, the highest 1-hour S0« concentrations
at Fourth & Baker probably occur during the spring and summer. Additionally,
the critical meteorological regimes for the Fourth & Baker monitor are
the critical wind-speed condition, limited mixing and transition periods.
The S0? concentration data available for the City Light Building
indicate that the best SCU air quality in Port Angeles is in the vicinity
of this monitor, although there are so many missing observations that no
definite conclusion can be reached. The highest 1-hour S0~ concentrations
tend to occur during the period 0700 to 1700 PST. There are insufficient
data to determine any seasonal trends in these relatively high concentra-
tions, which typically are 0.05 to 0.10 ppm. The only feature common to
the occurrence of relatively high concentrations at the City Light Building
is the presence of light winds at all wind measurement sites. The wind
directions for some of the cases are from the west or northwest, indicating
that emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill may have affected the
monitor. Similarly, the wind directions for some of the cases are from
the east, indicating that emissions from the ITT Mill may have affected
the monitor. However, the wind directions for several cases are from
the south and appear to be the onset of a nighttime drainage flow. It
is possible that S09 previously emitted from the ITT and/or Crown Zeller-
bach Mills was advected back over the monitor during these hpurs. The
critical meteorological regimes for the City Light Building monitor are
limited mixing and transition periods.
In summary, the limited-mixing condition and transition periods
are associated with relatively high observed 1-hour SO,, concentrations
at all air quality monitors in the Port Angeles area. However, these
38
-------
conditions generally do not cause high concentrations to persist for more
than a few hours. In the area east-southeast of the ITT Mill, the critical
wind-speed condition with west-northwest winds is an additional important
meteorological regime. High concentrations in this area associated with
the critical wind-speed condition can persist for a number of hours,
making the critical wind-speed condition the most important meteorological
regime for a 24-hour concentration averaging time. Our examination of
the concurrent meteorological and air quality data did not reveal any
evidence of sea-breeze fumigations as described by Lyons and Cole (1973),
a result that is consistent with our previous experience in the Puget
Sound area (Cramer, e_t_ aJL. , 1976). Although we cannot exclude the
possibility of sea-breeze fumigation, we have no reason to believe that
it is a critical meteorological regime for the occurrence of high ground-
level S09 concentrations for averaging times of 1-hour or longer.
Identification of the Meteorological Tower with the
Most Representative Wind Directions
The only meteorological towers with sufficient hourly meteorolo-
gical data for use in the dispersion model calculations are the Ediz Hook
10-meter and BPA Substation 29-meter towers. To gain insight into which
of these towers provides the most representative measurements of the wind
directions affecting the transport and dispersion of the emissions from
the existing and proposed sources, we examined 86 hours with relatively
high observed SCL concentrations at the Third & Chestnut and Fourth &
Baker monitors. The selection criteria were:
Observed 1-hour SO,-, concentrations greater than or equal
to 0.05 ppm at both monitors
Concurrent wind data available for the Ediz Hook 10-
meter, BPA Substation 29-meter and Fourth & Baker IO-
meter towers
The selected hours covered the period 24 July through 13 August 1979.
39
-------
Table 2-15 lists, for each meteorological tower, the range of
wind direct-ions with observed SCL concentrations in our subset above 0.20
ppm at the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors. The ranges of
wind directions for the Ediz Hook and Fourth & Baker towers are much
smaller than for the BPA tower. The wind directions required for the
straight-line transport of stack emissions from the nearby ITT Rayonier
Mill to the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors are about 297 to
302 degrees and 305 to 315 degrees, respectively. Similarly, the wind di-
rections required for the straight-line transport of emissions from the ITT
black liquor holding pond to the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors
are about 297 to 302 degrees and 306 to 006 degrees, respectively. Of
the two towers for which a year of wind data are available, Table 2-15
indicates that the Ediz Hook tower has the most representative wind
directions if emissions from the ITT Mill are assumed to be responsible
for the relatively high S0? concentrations observed east-southeast of
the mill. Also, as indicated by the Fourth & Baker tower wind directions,
the Ediz Hook tower wind directions are more representative of wind
directions along the shoreline where the existing sources are located
than are the BPA tower wind directions.
2.2.3 Meteorological Inputs to the SHORTZ and LONGZ Computer
Programs
The Cramer, e_t^ al. (1975) complex terrain dispersion model is
implemented by the SHORTZ and LONGZ computer codes. The hourly meteoro-
logical inputs required by the SHORTZ program are listed in Table 2-16 and
the seasonal meteorological inputs required by the LONGZ program are
listed in Table 2-17- On the basis of our review of the meteorological
and air quality data for the Port Angeles area (see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2),
we selected what we considered to be the most representative of the available
data to develop the meteorological inputs for use in the dispersion model
calculations, following the general guidance given in Section 2 of the
User's Guide for the SHORTZ and LONGZ programs (Bjorklund and Bowers, 1979).
40
-------
TABLE 2-15
RANGE OF WIND DIRECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH OBSERVED 1-HOUR SO;
CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE 0.20 PPM
Tower (Measurement Height)
Range of Wind
Directions (deg)
(a) Fourth & Baker Monitor
Ediz Hook (10 m)
BPA Substation (29 m)
Fourth & Baker (10 m)
270
290
295
to 300
to 060
to 335
3
(b) Third & Chestnut Monitor
Ediz Hook (10 m)
BPA Substation (29 m)
Fourth & Baker (10 m)
275
300
300
to 310
to 040
to 335
-------
TABLE 2-16
HOURLY METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS REQUIRED BY THE
SHORTZ PROGRAM
Parameter
UR
DD
P
a!
m
li
3z
Definition
Mean wind speed (m/sec) at height z
K
Mean wind direction (deg) at height z
Wind-profile exponent
Wind azimuth-angle standard deviation
in radians
Wind elevation-angle standard deviation
in radians
Ambient air temperature ( K)
Depth of surface mixing layer (m)
Vertical potential temperature gradient
42
-------
TABLE 2-17
TABLES OF METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS REQUIRED BY
THE LONGZ PROGRAM
Parameter/Table
Definition
i,j,k,£
Pi,k
-in
m; i,k,£
Frequency distribution of wind-speed and
wind-direction categories by stability
or tirae-of-day categories for the £
season
for
Mean wind speed (m/sec) at height
the itn wind-speed category
Wind-profile exponent for the i*- wind-
speed category and k^1 stability or time-
of-day category
Standard deviation of the wind-elevation
angle in radians for the ±^ wind-speed
category and ktn stability or time-of-
day category
Ambient air temperature for the ktn
stability or time-of-day category and
£ th season
Vertical potential temperature gradient for
the i*-" wind-speed category and k1- stability
or time-of-day category
Median surface mixing depth for the i n
wind-speed category, k*-" stability or
time-of-day category and £th season
43
-------
The existing SCL sources in the Port Angeles area (the Crown
Zellerbach and ITT Rayonier Mills) are all located along the shoreline, and
the proposed NTPC SCL sources (tankers) will be located in Port Angeles
Harbor. Our review of the hourly meteorological data available for the
Port Angeles area (see Section 2.2.1) indicated that there are, at times,
differences in concurrent wind speeds, wind directions and Pasquill stabil-
ity categories at the various meteorological measurement sites. That is,
the meteorological data from a single site cannot always be expected to
be representative of meteorological conditions over the entire Port
Angeles area. Because the SHORTZ and LONGZ programs are designed to use
meteorological data from a single site, we selected for use in the
dispersion model calculations the data from the site most likely to be
representative of meteorological conditions in the areas of maximum
impacts for emissions from the existing and proposed S0_ sources. In our
opinion, the wind-speed data from the 10-meter Ediz Hook tower are most
likely to be representative of the winds affecting the initial dilution
of emissions from the existing and proposed sources. Also, our review
of the wind-direction data for the hours with high observed S0? concen-
trations at the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitoring sites (see
Section 2.2.2) indicated that the Ediz Hook tower wind directions more
closely reflect the wind directions along the shoreline than do the BPA
Substation tower wind directions. Finally, the good correspondence between
the wind-speed, wind-direction and Pasquill stability category distributions
for the Coast Guard Station during the period January 1948 through December
*if
1952 and the Ediz Hook tower during the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August
1979 supports the validity of the Ediz Hook tower data.
The Ediz Hook hourly wind directions and wind speeds were used
as direct inputs to the SHORTZ program and were also used to generate
seasonal tabulations of the joint frequency of occurrence of wind-speed
and wind-direction categories, classified according to the Pasquill stab-
ility categories, for input to the LONGZ program. The hourly meteorological
44
-------
inputs for the "worst-case" short-term periods as well as the seasonal
wind summaries are contained in Appendix B.
The SHORTZ and LONGZ programs account for the variation with
height of the wind speed by means of a wind-profile exponent law of the
form
(2-1)
where u{z} is the mean wind speed at height z, u(z / i.-, UK; UI.MH wind
speed at height z and p is the wind-profile exponent. The report on
R
the Millstone field experiments (Johnson, ej^ al_. , 1975), which are
discussed in Section 2.2.1, provides hourly mean wind speeds at heights
above the surface of 10, 19.5, 43.3, 114 and 136 meters for 36 hours
when the upwind fetch was over water. We used Equation (2-1) in the
User's Guide for the SHORTZ and LONGZ programs (Bjorklund and Bowers,
1979) with the tower wind data to calculate a wind-profile exponent for
each hour. The Millstone wind-profile exponents ranged from 0.04 to 0.28.
The median value was 0.07 and the mean value was 0.11, which we believe
to be characteristic of a marine air mass with an over-water trajectory.
The only multilevel meteorological tower in the Port Angeles area is the
BPA Substation tower. The annual average wind speeds at the 29-meter
and 15-meter levels of the BPA tower are 2.6 and 2.4 meters per second,
respectively. These annual average wind speeds imply an annual average
wind-profile exponent of 0.12, which is in close agreement with the
average wind-profile exponent for the Millstone diffusion experiments.
We therefore set the wind-profile exponent equal to 0.10 for every hour
in the SHORTZ calculations and for every seasonal combination of wind-
speed and Pasquill stability categories in the LONGZ calculations.
The Cramer, et_ al_. (1975) dispersion model assumes that lateral
and vertical plume growth are directly related to the lateral and vertical
45
-------
turbulent intensities. As explained in Section 2.2.1, we do not consider
the lateral turbulent intensities measured on the Ediz Hook and BPA Sub-
station towers to be representative. Consequently, we merged the Ediz Hook
tower wind data with concurrent Whidbey Island cloud cover data to assign
the Pasquill stability category to each hour following the Turner (1964)
approach (see Tables 2-4 and 2-5). In a previous modeling study in the
Puget Sound area, the vertical (a') and lateral (o!) turbulent intensities
Ui A
suggested by Cramer, e_t jLL_. (1975) for the Pasquill stability categories
in rural areas yielded a close correspondence between the 1-hour SO,,
concentrations calculated by the SHORTZ program and the concurrent observed
concentrations (see Table 4-6 of Cramer, e^ jil_. , 1976). The test cases
in the Cramer, et_ al^. (1976) study included plume trajectories over land,
over water and over both water and land that were longer than the plume
trajectories of concern for this study. Because of our previous success
in using the Cramer et al. (1975) rural turbulent intensities in a
similar application, we selected these turbulent intensities for use in
this study.
Table 2-18 lists the turbulent intensities suggested by Cramer,
et al. (1975) for rural areas. (We point out that, if it were not for
the moderating influence of the marine air mass, the turbulent intensites
suggested by Cramer, et al. (1975) for urban areas probably would be ap-
propriate for use in this study because of the complex terrain of the Port
Angeles area.) The turbulent intensities in Table 2-18 were assigned to
each hour for use in the dispersion model calculations on the basis of the
Pasquill stability category as determined by the Ediz Hook tower wind
speed and the concurrent Whidbey Island cloud-cover observation. Because
the Ediz Hook tower wind directions were reported to the nearest 5-degree
sector, an N-hour lateral turbulent intensity (obtained using the t law
of Osipov, 1972 and others) was assigned to each hour of an N-hour period
with the same wind direction and stability in the 3-hour and 24-hour S0»
concentration calculations. For example, if D stability and the same
wind direction were reported for 3 consecutive hours, the 1-hour o' value
A
46
-------
TABLE 2-18
HOURLY VERTICAL AND LATERAL TURBULENT INTENSITIES
USED IN THE CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Pasquill Stability
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
Turbulent Intensities (rad)
Vertical (a')
0.1745
0.1080
0.0735
0.0465
0.0350
0.0235
Lateral (a')
f\
0.2495
0.1544
0.1051
0.0665
0.0501
0.0336
47
-------
for D stability was multiplied by 1.25 (3' ) and assumed to apply during
each hour of the 3-hour period. The purpose of this adjustment was to
account in part for the effects of the actual variability of the wind
direction within the 5-degree sector. The EPA Single Source (CRSTER)
Model modifies the reported wind directions by mean;; of a random number
generator in a similar attempt to account for these effects.
The Cramer, e_t jil. (1975) dispersion model defines the top of
the surface mixing layer as the height at which the vertical intensity of
turbulence becomes effectively zero. This condition is fulfilled when
the vertical intensity of turbulence is on the order of 0.01 or less.
Because measurements of the vertical profile of the intensity of turbulence
are not routinely made, indirect indicators such as discontinuities in
the vertical wind and temperature profiles generally are used to estimate
the depth of the surface mixing layer. In the simplest case, the base
of an elevated inversion layer is usually assumed to represent the top of
the surface mixing layer. However, even with a surface-based inversion or
isothermal layer, the Cramer, et al. (1975) model assumes that a mechanical
mixing layer will exist due to the presence of surface roughness elements.
That is, the depth of the surface mixing layer is determined by both
convective and mechanical processes.
NTPC (1980) used Quillayute rawinsonde data with the mixing
depth estimation scheme of Benkley and Schulman (1979) to calculate hourly
mixing depths for the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979. (The
Quillayute rawinsonde observations were adjusted to account for the
difference in elevation between Quillayute and Port Angeles.) The Benkley
and Schulman scheme is consistent with the concepts of the mixing depth
implicit in the Cramer, ej^ al_. (1975) model in that it considers the
effects of both mechanical and convective turbulence in estimating the
mixing depth. During the nighttime hours or during the daytime hours
when the effects of convection are weak, the mixing depth in meters is
given by
H = 90 u (2-2)
m v '
48
-------
where u is the 3-hour average wind speed in meters per second for the 3-hour
period centered on the hour for which the mixing depth is calculated.
After adjustment for temperature advection, the uniform potential tem-
perature method (see Holzworth, 1972) is used to define the convective
mixing depth during the daytime hours. [ L" the median Leal mixing depth
exceeds the corresponding conveetLve mixing depth, the mechanical mixing
depth is assumed to apply.
Quillayute is about 80 kilometers west-southwest of Port Angeles
on the Pacific Coast and, in the absence of mixing depth measurements
for Port Angeles, we have no basis for assessing the representativeness
of the hourly mixing depths given for Port Angeles by NTPC (1980). However,
we used the hourly mixing depths provided by NTPC (1980) in the SHORTZ calcu-
lations because: (1) The mechanical component of the Benkley and Schulman
(1980) scheme appears to dominate the calculated mixing depths, (2) We
believe Equation (2-2) to be a reasonable first approximation to the
mechanically-induced mixing depth, and (3) No other mixing depth data
were available. For the LONGZ calculations, we used the Ediz Hook tower
wind data with the NTPC (1980) hourly mixing depth estimates to determine
the seasonal median mixing depths for the various combinations of wind-
speed and Pasquill stability categories. The resulting median mixing
depths are listed in Table 2-19.
The plume rise equations used by the SHORTZ and LONGZ programs
(see Section A.2 of Appendix A) require the ambient air temperature and
vertical potential temperature gradient as inputs. The Ediz Hook tower
ambient air temperature measurements were used as direct inputs to the
SHORTZ program and the seasonal average temperatures given in Table
2-11 for the Coast Guard Station were used as inputs to the LONGZ program.
(The Coast Guard Station average temperatures were used in preference to
the Ediz Hook tower average temperatures in the LONGZ calculations because
they cover a 5-year rather than a 1-year period.) Table 2-20 gives, by
season and Pasquill stability category, the average relative humidities at
49
-------
TABLE 2-19
MEDIAN MIXING DEPTHS IN METERS USED IN THE LONGZ CALCULATIONS
Pasquill Stability
Category
Ediz Hook 10m Wind Speed (m/sec)
0.0-1.5
1.6-3.0
3.1-5.1
5.2-8.2 8.3-10.8
>10.8
(a) Winter
A
B
C'
D
E
F
(225)
225
125
125
-
175
(225) : -
(225) I (225)
200
125
125
175
275
175
225
-
_
-
(275)
350
-
-
_
-
(275)
550
-
-
_
-
(275)
600
-
-
(b) Spring
A
B
C
D
E
F
450
550
250
175
-
175
600 ! -
650
600
225
175
175
1500
850
350
225
-
_
-
1500
350
-
-
-
(1500)
550
-
-
i
-
-
(1500)
2000
-
-
(c) Summer
A
B
C
D
E
F
500
550
350
175
-
125
950
850
650
225
175
175
_
1500
850
225
225
-
_
-
750
350
-
-
_
-
850
550
-
-
_
-
1500
500
-
-
(d) Fall
A
B
C
D
E
F
(175) (400)
175 , 400
275 , 225
125 175
-
125
125
175
1500
350
225
175
_
:
350 (350)
350 650
-
_
-
(350)
550
-
'-"Median mixing depths enclosed by parentheses are estimates for the
joint combinations of wind-speed and sr.abiJily categories which did not
occur in the ob.serva Lions .
50
-------
TABLE 2-20
AVERAGE RELATIVE HUMIDITIES IN PERCENT AT THE COAST GUARD STATION
Pasquill Stability
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
All Stabilities
Relative Humidity (%)
Winter
A
66
74
82
81
85
82
Spring
67
68
72
79
81
83
78
Summer
71
73
76
84
86
89
83
Fall
71
72
78
85
85
87
84
Annual
71
71
75
83
83
86
82
No hours with A stability.
51
-------
the Coast Guard Station. The average humidity is high for all combinations
of season and Pasquill stability categories, reflecting the marine air
mass over the harbor and along the shoreline. Because plume rise for the
existing and proposed SO,, sources will be determined by the vertical
potential temperature gradient of the marine air mass, we set the vertical
potential temperature gradient equal to the moist adiabatic value of 0.003
degrees Kelvin per meter for each hour in the SHORTZ calculations and for
each seasonal combination of wind-speed and stability categories in the
LONGZ calculations. (The mean vertical potential temperature gradient
for the Millstone field experiments was 0.002 degrees Kelvin per meter.)
As noted in Section 4.2, it was necessary to calculate, for every
hour of the year, the 1-hour average S0~ concentration at the Olympic
National Park Visitor Center attributable to emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources. In general, the meteorological inputs for the "brute force"
concentration calculations were developed following the procedures out-
lined above. However, because the results of the hourly concentration
calculations were used to form both 3-hour and 24-hour average concen-
tration frequency distributions, we used a random number generator rather
than N-hour lateral turbulent intensities to account for the variability
of wind directions reported to the nearest 5-degree sector.* That is, a
random number in 0.5-degree increments between -2.5 and +2.5 degrees was
added to each wind-direction observation. Also, wind speeds less than 1
meter per second were set equal to 1 meter per second for consistency
with standardized EPA dispersion modeling techniques. No concentration
calculations were performed for hours with calm or light and variable
winds (about 0.2 percent of the total number of hours in the year) because
there is no objective basis for specifying plume trajectories or lateral
plume dimensions under these conditions. If the Ediz Hook tower wind-
*The use of N-hour lateral turbulent intensities in the "brute force" con-
centration calculations would have required the manual preparation of two
different sets of hourly meteorological inputs, one for the 3-hour concen-
tration calculations and one for the 24-hour concentration calculations.
52
-------
direction or wind-speed observation was missing for an hour, we substituted
the concurrent wind-direction or wind-speed observation from the 29-
meter level of the BPA Substation tower. In the absence of a temperature
measurement for the Ediz Hook tower, a temperature was assigned to the
hour on the basis of season and the Pasquill stability category using
the values given in Table 2-10(a). Similarly, in the absence of a
mixing depth estimate, a mixing depth was assigned to the hour on the
basis of season, wind speed and Pasquill stability category using the
values in Table 2-19.
53
-------
SECTION 3
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF MODEL TESTING
The Port Angeles area presents a very difficult dispersion
modeling problem because of the complexity of the topography and meteoro-
logy. The Cramer, e_t aJU (1975) complex terrain dispersion model was
selected for use in this study because it has worked well in a previous
study in the Puget Sound area (Cramer, e_t_ al. , 1976) as well as in
other studies of the air quality impact of S0? emissions from sources in
complex terrain (for example, Cramer and Bowers, 1976 and U. S. versus
West Penn Power, 1978). However, it is important to assess the accuracy
of the model in the Port Angeles area by means of direct comparisons of
concurrent calculated and observed S09 concentrations. Also, the results
of the model testing provide insight into the representativeness of the
meteorological data to be used in the attainment status and PSD analyses
for the existing and proposed SO,., sources, all of which are located along
the shoreline or in the harbor.
The Third & Chestnut and Fourth & Baker S09 monitors have measured
the highest SO^ concentrations in the Port Angeles area. Both of these
monitors are located near the largest existing SO,-, source in the area,
the ITT Rayonier Pulp Mill. Consequently, we used the air quality measure-
ments from these monitors for model testing. Because of the time and level-
of-effort constraints for the performance of this study, we restricted
our model testing to a detailed examination of 20 hours with relatively
high observed concentrations at both monitors. The selection criteria were
as follows:
An observed 1-hour SO concentration at one of the two
monitors greater than or equal to 0.20 parts per million
(ppm) and a concurrent observed concentration at the
second monitor greater than or equal to 0.05 ppm
54
-------
Availability of complete meteorological data for both the
Ediz Hook and BPA Substation meteorological towers
.Operation of a minimum of three of the six ITT SO-
sources for which emissions data were .available
We added the third selection criterion because all of the ITT SCL sources
were to be considered in the attainment status analysis, and we wished
to test the performance of our model under conditions approximating the
operating conditions for the attainment status calculations.
Table 3-1 identifies the 20 hours selected for model testing
and gives the Pasquill stability categories and mean wind directions and
speeds at the Ediz Hook and BPA Substation meteorological towers. As
shown by the table, the mean wind speeds at the 29-meter level of the BPA
tower are significantly lower than the concurrent wind speeds at the IO-
meter Ediz Hook tower- The differences in wind speeds between the two
towers lead to the differences in stability categories as estimated fol-
lowing the Turner (1964) definitions of the Pasquill stability categories.
As explained in Section 2.2.3, we believe that the Ediz Hook wind data
are most likely to be representative of the winds affecting the initial
dilution and transport of emissions from both the existing and proposed
SO,, sources. The Ediz Hook tower data were used to develop the hourly
meteorological inputs for the model testing following the procedures out-
lined in Section 2.2.3.
Table ,3-2 gives, for each hour selected fur. model testing, the
observed SO,-, concent rations at. the Fourth & liaker, Third V Chestnut and
Visitor Center air quality monitors. The wind directions required to
transport emissions from the Crown Zellerbach and I"XT Mills to the area
containing the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors do not corres-
pond to the directions required to transport emissions from the two mills
to the Visitor Center monitor. Because of the occurrence of relatively
55
-------
TABLE 3-1
IDENTIFICATION OF THE CASES SELECTED FOR MODEL TESTING
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
1 Jun 79
2 Jun 79
9 Jun 79
12 Jun 79
24 Jul 79
26 Jul 79
30 Jul 79
31 Jul 79
Hour
(PST)
1800
0900
1400
1500
1600
1500
1600
1700
1800
1600
2000
1100
1900
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Pasquill Stability
Category
Ediz Hook
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
BPA Substation
B
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
D
C
F
D
D
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
Wind Direction/Speed
(in/sec)
Ediz Hook
10 rn
290/6.7
290/6.0
300/6.5
290/8.5
285/10.5
285/10.1
280/9.8
280/10.3
280/7.2
305/6.5
295/8.7
300/6.3
290/8.0
310/4.0
295/6.0
300/7.2
290/7.2
285/7.4
290/8.3
290/11.0
BPA
29 m
330/1.3
010/1.1
020/2.0
315/2.2
275/4.9
330/3.6
310/4.0
300/4.5
310/5.8
359/2.2
060/1.3
350/1.8
310/2.7
335/2.7
340/2.7
325/4.0
330/4.7
320/4.7
300/4.7
300/5.8
56
-------
TABLE 3-2
OBSERVED SO., CONCENTRATIONS AT THE FOURTH & BAKER, THIRD & CHESTNUT
VISITOR CENTER .MONITORS DURING THE HOURS SELECTED FOR
MODEL TESTING
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Concentration (ppm)
Fourth & Baker
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.29
0.28
0.23
0.30
0.31
0.22
0.16
0.22
0.07
0.46
0.09
0.14
0.31
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.23
Third & Chestnut
0.11
0.27
0.23
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.33
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.30
0.47
0.17
0.12
0.06
0.15
0.13
Visitor Center
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57
-------
high S0? concentrations at the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors
during the hours selected for model testing, it is reasonable to assume
that the monitors were being affected by (.'missions from the ITT Mill and/
or the Crown Zellerbach Mill. Additionally, I:lie Kdi/ Hook wind directions
during these hours indicate that emissions from I hi- ITT Mill and/or the
Crown Zellerbach Mill were transported toward the Fourth & Baker and
Third & Chestnut monitors. For the hours with moderate wind speeds at
the BPA Substation tower, the BPA tower wind directions also indicate
that emissions from the ITT Mill and/or the Crown Zellerbach Mill were
transported to the monitors. Consequently, we assumed that the SC"
concentrations at the Visitor Center during these hours were representative
of the "background", which we define for the purpose of model testing as
ambient S0~ concentrations attributable to sources other than the ITT
and Crown Zellerbach Mills. As shown by Table 3-2, the background for
the hours selected for model testing ranges from 0.00 to 0.03 ppm. The
background concentrations at the Visitor Center were added to the calculated
concentrations for comparison with the observed concentrations at the
Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors.
After the selection of the 20 hours for model testing, we
learned that the black liquor holding pond at the ITT Mill is a continuous
and highly variable source of SC- emissions and may have a significant
impact on ambient air quality (Fenske, 1980). Our inspection of the Ediz
Hook wind directions during the hours selected for model testing indicated
that the concentrations measured at Third & Chestnut during these hours prob-
ably were almost entirely determined by emissions from the ITT stacks, while
the concurrent concentrations at Fourth & Baker were determined by the
combined emissions from the ITT stacks and the holding pond. Because the
emissions from the holding pond are unquanti l:ied, we used the calculated
centerline concentrations at the Third & Chestnut monitor to test the
performance of our model for the stack emissions, (That is, we assumed that
the wind transported the merged ITT plume in a straight line to the Third
& Chestnut monitor during each of the 20 hours.) Assuming a "perfect
58
-------
model" and representative model inputs as well as air quality observa-
tions, the calculated centerline concentrations at Third & Chestnut
should be greater than or equal to the corresponding observed concentra-
tions for every hour. Also, the mean ratio (MR) of calculated to observed
concentrations for a large sample should be about 1.75 for the reasons
given belox^. The MR for calculated centerline to observed concentrations
is defined as
MR =
cc.
