EPA-910/9-87-175
AIR QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL
POINT SOURCES IN EVERETT, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
MR. ROBERT WILSON
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
MARCH, 1988
Environmental
Consultants
21907 64th Avenue, W.
Suite 230
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
(206) 778-5003
A TIC Company
-------
AIR QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL
POINT SOURCES IN EVERETT, WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Consultants was retained by the Region 10 office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct an air quality dispersion modeling
study of industrial point sources in Everett, Washington. The purposes of the
modeling study were 1) to check the adequacy of commitments in the State
Implementation Plan which were designed to maintain compliance with ambient
standards, and 2) to determine whether the air quality monitoring station in
Everett is in a suitable location.
Maximum allowable emissions from the Scott Paper Company and Weyerhaeuser
Company pulp and paper mills were obtained from Washington Department of
Ecology. These emissions were evaluated using EPA models and meteorological
records from a nearby air quality monitoring station, Sea-Tac Airport, and the
Washington upper-air monitoring station at Quillayute Airport.
MODELS USED
TRC was directed to use three dispersion models from the UNAMAP Version 6 model
series: ISCST (Version 86322), COMPLEX-1 (Version 86064), and SHORTZ (Version
82326). In each case, the model is the latest available version of the model.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models (Environmental Protection Agency. 1986a)
states that the Industrial Source Complex (Environmental Protection Agency,
1986b) model is appropriate for use in rural or urban areas with flat or
rolling terrain. It is not intended to be used to estimate concentrations at
locations which are higher than the stack being modeled. ISC can account for
building downwash and for settling and dry deposition of particulate matter.
ISC assumes that plume elevation is unaffected by terrain, so that as the plume
passes over terrain higher than the stack base elevation, the distance between
the plume centerline and a receptor is reduced. However, if terrain elevations
greater than any stack height are entered into ISC, the receptor elevation is
automatically set to 0.005 meters below stack height when the ISC model
computes the contribution from that stack. It should be noted that this height
may be much lower than the plume centerline height because of plume rise.
COMPLEX-1 is the recommended second-level screening model for rural areas with
complex terrain. Complex terrain is defined as an area where terrain exceeds
the height of the stack being modeled. COMPLEX-1 uses the same plume impaction
algorithm that EPA's VALLEY model (Burt, 1977) uses, wherein the plume
centerline is not allowed to come within 10 meters of elevated terrain.
The Guidelines specify the use of SHORTZ (Bjorklund and Bowers, 1982) in urban
areas with complex terrain. Despite the presence of buildings and substantial
-------
population, the area is classified as rural because of the large fraction of
the surrounding area which is rural or covered by water. Although not intended
for rural areas, SHORTZ was used in this evaluation because it has been used
historically in the Puget Sound area.
SHORTZ can account for settling and dry deposition of particulate matter. The
primary difference between SHORTZ and ISC is the treatment of terrain effects:
ISC will not allow receptors with heights greater than the stack height, while
SHORTZ will. SHORTZ allows the plume to directly "impact" the terrain, such
that receptor can be placed right at the plume centerline. For any terrain
height equal to or greater than the plume centerline height, the vertical
separation between plume centerline and receptor is assumed to be zero.
Another significant difference between SHORTZ and ISC is in the treatment of
downwash. Both models have the capability to treat "stack-tip" downwash, but
only ISC evaluates the effects of building wakes on plume heights. In
accordance with the SHORTZ users guide, Froude numbers were evaluated for each
source and stack radii were adjusted as necessary.
DATA SOURCES
TRC obtained hourly wind speed and direction data for the period from 1982
through 1986, inclusive, from an air quality monitoring station maintained by
the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) in Everett. The station
is located at 2730 Colby Avenue, on the roof of the Medical Dental Building.
Wind data are collected by instruments located 118 feet above the ground, which
is 125 feet above mean sea level. Thus, the wind sensors are located a total
of 243 feet above mean sea level.
The development of a suitable meteorological data base for the modeling
required TRC to incorporate Everett wind data with other meteorological data
from Sea-Tac Airport and the airport at Quillayute, Washington.
The first step in creating the 1982-1986 meteorological data set was to run the
RAMMET preprocessor (Turner and Novak, 1978) for the 5 years using surface
meteorological data collected at Sea-Tac and upper air data from Quillayute.
Seattle climatological values (Holzworth, 1972) were substituted for missing
mixing height values.
The second step was to create a meteorological data base using Everett wind
speed and direction data with the concurrent Sea-Tac ceiling heights, cloud
cover and temperature, and the Quillayute upper air data. During the creation
of this data base, Everett wind speeds were scaled down from the 118 foot
sensor height to a height of 10 meters using the airport stabilities determined
in step 1 and the stability-dependent exponential scaling formula used in the
RAMMET preprocessor. Airport wind speed and direction data were substituted
where Everett data were missing. This data base was then input to the RAMMET
preprocessor to create a sequential meteorological data base.