-1
(3-1)
where y is the i calculated centerline concentration and y . is the
ACC AOI
.th , i .
i observed concentration.
The angular width of the wind-direction sector required to
transport stack emissions from the ITT Mill to the Third & Chestnut
monitor is approximately given by the angular width of the merged ITT
plume at the monitor. If it is assumed that all wind directions within
this sector are equally probable, the sum of a large sample of the
hourly SC- concentrations produced at the monitor, divided by the number
of observations, yields a sector-averaged concentration. The width of
this sector is 4.3 0 , where a is the lateral dispersion coefficient.
y y p
For a Gaussian distribution, the ratio of the average concentration
within the sector 2.15 a to the centerline concentration is 0.57
y
(Cramer, et al. , 1972). Thus x i-n Equation (3-1) is approximately
o
given by
X = °'57
Ao
(3-2)
59
-------
where X is the average of the actual centerline concentrations at the
oc
distance of the monitor. Consequently, Equations (3-1) and (3-2) give
the expected value of the MR as
MR = [x 1 To.57 X L \= 1.75 X /X (3-3)
|_ ccj |_ oc J cc oc
In the absence of any systematic errors in the model, the model inputs or
the air quality measuremen
to an expected MR of 1.75.
the air quality measurements, the ratio X /X should be unity, leading
cc oc
We used the source and meteorological inputs given in Appendix C
with the short-term dispersion model (SHORTZ) described in Section A.3
of Appendix A, including the terrain adjustment procedures outlined in
Section A.5, to calculate the 1-hour centerline SO concentration
at the Third & Chestnut monitor for each hour selected for model testing.
Table 3-3 compares the calculated centerline and corresponding observed
1-hour SOQ concentrations at the Third & Chestnut monitor for the 20
hours. With the exception of Cases 10, 11 and 15, all of the calculated
centerline concentrations are greater than or equal to the corresponding
observed concentrations. According to the Washington DOE (Fensky,
1980), the pollution control system used by the ITT Mill during the
period containing the hours selected for model testing was unreliable,
and SO emissions from several of the low-level sources at the mill
could have been higher than estimated by ITT without ITT's knowledge.
Thus, the failure of the calculated centerline concentrations to equal
or exceed the observed concentrations during Cases 10, 11 and 15 is
possibly explained by the fact that the emission rates used in the model
calculations are lower than the actual emission rates during these
hours. The MR of 1.85 is in close agreement with the expected value of
1.75 and indicates that, on the average, the model is accurate to within
about 10 percent. This result is consistent with our previous experience
60
-------
TABLE 3-3
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED CENTERLINE AND CORRESPONDING
OBSERVED 1-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATION AT THIRD & CHESTNUT
j
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
i
Concen
Observed
0.11
0.27
0.23
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.33
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.30
0.47
0.17
0.12
0.06
0.15
0.13
t rat ion (ppm)
Calculated
Center line*
0.32
0.32
Ratio of Calculated
and Observed Concentrations
2.91
1.19
0.30 1.30
0.22
0.18
0.35
0.37
0.37
0.56
0.23
0.17
0.36
0.43
0.30
0.44
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.32
0.24
Mean Ratio (MR)
1.69
1.38
3.89
4.63
5.29
4.31
0.70
0.89
1.80
2.26
1.00
0.94
2.18
3.08
6.00
2.13
1.85
1.85
The calculated concentrations include background (the concurrent S0_
concentrations measured at the Visitor Center).
61
-------
in testing the model in similar applications (see Section 6). We point
.out that the contribution of emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill to
the calculated concentrations in Table 3-3 is less than 0.01 ppm in
every case.
To gain insight into the air quality impact of SO emissions
from the black liquor holding pond at the ITT Mill, we calculated 1-hour
SO., concentrations at the Third & Chestnut and Fourth & Baker monitors
for wind directions varied at 1-degree intervals from 298 to 315 degrees.
The wind direction that yielded the best correspondence between concurrent
calculated (including background) and observed concentrations at Third &
Chestnut during each of the 20 hours was assumed to be the effective
transport wind direction, and the concentration calculated at the Fourth
& Baker monitor for this wind direction was assumed to represent the
contributions of the stack emissions and background to the observed
concentration. For each hour, we then defined the difference between
the observed concentration at Fourth & Baker and the estimated stack and
background contributions as the concentration attributable to emissions
from the holding pond. Finally, we used the short-term area source
model described in Section A.3 of Appendix A to calculate the S09
emissions from the holding pond required to account for the concentrations
estimated for the pond.
Table 3-4 lists, for each hour selected for model testing, the
estimated transport wind direction, the corresponding 1-hour SO,-, concentra-
tions calculated for the stack emissions and background at the Third &
Chestnut and Fourth & Baker monitors, and the estimated S09 emission
rate for the ITT holding pond. As shown by Table 3-4, the S09 emission
rate estimated for the pond ranges from 3 to 105 grams per second and
averages 29 grams per second. If Cases 10, 11 and 15 are deleted because
of the possibility of low-level emissions not accounted for in the model
calculations for these hours, the SO emission rate estimated for the
pond ranges from 3 to 48 grams per second and averages 23 grams per
62
-------
TABLE 3-4
ESTIMATED WIND DIRECTIONS, CALCULATED CONCENTRATIONS AT THIRD &
CHESTNUT AND FOURTH & BAKER ATTRIBUTABLE TO STACK EMISSIONS
AND BACKGROUND, AMD ESTIMATED HOLDING POND EMISSION RATES
1
Case
Estimated Wind
Direction
(deg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
303
306
306
304
305
302
302
302
302
308
308
304
303
307
308
304
303
301
304
304
Ca 1 cul a t ed Cone e n t r a t i o n 'c
(ppm)
Third & Chestnut
0.10
0.27
0.25
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.14
0.23
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.30
0.44
0.19
0.13
0.05
0.16
0.12
Fourth & Baker
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.06
0.05
Average Rate
Estimated Holding
Pond SO?
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
16
32
25
36
48
16
24
26
7
50
105
3
41
/
4
43
31
16
10
20
36
29
*The calculated concentrations include background (the concurrent S02
concentration measured at the Visitor Center).
63
-------
second. The emission rates in Table 3-4 tend to support the belief of
the Washington DOE that SC>2 emissions from the pond are highly variable
64
-------
SECTION 4
CALCULATION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
4.1 THE ATTAINMENT STATUS ANALYSIS FOR THE EXISTING SOURCES
4.1.1 Annual Average Ground-Level SCL Concentrations
The long-term source inputs given in Section 2.1 for the ITT
Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills and the meteorological inputs discussed
in Section 2.2.3 were used with the long-term concentration model (LONGZ)
described in Section A.4 of Appendix A to calculate seasonal and annual
average ground-level SO,, concentrations for the Port Angeles area. The
receptor grid consisted of 315 receptors spaced at 500-meter intervals
over the 10-kilometer by 7-kilometer area covered by Figure 1-1. Addition-
ally, discrete receptors were placed at the locations of the SO,., air
quality monitoring sites in the Port Angeles area (see Table 1-2) and at'
100-meter intervals around the nearest boundary of Olympic National Park
(the Visitor Center). The elevations of all receptors were extracted from
USGS topographic maps, and the procedures described in Section A.5 of
Appendix A were used to account for the effects of variations in terrain
height over the receptor grid.
Figure 4-1 shows the calculated isopleths of annual average
ground-level SO,., concentration in micrograms per cubic meter attributable
to emissions from the ITT Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills. The maxi-
mum annual average concentration calculated in the vicinity of the ITT
Mill of 32.0 micrograms per cubic meter is located at the Third & Chestnut
monitor. This point, which is 720 meters southeast of the ITT Recovery
Furnace stack, is 40 meters above plant grade. Similarly, the maximum
annual average concentration calculated in the vicinity of the Crown
Zellerbach Mill of 6.7 micrograms per cubic meter is located 715 meters
east-southeast of the mill at a point that is in Port Angeles Harbor.
The contributions of the individual sources to the maximum annual average
concentrations calculated in the vicinity of the ITT and Crown Zellerbach
Mills are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, respectively.
65
-------
NORTHERN T
TANKER UNLOADU*T'FACILITIES1
"~ BERTH 2
PORT ANGELES
H A -R B OR
FIGURE 4-1. Calculated isopleths of annual average ground-level SO- concentration in micrqgrams
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the Crown Zellerbach and ITT Ravonier
r r 1 1 ' - -
Mills.
-------
TABLE 4-1
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL
AVERAGE S09 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED IN THE VICINITY
OF THE ITT RAYON IER MILL
Source
ITT Recovery Furnace
ITT West and East Vents (Acid Plant)
ITT North Bleach Vent
ITT South Bleach Vent
ITT Power Boiler No. 4
ITT Power Boiler No. 5
ITT H.F. Boiler i'Jo. 5
ITT Rayonier Total
Crown Zellerbach Total
Total for Existing Sources
Concentration*
()'g/m )
0.94
17.51
0.39
1.45
7.19
3.11
1.40
31.99
0.48
32.47
The UTM X and Y coordinates of the calculated concentrations are 470.30
and 5,328.74 kilometers, respectively. The receptor elevation is 40
meters MSL.
67
-------
TABLE 4-2
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AVERAGE
S09 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CROWN
ZELLERBACH MILL
Source
Crown Zellerbach H.F. Boiler No. 8
Crown Zellerbach Package Boiler
Crown Zellerbach Total
ITT Rayonier Total
i
Total for Existing Sources
* 3
Concentration (yg/m )
1.44
5.25
6.69
2.07
8.75
The UTM X and Y coordinates of the calculated concentrations are
466.00 and 5,331.00 kilometers, respectively. The receptor
elevation is 0 meters MSL.
68
-------
We point out that Figure 4-1 and Tables 4-1 and 4-2 do not in-
clude the effects of "background," which we define for the purpose of
the attainment status analysis as ambient SO.., concentrations attributable
to emissions from sources other than the TTT Rayonicr and Crown '/ellerbach
Mills. The only S09 air quality monitor for which sufficient, meteorologi-
cal data are available to estimate the annual background is the monitor
at the Olympic National Park Visitor Center (SL-L- Figure 1-1). With south
winds at the nearby BPA Substation meteorological tower, it is unlikely
that emissions from the ITT and Crown Zellerbach Mills affect the Visitor
Center monitor. The annual average S02 concentration at the Visitor
Center monitor with south winds at the BPA tower is 3 micrograms per cubic
meter. We conclude that the actual annual SO background in the Port
Angeles area is between 3 micrograms per cubic meter and the monitor's
threshold concentration of about 13 micrograms per cubic meter. If the
background is assumed to be 13 micrograms per cubic meter and is added
to the maximum annual average concentration calculated for the combined
emissions from the existing sources, the resulting maximum annual average
concentration is 45.5 micrograms per cubic meter, or 57 percent of the
annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO-, of 80
micrograms per cubic meter.
Maximum Short-Term Cround-Levcl SO,, Concentrations
A short-term NAAQS or Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Increment is violated at a given point during the second short-term
period in a year with a short-term concentration above the corresponding
NAAQS or PSD Increment. In general, the same definition of a violation
of a short-term NAAQS or PSD Increment is applied to the results of dis-
persion model calculations. For example, the second-highest 24-hour
average S0? concentration calculated for a receptor during a year normally
is used to assess the compliance of the receptor with the 24-hour NAAQS
for SO . However, if the EPA Regional Administrator identifies inade-
quacies in the data available for input to the dispersion model (for
69
-------
example, poorly defined emissions data or an insufficient period of
record of meteorological data), the Administrator may specify that the
highest rather than the highest of the second-highest short-term concen-
trations calculated for all receptors be used to evaluate compliance with
the short-term NAAQS and PSD Increments. As of 18 November 1980, the
Administrator of EPA Region 10 had not made any determination about the
adequacy of the emissions and meteorological data available for the Port
Angeles area. Consequently, this report considers both the highest and
the highest, second-highest calculated short-term concentrations in
evaluating compliance with the short-term NAAQS and PSD Increments.
The 1-hour, 3-hour and 24-hour average ground-level S09
concentrations given below are for the the combinations of meteorological
and topographic conditions that maximize the 1-hour, 3-hour and 24-hour
average ground-level concentrations calculated following the short-term
modeling procedures outlined in Sections A.3 and A.5 of Appendix A.
Also, as discussed in Section 2.2.2, these conditions are associated
with the highest observed short-term concentrations in the Port Angeles
area.
24-Hour Average Concentrations
For stacks located in flat terrain, both theory (Pasquill, 1974
and others) and air quality data (Gorr and Dunlap, 1977 and others)
indicate that the highest 24-hour average ground-level concentrations
occur during periods of persistent moderate-to-strong winds in combina-
tion with neutral stability. Additionally, following the short-term
modeling procedures outlined in Sections A.3 and A.5 of Appendix A, the
highest 24-hour average ground-level concentrations calculated for stack
emissions usually occur when persistent moderate-to-strong winds blow
toward nearby elevated terrain. We therefore used our persistence
search (PRSIST) data analysis program with the 15 August 1978 to 15
August 1979 Ediz Hook 10-meter tower wind data to isolate all periods
70
-------
when winds above 1.5 meters per second persisted within any 25-degree
sector for 12 or more hours. From the 120 cases (including overlapping
periods), we selected 18 calendar days for use in our short-term model
calculations. (We used calendar days rather than running mean "worst-
case" 24-hour periods for consistency with the models recommended for
use in the absence of complicating factors by the EPA Guideline on Air
Quality Models.)
Table 4-3 gives the means and standard deviations of the
hourly wind-direction and wind-speed observations for the 18 "worst-
case" days. Cases 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 were selected because the wind
direction persisted within a narrow angular sector throughout each day.
As shown by Table 4-3, these days have the lowest standard deviations of
the hourly wind-direction observations. Additionally, these days tend to
have the highest 24-hour average wind speeds. The remaining days in
Table 4-3 were selected because of high occurrence frequencies of the
onshore wind directions required to maximize the effects of elevated
terrain on the calculated concentrations. As expected on the basis of
the analyses of meteorological and air quality data described in Section
2.2, the majority of the "worst-case" days identified by the PRSIST
program are in the summer months.
Table 4-4 lists, for each of the SO,-, air quality monitoring
sites in the Port Angeles area (see Figure 1-1), the observed 24-hour
average SO,, concentrations during the 18 "worst-case" days. The observed
24-hour average concentrations at the Olympic National Park Visitor
Center and at the City Light Building are low, a result that is consistent
with the wind directions during the 18 days. However, the wind directions
during every day except 10 November 1978 (Case 2) indicate that emissions
from the ITT Rayonier Mill probably affected the air quality in the area
east-southeast of the mill. Although no S0? concentration data are
available for the Fourth & Baker and Third & Chestnut monitors for many
of these days, the observed 24-hour average S0~ concentrations for the
71
-------
TABLE 4-3
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE HOURLY WIND-DIRECTION
AND WIND-SPEED OBSERVATIONS ON Till'; "WORST-CASE" DAYS
24-Hour
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
24 Mar 79
6 Apr 79
29 Apr 79
26 May 79
3 Jun 79
8 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
19 Jul 79
21 Jul 79
22 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
25 Jul 79
2 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
Wind Direction (cleg)
Mean
294
066
280
278
279
289
279
288
283
279
276
291
286
288
290
288
289
287
Std. Deviation
17
61
18
15
6
14
6
17
7
7
5
13
7
15
11
8
16
15
Wind Speed (ra/sec)
Mean
4.1
6.6
7.5
7.8
6.6
7.9
8.3
4.9
8.6
8.5
7.7
5.3
6.8
5.6
5.7
6.7
5.6
5.6
Std. Deviation
2.5
2.7
1.4
1.9
1.5
3.3
1.2
1.8
1.1
2.2
2.6
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.6
72
-------
TABLE 4-4
OBSERVED 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS ON THE "WORST-CASE" DAYS
24-Hour
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
24 Mar 79
6 Apr 79
29 Apr 79
26 May 79
3 Jun 79
8 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
19 Jul 79
21 Jul 79
22 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
25 Jul 79
2 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
3
Observed 24-Hour SO,, ConcenLra Lion (pg/m )
Visitor
Center
13
8
MSG
0
0
3
0
26
0
0
MSG
29
0
3
5
3
0
3
Fourth &
Baker
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
168
147
152
84
236
186
MSG
178
123
134
165
160
155
152
Third &
Chestnut
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
210
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
296
128
City Light
Bldg.
5
MSG
29
26
MSG
24
21
MSG
MSG
MSG
26
5
0
26
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
73
-------
remaining days are relatively high. Thus, the SO- concentration measure-
ments made in the area east-southeast of the ITT Mill tend to support
the selection of the "worst-case" days. (We point out that direct
comparisons of the calculated 24-hour average concentrations given in
this section with the observed concentrations in Table 4-4 should not be
made because the S00 emissions assumed in the model calculations for the
ITT Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills do not necessarily correspond to
the actual emissions during the "worst-case" days.)
We used the 24-hour source inputs given in Section 2.1 for the
ITT Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills and the hourly meteorological
inputs listed in Appendix B for the 18 "worst-case" days with the short-
term concentration model (SHORTZ) described in Sections A.3 and A.5 of
Appendix A to calculate 24-hour average ground-level SO,, concentrations
for each of the "worst-case" days. Two receptor arrays in polar coordi-
nates were used in the model calculations. The first receptor array was
centered at the Crown Zellerbach Mill; the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) X and Y coordinates of the origin were 465.30 and 5,331.15 kilo-
meters, respectively. Receptors were placed at distances from the
stacks of 0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 kilometers; the
angular spacing between receptors was 5 degrees. The second receptor
array was identical to the first receptor array except that the origin
was placed at the center of the plant production area of the ITT Rayonier
Mill. The UTM X and Y coordinates of the origin of the second array
were 469.74 and 5,329.19 kilometers, respectively. For each receptor
array, the elevations of all receptors were extracted from USGS topo-
graphic maps, and the procedures outlined in Section A.5 in Appendix A
were used to account for the effects of variations in the terrain height
on ground-level concentrations.
The results of the 24-hour average SO concentration calcula-
tions for the ITT Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills are summarized in
Table 4-5 and 4-6, respectively. The background concentration shown for
74
-------
TABLE 4-5
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED FOR THE ITT RAYON IER MILL
24-Hour
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Concentration (yg/ra )
ITT
522
581
323
243
298
437
320
231
273
256
275
467
262
245
421
272
325
18 198
i
Crown
Zellerbach
18
12
6
4
1
6
1
3
3
2
0
6
5
3
4
4
4
1
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
26
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
553
606
341
260
311
457
334
260
289
271
288
502
280
261
439
289
341
212
Location*
' Azimuth
Distance
. Bearing
(km) (cleg)
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
115
220
120
120
100
120
100
125
100
095
100
120
115
125
120
120
120
130
Elevation
(ra MSL)
47
23
40
40
0
40
0
40
0
0
0
40
47
40
40
40
40
40
^Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 469.74
kilometers, Y = 5,329.19 kilometers.
75
-------
TABLE 4-6
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FOR THE CROWN ZELLERBACH MILL
24-Hour
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3
Concentration (pg/m' )
Crown
Zellerbaeh
80
292
81
83
176
98
208
68
183
182
187
100
147
72
81
122
73
77
ITT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
26
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
93
305
94
96
189
111
221
94
196
195
200
129
160
85
94
135
86
90
Location*
Distance
(tan)
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
120
220
110
115
100
120
100
125
100
95
100
120
105
125
120
110
125
125
Elevation
(m MSL)
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 465.30
kilometers, Y = 5,331.15 kilometers.
76
-------
each day in the two tables is the maximum of the S0.; monitor threshold
of 13 micrograms per cubic meter and the 24-hour average S09 concentration
measured at the Visitor Center. The maximum 24-hour average concentrations
calculated for both mills occur on 10 November 1978 (Case 2), a day with
persistent northeast winds. Figure 4-2 shows the calculated Jsopleths
of 24-hour average ground-level S09 concentration for 10 November 1978.
(Figure 4-2 does not include any background estimate.) The maximum 24-
hour concentration calculated southwest of the ITT Mill (606 micrograms
per cubic meter with background included) is almost entirely determined
by emissions from the ITT Mill and the maximum 24-hour concentration
calculated southwest of the Crown Zellerbach Mill (305 micrograms per
cubic meter with background included) is entirely determined by emissions
from the Crown Zellerbach Mill. Table 4-7 gives the contributions of the
individual sources at the ITT and Crown Zellerbach Mills to the calculated
maximum 24-hour concentrations.
The 24-hour NAAQS for S09 is 365 micrograms per cubic meter. As
shown by Table 4-5, there are five days with calculated maximum 24-hour
average SCL concentrations above 365 micrograms per cubic meter attriutable
to emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill (Cases 1, 2, 6, 12 and 15). The
maximum 24-hour concentration for one of these days is calculated to occur
southwest of the ITT Mill, while the maximum 24-hour concentrations for the
four other days are calculated to occur east-southeast of the mill. Thus,
if it is assumed that any calculated concentration above 365 micrograms
per cubic meter is a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS, the results of the
model calculations indicate that non-attainment areas for the 24-hour NAAQS
are located southwest and east-southeast of the ITT Mill. However, if it
is assumed that the 24-hour standard is violated at a given point on the
second day during a year with a calculated 24-hour average concentration
above 365 micrograms per cubic meter, the results of the model calcula-
tions indicate that the only non-attainment area for the 24-hour NAAQS is
located east-southeast of the ITT Mill. To define the boundaries of the
calculated non-attainment area(s) for the 24-hour NAAQS, we repeated our
77
-------
FIGURE 4-2. Calculated isopleths of 24-hour average ground-level SOo concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill and ITT
Rayonier Mill during the "worst-case" day (10 November 1978) for emissions from tne
two mills.
-------
TABLE 4-7
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE
S02 CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED FOR THE ITT RAYONIER MILL
AND CROWN ZELLERBACK MILL
Source
3
Concentration (jjg/m )
(a) ITT Rayonier Mill
Recovery Furnace
West and East Vents (Acid Plant)
North Bleach Vent
South Bleach Vent
Power Boiler No. 4
Power Boiler No. 5
H.F. Boiler No. 5
ITT Rayonier Total
0
171
5
18
367
19
0
581
(b) Crown Zellerbach Mill
H.F. Boiler No. 8
Package Boiler
Crown Zellerbach Total
236
55
292
79
-------
dispersion model calculations for Cases 1, 2, 6, 12 and 15 using a more
detailed receptor grid. Specifically, the angular spacing of receptors
southwest and east-southeast of the ITT Mill was reduced from 5 degrees to
2.5 degrees and additional receptor distances of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9,
1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 kilometers were added.
Figure 4-3 (a) shows the calculated non-attainment areas for the
24-hour NAAQS for SO.., that are defined by the receptors with one or more
calculated 24-hour average SO.., concentrations (including background) above
365 micrograms per cubic meter. Similarly, Figure 4-3 (b) shows the
calculated non-attainment area for the 24-hour NAAQS that is defined by the
receptors with two or more calculated 24-hour average S00 concentrations
(including background) above 365 micrograms per cubic meter. We point out
that the calculated non-attainment areas consider only the effects of
stack emissions. As discussed in Sections 2.1 and 3, the black liquor
holding pond at the ITT Mill is believed to have a variable, but sometimes
significant, impact on 50 air quality in the vicinity of the mill. (The
holding pond is irregularly-shaped ellipse north of the Third L Chestnut
monitor and the non-attainment area in Figure 4-3 (b).) Thus, if the
effects of emissions from the holding pond are considered, the actual non-
attainment area(s) may be somewhat larger than indicated in Figures 4-3 (a)
and 4-3 (b).
It is important to note that persistant winds from the west-
northwest are required for the occurrence of calculated 24-hour average
SO.., concentrations above the 24-hour NAAQS in the area east-southeast
of the ITT Mill. As indicated by Table 2-15 in Section 2.2, the winds
near this calculated non-attainment area tend to be from the west-
northwest when the winds at Ediz Hook are from the west. Because the Ediz
Hook 10-meter tower wind data were used in the dispersion model calcula-
tions, it follows that we may have underestimated the frequency of occur-
rence of 24-hour concentrations above the 24-hour NAAQS in the area east-
southeast of the ITT Mill. However, we believe that the maximum 24-hour
80
-------
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
ITT RAYONIER PAPER MILL
RD and CHESTNUT
H5330
468 473
FIGURE 4-3 (a). Illustration of the two areas within which 24-hour average concentrations above the
24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SC^ are calculated to occur
one or more times per year. The area within which 3-hour average concentrations
above the 3-hour NAAQS are calculated to occur once per year is entirely contained
within the area east-southeast of the ITT Mill.
5327
-------
CO
NO
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
533O
r
ITT RAYONIER PAPER MILL
-3RD and CHESTNUT SITE
HR S02 NAAQS NON-ATTAINMENT AREA
^4TH and BAKER SITE
--"N
A
5327
468
473
FIGURE 4-3 (b). Illustration of the area within which 24-hour average concentrations above the
24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for S02 are calculated to
occur two or more times per year.
-------
concentration that we calculated for this area of 553 micrograms per
cubic meter (Case 1) probably is representative of the maximum 24-hour
concentration that can be expected to occur for the emissions assumed in
the model calculations.
3-Hour Average Concentrations
High 3-hour average ground-level concentrations attributable
to stack emissions are associated with periods of persistent moderate-
to-strong winds, periods of transition from a stable thermal stratifi-
cation to an unstable thermal stratification or vice versa, and periods
of limited mixing. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, these meteorological
conditions are associated with the highest observed 1-hour S0« concen-
trations in the Port Angeles area. Consequently, all three critical
meteorological regimes were considered in our short-term model calcula-
tions of maximum 3-hour SO.-, concentrations.
The 18 "worst-case" days discussed above contained 15 "clock-
hour" 3-hour periods when the wind persisted within a 5-degree sector
for all 3 hours. (As in the case of the 24-hour concentration calcu-
lations, we used "clock hours" (0100 through 0300, 0400 through 0600,
etc.) in our 3-hour concentration calculations for consistency with
standardized EPA dispersion models.) Additionally, we used our PRSIST
program to identify all 3-hour ("clock-hour") periods with wind speeds
between 1.5 and 5.0 meters per second at the Ediz Hook tower and wind
directions within a single 5-degree sector for all 3 hours. The 22 3-
hour cases identified in our second PRSIST analysis in combination with
the 15 cases for the 18 "worst-case" days yielded a total of 37 "worst-
case" '3-hour periods.
Table 4-8 identifies the "worst-case" 3-hour periods and
gives, for each period, the 3-hour mean wind direction and speed and the
Pasquill stability category for each hour of the period. As shown by
83
-------
TABLE 4-8
AVERAGE WIND DIRECTIONS AND WIND SPEEDS AND THE PASQUILL STABILITY
CATEGORIES DURING THE "WORST-CASE" 3-HOUR PERIODS
3-Hour
Case
No.
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Date
23 Aug 78
13 Nov 78
12 Dec 78
19 Dec 78
20 Dec 78
3 Jan 79
5 Jan 79
19 Jan 79
27 Jan 79
1 Mar 79
24 Mar 79
2 Apr 79
6 Apr 79
22 Apr 79
29 Apr 79
1 May 79
7 May 79
3 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
18 Jun 79
20 Jun 79
22 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
29 Jun 79
29 Jun 79
8 Jul 79
19 Jul 79
21 Jul 79
2 Aug 79
2 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
Hours
(PST)
1600-1800
0100-0300
1900-2100
0100-0300
0700-0900
0100-0300
2200-2400
1600-1800
0100-0300
0100-0300
1300-1500
0400-0600
1600-1800
1000-1200
0400-0600
0700-0900
1000-1200
1900-2100
0400-0600
1600-1800
2200-2400
0400-0600
0400-0600
1000-1200
1600-1800
1900-2100
1000-1200
1900-2100
0700-0900
1000-1200
1600-1800
0100-0300
0100-0300
1300-1500
2200-2400
1000-1200
2200-2400
.
3-Hour Average Wind
Direction
(deg)
290
220
155
215
245
165
170
090
270
240
285
270
295
125
270
280
050
275
280
280
275
270
245
285
275
275
280
275
260
265
250
275
280
300
280
310
280
i
Speed
(m/sec)
2. 2
2.8
3.1
3.6
2.9
2.8
3.4
3.1
3.9
3.6
9.2
3.6
11.0
2.0
4.4
4.2
2.4
7.4
6.7
9.9
8.6
4.0
4.5
3.6
10.9
10.4
6.9
10.3
3.9
3.1
3.4
5.9
8.5
5.7
6.1
3.7
5.5
Pasquill Stability
Category
Hr.l Hr.2
D
F
E
D
D
F
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
E
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
C
D
B
D
D
F
F
E
D
F
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
B
D
Hr.3
D
E
F
E
D
F
F
D
JD
E
D
D
D
B
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
84
-------
the table, the Pasquill stability categories during our selected 3-hour
periods ranged from the very stable F category to the unstable B cate-
gory. The stable categories are restricted to hours with offshore wind
directions, while the unstable categories generally occur with onshore
wind directions. However, the majority of the hours are associated with
the neutral D category with winds from the west or west-northwest.
Table 4-9 gives the 3-hour average SO- concentrations measured
at the various monitoring sites in the Port Angeles area during the
"worst-case" 3-hour periods. In general, the observed 3-hour SO,-,
concentrations are low at all monitors except the Fourth & Baker monitor
and/or the Third & Chestnut monitor during periods with the west-northwest
winds required to transport emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill to
these monitors. With the exception of Case 17, the Ediz Hook tower wind
directions indicate that the Visitor Center monitor was unaffected by
SO emissions from the existing sources. Because the observed 3-hour
average concentrations at the Visitor Center were below the monitor's
threshold of about 13 micrograms per cubic meters for all cases except
Case 17, we assumed a background of 13 micrograms per cubic meter for
these cases. The wind direction for Case 17 of 050 degrees indicates
that the merged plume from the ITT Mill might have followed a nearly
straight-line trajectory to the Visitor Center. However, the 3-hour
concentration observed at the Fourth & Baker monitor during Case 17 of
188 micrograms per cubic meter is almost identical to the corresponding
concentration observed at the Visitor Center of 170 micrograms per cubic
meter. Additionally, no S0« sources are located upwind of Fourth &
Baker with northeast winds. Thus, it appears that an almost uniform back-
ground concentration existed in the Port Angeles area during Case 17. We
therefore assumed that the 3-hour concentration at the Visitor Center of
170 micrograms per cubic meter was representative of the background in
the Port Angeles area during Case 17. The fact that Case 17 was pre-
ceded by a number of hours with light winds from the south and south-
85
-------
TABLE 4-9
OBSERVED 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE "WORST-CASE"
3-HOUR PERIODS
3-Hour
Case
No.
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Date
23 Aug 78
13 Nov 78
12 Dec 78
19 Dec 78
20 Dec 78
3 Jan 79.
5 Jan 79
19 Jan 79
27 Jan 79
1 Mar 79
24 Mar 79
2 Apr 79
6 Apr 79
22 Apr 79
29 Apr 79
1 May 79
7 May 79
3 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
18 Jun 79
20 Jun 79
22 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
29 Jun 79
29 Jun 79
8 Jul 79
19 Jul 79
21 Jul 79
2 Aug 79
2 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
Hours
(PST)
1600-1800
0100-0300
1900-2100
0100-0300
0700-0900
0100-0300
2200-2400
1600-1800
0100-0300
0100-0300
1300-1500
0400-0600
1600-1800
1000-1200
0400-0600
0700-0900
1000-1200
1900-2100
0400-0600
1600-1800
2200-2400
0400-0600
0400-0600
1000-1200
1600-1800
1900-2100
1000-1200
1900-2100
0700-0900
1000-1200
1600-1800
0100-0300
0100-0300
1300-1500
2200-2400
1000-1200
2200-2400
Observed 3-Hour S02 Concentration
(UR/m3)
Visitor
Center
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MSG
0
0
13
0
0
170
0
0
0
0
0
0
MSG
0
0
MSG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
4
0
Fourth &
Baker
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
0
0
35
188
44
4
358
0
0
0
122
410
144
218
122
26
52
218
13
20
432
0
13
13
Third &
Chestnut
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
480
0
262
0
City Light
Bids.
26
MSG
52
26
26
35
MSG
44
26
MSG
'26
26
26
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
26
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
0
0
MSG
MSG
26
26
26
26
26
0
0
MSG
MSG
MSG
MSG
86
-------
southwest suggests that S09 previously emitted from the ITT Mill was
advected back over Port Angeles and caused this background concentration.
We used the 3-hour source inputs given in Section 2 for the
ITT Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills and the hourly meteorological
inputs listed in Appendix B for the 37 "worst-case" 3-hour periods with
the SHORTZ program to calculate 3-hour average ground-level S0« concen-
trations for each of the "worst-case" 3-hour periods. The calculation
procedures and receptor grids were identical to those described above in
the discussion of the 24-hour average concentration calculations.
The- results of the 3-hour average S0» concentration calcula-
tions for the ITT Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills are given in
Tables 4-10 and and 4-11, respectively. Excluding background, the
maximum 3-hour concentration calculated for the ITT Mill is 1,424 micro-
grams per cubic meter (Case 34) and the maximum 3-hour concentration
calculated for the Crown Zellerbach Mill is 461 micrograms per cubic
meter (Case 17). Both of these calculated maximum 3-hour concentrations
occur on elevated terrain about 40 meters above plant grade. If the
effects of background and emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill are
included, the maximum 3-hour concentration calculated in the vicinity of
the ITT Mill is 1,442 micrograms per cubic meter. Similarly, the maximum
3-hour concentration calculated in the vicinity of the Crown Zellerbach
Mill is 631 micrograms per cubic meter if the effects of background are
included. The calculated isopleths of maximum 3-hour average SO,.,
concentration attributable^ to emissions from the ITT and Crown Zellerbach
Mills are shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5, respectively. (Figures 4-4 and
4-5 do not include background.) The contributions of the individual
sources to the maximum 3-hour concentrations calculated for the two
mills are listed in Table 4-12.
The 3-hour NAAQS for S0? is 1,300 micrograms per cubic meter.
If any calculated 3-hour average concentration above 1,300 micrograms per
87
-------
TABLE 4-10
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 3-HOUR AVERAGE S09 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FOR THE ITT RAYONIER MILL
3-Hour
Case
No.
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Concentration (yg/m )
ITT
1,156
540
460
496
400
460
494
584
434
528
564
441
853
463
512
515
694
659
606
539
588
456
452
460
511
523
567
529
456
475
657
533
604
1,424
559
1,010
406
Crown
Zellerbach
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
170
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
1,202
553
473
509
413
473
507
597
447
541
577
454
878
476
525
528
864
672
619
552
601
469
465
476
524
536
580
542
469
488
670
546
617
1,442
572
1,024
419
Location*
Distance
(km)
1.2
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.2
2.0
2.0
0.8
1.2
1.5
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.4
1.2
2.0
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
110
040
335
035
065
345
350
270
090
060
105
090
115
305
090
100
230
095
100
100
095
090
065
105
095
095
100
095
030
085
070
095
100
120
100
130
100
Elevation
(m MSL)
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
46
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
38
0
^Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 469.74
kilometers, Y = 5,329.19 kilometers.
-------
TABLE 4-11
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM '3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FOR THE CROWN ZELLERBACH MILL
3-Hour
Case
No.
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Concentration (yg/m )
Crown
Zellerbach
242
279
279
274
290
263
262
29
241
266
379
244
408
217
279
252
461
310
289
416
358
254
253
202
415
421
296
411
255
245
274
263
352
301
282
263
87
ITT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
170
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
255
292
292
287
303
276
275
42
254
279
392
257
421
230
292
265
631
323
302
429
371
267
266
215
428
434
309
424
268
258
287
276
365
314
295
276
100
Location *
Distance
(km)
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
110
040
335
035
065
345
350
270
090
060
105
090
115
305
090
100
230
095
100
100
095
090
065
105
095
095
100
095
080
085
' 070
095
100
120
100
130
100
Elevation
(m MSL)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
^Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 465.30
kilometers, Y = 5,331.15 kilometers.
89
-------
HARBOR
ANGELES
FIGURE 4-4.
Calculated isopleths of 3-hour average ground-level S02 concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the Crown Zellerback Mill and ITT
Rayonier Mill during the "worst-case" 3-hour period (1300 through 1500 PST on
2 August 1979) for emissions from the ITT Mill.
-------
FIGURE 4-5. Calculated isopleths of 3-hour average ground-level SO concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill and ITT
Rayonier Mill during the "worse-case" 3-hour period (1000 through 1200 PST on
7 May 1979) for emissions from the Crown Zellerback Mill.
-------
TABLE 4-12
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED FOR THE TTT RAYONIER MILL
AND CROWN ZELLERHACK MILL
Source
3
Concentration (}Jg/m )
(a) ITT Rayonier Mill
Recovery Furnace
West and East Vents (Acid Plant)
North Bleach Vent
South Bleach Vent
Power Boiler No. 4
Power Boiler No. 5
H.F. Boiler No. 5
ITT Rayonier Total
33
457
9
31
493
384
17
1,424
(b) Crown Zellerbach Mill
H.F. Boiler No. 8
Package Boiler
Crown Zellerbach Total
369
92
461
92
-------
cubic meter is defined as a violation of the 3-hour NAAQS, a non-attainment
area for the 3-hour NAAQS is located east-southeast of the ITT Rayonier
Mill. As indicated by Figui'e 4-4, this non-attainmenL area for the 3-hour
NAAQS is very small and is entirely contained within the non-attainment
area for the 24-hour NAAQS that is shown east-southeast of the ITT Mill
in Figure 4-3 (a). If it is assumed that the 3-hour standard is violated
at a given point during the second 3-hour period in a year with a calcu-
lated 3-hour average S09 concentration above 1,300 micrograms per cubic
meter, the results of the model calculations indicate that the Port Angeles
area is an attainment area for the 3-hour NAAQS.
1-Hour Concentrations
The State of Washington has a 1-hour SO^ ambient air quality
standard of 0.40 parts per million (ppm), which corresponds to 1,048
micrograms per cubic meter in metric units. This standard is exceeded
at a given point during the second hour in a year with a 1-hour concen-
tration above 1,048 micrograms per cubic meter. Although compliance
with the 1-hour standard does not affect the attainment status of the
Port Angeles area for the NAAQS, we also assessed the compliance of the
existing sources with the Washington 1-hour standard. The maximum 1-
hour concentration calculated for emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill
alone of 2,234 micrograms per cubic meter occurs during the third hour
of 3-hour Case 34 at the same point as the calculated maximum 3-hour
concentration. Because the 1-hour concentration calculated at this
point exceeds 1,048 micrograms per cubic meter during each hour of the
3-hour period, our results indicate that the 1-hour Washington standard
is violated by the stack emissions from the ITT Mill. The maximum 1-
hour concentration calculated for emissions from the Crown Zellerbach
Mill alone of 592 micrograms per cubic meter (first hour of 3-hour Case
17) is well below the 1-hour standard. Thus, the results of the model
calculations show that emissions from the Crown Zellerbach Mill alone do
not endanger the 1-hour standard. The contributions of the individual
93
-------
sources to the maximum 1-hour SO,, concentrations calculated for the ITT
Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach Mills are listed in Table 4-13.
4.2 THE PSD INCREMENT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED SOURCES
4.2.1 Annual Average Ground-Level S0_ Concentrations
We used the "worst-case" source inputs given in Section 2.1 ,
for the proposed Northern Tier Pipeline Company (NTPC) sources (tankers)
with the long-term concentration modeling techniques described in Section
4.1.1 to calculate seasonal and annual average ground-level SO,., concen-
trations attributable to emissions from the NTPC sources. The results
of these calculations were also merged with the seasonal and annual
average SO,, concentrations calculated for the existing sources in Section
4.1.1 to assess compliance with the annual National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for S02.
Figure 4-6 shows the calculated isopleths of annual average
ground-level S0« concentration attributable to emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources. As shown by the figure, the maximum annual impact for the
proposed sources is calculated to occur over water in and east of Port
Angeles Harbor. The maximum annual average S0? concentration calculated
for emissions from the NTPC sources alone is 9.74 micrograms per cubic
meter, or about 49 percent of the annual Class II Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Increment for S0« of 20 micrograms per cubic meter.
Table 4-14 gives the contributions of the individual NTPC sources to
this calculated maximum concentration.
As discussed in Section 1.2, Olympic National Park is a manda-
tory Federal Class I (pristine air quality) area. The maximum annual
average S0~ concentration calculated at Olympic National Park for the
"worst-case" emissions from the proposed NTPC sources is 0.79 micrograms
94
-------
TABLE 4-13
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM 1-HOUR S02
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED FOR THE ITT RAYONIER MILL
AND CROWN ZELLERBACK MILL
Source
Concentration (yg/m )
(a) ITT Rayonier Mill*
Recovery Furnace
West and East Vents (Acid Plant)
North Bleach Vent
South Bleach Vent
Power Boiler No. 4
Power Boiler No. 5
H.F. Boiler No. 5
ITT Rayonier Total
4
734
14
50
877
537
18
2,234
(b) Crown Zellerbach Mill**
H.F. Boiler No. 8
Package Boiler
Crown Zellerbach Total
470
122
592
*The location of the maximum 1-hour concentration calculated for the ITT
Mill is the same as the location of the maximum 3-hour concentration
calculated for the mill (see Case 34 in Table 4-10).
**The receptor with the maximum 1-hour concentration calculated for the
Crown Zellerbach Mill is located 0.6 kilometers from the stacks at an
azimuth bearing of 230 degrees. The receptor elevation is 35 meters MSL.
95
-------
G E L E 5VoJH A R B O/ R
FIGURE 4-6. Calculated isopleths of annual average ground-level S09 concentration in micrograms per
cubic meter attributable to emissions from the proposed NTPC sources.
-------
TABLE 4-14
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NTPC SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL
AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS
FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES ALONE
Source
Tanker Unloading at
Tanker Unloading at
Tanker Idling (West
West Berth
East Berth
Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East
Harbor)
NTPC Total
Concentrat
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
9.
* 3
ion (yg/rn )
34
55
26
22
37
74
*The UTM X and Y coordinates of the calculated maximum concentration are
470.5 and 5,331.0 kilometers, respectively. The receptor elevation is
0 meters MSL.
TABLE 4-15
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NTPC SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL
AVERAGE S09 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED AT THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL
PARK VISITOR CENTER FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS
FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
Source
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
Total for NTPC Sources
Concentration* (]Jg/m )
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.79
*The UTM X and Y coordinates of the calculated maximum concentration are
467.7 and 5,327.5 kilometers, respectively. Tlie receptor elevation is
94 meters MSL.
97
-------
per cubic meter, or about 40 percent of the annual Class I PSD Increment
of 2 micrograms per cubic meter. The Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) X and Y coordinates of this receptor are 467.7 and 5,327.5 kilometers,
respectively. The receptor elevation is 94 meters above mean sea level
(MSL). The contributions of the individual NTPC sources to the maximum
annual average SO., concentration calculated at the Visitor Center are
given in Table 4-15.
Figure 4-7 shows the calculated isopleths of annual average ground-
level S0,j concentration attributable to the combined emissions from the
existing and proposed sources in the Port Angeles area. The location of
the maximum annual concentration calculated for the combined emissions
from the existing and proposed sources is identical to the location of the
maximum annual concentration calculated for emissions from the existing
sources alone. Table 4-16 gives the contributions of the existing and
proposed sources to the calculated maximum annual concentration. As
shown by the table, emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill account for
about 94 percent of the calculated maximum concentration of 34.1 micro-
grams per cubic meter. If the annual background is assumed to be 13
micrograms per cubic meter (see Section 4.1.1), the resulting maximum
annual concentration is 47-1 micrograms per cubic meter, or about 59
percent of the annual NAAQS of 80 micrograms per cubic meter.
4.2.2 Maximum Short-Term Ground-Level S0« Concentrations
24-Hour Average Concentrations
Section 4.1.2 identifies 18 calendar days with meteorological
conditions conducive to high 24-hour average ground-level SO,., concentra-
tions as a result of emissions from the existing SO.-, sources in the Port
Angeles area. These meteorological conditions are also likely to maximize
the 24-hour average ground-level concentrations produced by emissions
from the proposed NTPC S0~ sources. Consequently, we repeated the 24-
98
-------
ANGELES
FIGURE 4-7.
Calculated isopleths of annual average ground-level SCL concentration in micrograms per
cubic meter attributable to the combined emissions from the existing Crown Zellerbach
and ITT Rayonier Mills and the proposed NTPC sources.
-------
TABLE 4-16
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM
ANNUAL AVERAGE GROUND-LEVEL S02 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED
IN THE PORT ANGELES AREA
Source
ITT Rayonier Mill (existing)
Crown Zellerbach Mill (existing)
NTPC Sources (proposed)
Total for Existing and Proposed Sources
Background
Maximum Annual Concentration
* 3
Concentration (yg/m )
31.99
0.48
1.62
34.10
13.00
47.10
-The UTM X and Y coordinates of the calculated maximum concentration are
470.30 and 5,328.74 kilometers, respectively. The receptor elevation
is 40 meters MSL.
100
-------
hour average concentration calculations for these days using the "worst-
case" emissions data given in Section 2.1 for the proposed NTPC sources.
Additionally, we used our PRSTST data analysis program to isolate three
24-hour periods with relatively high occurrence frequencies of the
north-northwest to north-northeast winds required to transport emissions
from the NTPC sources to the nearest boundary of Olympic National Park,
the Visitor Center. The hourly meteorological inputs for the three
"worst-case" days for the Visitor Center are listed in Appendix B.
With the exception of the receptor grid, the procedures used
to calculate maximum 24-hour average S0? concentrations for the proposed
NTPC sources were identical to those outlined in Section 4.1.2. Approxi-
mately 50 percent of the "worst-case" NTPC emissions are from three
idling tankers spaced at 1.1-kilometer intervals and approximately 50
percent of the emissions are from two unloading tankers with a 0.5-
kilometer separation (see Figure 1-1). We considered both Cartesian and
polar receptor grid systems for use in the short-term concentration
calculations and plotted examples of both systems on. maps showing the
locations of the five NTPC sources. On the basis of these maps, we
concluded that the use of a receptor array in polar coordinates was the
most efficient means of detecting maximum short-term concentrations
attributable to the tanker emissions. The origin of the array was
placed between the two unloading tankers and receptors were placed at
radial distances of 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 2.0, 2.2, 2.5,
2.7, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 kilometers. The angular
spacing between receptors was 5 degrees. This grid system results in a
dense spacing of receptors in the areas of expected maximum short-term
air quality impacts for each of the five NTPC sources. Additionally,
discrete receptors were spaced at 100-meter intervals around the nearest
boundary of Olympic National Park.
Table 4-17 summarizes the results of the 24-hour average
ground-level SO,-, concentration calculations for the proposed NTPC sources
101
-------
TABLE 4-17
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS"
FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
24-Hour
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
24 Mar 79
6 Apr 79
29 Apr 79
26 May 79
3 Jun 79
8 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
19 Jul 79
21 Jul 79
22 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
25 Jul 79
2 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
Concentration
(yg/m3)
52
40
45
50
74
42
75
35
62
69
69
48
62
48
53
66
45
63
Locations*
Distance
(km)
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.1
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
120
235
120
115
115
120
115
125
140
115
115
120
120
120
120
120
120
140
Elevation
(m MSL)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
^Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 468.26
kilometers, Y = 5,331.61 kilometers.
102
-------
for the 18 "worst-case" days selected in Section 4.1.2. The calculated
maximum 24-hour average SCL concentration of 75 micrograms per cubic
meter (Case 7) is 82 percent of the 24-hour Class IT PSD Increment of 91
micrograms per cubic meter. The highest, second-highest 24-hour concen-
tration occurs at the same point as the maximum concentration and is 69
micrograms per cubic meter (Case 10), or 76 percent of the 24-hour Class
II Increment. Figure 4-8 shows the isopleths of 24-hour average ground-
level SO,., concentration calculated for the combined emissions from the
proposed NTPC sources on the "worse-case" day for Class II areas (3 June
1979). As shown by the figure, west-northwest winds align the emissions
from the three idling tankers and cause the maximum 24-hour concentration
for the combined emissions to occur at the point of maximum impact for
the tanker idling in the east harbor. The contributions of the individual
sources to the maximum 24-hour concentration calculated for the combined
emissions from the NTPC sources are given in Table 4-18.
To assess the effects of emissions from the proposed NTPC
sources on the attainment status of the Port Angeles area for the 24-
hour NAAQS, we included the proposed .NTPC sources with the existing
sources and repeated the 24-hour average SO,-, concentration calculations
described in Section 4.1.2. Table 4-19 gives the magnitudes and locations
of the maximum 24-hour average ground-level SO,, concentrations calcula-
ted for the combined emissions from the existing and proposed sources.
For each of the 18 "worst-case" days, emissions from the ITT Rayonier
Mill are primarily responsible for the calculated maximum 24-hour concen-
tration. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, emissions from the existing
sources alone result in five days with calculated 24-hour concentrations
above the 24-hour NAAQS, leading to the calculated non-attainment area(s)
for the 24-hour NAAQS shown in Figures 4-3 , (a) and 4-3 (b). EPA defines
a "significant" impact of emissions from a proposed source on a non-
attainment area for the 24-hour NAAQS for S0? as a 24-hour S02 concentra-
tion above 5 micrograms per cubic meter. Table 4-19 shows that the
contribution of emissions from the proposed NTPC sources to the 24-hour
103
-------
FIGURE 4-8. Calculated isopleths of 24-hour average ground-level SO- concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the proposed NTPC sources during the
"worst-case" day (3 June .1979) for emissions from the NTPC sources at Class II areas.
-------
TABLE 4-18
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NTPC SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM 24-
HOUR AVERAGE SO? CONCENTRATION CALCULATED FOR THE COMBINED
EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
Source
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
Concentration
2
2
7
15
51
Total for NTPC Sources
75
105
-------
TABLE 4-19
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS FROM THE EXISTING
AND PROPOSED SOURCES
24 -Hour
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3
Concentration (yg/m )
ITT
522
581
323
243
298
437
320
231
273
256
275
467
262
245
421
272
325
198
Crown
Zellerbach
18
12
6
4
1
6
1
3
3
2
0
6
5
3
4
4
4
1
NTPC
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
2
2
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
26
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
559
606
336
260
312
451
451
262
289
258
288
498
280
263
439
290
344
214
Location *
Distance
(kin)
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
115
220
120
' 120
100
120
100
125
100
095
100
120
115
125
120
120
120
130
Elevation
(m MSL)
47
23
40
40
0
40
0
40
0
0
0
40
47
40
40
40
40
40
Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 469.74
kilometers, Y = 5,329,19 kilometers.
106
-------
average concentration calculated for the combined emissions from the
existing and proposed sources is 6 micrograms per cubic meter on one of
the five days (Case 1). Hox^ever, the simultaneous occurrence of the
"worst-case" emissions scenario for the proposed NTPC sources and the
meteorological conditions conducive to a "significant" impact on the
non-attainment area calculated east-southeast of the ITT Mill is likely
to have a low probability. Also, emissions- from the proposed NTPC
sources do not cause any additional calculated 24-hour concentrations
above the 24-hour NAAQS and do not affect the size of the calculated
non-attainment area(s) .
Table 4-20 gives the magnitudes and locations of the maximum
24-hour average S0? concentrations calculated at the Olympic National
Park Visitor Center for the combined emissions from the proposed NTPC
sources on the three "worst-case" days for the Visitor Center. The
calculated maximum concentration of 11.5 micrograms per cubic meter is
about 2.3 times the 24-hour Class I PSD Increment of 5 micrograms per
cubic meter. Also, the 24-hour Class I Increment is exceeded more than
once at the same point. Thus, the results of the 24-hour concentration
calculations indicate that the "worst-case" emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources will violate the PSD Regulations for Class I areas at
Olympic National Park. Figure 4-9 shows the calculated isopleths of 24-
hour average, ground-level SO,, concentration attributable to emissions
from the proposed NTPC sources on the "worst-case" day for the Olympic
National Park Visitor Center (21 February 1979) . The contributions of
the individual NTPC sources to the maximum 24-hour concentration calcu-
lated at the Visitor Center for the combined emissions from the NTPC
sources are listed in Table 4-21.
3-Hour Average Concentrations
Section 4.1.2 identifies 37 "clock-hour" 3-hour periods with
meteorological conditions conducive to the occurrence of high ground-
107
-------
TABLE 4-20
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED AT THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL
PARK VISITOR CENTER FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS
FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
ONP
24-Hour
Case No.
1
2
3
Date
27 Dec 78
10 Jan 79
21 Feb 79
Concentration
(yg/m3)
5.8
6.4
11.5
Lpcation
UTM X
(km)
468.4
468.4
467.7
UTM Y
(km)
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
Elevation
(m MSL)
84
84
94
TABLE 4-21
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NTPC SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR
AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED AT THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL
PARK VISITOR CENTER FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS FROM
THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
Source
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
Total for NTPC Sources
3
Concentration (yg/m )
1.5
5.2
0.0
4.6
0.3
11.5
108
-------
FIGURE 4-9. Calculated isopleths of 24-hour average ground-level S0? concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the proposed NTPC sources during the
"worst-case" day (21 February 1979) for emissions from the NTPC sources at Class I areas.
-------
level concentrations as a result of stack emissions from either the
existing sources or the proposed NTPC sources. We used the "worst-case"
emissions data given in Section 2.1 for the proposed NTPC sources with
the modeling techniques described above under the discussion of 24-hour
average concentrations to calculate the maximum 3-hour ground-level SO-
concentration attributable to emissions from the NTPC sources for each
of the 37 3-hour periods. Additionally, we used our PRSIST data analysis
program to identify eight 3-hour ("clock hour") periods with minimal
wind-direction variation and wind directions within the narrow angular
sector required to transport emissions from the proposed NTPC sources to
the Olympic National Park Visitor Center. The hourly meteorological
inputs for the eight "worst-case" 3-hour periods for the Visitor Center
are listed in Appendix B.