A wind rose plotted with the 1982 wind data produced by this process is
presented in Figure 1. It differs slightly from the wind rose for the Medical
-------
N
E
Calms Redistributed
Peak Direction = SE
Peak Frequency = 20.9'
FIGURE 1: 1982 WIND ROSE FROM THE MEDICAL-DENTAL BUILDING IN EVERETT
-------
Dental Building monitoring station published by PSAPCA in its 1982 annual
monitoring summary because the RAMMET preprocessor replaces calm periods with
meteorological conditions which are consistent with those occurring before and
after the calm. Figure 2 displays the frequency of occurrence of the six
Pasquill-Gifford stability classes for the 1982 data set.
The same meteorological data were used in each of the three models, with one
exception. Consistent with historical precedent (Bowers et.al., 1982), all
occurrences of F-stability were replaced with E-stability when running SHORTZ.
The stack parameters and sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emission rates
displayed in Table 1 for the Scott and Weyerhaeuser mills were provided by the
Washington Department of Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology, 1987).
Although the maximum allowable emissions under current permit conditions were
modeled, actual emissions were considerably lower in 1985 and 1986. In the
final section of this report, the modeling results are scaled down to
approximate actual operating conditions.
It should be noted that the fuels used in the power boilers vary. At
Weyerhaeuser, power boiler #1 burned residual oil and natural gas while power
boiler #2 burned natural gas. At Scott, power boilers 1-5 burned hogfuel but
power boilers 6-9 burned oil and natural gas.
APPROACH
Because Port Gardner Bay and rural land use constitute a large fraction of the
land use in the Everett area, TRC modeled the Everett industrial sources with
the rural model option. Thus, any additional dispersion provided by potential
heat island effects from Everett's central business district was not accounted
for in the modeling.
The study area is considered complex terrain because the elevation of many
locations in the Everett area exceed the height of the stacks at Scott and
Weyerhaeuser. The results of the ISC model are appropriate only for locations
where the ground elevation is lower than the stack height being modeled.
The modeling was performed in accordance with EPA's Guidelines for Air Quality
Models (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). When available, the
regulatory default options were used for each model. These included
consideration of stack downwash, buoyancy induced dispersion, and default
vertical potential temperature gradients and wind profile exponents. EPA's
method of adjusting for calm periods was used in all cases.
TRC's modeling study began with a grid of receptors, spaced 1-kilometer apart,
bounded by UTM coordinates 556-561, and 5310-5325. In terms of local
geography, this grid ranged from the Everett Golf and Country Club on the south
to north of Marysville, and from just west of the Everett jetty to the
Snohomish River east of Everett. Ground elevations were entered in the models
based on USGS maps of the area. A contour map based on elevations entered at
-------
FIGURE 2: FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF STABILITY CLASSES IN 1982
-------
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF WEYERHAEUSER AND SCOTT EMISSION SOURCES
Source
EMISSIONS
Permitted (Actual)1
(grams/second)
TEMP. EXIT STACK STACK
SPEED DIAM. HEIGHT
(°K) (m/sec) (m) (m)
PM-10
S02
Weyerhaeuser :
Recovery Boiler
Power Boil. # 1
Power Boil. # 2
Scott:
Recovery Boiler
Power Boil. 1-52
Power Boil. 6-9 /
•^J
10.6
3.2
6.1
6.2
4.1
2.6
(8
(0
(0
(1
(4
(0
.1)
.8)
.4)
.0)
.1)
.3)
59.9 (17
36.6 (11
69.3 (4.
35.1 (15
46.1 (0
29.5 (3
.3)
.5)
2)
.7)
• 1)
.8)
339 10.3 3.7 85
422 11.5 1.5 36
455 23.4 1.5 36
299 18.5 1.8 61
455 4.5 4.1 50
422 6.2 1.8 31
.3
.6
.0
.6
.3
.1
The actual emission rates displayed are the higher of the actual emission
rates reported for 1985 and 1986.
Power boilers 1-5 burn hog fuel; the other power boilers at Scott and
Weyerhaeuser burn fossil fuels.
-------
1-kilometer intervals is displayed as Figure 3. Although the city of Everett
is situated on a plateau well above sea level and the Snohomish River Valley,
Figure 3 indicates that much higher hills exist to the south of the Scott Paper
mill and to the north on the Tulalip Reservation.
In the first round of modeling, each of the three models was run using
sequential hourly meteorological data for 1982 using this 1-kilometer spaced
grid of receptors. Calendar year 1982 was selected as a typical year for local
meteorology. The output from each of the three models was examined to
determine the geographic areas with the highest annual, 24-hour and 3-hour S02
concentrations for further evaluation with all 5 years of meteorological data.
Figure 3 also displays the receptors evaluated during this phase, the locations
of the Scott ("S") and Weyerhaeuser ("W") mills, and the location of the
Medical-Dental Building monitor ("M").
In the second round, a more tightly spaced group of receptors was selected for
each model and for each area with peak concentrations. In addition, ten
discrete receptors were added to account for local hospitals, schools and the
PSAPCA monitoring station at the Medical-Dental Building. ISCST, COMPLEX-1 and
SHORTZ were each run with this more refined group of receptors for five years
of sequential hourly meteorological data, from 1982 through 1986. The highest
annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour S02 and highest annual and 24-hour particulate
matter concentrations were noted for each year for each of the models.
In the final round of modeling, the days in which the highest 24-hour and 3-
hour concentrations occurred were modeled to determine emission source
contributions and the meteorological conditions which produced the peak
concentrations.