Table 4-22 summarizes the results of the 3-hour average ground-
level SO- concentration calculations for the proposed NTPC sources for
the 37 "worst-case" 3-hour periods selected in Section 4.1.2. The
calculated maximum 3-hour concentration of 222 micrograms per cubic
meter (Case 22) is about 43 percent of the 3-hour Class II PSD Increment
of 512 micrograms per cubic meter. The highest, second-highest 3-hour
concentration occurs at the same point as the maximum concentration and
is 126 micrograms per cubic meter (Case 35), or about 25 percent of the
3-hour Class II Increment. Figure 4-10 shows the isopleths of 3-hour
average ground-level S0? concentration calculated for the combined
emissions from the proposed NTPC sources during the "worst-case" 3-hour
period for Class II areas (2200 through 2400 PST on 8 August 1979) . The
contributions of the individual sources to the maximum 3-hour concentration
calculated for the combined emissions from the NTPC sources are listed
in Table 4-23. As shown by Figure 4-10 and Table 4-23, the plumes from
the two unloading tankers are calculated to stabilize above the top of
the surface mixing layer and do not contribute to the calculated maximum
3-hour concentration.
110
-------
TABLE 4-22
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FOR THE CO>LBINED EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
3- Hour
Case
No.
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Date
23 Aug 78
13 Nov 78
12 Dec 78
19 Dec 78
20 Dec 78
3 Jan 79
5 Jun 79
19 Jun 79
27 Jan 79
1 Mar 79
24 Mar 79
2 Apr 79
6 Apr 79
22 Apr 79
29 Apr 79
1 May 79
7 May 79
3 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
10 Jun 79
18 Jun 79
20 Jun 79
22 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
26 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
28 Jun 79
29 Jun 79
29 Jun 79
8 Jul 79
19 Jul 79
21 Jul 79
2 Aug 79
2 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
8 Aug 79
Hours
(PST)
1600-1800
0100-0300
1900-2100
0100-0300
0700-0900
0100-0300
2200-2400
1600-1800
0100-0300
0100-0300
1300-1500
0400-0600
1600-1800
1000-1200
0400-0600
0700-0900
1000-1200
1900-2100
0400-0600
1600-1800
2200-2400
0400-0600
0400-0600
1000-1200
1600-1800
1900-2100
1000-1200
1900-2100
0700-0900
1000-1200
1600-1800
0100-0300
0100-0300
1300-1500
2200-2400
1000-1200
2200-2400
Concentration
(yg/m3)
76
67
86
69
64
66
64
103
80
96
99
77
76
60
77
90
72
150
126
91
129
75
60
66
102
107
120
108
65
72
67
125
107
97
126
86
222
Location *
Distance;
(km)
2.0
1.7
2.2
0.9
2.0
2.5
1.1
1.3
2.2
2.7
1.1
2.2
Azimuth
Bearing (deg)
130
060
330
070
065
320
350
235
110
060
140
110
2.2 I 120
1.5 i 265
3.0
2.2
1.7
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.7
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.7
2.7
1.7
2.0
2.2
1.1
2.2
2.0
2.2
105
115
235
115
115
115
115
110
065
135
115
115
115
115
080
105
070
115
115
150
115
125
115
Elevation
(m MSL)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
^Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 468.26
kilometers, Y = 5,331.61 kilometers.
Ill
-------
473
FIGURE 4-10.
Calculated isopleths of 3-hour average S0~ concentration in micrograms per cubic meter
attributable to emissions from the proposed NTPC sources during the "worst-case" 3-hour
period (2200 through 2400 PST on 8 August 1979) for emissions from the NTPC sources at
Class II areas.
-------
TABLE 4-23
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NTPC SOURCES TO THE MAXIMUM 3-HOUR
AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATION CALCULATED FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS
FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
Source
Tanker Unloading at West Berth
Tanker Unloading at East Berth
Tanker Idling (West Harbor)
Tanker Idling (Center Harbor)
Tanker Idling (East Harbor)
Total for NTPC Sources
Concentration (yg/ra )
0
0
43
51
129
222
113
-------
To assess compliance with the 3-hour NAAQS, we included the
proposed NTPC sources with the existing sources and repeated the 3-hour
average SO.., concentration calculations described in Section 4.1.2. Table
4-24 gives the magnitudes and locations of the maximum 3-hour average
ground-level SO,-, concentrations calculated for the combined emissions
from the existing and proposed sources. For each of the 37 "worst-case"
3-hour periods, emissions from the ITT Rayonier Mill are principally
responsible for the calculated maximum 3-hour concentration. Emissions
from the proposed NTPC sources contribute an additional 1 microgram per
cubic meter at the point of maximum impact of emissions from the exist-
ing sources during the single 3-hour period with a calculated 3-hour
concentration above the 3-hour NAAQS (Case 34). EPA defines a "signifi-
cant" impact on a non-attainment area for the 3-hour NAAQS for SO^ as a
3-hour S0? concentration above 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Thus, if
a single calculated 3-hour concentration above the 3-hour NAAQS is inter-
preted as a violation of the 3-hour NAAQS, emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources are not calculated to have a "significant" impact on the
3-hour non-attainment area. Additionally, emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources in combination with emissions from the existing sources
do not result in any additional calculated 3-hour concentrations above
the 3-hour NAAQS.
Table 4-25 gives the magnitudes and locations of the maximum
3-hour average SO,, concentrations calculated at the Olympic National
Park Visitor Center for the combined emissions from the proposed NTPC
sources during the eight "worst-case" 3-hour periods for the Visitor
Center. The calculated maximum 3-hour concentration of 71 micrograms
per cubic meter (Case 1) is 2.84 times the 3-hour Class I PSD Increment
of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Additionally, the 3-hour Class I
Increment is exceeded more than once at this point. Thus, the results
of the 3-hour concentration calculations indicate that the "worst-case"
emissions from the proposed NTPC sources will violate the PSD Regulations
for Class I areas at Olympic National Park.
114
-------
TABLE 4-24
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF THE MAXIMUM 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FOR THE COMBINED EMISSIONS FROM THE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOURCES
3-Hour
Case
No.
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
31
32
33
34
'35
36
37
3
Concentration (yg/m )
ITT
1,156
540
460
496
400
460
494
584
434
528
564
441
853
463
512
515
694
659
606
539
588
456
452
460
511
523
567
529
456
475
657
533
604
1,424
559
1,010
406
Crown
Zellerbach
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
NTPC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
170
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
1,202
553
473
509
413
473
507
597
447
541
577
454
878
476
525
528
864
672
619
552
601
469
465
476
524
536
580
542
469
488
670
546
617
1,443
572
1,031
419
Location *
Distance
(km)
1.2
2.0
1.5
1.5
.1.2
2.0
2.0
0.8
1.2
1.5
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.4
1.2
2.0
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
Azimuth
Bearing
(cleg)
110
040
335
035
065
345
350
270
090
060
105
090
115
305
090
100
230
095
100
100
095
090
065
105
095
095
100
095
080
085
070
095
100
120
100
130
100
Elevation
(m MSL)
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
46
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
38
0
^Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 469.74
kilometers, Y = 5,329.1.9 kilometers.
115
-------
TABLE 4-25
MAGNITUDES AND LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED AT THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK VISITOR CENTER FOR THE
COMBINED EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
ONP
3-Hour
Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date
9 Nov 78
27 Dec 78
29 Dec 78
15 Jan 79
25 Jan 79
27 Jan 79
21 Feb 79
12 Apr 79
Hours
(PST)
0700-0900
0700-0900
1000-1200
1000-1200
0700-0900
1300-1500
0400-0600
1600-1800
Concent ration
(yg/m3)
71
13
27
25
14
17
46
30
Location
UTM X
(km)
467.8
467.8
468.1
468.3
467.8
467.7
467.8
468.4
UTM Y
(km)
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
5,327.5
Elevation
(ra MSL)
94
94
88
76
94
94
94
84
116
-------
Figure 4-11 shows the calculated isopleths of 3-hour average
ground-level SO,., concentration attributable to emissions from the pro-
posed NTPC sources during the "worst-case" 3-hour period for the Olympic
National Park Visitor Center (0700 through 0900 PST on 9 November 1978).
As shown by the figure, the tanker idling in the center of Port Angeles
Harbor is entirely responsible for the maximum 3-hour concentration
calculated for the Visitor Center. The plumes from the two tankers at
the unloading berth are calculated to stabilize above the top of the
surface mixing layer and do not affect the concentrations calculated at
the Visitor Centex during the "worst-case" 3-hour period.
4.2.3 Probability of Violating the Short-Term Class I
Increments at Olympic National Park
The results of the model calculations described in Section
4.2.2 indicate that, if the "worst-case" emissions scenario for the
proposed NTPC sources is assumed to exist throughout the year, emissions
from the NTPC sources will violate the 3-hour and 24-hour Class I PSD
Increments for S0~ at the Olympic National Park Visitor Center. However,
SO,., emissions from the NTPC sources will not be constant throughout the
year, and- the periods of "worst-case" emissions will not necessarily
coincide with the periods of "worst-case" meteorological conditions.
Consequently, we used the statistical procedures described below to
estimate the probability that the short-term Class I Increments will be
violated as a result of emissions from the proposed NTPC sources.
Table 4-26 lists the source inputs used to calculate, for each
hour during the period 15 August 1978 to 15 August 1979, the hourly S0?
concentration at the Olympic National Park Visitor Center attributable
to emissions from the proposed NTPC sources. The inputs in Table 4-26,
which were developed from information provided by EPA Region 10 (Wilson,
1980b), assume that a single tanker with a constant stack height, stack
exit temperature and volumetric emission rate is located between the two
unloading berths shown in Figure 1-1. The assumption of a single source
117
-------
CROWN ZELLERBACK PAPER MILL
IDLING TANKERS
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
FIGURE 4-11.
Calculated isopleths of 3-hour average ground-level SC>2 concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter attributable to emissions from the proposed NTPC sources during the
"worst-case" 3-hour period (0700 through 0900 PST on 9 November 1978) for emissions
from the NTPC sources at Class I areas.
-------
TABLE 4-26
NTPC SOURCE INPUTS FOR THE HOURLY S02 CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
AT THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK VISITOR CENTER
Parameter
Total S0? Emission Rate (g/sec)
UTM X Coordinate (r.i)
UTM Y Coordinate (ra)
Stack Base Elevation (m MSL)
Stack Height (m)
Stack Exit Temperature (°K)
Stack Radius (m)
Volumetric Emission Rate (m /sec)
Parameter Value
23.36
468,260
5,331,610
0
37.0
422
0.76
28.00
119
-------
with constant stack height and stack exit parameters is required to
apply the statistical techniques described below. The total SO emis-
sions from all NTPC sources, including unloading and idling tankers and
tugboats, are included in the total S0? emissions from the single tanker.
(We point out that the model assumption that SO,, emissions from all NTPC
sources originate from a single point biases the results of the concentration
calculations toward overestimation.) The 1-hour concentrations were
calculated for the receptor at the Visitor Center with the highest
annual average concentration previously calculated for the combined
emissions from the two unloading tankers (see Section 4.2.1). The UTM X
and Y coordinates of this receptor are 467.7 and 5,327.5 kilometers,
respectively. The receptor elevation is 94 meters MSL. The results of
the hourly concentration calculations were used to form the cumulative
frequency distributions of 3-hour and 24-hour average S0? concentrations
shown in Tables 4-27 and 4-28, respectively.
We emphasize that the calculated 3-hour and 24-hour average
SO. concentration distributions in Tables 4-27 and 4-28 are based on a
different emissions scenario for the proposed NTPC sources than the
calculated 3-hour and 24-hour average concentrations discussed in Section
4.2.2. Tables 4-27 and 4-28 assume that there are two tankers at the
unloading berths with a constant combined SO- emission rate of 23.36
grams per second; these tankers are represented for modeling purposes by
a single tanker. Section 4.2.2. assumes two unloading tankers and three
idling tankers with a constant combined emission rate of 45.5 grams per
second. Additionally, the stack heights and stack exit parameters for
the unloading tankers considered in this section do not exactly correspond
to the stack heights and exit parameters for either the unloading tankers
or the idling tankers considered in Section 4.2.2.
In order to calculate the probability of violating the short-
term Class I PSD Increments at the Olympic National Park Visitor Center,
120
-------
TABLE 4-27
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED AT THE VISITOR CENTER FOR THE REFERENCE EMISSION RATE
Concentration*
(yg/m3)
.00000
.50000
1.00000
1.50000
2.00000
2.50000
3.00000
3.50000
4.00000
4.50000
5.00000
5.50000
6.00000
6.50000
7.00000
7.50000
8.00000
8.50000
9.00000
9.50000
10.00000
15.00000
20.00000
25.00000
30.00000
35.00000
40.00000
45.00000
50.00000
55.00000
60.00000
65.00000
70.00000
75.00000
80.00000
85.00000
90.00000
95.00000
100.00000
150.00000
Cumulative
Frequency
.946575
.978082
.980137
.981849
.982534
.982677
.983904
.985616
.987329
.988014
.988356
.988356
.989041
.990068
.990411
.990411
.990753
.991096
.991438
.991438
.991781
.994178
.996575
.998288
.998973
.999315
.999315
.999315
.999658
.999658
.999658
.999658
.999658
.999658
.999658
.999658
.999658
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
Total
Occurrences
2764.00
2856.00
2862.00
2867.00
2869.00
2870.00
2873.00
2878.00
2883.00
2885.00
2886.00
2886.00
2888.00
2891.00
2892.00
2892.00
2893.00
2894.00
2895.00
2895.00
2896.00
2903.00
2910.00
2915.00
2917.00
2918.00
2918.00
2918.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2919.00
2920.00
2920.00
2920.00
^Calculated concentrations are less than or equal to the indicated values
for the indicated fractions of the time. The reference (total) S02
emission rate is 23.36 grams per second.
121
-------
TABLE 4-28
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED AT THE VISITOR CENTER FOR THE REFERENCE EMISSION RATE
Concentration*
(yg/ra3)
.00000
.50000
1.00000
1.50000
2.00000
2.50000
3.00000
3.50000
4.00000
4.50000
5.00000
5.50000
6.00000
6.50000
7.00000
7.50000
8.00000
8.50000
9.00000
9.50000
10.00000
15.00000
20.00000
25.00000
Cumulative
Frequency
.717808
.917808
.936986
.947945
.956164
.967123
.969863
.978082
.986301
.991781
.991781
.991781
.991781
.994521
.997260
.997260
.997260
.997260
.997260
.997260
.997260
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
Total
Occurrences
262.00
335.00
342.00
346.00
349.00
353.00
354.00
357.00
360.00
362.00
362.00
362.00
362.00
363.00
364.00
364.00
364.00
364.00
364.00
364.00
364.00
365.00
365.00
365.00
^Calculated concentrations are less than or equal to the indicated values
for the indicated fractions of the time. The reference (total) S02
emission rate is 23.36 grams per second.
122
-------
we define X- as the upper bound of the i 3-hour or 24-hour concentration
interval in Table 4-27 or 4-28. The 3-hour and 24-hour total S0?
emissions frequency distributions for the proposed NTPC sources are
listed in Tables 4-29 and 4-30, respectively. (Tables 4-29 and 4-30
were developed from information provided by Wilson, 1980b.) We define
Q. as the mean 3-hour or 24-hour total S09 emission rate for the j
emissions interval in Table 4-29 or 4-30. Finally, for a constant total
SO,, emission rate Q (in this case, 23.36 grams per second), we define FiX-J
as the cumulative frequency of occurrence of calculated concentrations less
than or equal to X- (see Tables 4-27 and 4-28).
The cumulative frequency of occurrence of calculated concentrations
less than or equal to the concentration x' f°r a variable emissions distri-
bution is given by
M
1=1
where f. is the frequency of occurrence of the emission rate Q. and F.fx'
is the frequency of occurrence of calculated concentrations less than or
equal to x' f°r a constant total emission rate Q.. The frequency F.(x'}
is interpolated from the expressions
<4-2)
(4-3)
123
-------
TABLE 4-29
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NTPC 3-HOUR S02 EMISSIONS
Category
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
*
Range of SO-? Emissions
(g/sec)
0.0000-1.1718
1.1718-2.3310
2.3310-3.5028
3.5028-4.6746
4.6746-5.8464
5.8464-7.0056
7.0056-8.1774
8.1774-9.3492
9.3492-10.5084
10.5084-11.6802
11.6802-12.8520
12.8520-14.0238
14.0238-15.1830
15.1830-16.3548
16.3548-17.5266
17.5266-18.6858
18.6858-19.8576
19.8576-21.0294
21.0294-22.2012
22.2012-23.3604
Mean SO 2 Emission
Rate*
(g/sec)
0.5859
1.7514
2.9169
4.0887
5.2605
6.4260
7.5915
8.7633
9.9288
11.0943
12.2661
13.4379
14.6034
15.7689
16.9407
18.1062
19.2717
20.4435
21.6153
22.7808
Percent
Frequency of
Occurrence
32.9
5.8
2.8
3.2
2.8
8.4
10.6
7.0
8.2
4.0
2.3
2.7
2.0
2.4
2.3
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
^Emissions are the total emissions from all NTPC sources.
124
-------
TABLE 4-30
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NTPC 24-HOUR S02 EMISSIONS
Category Range of S02 Emissions*
Number , , .
(g/sec)
1 ! 0.0000 - 1.0332
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1.0332 - 2.0790
2.0790 - 3.1122
3.1122 - 4.1454
4.1454 - 5.1786
5.1786 - 6.2244
6.2244 - 7.2576
7.2576 - 8.2908
8.2908 - 9.3366
9.3366 -10.3698
10.3698 -11.4030
11.4030 -12.4488
12.4488 -13-4820
13.4820 -14.5152
14.5152 -15.5484
15.5484 -16.5942
16.5942 -17.6274
17.6274 -18.6606
18.6606 -19.7064
19.7064 -20.7396
Mean S02 Emission
Rate
(R/SCC)
0.5166
1.5561
2.5956
3.6288
4.6620
5.7015
6.7410
7.7742
8.8137
9.8532
10.8864
11.9259
12.9654
13.9986
15.0318
16.0713
17.1108
18.1440
19.1835
20.2230
Percent
Frequency of
Occurrence
13.8
5.9
5.3
7.6
9.7
9.1
10.0
10.1
9.2
7.0
4.6
3.2
1.9
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
^Emissions are the total emissions from all NTPC sources.
125
-------
where the concentration x' in Equation (4-2) is contained in the interval
defined by the concentrations Y. . and Y. .,,.
J,i J,i+l
The composite cumulative frequency distribution of 3-hour concen-
trations at the Visitor Center attributable to emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources is given in Table 4-31. This table was calculated using
Equations (4-1) through (4-3) with the 3-hour concentration frequency
distribution for constant total emissions given in Table 4-27 and the
3-hour emissions distribution given in Table 4^29. Similarly, the composite
cumulative frequency distribution of 24-hour S0« concentrations at the
Visitor Center, based on Tables 4-28 and 4-30, is shown in Table 4-32.
The probability of one or more occurences during a year of a
short-term concentration above the corresponding short-term Class I PSD
Increment is
P{V) = 1.0 - P{0} (4-4)
where P{0} is the probability of exactly zero occurrences. Similarly, the
probability of two or more occurrences during a year is
P{V} = 1.0 - P{0} - P{1} (4-5)
where P{1} is the probability of exactly one occurrence. Assuming the N
3-hour or 24-hour periods in a year to be independent, each with a proba-
bility p of an occurrence (success) and a probability (1-p) of a non-
occurrence (failure), the binominal law gives the probability of K occur-
rences (successes) as
T/ TO _ I r
P{K} = PK (l-p)N (4-6)
K: (N-K).1
Equation (4-6) is substituted for P{0} in Equation (4-4) and for both P{0}
and P{1) in Equation (4-5). Thus, if a single calculated short-term concen-
126
-------
TABLE 4-31
COMPOSITE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 3-HOUR S02
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED AT THE VISITOR CENTER FOR
VARIABLE EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
Concentration*
(yg/ra3)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Composite Cumulative
Frequency
0.94658
0.99615
0.99859
0.99938
0.99967
0.99977
0.99984
0.99989
0.99993
^Calculated concentrations are less than or equal to the indicated
values for the individual fractions of the time.
127
-------
TABLE 4-32
COMPOSITE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 24-HOUR SO2
CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED AT THE VISITOR CENTER FOR VARIABLE
EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES
Concentration*
(Mg/m3)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Composite Cumulative
Frequency
0.71781
0.98121
0.99486
0.99769
0.99893
0.99946
0.99975
0.99990
0.99996
0.99999
1.00000
^Calculated concentrations are less than or equal to the indicated values
for the indicated fractions of the time.
128
-------
tration above the corresponding Class I PSD Increment is interpreted
as a violation of the increment, the probability of violating the 3-hour
Class I Increment is
7090
P{V3] = 1 - (l-p3ry/U (4-7)
and the probability of violating the 24-hour Class I Increment is
P{V24} = 1 - (1-P24)365 (4-8)
Similarly, if two or more occurrences of calculated short-term concentrations
above the corresponding Class I PSD Increment are required for a violation
of the increment, the probabilities of violating the 3-hour and 24-hour
Class I Increments are
- 2920 p (l-p) (4-9)
- 365 p d-P) (4-10)
Table 4-31 gives the probability p_ of a 3-hour S0? concentration
above the 3-hour Class I PSD Increment of 25 micrograms per cubic meters as
0.00023. If a single occurrence of a calculated 3-hour concentration above
the 3-hour Class I PSD Increment is defined as a violation of the increment,
it follows from Equation (4-7) that the probability of violating the 3-hour
Class I Increment is 0.489. Thus, if meteorological conditions are similar
during ever year, the 3-hour Class I Increment might be violated once
every 2.0 years. However, if two or more calculated 3-hour concentrations
above the 3-hour Class I Increment are required in a year in order to
violate the increment, Equation (4-9) gives the probability of violating
the 3-hour Class I Increment as 0.146, or once every 6.8 years.
Table 4-32 gives the probability p , of a 24-hour concentration
at the Visitor Center above the 24-hour Class [ PSD Increment of 5 micro-
129
-------
grams per cubic meter as 0.00054. If a single occurrence of a 24-hour con-
centration above the 24-hour Class I PSD Increment is interpreted as a
violation of the increment, Equation (4-8) gives the probability of vio-
lating the increment as 0.179, or once every 5.6 years. Similarly, if
two or more calculated 24-hour concentrations above the 24-hour Class I
Increment are required in a year in order to violate the increment,
Equation (4-10) gives the probability of violating the 24-hour Class I
Increment as 0.017, or about once every 58.8 years.
130
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS
The results of the attainment status calculations described in
Section 4.1 for the existing S0? sources in the Port Angeles area indicate
that the 3-hour and/or 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for S0« are violated in the Port Angeles area. If any calculated short-
term concentration above the corresponding short-term NAAQS is defined as
a violation of the NAAQS, the 3-hour NAAQS is calculated to be violated
once per year in the area east-southeast of the ITT Rayonier Mill and the
24-hour NAAQS is calculated to be violated once per year in the area south-
west of the ITT Mill and four times per year in the area east-southeast of
the ITT Mill (see Figure 4-3(a) in Section 4.1.2). If it is assumed that
a short-term NAAQS is violated at a given point during the second short-
term period in a year with a calculated concentration above the corresponding
NAAQS, the 24-hour NAAQS is calculated to be violated three times per year
in the area east-southeast of the ITT Mill (See Figure 4-3 (b) in Section
4.1.2). To assist in determining how best to attain the 3-hour and/or 24-
hour NAAQS in the Port Angeles area, EPA Region 10 requested that we
evaluate the effects on SO- ambient air quality of the eight emission control
strategies summarized in Table 5-1 for the ITT Mill. The source inputs
for the control strategies, which are based on information provided by
EPA Region 10 (Wilson, 1980c) , are listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3.
For each of the five days with calculated 24-hour average
concentrations above the 24-hour NAAQS and for the single 3-hour period
with calculated 3-hour average concentrations above the 3-hour NAAQS, we
used the short-term source inputs given in Section 2.1 for the Crown
Zellerbach Mill and the control strategy source inputs for the ITT Mill
with the short-term modeling techniques described in Section 4.1.2 to
calculate the ground-level S07 concentration pattern for each control
strategy. Table 5-4 gives the results of the 24-hour concentration cal-
culations and Table 5-5 gives the results of the 3-hour concentration
calculations. These results may be summarized as follows:
131
-------
TABLE 5-1
DESCRIPTION OF THE EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR THE ITT
RAYONIER PULP MILL
Control Strategy
Number
Control Strategy Description
3
4
5
Duct S02 emissions from the West and East
Vents (Acid Plant) to the Recovery Furnace
Stack
Reduce the in-stack S02 concentration for
the West and East Vents (Acid Plant) to
250 ppm
Reduce the in-stack S02 concentration for the
West and East Vents (Acid Plant) to 100 ppm
Reduce the sulfur content of the fuel for
Power Boilers No. 4 and No. 5 to 1.0%
Reduce the sulfur content of the fuel for
Power Boilers No. 4 and No. 5 to 0.5%
Combine Strategies No. 2 and No. 4
Current Optimum ITT emissions (see Table 2-3)
Reduce the in-stack S02 concentration for the
West and East Vents (Acid Plant) to 50 ppm
This control strategy is contrary to Secton 123 of the Clean Air Act.
132
-------
TABLE 5-2
ITT SOURCE INPUTS OTHER THAN S02 EMISSION RATES FOR THE CONTROL STRATEGIES
Source
Number*
001
002
004
005
006
007
008
Source
UTM X
(m)
469,790
469,753
469,758
469,769
469,720
469,718
469,698
Coordinates
UTM Y
(m)
5,329,250
5,329,185
5,329,184
5,329,183
5,329,194
5,329,183
5,329,165
Stack Base
Elevation
(m MSL)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Stack
Height
(m)
96.0
33.5
35.7
35.4
35.1
35.1
45.7
Stack
Exit Temp.
(°K)
300
289
303
296
480
480
336
Stack
Radius
(m)
1.15
0.30
0.75
0.61
1.22
0.84
1.22
24-Hour Volumetric
Emission Rate
(m-Vsec)
**
50.00 (61.80)
**
5.90 (0.00)
9.90
9.20
37.80
45.80
77.40
*See Table 2-1 in Section 2.1 for the identification of the ITT sources by source number.
**The volumetric emission rates enclosed by parentheses apply to Control Strategy No. 1 only.
-------
TABLE 5-3
SHORT-TERM S00 EMISSION RATES FOR THE ITT CONTROL STRATEGIES
Control
Strategy
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S09 Emission Rate (g/sec)
Source
No. 1
57.1
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
22.0
41.3
Source
No. 2
0.0
7.6
3.0
15.8
15.8
7.6
5.0
1.6
Source
No. 4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Source
No. 5.
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Source
No. 6
29.0
29.0
29.0
19.3
9.7
19.3
0.0
29.0
Source
No. 7
29.0
29.0
29.0
19.3
9.7
19.3
0.0
29.0
Source
No. 8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.0
2.8
134
-------
TABLE 5-4
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS
FOR THE 24-HOUR NAAQS
Control
Strategy
Numb er
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79'
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration
(yg/m3)
ITT
298
480
318
346
286
375
551
373
402
351
326
508
337
366
311
472
473
346
376
337
423
338
256
281
254
313
397
282
303
264
Crown
Zellerbach
21
12
6
6
4
21
12
6
6
4
21
12
6
6
4
18
12
6
6
4
18
13
6
6
4
18
12
6
6
4
Back-
ground
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
Total
332
505
337
381
303
409
576
392
437
368
360
533
356
401
328
503
498
365
411
354
454
364
275
316
271
344
422
301
338
281
*
Location
Distance
(1cm)
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
A.?- imu th
Bearing
(deg)
120.0
222.5
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
222.5
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
222.5
120.0
120.0
120.0
115.0
2-22.5
120.0
122.5
120.0
115.0
220.0
120.0
122.5
120.0
115.0
222.5
120.0
120.0
120.0
Elevation
(m MSL)
40
22
40
40
40
40
22
40
40
40
40
22
40
40
40
47
22
40
30
40
47
23
40
30
40
47
22
40
40
40
135
-------
TABLE 5-4 (Continued)
Control
Strategy
Number
7
8
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration
(yg/m3)
ITT
139
75
63
70
' 65
311
495
326
355
298
Crown
Zellerbach
18
21
6
6
4
21
12
6
6
4
Back-
ground
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
Total
170
109
82
105
82
345
520
345
390
315
A
Location
Distance
(km)
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
115.0
220.0
120.0
122.5
120.0
120.0
222.5
120.0
120.0
120.0
Elevation
(m MSL)
47
27
40
30
40
40
22
40
40
40
Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X= 469.74
kilometers, Y= 5,329.19 kilometers.
136
-------
TABLE 5-5
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS
FOR THE 3-HOUR NAAQS
Control
Strategy
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Maximum 3-Hour Concentration
(l-ig/ra3)
ITT
981
1,139
1,038
1,086
820
796
172
1,007
Crown
Zellerbach
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Back-
ground
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
999
1,157
1,056
1,104
838
814
190
1,025
A A
Location
Distance
(km)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Azimuth
Bearing
(deg)
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
Elevation
(m MSL)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
The "worst-case" 3-hour period is 2200 through 2400 PST on 8 August 1979,
Locations are with respect to the point with UTM coordinates X = 469.74
kilometers, Y = 5,329.19 kilometers.
137
-------
Control Strategy 7 is the only control strategy which
attains the 24-hour NAAQS if all cases of calculated
24-hour average concentrations above the 24-hour NAAQS
are defined as violations of the 24-hour standard
Control Strategies 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 attain the 24-
hour NAAQS if it is assumed that a given point may have
one calculated 24-hour average concentration per year
above the 24-hour NAAQS without violating the 24-hour
standard
All of the control strategies preclude calculated 3-hour
average concentrations above the 3-hour NAAQS
We point out that Control Strategy 7 corresponds to the current optimum
emissions from the ITT Mill. Thus, if the ITT Mill is able to achieve and
maintain the current optimum emissions, the non-attainment problem will
be eliminated (excluding the effects of emissions from the black liquor
holding pond at the ITT Mill).
We also considered the effects of emissions from the proposed
NTPC sources on the attainment status of the Port Angeles area for the
eight emission control strategies for the ITT Mill. Assuming the "worst-
case" emissions scenario described in Section 2.1 for the proposed NTPC
sources, Table 5-6 gives the results of the control strategy calculations
for the 24-hour NAAQS and Table 5-7 gives the results of the control
strategy calculations for the 3-hour NAAQS. As shown by Table 5-6, the
addition of emissions from the proposed NTPC sources causes the 24-hour
NAAQS to be exceeded more than once per year at the same point for Control
Strategy 3. With this exception, the addition of emissions from the
proposed NTPC sources does not affect the conclusions of the control
strategy evaluation for the existing sources that are given above.
138
-------
TABLE 5-6
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS FOR
THE 24-HOUR NAAQS WITH THE EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS FROM
THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES INCLUDED
Control
Strategy
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
A o
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (yg/m )
ITT
298
480
318
346
286
375
551
373
402
351
326
508
337
366
311
472
473
346
376
337
423
338
256
281
254
313
397
282
303
264
Crown
Zellerbach
21
12
6
6
4
21
12
6
6
4
21
12
6
6
4
18
12
6
6
4
18
13
6
6
4
18
12
6
6
4
NTPC
6
0
1
2
1
6
0
1
2
1
6
0
1
2
1
6
0
1
2
1
6
0
1
2
1
6
0
1
2
1
Background
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
Total
338
505
338
383
304
415
576
393
439
369
366
533
357
403
329
509
498
366
413
355
460
364
276
318
272
350
422
302
340
282
139
-------
TABLE 5-6 (Continued)
1
Control
Strategy
Number
7
8
Date
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
21 Aug 78
10 Nov 78
26 May 79
19 Jul 79
24 Jul 79
* T }
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration' (pg/m^)
ITT
139
75
63
70
65
311
495
326
355
298
Crown
Zellerbach
18
21
6
6
4
21
12
6
6
4
NTPC
6
0
1
2
1
6
0
1
2
1
Background
13
13
13
29
13
13
13
13
29
13
Total
176
109
83
107
83
351
520
346
392
316
See Table 5-4 for the locations of the maximum concentrations.
140
-------
TABLE 5-7
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY CALCULATIONS
FOR THE 3-HOUR NAAQS WITH THE EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS FROM
THE PROPOSED NTPC SOURCES INCLUDED
Control
Strategy
Number
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
Maximum 3-Hour Concentration* (ug/m )
ITT
981
1,139
1,038
1,086
820
796
172
1,007
Crown
Zellerbach
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NTPC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Background
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Total
1,000
1,158
1,057
1,105
839
815
191
1,026
The "worst-case" 3-hour period is 2200 through 2400 PST on 8 August 1979.
See Table 5-5 for the locations of the maximum concentrations.
141
-------
SECTION 6
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAJOR AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
IN THE MODEL CALCULATIONS
The principal areas of uncertainty affecting the accuracy of the
results of the dispersion model calculations described in this report are:
The representativeness of the stack and emissions param-
eters given in Section 2.1 for the existing and proposed
SO,, sources
The representativeness of the meteorological inputs used
in the model calculations (see Section 2.2.3)
The accuracy of the Cramer, et al. (1975) complex terrain
dispersion model
The stack and emissions parameters given in Section 2.1 for the
existing SO- sources (the Crown Zellerbach and ITT Rayonier Pulp Mils) and
for the proposed NTPC S09 sources (tankers) were provided to the H. E. Cramer
Company by EPA Region 10. In the absence of any other information we assume
in this study that the parameters provided for the Crown Zellerbach Mill and
for the proposed NTPC tankers are representative of actual operating con-
ditions. According to EPA Region 10 (Boys, 1980), SO., emissions from the
ITT Mill are lower than assumed in this study during periods of optimum
operation and higher than assumed in this study during periods when the
S09 emission control devices are operating at a decreased level of perform-
ance or when there are process upsets. (As noted in Section 2.1, the
effects of emissions from the black liquor holding pond at the ITT Mill
were not included in the model calculations.)
As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the meteorological data from a
single site cannot always be expected to be representative of meteorological
142
-------
conditions over the entire Port Angeles area because of the complexity of
the topography and meteorology. Of the hourly wind data available for 12
months, we selected the Ediz Hook 10-meter tower wind data for use in the
dispersion model calculations because we consider these winds to be the
most representative of the winds affecting the transport and dispersion of
emissions from the existing and proposed SO sources in the areas of
maximum impacts. The Turner (1964) stability classification scheme in
combination with the Cramer, e_t a^. (1975) turbulent intensities corre-
sponding to the Pasquill stability categories in rural areas previously
yielded a close correspondence between concurrent calculated and observed
S09 concentrations in a very similar modeling study (Cramer, et al.,
L.
1976). On the basis of this previous experience, we used the same
procedures to assign turbulent intensities in this study. The wind-
profile exponent and vertical potential temperature gradient used in the
model calculations are characteristic of the marine air mass over the
harbor and along the shoreline and are in good agreement with the mean
values for the Millstone field experiments (Johnson, ej^ al_. , 1975),
which were conducted during hours with a marine air mass moving inland.
The applicability of the Quillayute mixing depth estimates provided by
NTPC (1980) and used in the model calculations cannot be checked against
onsite (i.e., Port Angeles) data.
The tests of the Cramer, et al. (1975) short-term dispersion
model described in Section 3 support the use of the model in the Port
Angeles area and are consistent with the confidence intervals for the
model as determined by previous studies for EPA of SO,-, sources located
in complex terrain. Confidence intervals, in contrast to confidence
limits which must satisfy strict statistical criteria, simply reflect
the results of direct comparisons of model predictions with air quality
observations without attempting to account for the effects of sample
size and other limitations as must be done in the case of estimating
confidence limits. In the cases where the plume from an isolated source
was simultaneously detected by two or more SO,, monitors (which allowed
us to specify the wind direction at the plume height to within 1 or 2
143
-------
degrees), our short-term model yielded calculated hourly S0? concentrations
that were, on the average, equal to the observed concentrations (see
Cramer, ej^ aJ^. , 1976). Individual calculated and observed hourly S07
concentrations differed by as much as a factor of two. To a large
extent, we believe that the discrepancies between the individual calcula-
ted and observed hourly concentrations were caused by errors in the
source and meteorological inputs and possibly in the air quality measure-
ments. When unadjusted surface wind directions were used in our model
calculations, the calculated maximum 3-hour and 24-hour average SCL
concentrations were, on the average, within 20 percent of the observed
values (see Section 8 of Cramer, £t_ al., 1975). Finkelstein (1976) also
compared the results of the short-term model calculations in the Cramer,
et al (1975) study with the results of wind-tunnel simultations of
various sources in the Clairton area of Allegheny County and concluded
that, "... the agreement between the two studies is surprising and
reassuringly close." Our long-term dispersion model has yielded calcu-
lated annual average SO,, concentrations within 10 percent of the observed
values at all monitors where the annual average SO- concentrations were
above the accuracy and threshold of the S07 monitors (Cramer, et al.,
1975). In cases where the annual average SO, concentrations were below
the threshold of the SCL monitors, our long-term model has yielded
calculated annual average SO. concentrations that were within plus or
minus one-half the accuracy and threshold of the SO,, instrument (Cramer,
et_ al_. , 1976 and Wilson, et_ al. , 1977).
In summary, we believe that the maximum short-term and annual
average ground-level S0« concentrations presented in this report for the
existing and proposed sources probably are accurate to within about 20
percent for the stack and emissions parameters assumed in the model
calculations. The uncertainties in the concentrations calculated beyond
the areas of maximum impacts for emissions from the existing and proposed
sources increase with distance from the sources because of the spatial
variability of meteorological conditions in the Port Angeles area.
144
-------
Thus, the concentrations calculated at the Olympic National Park Visitor
Center are subject to greater uncertainty than are the concentrations
calculated in the vicinity of the existing and proposed sources. Assuming
that our model assumption of straight-line plume trajectories is, on the
average, valid for the transport of emissions from the proposed NTPC
sources to the Visitor Center, we estimate that the concentrations
calculated for the Visitor Center are accurate to within about a factor
of two, the accuracy generally attributed to the results of dispersion
model calculations in the absence of complicating factors (AMS, 1978).
145
-------
REFERENCES
American Meteorological Society, 1978: Accuracy of dispersion models:
A position paper of the 1977 AMS Committee on Atmospheric Tur-
bulence and Diffusion. Bulletin American Meteorological Society,
.5_9_, 1025-1026.
Benkley, C. W. and L. L. Schulman, 1979: Estimating hourly mixing depths
from historical meteorological data. Journal of Applied Meteor-
ology, j_8, 772-780.
Bjorklund, J. R. and J. F. Bowers, 1979: User's instructions for the SHORTZ
and LONGZ computer programs. Technical Report TR-79-131-01, H. E.
Cramer Company, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
Boys, P=, 1980: Private communication (18 November 1980 memo to R. B. Wilson,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10).
Briggs, G. A., 1971: Some recent analyses of plume rise observations. In
Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress, Academic
Press, New York.
Briggs, G. A., 1972: Chimney plumes in neutral and stable surroundings.
Atm. Env., 6_(7), 507-510.
Calder, K. L., 1971: A climatological model for multiple source urban air
pollution. Proc. 2nd Meeting of the Expert Panel on Air Pollution
Modeling, NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, Paris,
France, July 1971, 33.
Carpenter, S. B., T. L. Montgomery, J. M. Leavitt, W. C. Colbaugh and
F. W. Thomas, 1971: Principal plume dispersion models: TVA
power plants. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
2_1(8), 491-495.
Courson, R. G., 1980: Private communication (4 August 1980 letter to H. E.
Cramer Company, Inc.).
Cramer, H. E., et^ al., 1972: Development of dosage models and concepts
Final~Re:p~ort under Contract DAAD09-67-C-0020 (R) with the U. S.
Army, Deseret Test Center Report DTC-TR-72-609, Fort Douglas,
Utah.
Cramer, H. E., H. V. Geary and J. F. Bowers, 1975: Diffusion-model calcula-
tions of long-term and short-term ground-level SO,-, concentrations
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. H. E. Cramer Company Technical
Report TR-75-102-01 prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. EPA Report
903/9-75-018, NTIS Accession No. PB-245262/AS.
146
-------
Cramer, H. E. and J. F. Bowers, 1976: West Virginia power plant evaluation.
EPA Report No. EPA 903/9-75-022. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cramer, H. E., J. F. Bowers and H. V. Geary, 1976: Assessment of the air
quality impact of S00 emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
EPA Report No, EPA 9IQ/9-76-028. U. S.
Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington.
Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Agency, 1969: Air Quality Display Model. Prepared
by TRW Systems Group, Washington, D. C., available as PB 189-194
from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
Fenske, F., 1980: Private communication (telephone conversation on 7 August
1980 with J. F. Bowers, H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.).
Finkelstein, P. L., 1976: Wind tunnel versus Gaussian modeling techniques
for air resources management. Preprint Volume for the Third
Symposium on Atmospheric Turbulence, Diffusion and Air Quality,
American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gorr, W. L. and R. W. Dunlap, 1977: Characterization of steady wind inci-
dents for air quality management. Atm. Env., 11, 59-64.
Holzworth, G. C., 1972: Mixing heights, wind speeds and potential for
urban air pollution throughout the contiguous1 United States.
USEPA, OAP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Publication
No. AP101.
Huber, A. H. and W. H. Snyder, 1976: Building wake effects on short stack
effluents. Preprint Volume for the Third Symposium on Atmospheric
Turbulence, Diffusion and Air Quality, American Meteorological
Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
Johnson, W. B., e_t_ a.1^. , 1975: Gas tracer study of roof-vent effluent
diffusion at Millstone Nuclear Power Station. Atomic Industrial
Forum. Inc. Report No. AIF/NESP-0076, prepared by Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, California.
Luna, R. E. and H. W. Church, 1972: A comparison of turbulence intensity
and stability ratio measurements to Pasquill stability classes.
Journal of Applied Meteorology., _1_1_(4), 663-669.
Lyons, W. A. and H. S. Cole, 1973: Fumigation and plume trapping on the
shores of Lake Michigan during stable onshore flow. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, _12_(3) , 494-510.
147
-------
Northern Tier Pipeline Company, 1980: Application for a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for the Proposed Northern
Tier Pipeline Project. Submitted to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10 by Northern Tier Pipeline Company,
Billings, Montana.
Osipov, Y. S., 1972: Diffusion from a point source of finite time of
action. In AlCHe Survey of USSR Air Pollution Literature - Volume
XII, distributed by National Technical Information Service, Spring-
field, Virginia.
Pasquill, F., 1961: The estimation of the dispersion of windborne material.
Met. Mag. , _9_0, 33-49.
Pasquill, F. , 1962: Atmospheric Diffusion. D. Van Nostrand Co., Ltd.,
London, 297.
Pasquill, F., 1974: Atmospheric Diffusion (Second Edition). Ellis Horwood
Limited, Sussex, England, 429.
Turner, D. B., 1964: A diffusion model for an urban area. J. Appl. Meteor.,
.3(1), 83-91.
United States versus West Penn Power Company, 460 F. Supp. 1305 (W. D. Pa.,
1978).
Wilson, D. A., H. E. Cramer, J. F. Bowers and H. V. Geary, 1977: Detailed
diffusion-modeling as a method for interpreting and supplementing
air quality data. Preprint Volume for the Joint Conference on
Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology. American Meteorological
Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
Wilson, R. B., 1980a: Private communication (4 September 1980 letter to
J. F. Bowers, H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.).
Wilson, R. B., 1980b: Private communication (2 October 1980 letter to
J. F. Bowers, H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.).
Wilson, R. B., 1980c: Private communication (9 October 1980 letter to
J. F. Bowers, H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.).
148
-------
APPENDIX A
MATHEMATICAL MODELS USED TO CALCULATE
GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
A.I INTRODUCTION
The computerized diffusion models described in this appendix
fall into two general categories: (1) Short-term models for calculating
time-averaged ground-level concentrations for averaging times of 1, 3,
8, and 24 hours; (2) Long-term models for calculating seasonal and
annual ground-level concentrations. Both the short-term and long-term
concentration models are modified versions of the Gaussian plume model
for continuous sources described by Pasquill (1962). In the short-term
model, the plume is assumed to have Gaussian vertical and lateral con-
centration distributions. The long-term model is a sector model similar
in form to the Environmental Protection Agency's Climatological Dis-
persion Model (Calder, 1971) in which the vertical concentration dis-
tribution is assumed to be Gaussian and the lateral concentration dis-
tribution within a sector is rectangular (a smoothing function is used
to eliminate sharp discontinuities at the sector boundaries). Vertical
plume growth (a ) in the short-term and long-term models and lateral
plume growth (o ) in the short-term model are calculated by using tur-
bulent intensities in simple power-law expressions that include the ef-
fects of initial source dimensions. In both the short-term and long-
term models, buoyant plume rise is calculated by means of the Briggs
(1971; 1972) plume-rise formulas, modified to include the effects of
downwash in the lee of the stack during periods when the wind speed at
stack height equals or exceeds the stack exit velocity. An exponent law
is used to adjust the surface wind speed to the source height for plume-
rise calculations and to the plume stabilization height for the concen-
tration calculations. Both the short-term and the long-term models
contain provisions to account for the effects of complex terrain.
Table A-l lists the hourly meteorological inputs required by
the short-term concentration model. Lateral and vertical turbulent
A-l
-------
intensities a' and a' may be directly specified or may be assigned on
£\. £j
the basis of the Pasquill stability category (see Section 3 of Cramer,
et al., 1975). The Pasquill stability cateogry is determined from
surface weather observations using the Turner (1964) wind-speed and
solar-index values. Mixing depths may be obtained from rawinsonde or
pibal measurements, or they may be assigned on the basis of tabulations
of the frequency of occurrence of wind speed and mixing depth (available
from the National Climatic Center for synoptic rawinsonde stations).
Potential temperature gradients may be obtained from measurements or
assigned on the basis of climatology.
Table A-2 lists the meteorological inputs required by the
long-term concentration model. Joint-frequency distributions of wind-
speed and wind-direction categories, classified according to the Pasquill
stability categories, are available from the National Climatic Center.
Alternately, surface wind observations may be analyzed to generate wind-
frequency distributions by time-of-day categories (night, morning,
afternoon and evening). Vertical turbulent intensities may be deter-
mined from a climatology of actual measurements or may be assigned on
the basis of the Pasquill stability categories. Median mixing depths
may be determined from the seasonal tabulations of the frequency of
occurrence of wind-speed and mixing depth prepared by the National
Climatic Center. Vertical potential temperature gradients may be as-
signed to the combinations of wind-speed and stability or time-of-day
categories on the basis of climatology.
Table A-3 lists the source input parameters required by the
short-term and long-term diffusion models. As shown by the table, the
computerized short-term and long-term models calculate ground-Level
concentrations produced by emissions from stacks, building vents and
roof monitors, and from area sources. Both the short-term and long-term
models also use a Cartesian coordinate system (usually the Universal
Transverse Mercator system) with the positive X axis directed toward the
east and the positive Y axis directed toward the north.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l
HOURLY METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS REQUIRED BY THE
SHORT-TERM CONCENTRATION MODEL
Parameter
Definition
R
H
m
Mean wind speed at height z (m/sec)
R
Mean wind direction at height z (deg)
K
Wind-profile exponent
Wind azimuth-angle standard deviation in radians
Wind elevation-angle standard deviation in radians
Ambient air temperature ( K)
Depth of surface mixing layer (m)
Vertical potential temperature gradient (°K/m)
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2
METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS REQUIRED BY THE
LONG-TERM CONCENTRATION MODEL
Parameter
Definition
fi 1 k i (Table)
!> J ) K> *-
p (Table)
K, 1
aE;i,k
9z
(Table)
H
(Table)
u {z }. (Table)
K 1
Frequency distribution of wind-speed and
wind-direction categories by stability or
time-of-day categories for the £,tn season
Wind-profile exponent for each stability or
time-of-day category and i wind-speed cate-
gory
Standard deviation of the wind-elevation
angle in radians for the i'- wind-speed
category and
category
stability or time-of-day
Ambient air temperature for the k stabil-
ity or time-of-day category and i season
Vertical potential temperature gradient for
the itn wind-speed category and ktn stability
or time-of-day category (°K/m)
Median surface mixing depth for the ith wind-
speed category, k stability or time-of-day
category and il^-h season (m)
Mean wind speed at height z_ for the i wind-
speed category (m/sec)
A-4
-------
TABLE A-3
SOURCE INPUTS REQUIRED BY THE SHORT-TERM
AND LONG-TERM CONCENTRATION MODELS
Parameter
Stacks
Q
X, Y
z
s
h
v
T
Building Sources
Q
X, Y
z
s
h
L
W
6
Area Sources
Q
X, Y
Defini tion
Pollutant emission rate (mass per unit time)
X and Y coordinates of the stack (m)
Elevation above mean sea level of the base of the
stack (m)
Stack height (m)
3
Actual volumetric emission rate (m /sec)
Stack exit temperature ( K)
Stack inner radius (m)
Pollutant emission rate (mass per unit time)
X and Y coordinates of the center of the building (m)
Elevation above mean sea level of the base of the
building (m)
Building height (m)
Building length (m)
Building width (m)
Angle measured clockwise between north and the
long side of the building (deg)
Pollutant emission rate (mass per unit time)
X and Y coordinates of the center of the area
source (m)
Elevation above mean sea level of the area source (m)
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
Parameter
Definition
Area Sources
(Continued)
h
L
W
6
Characteristic vertical dimension of the area
source (m)
Length of the area source (m)
Width of the area source (m)
Angle measured clockwise between north and the
long side of the area source (deg)
A-6
-------
A. 2
PLUME-RISE FORMULAS
The effective stack height H of a buoyant plume is given by the
sum of the physical stack height h and the buoyant rise Ah. For an adiabatic
or unstable atmosphere, the buoyant rise Ah is given by
Ah,
_ u {h}
3F
1/3
(10h)
//J
(A-l)
where the expression in the brackets is from Briggs (1971; 1972) and
u{h} =
Y, =
-the mean wind speed at the stack height h (m/sec)
the adiabatic entrainment coefficient 0.6 (Briggs, 1972)
/ q
The initial buoyancy flux (m /sec )
The volumetric emission rate of the stack (m /sec)
2
IT r w
r = inner radius of stack (m)
w = stack exit velocity (m/sec)
2
g = the acceleration due to gravity (m/sec )
= the ambient air temperature ( K)
3.
= the stack exit temperature ( K)
The factor f, which limits the plume rise as the mean wind speed at stack
height approaches or exceeds the stack exit velocity, is defined by
A-7
-------
3w - 3u{h}
w
; u {h} < w/1.5
; w/1.5 < u {h} < w
{h} > w
(A-3)
The empirical correction factor f is generally not applied to stacks with
Froude numbers less than about unity. The corresponding Briggs (1971)
rise formula for a stable atmosphere (potential temperature gradient
greater than zero) is
Ah =<
s
3F
6F
u{h}y0 S
z
1/3
( /10S1/2h
1 - cos I - -
u{h}
-1 /?
;TT u{h} S ' < lOh
1/3
-1 /?
;TT u{h} S ' > lOh
(A-4)
where
2
S
L i n_- o i~ d. us .
_g_ 36
T 3z
a
the stable entrainment coefficient~0.66 (Briggs, 1972)
vertical potential temperature gradient ( K/m)
The entrainment coefficients Y1 and y_ are based on the suggestions of
Briggs (1972). It should be noted that Equation (A-4) does not permit
-------
the calculated stable rise Ah to exceed the adiabatic rise Ah,,, as
s N
the atmosphere approaches a neutral stratification (36/9z approaches 0)
A procedure of this type is recommended by Briggs (1972).
A. 3
SHORT-TERM CONCENTRATION MODEL
A.3.1
Elevated Sources
The atmospheric dispersion model used to calculate hourly
average ground-level concentrations downwind from an elevated continuous
source is given by
K Q
ii u{H}a a
y
{Vertical Term} {Lateral Term} {Decay Term} (A-5)
where
K
Q
u{H}
a ,a
Y
scaling coefficient to convert input parameters to
dimensionally consistent units
source emission rate (mass per unit time)
mean wind speed at the plume stabilization height H (m/sec)
standard deviations of the lateral and vertical con-
centration distributions at downwind distance x (m)
The Vertical Term refers to the plume expansion in the vertical
or z direction and includes a multiple reflection term that limits
cloud growth to the surface mixing layer.
{Vertical Term}
exp
exp
H
n=l
exp
, 2n H
1 I m
. /2n H - Hx
1 / m
H\2"
(A-6)
A-9
-------
where H is the depth of the surface mixing layer. The exponential terms
in the infinite series in Equation (A-6) rapidly approach zero near the
source. At the downwind distance where the exponential terms exceed exp(-lO)
for n equal 3, the plume has become approximately uniformly mixed within
the surface mixing layer. In order to shorten computer computation time,
Equation (A-6) is changed to the form
/2TT a
{Vertical Term} = -^- (A-7)
Zri
m
beyond this point. Equation (A-7) changes the form of the vertical concen-
tration distribution from Gaussian to rectangular. If H exceeds H ,
the Vertical Term is set equal to zero which results in a zero value for
the ground-level concentration.
The Lateral Term refers to the crosswind expansion of the plume
and is given by the expression
{Lateral Term} = exp
2 U ' (A"8)
y
where y is the crosswind distance from the plume centerline to the point
at which concentration is calculated.
The Decay Term, which accounts for the possibility of pollutant
removal by physical or chemical processes, is of the form
where
{Decay Term} = exp [ - fy x/u{H> ] (A-9)
= the washout coefficient A (sec ) for precipitation scav-
enging
A-10
-------
0.692
T
Ll/2
, where 1 . is the pollutant half life in seconds
for physical or chemical removal
= 0 for no depletion (if; is automatically set to zero by
the computer program unless otherwise specified)
In the model calculations, the observed mean wind speed u is
K
adjusted from the measurement height z to the source height h for
K
plume-rise calculations and to the stabilization height H for the con-
centration calculations by a wind-profile exponent law
u{z} = u{z
(A-10)
The exponent p, which is assigned on the basis of atmospheric stability,
ranges from about 0.1 for very unstable conditions to about 0.4 for very
stable conditions.