-------
YMAX - 325
* = Receptor
YMIN » 310
FIGURE 3: STUDY AREA GROUND ELEVATION (FEET ABOVE MSL)
-------
RESULTS
In this section, the results of each of the modeling rounds is discussed,
followed by a discussion of the implications of using maximum permitted
emission rates, rather than actual emission rates. Next, a comparison is made
between the model predictions and the measured concentrations in the Everett
area. Finally, the meteorological conditions which produced the highest
concentrations are identified for each of the three models.
Large Grid (1982")
The results of the large grid modeling for 1982 are depicted in Figures 4-12.
Figures 4-6 display the annual average, 2nd-highest 24-hour average and 2nd-
highest 3-hour average S02 concentrations, respectively, using ISCST. Figures
5 and 6 display the second highest concentrations that occurred during 1982 at
each receptor; it is important to note that these concentrations did not occur
at the same time for all locations.
Figures 4-6 show that ISCST calculates areas of high concentrations in the
vicinity of Legion Park southwest of Weyerhaeuser and in the Rucker Hill area
south of Scott Paper. It should be noted that Legion Park is about the same
elevation as the shortest two of the three Weyerhaeuser stacks; the source
contributions displayed later in Table 5 indicate that the high concentrations
result from these short stacks. An area of relatively high S02 concentration
also appears just northwest of Scott Paper, near the south end of the jetty.
Although the predominance of southeasterly winds (see Figure 1) would suggest
that higher annual average concentrations would be expected to the northwest,
it seems likely that only building downwash could bring the plume down so close
to the sources.
To verify a suspicion that ISCST's building downwash was responsible for some
of the high concentrations observed very near the Scott and Weyerhaeuser
plants, ISCST was run again with 1982 data but without the building downwash
employed. Figures A-l, A-2 and A-3 in the appendix indicate that the areas of
higher concentration near Scott and Weyerhaeuser disappear when the downwash
option is not employed (i.e., when building dimensions are not entered). The
effect holds for all three averaging times but is more dramatic for the 24-hour
and 3-hour averaging times.
Downwash has little effect on concentrations on farther from the plants. The
highest distant concentrations are observed at the higher terrain on the
Tulalip reservation west of Marysville; slightly lower concentrations are
calculated for the higher terrain to the south and east of Scott.
Figures 7-9 display the results from the COMPLEX-1 model. COMPLEX-1 does not
produce the higher concentrations adjacent to the plants, probably because it
does not consider building downwash. COMPLEX-1 calculates its highest
concentrations just north of Priest Point on the Tulalip reservation. Higher
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE k: ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH ISCST (ug/m3)
10
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE 5: 2nd HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH ISCST (ug/m3)
11
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE 6: 2nd HIGH 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS ^ITH ISCST (ug/m3)
12
-------
YMAX - 325
YMIN = 310
FIGURE 7: ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH COMPLEX-1 (ug/m3)
13
-------
YMAX = 325
YMIN = 310
FIGURE 8: 2nd HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH COMPLEX-1 (ug/m3)
14
-------
YMAX = 325
YMIN = 310
FIGURE 9: 2nd HIGHEST 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH COMPLEX-1 (ug/m3)
15
-------
concentrations to the south of Scott generally occurred farther south than with
ISCST, in the general area of the Everett Golf and Country Club.
Although the areas of higher concentrations generally occurred in the same
places as with ISCST (without downwash), concentrations calculated by COMPLEX-1
were somewhat higher. This is not surprising, in that COMPLEX-1 recognizes
terrain higher than stack height and ISCST does not. This means that an
elevated receptor can come closer to the plume centerlines with COMPLEX-1 than
with ISCST.
Figures 10-12 display the results of the SHORTZ modeling. SHORTZ produced peak
concentrations to the north at the same location as COMPLEX-1 did, just north
of Priest Point. SHORTZ also produced an area of high concentration west of
Scott near the south end of the jetty, and another in Everett's central
business district. For shorter averaging periods, maximum concentrations
occurred south and southeast of Scott, extending from the central business
district over to the Rucker Hill area.
Except for the peak concentrations at Legion Park resulting from downwash from
Weyerhaeuser stacks, SHORTZ consistently produced the highest concentrations.
Without downwash, ISCST consistently calculated the lowest concentrations. All
three models (ignoring the downwash condition) calculated the highest 24-hour
and 3-hour S02 concentrations south of Scott but the highest annual averages on
the Tulalip reservation.
Discrete Receptor Grid (1982-1986)
Based on the isopleths produced with a large grid spacing and 1982
meteorological data, TRC produced a denser grouping of receptors at areas of
high concentration for each model and averaging period. This new set of
receptors was modeled using the same emission rates (the maximum allowable
under state law) and stack parameters as before, but with 5 years of sequential
hourly meteorological data. The receptor grids are displayed as Figures A-4,
A-5 and A-6 in the appendix.
Table 2 summarizes the maximum concentrations (in ug/m^) produced by the ISCST
modeling. Maximum concentrations occur at the same location with both
pollutants: annual average concentrations are highest at the PSAPCA monitor and
shorter-term concentrations are highest at or near Legion Park. As noted
before, Legion Park is higher than the lower two Weyerhaeuser stacks so ISCST
automatically reduces the elevation at these receptors to these heights as each
stack is evaluated. Similarly, the PSAPCA monitor is higher than all of the
Scott sources, so it is also reduced to stack height as each stack is
evaluated.