According to the derivation in the report by Cramer, e_t a^. (1972),
rd deviation c
given by the expression
the standard deviation of the lateral concentration distribution a is
a {x}
y
a x
A ry
x + x - x (1-a)
ax
ry
(A-ll)
ax
ry I x a'
\ ry Ay
/R
ry
ayR
x^ + x (1-a) ; , > x
R ryv a ry
(A-12)
A-ll
-------
where
o! = the standard deviation of the wind-azimuth angle in
radians
x = distance over which rectilinear plume expansion occurs
downwind from an ideal point source (~50 meters)
O _ = the standard deviation of the lateral concentration
distribution at downwind distance x (m)
R
a = the lateral diffusion coefficient (~0.9)
The virtual distance x is not permitted to be less than zero. The lat-
eral turbulent intensity 0! may be specified directly or may be assigned
A
on the basis of the Pasquill stability category.
Following the derivation of Cramer, et al. (1972) and setting
the vertical diffusion coefficient 3 equal to unity, the standard devi-
ation of the vertical concentration distribution a is given by the expres-
sion
"z{x> = °E
(A-13)
°
zR
* XR
(A-14)
where
a
zR
standard deviation of the wind-elevation angle in
radians
the standard deviation of the vertical concentration
distribution at downwind distance x (m)
A-12
-------
The vertical turbulent intensity o" may also be obtained from direct
LJ
measurements or may be assigned according to the Pasquill stability cat-
egories. When a' values corresponding to the Pasquill stability cate-
gories are entered in Equation (A-13), the resulting curves will differ
from the corresponding Pasquill-Gifford curves in that Equation (A-13)
assumes rectilinear expansion at all downwind distances. Thus, o
values obtained from Equation (A-13) will be smaller than the values
obtained from the Pasquill-Gifford A and B curves and larger than the
values obtained from the D, E and F curves at long downwind distances.
However, the multiple reflection term in Equation (A-6), which confines
the plume to the surface mixing layer, accounts for the behavior of the
D, E and F curves (decrease in the expansion rate with distance) in
a manner that may be related to the meteorology of the area.
Following the recommendations of Briggs (1972), the lateral
and vertical standard deviations of a stabilized buoyant plume are
defined by
°yR = °zR
0.5 Ah
2.15
(A-15)
The downwind distance to stabilization x is given by
K.
lOh
. < 0
' "dz ~
TT u{h} S
~1/2 ; |^- > 0 and TT u{h} S"1/2 < lOh
9z
lOh
__ _-i / o
> 0 and IT u(h} S ' > lOh
(A-16)
A-13
-------
A. 3.2 Application of the Short-Term Model to Low-level
Emissions
The short-term diffusion model in Section A.3.1 may be used to
calculate ground-level concentrations resulting from low-level emissions
such as losses through building vents. These emissions are rapidly dis-
tributed by the cavity circulation of the building wake and quickly
assume the dimensions of the building. Ground-level concentrations are
calculated by setting the buoyancy parameter F equal to zero. The
standard deviation of the lateral concentration distribution at the
source a T is defined by the building crosswind dimension y divided
by 4.3. The standard deviation of the vertical concentration distribution
at the source is obtained by dividing the building height by 2.15. The
initial dimensions a and O are assumed to be applicable at the
yo zo
downwind edge of the building. These procedures are in good agreement
with the results of recent wind-tunnel experiments reported by Huber and
Snyder (1976). It should be noted that separate turbulent intensities
-------
a {x} =
z
a' x
E o
In
a'(x+x
; x < 3 x_
a/(x+x /2)+h
t o
x > 3 x
(A-18)
x = alonguind dimension of the area source (m)
h = the characteristic height of the area source (m)
The Vertical Term for an area source is given by
{Vertical Term} =
1+2 7^ exp
n=l
i /2n H
1_ I m
2 \0 ixJ
x
_
2
6H
m
> 10
/2!r" a {x}
z
i / 6H
1 / m
2H
m
< 10
(A-19)
The Lateral Term is given by the expression
{Lateral Term} =
-------
and
(X+Xo/2)
(A-21)
The Decay Term is given by Equation (A-9) above.
The concentration at points interior to the area source is
given by
2 K Q
/2ir u{h] x y a'
o o E
In
a^ (x'+l)+h
L a^+h J
{Vertical Term} (A-22)
where
x' = distance downwind from the upwind edge of the area source (m)
A. 4
LONG-TERM CONCENTRATION MODEL
A.4.1
Elevated Sources
The atmospheric dispersion model for elevated point and volume
sources is similar in form to the Air Quality Display Model (Environmental
Protection Agency, 1969) and the Climatological Dispersion Model (Calder,
1971). In the model, the area surrounding a continuous source of pollu-
tants is divided into sectors of equal angular width corresponding to the
class intervals of the seasonal and annual frequency distributions of wind
direction. The emission rate during a season or year is partitioned
according to the relative wind-direction frequencies. Ground-level con-
centration fields for each source are translated to a common reference
coordinate grid system and summed to obtain the total due to all emissions.
For a single source, the mean seasonal concentration at a point (r, 6) is
given by
A-16
-------
2 K Q
A6'
-Ui\ i,
(A-23)
,k, t
= exp
H.
z; i, k, £ / _
n=l
exp
2n H -H. ^
m;i,k,jj, i,k,£
+ exp
, 2n H . . +H. .
1 / m;i,k, £ i,k,
z;i,k,£
(A-24)
where
i,j,k,£
A6'
S{6}
frequency of occurrence of the i wind-speed category,
jth wind-direction category and kth stability or time-
of-day category for the £th season
the sector width in radians
a smoothing function
A0'
)i-e' I < Ae1
S{6} =
(A-25)
the angle measured in radians from north to the center-
line of the jth wind-direction sector
the angle measured in radians from north to the point
(r,6)
A-17
-------
As with the short-term model, the Vertical Term given by Equation
(A-24) is changed to the form
/2TT 0 .
Vi k S. = 2H Z?1> (A-26)
' ' m; i, k, &
when the exponential terms in Equation (A-24) exceed exp(-lO) for n equal
3. The remaining terms in Equations (A-23) are identical to those previously
defined in Section A. 3.1 for the short-term model, except that the turbulent
intensities and potential temperature gradients may be separately assigned
to each wind-speed and/or stability (or time-of-day) category; the ambient
air temperatures may be separately assigned to each stability (or time-of-
day) category for each season; and the surface mixing depths may be separately
assigned to each wind-speed and/or stability (or time-of-day) category for
each season.
As shown by Equation (A-25) , the rectangular concentration distrib-
ution within a given angular sector is modified by the function S{6} which
smoothes discontinuities in the concentration at the boundaries of adjacent
sectors. The centerline concentration in each sector is unaffected by con-
tributions from adjacent sectors. At points off the sector centerline, the
concentration is weighted function of the concentration at the centerline of
the sector in which the calculation is being made and the concentration at
the centerline of the nearest adjoining sector.
The mean annual concentration at the point (r,0) is calculated from
the seasonal concentrations using the expression
X{r,e> (A-27)
1=1
A-18
-------
A.4.2
Application of the Long-Term Model to Low-Level Emis-
sions
Long-term ground-level concentrations produced by low-level emis-
sions are calculated from Equation (A-23) by setting the buoyancy parameter
F equal to zero. The standard deviation of the vertical concentration dis-
tribution at the downwind edge of the building O is defined as the
zo
building height divided by 2.15. Separate vertical turbulent intensities
a' may be defined for the low-level sources to account for the effects of
h
surface heat sources and roughness elements. A virtual point source is used
to account for the initial lateral dimension of the source in a manner iden-
tical to that described below for area sources.
A.4.3 Long-Term Concentration Model for Area Sources
The mean seasonal concentration at downwind distance r with
respect to the center of an area source is given by the expression
ro}
2 K Q
27T R A9'
i,j,k
u.{h} o
S{8} V4
(A-28)
exp -
where
R = radial distance from the virtual point source to the receptor
= distance from source center to receptor, measured along the
sector centerline (m)
= effective source radius (m)
A-19
-------
y =
X =
y
lateral distance from the sector centerline to the receptor (m)
lateral virtual distance (m)
r cot
A 8'
(A-29)
z;i,k
In
l . . Cr'+r \ + h
E;i ,k\ o /
ji . . fr'-r ^ + h
E; i, k V o /
; ro < r'
; r' > 6r
6r
(A-30)
Vi,k,£
L^V"-- 1 /2n Hm;i,k,£\ . 1 /6Hm;i,k,£\
iui^L 2v a--k 'J'2' az-'k /
v^₯ a . , , /6H , . \2
z,l, K . i I m,i,K.,x, I < ]_0
Hm;i,k,£ ' 2\ az;i,k }
(A-31)
and the remaining parameters are identical to those previously defined.
For points interior to the area source, the seasonal average
concentration is given by the expression:
&>*'. i
in
"llh) °E-i k
"aE;l,k(r"+1) + b"
L °E;i,k+h J
'i.k.»
(A-32)
A-20
-------
where
r" = the downwind distance, measured along the sector centerline
from the upwind edge of the area source (m)
A.5 APPLICATION OF THE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM CONCENTRATION MODELS
IN CONfPLEX TERRAIN
The short-term and long-term concentration models described in
Sections A.3 and A.4 are strictly applicable only for flat terrain where
the base of the stack (or the building source) and the ground surface down-
wind from the source are at the same elevation. However, both models
may also be applied to complex terrain by defining effective stabilization
heights and mixing depths. The following assumptions are made in the model
calculations for complex terrain:
The top of the surface mixing layer extends over the
calculation grid at a constant height above mean sea
level
Ground-level concentrations at all grid points above
the top of the surface mixing layer are zero
Plumes that stabilize above the top of the surface
mixing layer do not contribute to ground-level con-
centrations at any grid point (this assumption also
applies to flat terrain)
In order to determine whether the stabilized plume is contained
within the surface mixing layer, it is necessary to calculate the mixing
depth H*{z } at the source from the relationship
m s
H*{z } = (ti + z - z } (A-33)
m,v s' \ m a sj
A-21
-------
where
m
the depth of the surface mixing layer measured at a point
with elevation z above mean sea level
a
z = the height above mean sea level of the source
s
Equation (A-33) is represented schematically in Figure A-l. As shown by
the figure, the actual top of the surface mixing layer is assumed to
remain at a constant elevation above mean sea level. If the height H of
the stabilized plume above the base of the stack is less than or equal
to H*{z }, the plume is defined to be contained within the surface mixing
layer.
The height H of the stabilized plume above mean sea level is
given by the sum of the height H of the stabilized plume above the base
of the stack and the elevation z of the base of the stack. At any eleva-
s
tion z above mean sea level, the effective height H'{z} of the plume cen-
terline above the terrain is then given by
H'{z} =
H -z; H -z>0
o o
0 ; H - z < 0
o
(A-34)
The effective mixing depth H'{z} above a point at elevation z
above mean sea level is defined by
H;{Z} =
m
H + z
ma
-z;z
-------
N>
OJ
Top of Mixing Layer
Mixing Depth
Mixing Depth Measured
at Airport Equals
Minimum Depth
(No calculations
made for grid
points with
terrain elevations
above top of /
mixing layer (MSL)
at airport)
m
Assigned to
Source
FIGURE A-l.
Mixing depth H*{z } used to determine whether the stabilized plume is contained within the
e- Wl-l S
surface mising layer.
-------
Figure A-2 illustrates the assumptions implicit in Equation (A-35). For
grid points at elevations below the airport elevation, the effective mix-
ing depth H'{z} is allowed to increase in a manner consistent with Figure
A-l. However, in order to prevent a physically unrealistic compression
of plumes as they pass over elevated terrain, the effective mixing depth
is not permitted to be less than the mixing depth measured at the airport.
It should be noted that the concentration is set equal to zero for grid
points above the actual top of the mixing layer (see Figure A-l).
The terrain adjustment procedures also assume that the mean wind
speed at any given height above sea level is constant. Thus, the wind
speed u above the surface at a point with elevation z above mean sea
K. a
level is adjusted to the stack height for the plume-rise calculations
by the relationship
u(h) =
; h < z + z
o a R
(A-36)
where h is the height above mean sea level of the top of the stack. Sim-
ilarly, the wind speed u{H} used in the concentration calculations is given
by
u{H} H
; H < z + z
o a R
(A-37)
A- 2 4
-------
i
NO
Ul
Effective Top of Mixing Layer
Effective
Mixing Depth
Mixing Depth Measured
" at Airport Equals
Minimum Depth
(No calculations
made for grid
points with
terrain elevations
above top of
mixing layer (MSL)
airport
Assigned to
Grid Point
FIGURE A-2.
Effective mixing depth H'(z)assigned to grid points for the concentration calculations.
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTARY METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Tables B-l through B-5 list the seasonal and annual summaries
of the joint frequency of occurrence of wind-speed and wind-direction
categories, classified according to the Pasquill stability categories,
for the Ediz Hook 10-meter meteorological tower during the period 15
August 1978 to 15 August 1979. As explained in Section 2.2, Whidbey
Island cloud cover data in combination with the Ediz Hook tower wind
speeds were used to assign stability to each hour following the Turner
(1964) definitions of the Pasquill stability categories. The hourly
meteorological inputs for the 24-hour and 3-hour periods considered in
the attainment status analysis are listed in chronological order in
Tables B-6 and B-7, respectively. These inputs were also used in the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increment calculations for
the Class II areas. The hourly meteorological inputs for the "worst-
case" 24-hour and 3-hour periods for the PSD calculations for the Class
I area (Olympic National Park) are listed in chronological order in
Tables B-8 and B-9, respectively.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
WINTER JOINT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND-SPEED AND WIND-DIRECTION
CATEGORIES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE PASQUILL STABILITY
CATEGORIES, AT THE EDIZ HOOK 10-METER TOWER
STflB I LIT Y CflTE SORY fl
w
I
STflBILlTY Cfil FGORY B
U1ND SPFED ; h/SEC >
0-1 5 1 6-3 0 3,1-5 1 TI'T r>L
STflBlLITY CATEGORY C
y I ND SPEED ( H/SEC >
51-51 32-6.2 83-108
>1 0 8 TOTSL
S
H HE
HE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
c c r
S
ssy
sy
vsy
y
UNV
Nk
NNV
TOTflL
OOOO
OOOO
00 00
oooo
00 00
oooo
'. V 0 0
oooo
TOO
oooo
.0000
00 00
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
00 00
3000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0003
oooo
3000
0 ^' 0 0
3000
. oooo
oooo
3000
.0000
3000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
3000
oooo
oooo
oooo
00)0
''I 0 C 0
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
.0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
.0000
00 1 0
00 1 0
ooo;
0005
0010
0003
OOOO
0010
0005
oooo
oooo
0003
oooo
.0000
oooo
.0063
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
c o o o
0 o 0 )
i'- 0 C< 3
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0000-
0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
'3000
oooo
oooo
0 0 n o
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
00 1 0
0010
ooo;
0005
0010
ooo;
oooo
00 1 0
0003
oooo
oooo
0003
.0000
oooo
oooo
0063
.0005
0010
OOOO
0005
0013
00 10
0003
0015
.0010
.0010
0005
.0000
00 13
.0000
0013
00 13
0 136
0010
0015
0053
0019
0034
0019
0034
oooo
0010
.0000
oooo
oooo
0010
0010
0015
0024
.0252
00 I 0
00 1 ?
0029
0073
0053
0024
00 13
oooo
oooo
. oooo
0005
. oooo
oooo
.0000
. 00 00
. 00 03
0233
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
.0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
(000
oooo
oooo
oooo
OOOO
C 0 00
oooo
o e oo
oooo
oooo
OOOO
C 000
oooo
.0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
.0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0024
0044
0083
0097
.0102
0053
0053
00 13
00 19
.0010
.0010
.0000
0024
.0010
. 0029
.0049
06 21
STABILITY C OTECORY D
0 I RECT 1 OH
( SECTOR )
H
HHE
HE
EWE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssu
sy
ysy
y
UNW
Hy
HHV
TOTSL
0-1 5
0010
0015
.0010
0019
0039
0010
0044
0102
0126
0053
. 0087
0039
. 0068
.0010
0010
OOOO
064 1
1.6-3 0
0034
0053
0037
0097
.0209
0199
0141
01SO
.0155
0 ISO
0257
0194
0 1 35
.0078
0117
0058
2163
VI ND
31-51
0044
0087
0087
.0073
0126
0112
.0155
0073
0044
0044
0160
.0117
0343
0078
.0044
001 0
. 1397
SPEED ( H/SEC )
5.2-8.2 i
. 0 0 ? 8
0063
0063
0049
0039
0053
.0019
00 1 9
OOOO
OOOO
0029
. 0063
0340
0146
.0049
0024
. 1034
1.3-10 8
00 15
.0000
.0019
. OOOO
. 00 10
. 0005
OOOO
. OOOO
OOOO
. 0005
0005
0073
. 0135
.0117
.0015
.0010
. 0427
> 1 0 . 6
.0000
OOOO
.0000
.0000
.0010
. 0005
.0000
.0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
0044
0049
0068
. OCOO
OOOO
0173
TOTflL
0180
0218
0267
.0239
.0432
.0383
.0339
0354
.0333
.0262
.0339
0319
1112
. 0493
. 0233
0112
6039
STflBILlTY CflTECORY E
UIHD SPEED C (I/SEC )
1 6-3 0 ,1.1-5.1 1 0-TBL
STfiBILITY CATEGORY F
WIND SPEED (B/SEC)
0-1516-30 TOTSL
. ooo;
oo i o
0010
.0034
0044
0044
.0063
.0102
0194
.0126
.0133
0044
0083
. 00 1 3
001 0
OOOO
0937
00 13
. 0063
. 0073
0058
0034
0063
. 0087
0175
0068
0034
0097
. 0024
. 0024
. 0003
.0010
.0015
. 0845
0019
0073
.0083
0092
.0078
.0107
0 1 30
0277
0262
.0160
0232
.0068
0 1 07
0019
0019
.0013
.1782
0005
oooo
oooo
OOOO
.0000
.0005
0010
0053
0058
.0063
0033
.0015
.0019
0005
.0000
.0000
.0286
00 15
00 1 0
0024
0019
0024
00 10
00 15
0173
0296
. 0229
0296
0049
00 1 9
00 15
00 10
00 1 0
1209
0019
0010
0024
0019
0024
0015
0024
0223
0354
0291
0330
0063
0039
0019
0010
0010
1 493
VI NTER
y IND
D IRECT ION
DISTRIBUTION
0243
0354
0466
045 1
064 1
0568
0592
.0869
098 1
. 0728
1 130
0650
.1286
. 0544
029 1
0184
-------
0 I RECTI OH
(SECTOR )
TABLE B-2
SPRING JOINT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND-SPEED AND WIND-DIRECTION
CATEGORIES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE PASQUILL STABILITY
CATEGORIES, AT THE EDIZ HOOK 10-METER TOWER
STUB I L! TY CATEGORY fl
WIND SPFED (fl/SEC )
0-1 5 1 £-3 0 TOTrtL
STABILITY CATEGORY B
VI ND SPFED ; B/SEC >
0-1 3 1 6-3.0 ,1.1-3 1 T 0 I ft L
0-1 3
STSBILITY CATEGORY C
Ui HP SPEED ( H/SEC >
31-51 32-82 83-10
t\ 0 .8 TOTAL
H
HHE
HE
EHE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssu
st
usu
V
VH±
Nh
H Nt
TOTflL
0000
0000
0000
0000
0003
00 00
0000
00 00
.0000
oooo
00 00
oooo
0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
0005
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
00 14
0003
0003
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
>000
0005
oooo
0027
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0018
0003
0003
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0003
.0000
0032
.0014
0023
.0000
0023
00? 7
00 1 8
0023
00 1 8
0023
0009
0003
.0009
OOOO
. 0003
.0003
.0003
.0203
00 14
0023
0073
008?
014S
0073
0030
0014
. OOOO
. 0003
. 0003
OOOO
0005
0027
. 0046
. 0045
0607
OOOO
OOOO
0009
0005
OOOO
0014
0003
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
0003
.0023
0046
.0014
.0119
.0027
.0046
0062
0109
01 V 3
0103
.0078
0032
. 0023
.0014
.0009
. 0009
0009
. 0035
.0096
.0064
0931
.0003
0005
0023
OOOO
0003
00 18
0009
00 18
0046
0003
0023
0003
0003
0003
OOOO
.0014
0 1 82
0014
0009
0066
0059
0053
0068
0046
0018
.0018
OOOO
0003
0003
0023
0023
.0082
0027
.0520
0003
OOOO
0027
0036
0032
0023
. 0003
00 03
. 0003
OOOO
. oooo
oooo
0050
01 32
. 0023
. OOOO
. 0342
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0005
0041
oooo
oooo
0046
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
c- o oo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
CO 00
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0023
00 14
0119
0096
0091
0109
0039
0011
0068
. 0003
00 ?7
00 09
0082
0201
01 03
0041
1090
STABILITY CATEGORY D
DIRECTION
(SECTOR )
H
HHE
HE
EHE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSU
Sb
ysv
V
ynu
Nb
HNlf
TOTAL
0-1 3
OOOO
0009
.0032
0014
.0018
0009
0027
.0032
0023
0018
0023
004 1
.0009
001 4
.0000
0018
0287
1 6 - S 0
.0027
0023
0092
OOS8
009 1
00?.7
OOS8
0073
0096
0096
0 137
0119
.0103
0114
0 103
0046
.1328
WIND
3 1-3.1
0009
0018
0018
0027
0027
0014
')01 4
. 001 4
.0000
.0014
0100
.0196
.0432
.0319
. 0078
.0000
1300
SPEED ( H/SEC )
3.2-8 2
0005
OOOO
.0009
0023
. 0003
OOOO
OOOO
. ooos
.0000
.0000
.0018
.0128
0993
0547
0036
OOOO
1770
8.3-10 8
OOOO
.0000
. OOOO
. OOOO
oooo
. oooo
. oooo
oooo
. oooo
. oooo
oooo
oooo
0263
. 0235
.0018
. oooo
0538
> 1 0 8
OOOO
OCOO
OOOO
. OOOO
.0000
.0000
oooo
.0000
.0000
.ocoo
.0000
oooo
.0009
. 0032
.0018
oooo
. 0059
TOTflL
004 1
0030
.0141
0132
0141
0050
.0109
.0123
.0119
0128
0328
.0484
1834
1262
.0235
0064
.5283
STAP IL ITY CflTEGORY E
WIND SPEED < n/SFC >
1 6-3.0
OOOO
OOOO
. 001 8
0005
.0014
.0018
0030
004 1
004 1
. 009 1
. 0?0 1
0064
. 0032
0036
. 0009
0005
0623
-7.1-3.1
. OOOO
. OOOO
OOOO
0005
. OOOO
. 0009
.0014
. 0046
. 0036
. 0032
0030
.0100
0278
0059
. OOOO
. OOOO
0630
1 OTAL
. OOOO
OOOO
00 18
.0009
0014
.0027
. 0064
0087
. 0078
.0123
.0251
. 0 1 64
.0310
.0096
0009
0003
. 1 255
STABILITY C-1TECOPY f
V \ HD
0- 1 3
0009
OOOO
0005
0005
0014
0014
0032
0032
0064
0078
0046
0027
0018
.0023
0018
0005
0388
SPEED ( H/SEC )
1 6-30
OOOO
.0000
00 09
0005
000?
003?
0045
0091
0201
0143
0301
. 0064
0082
00 13
0009
. 0009
1022
TOTflL
0009
OOOO
0014
.0009
0023
0046
0078
0 1 23
0263
0224
0347
0091
0 1 00
0041
.0027
.0014
1410
SPFI HC
*IHP
DIRECTION
DISTRIBUTION
0100
0109
0374
0356
046 1
0342
0392
0406
0552
0493
0963
0737
2336
1 674
0497
0 187
-------
TABLE B-3
SUMMER JOINT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND-SPEED AND WIND-DIRECTION
CATEGORIES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE PASQUILL STABILITY
CATEGORIES, AT THE EDIZ HOOK 10-METER TOWER
STflBI LITY CflTEGORY ft
DIRECTION
ST«8 IL I T Y CfllFGORY B
WIND SPEED ( H/SEC )
STflBIL I rY CATEGORY C
UIHD SPEED ( n/SEC )
Cd
I
(SECTOR)
N
HUE
HE
EHE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
st
y sy
y
UNV
NV
NNV
TOTAL
0-1 3
OOOO
OOOO
00 00
OOOO
OOOO
0003
0005
00 00
00 00
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0005
00 13
1 :- - 3 0
0003
oooo
0003
0019
0010
0019
0019
.0000
0003
oooo
oooo
3005
oooo
0005
0003
0005
0 1 02
TOTftL
0003
OOOO
0003
0019
.0010
0024
.0024
OOOO
. 0003
OOOO
OOOO
0003
OOOO
0005
0005
.0010
0116
.0019
0029
.0034
.0029
.0039
0048
.0029
.0024
0013
.0003
OOOO
0010
0013
001 9
.0019
.0015
0348
00 10
0015
0029
. 0024
0044
0043
00 10
0005
OOOO
OOOO
. 0005
OOOO
OOOO
0034
. 0073
. 0024
.0319
0005
.0005
.0019
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
.0000
0010
.0010
.0058
.0111
.0000
.0218
T D 1 P. L
0034
.0048
0082
0053
0082
0097
0039
0029
.0013
0003
ooo:
0019
.0024
0111
.020-3
.0039
0883
0-1.3
0015
00 10
0013
0005
0010
0010
0010
OOOO
0005
0013
0010
00 10
0013
.0010
.0000
.0010
0 1 43
1 6 -.1 0
0024
0005
0013
0010
00?9
0034
.0015
0010
OOOO
0003
.0000
.0010
0039
.0039
.0063
.0029
0324
.1.1-3 1
OOOO
0005
00 19
0005
.0000
OOOO
0005
. OOOO
OOOO
oooo
.oooo
.0013
0087
.0160
.0174
00 00
0469
32-82
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
OOOO
OOOO
.0000
oooo
oooo
0010
.0010
0174
0005
oooo
0198
8 3-10 8
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0 000
oooo
oooo
0000
oooo
oooo
0010
0034
0010
oooo
0033
> 1 0 8
oooo
oooo
.0000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0013
.0000
oooo
0013
TOTftL
0039
00 19
0048
00 19
0039
0044
0029
00 10
0003
00 19
00 10
0044
01 60
.0431
. 0252
0039
1203
DIRECT I ON
(SECTOR ) 0-1.5 1 6-3 .
STftBIL ITY CATEGORY D
VIHD SPEED ( H/SEC )
3 1-5.1 5 2-8.2 8.3-10 6
>10 8 TOTftL
STftB IL ITY CATEGORY E
KIND SPEED < W/SEC >
1 6-3 0 3.1-5.1 10TBL
STABILITY CATEGORY F
VIHD SPEED ( N/SEC )
0-1 5 1.6-3 0 TOTflL
SURflER
M IKD
DIRECTION
DISTRIBUTION
S
HN£
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
£
ssu
sv
wsv
V
yny
HU
HNU
TOTflL
. 0003
OOOO
0005
.0010
0015
0005
0005
0010
.0005
OOOO
0013
0015
.0024
.0010
0019
0005
0145
. 001 9.
0015
0024
0024
0073
0039
0019
.0015
0034
0034
0024
0032
0174
0121
0077
0024
. 0808
OOOO
OOOO
0015
0039 '
0029
OOOO
.0013
0003
.0005
. 001 0
. 0058
.0213
. 0721
.0358
0029
0010
. 1 305
OOOO
OOOO
0003
0003
OOOO
.0000
OOOO
oooo
oooo
0005
00 1 9
.0087
.1335
1001
.0019
.0000
.2477
OOOO
. OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0019
0634
.0421
. 00 15
OOOO
. 1089
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
oooo
.0000
.0000
. 0053
.0097
.0013
oooo
.0164
.0024
0013
.0048
0077
0116
0044
.0039
.0029
0044
.0048
0116
0426
?94 1
?008
0174
0039
6188
.0000
0005
ooo;
.0015
00 1 9
.0010
oo i :
0039.
.0029
.0034
004 4
0063
.0077
0029
.0005
OOOO
. 0387
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
. OOOO
. oooo
. oooo
. oooo
. 0005
oooo
.0005
. 0029
. 0097
. 0387
. 0053
. OOOO
. OOOO
.0561
oooo
0005
0005
.0015
.0019
0010
.0015
0044
. 0029
.0039
. 0073
0 1 60
.0464
. 0087
0005
.0000
0968
OOOO
0005
OOOO
0010
0015
0010
0013
0034
0029
0024
0024
0010
0019
0010
.0019
OOOO
0223
OOOO
0005
0003
OOOO
00 19
0003
00 1 0
0029
0043
0063
0082
. 0029
0087
0024
OOOO
00 1 0
04 li
OOOO
0010
0005
0010
. 0034
0013
0024
0063
0077
0087
0 1 06
0039
0106
0034
0019
0010
0639
0102
0097
0194
0194
0300
0232
0169
.0174
0174
0198
.0310
0692
3696
2675
0658
0 135
-------
TABLE B-4
FALL JOINT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND-SPEED AND WIND-DIRECTION
CATEGORIES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE PASQUILL STABILITY
CATEGORIES, AT THE ED1Z HOOK 10-METER TOWER
STABILITY CATEGORY A
STABILITY C AT FGORY 6
S TUB IL ! T Y CATEGORY C
cd
DIRECTION
(SECTOR >
0-1 S
VI HD SPEED ; fl/SEC )
16-30 3 1 -5 1 TOT PL
0- 1 5
MIHC/ 5PEED fn/SEC)
31-51 53-52 83-10
8 TOTAL
h
HNE
HE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SU
usy
i'
y HL
Hii
HHU
TOTAL
0000
oooo
0000
0000
0000
oooo
oooo
0000
oooo
oooo
ocoo
oooo
oooo
oooo
00 00
oooo
. oooo
oooo
3000
oooo
3000
3000
3000
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
3000
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0 0') 0
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
00 1 5
oooo
0023
0040
0030
0033
00 1 5
0030
00 13
oooo
.0003
.0010
oooo
0003
.0010
.0000
. 0236
0005
00 10
0010
0020
0040
0030
0005
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0003
oooo
oooo
oooo
0003
0151
oooo
oooo
.oooo
oooo
0003
oooo
oooo
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
oooo
.0000
.0003
0020
00 1 0
0033
0060
CO? 5
0085
0020
0030
00 1 3
oooo
0003
0015
oooo
.0005
.0010
0003
0392
0050
0010
0003
0033
0035
0003
0020
0005
0035
0003
0010
.0005
0010
0013
0020
00 15
.0281
0010
0010
0073
0090
0131
0073
0055
0020
0005
.0003
0013
0010
.0013
0030
0030
0010
.0388
OOOO
00 1 0
0020
00 30
0020
00 1 0
oooo
0005
oooo
oooo
. oooo
.0000
0023
0035
00 1 0
oooo
01 66
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
.oooo
oooo
oooo
0003
oooo
oooo
. 0003
oooo
oooo
c o oo
oooo
0 0 0 0
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0060
. 0030
01 00
.0136
01 86
. 0090
. 0075
0030
0040
.0010
0023
.0015
0030
0085
0060
. 0025
. 1040
STABILITY CATEGORY D
D 1 RECT I OH
( S E C T- 0 R )
N
HNE
HE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSH
SH
y su
H
y HU
HV
HNV
TOTAL
0-1 5
0020
ooio
0020
0030
0050
0070
0070
0075
0060
0040
OOfcO
0095
0075
. 0035
0045
0035
0794
1 . 6 - -1 0
0050
.0035
0093
0171
0246
0151
0116
0121
0131
0131
.0131
0151
0211
0181
. 0 1 9 1
0090 .
.2230
VI HD
3 1-5.1
0025
0050
0023
0040
0073
0045
0035
.0030
0010
.0003
. 0043
. 0083
. 024 1
.0156
0035
.0015
.0939
SPEED C H/SEC >
3 2-3.2 1
0005
0030
0073
0005
00 1 0
0005
. 0005
OOOO
. OOOO
OOOO
.0010
0043
0331
. 01S6
0045
.0000
. 0733
) 3-10.6
. 0005
. OOOO
. 0045
. 0005
OOOO
OOOO
. OOOO
OOOO
. oooo
. oooo
oooo
. 0003
. 0035
. 0080
. 0075
. OOOO
. 0271
> 1 0 . 8
OOOO
OCOO
.oooo
oooo
.0000
oooo
oooo
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0035
. 00?5
.0005
.0000
.0063
TOTflL
0105
.0176
.026 1
0251
.0382
.0271
0226
0246
020 1
.0176
. 0246
.0382
.0949
0643
0397
0141
5053
STABILITY CATEGORY E
HI HD SPEED C fl/SEC )
1 6-3.0 3.1-3.1 TOTAL
STABILITY CATEGORY f
V I HD SPEED ( H/SEC >
0-1 5 1.6-3.0 TOTftL
OOOO
0005
OOOO
00 10
0075
0030
0050
0070
.0121
.0126
0141
0100
0121
.0080
0020
.0005
.0934
00 15
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
0005
oooo
0003
0030
. 0040
00 13
. 0093
0030
0065
.0010
OOOO
. OOOO
0311
.0015
0005
OOOO
0010
0080
0030
0035
.0100
.0161
0141
. 0236
.0131
.0186
. 0090
.0020
. 0005
. 1 266
0005
0010
0015
0010
0043
0060
0060
0090
.0221
0121
Olio
0063
0070
0020
0015
.0015
0934
. 0005
00 10
0020
0003
0045
.0090
0050
.0131
0245
026J
0246
0063
0085
. 0035
00 1 0
0005
1316
0010
0020
0035
0015
0090
0131
.0110
0221
0467
0387
0337
0 13-1
. 0 1 36
.0035
0025
.0020
2250
FBLL
U 1HD
D IRECTIOH
DlSTRIBUTIOK
021 1
024 1
0432
. 0492
.0814
.0628
.0487
. 0628
.0864
.0713
.0869
.0673
. 1 34 1
.0879
. 0512
.0196
-------
TABLE B-5
ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND-SPEED AND WIND-DIRECTION
CATEGORIES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE PASQUILL STABILITY
CATEGORIES, AT THE EDIZ HOOK 10-METER TOWER
STABILITY CATEGORY S
STABILITY CfllFGORY 8
STSBILITY CflTEGOR'f C
Cd
I
DIRECTION
I SECTOR )
N
NNE
NF_
ENE
r
ESE
SE
SSE
s
ssu
SI
usv
!>'
UKt
Nt
H Ht
TOTftL
y 1 NO
0-1 5
OOOO
oooo
0000
0000
0001
0001
0001
0000
oo oo
oo oo
0000
0000
0000
oooo
0000
.0001
0003
S P f E D < .1
1 '- - 3 0
0001
0000
0001
0005
0006
OOOS
0006
oooo
0001
oooo
oooo
0001
oooo
)001
3002
0001
0032
/SEC)
TOTill
0001
oooo
000 I
0005
0007
0007
0007
oooo
000 1
oooo
oooo
000 1
oooo
0001
0002
0002
0037
HI Nt> SPEED ; rt/SEC )
0-1 5
00 1 2
00 1 6
00 1 7
0024
0025
oo?e
00 1 8
.0018
00 1 6
. 0001
0002
0007
.0003
.0007
.0008
.0005
. 02 13
16-30
0007
00 I 2
0029
003?
0059
0043
00 1 7
0005
OOOO
0001
00 02
0001
.0001
00 1 a
0030
00 19
027«
31-51
0001
000 1
0007
.0001
000 1
0004
.0001
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
0002
0004
0020
0040
0004
.0087
TPTPU
0020
0029
0053
0056
0085
oo '< ;
. 0036
0023
00 1 6
0006
00 0 J
00 1 1
00 1 0
0013
007 S
0028
.057!
0- 1 5
0018
0008
0011
0011
0016
0011
0011
0010
0024
0008
00 12
. 0003
0011
.0007
.0008
0014
.0183
1 6-3.0
0014
0010
0033
0043
006 1
0049
0037
0012
0008
0002
0003
0006
.0022
0023
0048
. 0 0 2. 3
0421
y I NO SPEED ( fl/SEC )
3 1-51
0004
00 08
0024
0036
0026
00 1 4
0006
0002
0001
OOOO
0001
0004
.0041
0083
0032
000 1
0304
52-82
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
Or. 00
oooo
0002
0004
00'3
0001
.0000
0063
8 1- I C 8
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
(000
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0002
0008
0002
oooo
0013
> 1 0 8
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
.oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
0004
oooo
oooo
0004
TOTfiL
0036
0026
0088
00-91
01 03
0075
0054
0024
0034
00 11
00 18
00 17
0079
.0183
.0112
0039
0990
0 IRECTION
(SECTOR) 0-1 5 1 6-3
STABILITY CflTEGORY D
Ml ND SPEED < H/SEC >
0 3 1-5 I S 2-6.2 8.3-10 6
> 1 0 8 TOTfiL
STAB IL ITY CflTEGORY E
WIND SPEED C H/SEC )
1 6-3 0 3.1-5.1 1 OTftL
STBBILITY Ci-TECOPY f
U1ND SPEED '. H/SEC?
0-1 5 1 6-3 0 TOTfiL
ftHKUfi L
U IHD
DIRECTION
DISTRIBUTION
K
HNE
NE
EHE
c
ESF
SE
SSE
S
sst
sw
ysu
k
UNU
NV
NNV
TOTfiL
0008
0008
0017
0018
0030
0023
0036
0054
0053
.0028
0046
0047
.0043
0017
0018
.0014
.0461
0032
0043
0072
0039
01 -.3
0102
0035
0091
0106
0 105
0130
0136
0140
.0123
.0122
0057
1 627
.0019
. 0039
.0036
.0045
0064
0042
.0054
.0033
>01 4
0018
009 1
0134
0442
. 0230
.0047
. 0008
.1338
0022
. 0023
0037
0020
00 1 3
.0014
0006
0006'
OOOO
000 1
00 1 9
0082
0758
0469
. 0037
. 0006
.1513
0005
. OOOO
.0016
. 0001
. 0002
0001
. OOOO
. OOOO
.0000
. 0001
.0001
0024
. 0279
. 0220
. 0030
. 0002
. 0384
OOOO
OOOO
. OOOO
.0000
.000?
0001
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
oooo
.0011
. 0036
0053
.0010
.0000
.0116
0087
0113
0178
0173
0265
.0184
.0182
0187
.0173
0133
.0308
0434
.1718
.1114
.0264
0088
.5640
000 1
0005
0008
00 1 6
0037
0023
0045
. 0063
0093
. 0094
0136
.0067
0077
. 0040
. 00 1 1
. 0002
. 0722
0007
00 16
oo i a
.0016
.0010
00 18
0026
0064
. 0036
. 0022
. 0067
. 0064
.0191
. 0034
. 0002
. 0004
0394
. 0008
0020
0026
.0031
.0047
0043
0071
.0126
.0131
0116
. 0203
.0131
. 0268
0073
.0013
. 0006
.1316
0005
0004
.0005
0006
0018
0022
0029
0052
0091
0071
0058
0029
0031
0014
0013
0003
.0452
0005
0005
.0014
0007
0024
0034
0030
01 05
.0197
01 74
023?
0052
0069
. 0023
0007
. 0008
096S
0010
0010
0019
0013
0042
0055
005?
. 0 1 56
0289
0245
0290
0081
.0100
0037
.0020
0013
.1440
.0162
0199
.0366
0372
.0550
. 0439
.0409
0516
.0644
053 1
.0824
.0694
.2176
1 432
.0490
.0176
-------
03
I
TA
HOU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
BLE B-6.
C
R UIND
DIR .
(DEC)
320
295
235
295
270
280
305
305
310
31 0
305
305
305
300
300
300
295
295
285
285
295
290
285
THE HOUR
ONSIDERED
UIND K
SPEED D
< UPS )
1 00
1 . 10
1 . 30
2 . 00
HISSI
2. 20
1 60
2. 20
3. 10
2. 20
2 . 20
1 . 80
2. 70
2. 90
4. 90
5. 60
6. 70
7. 20
6. 90
6 . 50
7 . 40
7. 40
7. 40
7 . 80
LY HE
IN TH
IXINC
EPTH
T 1978
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
ED IN AVER
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
FOR T
CALCU
STAB
CAT .
F
F
F
E
AGES
E
D
D
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
HE 24
LATIO
y IND
EXP.
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
-HOUR PERI
NS .
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0235
.0235
. 0235
0350
. 0350
. 0465
.0465
. 0735
0735
. 1 080
. 1 080
.0735
.0735
.0735
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
ODS
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
0336
0336
0336
. 0501
.0501
. 0665
. 0665
1051
. 1051
1544
1544
1208
1208
.1051
0764
0764
.0764
0764
0764
0764
. 0665
0665
. 0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONT INUED )
i
O3
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
40
45
40
45
30
40
30
35
40
40
40
55
50
60
60
300
50
50
55
90
200
200
180
1 70
WIN
SPE
< MP
9.
B .
9 .
8.
7.
8
7 .
7
8.
7.
8.
7.
8.
6.
2 .
1 .
6.
8.
9.
8.
2.
2.
2.
2.
D
ED
S )
20
90
40
00
60
00
80
80
70
60
00
80
00
00
70
30
30
50
80
00
90
50
00
70
MIXING
DEPTH
(M )
21 1
1 83
157
145
151
157
163
229
301
383
383
377
343
289
203
155
143
1 91
203
235
235
245
231
225
AMB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) (
10 NOVEMI
276
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
277
277
275
275
275
POT .
TEMP
: DEC K/H )
3ER 1978
003
003
003
003
003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
.003
003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
F
D
D
D
D
F
F
F
F
WIND
EXP.
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
10
10
10
. 1 0
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
. 0465
0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
. 0465
0465
.0465
0465
0235
0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
0235
.0235
.0235
.0235
STD DEV.
AZ AKGLE
( RAD )
0665
. 0665
. 0665
. 0665
. 0665
. 0665
.0665
0665
0829
. 0329
. 0829
.0665
. 0665
0764
0764
0336
0764
0764
. 0665
. 0665
0409
. 0409
. 0336
. 0336
-------
TABLE 8-6 (CONTINUED)
w
I
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
285
295
300
300
290
300
280
290
295
295
295
285
285
285
285
275
270
275
270
265
270
265
235
230
UIN
SPE
( MP
6
7
8 .
8
9
8.
5.
7.
7.
6.
7 .
7.
9.
10.
9.
8.
7.
8.
6.
5.
5.
6.
5.
5.
D
ED
S)
90
80
50
90
20
00
80
20
60
90
60
60
80
30
60
30
40
30
50
80
80
30
40
40
MIXING
DEPTH
(H )
155
223
21 1
157
83
93
135
230
412
440
540
582
582
60 1
586
586
586
586
586
586
586
586
271
239
AKB
TEM
( DEC
24
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
P
K ) (
MARCH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
POT
TEMP
DEC K/n>
1979
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
UINO
EXP.
. 10
. 10
10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
( RAD )
. 0465
0465
.0465
0465
0465
0465
.0465
0465
.0465
0465
0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
. 0665
0665
0764
0764
. 0665
0665
0665
0665
. 0829
0829
. 0829
0878
OS78
0878
0878
0665
0665
. 0665
0665
. 0665
.0665
0665
. 0665
. 0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
td O
± 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DIR .
(DEC)
270
270
275
270
275
270
250
270
300
295
285
290
290
290
300
295
295
295
285
280
275
265
255
250
UIHD
SPEED
( MPS)
6. 00
6 . 30
6. 30
6. 90
6. 70
6 . 30
6. 00
5. 10
4 . 50
7. 60
8. 90
9. 60
8. 90
8 . 90
9. 80
10.10
1 1 . 60
11.20
9. 60
9. 20
8. 50
6. 30
7. 40
6. 30
MIXING
DEPTH
(H )
299
289
267
263
223
1 75
1 49
448
860
862
1080
475
51 1
533
537
523
517
457
385
305
251
223
223
237
AKB
TEMP
(DEC K)
6 APR
281
281
28 1
281
281
281
281
281
281
282
283
283
283
283
283
282
2S2
28 1
281
281
281
280
280
279
POT .
TEMP
( DEC K/M )
IL 1979
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
003
003
003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
UIHD
EXP.
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
10
1 0
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
10
. 10
STD DEV
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
. 0764
0764
. 0665
. 0665
0665
0665
0565
0665
0665
. 0665
0665
082?
0829
. 0829
.0665
0829
.0829
0829
. 0665
. 0665
. 0665
0665
0665
. 0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
w
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
270
270
280
270
270
270
280
275
280
280
285
280
280
285
290
285
285
280
280
280
275
280
280
275
UIN
SPE
( HP
4 .
4 .
5
4 .
4.
4 .
5.
6 .
6.
6.
5.
5.
6.
6.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
7.
7.
D
ED
S)
90
50
80
20
20
90
40
30
30
30
40
40
30
70
00
00
30
50
30
30
60
30
60
80
MIXING
DEPTH
(« )
247
255
249
245
237
253
332
496
496
642
642
642
694
756
756
331
337
321
295
275
275
275
283
293
AMB .
TEMP
( DEC K )
29 APR
284
284
284
284
284
283
284
285
285
285
285
285
285
286
285
285
285
284
284
283
283
283
283
283
POT
TEH
< DEC K
IL 1979
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
00
. 00
00
. 00
00
00
00
. 00
. 00
00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
p
/M )
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
STAB
CAT
E
E
D
E
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
UIND
EXP .
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
STD DEV
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0350
.0350
.0465
0350
.0465
.0463
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
0465
0465
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ AHGLE
( RAD )
0575
. 0575
0665
0501
. 0764
0764
0665
.0665
0764
0764
. 0665
0764
0764
0665
.0665
. 0764
0764
0829
. 0829
0829
. 0665
. 0764
. 0764
. 0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
CD
-I
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
250
270
270
295
290
290
300
295
295
305
280
295
300
305
305
300
305
300
295
290
280
280
275
275
WIN
SPE
< HP
4 .
3.
5.
7 .
7.
3.
4
4.
3.
7.
1 1 .
1 1
12.
13.
13.
12.
1 1 .
8.
8.
7.
7.
5.
6.
6.
ID
:ED
S )
00
40
80
40
60
60
50
20
10
20
20
80
50
40
20
50
60
70
70
40
40
60
70
90
MIXING
DEPTH
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
275
280
280
280
275
280
285
280
295
295
285
285
280
280
280
275
275
270
275
275
275
270
275
280
WIN
SPE
< HP
8.
8.
9.
8.
9 .
9.
8.
7 .
7.
7.
7
7
8 .
10.
10 .
9.
9.
8.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
5.
D
ED
S>
30
70
40
70
20
40
00
20
20
60
40
60
70
10
70
60
40
50
20
20
80
30
20
10
MIXING
DEPTH
(M )
325
317
279
289
243
262
324
372
616
616
686
860
902
902
902
902
553
463
409
409
419
385
337
295
AMB
TEM
C DEC
3
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
P
K ) (
JUNE
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
POT .
TEMP
DEC KAH)
1979
003
003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
WIND
EXP.
. 10
10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
. 0465
0465
0465
.0735
0735
.0735
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
0665
0829
. 0829
0829
. 0665
0665
0665
. 0665
0764
0764
1208
1208
.1051
. 0764
0764
0764
0764
0665
0829
. 0829
. 0829
0665
0665
0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONT IHUED )
I
I
-P-
HOUR
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
285
275
270
260
260
270
260
310
310
305
310
310
305
305
295
295
295
290
290
285
275
275
280
285
y IN
SPE
< HP
5.
5 .
4 .
3
2.
2
3.
2 .
3.
3 .
3.
3 .
3.
4.
5.
5 .
4 .
6.
7.
8.
6.
6.
8.
7.
D
ED
S )
80
10
20
10
70
50
10
90
60
80
10
60
80
00
10
40
90
00
20
30
70
70
00
60
M IXING
DEPTH
CM )
291
273
241
197
177
177
272
488
540
540
638
638
660
824
834
834
834
962
962
962
287
237
223
213
AHB .
TEMP
( DEC K )
8 JUNE
284
284
283
283
282
283
284
285
284
285
285
285
286
286
286
286
286
287
286
285
285
284
284
284
POT .
TEMP
(DEC K/M )
1979
003
. 003
003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
E
E
E
F
D
D
C
B
C
B
B
B
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
U IND
EXP .
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ASGLE
CRftD )
0465
.0350
.0350
. 0350
0235
.0465
.0465
.0735
. 1 080
. 0735
. 1080
. 1 080
. 1080
.0735
.0735
.0735
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD OEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
0665
. 0501
0501
. 0501
0336
. 0665
. 0665
1051
1544
1051
1775
1775
. 1544
. 1051
. 1208
. 1208
. 0665
0764
0764
. 0665
0764
0764
. 0665
. 0764
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
td
I
Ul
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UIHD
DIR .
(DEC)
280
285
290
280
280
280
285
295
295
295
290
290
290
285
285
280
280
280
280
275
275
275
275
275
WIND
SPEED
< HPS)
8. 30
8 . 00
7. 60
7.20
6 . 00
6. 90
8. 00
8 . 70
8 . 00
8 . 00
8 . 00
8 50
9. 40
10.10
1 0 10
10. 30
10.10
9. 40
9. 80
9. 80
8. 30
8. 90
8. 30
8.70
MIXING
DEPTH
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED).
a
i
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
280
280
275
275
275
270
270
275
295
295
290
290
285
285
285
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
280
U IN
SPE
( HP
8.
8.
7.
6 .
5 .
5.
5
5.
5.
6
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
10.
10.
1 1 .
10.
9.
11.
10.
10.
1 1 .
D
ED
S )
90
30
20
50
60
10
40
80
80
00
70
60
90
60
50
30
70
80
50
80
00
70
50
60
H IX ING
DEPTH
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
I
I'
^J
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UIND
DIR .
(DEC)
265
270
280
270
270
280
275
280
280
280
280
280
285
280
280
280
280
275
275
275
275
275
275
270
UIND
SPEED
( HPS>
4. 90
5. 40
6. 00
4. 70
2. 90
4 . 00
5. 10
5 60
6. 00
5. 80
6. 50
8. 30
10.10
10.10
9. 80
9 . 80
1 1 . 00
1 1 . 20
9. 80
11.20
9 . 80
9. 20
9. 20
7. 80
MIXING
DEPTH
(« )
273
239
209
181
205
235
338
404
410
458
458
508
594
618
626
626
626
626
626
415
361
371
359
353
ftMB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) (
28 JUNE
283
283
283
282
282
281
282
282
283
284
285
285
286
287
287
287
286
286
285
285
285
285
285
284
POT .
TEMP
DEC K/M)
1979
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
UIND
EXP .
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0735
.0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
. 0665
0665
0665
0764
. 0764
0665
0665
091 8
0918
. 091 8
091 8
091 8
. 1051
. 0878
0878
0878
0878
0952
. 0952
0952
0952
. 0952
0952
0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
CO
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
13
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
275
275
275
275
280
275
275
31 0
305
305
310
305
300
295
305
300
300
290
295
295
300
290
280
275
WIN
SPE
< HP
7.
6 .
3.
3.
2.
3.
3 .
2.
4.
4.
3.
3.
5,
5 .
6.
6.
7 .
6.
6 .
8.
7.
8.
5.
3.
D
ED
S)
80
30
60
40
90
10
10
70
50
00
60
60
40
40
50
90
40
30
70
50
40
00
40
80
MIXING
DEPTH
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
a
i
HOUR
yiMD
DIR .
(DEC)
UIND
SPEED
( MPS )
MIXING
DEPTH
(H )
AMB .
TEMP
(DEC K ) '
POT .
TEMP
CDEG K/M)
STAB
CAT
UIND
EXP.
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
< RAD )
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
21 JULY 1979
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
280
280
230
275
270
280
285
295
295
300
290
295
290
290
295
290
290
285
285
285
280
280
285
285
8.
8.
7.
5.
6
5.
6 .
5
4
4 .
4 .
4 .
6.
8.
8.
8 .
9.
7.
9 .
8.
6.
4.
6.
6.
90
90
eo
80
70
80
30
40
50
90
50
70
30
50
90
30
40
40
80
90
50
70
00
30
437
39 1
309
223
207
231
434
540
914
914
984
1080
1080
11 00
1100
11 00
421
443
437
391
305
257
235
269
286
285
283
285
285
285
285
285
286
287
287
289
289
289
289
289
288
288
287
287
286
285
285
286
. 003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
. 1 0
. 1 0
10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
.0465
.0465
0463
0465
.0465
. 0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0735
.0735
0735
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0350
. 0465
.0465
0829
0829
0829
0663
0665
. 0665
0665
0764
0764
. 0665
1051
1051
1051
0665
0665
. 0764
0764
. 0829
. 0829
. 0829
. 0665
.0501
0764
0764
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
i
ho
O
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UIND
DIR .
(DEC)
285
280
270
280
270
255
270
305
310
310
305
305
305
305
295
295
290
290
285
280
280
280
275
290
UIND
SPEED
( MPS)
5. 80
4. 70
5. 40
3. 80
4. 00
3. 60
2. 90
3. 80
3. 10
4.50
4. 70
4 90
4. 50
4. 50
4. 90
6. 70
8. 70
9. 60
10.10
9. 20
6. 70
5. 40
6. 50
7. 40
MIX ING
DEPTH
253
225
179
173
153
1 79
153
680
712
712
772
812
812
840
840
840
846
846
346
846
299
265
251
257
AMB .
TEMP
( DEG K
22 J
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
286
286
287
288
288
289
289
289
288
288
288
287
286
286
286
286
285
POT .