Table 2 indicates that with maximum allowable emissions, ISCST (with downwash)
produces annual S02 concentrations which are generally slightly higher than the
ambient standard; predicted maximum concentrations for the 24-hour and 3-hour
averaging periods are more than twice the ambient standards.
16
-------
YMAX = 325000
-. x
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE 10: ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH SHORTZ (ug/m3)
17
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE 11: 2nd HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH SHORTZ (ug/m3)
18
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE 12: 2nd HIGH 3-HOUR AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH SHORTZ (ug/m3)
19
-------
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF
1982
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1983
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1984
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
24- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1985
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24 -HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1986
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
24- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
FIVE-YEAR HIGH
3- HOUR AVERAGE
(1983) HIGHEST
(1986) 2nd-HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
(1982) HIGHEST
(1983) 2nd-HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
1985 HIGHEST
LOCATION DAY
LEGION PK 229
LEGION PK 257
LEGION PK 260
LEGION PK 286C
MONITOR
LEGION PK 206
LEGION PK 107
LEGION PK 107
LEGION PK 206
MONITOR
EO LEGION 164
LEGION PK 213
LEGION PK 276C
LEGION PK 33
MONITOR
LEGION PK 240
LEGION PK 204
LEGION PK 1C
LEGION PK 182
MONITOR
LEGION PK 136
LEGION PK 135
LEGION PK 343
LEGION PK 285
MONITOR
LEGION PK 206
LEGION PK 135
LEGION PK 260
LEGION PK 206
MONITOR
HOUR S02 STANDARD
3 4976
6 3925
916
708
89
3 5516
6 3796
775
753
84
3 4571
3 3608
750
681
79
3 4057
3 3152
689
683
97
3 4325
3 4251
877
705
89
3 5516
3 4251
916
753
97
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
30
1300
365
an
ISCST RESULTS
LOCATION DAY PM10 STANDARD
LEGION PK 260 81
LEGION PK 286 62 150
MONITOR 11 50
LEGION PK 107 71
LEGION PK 206 66 150
MONITOR 10 50
LEGION PK 271 68
LEGION PK . 33C 60 150
MONITOR 9 50
LEGION PK 1C 61
LEGION PK 182 60 150
MONITOR 12 50
LEGION PK 343 77
LEGION PK 285 63 150
MONITOR 11 50
(1982)LEGION PK 260 81
(1983)LEGIOH PK 206 66 150
1 1 QOC \ unu T Tiln . — _ •
12
50
-------
The maxinmm particulate concentrations produced by ISCST are all less than the
PM-10 standards. Annual average concentrations are about 20 percent of the
standard; 24-hour concentrations are about half the standard.
Table 3 summarizes the maximum concentrations from the COMPLEX-1 modeling. The
maximum annual average S02 and PM-10 concentrations occurred at the PSAPCA
monitoring site. Shorter-term maximum S02 concentrations generally occurred at
Providence Hospital (south of Scott near Rucker Hill), but also occurred at the
monitor for some 24-hour periods. The maximum 24-hour average PM-10
concentrations all occurred at the Providence Hospital receptor.
Annual S02 concentrations calculated by COMPLEX-1 exceeded the ambient
standard, and were generally slightly higher than with ISCST. Shorter-term S02
concentrations were generally lower than those predicted with ISCST, but were
all higher than the applicable standard.
PM-10 concentrations calculated by COMPLEX-1 were all below the standard.
Annual average concentrations were almost identical to those estimated by
ISCST, but 24-hour concentrations were generally slightly higher.
Table 4 summarizes the maximum concentrations from the SHORTZ modeling. As
with ISCST and COMPLEX-1, SHORTZ calculates the highest annual concentrations
at the PSAPCA monitor. All 3-hour and 24-hour maxima occur on Rucker Hill,
south of Scott.
SHORTZ calculated lower annual average S02 concentrations than ISCST and
COMPLEX-1, with maximum concentrations less than the ambient standard.
Shorter-term S02 concentrations calculated by SHORTZ are higher than with
COMPLEX-1, and comparable to ISCST, with concentrations two or more times the
standard.
Calculated annual PM-10 concentrations are also lower than those calculated
with the other models. SHORTZ calculated 24-hour PM-10 concentrations which
were generally higher than the other models, but they were still well below the
standard.
Maximum Short-term Episodes
The final round of modeling focused on the sources responsible for the peak
concentrations calculated during the modeling of the discrete receptors for 5
years. Table 5 displays the concentration produced by each of the six sources
at the location with the highest arid second highest concentration of S02 and
PM-10.
A review of Table 5 indicates that the results of COMPLEX-1 and SHORTZ, which
accept receptor heights higher than stack height, compare well qualitatively.
Both models indicate much higher contributions from Scott than Weyerhaeuser,
with Scott's recovery boiler and power boilers 6-10 dominating.
Quantitatively, the models do not agree well. SHORTZ predicts much higher
concentrations than COMPLEX-1, especially in the 3-hour S02 calculations.
21
-------
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF COMPLEX- 1 MODEL RESULTS
1982
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1983
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1984
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1985
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1986
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
24 -HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
FIVE-YEAR HIGH
3-HOUR AVERAGE
(1984) HIGHEST
(1984) 2nd-HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
(1982) HIGHEST
(1984) 2nd-HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
(1985) HIGHEST
LOCATION
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
MONITOR
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
MONITOR
MONITOR
MONITOR
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
MONITOR
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
MONITOR
MONITOR
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
MONITOR
PRCV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
PRCV.HOSP
PROV.HOSP
MONITOR
DAY
162
326
326
231
166
203
33
236
154
243
212
154
239
177
177
168
173
228
343
313
154
243
326
154
HOUR S02 STANDARD LOCATION DAY PM10
3 2603
3 2383 1300
693 PROV.HOSP 326
523 365 PROV.HOSP 231
93 80 MONITOR
24 2660
24 2386 1300
571 PROV.HOSP 166
470 365 PROV.HOSP 203
87 80 MONITOR
3 2921
24 2786 1300
605 PROV.HOSP 212
532 365 PROV.HOSP 164
82 80 MONITOR
24 2615
3 2110 1300
673 PROV.HOSP 177
411 365 PROV.HOSP 118
100 80 MONITOR
3 2430
6 2062 1300
532 PROV.HOSP 343
437 365 PROV.HOSP 278
98 80 MONITOR
3 2921
24 2786 1300
693 (1985)MONITOR 177
532 365 (1982)MONITOR 231
100.3 80 (1986)MONITOR
STANDARD
86
74 150
10 50
75
63 150
9 50
84
73 150
9 50
93
51 150
11 50
61
58 150
11 50
93
74 150
11 50
-------
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF
1982
3- HOUR AVERAGE .
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1983
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
24- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1984
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd-HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1985
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
1986
3- HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
HIGHEST
2nd- HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
HIGHEST
FIVE-YEAR HIGH
3- HOUR AVERAGE
(1984) HIGHEST
(1984) 2nd HIGH
24-HOUR AVERAGE
(1984) HIGHEST
(1984) 2nd HIGH
ANNUAL AVERAGE
(1986) HIGHEST
LOCAT-ION
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
MONITOR
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
MONITOR
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
MONITOR
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
MONITOR
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
MONITOR
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
RUCKER HILL
MONITOR
DAY
192
312
326
343
365
39
157
232
232
365
124
124
212
124
366
68
121
6
68
365
273
253
211
343
365
124
124
212
124
365
HOUR
3
24
24
24
24
3
3
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
6
3
24
24
24
24
21
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
S02
3355
3247
750
634
60
4523
4046
763
743
53
5069
5043
892
814
52
4800
3970
753
733
55
3828
3809
796
671
61
5069
5043
892
814
61
STANDARD
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
1300
365
80
SHORTZ RESULTS
LOCATION DAY
RUCKER HILL 326
RUCKER HILL 318
MONITOR 365
RUCKER HILL 232
RUCKER HILL 117
MONITOR 365
RUCKER HILL 212
RUCKER HILL 124
MONITOR 366
RUCKER HILL 6
RUCKER HILL 68
MONITOR 365
RUCKER HILL 211
RUCKER HILL 194
MONITOR 365
(1984) RUCKER HILL
(1984) RUCKER HILL
(1985) MONITOR
PM-10 STANDARD
79
73 150
7 50
91
81 150
6 50
100
89 150
6 50
82
75 150
8 50
89
60 150
7 50
100
89 150
3 50
-------
TABLE
5: SUMMARY OF
POLLUTANT /
AVERAGING PERIOD
ISCST
S02:
PM-10:
3-hr high
3-hr 2nd
24 -hr high
24 -hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEAK EPISODES WITH MAXIMUM EMISSIONS
-- WEYERHAEUSER --
REG. P.B. P.B.
BLR. #1 #2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2632 2884
2087 2163
435 482
363 391
38 42
32 34
REG.
BLR.
0
0
0
0
0
0
• SCOTT
P.B.
1-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
P.B.
6-10
0
0
0
0
0
0
ALL
SOURCES
5516
4251
916
753
81
66
AMBIENT
STANDARD
1300
365
150
COMPLEX- 1
S02:
PM-10:
SHORTZ
S02:
PM-10:
3-hr high
3-hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
3-hr high
3-hr 2nd
24 -hr high
24 -hr 2nd
24 -hr high
24 -hr 2nd
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
19
0
3
0
0 0
0 0
4 6
8 9
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
11 20
0 0
1 2
0 0
1371
1588
284
310
66
55
2061
1955
355
312
63
55
230
262
67
24
7
2
1090
764
129
127
11
11
1320
936
331
169
18
15
1919
2315
358
375
21
23
2921
2785
693
523
93
74
5069
5034
892
814
100
89
1300
365
150
1300
365
150
24
-------
The ISCST results are completely different, reflecting the fact that the
maximum concentrations were predicted at Legion Park rather than downtown
Everett. ISCST calculated maximum concentrations from Weyerhaeuser's two power
boiler stacks. These stacks are each about 118 feet tall, considerably shorter
than the 280 foot recovery boiler stack.
Tables 6, 7A, 7B and 7C identify the meteorological conditions which produced
the peak concentrations displayed in Table 5. Table 6 indicates that the peak
3-hour SC>2 concentrations all occurred during stable periods with 1-2 meter per
second winds from the north or northeast. Table 7A, 7B and 7C indicate that
the weather on the days producing the highest 24-hour average SC>2
concentrations also included at least 11 hours of stable conditions; during the
stable periods, winds were generally from 1-3 meters per second and had a
strong northerly component. As indicated by the windrose displayed in Figure
1, northerly and northeasterly winds are not common wind directions. It is not
surprising, then, that the highest annual average average concentrations are
observed in a different location than the short-term peaks.
Estimated Concentrations Based on Actual Emissions
As indicated in Table 1, actual emissions are much less than permitted
emissions. For example, Scott's actual S02 emissions from its recovery boiler
and power boilers 6-10 were only about 45 percent and 15 percent, respectively,
of allowable emissions. Therefore, annual average and probably shorter-term
concentrations are likely to be significantly lower than the concentrations
displayed in Table 5.
If only one source were involved, the concentrations calculated with maximum
allowable emissions could simply be scaled back to determine the concentrations
resulting from actual emissions. In this study, however, six sources were
involved, and the ratio of permitted to actual emissions was different for each
source and each pollutant. Because each source produces its maximum impact
under specific meteorological conditions, it is not completely accurate to
reduce each source contribution by the ratio of actual to permitted emissions,
and sum the results. Nonetheless, it does provide a rough estimate of the
reduction in ambient concentrations which would be expected with actual rather
than permitted emissions.
Table 8 presents the concentrations which TRC estimated by reducing the source
contributions displayed in Table 5 by the ratio of actual to permitted
emissions. Table 8 indicates that concentrations estimated by this method are
all lower than the ambient standard, although the 3-hour average S02
concentrations predicted by SHORTZ are close to the standard. Annual average
concentrations for actual conditions are not identified because the models do
not provide annual average source contributions.
25
-------
TABLE 6: METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PRODUCING THE PEAK 3-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
HOUR
1
2
3
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
220.0
220.0
210.0
RANDOM
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
215.0
216.0
211.0
WIND
SPEED
(MPS)
1.70
1.92
2.28
MIXING
HEIGHT
(METERS)
1248.0
1222.0
1196.0
TEMP.
(DEC. K)
287.0
288.0
288.0
INPUT
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
ADJUSTED
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
COMPLEX-1
HOUR
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
RANDOM
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
WIND
SPEED
(MPS)
MIXING
HEIGHT
(METERS)
TEMP.
(DEC. K)
INPUT
STABILITY
CATEGORY
ADJUSTED
STABILITY
CATEGORY
1
2
3
180.0
190.0
170.0
182.0
185.0
171.0
2.01
1.03
1.00
1472.5
1474.5
1476.5
284.0
283.0
283.0
6
6
6
6
6
6
SHORTZ
HOUR
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
RANDOM
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
WIND
SPEED
(MPS)
MIXING
HEIGHT
(METERS)
TEMP.
(DEC. K)
INPUT
STABILITY
CATEGORY
ADJUSTED1
STABILITY
CATEGORY
22
23
24
180.0
180.0
180.0
183.0
176.0
179.0
1.43
1.07
1.74
2187.8
2152.4
2117.0
281.0
281.0
280.0
6
6
6
6
6
6
Although F-stability was observed,
stabilities in the SHORTZ model runs.
all F-stabilities were converted to E-
26
-------
TABLE 7A: METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PRODUCING PEAK 24-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
ISCST
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
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
220.0
240.0
210.0
220.0
220.0
250.0
220.0
190.0
180.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
220.0
280.0
RANDOM
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
219.0
238.0
208.0
218.0
219.0
246.0
225.0
190.0
182.0
91.0
99.0
98.0
100.0
89.0
99.0
95.0
95.0
93.0
91.0
93.0
102.0
97.0
221.0
279.0
WIND
SPEED
(MPS)
1.00
1.56
2.68
1.65
1.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.28
3.49
3.76
3.35
3.84
4.38
3.84
3.17
3.31
3.13
3.53
3.04
1.25
1.00
1.56
MIXING
HEIGHT
(METERS)
1126.1
1094.9
1063.6
1032.4
1001.1
11.8
100.3
188.8
277.4
365.9
454.4
542.9
631.5
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
726.7
735.5
744.4
753.2
762.1
771.0
TEMP.
(DEC. K)
288.0
286.0
287.0
286.0
285.0
285.0
287.0
288.0
290.0
292.0
294.0
296.0
298.0
299.0
299.0
299.0
299.0
296.0
293.0
293.0
291.0
290.0
291.0
290.0
INPUT
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
ADJUSTED
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
27
-------
TABLE 7B: METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
COMPLEX- 1
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
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
170.0
170.0
180.0
130.0
180.0
170.0
220.0
160.0
170.0
140.0
140.0
160.0
120.0
170.0
160.0
130.0
160.0
190.0
170.0
150.0
150.0
130.0
160.0
200.0
RANDOM
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
173.0
165.0
179.0
131.0
176.0
169.0
221.0
156.0
169.0
144.0
140.0
155.0
118.0
173.0
159.0
131.0
164.0
188.0
171.0
150.0
148.0
129.0
157.0
203.0
WIND
SPEED
(MPS)
1.83
1.03
1.25
1.16
1.83
2.10
1.70
1.65
1.56
1.16
1.48
2.32
1.70
1.74
2.73
4.16
2.41
1.97
1.65
2.28
1.83
1.61
2.06
2.37
PRODUCING
MIXING
HEIGHT
(METERS)
776.4
111 .1
111 .9
778.6
779.3
780.1
780.8
62.4
183.0
303.6
424.2
544.8
665.4
786.0
786.0
786.0
775.3
758.0
740.7
723.4
706.1
688.8
671.5
654.2
PEAK 24-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
TEMP.
(DEG. K)
273.0
273.0
273.0
272.0
272.0
272.0
272.0
272.0
273.0
274.0
276.0
278.0
279.0
281.0
280.0
279.0
277.0
275.0
275.0
274.0
274.0
275.0
276.0
274.0
INPUT
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ADJUSTED
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28
-------
TABLE 7C: METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
SHORTZ
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
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
200.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
170.0
200.0
160.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
120.0
180.0
210.0
RANDOM
FLOW
VECTOR
(DEGREES)
195.0
178.0
177.0
183.0
173.0
202.0
159.0
94.0
97.0
96.0
92.0
96.0
96.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
92.0
100.0
109.0
109.0
105.0
116.0
179.0
213.0
WIND
SPEED
(MPS)
3.13
2.46
2.19
2.15
1.79
1.70
2.06
2.50
3.53
3.80
3.67
4.38
4.65
5.72
5.90
5.81
5.10
5.59
7.24
6.84
5.05
3.13
1.97
1.97
PRODUCING PEAK 24-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
MIXING
HEIGHT
(METERS)
1375.8
1367.6
1359.5
1351.4
22.8
161.4
300.0
438.6
577.1
715.7
854.3
992.9
1131.4
1270.0
1270.0
1270.0
1270.0
1270.0
1270.0
1270.2
1270.8
1271.4
1272.0
1272.6
TEMP.
(DEC. K)
290.0
289.0
288.0
288.0
288.0
288.0
290.0
291.0
293.0
295.0
296.0
298.0
300.0
301.0
301.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
298.0
296.0
294.0
294.0
293.0
291.0
INPUT
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
ADJUSTED1
STABILITY
CATEGORY
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
Although F-stability was observed, all F-stabilities were converted to E-
stabilities in the SHORTZ model runs.
29
-------
TABLE
8: ESTIMATE OF SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEAK EPISODES WITH ACTUAL EMISSIONS
POLLUTANT /
AVERAGING PERIOD
ACTUAL
ISCST
S02:
PM-10:
/ALLOWABLE^
S02
PM-10
3-hr high
3-hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
24 -hr high
24 -hr 2nd
-- WEYERHAEUSER --
REG. P.B. P.B.
BLR. #1 #2
.29 .31
.76 .25
0 816
0 647
0 135
0 113
0 10
0 8
.06
.06
894
130
29
23
3
2
REC.
BLR.
.45
.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCOTT
P.B.
1-5
.002
1.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
P.B.
6-10
.13
.11
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
ALL
SOURCES
989
777
164
136
12
10
AMBIENT
STANDARD
1300
365
150
COMPLEX- 1
S02:
PM-10:
SHORTZ
S02:
PM-10:
3-hr high
3-hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
24 -hr high
24-hr 2nd
3-hr high
3-hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
24-hr high
24 -hr 2nd
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 3
0 0
2 0
0 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
617
715
128
140
11
9
927
880
160
140
11
9
0
1
0
0
7
2
2
2
0
0
11
11
172
122
43
22
2
2
249
301
47
49
2
3
789
837
173
165
20
13
1179
1183
217
189
27
23
1300
365
150
1300
365
150
This is fraction of the allowable emission rate which each source operated
at in 1985 or 1986.
30
-------
Table 9 presents the highest and second-highest concentrations recorded at the
PSAPCA monitoring site at the Medical Dental Building in downtown Everett in
1984, 1985 and 1986. Table 9 also displays the highest concentration
calculated by the three models for each averaging time for both permitted and
actual emission rates. It should be noted that all three models indicate that
the maximum annual average concentrations resulting from maximum permitted
emissions would occur at the monitor, but shorter term maxima occur at other
locations. The modeling indicates that the existing monitor location is well
positioned to measure the maximum annual average concentrations from Scott and
Weyerhaeuser, but that monitors near Providence Hospital and near Legion Park
may be better for monitoring short term concentrations.
The modeling indicates that Scott and Weyerhaeuser emissions account for most
of the S02 measured at the Medical-Dental Building. But because the predicted
PM-10 concentrations from the two plants are significantly lower than the
measured values, it is likely that other sources are important contributors to
local PM-10.
In summary, the modeling indicates that S02 standards would be exceeded with
maximum allowable S02 emissions, but that PM-10 concentrations would be well
below ambient standards.. The concentrations estimated by reducing each source
contribution in proportion to its actual emissions during 1985/1986 are below
ambient standards.
31
-------
TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF MEDICAL DENTAL BUILDING MONITORING DATA
1984 1985 1986
SULFUR DIOXIDE (PPM)
Annual Average .010 .011 .011
Highest 24-hour .059 .038 .043
2nd-High 24-hour .050 .034 .038
Highest 3 -hour .163 .200 .227
2nd-High 3 -hour .147 .080 .077
PARTICULATE MATTER (ug/m3)
PM-10 PM-10 PM-10
Annual Average 36 36 29
Highest 24 -hour 174 80 73
2nd-High 24-hour 165 77 68
MAXIMUM MODEL RESULTS
WITH WITH
MAXIMUM ACTUAL AMBIENT
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS STANDARD
.038 (C)
.350 (I)
.310 (S)
2.11 (I)
1.92 (S)
12 (I)
100 (S)
89 (S)
0.08 (S)
0.07 (S) 0.14
0.45 (S)
0.45 (S) 0.50
27 (S)
23 (S) 150
SOURCE: 1984-1986 Air Quality Data Summaries, PSAPCA.
KEY: (I) ISCST, (C) COMPLEX-1, (S) SHORTZ
32
-------
REFERENCES
Bjorklund, J.R., and J.F. Bowers, 1982. User's Instructions for the SHORTZ and
LONGZ Computer Programs, Volumes I and II. EPA Publication No. EPA 903/9-82-
004a and b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Bowers, J.F., W.R. Hargraves and A.J. Anderson, 1982. Recommendations on a
SHORTZ/LONGZ S02 Air Quality Model Methodology for the Tacoma Tideflats Area.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Publication No.
EPA-910/9-82-090.
Burt, E.W., 1977- Valley Model User's Guide. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/2-
77-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS
No. PB 274054).
Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a. Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised). Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-027R.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1986b. Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide, Second Edition, Volumes I and 2. Publication
Nos. EPA-450/4-86-005a, and -005b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
Holzworth, George C., 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for
Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-101.
Turner, D.B., and J.H. Novak, 1978. User's Guide for RAM. Publication No.
EPA-600/8-78-016 Vols a, and b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS PB 294791 and PB 294792). Also see the RAM Addendum
distributed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of UNAMAP Version 6
Documentation.
Washington Department of Ecology, 1987. Letter from Stuart A. Clark, Manager
of Air Programs to Robert Wilson, Regional 10 Meteorologist, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
33
-------
APPENDIX
34
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE A-l: ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH ISCST WITHOUT DOWNWASH
35
-------
YMAX = 325000
- '<_—^"T^—- "^.^"TT*-""-''' L*
—-^ == 7 ^-^^
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE A-2: 2ND-HIGHEST 24-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH ISCST WITHOUT DOWNWASH
36
-------
YMAX = 325000
YMIN = 310000
FIGURE A-3: 2ND HIGHEST 3-HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS WITH ISCST WITHOUT DOWNWASH
37
-------
YMAX = 325
YMIN = 310
FIGURE A-4: FINE RECEPTOR GRID FOR ISCST MODELING
38
-------
YMAX = 325
w--^ *
.*&*•'. _ u
YMIN = 310
FIGURE A-5: FINE RECEPTOR GRID FOR COMPLEXl MODELING
39
-------
YMAX = 325
- / . _ /s
YMIN = 310
FIGURE A-6: FINE RECEPTOR GRID FOR SHORTZ MODELING
-------
PORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 910/9-87-175
i and Subtitle
QUALITY MODELING ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
IN EVERETT, WASHINGTON
Authors)
E.B. HANSEN AND K.D. WINCES
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
MARCH
8. Performing Orm;anizatlon R«pt- No:
EPA. 910/9.87-175
Ptrformlng Organization Nam* and Address
TRC.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
21907 64th AVENUE WEST, SUITE 230
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WASHINGTON 98043
10. Prelect/Task/Work Unit No.
11. ContractCC) or GranMG) No.
« 68-02-3886, WA 59
(Q
Spomorioa; Organization Name and Addms
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 10
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
13. Typo or Report A Period Cowered
FINAL REPORT
6/87-3^88
14.
Supplementary Note*
L Abstract (Umit: 200 words)
he maximum allowable emissions from operating permits for Scott Paper Company and
Jeyerhaeuser Company pulp and paper mills in Everett, Washington were obtained from.
lashington Department of Ecology. A 5-year sequential meteorological data base was*
prepared using wind data from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency monitoring
station in Everett, surface observations from Sea-Tac Airport, and upper air data from
IJuillayute, Washington. The mill's emissions of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
rere modeled using the most recent versions of COMPLEXl, SHORTZ, and ISCST to
determine 1) if the existing monitoring site was located such that maximum
concentrations are measured; and 2) if existing permit limits on emissions were
sufficient to ensure'compliance with State and Federal ambient air quality standards.
V. Document Analysis a. Descriptor*
Air pollution
Mathematical models
Computer models
a. Identman/Open-ended Term*
Industrial sources
Dispersion
c COSATI Field/Group
Ul Availability Statement
13. Security Claw (Thle Report)
20. Security Clatt (Thlt Pa«e)
21. No. a* Pa«ea
Pagco
22. Price
«tANSI-Z39.18>
See Instruction* an Revene
OPTIONAL FOHM 272 (4-77)
(Formerty NTIS-35)
Oepertment o( Commerce
------- |