TEMP
) (DEG K/M>
ULY 1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT
D
E
D
E
E
D
C
C
B
C
C
C
B
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
y IND
EXP
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
.0350
.0465
.0350
.0350
0465
.0735
.0735
. 1080
.0735
.0735
.0735
. 1 080
.0735
.0735
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
0665
. 0501
. 0665
. 0501
. 0501
. 0665
1051
.1051
1544
.1051
1208
1208
1544
1051
1051
0665
. 0764
0764
0665
. 0829
. 0829
0829
. 0764
0764
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
Co
I
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
285
280
275
275
280
280
270
290
300
300
305
310
300
290
300
305
300
290
295
295
290
285
280
285
UIND
SPEED
< MRS)
5. 40
4. 50
4. 90
4. 90
4. 00
3.60
2. 90
3. 80
4. 00
4 . 00
4. 20
4. 70
5 40
5. 40
5. 80
6 . 50
8 00
8. 30
8. 90
8. 70
6. 90
6. 30
6. 90
9. 20
MIXING
DEPTH
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
cd
I
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEG)
290
285
280
275
280
280
280
285
300
305
300
300
300
290
290
290
295
290
290
285
290
285
280
275
WIN
SPE
( HP
7
7.
6.
5.
5.
5.
4 .
5.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
7.
7.
7.
8.
9.
8.
8.
8.
6.
6.
D
ED
S)
80
80
00
80
80
80
50
80
50
50
90
40
40
30
20
80
80
30
80
90
90
70
50
50
M IXING
DEPTH
175
175
1 75
163
157
181
1 73
173
428
472
498
558
584
616
648
652
658
658
658
259
329
267
249
233
AMB .
TEMP
( DEG K
25 J
284
283
284
284
283
283
283
284
285
285
286
285
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
285
284
285
284
284
POT
TEM
) (DEG K
ULY 1979
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
p
/H )
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
STAB
CAT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
HIND
EXP.
. 10
10
. 10
1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
0465
.0465
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0735
.0735
.0465
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
0465
STD DEV.
A Z A K G L E
(RAD )
. 0665
0665
0665
0665
0329
0829
0829
. 0665
. 0665
0665
. 0665
. 1208
1208
. OS29
0829
0329
0665
. 0764
. 0764
. 0665
0665
. 0665
. 0665
0665
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
CO
i
KJ
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UIND
DIR .
(DEC)
275
265
260
260
270
285
310
305
305
31 0
310
305
300
300
300
295
290
295
290
280
290
280
280
280
UIN
SPE
( HP
6.
4 .
4
4.
3.
3.
4 .
4.
4.
4.
4 .
4 .
4 .
5.
6.
6 .
7.
7 .
9.
8.
7.
6.
6.
6.
D
ED
S)
00
90
50
50
60
60
20
20
50
20
90
50
90
60
50
30
60
40
40
00
40
30
00
00
MIXING
DEPTH
(M )
227
209
185
173
1 71
171
640
768
790
798
830
860
890
890
892
898
930
960
960
960
337
325
287
233
AHB .
TEMP
< DEC K ) (
2 AUGUST
286
286
286
285
285
285
286
286
287
287
287
288
289
289
289
289
288
288
288
286
286
286
286
285
POT .
TEMP
DEC K/M)
1979
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT
D
E
E
D
E
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
UIND
EXP .
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
. 0465
.0350
0350
.0465
. 0350
0465
0735
.0735
.0735
.0735
.0735
0735
.0735
0735
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
. 06
05
05
06
05
06
. 10
. 12
12
12
12
. 10
. 12
12
06
06
06
. 06
06
. 06
. 06
. 08
. 08
08
65
01
01
65
0 1
65
51
08
08
08
08
5 1
08
08
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
29
29
29
-------
TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
cd
I
ISJ
-O
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
280
280
285
270
265
260
265
280
310
310
310
31 0
310
305
290
295
290
285
285
285
280
280
280
280
WIND
SPEED
< MPS>
5. 80
5. 10
6. 50
5. 60
5. 40
4. 90
4. 50
3. 40
4. 20
3. 60
3. 60
3. 80
3 10
5. 10
7. 40
7. 20
7. 20
7. 20
8. 50
8.30
6. 90
5. 40
5. 40
5. 60
MIXING
DEPTH
(M )
237
197
175
149
141
137
137
886
902
902
902
902
902
902
902
902
928
928
928
133
85
47
55
55
AMB .
TEMP
( DEC K
8 AUG
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
288
288
288
288
289
288
289
289
288
288
287
286
286
285
285
285
285
POT .
TEMP
) ( DEC K/« >
UST 1979
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003 .
. 003
. 003
.003
. 003
. 003
. 003
.003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
E
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
B
B
C
B
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
WIND
EXP .
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
10
. 1 0
. 10
10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STO DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
0350
.0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
.0735
.0735
.0735
. 1 080
. 1 080
0735
. 1 080
.0735
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV.
A2 ANGLE
(RAD )
0665
. 0501
0665
0665
. 0665
. 0665
. 1051
. 1051
1051
.1775
. 1775
. 1051
. 1544
.1051
. 0665
0665
0665
0829
. 0829
. 0829
. 0878
. 0878
. 0878
. 0878
-------
I
K;
Ln
TA
HOD
16
17
18
1
2
3
19
20
21
1
2
3
7
8
9
BLE B-7.
C
R UIND
DIR .
(DEC)
290
290
290
220
220
220
155
155
155
215
215
215
245
245
245
THE HO
ONSIDERE
UIND
SPEED
( MPS>
2. 50
2. 20
1 . 80
2.50
2. 50
3 40
3. 40
2. 90
2 . 90
3. 10
4 . 00
3. 60
3. 40
2. 70
2. 70
URLY ME
D IN TH
MIXING
DEPTH
(H )
454
454
454
157
157
151
193
193
213
199
199
193
1 19
1 19
127
TEOROLOGICAL
E ATTAINMENT
4MB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) ( DE
23 AUGUST
288
288
287
13 NOVEMBER
276
276
276
12 DECEMBER
277
277
277
19 DECEMBER
276
275
276
20 DECEMBER
278
278
278
INPUTS
STATUS
POT .
TEMP
G K/M )
1978
003
. 003
. 003
1978
003
003
. 003
1978
. 003
. 003
003
197S
. 003
003
003
1978
. 003
. 003
. 003
FOR T
CALCU
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
F
F
E
E
F
F
D
E
E
D
D
D
HE 3-
LATIO
UIND
EXP.
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
HOUR PERIO
NS .
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0465
0465
.0465
0235
0235
.0350
.0350
0235
0235
0465
.0350
.0350
0465
. 0465
0465
DS
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
0829
0829
0829
. 0386
0386
0501
050 1
0386
0386
0665
.0575
0575
. 0829
0829
0829
-------
TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED)
I
to
HOUR
1
2
3
22
23
24
16
17
18
1
2
3
1
2
3
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
165
165
165
170
170
170
90
90
90
270
270
270
240
240
240
UIHD
SPEED
(MRS)
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
4.
3.
3.
3.
4.
2.
90
90
70
80
60
90
40
90
90
90
40
40
80
00
90
MIXING
DEPTH
(M >
275
263
251
263
275
279
83
77
65
1514
167
139
133
133
133
A MB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) ( DE
3 JANURAY
273
273
273
5 JANUARY
274
274
273
19 JANUARY
280
280
280
27 JANUARY
277
277
277
1 MARCH 1
277
277
277
POT .
TEMP
G K/M >
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
003
. 003
1 979
. 003
. 003
. 003
979
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
F
F
F
E
E
F
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
WIND
EXP.
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0235
.0235
0235
.0350
.0350
.0235
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0350
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
04 19
.0419
. 04 19
0575
0575
0336
. 0329
0829
0829
. 0829
0829
0829
. 0764
. 0764
. 0501
-------
TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED).
w
HOUR
13
14
15
4
5
6
16
17
18
10
11
12
4
5
6
yiND
DIR .
(OEG)
285
285
285
270
270
270
295
295
235
125
125
125
270
270
270
UIHD
SPEED
( MRS)
7. 60
9. 80
10. 30
4 . 00
3. 80
3. 10
10.10
11.60
1 1 .20
2. 00
2. 20
1 . 80
4.20
4.20
4. 90
MIXING
DEPTH
(« )
582
582
60 1
223
203
169
523
517
457
336
380
942
245
237
253
ftMB .
TEMP
( DEC K )
24 MAR
283
283
283
2 APR
280
280
280
6 APR
282
282
281
22 APR
285
286
287
29 APR
284
284
283
POT .
TEMP
( DEC K/H )
CH 1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
11 1979
. 003
. 003
003
IL 1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
IL 1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
IL 1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
B
E
D
D
WIND
EXP.
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0465
.0465
0465
.0465
. 0465
0465
0465
0465
. 0465
. 1080
. 1 080
. 1080
.0350
.0465
0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
0829
. 0829
0829
0829
. 0329
0829
. 0829
. 0829
. 0329
1925
1925
. 1925
. 0501
. 0764
. 0764
-------
TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED).
da
I
So
Co
HOUR
7
8
9
10
11
12
19
20
21
4
5
6
16
17
18
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
280
280
280
50
50
50
275
275
275
280
280
280
280
280
280
WIND
SPEED
< MPS>
4 .
4.
4.
2.
2.
2.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
10.
10.
9.
20
50
00
70
50
00
20
20
80
20
00
90
30
10
40
MIXING
DEPTH
(H )
243
412
412
906
906
906
409
409
419
323
327
528
445
425
397
AMB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) (
1 MAY
283
283
283
7 MAY
284
284
284
3 JUHE
286
286
286
10 JUNE
284
284
285
10 JUNE
285
285
285
POT .
TEMP
DEC K/M)
1979
. 003
. 003
003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
003
1979
. 003
003
003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT
D
D
D
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
WIND
EXP.
10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0465
0465
.0465
1080
. 1080
1080
.0465
.0465
.0465
,0465
.0465
0465
. 0465
. 0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ AUGLE
( RAD )
0829
0829
. 0829
. 1925
. 1925
. 1925
. 0829
0829
0829
0829
. 0829
. 0829
0829
0829
. 0829
-------
TABLE 8-7 (CONTINUED)
td
1
So
HOUR
22
23
24
4
5
6
4
5
6
10
11
12
16
17
18
yiND
DIR .
-------
TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED)
Lo
O
HOUR
19
20
21
10
11
12
19
20
21
7
8
9
10
11
12
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
275
275
275
280
280
280
275
275
275
280
260
260
265
265
265
WIND
SPEED
< MRS)
10. 50
9. 80
11.00
5. 80
6. 50
8. 30
9. 80
1 1 . 20
9. 80
4. 20
4 . 00
3. 60
3. 60
2. 70
3. 10
MIXING
DEPTH
(H >
487
443
403
458
458
508
626
415
361
906
1084
1140
1154
1312
1360
AHB .
TEMP
< DEC K ) (
26 JUNE
285
285
285
28 JUNE
284
285
285
28 JUNE
285
285
285
29 JUNE
285
285
285
29 JUNE
285
286
286
POT .
TEMP
DEC K/H)
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
klIND
EXP.
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV
AZ ANGLE
(RAD )
. 0829
. 0829
. 0329
0329
0829
0829
0829
0829
0829
0829
0829
0829
. 0829
0829
. 0829
-------
TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED).
1
Co
HOUR
16
17
18
1
2
3
1
2
3
13
14
15
22
23
24
WIND
DIR .
(DEC)
250
250
250
275
275
275
280
280
280
300
300
300
280
280
280
UIND
SPEED
< MPS)
3. 10
4 . 00
3. 10
7.80
6. 30
3. 60
8. 90
8. 90
7. 60
4.90
5. 60
6. 50
6. 30
6. 00
6. 00
MIXING
DEPTH
CM )
1460
1460
1460
241
237
231
437
391
309
890
890
892
325
287
253
A MB .
TEHP
(DEC K> (
8 JULY
289
291
291
19 JULY
285
285
285
21 JULY
286
286
286
2 AUGUST
289
289
289
2 AUGUST
286
286
285
POT .
TEMP
DEC K/M>
1979
. 003
. 003
003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
UIND
EXP.
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0735
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0735
.0735
0465
.0465
0465
0465
STD DEV.
A 2 ANGLE
(RAD )
1051
0764
0764
. 0829
0829
0829
. 0829
0829
0829
1208
1208
0665
0829
. 0829
. 0829
-------
TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED)
HOUR
10
11
12
22
23
24
yiND
DIR .
(DEC)
310
310
31 0
280
280
280
un
SPE
< MF
3.
3.
3.
5.
t
W .
5.
JP
:EO
>S>
£0
60
80
40
40
60
MIXING
DEPTH
(« )
902
902
902
47
55
55
AWB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) ( [
8 AUGUST
288
288
289
8 AUGUST
285
285
285
POT
TEMP
)EG K/H)
1979
. 003
. 003
003
1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT .
B
B
C
D
D
D
UIND
EXP .
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 10
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
( RAD )
. 1 080
. 1 080
0735
0465
.0465
.0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
1775
. 1775
1051
0829
. 0829
. 0829
-------
TABLE B-8. THE HOURLY METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS FOR THE 24-HOUR PERIODS
USED IN THE 'WORST CASE" PSD CALCULATIONS FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.
^
u>
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
HIND
DIR .
(DEC)
285
310
295
275
350
355
10
10
60
190
235
350
355
345
355
345
345
340
345
350
355
355
1 5
335
UIHD
SPEED
( MPS)
8. 70
9.20
9. 20
7.20
4 . 20
4 . 00
6. 70
9. 40
6. 30
3. 10
4 00
6. 70
7. 40
7. 40
8. 30
8. 30
8. 30
7 . 60
7 . 80
8. 50
6. 70
5. 40
4 . 00
2. 90
KIX ING
DEPTH
(M )
696
696
696
696
696
696
220
996
996
996
996
996
996
1394
1424
383
367
355
349
295
24 1
169
1 69
181
A KB .
TEMP
( DEC K ) <
27 DECEHB
279
278
278
277
277
277
277
277
276
275
276
277
277
277
277
277
277
276
276
276
275
275
274
274
POT .
TEMP
DEC K/M )
ER 1978
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
SI AB
CAT .
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
F
y IND
EXP
. 1 0
. 1 0
1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
10
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
S T D DEV.
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0735
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
. 0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0350
.0235
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD)
0665
0665
.0665
. 0665
0665
. 0665
0764
.0764
0665
0665
1051
. 0665
0665
. 0665
0665
0764
0764
. 0665
0665
. 0665
. 0764
. 0764
0501
. 0336
-------
TABLE B-8 (CONTINUED)
w
i
u>
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WIND
DIR
(DEC)
295
270
1,65
300
250
230
230
230
350
340
360
350
350
350
355
355
60
175
175
1 40
195
210
21 5
220
WIND
SPEED
( UPS)
1 30
2 . 20
3. 10
4 . 00
5. 40
6. 30
7. 20
5. 40
5. 80
6. 50
6 . 70
6 . 70
5 . 80
3. 60
2.20
1 . 30
1 . 60
2. 50
1 . 10
1 .30
1 . 10
1 . 30
2. 70
2. 50
M IXIhG
DEPTH
(M )
87
1 15
163
21 1
283
31 1
331
307
307
293
265
223
228
252
274
336
336
336
1 13
107
99
1 07
1 1 3
1 19
AMB
TEMP
( DEC K ) C DE
10 JANUARY
277
277
277
277
277
276
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
POT .
TEMP
G K/R )
1 979
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
003
. 003
003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
. 003
STAB
CAT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
UI ND
EXP .
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. I 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
STD DEV.
EL ANGLE
( RftD )
0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
0465
.0465
0465
0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
0465
0465
. 0465
.0465
STD DEV .
AZ ANGLE
'RAD)
. 0665
. 0665
0665
. 0665
0665
. 0829
. 0829
. 0829
. 0665
. 0665
. 0665
0329
. 0829
0829
0764
.0764
0665
.0764
. 0764
0665
0665
. 0665
. 0665
0665
-------
TABLE B-8 < CONT INUED )
HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
f 8
Oo q
'.n
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
yi NO
Dl R
(DEC)
15
15
10
1 0
10
10
10
15
20
25
40
50
65
80
75
75
75
85
150
160
220
200
200
225
UIN
SPE
c HP
4 .
b
5.
6 .
6.
6.
5.
5.
4 .
4 .
4 .
4
3.
3 .
3.
3.
3
3.
2.
1 .
2.
1 .
1 .
2.
D
ED
S >
20
00
60
30
50
00
40
40
50
90
70
20
80
40
10
40
60
60
50
60
00
60
30
20
MIX ING
DEPTH
CM )
1 69
157
1 31
1 15
99
99
99
246
246
246
246
246
246
4 1 6
4 16
468
51 S
518
191
1 91
1 85
1 63
163
163
AMB .
TEMP
( DEC K )
21 FEBR
278
278
278
278
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
278
279
279
279
279
279
278
277
276
276
276
276
POT
TEM
(DEC K
UARY 19
. 00
00
00
00
00
. 00
. 00
. 00
00
00
00
. 00
. 00
00
00
00
00
. 00
. 00
00
. 00
. 00
. 00
00
p
/M )
79
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
STAB
CAT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
D
E
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
y INO
EXP.
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 1 0
STD DEV
EL ANGLE
< R AD >
.0465
.0465
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
. 0465
.0465
.0735
0735
.0735
0735
. 0465
.0350
.0350
.0235
.0235
.0235
0235
.0235
.0235
STD DEV.
ftZ ANGLE
(RAD)
0764
0764
. 091 8
0918
.0918
09 1 8
09 1 8
. 0764
0764
. 0764
0764
.1051
1051
.1051
.1051
0665
0501
. 0501
. 0336
. 0336
0336
. 0386
. 0386
. 0336
-------
I
Co
TABLE
COHSI
HOUR
7
8
9
7
8
9
10
11
12
10
11
12
8-9
DEi?ED
WIND
DIR .
(DEC )
10
10
5
10
10
60
5
5
360
20
20
20
THE H
IN THE
WIND
SPEED
< MRS )
2 20
3 10
3.10
6. 70
9 . 40
6. 30
4. 20
2. 90
3. 10
5 40
4 . 20
4. 70
OURLY ME
WORST
HIXI NG
DEPTH
-------
TABLE B-9 (CONTINUED)
Cd
I
HOUR
7
8
9
13
14
15
4
5
f
o
16
17
IS
UIND
DIR .
(DEC)
10
1 0
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
355
360
360
U IND
SPEED
( MRS)
7 . 60
(, . 30
4 90
4 . 90
6. 70
6. 00
6. 30
6 . 50
6 . 00
5. 80
4 . 50
3.10
MIXING
DEPTH
(M )
804
972
972
157
149
149
1 15
99
99
2070
2070
2070
AHB .
TEMP
< DEC K )
25 JANU
277
277
277
27 JANU
277
277
277
21 FEBR
278
277
277
12 APR
283
282
282
POT .
TEMP
(DEC K/M>
ARY 1979
003
. 003
. 003
ARY 1979
. 003
003
. 003
UARY 1979
. 003
. 003
. 003
IL 1979
. 003
003
. 003
STAB
CAT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
UIND
EXP
1 0
. 1 0
10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
1 0
. 1 0
STD DEV
EL ANGLE
(RAD )
0465
0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
.0465
.0465
.0465
0465
. 0465
STD DEV.
AZ ANGLE
( RAD )
0764
0764
. 0665
0829
. 0829
0829
0829
0829
. 0829
. 0329
0829
. 0829
-------
APPENDIX C
SOURCE AND METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS
FOR MODEL TESTING
Source Inputs
Section 3 in the main body of the text describes the selection
of 20 hours for testing the Cramer, et_ al_. (1975) short-term dispersion
model in the Port Angeles area. The model source input parameters were
derived from information provided by EPA Region 10, which consisted of a
copy of a 15 February 1980 letter from F. H. Royce of ITT Rayonier to G. L.
O'Neal of EPA Region 10 and a copy of a 22 April 1980 letter from G. L. O'Neal
to B. H. Willis of Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. (ERT). The
15 February 1980 letter was used as the primary data source for the ITT
Rayonier Pulp Mill. The 22 April 1980 letter provided average emissions
parameters for the Crown Zellerbach Pulp Mill and was also used to esti-
mate the parameters not provided for the ITT Mill in the 15 February 1980
letter.
With the exception of hourly S0_ emission rates and volumetric
emission rates for some of the stacks at the ITT Mill, Table C-l lists
the source inputs used in the model tests. The hourly volumetric emission
rates for the two power boilers at the ITT Mill are given in Table C-2 and
the S0? emission rates for all of the ITT sources except the H. F. Boiler
No. 5 are given in Table C-3. The S02 emission rate for the H. F. Boiler
No. 5 was assumed to be 2.8 grams per second (see Section 2.1). The
volumetric emission rates provided in the 15 February 1980 letter for
some of the ITT stacks were at standard conditions, which we assumed to
be a pressure of 1,013 millibars and a temperature of 289 degrees Kelvin
(60 degrees Fahrenheit). The volumetric emission rates at standard
conditions were adjusted to the stack exit temperatures for use in the
model calculations.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l
SOURCE INPUTS FOR MODEL TESTING
Source
Location *
UTM X (m)
UTM Y (m)
Stack
Height
(m)
Stack Exit
Temperature
(°K)
Volumetric
Emission Rate
(m-Vsec)
Stack
Inner
Radius
(m)
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
(a) ITT Rayonier Sources
Recovery Furnace
Power Boiler
No. 4
Power Boiler
No. 5
North Bleach
Vent
South Bleach
Vent
!
West Acid
Plant Vent
H.F. Boiler No. 5
469,790
469,720
469,718
469,758
469,769
469,753
469,698
5,329,250
5,329,194
5,329,183
5,329,184
5,329,183
5,329,185
5,329,165
96.0
35.1
35.1
35.7
35.4
33.5
45.7
300
494
444
286
286
288
336
48.5
**
**
1.4
6.0
5.6
1.15
1.22
0.84
**
**
**
0.75 **
0.61
0.30
36.2 1.21
I
**
**
2.8
(b) Crown Zellerbach Sources
H.F. Boiler No. 8
Package Boiler
465,300
465,300
5,331,150
5,331,150
36.6
30.5
333
480
22.0
13.7
0.90
0.75
3.0
7.9
n
hO
*The stack base elevation for all stacks was assumed to be 3 meters MSL.
**Rates were variable; see Tables C-2 and C-3.
-------
TABLE C-2
VOLUMETRIC EMISSION RATES FOR THE TWO ITT RAYONIER POWER BOILERS
Case
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
Volumetric Emission Rate (m /sec)
Power Boiler No. 4
29.1
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
22.8
22.8
22.8
19.6
17.5
17.5
17.1
24.4
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
Power Boiler No. 5
0
0
0
0
0
17.4
17.4
17.4
39.7
0
0
6.2
12.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
C-3
-------
TABLE C-3
S02 EMISSION RATES FOR SIX OF THE SEVEN ITT RAYONIER SOURCES
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
S02 Emission Rate (g/sec)
Recovery
Furance
20.5
28.1
14.1
15.3
24.3
23.0
23.0
17.9
16.6
19.2
19.2
9.2
20.2
22.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
Power
Boiler No. 4
21.7
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
17.0
17.0
17.0
14.6
13.0
13.0
12.7
18.2
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
Power
Boiler No. 5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
24.7
24.7
56.3
0.0
0.0
8.8
18.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
North
Bleach Vent
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
South
Bleach Vent
4.6
2.5
1.7
1.3
1.7
2.5
4.2
5.8
1.4
4.2
4.2
5.8
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
West Acid
Plant Vent
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
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
C-4
-------
As discussed in Section 3, an area source with an emission rate
of 1 gram per second was used to estimate S0? emissions from the black
liquor holding pond at the ITT Mill. The Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) X and Y coordinates of the center of the area source were 470.24 and
5,328.94 kilometers, respectively. The source was arbitrarily assumed to
be a 67-meter square, yielding the same approximate horizontal area as
the irregularly-shaped holding pond. The characteristic height scale h
was assumed to be zero. For each hour, the S0? emission rate for the
pond was calculated by dividing the estimated contribution of the pond
emissions to the observed concentration at the Fourth & Baker monitor by
the concentration calculated for the area source with an emission rate of
1 gram per second.
Meteorological Inputs
Table C-4 lists the hourly meteorological inputs for the 20 hours
used to test the Cramer, ej^ a^L. (1975) short-term dispersion model in the
Port Angeles area. The inputs were developed following procedures given
in Section 2.2.3. The wind direction of 308 degrees is the direction required
to transport the centerline nf the merged plume from the ITT Rayonier Mill
to the Third & Chestnut S02 monitor.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-4
HOURLY METEOROLOG I C f>. L INPUTS FOR MODEL TESTING
n
CftSE
NO
i
2
3
4
5
s
o
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
WI MD
D I R .
(DEC)
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
WIND
SPEED
( M / S E C )
6 70
6 00
6 50
6 50
1 0 . 50
10 10
?. 80
10 30
7. 20
6. 50
8 . 70
6 30
8 . 00
4 00
6 00
7 . 20
7 20
7 40
8. 30
1 1 00
MIXING
DEPTH
( ,'1 )
448
270
370
424
466
1060
1060
1060
2480
712
1 73
432
1382
502
o 18
736
770
388
10 10
1010
f!MB
TEMP
CD EG K)
287
283
287
288
290
287
287
286
287
287
286
2S7
29 1
289
289
290
290
293
294
293
POT .
TEMP
( DEC K/K )
003
.003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
.003
. 003
003
. 003
. 003
.003
003
. 003
003
003
003
STAB
CAT
D
[>
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
W IND
EXP
1 0
. 1 0
1 0
1 0
. 1 0
1 0
. 1 0
. 10
. 1 0
10
. 1 0
. 10
10
10
1 0
1 0
. 10
1 0
. 1 0
. 10
STO OEV
EL ANGLE
( R A [V )
0465
0465
. 0465
0465
0465
0465
.0465
0465
0465
0465
.0465
0465
.0465
0735
.0465
0465
0465
04£5
0465
0465
S T D D E V .
A? ANGLE
(RAD)
0 f . 6 5
. 0665
0665
0665
0665
O.S65
0665
. 0665
0665
0665
. 0665
0565
0665
1051
O.S65
0.365
OS65
0665
0665
0665
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
REPORT NO
EPA-910/9-80-075
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ATTAINMENT STATUS AND PSD INCREMENT ANALYSES FOR
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November 1980_
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
J. F. Bowers, A. J. Anderson, H. E. Cramer,
. J. R. Bjorklund
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
TR-80-151-01
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 8049
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-02-3532
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final July-November 1980
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Washington
Department of Ecology.
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes a dispersion model analysis of the air quality impact
of emissions from the existing and proposed sulfur dioxide (SCO sources in the
Port Angeles, Washington area. The existing S0~ sources are the Crown Zellerbach
and ITT Rayonier Pulp Mills and the proposed sources are the tankers involved in
the Northern Tier Pipeline Company (NTPC) project. The specific objectives of the
study described in this report were to: (1) determine, for the existing sources,
Hue attainment status of the Port Angeles area with respect to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for S02; (2) evaluate the effects of various emission
control strategies for the existing sources if Port Angeles is found to be a non-
attainment area for the NAAQS; (3) determine Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Increment consumption of the proposed NTPC sources in Class I and Class II PSD
areas; and, (4) determine if the proposed NTPC sources will cause any area that
currently is an attainment area for the NAAQS to become a non-attainment area.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Meteorology
Sulfur Dioxide
Turbulent Diffusion
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Port Angeles, Washington
Dispersion Modeling
:. COSATl Field/Group
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
UNCLASSIFIED
!1. NO. OF PAGES
241
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |