State/EPA Indoor Radc
Winter 193
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
~i- .r' v >*. wean 'it!*.
-£ ¦ ¦. fSMiSKSabemj-rBi^ii? 25!
Cr ti i •, .-v * F «»«• »*»«••«¦»»•¦«» « r«xSa X2a
£jr*v .¦ i' rw-.*Vy ,/ -• ^B*2«?aS?"Sfmbp:n*ycr-&'S«j
.k_-- 11 ?** 14 ** 53 W n * R<*t >St, K 4 t 3*1<# "1 J, St*!
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
A
Ten Highest Radon Measurements in the Surveys
i
-------
Survey Conclusions
• The Distribution of Radon Levels Varied
Significantly Among States
• Elevated Radon Levels Were Found in
Every State Surveyed
• Even the States with the Lowest
Distribution of Radon Levels had Some
Houses with Extremely High Radon
Concentrations
• These Surveys Identified Radon Hot
Spots
• Geology is a Good Indicator of High
Risk Areas
-------
Radon Action Program
Major Accomplishments
• State Surveys
• Radon Measurement Proficiency Program
• Radon Mitigation Research Program
• House Evaluation Program
• Radon Diagnosis and Mitigation Training
Course
• New Brochures
-------
Radon Action Program
Key EPA and State Responsibilities
EPA Responsibilities State Responsibilities
Problem Assessment
• Provide Technical Assistance for State Surveys
• Develop Uniform Measurement Protocols
• Conduct and Manage State Radon Surveys
• Apply EPA Protocols
Mitigation and Prevention
• Research and Demonstrate Mitigation and
Prevention Techniques
• Apply and Evaluate Mitigation Techniques
• Assist Homeowners with Radon Reduction
• Transfer Knowledge to Local Governments,
Private Sector and Homeowners
Capability Development
• Develop Technical Training Courses
• Evaluate Public and Private Measurement
Capability
* Establish State Radon Programs
* Develop Private Sector Capability in
Measurement and Mitigation
* Provide Information to the Public on
Measurement Firms
Public Information
• Develop Public Information Materials
• Initiate Cooperative Activities with States and
National Organizations
• Respond to Homeowner Requests for
information
• Distribute Public Information Materials
• Conduct Public Education and Outreach
Activities
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
State Radon Survey Assistance Program
1987-1988
8/87
-------
FOR RELEASE ON AUGUST 4
CONTACT: Aubrey Godwin
261-5315
According to a study conducted by the Alabama Department of Public
Health with the assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Alabama Geological Survey, 94 percent of the houses tested for radon
exposure in the state met acceptable Indoor radon screening measurements.
Despite this, two 0? the 10 highest readings found in the entire U.S. were
made in state homes.
Radon, a radioactive gas which occurs in nature, results from the
natural breakdown or uranium. In an enclosed space such as a home, radon
can accumulate Hecattse the gas enters through cracks and openings to the
soil below. The only known health effect associated with exposure to
elevated levels of radon is an increased risk of developing lung cancer.
Aubrey Godwin, director of the Radiological Health Branch of the
Alabama Department of Public Health, stated, "In homes with elevated radon
levels, homeowners are advised to take actions to reduce the amount of radon
entering the structure. Although we recommend that any homeowner who is
particularly concerned about exposure to indoor radon consider having his
home tested, our survey findings indicate that there are a few areas of
the state which are of particular concern."
These counties are Cleburne, Colbert, Coosa, Lauderdale, Limestone
and Madison* Radon levels can vary greatly from season to season as well
as from room to room.
For additional information contact the Radiological Health Branch,
Alabama Department of Public Health at 261-5315.
-30-
7/31/87
-------
07/31/1987 09=39 ALA. RAD. CONTROL AGENCY 205 261 5000 P.02
FACT SHEET
RADON STUDY
The Alabama Department of Public Health recently conducted a survey with
technical assistance provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the Alabama Geological Survey* Funding was provided through a grant
from the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs*
PURPOSES: (1) To identify areas of the state having a potential for
significantly elevated Indoor radon levels.
(2) To determine the distribution of indoor radon screening
measurements across Alabama.
MEASUREMENTSi Measurements were taken in a: random sample of single-family
owner-occupied homes statewide with charcoal canisters*
These measurements for screening can be used to determine
whether follow-up measurements are necessary.
9 Alabama has made 1,200 measurements as a part of this survey.
0 Based on preliminary analysis of the data, 6.A percent of the homes
surveyed had measurements above 4 pCi/1. Some 6.1 percent of the homes
had measurements between 4 pCl/1 and 20 pCi/l. The highest level found
in the state was 180.0 pCi/1, while the average screening level was
1.8 pCi/1.
0 Homeowners in the counties of Cleburne, Colbert» Coosa, Lauderdale, Limestone
and Madison are advised to have their homes screened for Indoor radon.
These counties had data Indicating that they had 20 percent or more
homes above 4 pCl/1 or 5 percent or more above 8 pCl/1 in either the random
sample or la the total data of the state. These included some volunteers.
0 Radon levels can vary greatly from season to season as well as from room
to room; therefore, a screening measurement such as Alabama's only serves
to Indicate the potential for a radon problem.
0 Any homeowner who is particularly concerned about exposure to indoor radon
should consider testing; however, survey findings indicate there are few
areas in the state which are of particular concern.
0 For homeowners who have participated in the survey or who have had private
screening measurements made in their homes, the Alabama Department of Public
Health and the Environmental Protection Agency recommend that follow-ilp
tests be made in homes with screening measurements above 4 pCl/1.
Released August 4, 1987
-------
Radon Results in Alabama by Region
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
-------
Alabama
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Percent of
Levels,
Houses with
pCi/L
These Levels*
0 - 4
94%
4 - 20
6%
> 20
<1%
Average
Level
1.8 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured**
1,200
* There is a 95% certainty that these values
represent all houses in Alabama to within
2 percentage points.
" An additional 1000 measurements
were made on a volunteer basis.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Alabama
Radon Level, pCJ/L
County
180
Calhoun
94
Jefferson
54
Madison
48
Madison
39
Madison
37
Madison
29
Lauderdale
27
Madison
22
Madison
21
Jackson
These single measurements may not be
representative of ait houses in these counties.
-------
Radon
Results in
Colorado
DM —
0 « P tr 9 « B S B B h B B B •to B'B B B.B'B'
a • bp «.• bp b m •ana it kibii
• I I I 8.8 8 • BP PB BP I I I!«¦ •« ¦
P P 8 8 8 8 •»• B
• a i t • i t i t m m i i'i r,
iitiiiiiiitiiiiiiiai en t<
¦ lill.l 1,1111.1,1 (Oil IBB • * Bit,
M,»f "AM p.p.'' nr *,«¦¦¦ aa.a b.b.m
BBB • » B 8 t> B o * 8,8 B 8.B B B a 0 III
,i«,tmnRB,ai«nin u.a'e p p a't;
1 I I I fifl d 8 0 B l Bl 0 8 I BB PAB'CP'rl
• I'l III « BiB'B B 8 llllt BBS 9 BB't I
8 8.8 IIBII B'B B,8 I'l I III I IIDl'li
15.M.*,*,®,»,® B.B.B.n BBB B.B.B B.B.8.B Br
'" ¦ • ! * ¦ • *!° ® • B B ¦ B e I K B R B U I '
IBBBBIIIBIRBBBIBIBIIBBIBI
—IIIIHIIIIIIItg
More Than 25% of Houses In Colorado
Are Estimated to Have Screening Levels
Greater Than 4 pCi/L.
¦ IBBBBBS BBB IB* RBBB B B Bt IK
B BP BBBJBBBBB 8 B I B B B B B.B lilt
- BI B BBB BBBBRB BI B.B B B B.B"B.B 91
B I BBB BBB ¦ • • BB B B B BSB • B B'B I
BIB B.B BIB IB IIBBBIIB B.B ¦ B BI
BBBBBBBBBBIBBBBIBSBBBBBB
B B B B.B B S B B BBB BBBBBB B.B B B B B
B.BB.BB.BB B.B.B B B.B.B.B B'B BBB 8 BPB
d'bbb'bbdb'b'bbbb'ibb tll'l'Btl t
BIB'S B B B'B B'B B.BBB I B 0 B'B C.B'B *,B ;
B 8 B.B.B B B'B B ,B,B.B B.B,B B.B.B l.l .1 BBB
,1'l B.B I I'I I B I B I B B B B B B I B BBB B
Bl'B B.a'B'B.B.B B.B IB B B.B B.B B.B.B B B l
B B.BBBBjBB BBB 8 B.B.B B.B.B B IB B B B
B*B B'B B B B B'B B 8 B B I B'B B B B I'B'I'bB "
BB'B
BBB
! ! ! !!! ¦ bb.b b BIB B.B.B i i.v.BB.a B.i.B b i n a hp b b b bpbb.b b i i.i p b.b.b b i i i b i b i.ii.i.i.i.S b.b i.i.Evj»;» BB.pi.ip « i i i.i'.ilijci iBS.i.B>;o.B;B,«^*;B;B,B'B,B;B,8,8,8,8,8,8:8,8.8,8 B.B.B » b.b b b b b;b b.b b .
;»*; B 8 8 IB 8 B B.tf» B.B 8 B.B B 8 r C 8 I BP t B.B e B B B C B 8 B.B « BP* B.B B B8 B B.B.B, B.B BBB B,»,B.B,B.»>.«,• B.B.B.B.B.e B.B.B B,»,B3.B,9«.»B.B.I.R?i, KB» B 9,«(B B B.B B. B.B.B.B.BB 8 8 B.B B 8,8 Bl BB B.B B.
I S !!!! ! 5 ! !! ¦ " • «•« BBB ».«.« BBBBBB m IBB BB! BRBBBBBBBBBBB BIBf IB B P B P C 0 BBB B BB IB B B BB B B B,(B B B.B BBB B BBB B.B BBB B BBBBBB IB B BBB SB 83 MBBBI 8 IB B 80 ¦
5" III ® ¦ ® B 8 BB.BB B.B BI B B.B BBBBRIBB 3.H.W t R B B.B.B (BBC 8 B'B B B P,CB r B'B B.n.B.BBiP'PS'B.PB B.B* B,B B B BP B.B.B B.B B.B 0 B.B O.BJ.B B B.« BB.BP.BB.B B, BBB S.BIB.S.B B 8 B.B.B B 6 B.B 8 B.B.B B.B.B » B.J B.B.I
!! 5 !! - ® » • ®» • B.B B B.B.B B'B B.B B B B,B,B.B.B CB B.B.B B.B.B P.PlB'S B.B B.C.B.B BBB B B B il BBBBBB P B B B.Bl.B.B.B.B B.B BB B B.B B.B.B B.B.B B B B,B.B,B,BB.B B,8 B.P.B.B.BB.B.B.B.BB BBBBBB BP BBB BB,BB SB.
¦ !¦ ! J 5 ! !! ?¦ * • B B 1MB B BB Bp 8,0 BR BBBBl'lIlB JpB " S BE II BBB BP'B .BB'b'i 6||Ib«B'bb'J b'oPb'bp'bb'I.BbS 8 B'S^b'c'D PBr|*SS'B B^ tKBB.BB.? i'b'S'B^B'c'b'b.I b'iIiIbIi'O^b'b'i'I^bIb'I V i'l'i V;B
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
1 0%
15%
^M'k'Sa J'*"'*".*-*." P.B B.BBiB BB I B.b'b b I?
r-^.'* B.B P I 8 B 8 8V B B B'B'RB lV
¦ a> ¦ j i i >,»,» § a n > a'aaa'a,a'.a'ali«'
2 0%
25%. ana oreater
-------
Colorado
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
¦
o
61%
o
CM
37%
> 20
2%
Average
Level
4.6 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured
900
* These values represent the actual
measurements taken and may not
be representative of all houses in
Colorado.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Colorado
Radon Level, pCi/L
County
81
Freemont
81
Park
71
Kiowa
55
Crowley
46
Hinsdale
41
Jackson
40
Adams
38
Clear Creek
37
Mineral
34
Grand
These single measurements may not be
representative of all houses in these counties.
8/87
-------
EFA-CONNECTICUT RADOW SURVEY PBESS RELEASE
The Connecticut Department of Health Services, vith technical assistance
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection and COKHSAVE, has conducted « eurvey to determine the
distribution of indoor air radon levels across Connecticut.
Radon is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas which is the natural
product of uranium/radium decay. It is given off by rocks snd soil which
contain uranium, and is found in minute amounts almost universally in air and
water. Radon gas can migrate into hones from the soil surrounding the
basement and from other less significant sourcea. Jtadon exposure over a
prolonged period of time has been shown to cause lung cancer in human beings.
The state was divided into five (5) geologic regions to identify areaa of
the State chat have the potential for significantly elevated indoor air radon
levels. The EPA-Connecticut Radon Survey, conducted from December, 1986
through March, 1967, was based on measurements taken in a sample of
single-family, owner-occupied homes ecroaa the state that had requeeted an
energy audit by COHKSAV6. The short-term measurements that were taken with
charcoal caniater* in the basements of these homes are considered screening
tests to determine the need for more extensive testing in those homes.
-------
The indoor air radon measurement! were taken from 1,500 homes in 167 of
the 169 towns in Connecticut. Baaed on a preliminary analysis of the data,
19& of the homes surveyed in Connecticut (one in five) had radon aeaaureaents
above the current EPA guideline of 4 picocurie* per liter (pCi/1), and only lj
of the hone* tested (one in a hundred) had radon measurements greater than 20
pCi/1. The average radon level detected in the State we* 2.9 pCi/l, while the
median measurement wee 1.7 pCi/1. The highest radoo level, 80.9 pCi/1, was
found in a hone in Glastonbury.
Homes with elevated levels of radon were found in most towns in
Connecticut. Almost three quarters of the towns sampled (72X) had at least
one house with a reading greater than 4 pCi/1. However there were no specific
towns where consistently high levels were found. Radon occurrence is related
to geology which does not follow town boundaries. A preliminary analysis of
the data does indicate some differences in radon levels offlong Che five
geologic regions of the state. Compered to the rest of the state, the central
valley region has a lower probability for homes with greater than U pCi/l of
radon, while portions of both Che eastern region and western central region of
the eeate may have a higher potential for homes with elevaced radon levels.
Due to this somewhat random distribution of radon, predictions on the risk
from radon of a particular town or home cannot be made. Homeowners who are
interested in finding out the radon levels in their house should have a radon
test performed. Based upon the results of this survey the Connecticut
Department of Health Services is recommending that all homeowners teat their
house for radon.
-------
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
10%
15%
' 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
i
'' r pu^ ;",»rsi?»«6ueiia'i9B»'•'»mr'mi
•i« • .V k? iO. «4 »n»or(D»rir«*iisset¦ i
U'»'vV?-4r«rV-t^^cJ?WE»~ „ n s * * ee r» c • r b r a c n'nmtri
£• - w. - u w. irra < t: 1irD»nff>B«>0S3>Ei»'a»*'•
Iji j liirn J., -1 " ?vy7_
t-r- s= <¦- «."¦*'4 •
U-T.-' -VP.., rV 7-.V - • - v,-V« V:/'. f»»K»*?»!ifn'iiP'- "'*.** *>.
Wi- \-*-r -,7Z' .
V-"^rv-^?-r-rr. r" ,«* tV: ' ¦: 2 £ IVISI- Z Z S SS " £•£
20%
25% and greater
8/87
-------
Connecticut
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
•
o
81%
4 - 20
18%
> 20
1%
Average
Level
2.9 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured
1,500
'These values represent the actual
measurements taken and may not
be representative of all houses in
Connecticut.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Connecticut
ij-
Radon Level, pCi/L
County
81
Hartford
52
Litchfield
28
Fairfield
27
Windham
27
Middlesex
26
New London
25
Hartford
23
New London
22
Fairfield
21
New Haven
These single measurements may not be
representative of all houses in these counties.
8/87
-------
State/EPA Indoor Radon Survey Results
Winter 1986-1987
Estimated Percent of Houses with Screening Levels
Greater than 4 pCi/L
Alabama
6%
Colorado
39%
Connecticut
19%
Kansas
21%
Kentucky
17%
Michigan
9%
Rhode Island
19%
Tennessee
16%
Wisconsin
27%
Wyoming
26%
8/87
-------
United States J'~ce
Environmental Protect on ana flaaat on
Agency VVasnmgton DC 20460
&EPA Radon Facts
SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS
OF RADON
Radon'is an invisible/ odorless, radioactive gas produced
by the decay of uranium in rock and soil. Radon decays into
radioactive particles, which if inhaled may cause damage to
lung tissues, increasing the risk of lung cancer.
o As uranium decays, it produces radium, which in turn
releases radon gas. Once released, radon migrates
through permeable rocks and soil, eventually escaping
into the atmosphere or into buildings.
o High levels of naturally occuring radon are most
likely to occur where there are significant amounts
of uranium in the ground. Rocks that may have higher
than average concentrations of uranium include black
shales, phosphatic rocks and granites. Radon may
also be found in areas which have been contaminated
with certain types of industrial wastes, such as the
byproducts from uranium or phosphate mining.
o Soils can also be a source of radon. Many soils
are derived from the immediate underlying rock, and
therefore tend to have similar mineral composition
as the parent rock. Just as importantly, soils are
the medium through which radon travels. Soil permea-
bility plays an important role in determining whether
or not radon will be able to move indoors.
o Outdoor radon levels generally do not pose a large
health hazard. Indoor levels are normally about 5
to 10 times higher than outdoor levels, but they can
be several thousand times higher.
o Radon gas can seep into a home through cracks in the
foundation, areas around drainage pipes, sump pumps
and other openings in the foundation or walls.
o Radon itself does not present a health hazard.
It is the decay products that are the main sources
of radiation exposure. Unlike radon, radon decay
products are solid particles which can remain in
the lungs. When the trapped particles decay, the
surrounding lung tissue is damaged.
8/87
-------
Virtually every house in the United States has some level
of radon gas in its air (estimates suggest that average annual
indoor levels range between about 1 to 2 pCi/L). Most homes
will not have levels high enough to require any action to
reduce them- Radon levels can vary substantially from house
to house even among homes in the same area. The only way to
be certain about the level of radon in a house is to have it
measured. The Environmental Protection Agency has developed
"A Citizen's Guide to Radon" to provide homeowners with the
facts about radon, to help them determine whether and how to
measure radon in their homes, and to help them evaluate their
personal risk if they should find elevated levels.
8/87
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air
and Radiation
Washington DC 20460
2
P'EPA
Radon Facts
DISTRIBUTION OF RADON LEVELS
ACROSS THE U.S.
While the Reading Prong area of Pennsylvania, New Jersey
and New York is the best known high-radon area in the United
States at this time, indoor radon is potentially a widespread
problem.
o It is estimated that over 150,000 radon measurements
have been made by both commercial firms and EPA. The
number of measurements, however, is not equal to the
number of houses tested since more than one detector
is often used per house. Duplication aside, 150,000
still only represents considerably less than 1% of
the single-family detached houses nationwide.
o Existing data is heavily concentrated in those states
with known high radon levels (for example,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York). Measurements
in the 2000-3000 pCi/L range have been observed in
these areas. In almost every state, however, radon
levels greater than 4 pCi/L have been documented.
o Available data indicate that perhaps 8-12% of the
roughly 75 million houses existing in the United
States may have annual average radon levels reaching
or exceeding 4 pCi/L.
It will not be possible to refine these estimates until
the national survey and national assessment are completed.
This will take several years.
8/87
-------
or:tea states
Envirorrrertal Protect.or-
Agency
aro Raciauon
Washington DC 20460
3
s»EF¥\
Radon Facts
POTENTIAL AREAS WITH
HIGH RADON LEVELS
At this time, there is no completely reliable method for
predicting the locations of houses with high indoor radon
levels. Indoor radon levels are affected by the uranium
content of nearby rock and soil, soil permeability, house
construction- characteristics and other factors. The attached
map is an updated version of one issued in August 1986 and
includes more detailed information from a variety of sources.
Shaded areas indicate where greater potential indoor radon
problems exist, based solely on the uranium content of rocks
near the surface. This map does not include information on
other important factors, such as soil characteristics, for
which nationwide data is not available. In some instances,
these other factors may be most important in producing or
alleviating radon problems since there is such a mixture of
confirmed and nonconfirmed predictions.
o The data used for this map are based on geological
reports, a modification of the National Uranium
Resource Evaluation (NURE) data, and some indoor
radon data. All shaded areas are only approximate,
and boundaries should not be considered definitive.
Not all portions within an area will have the same
potential for elevated indoor radon levels.
o This updated map has many differences from the 1936
map. Data from the State/EPA radon survey and some
commercial measurement companies have filled in gaps
in certain areas. Granitic areas are now
distinguished on the basis of uranium content, while
all identified black shales are considered to be
significantly uraniferous.
o Shaded areas of the map represent those areas which
may have a higher percentage of homes with elevated
radon levels, as compared to the nonshaded areas. An
estimated 8-12% of homes nationwide may have annual
average radon levels greater than 4 picocuries per
liter. In the shaded areas, the percentage may be
substantially higher, while in the nonshaded areas
less than 10% of the houses may exhibit radon levels
above 4 pCi/L.
o This map should not be used as the sole source for
predicting elevated indoor radon levels. It is
imperative to use the information from this map in
conjunction with other factors (e.g., indoor
measurements, soil permeability and housing types) to
predict local radon levels.
8/37
-------
o This map cannot be used to determine specific houses
or neighborhoods with low or elevated indoor radon
levels. Because of differences in house
characteristics, a house situated on a site with high
radon'potential will not necessarily have high indoor
radon levels. Conversely, it is possible, but less
likely, to have high indoor radon levels within areas
of low radon potential. In order to determine if a
particular house has a radon problem, it is necessary
to make a measurement.
EPA is continuing to work with other Federal agencies and
the States to improve our ability to understand the factors
that influence radon levels, so that in the future we can
better predict the geographical areas of concern.
8/87
-------
Radon Results in Kansas
i^LJf^r-.r .r^-T-.T: " r^^%-$fpiCspa *Vang
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
•rss.ii • •• -u^.- i; •
3f' ir - H
1 0%
yrprFl) 1_® • •1 ClV- «*ee« *so-*k«!rc*«e'j
1- ?- t «. nBH!C6*B!lSflS*Bfi'»
r.*.'-®-oC ' •'•'wH,JGUvPV*«r *»•><*»• »¦» •
1 i . i ¦ .. - t... • »«'*.•<*• -5r-»rin c SI
- f-n^fjancByerfsr
*.»•« ii vM p_»"?»»s*yeB5#*r»i
BJStClsrK
PBru»B'r!»*
¦••»»!* r !• sr *¦ >"
'a»ni»cs«n*ai
:e«nsi*Bn*s*
idBirsnpqct'nag
>cr/r»»o>a«{»
bPIMB5B»«
'serfldBBEii
irtsr^ir'til
15%
20%
25% and greater
8/8 7
-------
Kansas
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
0 - 4
79%
4 - 20
21%
>20
<1%
Average
Level
2.9 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured
1,000
* These values represent the actual
measurements taken and may not
be representative of ail houses in
Kansas.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Kansas
Radon Level, pCi/L County
27
Johnson
26
Riley
25
Ness
24
Meade
24
Barton
21
Johnson
20
Riley
18
Geary
17
Ottowa
16
Wyandotte
rrhese single measurements may not be
.representative of alt houses in these counties.
-------
FACT SHEET INDEX
Nature and Extent of Radon
1. Sources and Characteristics of Radon
2. Distribution of Radon Levels Across the U.S.
3. Potential Areas With High Radon Levels
Measuring and Mitigating Radon
4. Measuring Radon
5. Radon Risk Assessment
6. Radon Mitigation in Existing Structures
Radon Action Program
7. Radon Action Program
8. Major Radon Action Program Accomplishments
9. Radon Mitigation Research Program
10. Radon Measurement Proficiency Program
11. House Evaluation Program
12. State Radon Activities
13. State Surveys
14. National Survey
15. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
16. Summary of Pending Radon Legislation
17. Radon in Schools
18. Radon Reduction in New Construction
19. Radon in Water
20. International Radon Activities
State Contacts
21. State Radon Survey Coordinators
22. State Radon Contacts
Reference
23. Radon Glossary of Terms
-------
Kentucky Fact Sheet
The Kentucky Cabinet for Hunan Resources, with technical
assistance from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, conducted
a survey to identify areas within the state that have the potential
for significantly elevated indoor radon levels and to determine the
distribution of indoor radon screening measurements across
Kentucky. The Kentucky indoor Radon Survey, begun in March, was
based on measurements taken by random sample in single-family
owner-occupied homes across the state. Measurements were taken
with charcoal canisters, and represent screening measurements
only. These measurements can be used to determine whether
follow-up measurements are necessary.
Kentucky has made 879 measurements as part of this survey.
Based on preliminary analysis of the data, 17.1% of the homes
surveyed in Kentucky had measurements above 4 pci/l, with 15.6* of
the homes tested having measurements between 4 pCi/1 and 20 pci/l.
The highest level detected in the state was 65.5 pcl/i, while the
average screening measurement was 2.S8 pci/l.
Although we recommend that any homeowner who is particularly,
concerned about exposure to indoor radon consider having their hfrme
tested* our survey findings indicate that 34.6% of the samples in
Region IV (as indicated on the map) resulted in readings greater
than the SPA recommended threshold of 4.0 pci/l. we feel it is
prudent to recommend that homeowners in this area have their homes
screened for indoor radon.
Because radon levels can vary greatly from season to season ae
well as from room to room, a screening measurement, such as those
taken for the Kentucky survey, only serves to indicate the
potential for a radon problem. Depending on the results of the
screening measurement, follow-up tests are recommended. For
homeowners who have participated in the survey or who have had
private screening measurements made in their homes, the Kentucky
Cabinet for Human Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency
recommend that follow-up tests be made in homes with screening
measurements above 4 pCi/1.
The Cabinet's Radiation Control Branch will be happy to answer
questions individuals might have regarding radon and the testing
Cor its presence, individuals who decide to test their homes
should be sure they deal with a reputable testing firm. Contact
the Radiation control Branch or your local health department for
suggestions on how to select a radon testing company.
-------
Radon Results in
Kentucky by Region
'¦ f
,'1
•L.
vK
$
%
§
ft
w
-
•
Estimated Pere,„, ^^ ^
-------
Kentucky
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
¦
o
83%
4 - 20
16%
> 20
1%
Average
Level
2.8 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured
900
* There is a 95% certainty that these values
represent all houses in Kentucky to
within 3 percentage points.
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Kentucky
Radon Level,
pCi/L
County
66
Bullitt
32
Warren
31
Bourbon
29
Scott
28
Warren
27
Warren
25
Hart
25
Jefferson
24
Bullitt
23
Cumberland
These single measurements may not be
representative of all houses in these counties.
-------
THE 1987 MICHIGAN INDOOR RADON SURVEY
SPRING SURVEY FACT SHEET
The Michigan Department of Public Health and 46 of Michigan's local health
departments, with technical assistance from the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, commenced a survey to identify areas within the state that have the
potential for significantly elevated indoor radon lsvals and to determine the
distribution of indoor radon screening measurements across Michigan. The survey
was started in March and ran through May, 1907, when activities were suspended
during the summer months. Restart of the survey is tentatively scheduled for
October 1, 1987, with completion by early 1988. Screening measurements were
taken in a random sample of single-family, owner-occupied homes across Michigan
using charcoal canisters. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has
recommended a remedial action level o£ 4 pCi/I as an annual average
concentration. These screening measurements do not represent annual average
concentrations, but they can be used to determine whether follow-up measurements
are necessary.
Michigan made 498 measurements this past spring during the initial phase of the
survey. Based on a preliminary analysis of the data, 87.3X of the homes
surveyed in Michigan had measurements below 4 pCi/1, and 12.5* of the homes
tested had measurements between 4 pCi/1 and 20 pCi/1. The highest level
detected in the state was 162.1 pCi/1, while the average screening result was
2.7 pCi/1 for homes with detectable levels of radon. Eighty-two of tha homes
tested had levels below the analytical minimum detectable level of 0.5 pCi/1,
and the 2.7 pCi/1 average did not include those measurements.
Since the Michigan survey is only about 20% complete, it is premature to
conclude that any specific area of the state has a radon problem. During the
completion of the survey additional measurements will be takan in tha area
surrounding the home with the state's highest survey measurement. This area and
others which may become evident as a result of the survey continuation next
fall, will be delineated at the completion of the survey. Until such time that
we can provide more detailed information regarding areas within the state with
significant potential for elevated indoor radon levels, we recommend that any
homeowner who is particularly concerned about exposure to indoor redon consider
having their home tested. A list of commercially available monitoring services
can be obtained from state and local health department agencies in Michigan.
Because radon levels can vary greatly from season to season as well as from room
to room, a screening measurement, such as those taken for the Michigan survey,
only serves to indicate the potential for a radon problem. Depending on the
results of the screening measurement, follow-up tests are recommended. For
homeowners who have participated in the survey or have had private screening
measurements made in their homas, tha Michigan Department of Public Health and
the Environmental Protection Agency recommend that follow-up tests be made in
homes with screening measurements above 4 pCi/1.
RDip
7/30/87
-------
Radon Results m Michigan
Less Than 10% of Houses in Michigan
Are Estimated to Have Screening Levels
Greater Than 4 pCi/L.
Available Data
Regional
Does Not Allow
Estimates.
I
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
_
25% and greater
-------
Michigan
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
0
1
91%
4 - 20
9%
> 20
<1%
Average
Level
1.8 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured**
200
'There is a 95% certainty that these values
represent all houses in Michigan to within
5 percentage points.
" An additional 300 measurements
were made.
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
In Michigan
pCi/L County
162 Marquette
17 Lenawee
15 Branch
14 Washtenaw
13 Lenawee
10 Washtenaw
8 Dickenson
7 Jackson
7 Jackson
7 Washtenaw
These single measurements may not be
representative of all houses in these counties
and were the highest in the total of 500
measurements made.
-------
Between 15% and 20% of Houses in Rhode Islane
Are Estimated to Have Screening Levels
Greater Than 4 pCI/L.
Available Data Does Not Allow
Regional Estimates.
i
1
3
i
a
o
n
Radon Results in Rhode fsiand
E
o
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
H
n
I
P"
*"
""
-1
PC
rr~
r*i
i
n
m
—r
—(
j
Ilj
"i
T
i—1
t '
—y
1
J
~T
Jl
1
¦h
i
j
• rr\
_
__
_
I
Xj
LLU
M
10%
15%
20%
25% ar.a greater
-------
Rhode Island
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
0 - 4
81%
4 - 20
16%
> 20
3%
Average
Level
3.5 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured
190
* These values represent the actual
measurements taken and may not
be representative of all houses in
Rhode Island.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Rhode Island
r
Radon Level,
pCi/L
County
64
42
30
28
24
23
15
12
12
11
Kent
Kent
Newport
Providence
Washington
Providence
Providence
Providence
Washington
Providence
These single measurements may not be
representative of ail houses in these counties.
8/87
-------
TENNESSEE RADON SURVEY
FACT SHEET
The State of Tennessee, in cooperation with the EPA,
conducted a survey to identify areas within the State with
the potential for significantly elevated indoor radon levels.
The Tennessee Radon Survey was based on measurements taken
in a random sample of 1,787 single-family, owner-occupied
homes across the State. Measurements were taken with charcoal
canisters, and represent screening measurements only. These
test results should be used to determine whether or not
follow-up measurements are necessary and should not be used
to characterize citizens' exposure to radon in Tennessee.
The State plans to make a total of 3,000 measurements
as part of this survey. To date, Tennessee has analyzed
results from 60% of the measurements. Based on this pre-
liminary analysis of the data, it has been estimated 84.2%
of the single-family dwellings in the State have radon levels
below 4 pCi/L, 14.5% have levels between 4 and 20 pCi/L, and
1.3% have levels equal to or greater than 20 pCi/L. The
highest level detected in the State Survey was 99.9 pCi/L.
As a result of these findings, we feel it is prudent to
recommend that homeowners throughout middle and east Tennessee
have their homes screened for indoor radon.
For homeowners who have already had screening measurements
made in their homes, the Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency recommend
that follow-up tests be made in homes with screening measure-
ments above 4 pCi/L. As part of our ongoing efforts to address
the radon problem in Tennessee, we plan to select a number of
these homes in which screening measurements were made and ask
homeowners to allow us to make follow-up long-term measure-
ments. We also plan to conduct additional screening measure-
ments in the State. We will concentrate in those areas of the
State where it appears the extent of the radon problem needs to
be investigated further.
-------
In the future, Tennessee plans to provide the following
services to its citizens to help them address the radon problem:
o Study radon and issues related to it through a
special committee established by the State
legislature.
o Assist the EPA in conducting research on radon
reduction techniques in a number of homes in the
State.
o Sponsor training sessions in cooperation with the EPA
on radon mitigation techniques.
o Provide literature on radon and radon reduction
methods to the public.
o
Provide lists of suppliers of radon detectors to
citizens interested in making radon measurements.
-------
Radon Results in Tennessee by Region
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
0 10% 15% 20% 25% and greater
-------
Radon Results m Wisconsin by Region
Eslimaled Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than 4 pCi/L
6'87
-------
Wisconsin
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Percent of
Levels,
Houses with
pCi/L
These Levels*
•
o
73%
0
CM
1
26%
> 20
1%
Average
Level
3.4 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured**
1,200
* There is a 95% certainty that these values
represent all houses in Wisconsin to
within 3 percentage points.
** An additional 500 measurements
were made on a volunteer basis.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Wisconsin
Radon Level, pCi/L
County
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Waupaca
Marathon
Marathon
Vilas
Marathon
Eau Claire
Langlade
O
These single measurements may not be
representative of all houses in these counties.
8/87
-------
Results in Wyoming By Region
Estimated Percent of Houses With Screening Levels Greater
than ^ pCi/L
-------
Tennessee
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Percent of
Levels,
Houses with
pCi/L
These Levels*
•
o
84%
•
ro
o
15%
>20
1%
Average
Level
2.7 pCi/L
Number of
Houses
Measured
1,800
* There is a 95% certainty that these values
represent all houses in Tennessee to
within 2 percentage points.
8/87
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Tennessee
Result (pCi/L) County
100
Roane
77
Hickman
67
Sullivan
64
Davidson.
60
Davidson
59
Hamblen
55
White
44
Davidson
40
Davidson
39
Davidson
These single measurements may not be
representative ol all houses in these counties.
-------
Wyoming
Distribution of
Indoor Radon Screening Measurements
Radon
Levels,
pCi/L
Percent of
Houses with
These Levels*
0 - 4
74%
4 - 20
24%
> 20
2%
Average
Level
3.6 pCi L
Number of
Houses
Measured**
800
" There is a 95% certainty that these values
represent all houses in Wyoming to within
4 percentage points.
** An additional 100 measurements
were made on a volunteer basis.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
~r<:ea Sr^es - -
Environmental Protect.on arc; Sac =: cr
Agency Wasnmg;c^ DC 2C46C
v>EPA Radon Facts
MEASURING RADON
The only way to know if a home contains a high level of
radon is to test it. Since you cannot see, smell or taste
radon, special equipment is needed to detect it. Homeowners
can purchase radon detection equipment and do the tests
themselves or they can employ a private contractor.
Measurements must be made under specified conditions to ensure
their accuracy. These conditions have been outlined in EPA's
Radon Measurement Protocols.
Units of Measurements
o The concentration of radon in air is measured in
units of picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L). One
pCi/L represents the decay of two radon atoms per
minute in a liter of volume of air.
o The concentration of radon decay products in air are
measured in units of working levels (WL). One WL of
radon decay products roughly corresponds to the
amount of decay products released by 200 pCi/L of
radon in air.
Testing Devices
Testing devices are available to the homeowner by mail or
directly from private distributors. Proper placement of these
devices is critical for obtaining accurate test results.
Directions should describe the preferred locations and
conditions for detector placement. At the end of the testing
period, the devices must be sealed and returned to the
distributor for analysis. Homeowners should contact State or
local officials to obtain information on testing devices and
private testing companies operating in their area. The two
most widely used and least expensive detectors are:
o Charcoal Canister - Consists of a small container
filled with activated charcoal. Radon is adsorbed in
the charcoal. The radon decay products emit gamma
rays. The radon concentration is estimated by
counting the amount of gamma rays emitted.
o Alpha-track Detector - Consists of a small piece of
plastic. Alpha particles, resulting from the decay
of radon, strike the plastic and produce tracks.
These tracks can be related to the concentration of
radon.
8/87
-------
Other testing devices used mostly by private contractors
include:
o Continuous Radon Mohitors - Air passes through a
filter into a scintillation cell. Alpha particles
are emitted and detected by a special electronic
tube: This device can be programmed and measurements
can be made at regular intervals.
o Continous Working Level Monitors - Radon decay
products are measured by a solid-state alpha detector
which counts the emitted alpha particles. This
device can be programmed and measurements can be made
at regular intervals.
o Grab Radon Sampling - A small sample of air is drawn
into a flask. Emitted alpha particles produce light
pulses which are counted by a special electronic tube.
o Grab Working Level Sampling - Radon decay products
are collected in a known volume of air. Alpha
particles emitted are then counted by a phosphor and
photomultiplier tube assembly.
Testing devices are also available to measure radon in
household water supplies:
o Liquid Scintillation Spectrometers - These devices
utilize a liquid which emits light when struck by a
nuclear particle. The water sample containing the
radon is mixed with this liquid and the light flashes
are counted on a liquid scintillation counting system.
o Alpha-track Detector - See description above.
Measurement Procedures
Taking a radon measurement is the first step in
determining whether or not your house has a radon problem.
EPA recommends a quick and inexpensive initial screening,
if the results indicate the possibility of high radon levels,
then follow-up measurements should be taken to provide a more
precise picture of the average distribution and levels of radon
throughout your home. Some vendors may offer special prices
for multiple detectors and consumers may want to supplement the
initial screening test and determine levels throughout the
house.
o The EPA has developed testing protocols providing
detailed information on proper testing procedures.
These "Measurement Protocols" are available from EPA
or from State or local officials.
o Once test results are received, homeowners should
refer to the "Citizen's Guide to Radon" for
assistance in interpreting their results.
-------
L-Pirec 5'a:es
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ce D? A,r
ana Rao.at.on
Washington DC 2CM60
5
s>EPA
Radon Facts
RADON RISK ASSESSMENT
As with o-ther environmental pollutants, there is some
uncertainty about the risks associated with radon. To account
for this uncertainty, scientists generally express the risks
associated with a particular radon level as a range of
numbers. The risk estimates given in "A Citizen's Guide to
Radon" are based on the advice of EPA's Science Advisory Board,
an independent group of scientists established to advise the
Agency on various scientific matters.
o Radon risk estimates are based on scientific studies
of underground miners exposed to varying levels of
radon. Consequently, the amount of uncertainty
scientists feel about the risk estimates for radon is
considerably less than if they had to rely on animal
studies alone.
o An increased risk of lung cancer is the only known
health effect associated with exposure to elevated
radon levels. Not everyone exposed to elevated
levels of radon will develop lung cancer, and the
time between exposure and the onset of disease may be
many years. Lung cancer usually does not occur until
people are 45 or older.
o The short-lived radon decay products, and not radon
itself, are responsible for the cancer risk
associated with elevated radon levels. Radon decays
into four short-lived radioactive elements known as
decay products, which can be inhaled and trapped in a
person's lung. As these decay products break down
further, they release small bursts of energy which
can damage lung tissues and lead to lung cancer.
o Scientists estimate that about 5,000 to 20,000 lung
cancer deaths a year in the United States may be
attributed to radon. (The American Cancer Society
expects that about 136,000 people will die of lung
cancer in 1987. The Surgeon General attributes
roughly 85% of all lung cancer deaths to smoking.)
Risk of lung cancer from radon exposure depends on
both the concentration of radon and duration of
exposure.
o Various assumptions are made in applying
epidemiological data from underground miners to
residential situations. EPA's risk assessments
assume an individual is exposed to a given
concentration of radon over a lifetime of roughly 70
years, and spends 75% of his or her time in the
dwelling with elevated radon levels.
O /o -
-------
o Four epidemiological studies have been initiated or
planned in the U.S. "to further examine the link
between lung cancer and radon exposure in residential
structures. The National Cancer Institute is
conducting studies with both New Jersey and Missouri;
EPA is planning a study in Maine and the Argonne
National Laboratory has a study in Pennsylvania.
While data from epidemiological studies will take a long
time to both collect and interpret, the results should further
understanding of the risks associated with exposure to elevated
radon levels.
8/87
-------
ana Raa.ai.cn
Wasnington DC 20460
SEFA
Radon Facts
RADON MITIGATION IN
EXISTING STRUCTURES
A variety of techniques exist for reducing indoor radon
levels. The EPA's experience has shown that site and
structural conditions play an important role in determining the
success or failure of radon mitigation techniques. In general,
the following approaches can be used:
o Sealing Off Entry Routes - to reduce gas entry into a
house, barriers can be placed between the source
material and the living space. This can include
covering exposed earth with concrete or a gas-proof
liner, sealing cracks and holes in concrete walls and
floors, covering sumps and placing a removable plug
in untrapped floor drains.
o House Ventilation - this method involves increasing a
house's air exchange rate (the rate at which incoming
fresh air replaces existing indoor air) either
naturally by opening windows or vents, or
mechanically through use of fans or heat recovery
ventilators.
o Soil Ventilation - soil ventilation prevents radon
from entering the house by drawing the gas away from
the foundation before it can enter. Active
ventilation techniques include hollow block wall
ventilation, sub-slab ventilation using drain tile
suction, as well as wall and sub-slab ventilation
using selected suction points. Care must be taken
when installing these methods to seal major openings
that could reduce suction.
Mitigation techniques are also available for the less
frequently encountered problem of radon in water:
o Granular Activated Carbon - when a household water
supply is passed through a tank containing activated
carbon, up to 99% of the waterborne radon will be
captured, investigation is continuing into safe and
cost-effective disposal methods for the spent carbon.
o Aeration - Also known as air stripping, this method
removes radon before water enters the house, costs
range from 10 cents to $1.70 pec thousand gallons
treated, depending on system size.
8/87
-------
No one technique can be relied upon to consistently reduce
radon levels in every house. Each house must be evaluated to
determine the source and potential entry routes before an •
mitigation approach is adopted. EPA has successfully reduced
radon levels in a number of houses and is continuing to
research a variety of mitigation techniques. More information
on these techniques is provided iri EPA's Dooklet, "Radon
Reduction Techniques: A Homeowner's Guide."
8/87
-------
un-teci Siates 2" ;e -r - -
Environmental Protect.on ana rtaaa^cn
Agency Wasningon DC 20460
v>EPA Radon Facts
Radon Action Program
Program Goals and Structure
The goal of EPA's Radon Action Program is to significantly
reduce the health risks of radon through a partnership with
other Federal-Agencies and the States. To accomplish this
goal, EPA is developing and disseminating technical knowledge
to encourage, support and facilitate the development of State
programs and private sector capabilities in the areas of radon
assessment and mitigation. The program consists of four major
elements:
o Problem Assessment: To identify areas with high
levels of radon in homes and to determine the
national distribution of radon levels and associated
risks.
o Mitigation and Prevention: To identify
cost-effective methods to reduce radon levels in
existing structures and to prevent elevated radon
levels in new construction.
o Capability Development: To stimulate the development
of state and private sector capabilities to assess
radon problems in homes, and to help people mitigate
such problems.
o Public Information: To work with States to provide
information to homeowners on radon, its risks, and
what can be done to reduce those risks.
Activi ties
Problem Assessment:
o State Surveys: EPA will assist States in
designing and conducting their own surveys
to identify areas where indoor radon may be
a problem.
o National Survey: The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
requires a national assessment of radon in
homes, schools, and places of employment.
This effort is separate from the state
survey program and will characterize the
frequency distribution of indoor radon
levels across the U.S.
8/87
-------
o Land Evaluation Studies: The Agency is
beginning efforts to identify those
geological factors and characteristics which
are most useful as indicators of high radon
levels. EPA is also conducting preliminary
work on the use of soil gas measurements to
predict the radon potential for individual
parcels of land.
o Health Studies: EPA is planning an
epidemiological study in Maine. In
addition, EPA is monitoring epidemiological
and health studies being conducted by other
organizations including the National Cancer
Institute, universities, States and other
Federal agencies.
Mitigation and Prevention:
o Radon Mitigation Demonstration Program: EPA
is demonstrating selected mitigation
techniques in homes in the Reading Prong and
other areas.
o House Evaluation Program: This EPA program
assists the States in providing house
evaluations and mitigation recommendations
to homeowners, as well as providing
"hands-on" training to State personnel.
o New Construction Program: EPA is working
closely with the housing industry to develop
and demonstrate techniques to prevent radon
entry in new construction. The Agency is
also working to ensure that efforts in the
area of radon prevention are reflected in
local building codes.
Capability Development:
o Radon Mitigation Training: This technical
training course on radon diagnosis and
mitigation techniques was developed by EPA
for States and private contractors
designated by the States.
o Radon Measurement Proficiency Program: EPA
established a voluntary program which allows
private firms and other organizations to
demonstrate their proficiency in measuring
radon and its decay products.
8/87
-------
o Technical Guidance: EPA's Office of
Research and Development used the Agency's
experiences in radon mitigation to publish
"Radon Reduction Techniques for Detached
Houses: Technical Guidance". Technical
publications will be updated periodically as
new information becomes available.
Public Information:
o Brochures: EPA has prepared two
informational brochures: "A Citizen's Guide
to Radon: What It Is and What to Do About
It" and "Radon Reduction Methods: A
Homeowner's Guide". Both brochures are
available through State radiation control
programs. Three new brochures will be
released shortly: "Removal of Radon from
Household Water", "Radon Reduction in New
Construction: An Interim Guide" (produced in
conjunction with the National Association of
Home Builders), and a joint venture with the
American Medical Association to provide
information for doctors and other health
professionals. In addition, the Homeowner's
Guide will be updated.
o Public Inquiries: EPA staff answer general
questions about radon and refer callers to
state radiation control program staffs for
additional information.
o Other Activities: EPA staff participate in
many technical and general conferences and
workshops on indoor radon. They also
regularly provide information and give
interviews to the news media and frequently
brief members of Congress and their staffs.
While much of the Agency's recent activity has been
directed at assisting States in the Reading Prong area, the
Radon Action Program lays the groundwork for identifying and
dealing with similar problems elsewhere in the country.
8/87
-------
Unned Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Of'Ce Of A;f
and Radiation
Washington DC 20460
8
AEPA
Radon Facts
MAJOR RADON ACTION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The EPA's Radon Action Program is aimed at protecting
public health by reducing people's radon exposures in their
homes. During the past two years, the program has accomplished
a great deal. Below is list of some of these accomplishments:
Problem Assessment
o Issued standardized measurement protocols for seven
measurement methods. These protocols help ensure
that measurements are comparable and assure the
public that readings are made accurately.
o Developed a survey design to assist States with
statewide surveys of high-risk areas. Ten States
have now completed more than 12,000 measurements with
EPA assistance. Seven additional States will conduct
surveys in FY 1987-1988.
o Completed a preliminary design for a National Survey
which was reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board in
June 1987; detectors could be in place later this
year. Resource limitations may restrict the survey
to a sample size of between 2,000-5,000 residences
nationwide.
o An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
published in September 1986 concerning the
development of enforceable drinking water standards
for radon and other radionuclides. This document
contains much of the occurrence, exposure, risk,
detection, treatment and cost information that will
serve as the basis for proposed final standards.
o EPA established the House Evaluation Program to
assist States in evaluating causes of and mitigation
approaches for elevated indoor radon levels. 80
houses have been evaluated in Pennsylvania, with
additional projects set to begin in New York, New
Jersey and several other States.
o As of July 1987, mitigation demonstration projects in
existing and new homes have been completed or are
ongoing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and
Maryland. Additional demonstration projects are
being initiated and planned in other States.
Mitigation and Prevention
P./r,7
-------
Capability Development
o The Agency established the Radon Measurement
Proficiency Program (RMP) and completed four rounds
of evaluations. The program has grown from 35 firms
and 47 detection methods in the first round to 360
participants and 590 methods tested in the most
recent round.
o Conducted 27 three-day radon diagnostician and
mitigation training courses entitled "Reducing Radon
in Structures" for States and private contractors.
Over 1000 people from more than 40 States were
trained.
o EPA is working with the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) to provide technical guidance to
builders interested in using radon prevention
techniques in their new construction efforts.
Public Information
o Prepared and released two informational brochures:
"A Citizen's Guide to Radon: What it is and What to
Do About it," and "Radon Reduction Methods: A
Homeowner's Guide."
o Developed and distributed a technical manual, "Radon
Reduction Techniques for Detached Houses," for use by
contractors and interested homeowners.
o Two new brochures are being developed for release in
summer 1987: "Removal of Radon from Household
Water," and "Radon Reduction in New Construction: An
Interim Guide." In addition, a joint venture with the
American Medical Association will provide information
for use by doctors and other health professionals.
o Radon Action Program staff also participate in many
technical and general conferences and workshops on
indoor radon; provide information and interviews to
the news media and briefings to Congressional members
and their staffs; and respond to hundreds of public
inquiries regarding indoor radon.
8/87
-------
„r :ea a'.v.es o,f cs - r
Environr~er;ai D:oiec:. on 3r>d fiacci.on
Agency Washiraton DC 2CW60
svEPA Radon Facts
RADON MITIGATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
The objective of EPA**s Radon Mitigation Research Program is
to develop'and demonstrate cost-effective methods for reducing
radon concentrations inside houses of all substructure types.
The program addresses problems in both existing houses and new
construction, and is national in scope. To encourage the
development of information that will assist in the
identification, design and implementation of additional
demonstrations, EPA is working with public sector organizations
(e.g., the conference of State Radiation Control Program
Directors) and private sector organizations (e.g., the National
Association of Home Builders).
EPA has successfully demonstrated mitigation
techniques in approximately 40 houses in eastern
Pennsylvania. All houses had initial radon levels
ranging from 6 to 1200 pCi/L. Reductions of over 90%
were achieved in most homes.
In Clinton, New Jersey, ten houses with initial radon
levels ranging from 400 to over 2000 pCi/L were
selected for a demonstration project. Levels in all
ten houses were reduced by more than 98%. In
addition, 20 house-specific radon mitigation plans
were developed for 20 different house designs in the
Clinton area. Five town meetings were held with
homeowners to explain the demonstration and results to
them. Extensive assistance was also given to
individual homeowners in the community who were not
part of the demonstration.
EPA is co-funding, with the Department of Energy and
the State of New Jersy, a detailed diagnostic study of
14 piedmont homes to better understand the principles
affecting radon entry into residences and appropriate
mitigation techniques. Diagnostic protocols are being
developed for use by researchers ana ultimately, in
simplified form, by mitigation contractors.
Additional work is being carried out in the Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, and northern Alabama areas in cooperation
with the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Department
of Energy focusing on detailed diagnostics and
development of diagnostic protocols applicable to
crawlspace houses.
EPA and the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority are working together to examine
radon reduction methods in 16 New York houses in the
Orange/Putnam and Albany/Rensselaer areas. All houses
have radon levels in the 20-200 pCi/L range.
Diagnostic procedures similar to those used in Clinton
are also being used on this project.
8/87
-------
o Installations will be tested in up to 35 homes in
Maryland under a joint project with the State that is
currently underway. A project is being initiated in
Nashville, Tennessee, and others are being planned in
Florida, Ohio, Montana and Washington.
o Radon-resistent design features are being studied in
new home construction projects in New Jersey and New
York. Builders are being selected and plans drawn for
radon prevention measures in the construction of 25
houses throughout the State of New Jersey and 15
houses in the Syracuse area of New York State. A
cooperative project with a major builder has been
initiated for the mid-Atlantic States.
o EPA has prepared a detailed manual, "Radon Reduction
Techniques for Detached Houses" for contractors and
those homeowners who are confident they have the
tools, equipment and skills to do the job themselves.
A revised and updated version of this manual will be
published in late summer, as will a revised version of
the brochure "Radon Reduction Methods: A Homeowner's
Guide." A brochure on "Removal of Radon From
Household Water" will also be published in late summer.
o EPA has developed test matrices for the selection of
new and existing houses for study. Both matrices
consider such factors as radon reduction or preventive
techniques, house substructure, initial indoor radon
concentration, geology, and climate. The EPA's
Science Advisory Board has reviewed and endorsed these
matrices.
In future demonstrations, EPA will expand activities into
different States based upon the test matrix, and will consider
other factors such as the radon survey data for the State, the
project's cost-effectiveness, the possibility of cost-sharing by
the State, and the severity of the State's radon problem.
8/87
-------
United States
Environmental 3roteciior.
Agency
S-EPA
Radon Facts
Office Of A-r
and Fiadiafor
Washington DC 20460
10
RADON MEASUREMENT
PROFICIENCY PROGRAM
The EPA established the Radon Measurement Proficiency
Program (RMP) to test the capabilities of companies measuring
indoor radon. Most major measurement companies in the United
States now participate in the RMP, and all 50 States distribute
the RMP list to local governments and the public. Some
features of this highly successful program are:
o Semiannually, companies voluntarily submit
measurement devices to the EPA for testing. Testing
periods, referred to as test "rounds" consist of two
tests — a performance test and a follow-up test, a
company must take part in the follow-up test if it
fails any of the program requirements in the
performance test. Successful completion of either
the performance or follow-up test is considered as
successful completion of the test round.
o Successful companies are listed in the RMP report
which is issued to each State semiannually.
o To maintain a proficiency listing, companies must
participate in every test round. These listings can
be obtained from State Radiation Protection Offices,
EPA's regional offices, or by calling Research
Triangle Institute, EPA's contractor for the program,
at 1-919-541-7131.
o Since February 1986, four test rounds have been
conducted and participation in the program has grown
1000 percent. Approximately 360 companies using 590
detector methods were tested in Round 4. To
accommodate growth, EPA built a larger radon chamber
at its Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility in
Alabama.
The RMP is not meant to certify, recommend or endorse
participating companies. However, some States have passed or
are considering legislation for measurement company
certification programs. This year, both New Jersey and
Pennsylvania established certification programs which require,
among other things, successful participation in the RMP.
8/87
-------
United States
Environmental Protect or
Agency
0ff:ce Of A.;
and Radiation
Wasn:noton DC 20460
11
&EPA
Radon Facts
HOUSE EVALUATION PROGRAM
EPA initiated the House Evaluation Program (HEP) to
evaluate the cost and effectiveness of mitigation methods in
the private sector and to train State and private sector
personnel in diagnosing and mitigating radon in houses. State
personnel, in cooperation with EPA, diagnose a house with
elevated levels and offer the homeowner several alternative
mitigation schemes. The homeowner then chooses the mitigation
technique to be installed and selects the contractor. The
responsiblities of the State, homeowner and EPA are outlined
below:
o Participating States ace responsible for the HEP's
initial tasks which include contacting homeowners,
selecting houses and drafting a Homeowner's Agreement
to clarify State and homeowner responsibilities.
o Homeowners are responsible for providing access to
their houses which allows for evaluation of
mitigation activities in real-life situations, in
addition, homeowners select the mitigation techniques
to be installed, and hire and fund contractors.
Through the HEP, homeowners receive a detailed
evaluation of mitigation options and a final
evaluation of the effectiveness of the mitgation
methods employed.
o EPA is responsible for both the pre-mitigation
evaluation (house diagnosis) and the post-mitigation
evaluation. The house diagnosis determines radon
entry routes and sources, and provides a list of
mitigation techniques which may reduce the radon
problem. The final evaluation determines the cost
and effectiveness of the mitigation effort. EPA must
also review the Homeowner's Agreement drafted by the
States.
To date, over 100 houses have been evaluated in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, and mitigation work is
underway. EPA plans to expand its program into Tennessee,
Ohio, and Virginia, as well as other States. An additional
benefit of this program is that more than .40 State officials
have been given field training in radon diagnosis and
mi tigation.
8/87
-------
or- -ea iUies
Environmental 3roiecnon
Agency
jra flao^ai-cr
Wasn/ngton DC 20460
12
S-EPA
Radon Facts
STATE RADON ACTIVITIES
As awareness of the public health risks associated with
indoor rado'n increases, States are establishing programs
designed to address this problem. A number of States across
the country are currently assessing and mitigating radon
problems. Different approaches are used by States depending on
the availability of resources, technical expertise, public
concern and/or media attention and the estimated magnitude of
the problem. For example, several States distribute EPA radon
brochures and the Radon Measurement Proficiency Report to
homeowners upon request. On the other hand, a few States are
establishing comprehensive programs to distribute and develop
public education materials as well as other activities,
including: conducting surveys; providing training programs for
State and local officials and private contractors; sponsoring
mitigation demonstration and evaluation projects; and
conducting research.
Provided below are examples of some State radon activities:
o Almost all States are distributing EPA radon
brochures and technical information. To date, more
than 300,000 copies of "A Citizen's Guide to Radon":
What It Is And What To Do About It" and "Radon
Reduction Methods: A Homeowner's Guide" have been
distributed by EPA and the States.
o Ten States participated in the State/EPA Radon Survey
program:
o Seven new States as well as some Indian tribes have
been selected for participation in the 1987-1988
program:
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Arizona
Indiana
Indian Health Service
Missouri
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
(Tri-State survey)
Massachusetts
Minnesota
8/87
-------
Some States, including Indiana, Illinois,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, are taking radon
measurements in' schools.
More than 40 States have been represented at EPA's
radon training course on how to diagnose and mitigate
indoor radon problems. Pennsylvania, New York and
New Jersey are using EPA training materials,
including a video-tape produced by the Agency, to
conduct their own courses.
Toll-free hotlines have been established by several
States including Maryland, Minnesota, Wyoming,
Illinois, Virginia, New Jersey, New York and
Pennsylvania. Some States receive as many as 3,000
calls per month.
Five States, with approximately. 10 houses in each
State, are participating in the EPA House Evaluation
Program which provides free diagnosis and follow-up:
Pennsylvania, New York, Tennessee, Virginia, and Ohio.
Radon problems in approximately 50 houses in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey were successfully
mitigated through State participation in EPA's Radon
Mitigation Research Program. Additional activities
are underway or planned in Tennessee, Alabama, New
York, Maryland, Florida, Ohio, Montana, and
Washington.
Several States are conducting health risk studies
designed to correlate incidences of lung cancer with
exposure to indoor radon. Idaho, South Carolina,
Maine, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are
conducting various radon health risk studies.
EPA is providing a variety of technical assistance to
States as they begin to establish their radon programs. One of
the Agency's most important roles is to help States share
information with other States as they develop their radon
programs. Cooperative Agreements have been developed between
EPA and the State Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors, and the National conference of State Legislatures to
develop information materials and to conduct national workshops
for their members.
8/87
-------
,nited St3'-5S 04f rs -3
invironmental Protection 3ra Sad
Agency Washington DC 20460
Environmental Protection 3rd rWat.on 13
<>EPA Radon Facte
STATE SURVEYS
In response to requests for aid from many States, EPA's
Office of.Radiation Programs established a program to help
States conduct indoor radon surveys. This program will help
States conduct surveys to identify high radon risk areas within
States and to estimate State-wide frequency distributions of
screening levels. These surveys, along with EPA's national
survey, will help EPA assess the extent of the radon problem
nationwide.
o Surveys conducted under the program use
probability-based sample selection and geologic
characterizations to determine areas of the State
with high potential for elevated levels. States
participating in the program are responsible for
management of the survey and must commit sufficient
resources to the survey.
o EPA will provide and analyze charcoal canister radon
detectors and will assist the States with survey
design, canister mailing, questionnaire development,
training and data analysis.
o The ten States participating in the initial 1986-1987
program were:
Alabama Michigan
Colorado Rhode Island
Connecticut Tennessee
Kansas Wisconsin
Kentucky Wyoming
o Seven States will be taking part in the 1987-1988
survey:
Arizona Missouri
Indiana North Dakota
Massachusetts Pennsylvania
Minnesota
In addition, a survey of selected Indian tribes in
EPA's Region 5 will be conducted in conjunction with the Indian
Health Service.
Q /R7
-------
w'r'ted S.'stes C^ceor-
ara fleaiat
environmental -'0(eCi:on ara fleaiat cn "4 Jl
Agency Wasnmgton DC 20460 |
-------
tea starts ^ -
Envronrrertai =rctec;iQn 3nd Rac;a: on -f FT
Agency rt/asn.rgicn DC 20460 |
<&EPA Radon Facts SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
contains two provisions related to indoor radon:
o Section 118(k) deals specifically with radon
assessment and mitigation, and requires EPA to
conduct a national assessment of radon levels and a
radon mitigation demonstration program.
o Under Section 118(k)(l), EPA must submit a report in
October, 1987 which identifies and assesses locations
where radon is found in the United States. In
addition, EPA is to determine radon levels which pose
health threats and to assess the extent of these
threats. The report must also discuss methods to
reduce or eliminate radon problems, and include
guidance and public materials based on the results of
mitigation work.
o Annual status reports on mitigation efforts, are due
each February, required by Section 118(k)(2). The
first of these reports was submitted to Congress
earlier this year.
o Title IV addresses both radon gas and indoor air
pollution. Under Title IV, the EPA Administrator is
required to establish a program which assesses the
problem; coordinates Federal, State, local and
private sector efforts; and assesses appropriate
Federal actions to mitigate the risk of indoor air
pollution.
o Program requirements under Title IV include research
and development concerning identification,
characterization and monitoring of sources and levels
of indoor air pollution (including radon); research
relating to health effects; research, development and
demonstration of mitigation measures; research (in
conjunction with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development) to assess radon potential in new
construction; and dissemination of information to the
public.
o Part I of the required implementation plan for indoor
air and radon research programs within the EPA was
submitted to Congress in April 1987. Part II of this
plan was submitted on June 1987. A final report is
required in October 1988 detailing progress and
making appropriate recommendations.
8/87
-------
Oritea States
Environmental Protect.on
Agency
CS of i,r
Jod Radiation
Wasnington DC 20460
16
AEPA
Radon Facts
SUMMARY OF PENDING
RADON LEGISLATION
Several bills have been introduced in the Congress to
address various aspects of the radon problem. These fall into
three major categories: 1) EPA programs to provide grant
assistance to the States, and technical assistance to States
and the private sector to establish radon reduction programs,
and to conduct a study of radon contamination in the nation's
schools; 2) IRS/tax breaks for the costs of correcting radon
problems in residences; 3) an HUD program to assist States and
localities in modifying building codes to require testing for
radon. The following summarizes these bills and their current
status.
EPA Programs
o S. 744 The Radon Program Development Act of 1987: Approved
by the Senate on July 8, 1987, by voice vote. S. 744 was
introduced by Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) and includes
other proposed radon legislation introduced by Senators
John Chafee (R-RI) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), as well as an
amendment by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT).
o S. 744 authorizes:
-- $10 million annually for fiscal years 1988, 1989
and 1990 for grants to help States establish radon
reduction programs, conduct radon surveys, develop
information on radon, and conduct demonstrations and
mitigation projects.
-- $1 million for EPA to conduct a study of radon
contamination in the nation's schools, plus an
additional $500,000 for demonstrations of radon
reduction techniques in schools.
-- $1.5 million for EPA training seminars for EPA to
evaluate and report on the reliability (proficiency)
of private radon control firms. This EPA-
administered proficiency program would be funded
through a user fee provision.
The Baucus amendment authorizes a study of radon
contamination in buildings owned in high radon risk
areas by the Interior, Defense, and Agriculture
Departments, General Services and Veterans
Administration.
8/87
-------
o H.R. 2837, a House companion bill to S. 744, was
introduced March 18 by Thomas Luken (D-OH). This bill was
unanimously approved and reported out of the House Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and
Hazardous Materials (chaired by Representative Luken).
The bill is also referred to the Energy, Health and
Environment Subcommittee (chaired by Representative Henry
Waxman, D-CA). This Subcommittee has not yet taken any
action on the bill.
IRS/Tax Breaks
o H.R. 1108 was introduced by Representative Don Ritter
(R-PA) in February, 1987 and would amend the IRS code to
provide tax credits for radon corrective measures. This
provision would be limited to principal residences, cover
40% of costs up to a $2000 maximum, and only apply to
residences where radon levels exceed 2 working level
months per year. This bill has been referred to the House
Ways and Means Committee.
o S. 756 was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
in March, 1987 and would amend the IRS code to define
radon mitigation costs as eligible medical expenses. This
provision would be limited to "measured harmful levels"
and amounts paid for home improvements. This bill was
referred to the Committee on Finance.
o H.R. 1610 by Representative Yatron (D-PA) was introduced
in March, 1987 and would direct HUD to provide technical
assistance to States and localities to incorporate
requirements for testing homes and other buildings for
indoor radon. Testing would be performed by companies
EPA determines are proficient. Funds would be authorized
"as necessary" for FY 1988, 1989 and 1990, and activities
would be covered in HUD's annual report. This bill was
referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs.
8/87
-------
united Stares o<; :e of - ¦
Environmental Protection arCj Rao,at on ^ ¦¦
Agency Wasningion DC 2CM60 1 g
vvEPA Radon Facts
RADON IN SCHOOLS
As with residential structures, radon may become trapped
in buildings such as schools. Currently there are about
100,000 public and private elementary and secondary schools in
the United States. While EPA has not taken radon measurements
in school buildings, the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) calls for the Agency to assess radon
levels present in "structures where people normally live or
work, including educational institutions."
o Children's exposure to radon in schools is a concern
for 3 reasons. First, school buildings are often
sprawling structures without basements that may
capture significant amounts of radon gas. Second,
research from the atom bomb experience suggests that
children may be more susceptible to harm from certain
types of radiation. Finally, exposure to elevated
radon levels early in life could lengthen children's
overall exposures to high levels and increase their
risk of lung cancer.
o Preliminary information suggests that problems in
schools are likely to be geographically localized and
in specific building areas such as the ground floor
or basement classrooms. Available information also
suggests that radon in schools is probably not as
large a problem as in residential structures.
o Pennsylvania has tested 140 schools and found 47
buildings with levels greater than 4 pCi/L. While 12
rooms initially had levels greater than 20 pCi/L, a
three-month follow-up showed no rooms exceeding 20
pCi/L. New Jersey has found levels above 4 pCi/L in
41 schools with the majority having levels less than
10 pCi/L. An independent study of a New York school
found levels of 50-60 pCi/L in the crawl space and
equipment room, and 9 pCi/L in some classrooms.
o EPA feels that mitigation experience with residential
structures will transfer to schools, with most
difficulties arising from differences in scale. As
with houses, EPA recommends 4 pCi/L as the guidance
level for corrective action.
EPA has initiated a feasibility study to help design a
survey which will fulfill the assessment requirements under
SARA. Through a Federal-State partnership, EPA hopes to
identify high risk areas and undertake some mitigation efforts.
8/87
-------
United States Office of A.r
Environmental Protection and Radiation W| Q
Agency Wasnm.gton DC 20460 |
mPPA RaHnn Fart<; radon reduction in
Vtir\ nailUII rdvlo NEW construction
"Radon, Reduction in New Construction: An Interim Guide" is
a booklet {developed in cooperation with the National
Association of Home Builders Research Foundation) designed to
give home builders some guidelines for building new homes that
are radon-resistant. During the past few years, EPA has studied
radon reduction techniques in more than one hundred existing
homes. From this research, EPA has concluded that many
successful radon reduction techniques can also be effective in
minimizing radon entry into newly constructed houses.
Applying the techniques suggested in the "Interim Guide" to
homes before they are built could reduce the number of homes
that may need to be fixed in the future. These efforts can make
a significant contribution to the long-term resolution of the
indoor radon problem, without a major impact on construction cost.
o At least 80 new houses are being studied by the Office
of Radiation Programs and more than 90 houses are
under study by the Office of Research and
Development. In addition, EPA is monitoring private
industry new house projects in several States
including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, New
York, Florida, Washington and Virginia.
o Most of the radon-resistant construction techniques
outlined in the "Interim Guide" are common building
practices. The techniques are not intrusive in the
house and require little or no monitoring by the
homeowner.
o About 1,250,000 new houses are built each year in the
United States, many of them in areas where elevated
indoor radon levels have been found.
o In most cases, it is cheaper to install
radon-resistant features in a house during
construction than it is to fix a home after it is
built. EPA estimates that radon-resistant building
techniques may cost from $400 to $600 per new house.
The cost of installing the same features in an
existing house can be four to five times higher.
o Some builders are already installing radon-resistant
features into their new houses. For example, a
builder in Michigan is using new construction
techniques in 160 houses and will be working with EPA
to assess the results.
EPA will continue working with States and the private
sector to develop new approaches to radon reduction. Further
results from ongoing research will be incorporated into a
u ^ j -.jhirh should be available in 1988.
technical guidance document */mcn snuuxu ^
-------
and Raa'at or-
Wash.rgton DC 20460
19
\>EPA
Radon Facts
RADON IN WATER
In addition to radon in soil and rock, radon can also be
found in water. Public drinking water supplies drawing from
surface sources contain very little radon and are a neglible
source of indoor radon. Water supplies drawing from
groundwater can contain signficant concentrations of radon, but
are still often a small source of indoor radon. Radon enters
groundwater that is next to or near uranium and radium
deposits. When untreated water enters buildings, it can
release the radon it contains into air. Uses in which the
water is aerated or heated such as baths, showers, washing
clothes or dishes, flushing toilets, or cooking, can increase
release of radon in the home.
o EPA estimates that 10,000 pCi/L in water result in an
air concentration of about 1 pCi/L. Radon
concentrations in groundwater in the United States
average 200-600 pCi/L, although in some areas,
especially New England, high levels in well water
have been found. Levels in excess of 1,000,000 pCi/L
have been observed in some private wells.
o The primary health risk associated with radon in
water is from the inhalation of the gas as it is
released from the water. The health effects are the
same from radon originating in both water and soil —
an increased risk of lung cancer.
o Generally radon in drinking water contributes only 1%
to 7% of indoor air exposures, although it can be as
much as 90% of the health risk from elevated levels
of indoor radon. EPA estimates that between 100 and
1800 lung cancer deaths per year in the U.S. are
attributable to radon inhaled from drinking water.
o Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA must develop
enforceable drinking water standards for radon and
other radionuclides by June 1989. An Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking was published in September
1986 which contains much of the information that will
serve as a basis for proposed maximum contaminant
level goals (MCLGs) and maximum-contaminant levels
{MCLS).
o EPA is planning an extensive outreach program to
educate water suppliers and consumers about what they
can do to reduce the risks due to radon in water. In
addition, pilot studies are being developed in New
Hampshire which will determine the effectiveness and
costs of installation and maintenance for water
treatment methods to remove radon.
A brochure describing tec
techniques for removal of radon from
Un 1 ^ t -> U ^ v- -
-------
_>P!tea Z;-ce ;• - r
Environmental Protection aro Rac ar on I
Agency Washington DC 20460 £\J
v>EPA Radon Facts
INTERNATIONAL RADON ACTIVITIES
The United- States is not alone in its concern about indoor
radon. In' the past few years, a number of countries have begun
studying radon in homes and developing methods to reduce
elevated levels when they are foilnd.
o Most of the international activity involves national
surveys to determine the general distribution of
radon concentrations/ the magnitude of individual
exposures, and the number of dwellings which may
require remedial action. Among the countries
involved are Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the
Federal Republic of Germany, France, Luxembourg,
Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Austria, the Netherlands, Greece and Japan.
o As a result of these efforts, several countries are
developing objectives for action on indoor radon.
Sweden, for example, has established the goal of
reducing the average national radon level by one half
during the next century.
o The National Radiological Protection Board of the
U.K. issued a report providing recommended action
levels of 10 pCi/L in existing buildings and 2.5
pCi/L in new dwellings. The report also included
information from a national survey indicating that
more than 20,000 dwellings in the U.K. may exceed
their action level.
o Epidemiological studies of people exposed to radon in
homes are underway in Sweden and Canada.
EPA continues to cooperate with other countries by
attending scientific conferences and sharing information on
health effects and mitigation techniques.
8/87
-------
United States Office of A,r
Environmental Protection- and Radiation "4
Agency Washington DC 20460 |
»>EPA Radon Facts
STATE RADON SURVEY COORDINATORS
Alabama Technical Contact: Aubrey Godwin
(205) 261-5113
Public Affairs Contact: Jim McVay
(205) 261-5095
Radiological Health Branch
Alabama Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 36130
Colorado Technical Contact: Albert Hazle
(303) 320-8333
Public Affairs Contact: Ann Lockhart
(303) 331-4611
Radiation Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Connecticut Technical Contact: Brian Toal
(203) 566-8167
Public Affairs Contact: Wanda Rickerby
(203) 566-1060
Connecticut Department of Health Services
Toxic Hazards Section
150 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Kansas Technical Contact: David Romano
(913) 862-9360
Public Affairs Contact: Bob Moody
(913) 862-9360, ext. 263
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 321
Topeka, KS 66620-0110
Kentucky Technical Contact: Donald Hughes
(502) 564-3700
Public Affairs Contact: Brad Hughes
(502) 564-7130
Radiation Control Branch
Cabinet for Human Resources
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40621
Michigan Technical Contact: George Bruchmann
— (517) 373-1578
Public Affairs Contact: Ute Van Der Hayden
(517) 335-8002
Michigan Department of Public Health
Division of Radiological Health
3500 North Logan, P.O. Box 30035
Lansing, MI 48909
-------
Rhode Island Technical Contact: James Hickey
(401) 277-2438 '
Public Affairs Contact: John Faucett
(401) 277-6500
Division of Occupational Health and
Radiological Control
Department of Health
Cannon Bldg., Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
Tennessee Technical Contact: Harold Hodqes
(615) 741-3931
Public Affairs Contact: Linda Tidwell
(615) 741-3111
Division of Radiological Health
Customs House
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37219-5403
Wisconsin Technical Contact: Lawrence McDonnell
(608) 273-5181
Public Affairs Contact: Sherry Kasper
(608) 266-8475
State Division of Health
Department of Health and Social Services
1 w. Wilson Street
P.O. Box 309
Madison, WI 53701-0309
Wyoming
Technical Contact: Julius Haes
(307) 777-7956
Public Affairs Contact: Helen Levine
(307) 777-6918
Division of Health and Medical Services
Radiological Health Services
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne WY 82002-0710
-------
Ten Highest Radon Measurements
in Wyoming
Radon Level, pCi/L
81
55
39
34
34
30
30
27
27
26
County
Lincoln
Goshen
Weston
Lincoln
Lincoln
Washakie
Teton
Park
Goshen
Albany
These single measurements may not be
representative of all houses in these counties.
-------
Unaed States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off.ce of A,r
and Radiation
Washington DC 20460
22
Radon Facts
STATE RADON CONTACTS
Alabama James McNees
Radiological Health Branch
Alabama Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Montgomery/ AL 36130
(205) 261-5313
Alaska Sidney Heidersdorf
Alaska Department of Health
and Social Services
P.O. Box H-06F
Juneau, AK 99811-0613
(907) 465-3019
Arizona Paul Weeden
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
4814 South 40th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85040
(602) 255-4845
Arkansas Greta Dicus/Bernard Bevill
Division of Radiation Control
and Emergency Management
Arkansas Department of Health
4815 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72205-3867
(501) 661-2301
California Steve Hayward
California State Division
of Laboratories
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
(415) 540-2134
California John Hickman
Department of Health Services
Environmental Radiation Surveillance
714/744 P Street
P.O. Box 942732
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 445-0498
California A. Ferguson
Radiation Management
County of Los Angeles
Department of Health Services
2615 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90007
(213) 744-3244
8/87
-------
Colorado Richard Gamewel'l
Radiation Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 331-4812
Colorado Lew Ladwig
Colorado Geological Survey
1313 Sherman Street
Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
C303) 866-2611
Connecticut Laurie Grokey
Connecticut Department of
Health Services
Toxic Hazards Section
150 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-8167
Delaware John Hedden
Division of Public Health
Delaware Bureau of Environmental Health
P.O. Box 637
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736-4731
District of Veronica Singh
Columbia DC Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
614 H Street, NW, Room 1014
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 727-7728
Florida Harlan Keaton
Florida Office of Radiation Control
Building 18, Sunland Center
P.O. Box 15490
Orlando, FL 32858
(305) 297-2095
Georgia James Hardeman
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
205 Butler Street, SE
Floyd Towers East, Suite 1166
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-6905
8/87
-------
Hawaii Environmental Protection and Health
Services Division
Hawaii Department of Health
591 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 548-4383
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Larry Boschult
Radiation Control Section
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5879
Greg Crouch
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety
Office of Environmental Safety
1035. Outer Park Drive
Springfield, IL 62704
(217) 546-8100 or
(800) 225-1245 (in State)
David Nauth
Division of Industrial Hygiene and
Radiological Health
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street, P.O. Box 1964
Indianapolis, IN 46206-1964
(317) 633-0153
Richard Welke
Bureau of Environmental Health Section
Iowa Department of Public Health
Lucas State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319-0075
(515) 281-7781
Kansas
Craig Schwartz
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 321
Topeka, KS 66620-0110
(913) 862-9360 Ext. 288
Kentucky Donald R. Hughes
Radiation Control Branch
Cabinet for Human Resources
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, K¥ 40621
(502) 564-3700
8/87
-------
Louisiana Jay Mason
Louisiana Nuclear Energy Division
P.O. BOX 14690
Baton Rouge, LA 70898-4690
(504) 925-4518
Maine Gene Moreau
Division of Health Engineering
Maine Department of Human Services
State House Station 10
Augusta, ME 04333
(207} 289-3826
Maryland Richard Brisson
Division of Radiation Control
Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 333-3130
(800) 872-3666
Massachusetts Bill Bell
Radiation Control Program
Massachusetts Department
of Public Health
23 Service Center
North Hampton, Mfc 01060
(413) 586-7525 or
(617) 727-6214 (Boston)
Michigan Robert DeHaan
Michigan Department of Public Health
Division of Radiological Health
3500 North Logan, P.O. Box 30035
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-8190
Minnesota Bruce Denney
Section of Radiation Control
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 9441
717 SE Delaware Street
Minneapolis, MN 55440
(612) 623-5350
(800) 652-9747
Mississippi Gregg Dempsey
Division of Radiological Health
Mississippi Department of Health
P.O. Box 1700
Jackson, MS 392215-1700
(601) 354-6657
8/87
-------
Kenneth V. Miller
Bureau of Radiological Health
Missouri Department of Health
1730 E. Elm
P.O. Box 570
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-6083
Larry L. Lloyd
Occupational Health Bureau
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building A113
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-3671
Division of Radiological Health
Neoraska Department of Health
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 95007
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-2168
Stan Marshall
Radiological Health Section
Health Division
Nevada Department of Human Resources
505 East King Street, Room 202
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-5394
New Hampshire Belva Mohle
New Hampshire Radiological
Health Program
Health and Welfare Building
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6527
(603) 271-4674
New Jersey New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
380 Scotch Road, CN-411
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 530-4000/4001 or,
(800) 648-0394 (in State) or,
(201) 879-2062 (N. NJ Radon
Field Office)
New Mexico J. Margo Keele
Surveillance Monitoring Section
New Mexico Radiation Protection Bureau
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968
(505) 827-2957
8/87
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
-------
New York Bureau of Environmental
Radiation Protection
New York State Health Department
Empire State Plaza, Corning Tower
Albany, NY 12237
(518) 473-3613
(800) 458-1158 (in State) or
(800) 342-3722 (NY Energy Research &
Development Authority)
N. Carolina Radiation Protection Section
North Carolina Department
of Human Resources
701 Barbour Drive
Raleigh, NC 27603-2008
(919) 733-4283
N. Dakota Dale Patrick/Jeff Burgess
North Dakota Dept. of Health
Missouri Office Building
1200 Missouri Avenue
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502
(701) 224-2348
Ohio Debby steva
Radiological Health Program
Ohio Department of Health
1224 Kinnear Road
Columbus, OH 43212-0118
(614) 481-5800
(800) 523-4439 (in Ohio oily)
Oklahoma Radiation and special Hazards Service
Oklahoma State Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-5221
Oreqon Ray Paris
Oregon State Health Department
1400 S. W. 5th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5797
Pennsylvania Tim Hartman
Radon Monitoring Program Office
PA-DER, Bureau of Radiation Protection
1100 Grosser Road
Gilbertsville, PA 19525
(215) 369-3590 or
800-23-RADON (in State)
8/87
-------
Puerto Rico David Saldana
Puerto Rico Radiological Health Div.
G.P.O. Call Box 70184
Rio Piedras, PR 00936
(809) 767-3563
Rhode Island James Hickey/Roger Marinelli
Division of Occupational Health
and Radiological Control
Rhode island Department of Health
206 Cannon Bldg., 75 Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-2438
S. Carolina Nolan Bivens
Bureau of Radiological Health
South Carolina Dept. of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-4700/4631
S. Dakota Tammy LeBeau
Office of Air Quality and Solid Waste
South Dakota Dept. of Water & Natural Resources
Joe Foss Building, Room 217
523 E. Capital
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3153
Tennessee Jackie Waynick
Division of Air Pollution Control
Custom House
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37219-5403
(615) 741-4634
Texas Gary Smith
Bureau of Radiation Control
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX 78756-3189
(512) 835-7000
Utah Bureau of Radiation Control ,
Utah State Department of Health
State Health Department Building
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
(801) 538-6734
8/87
-------
Radioactivity - Spontaneous release of energy by the nucleus of
an atom which results in a chahge in mass.
Radon - A colorless, naturally occurring, radioactive, inert
gaseous element "formed fay radioactive decay of radium atoms.
Chemical symbol is RN, atomic weight 222, half-life 3.82 days.
Radon Decay Products - A term used to refer collectively to the
immediate products in the radon decay chain. These include
Po-218, Pb-214, Bi-214 and Po-214. They have an average
combined half-life of about 30 minutes.
Soil Gas - Those gaseous elements and compounds that occur in
the small spaces between particles of the earth and soil. Such
gases can move through or leave the soil or rock depending on
changes in pressure.
Uranium - Refers normally to U-238 which is the most abundant
uranium isotope, although about 0.7 percent of
naturally-occurring uranium is U-235.
Ventilation / Suction - Ventilation is the act of admitting
fresh air into a space in order to replace stale or
contaminated air, achieved by blowing air into the space.
Similarly, suction represents the admission of fresh air into
an interior space; however, the process is accomplished by
lowering the pressure outside of the space thereby drawing the
contaminated air outward.
Working Level (WL) - A unit of measure for documenting exposure
to radon decay products. One working level is equal to
approximately 200 pCi/L.
Working Level Month (WLM) - A unit of measure used for
measuring cummulative exposure to radon. One WLM equals
exposure to one WL for 173 hours.
8/87
-------
Vermont Division of Occupational and
Radiological Health
Vermont Department of Health
Administration Building
10 Baldwin Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-2886
Virginia Bureau of Radiological Health
Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-5932 or,
800-468-0138 (in State)
Washington Bruce Pickett/Robert Mooney
Environmental Protection Section
Washington Office of Radiation Protection
Thurston AirDustrial Center
Building 5, LE-13
Olympia, f®. 98504
(206) 753-5962
W. Virginia Bill Aaroe
Industrial Hygiene Division
West Virginia Department of Health
151 11th Avenue
South Charleston, WV 25303
(304) 348-3526/3427
Wisconsin Division of Health
Section of Radiation Protection
Wisconsin Dept. of Health
and Social Services
5708 Odana Road
Madison, WI 53719
(608) 273-5180
Wyoming Radiological Health Services
Wyoming Department of Health
and Social Services
Hathway Building, 4th Floor
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0710
(307) 777-7956
-------
Unaed States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of A,r
and Radiation
Washington DC 20460
23
oEPA
Radon Facts
RADON GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Air Changes Per .Hour(ach) •- The movement of a volume of air in
a given period of time; if a house has one air change per hour,
it means that all of the air in the house will be replaced in a
one-hour period.
Alpha Particle - A positively charged particle composed of 2
neutrons and 2 protons released by some atoms undergoing
radioactive decay. The particle is identical to the nucleus of
a helium atom.
Cumulative Working Level Months (CWLM) - The sum of lifetime
exposure to radon working levels expressed in total working
level months.
Curie (Ci) - A quantitative measure of radioactivity. One
curie equals 3.7 x 10 10 disintegrations per second.
•Decay Series - The consecutive members of radioactive family of
elements. A complete series commences with a long-lived parent
such as U-238 and ends with a stable element such as Pb-206.
Depressurization - A condition that occurs when the air
pressure inside a house is lower than the air pressure
outside. Radon may be drawn more rapidly into a house under
depressurization.
Equilibrium - The state at which the radioactivity of
consecutive elements within a radioactive series is neither
increasing nor decreasing.
Exposure - The amount of radiation present in an environment,
not necessarily indicative of absorbed energy, but
representative of potential health damage to the individual
present.
Gamma Radiation - A true ray of energy in contrast to beta and
alpha radiation. The properties are similar to x-rays and
other electromagnetic waves.
Half-life - The time required for half of the atoms of a
radioactive element to undergo decay.
Indoor Air - The part of the atmosphere or air that occupies
the space within the interior of a house or other building.
Picocuries Per Liter (pCi/L) - A unit of measure used for
expressing levels ot radon gas- A picocurie is one-trillionth
of a curie.
8/87
-------
Qs/As
Table of Contents
Topic Page
State Surveys 2
EPA's Radon Action Program 4
State Programs 8
Homeowner Issues 9
Radon In Drinking Water 11
-------
STATE SURVEYS
QUESTION: What is the "worst" State?
There is no "worst" State. The surveys indicate that
there are significant radon problems, of varying degrees,
in each of these States. In some States, over 25% of the
measurements taken were above 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
However, in other States where less than 10% of the measure-*
ments taken were above the action level, we found some of the
highest single measurements. Both situations indicate signifi-
cant public health risks. We believe that all of these States
have reasons to be concerned. We also believe that all of
these States can develop programs to effectively deal with
their indoor radon problems.
QUESTION: Do you expect the results to change much in
States where surveying ceased due to weather
conditions?
In the few States where surveying stopped, we have enough
measurements to provide a good estimate of indoor radon levels.
We believe we can make good, sound conclusions based on this
data. As these States finish their surveys, we may see slight
changes; however, we expect final results to be fairly close to
those which have been presented.
QUESTION: How are State surveys different from the National
Survey?
The State surveys and the National Survey have different
objectives. The purposes of the State surveys are to generally
characterize indoor radon levels throughout the States surveyed,
and to identify high risk areas within these States. The
purpose of the National Survey is to generally determine the
distribution of indoor radon throughout the United States.
The State survey program will benefit the National Survey
because State survey data can complement National Survey data
to allow us to better understand the variation of radon levels
from region to region.
-------
QUESTION: Why were different numbers of measurements taken
in each State?..
The surveys were designed to meet the specific needs of
each individual State. The number of measurements taken by
each State varied with the size of the State, the survey
design, and available resources. As we have indicated, a few
States intended to take more measurements, but due to weather
conditions these measurements will be taken next year.
QUESTION: Do these survey results change your estimate of
the number of houses in the nation above 4 pCi/L?
It is important to remember that it was not the purpose of
the State surveys to characterize the National distribution of
indoor radon. The National Survey is designed to address this
issue. However, the State survey results do generally support
our original estimate that 8-12% of houses across the Nation
will have radon levels above 4 pCi/L. If anything, the State
survey results show that our original estimate may have been
slightly conservative.
QUESTION: Do the the survey results obtained for each State
reflect the actual distribution of radon levels
which can be expected for all houses in that
State?
Yes, for those six States which have completed
statistically valid surveys, the levels of indoor radon in
surveyed houses will reflect, with 95% confidence, the levels
of radon which we expect for all houses in each State. When
the few remaining States complete their surveys, we expect the
survey percentages and corresponding levels in each State will
also reflect the distribution of indoor radon which can be
expected for all houses across each individual State.
QUESTION Should everyone in these 10 States test for
radon? Everyone in the Nation?
We recommend that people test who live in areas of these
States that have been identified as potentially high risk;
i.e., those areas that have a cluster of high measurements or
an overall high distribution of radon levels. Further, we
recommend that anyone who is at all concerned about radon
should test. The test is relatively quick and inexpensive and
testing is the only way for individual homeowners to be sure
whether they have an indoor radon problem.
2
-------
QUESTION: What is EPA going to do to further help these ten
States?
EPA will continue to work with these ten States and others
as they identify specific areas where they need assistance. in
addition to survey assistance to the seven new States and the
Indian Health Service, we will continue to work with Colorado,
Kansas, Michigan and Rhode Island as they complete their
surveys.
Beyond survey assistance, the Agency has already developed
training videotapes, brochures and other materials which
provide State officials with information on how to reduce
elevated levels of radon in homes. EPA also has in place a
number of programs to demonstrate mitigation techniques and to
assist State officials in performing more extensive evaluations
of houses with elevated levels of radon.
QUESTION: How much was spent on the State survey?
Approximately 1.3 million dollars have been spent in FY
1987 in support of the State survey program.
QUESTION: Can an average citizen generally predict radon
risk using the geologic map?
The geologic map can be used to identify large areas with
potentially high levels. The scale of the geologic map,
however, does not allow for predicting high-risk areas at the
county or city level. Further, we have found that the map does
not permit us to predict low risk in non-shaded areas. In both
shaded and non-shaded areas, factors such as local geology,
soil permeability and climate also impact radon levels.
QUESTION: Based on these results, what other areas would
you predict will have higher levels?
Areas with geology similar to States which had high indoor
radon levels may have comparable problems. This is especially
true for those States contiguous to States found to have
generally high levels.
3
-------
EPA's RADON ACTION PROGRAM
QUESTION: What is the difference between a screening
measurement and an annual average measurement?
Screening measurements and annual average measurements
have two different purposes. Screening measurements are
designed to provide a quick and inexpensive evaluation of the
potential for radon problems. These measurements are taken in
the lowest livable area of a closed house over a period of two
to seven days. Annual average measurements are designed to
reflect the average radon concentrations to which occupants are
exposed over the course of a year. These measurements are
taken over a period of twelve months in the area of the house
where occupants spend the greatest amount of their time. If a
house has a lowest livable area screening measurement less than
4 pci/L, it probably will not have an annual average
measurement exceeding the EPA action level.
QUESTION: How did EPA arrive at the 4 pCi/L per liter level
for its guideline for action by homeowners?
The 4 pCi/L that we have for the EPA guidance level was
chosen after we evaluated the risks various radon levels pose
and the amount of reduction that we thought most homeowners
could achieve through today's radon control technologies. We
did not consider 4 pCi/L as a safe level, but the safest level
we could get most houses to achieve. We believe that any
homeowners who see they can do better than that should consider
doing so.
QUESTION: How does the risk from indoor radon compare to
other risks that EPA regulates?
The risks from indoor radon may be higher in many
homes—and often much higher—than the risks that EPA allows
from the various activities regulated under the Agency's
legislative mandates. However, these situations cannot be
directly compared. Many of the risks that EPA is called upon
to regulate arise from pollutants or waste materials that
people may be involuntarily exposed to. On the other hand,
the risks from indoor radon will be determined by the inherent
characteristics of the house and land where an individual
chooses to live. We believe that our most appropriate role
with regard to the risks from indoor radon is to help the
States provide citizens with information about how to determine,
evaluate, and—if appropriate—reduce the risks they may face.
4
-------
QUESTION: Is EPA planning to devote more resources to radon
in light of its comparative risk report? If not,
why not?
In the very near-term, EPA's resource allocations will not
significantly change. Congress established FY 1987 priorities
in the appropriations process last year. However, we see the
comparative risk report as one useful piece of information that
Congress can use in the future when it establishes our resource
allocations. As we move to prepare recommendations for
Congress in the President's FY 89 budget, we are internally
using the report as a guide to where the bulk of our unfinished
business to reduce risk remains. We are also using other
important information on the public's environmental concerns.
A complete answer to your question really needs to await the
results of the upcoming budgetry process.
QUESTION: How much is EPA spending on radon in FY 1987 and
FY 1988?
The total resources for programs specifically included in
the Agency's Radon Action Program are as follows for FY 1987:
Office Total Resources
FTE's $000*
Office of Radiation
Programs 31 $4,400
Regional Offices 11 585
Office of Research
and Development 19 2,510
Totals 61 $7,495
~Includes both extramural and personnel costs.
There are other parts of the Agency which address radon as
one of a number of radionuclides of concern, such as the Office
of Drinking Water (ODW). However, the level of investment
solely in radon remediation cannot be determined. These
programs generally provide technical assistance to States as
part of the Drinking Water program and its state program
grants. The grant amount allocated to radon is an individual
State decision.
5
-------
The FY 1988 budget request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)/ and the resultant level-' in the Administration's
request to the Congress are as follows:
Budget Area
OMB Request
FTE's $000*
PTE'
Cong. Request
FTE's $000*
$000*
Radiation Environmental
Impact Assessment (ORP) 31 $4,350
31 $4,350**
Radiation Program
Implementation (Regions) 24 1,190
14
560
Radiation Research and
Development (ORD)
9 1,983
64 $7,523
__8 1,214
53 $6,124
Totals
* Includes both extramural and personnel costs.
** To accommodate this level of radon funding in
Headquarters (HQ), other ORP programs lose 14 PTE's.
** Although the FY 1988 Budget request had 31 PTE's
for ORP the actual request put forth is 28 FTE's. There is
currently confusion between the Program Office and the
Comptrollers Office regarding the appropriate allocation of
3 PTE's.
QUESTION: What is the status of the National Survey?
The National Survey of residences has recently been
reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). Their report
is expected shortly. After receiving their comments, the
Agency will make appropriate changes in its design and then
begin implementation of the survey as resources will permit.
In FY 1988, we hope to begin placement of radon detectors
in houses for a one-year period to obtain the annual average
radon concentration in each structure. The survey and the
associated data analyses will take approximately two to three
years to complete.
6
-------
QUESTION: How is the real estate industry responding to
radon problems in houses?
In areas where elevated indoor radon levels have been
discovered, Realtors have responded with a variety of steps
to protect themselves from potential damages from selling a
house that might turn out to have elevated radon levels.
In Pennsylvania, the State Association of Realtors has
developed a recommended set of forms for Realtors to use. The
Association is not certain how widely these are being used, but
reports that they .are often added to agreements in the
Harrisburg and Allentown areas.
The.primary purpose of the Pennsylvania provisions is
(1) to promote full disclosure of elevated raddn
concentrations, or (2) to allow the buyer to release the
various parties from any liabilities concerning possible
elevated levels, or (3) to allow the buyer to back out of a
sale if post-purchase testing (within five days of purchase)
reveals levels in excess of 4 pCi/L.
Almost all real estate contracts executed in areas of New
Jersey with the potential for elevated radon levels now have
some type of radon-related clause included in the contract.
The New Jersey State Association of Realtors has developed a
suggested radon disclosure form, but a wide variety of
different provisions are being used in agreements by individual
Realtors in areas where elevated indoor radon levels have been
discovered. For example, some provisions call for radon
testing before completing a sales agreement, while others have
the seller set up an escrow account to cover potential
mitigation expenses that may be indicated after a buyer obtains
radon measurements.
Although sales prices sometimes are depressed when radon
levels are discovered, the effect seems temporary—with prices
rebounding to previous levels once the issue is better
understood in the area.
QUESTION: Has EPA updated the National radon risk map that
it issued last August?
Yes, we have updated the map. During the last year we
have gathered geologic information as well as thousands of
public and private indoor radon measurements which have enabled
Qg to identify more areas with potentially high radon levels.
The new map includes more shaded areas, especially in the
Midwest and East.
7
-------
STATE PROGRAMS
QUESTION: Are other States surveying for radon?
Yes, in addition to the EPA-assisted State Survey Program,
several States have conducted surveys of widely varying designs
and purposes. Nine States have initiated their own Statewide
surveys: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Virginia. Survey
sites range from 500 houses in North Carolina to at least 7,500
houses in Florida.
QUESTION: How many States have developed comprehensive
radon programs?
Five States—Florida, New Jersey, New York, Maine and
Pennsylvania—have developed comprehensive radon programs.
Several more are conducting radon surveys and considering
expanding their programs beyond the provision of information
to the public to include program assessment, training and
mitigation demonstrations. Most States, however, are only
responding to citizen requests for information by using EPA
publications.
8
-------
HOMEOWNER ISSUES
QUESTION: Ate people mitigating their houses?
In addition to EPA and State mitigation and prevention
programs, we have also observed mitigation work being performed
by private citizens and contractors. We cannot provide a
national estimate of the amount of ongoing activity.
QUESTION: How much does it cost to fix radon problems?
The installation costs of actions have ranged between $50
and $500 when homeowners performed the work themselves. The
installation costs have been between $1,000 and $3,000 when
homeowners contracted it out. However, it should be noted that
these were typically higher level houses, we expect the cost
to be lower for the majority of the houses that will require
mitigation.
We will have additional details on the cost and
effectiveness of mitigation techniques as we conduct more
field research and collect more information from private
contractors. Also, as more private firms get involved in this
emerging field, we expect they will develop better techniques
and price them competitively.
QUESTION: Are certain types of houses at greater risk?
Predicting the relationship of house structure to indoor
radon levels is an important issue which EPA and the States are
analyzing. We expect results from the State and National
surveys as well as other studies will provide data so we can
test these correlations.
QUESTION: Have homeowners participating in the surveys been
notified of their results?
All homeowners will be notified of the results by the
States. A few States are still in the process of notifying
individual homeowners of their survey results.
QUESTION: How were private citizens selected to participate
in the surveys, and what types of houses were
included in the surveys?
States selected survey participants according to the
specific needs of their survey designs. In general, potential
Participants were identified using randomized lists of
residential telephone numbers. These potential participants
were then screened to determine whether they were willing to
Participate in the survey, and to confirm that their house met
the requirements of the survey. Single-family, owner-occupied
houses were included in the survey.
9
-------
QUESTION: What should these or other homeowners do once
they find levels above 4 pCi/L in their home?
After the initial screening measurement is completed,
homeowners should notify their State Radiation Office. We
strongly recommend that follow-up measurements be made on the
house. Further details on follow-up measurements are outlined
in EPA's "Citizen's Guide To Radon." Before homeowners decide
whether to undertake mitigation efforts, they should consult
with their State Radiation Office. The State Radiation Office
can provide specific advice and assistance.
There is increasing urgency for action at higher
concentrations of radon. The higher the radon level in the
house, the faster the homeowner should take action to reduce
their exposure.
QUESTION: What is EPA doing to protect the homeowner?
Although States are primarily responsible for working
directly with homeowners, EPA is helping States provide
homeowner assistance. EPA has published two radon brochures
which States are reproducing and distributing to citizens.
"Citizen's Guide" summarizes what radon is, how it is detected,
and associated radon health risks. "Radon Reduction Methods"
describes low cost mitigation techniques which are available to
reduce radon levels in houses. The Agency's voluntary Radon
Measurement Proficiency Program assures that qualifed measure-
ment companies are available to homeowners. EPA is also
providing State officials and contractors with Radon and
Mitigation training so that they can better serve homeowners.
Legislation under consideration in the Congress would provide
EPA and the States with greater ability to ensure that testing
and mitigation companies provide responsible services.
QUESTION* How many houses across the Nation have been
tested for indoor radon?
Including public and private tests, we estimate that over
150,000 houses have been tested.
10
-------
7/29/87
RADON IN DRINKING WATER
Question: Has EPA checked for radon in drinking water?
Answer: Yes. In 1981/ we began the National Inorganic and
Radionuclides Survey. We sampled 990 sites from
across the country. The water systems chosen were
representative of the nation as a whole based on the
size of populations served.
Question: What were the results?
Answer: Radon is present in 72% of the sites at concentrations
greater than 100 pCi/L. The inaxinium concentration
found is 25,700 pCi/L (100 pCi/L is the minimum
reporting limit).
For supplies serving more than 1,000 people, the
overall population weighted average concentration is
approximately 200 pCi/L. For supplies serving less
than 1,000 people, the overall population weighted
average is approximately 700 pCi/L. The overall
population weighted average radon concentration is
approximately 250 pCi/L.
Table 1 on the next page summarizes the results from
the NIRs survey for the ten States tested in the
radon in air survey.
11
-------
Table 1: Results of Testing for Radon in Drinking Water
from the National Inorganic and Radionuclides Survey-
State
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Ten State total
U.S. as a whole
Nuntoer of Water
Supplies Tested
Population
Weighted Average
Concentration pCi/L
9
420
11
330
24
1209
10
369
9
206
26
185
1
1170
11
114
26
367
3
558
130
not available
990
250
Highest levels found in New England and Mid Atlantic/Appalachian (PA, MD,
regions
Question: What do these concentrations mean in terms of
of risk to humans?
Concentration Individual Number of Systems
of Radon Lifetime Exceeding This
(pCi/L in water) Risk Level
10,000 10~3 500-4000
1,000 10~4 1000-10,000
100 10-5 5000-30,000
12
-------
Question: What are the next steps?
Answer: EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
on September 30, 1986. This notice summarized our
information on radon, radium, and uranium. It
provides much of the basis for a forthcoming MCL
goal and MCL. These will be proposed in early 1988
and become effective by the statutory deadline
June 1989.
Question: What are the regulatory limits for radon in drinking
water likely to be?
Answer: Although we have not yet proposed a standard for
radon, we expect that the non-enforceable, health-
based goal will be zero. This level is consistent
with the way we treat all known human carcinogens.
We have not yet determined what the MCL is likely
to be. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act it will be
set as close to the MCLG as is feasible. Generally,
MCLs for carcinogens are set so that the individual
lifetime risk falls within the rang,e of 10"4 to
10~6.
13
-------
EP& ofHo 4$o-£-8o-/zt
V.
%T% % r«r
.n 'H
iU? 141 i&S.
Pr0^^o°iect-on Mlfi™
,,s £!W>f°nrne^3 Region *
u= i\W8'V
US """tSST Ma°" *
IllH W91
Summaries arid Proposed Recommendations
Concerning Air Quality Models l2oo s'1*^ ^*%\oy
Sea«>e.
Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency
October 1980
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
U.S. EPA UBRAKY REGION 10 MATERIALS
RX
305
-------
Table of Contents Page
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Federal Register Notice 3
2.0 Models Proposed for General Use 5
2.1 BLP 6
2.2 CALINE3 12
2.3 MESOPUFF 16
2.4 MESOGRID 21
2.5 SHORTZ 25
2.6 LONGZ 31
3.0 Models Requiring a Demonstration of Equivalence 35
3.1 MESOPLUME 36
3.2 MULTIMAX 42
3.3 MPSDM 46
3.4 SCSTER 51
3.5 TCM 55
3.6 TEM 60
4.0 Models Requiring a Case-by-Case Demonstration 65
4.1 ERTAQ 66
4.2 RTDM.WC 73
5.0 Models With No Recommendation 79
5.1 ELSTAR 79
5.2 GM Line Source 79
5.3 VISIBILITY 79
6.0 Addendum to Appendix A of Guideline on Air Quality Models 81
t
-------
7.0 Introduction
1.1 Overview
In March 1980 EPA published a Federal Register notice entitled
"Guidelines on Air Quality Models" (see Section 1.2). In that notice
air quality models that can be considered refined analytical techniques
and that have applicability to a general air quality problem were solicited.
As a result of that solicitation, 17 models were submitted prior to
September 7, 1980. Each of the models met six requirements listed in
the Federal Register notice.
This document discusses 14 of the models. It briefly summarizes
each model, proposes an action concerning the model, and indicates
availability of the model for purposes of public comment. It is not
appropriate to discuss, for the present, three of the models that were
submitted.
The Federal Register notice Indicates that one of three actions can
be taken with regard to the models submitted. The first possible action
is to recommend the model for routine use in specific applications.
Such recommendations, with specific limits, are proposed for six of the
models.
The second possible action 1s to recognize the model, but to require
a case-by-case determination as to acceptability of the model. Such a
position 1s proposed for eight of the models. These eight models fall
into two subcategories. Six models are allowable with a simple demonstration
that options in the models can be employed so that concentrations equivalent
to those estimated by the recommended model can be obtained. The model
can then be applied for a specific case as long as those same options
1
-------
are used. The second subcategory includes these same six models plus
the two remaining models. These eight models can be used on a case-
by-case basis provided it is demonstrated, subject to requirements of
Section 6 of the Guideline, that the model is applicable and reliable
for the specific site and source.
The third possible action is to reject the model and return it to
the developer. This action was not taken in any case.
In proposing the recommendations indicated above, three factors
were considered: (1) the model is representative of the state-of-the-
art for atmospheric simulation models; (2) the model is readily available
to air pollution control agencies, and (3) the model fills a void in
available models for a specific application and can be used without
creating regulatory inconsistencies. These are the same criteria used
for models recommended in the proposed revisions to the Guideline.
Ideally these recommendations would have been based on prescribed
standards of performance for particular applications and on specific
evaluation procedures. Unfortunately, the technical community has not
yet identified such standards and procedures for wide use. Also the
very short time available to review these models precluded a detailed
computational analysis.
The summaries provide a basis for public comment concerning proposed
recommendations on use of air quality models for specific applications.
It is likely that additional models will be submitted to EPA prior to
the Conference on Air Quality Modeling in early 1981. Recommendations
on those models will be made available for public comment at that time.
2
-------
Federal Register / VoL 45. No. 81 / Thursday, March 27, 1980 / Notices
20157
1.2 Federal
Notice
Register
[FRL 1447-7]
Guidelines on Air Quality Models
agency: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Notice.
summary? In response to Clean Air Act
requirements, EPA has published a
Guideline on Air Quality Models and
held a Conference on Air Quality
Modeling. EPA currently-is pursuing
mechanisms by which (1) the technical
community can take an active role in
reviews and updates of the Guideline
and (2) a wider range of models,
including those developed by groups
other than EPA. can be incorporated in
the Guideline. To insure adequate public
comment revisions will be synchronized
with the next Conference on Air Quality
Modeling which must be held every
three years and which is planned for
early in 1981. This notice summarizes
current activities and future plans
regarding guidance and conferences on
models. This notice also solicits well-
documented models that can be
considered refined analytical techniques
for potential inclusion in planned
revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models.
DATES: Letters of intent to provide
refined air quality models that can be
considered for inclusion in the Guideline
on Air Quality Models should be
submitted within sixty (60) days of the
date of this notice.
address: Letters of intent should be
sent to: Source Receptor Analysis
Branch (MD-14), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,..
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attn: Jerome B. Mersch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT?
Joseph A. Tikvart Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch [MD-14),
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711. Phone: (919)
541-5261.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
"Air quality modeling" is a
mathematical technique for estimating
the effect of an air pollution source (cm*
group of sources] on air quality at
various locations. Air quality modeling
may provide the basis for approving or
denying a proposed pollution source's
epplication to construct It may also
provide the basis for determining the
control level required for existing
pollution sources. Modeling thus playa
an important role in the administration
of the Clean Air Act
In response to the Clean Air Act
requirements. EPA has published a
Guideline on Air Quality Models1 and
held a Conference on Air Quality
Modeling.* The preface to the Guideline
on Air Quality Models states that the
guide will be periodically reviewed and
updated. EPA's plans for conducting this
review and for obtaining public
comment in conjunction with the next
Conference on Air Quality modeling are
presented in this notice. A means by
which well-documented and refined
models can be considered for inclusion
in the Guideline is also identified and
non-EPA models are solicited.
Review of Current Activities
EPA has already taken several steps
to update the Guideline and conduct the
next Conference. First several
workshops have been held within EPA
to insure consistency in the use of the
Guideline and in the application of
Guideline models.
Secondly,, a cooperative agreement
has been initiated with the American
Meteorological Society to receive
comments from the scientific community
on a variety of technical issues. The
specific tasks of the cooperative
agreement are: (1) review and make
recommendations on previous work by
EPA concerning air quality models; (2)
conduct a general review of die state of
knowledge on air quality modeling: (3)
offer suggestions concerning
recommended air quality models and
criteria for their selection: and (4)
evaluate data base requirements for use.
with models.
In addition, EPA has undertaken a
series of projects concerning die
development and application of-
modeling techniques to provide better
understanding of several unresolved
issues that are identified in the current
Guideline. These include complex
terrain, turbulence characterization and
atmospheric dispersion, long-range
transport of pollutants, visibility
impairment photochemical
transformation of pollutants on urban
and regional scales, and evaluation/
improvement of models. EPA is also
reviewing and participating in. where
possible, activities of other agencies and
scientific groups in these technical
areas. For example. EPA staff
participated in the Atmospheric
Dispersion Modeling Panel conducted
by the National Commission on Air
Quality; recommendations of that Panel
are being carefully evaluated for their
relevance to EPA's guidance on
modeling. However^ while EPA has on-
going programs in a variety of problem
areas, the Agency recognizes that the
efforts of others should also provide
answers. Since many of these problems
are on the frontiers of scientific
knowledge and understanding, research
by die scientific community-at-large is
an important part of achieving sound
solutions.
Finally, EPA has an on-going program
to review, revise and expand die.
mathematical models that are available
for general application. The standard
models made available by EPA for
routine use are being reviewed to insure
internal consistency. Incorporation of
more recent techniques and
developments is a continuing process.
Additional models will be incorporated
to allow a wider range of applications,
viz. the Industrial Source Complex
ModeL*
Status of Conference and Guideline
Revision
EPA is required to bold a Conference
oh Air Quality Modeling every three
years and has begun planning for the
next Conference to take place in early"
1981. The four general activities
discussed in the abovp section will form
a basis for die Conference and for public
comments concerning a revised
Guideline on Air Quality Models.
The Conference wiU;be preceded by
public meetings in die fall of1980. The
purpose of these meetings vyfll be to
receive comments cot proposed revisions
to the Guideline. The proposed revisions
will be based heavily on
recommendations of EPA's Regional
Office workshops and preliminary
findings resulting from the cooperative
agreement with the American .
Meteorological Society. Proposed
changes to selected air quality models
and the addition of new models will also
be identified for comment at these
1 Environment*! Protection Agency. "Guideline on
Air Quality Models." Publication No. EPA-460/t-
78-027. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. AprtllSTS.
'Environmental Protection Agency. "Conference
on Air Quality Modeling." Acme Reporting
Company. Washington, D.C. 20008, December 1977.
' J. F. Bower*, at al- "Industrial Source Complex
(ESC) Diapenion Model User's Guide; Vohsnee I and
IL" Volume L Publication No. EPA-43B/4-79-CBO:
Volume IL publication No. EPA-4S0/4-T9-031.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Parte. North Carolina 27711, December'
ion.
-------
20158 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 61 / Thursday, March 27. 1980 / Notices
public meetings. A progress report on
current research efforts will be given. A
complete report and review of all
activities, findings and proposed
changes will be presented for comment
at the Conference in 1981.
Solicitation of Non-EPA Models
The activities outlined above are
consistent with the intent of the Clean
Air Act They are also responsive to
public comments received at the
Conference on Air Quality Modeling
held in December 1977. However, there
is some concern, even though adequate
precedent has been established for
inclusion of non-EPA models in the
Guideline on Air Quality Models, that
few such models have been
recommended for general use. The
Texas Episodic Model and the Texas
Climatological Model have been
included in the Guideline from its
earliest drafts. MULTTMAX. prepared by
a private company, is included in the
Guideline as a footnote. These models
were incorporated as a result of their
general consistency with models
recommended in the Guideline and the
availability of suitable documentation.
Nevertheless, while some other non-EPA
models have been utilized on a case-by-
case basis for application to specific
situations, there have been no firm
requests from model developers that
EPA consider and recommend such
models for general use; nor in many
cases do these models meet the
requirements discussed in the following
section of this notice. Thus, there is a
need for a mechanism by which non-
EPA models can be considered for
inclusion in the Guideline.
This notice solicits models that can be.
considered refined analytical techniques
and that have applicability to a general
air quality problem. Models are sought
that are applicable to issues associated
with prevention of significant
deterioration and new source review.
Models applicable to a variety of
stationary source categories with
emissions of sulfur oxides and
particulate matter in a range of terrain
and climatic settings are of particular
interest However, models more
generally applicable to SIP-revisions
^nd non-attainment for multiSOUTCe
(urban) situations, for other criteria
pollutants (CO, O*. NO* Pb), and for
hazardous or carcinogenic pollutants are
also of interest Models that can only be
considered simple screening techniques
or that do not directly consider
atmospheric dispersion are not being
requested at this time.
Refined models that are received will.
be reviewed by EPA and considered for
inclusion in the Guideline. To be
reviewed, the models submitted must
meet the following requirements:
1. The model must be computerized
and functioning in a common Fortran
language suitable for use on a variety of
computer systems.
2. The model must be documented in a
-user's guide which identifies the
mathematics of the model, data
requirements and program operating
characteristics at a level of detail
comparable to that available for
currently recommended models, e.g., the
Single Source (CRSTER) Model.4
3. The model must be accompanied by
a complete test data set Including input
parameters and output results. The test
data must be included in the user's guide
as well as provided in computer^
readable form.
4. the model must be useful to typical
users, e.g., State air pollution control
agencies, for specific air quality control
problems. Such users should be able to
operate the computer program(s] from
available documentation.
5. The model documentation must
include a comparison with air quality
data or with other well-established
analytical techniques.
6. The developer must be willing to
make the 'model available to users at
reasonable cost or make it available for
public access through the National
Technical Information Service; the
model can not be proprietary.
EPA staff will review the models that
are submitted and take one of the
following actions: (1) Recommend that
the model be included in the Guideline
on Air Quality Models for routine use;
(2) Recognize in the Guideline that the
model exists, but require a case-by-case
determination as to acceptability before
the model can be used for a specific
regulatory application. (3) Reject the
model and return it to the developer. For
the present it appears that criteria for
selection of one of these actions are
uncertain, this uncertainty results from a
lade of performance standards that have
been adopted by the scientific
community, inadequate data bases for
thorough model evaluation, and the
need for regulatory consistency in the
selection and use of models. EPA also
solicits comment on the criteria that
model developers believe to be
appropriate in reviewing models.
Models that are candidates for
inclusion in the Guideline will be
identified and available for comment at
the public meetings and Conference
proposed above. The fact that a model
has been submitted to the Agency or i9
being reviewed does not give it any
particular status. The status of models
will only be established by final
revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models.
Letters of intent to submit refined air
quality models, that will be available in
the next twelve (12) months are
requested so that Agency resources caA
be planned for the necessary reviews.
Letters of intent should be sent within
sixty (60) days of the date of this notice
to the Source Receptor Analysis Branch
(MD-14), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, Attn: Jerome B. Mersch. Once
work on the model is cocmpleted. formal
submittal should consist of a magnetic
tape containing the program source code
for the model and the test data set
written at 1600 bpi in EBCDIC, three
copies of the user's guide, any related
documentation concerning past
applications and performance of the
model, and a statement on what .
arrangements will be made for public
access to the modeL Formal submittal of
the model and of criteria that model
developers believe should be used in
developing agency recommendations Oq
specific models should also be sent to
the above address.
Dated: March 21.1980.
David G. Hawldns,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation.
[FK Doc. ao-ms Rkd t-W-40! MS «a].
BHJJNO CO0« (MO-01-M
•Environmental Protection Aoency. "U»er'i
Manual for Single Source (CRSTER) Modal"
Publication No. EPA-UO/2-77-01X Environmental
Protection Agency. Renarch Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. |uly 1877.
4
-------
2.0 Models Proposed for General Use
These models would be recommended for general use in certain
well-defined situations. They would have the same status (after this
public hearing process) as models currently recommended in the Guideline
on Air Quality Models.
5
-------
2.1 BLP (Buoyant Line and Point Source Dispersion Model)
Reference: Schulman, Lloyd L., and Joseph S. Scire. Buoyant Line
and Point Source (BLP) Dispersion Model User s Guide.
Document P-7304B. Environmental Research and Technology,
Inc., Concord, MA.
Abstract ¦ A Gaussian plume dispersion model designed to handle unique
modeling problems associated with aluminum reduction plants,
and other industrial sources where plume rise and downwash
effects from stationary line sources are important.
Equations:
for Point Sources
™y °z Us
exp -
2 a
exp -
y .
jr
2 a
(2-2)
where
X is concentration (g/m^)
y is crosswind distance (m)
Q is pollutant emission rate (g/s)
Ug is mean wind speed (m/s) at stack height
is crosswind standard deviation of the concentration
distribution (m)
°2 is vertical standard deviation of the concentration
distribution (m)
H is effective stack height (m)
The empirical dispersion coefficents, cynd oz, used in the BLP
model are piecewise fits to the stability and distance dependent
curves in Turner (1970). The effective stack height, H, is the sum o
the physical stack height, Hs> and the plume rise, Ah. The
equations used to calculate the plume rise are described in
Section 2.4. The mean wind speed used in Equation 2-2 is the stack
height wind speed as calculated by the stability dependent power law
wind speed profile equation,
6
-------
In Che neutral atmospheric boundary layer, the vertical diffusion
of a plume is sometimes limited by a stably stratified inversion layer
above the mixed layer. The plume is assumed to be reflected at this
interface as well as at the ground. The method of image sources is
used to model these reflections (Turner 1970). The Gaussian equation
for a ground-level receptor, with multiple reflections is:
where D is the height of the base of the inversion (mixing height).
for Line Sources
-------
For unstable or neutral conditions,
1T°y °z
exp
-y
20 d
(2-29)
F. ¦ „ exp
1 N»- 00
I / H_+_2nD \
."2 V /
unless the ratio o^/d is greater than 1.6,
^2 TT 0 D
1 y
exp
2 a.
8
-------
a. Input Requirements
Emissions data: for point sources - stack location (x,y coordinates),
elevation of stack base, physical stack height, stack inside
diameter, stack gas exit velocity, stack gas exit temperature,
and pollutant emission rate. For line sources - coordinates of
the end points of the line, release height, emission rate,
average line length, average building height, average line source
width, average building width, average spacing between buildings,
and average line source buoyancy parameter.
Meteorological data: can be input from either the EPA meteorological
preprocessor output (up to 366 days) or from punched cards (up to
24 hours). The required data are: hourly stability class (derived
in the EPA meteorological preprocessor from cloud ceiling, opaque
cloud cover, and wind speed), hourly wind direction, and speed,
hourly temperature, and daily mixing heights.
b. Output
Separate post-processing program produces:
Total concentration or source contribution analysis
Monthly and annual frequency distributions for 1-, 3-, and 24-
hour average concentrations
Tables of 1-, 3-, and 24-hour average concentrations at each
receptor
Table of the annual (or length of the BLP run) average concentrations
at each receptor
Five highest 1-, 3-, and 24-hour average concentrations at each
receptor
Fifty highest 1-, 3-, and 24-hour average concentration over the
receptor field
c. Model Options
Coordinate system option (UTM or internal source coordinate system)
Source contribution
Wind shear effect on plume rise
Point source downwash
Transitional plume rise
Vertical potential temperature gradient option for E and F stabilities
Wind speed power law exponent option for user-defined values
Stability class restriction option allows up to a user-specified
number of stability class changes per hour
Mixing height option (urban vs. rural)
Pollutant decay
Background concentration input terrain adjustment (includes any
adjustment from horizontal plume, through "half-height," to
terrain following plume
9
-------
Limitations
Intended for aluminum reduction plants and other similar complex
sources where buoyant line source plume rise, building downwash,
and vertical wind speed shear effects are important
Pollutant Types
Treats a single inert pollutant
Source-Receptor Relationship
Up to 50 point sources, 10 parallel line sources, and 100 receptors,
arbitrarily located
Unique topographic elevation for each stack
Plume Behavior
Briggs plume rise formulae with several enhancements by ERT
Transitional rise is optional for point sources, mandatory for line
sources so that building downwash can be accounted for
Building downwash is a significant modification of the approach of
Huber and Snyder
Horizontal Wind Field
User-supplied hourly winds
Wind speeds corrected for release height based on power law exponents
used in CDM, CRSTER, and others
Constant, uniform wind assumed within each hour
Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
Horizontal Dispersion
Gaussian plume
Six stability classes used (Turner class 7 treated as 6)
Dispersion coefficients from Turner
Vertical Dispersion
Gaussian plume
Six stability classes used (Turner class 7 treated as class 6)
Dispersion coefficients from Turner
10
-------
1. Chemi stry/Reacti on Mechanism
Not treated
m. Physical Removal
Not treated
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: perfect reflection
Upper boundary: perfect reflection
Multiple reflections Handed By summation of series to a distance
where cr « 1.6 times mixing height; uniform vertical distribution
thereafter
o. Background
User input optional
p. Evaluation Studies
Studies described in Schulman, Lloyd L., and Joseph S. Scire.
"Development of an Air Quality Dispersion Model for Aluminum
Reduction Plants"
q. Proposed EPA Action
BLP is recommended to be included in the Guideline on Air Quality
Models for routine application to aluminum reduction plant buildings
that can be characterized as buoyant, elevated line sources.
BLP can also be used on a case-by-case basis for other source
configurations if it can be demonstrated, using criteria in
Section 6, that the model gives the same answers as a recommended
model and will subsequently be executed in that mode.
r. Model Availability
The BLP model and accompanying user's guide and final report
are available as a package from the Aluminum Association at a
cost of $300. The user's guide and final report are available
for $100.
Requests should be directed to:
Mr. Seymour G. Epstein
Technical Director
The Aluminum Association, Inc.
818 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
n
-------
2.2 CALINE3
Reference:
Abstract
Benson, Paul E."CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for
Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial
Streets." Interim Report. Report Number FHWA/CA/TL-79/23.
Federal Highway Administration, November 197S.
CALINE3 can be used to estimate the concentrations of
nonreactive pollutants from hrghway traffic. This steady-
state Gaussian model can be applied to determine air pollution
concentrations at receptor locations downwind of "at-grade,"
"fill," "bridge," and "cut section" highways located in
relatively uncomplicated terratn. The model fs applicable
for any wind direction, highway orientation, and receptor
location. The model has adjustments for averaging time and
surface roughness, and can handle up to 20 links and 20
receptors. It also contains an algorithm for deposition and
settling velocity so that particulate concentrations can be
predicted.
Equations:
C =
Y2"^u
ii 1
i-ll
SGZi
CNT
*x
k=>-CNT
/-(Z-H+2*k*L) \ , ....(•
expl j 1+expl-
\ 2*SGZj / \
(Z+H + 2-KkKL)'
2* SGZ;2
5
*) (WTi * QE: * POjj)
Where,
n = Total number of elements
CNT * Number of multiple reflections
required for convergence
U = Wind speed
L = Mixing height (MIXH in coding)
SGZi = a2 as f(x) for ith element
QE, =
Central sub-element lineal source
strength for ith element
WT, = Source strength weighting factor for
jth sub-element (WT-. = 0.25,
WT2 = 0.75, ...) 1
12
-------
PD:: =
^j» ^j+i = Offset distances for jth sub-element
SGY. = a as f(x) for ith element
Input Requirements
Meteorological data: Wind speed, wind angle (measured in degrees
clockwise from the Y axfs), stability class, mixing height,
ambient (background to the highway) concentration of pollutant
Emissions data: Up to 20 highway links classed as At-grade,
Fill, Bridge, or Depressed; coordinates of link end points;
traffic volume; emission factor; source height; and mixing zone
width.
Output
Concentration at each receptor for the specified meteorological
condition
Model Options
Variable averaging times, variable surface roughness, deposition
Limitations
Mobile sources represented as multiple line sources
Relatively flat terrain
Not applicable to point and area sources
Pollutant Types
Treats a single inert pollutant
Source-Receptor Relationship
Up to 20 highway links
Unique location and emission rate for each link
Arbitrary receptor locations
13
-------
g. Plume Behavior
fnittal traffic induced dispersion handled implicitly by plume size
parameters
No plume rise
h. Horizontal Wind Field
User-supplied hourly wind speed and direction
Constant, uniform wind assumed
i. Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Six stability classes
Gaussian plume
Six stability classes
Dispersion coefficients from Turner, with adjustment for roughness
length and averaging time
k. Vertical Dispersion
Gaussian plume
Six stability classes used
Empirical dispersion coefficients which converge to F. B. Smith's
curves at a distance of 10 kilometers - F. B. Smith's adjustment
for roughness length is retained.
Adjustment to averaging time is included.
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Not treated
m. Physical Removal
Deposition calculations, are included
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: perfect reflection when deposition velocity is set
to zero. Otherwise, lower boundary absorbs pollutant at a
rate determined by the deposition velocity, settling velocity,
and concentration
Upper boundary: perfect reflection. Multiple reflections accounted
for when mixing heights are low
14
-------
o. Background
Not treated
p. Evaluation Studies
Three studies reported tn user's manual
q. Proposed EPA Action
CALINE3 is recommended to be included in the Guideline on Air
Quality Models for routine use similar to HrWAY2. However, the
use of the deposftfon option is subject to the demonstration
requirements of Section 6 of the Guideline.
r. Model Availability
The CALINE3 model is available from the California Department of
Transportation on an at-cost basts ($10 for documentation,
approximately $50 for the model).
Requests should be directed to:
Mr. Ebert Jung
Chief, Office of Computer Systems
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street
Sacremento, California 95814
15
-------
2.3 MESOPUFF (Mesoscale Puff Model)
Reference:
Abstract :
Benklev, Carl W., and Arthur Bass. "Development of Mesoscale
Air Quality Simulation Models, Volume 3. User s Guide to
MESOPUFF (Mesoscale Puff) Model. EPA 600/7-80-058. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
MESOPUFF is a mesoscale puff.model designed to calculate
concentrations of S09 and SOT over long distances. Plume
growth is calculated by finite difference techniques with
plume growth parameters fitted to Turner's plume size
(stgmal curves.
Equations:
The conservation of pollutant mass in a puff transported a distance As
is expressed by the mass balance equation:
00 00 00
AQ = / / / G(r, 0, z) dr d0 dz
(B-l)
¦I? Iff C dr de ds
-hill
s+As
C dr d9 dz
-a .oo
where r, 8, define points relative to the puff center in cylindrical
coordinates, G(r,0,z) (g m"3 s"1) is the rate of change (gain-loss) of
pollutant concentration C(r,0,z) (g m"3), AQ (g s- ) is the resultant
rate of change of pollutant mass, and u(m s"1) is the wind speed. In
the MESOPUFF model, G(r,0,z) and u are constant for s to s + As,
where s is defined as the total distance a puff has traveled since it
was emitted.
For a discrete puff lying below the mixing height H, the circularly
symmetric ground-level puff concentration C(r,0;s) is defined as
C(r,0;s)
Mil
2* o Us) gl(z)
exp
-r
2 .
2 o '(s)
y
,(z)
(B-2)
where Q(s) is the puff mass and a (s) the "radial" Gaussian
plume dispersion coefficient at distance s. The use of a "radial"
Gaussian dispersion coefficient is a convenient computational device,
16
-------
nothing more. The functions gi(z) and g2(z) are dependent upon the
vertical distribution of concentration in the puff. Replacing H by Hm,
the maximum mixing depth encountered by a puff (see Section B.8),
MESOPUFF permits the user to specify one of two possible algorithms for
the distribution function g(z), namely
1) a uniform vertical distribution algorithm within Hn,, such that
gl(z) = % and g2(z) = 1.0, and
2) a Gaussian, multiple reflection algorithm where:
• if a < 2 H , gi(z) * o and g2(z) is a function that
accounts fo? multiple reflection effects and
• if oz >_ 2 Hffl, gi(.z) » H, and g2(z) = 1.0.
For regional-scale transport, e.g., at distances from 100 to
1,000 km from a source, either algorithm will produce substantially
similar results, as a rule, because at travel distances >100 km o2
is likely to be greater than 2%.
Using the uniform vertical distribution function (1), the ground
level puff concentration C(r,0;s) at distance s is
C(r, 0;s) =
Qts)
2ir a 2(s) H
y m
exp
-r
2 o 2(s)
y
(B-3)
At distance s+As, the ground level concentration becomes
2
C(r,0;s+As) »
Q(s+As)
2* oy (s+As) Hm
exp
-r
2 (s+As)
(B-4)
17
-------
Input Requirements
Emission data; location (x and y coordinates^, stack height,
emission rate for S02» emission rate for S04, buoyancy flux for
plume rise, multipliers, by hour of the day-, for the emission
rate and for the Buoyancy flux; each for up to 1Q sources
Meteorological data: Spatially •variable, grvdded fields of horizontal
(a.v,I wtnd components, mining height, and Pasquill stability
class. These data are normally, though not necessarily, obtained
from the output of the MESOPAC program (Volume 6, EPA-600/7-80-061).
MESOPAC requires, as input, radiosonde observations from one or
more stations, plus tfte wind components at the most relevant
level.
Output
Options: Arrays of ground level concentrations of SO? and SO* for
user-specified averaging times at user-specified intervals
Tables as above for specified receptors only
Arrays of maximum grid point concentration values for the period
of the run
Maximum concentrations as above, but for specified receptors only
Table listing of the time.when the first plume segment from each
source reached the edge of the computational grid
The concentrations array may be output to disk for each time
step
Model Options
Alternate plume growth coefficients
Exponential decay of SO2 to SO^
Dry deposition
Uses 24-hour cycle of emission rate multipliers
Uses 24-hour cycle of buoyancy flux multipliers
Through the MESOFILE postprocessing program (Volume 5, EPA 600/7-80-060)
line printer plots and calcomp plots are available
Fumigation to produce immediate mixing or multiple reflection
calculations at users option
Presence of mixing lid
Limitations
Relatively flat terrain
Model is designed primarily for calculating regional scale impacts
Not applicable to area or line sources
18
-------
Pollutant Types
S02 and s0^
Source-Receptor Relationship
Up to 10 point sources
Calculations made over a gridded network of receptors
Up to 10 arbitrary receptors are permitted
Plume Behavior
Briggs, with buoyancy flux, F, input to the model
Includes fumigation
Horizontal Wind Field
Derived gridded wind field specified for each grid square. MESOPAC
derives the values by interpolation between stations and hours
Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
Horizontal Dispersion
Incremental plume growth overdiscrete time steps with plume growth
parameters chosen to approximate Turner's a curves to fill the
mixing layer, as appropriate "
Plume growth is a function of stability class
Vertical Dispersion
Incremental puff growth over discrete time steps, with puff
growth parameters chosen to approximate o curves of Turner
Puff growth is a function of stability class
Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
SOo to SO* conversion by means of half-life formula. Half-life is
Supplied by the user
Physical Removal
See item 1. above
19
-------
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: calculation of deposition is optional. Other-
wise perfect reflection is assumed
Upper boundary: perfect reflection is assumed
Mixing height is input to the model as a function of time and
grid location
Includes option to ignore upper boundary
o. Background
Optional user input
p. Evaluation Studies
Sensitivity tests and evaluation studies are described in
"Development of Mesoscale Air Quality Simulation Models. Volume 1:
Comparative Studies of Puff, Plume, and Grid Models for Long
Distance Dispersion". EPA 600/7-80-056.
q. Proposed EPA Action
MESOPUFF is recommended to be included in the Guideline on Air
Quality Models for routine use for long range transport (greater
than 50 km) applications.
r. Model Availability
The MESO Models and accompanying user's guides and related studies
are available from the National Technical Information Service. The
models and related programs are on magnetic tape and the documentation
is comprised of six volumes. The accession numbers and related costs
are:
Magnetic tape: PB 80-227 549
Volume 1 : PB 80-227 580
Volume 2 : PB 80-227 598
Volume 3 : PB 80-227 796
Volume 4 : PB 80-227 804
Volume 5 : PB 80- 227 812
Volume 6 : PB 80- 228 042
$•720.00
$ 13.00
$ 10.00
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
$- 7.00
$ 7.00
Requests should be sent to
National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
20
-------
2.4 MESOGRID (Mesoscale Grid Model)
Reference: Morris, Charles S., Carl W. Benkley, arid Arthur Bass. "Development
of Mesoscale Air Quality Simulation Models. Volume 4:
User's Guide to MESOGRID (Mesoscale Grid) Model."
EPA-600/7-80-059. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Abstract
Equations:
MESOGRID is a mesoscale k-theory grid godel designed to
calculate concentrations of SO2 and SO^ over long distances.
The horizontal advection, vertical diffusion,alinear decay, and dry
deposition of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfate (SO*) species on regional
scales are represented in MESOGRID by a discrete-level numerical repre-
sentation of the continuous equations describing the mass conservation
of the respective pollutant species:
3C. 3C. 3C.
3t~ * "U 3x~ "v 3y~ + 9z
> 5
H or k M
-------
Input Requirements
Emission data: location (x and y coordinates], stack height,
emission rate for SOo. emission rate for SO*, buoyancy flux for
plume rise, hourly multipliers for the emission rate and for the
buoyancy flux; each for up to 10 sources
Meteorological data: Spatially variable, grldded fields of horizontal
(u,v,j wind components, mixing height, and Pasquill stability
class. These data are normally, though not necessarily, obtained
from the output of the MESOPAC program (Volume 6, EPA 600/7-80-061).
MESOPAC requires, as input, radiosonde observations from one or
more stations, plus the wind components at the most relevant
level.
Output
Options: Arrays of ground level concentrations of S02 and SO* for
user-specified averaging times at user-specified Intervals
Tables as above for specified receptors only
Arrays of maximum grid point concentration values for the period
of the run
Maximum concentrations as above, but for specified receptors only
Table listing of the time when the first plume segment from each
source reached the edge of the computational grid
The concentrations array may be output to disk for each time
step
Model Options
Alternate plume growth coefficients
Exponential decay of SO2 to SO^
Dry deposition
Through the HESOFILE postprocessing program (Volume 5, EPA 600/7-80-060)
line printer plots and calcomp plots are available
Background
Number of vertical layers
Limitations
Relatively flat terrain
Model is designed primarily for calculating regional scale impacts
Not applicable to area or line sources
Abrupt changes in wind flow over short distances can cause erroneous
results in that vicinity
22
-------
e. Pollutant Types
S02 and SO^
f. Source-Receptor Relationship
Up to 1Q point sources
Calculations made over a gridded network of receptors
tip to 10 arbitrary receptors are permitted
g. Plume Behavior
Briggs, with buoyancy flux, F, tnput to the model
Includes fumigation
h. Horizontal Wind Fteld
Derived gridded wind field specified for each grid square. MESOPAC
derives the values by interpolation between stations and hours
i. Vertical Mind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Incremental plume growth over discrete time steps with plume growth
parameters chosen to approximate Turner's a curves
Plume growth is a function of stability classy
k. Vertical Dispersion
Incremental plume growth over discrete time steps, with plume
growth parameters chosen to approximate o curves of Turner
Plume growth is a function of stability class
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
S02 to S07 conversion by means of half-life formula. Half-life is
supplied by the user
m. Physical Removal
See item 1. above
23
-------
Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary; calculation of deposition is optional. Other-
wise perfect reflection rs assumed
Upper boundary: user input reflection coefficient at top boundary
of highest grid
Background
Optional user input
Evaluation Studies
Sensitivity tests and evaluation studies are described in
"Development of Mesoscale Air Quality Simulation Models. Volume 1:
Comparative Studies of Puff, Plume, and Grid Models for Long
Distance Dispersion". EPA 600/7-80-056.
Proposed EPA Action
MESOGRID is recommended to be included in the Guideline on Air
Quality Models for routine use for long range transport (greater
than 50 km) applications when more than 10 sources must be
evaluated concurrently. For 10 sources or less, MES0PUFF is
the recommended model.
Model Availability
The MES0 Models and accompanying user's guides and related studies
are available from the National Technical Information Service. The
models and related programs are on magnetic tape and the documentation
is comprised of six volumes. The accession numbers and related costs
are:
Magnetic tape: PB 80-227 549
Volume 1 : PB 80-227 580
Vol ume 2 : PB 80- 227 598
Volume 3 : PB 80-227 796
Volume 4 : PB 80-227 804
Volume 5 : PB 80- 227 812
Volume 6 : PB 80-228 042
$720.00
$ 13.00
$ 10.00
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
$- 7.00
$ 7.00
Requests should be sent to
National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
2.5 SHORTZ
Reference: Bjorklund, J. R., and J. F. Bowers. "User's Instructions
for the SHORTZ and LONGZ Computer Programs, Volumes 1 and 2"
TR-79-181-01. H. E. Cramer Co., Inc. University of Utah
Research Park, P. 0. Box 8049, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108.
December 1979.
Abstract: SHORTZ utilizes the steady state bivariate Gaussian plume
both urban and rural areas in flat or
to calculate ground-level ambient air
It can calculate 1-hour, 2-hour, 3-hour,
etc. averages for up to 300 arbitrarily located sources
(stacks, buildings and areas) as total contribution to
ambient air deterioration at each receptor. If the option
for gravitational settling is invoked, analysis cannot be
accomplished in complex terrain without violating mass
continuity.
SHORTZ utilizes
formulation for
complex terrain
concentrations.
Eauations: For gases and for particles with diameters equal to or less than
20 pm, the point-source and building source formulation
consists of
X(x,y)
K Q
IT u{H} CT
0
y z
{Vertical Term} {Lateral Term} {Decay Term}
where
K = scaling coefficient to convert calculated concentrations
to desired units (default value of 1x10^ for Q in g/sec
and concentration in yg/m^)
Q
u{H}
a ,a
y z
source emission rate (mass per unit time)
mean wind speed (m/sec) at the plume stabilization height H
(transformed from wind measurement height via exponent law),
standard deviations (m) of the lateral and vertical concen-
tration distributions at downwind distance x (a and a
V 2
are also known as lateral and vertical dispersion'coeffi-
cients) ; the a's are those of Cramer.
and
{Vertical Term}
,exp
+ exp
2i H -
m
(JO
z
i=l
-)'l
2i H + H
2 1
(1)
25
-------
where H is the depth of the surface mixing layer. Beyond the point at
which tWe series exponentials are non-zero for i equal 3,
{Vertical Term}
/2tt a
z
2H
m
(Lateral Term} = exp
[-«%>']
where y is the crosswind distance from the plume centerline to the point
at which the concentration is calculated.
{ Decay Term } - exp £ - ^ x/u(h}J
where
^ = the washout coefficient A(sec *) for precipitation
scavenging
= °'692 , where T1/2 is the pollutant half life (sec) for
1/2 physical or chemical removal
= 0 for no depletion (^ is automatically set to zero by the
computer program unless otherwise specified)
The area source formulation is
x<*-y} " {Vertical Ten.)
*2* uth) a {x} y
Z o
{Lateral Term} {Decay Term}
where
Q ~ area source emission rate (mass per unit time)
yQ ¦ crosswind source dimension (m)
h * the characteristic height of the area source (m)
26
-------
{Vertical Term} = -
1+2
Z
i=l
. /2iH \
1 / m \
exp
" 2 I a U)J
\ z / J
exp
= 0
a (x>
z
2 H
ID
; exp
2-i
1 /6H
2. I m
2 I a
> 0
where
H is mixing height
m
az -- See instruction manual
where
{Lateral Term}
;erf
V2 + y~
+ erf
~5" a {x}
L y _
X/2 - y'
^2 a {x}
y
o
y
crosswlnd dimension of the area source (m)
crosswind distance from the centerline of the area source
(m)
-- See instruction manual
27
-------
For particles with diameters greater than 20 ym, Equation 1 or 2
= the mass fraction of particulates with settling velocity
^sn' wtvere Vsn ls in meters Per second
H = the effective stack height for stack sources, the building
height for building sources and the characteristic emission
height for area sources (m)
is used with
{Vertical Term}
+
where
28
-------
a. Input Requirements
Meteorological data (hourly, 2-hpurly, etc.).: wind speed and
measurement height, wind profile exponents, wind direction,
standard deviations of vertical and horizontal wind directions,
mixing height, air temperature, yerttcal potential temperature
gradient
Source data: point, building or area, total emission rate (optionally
classified by gravitational settling velocity) and decay coefficient,
stack height, effluent temperature, effluent exit velocity, stack
radius (inner), actual volumetric emission rate, ground elevation
(optional), coordinates, building height, length and width, and
orientation, characteristic vertical dimension of area source,
and length, width and orientation
Receptor data: coordinates, ground elevation
b. Output
Total concentration of all sources (optionally, with allowance for
deposition).
c. Model Options
Point, building or area source, allowance for deposition and
gravitational settling, terrain, Cartesian or polar receptor
system, discrete receptors, time-dependent source characteristics,
exponential decay of pollutants, time periods for concentrations
d. Model Limitations
Use of gravitational settling is not appropriate for complex terrain
e. Pollutant Types
Inert pollutants
Pollutants with simple exponential decay
pollutants experiencing gravitational settling and deposition
f. Source-Receptor Relationships
Sources and receptors can be arbitrarily located horizontally and
vertically (.but receptors always at ground level)
g. Plume Behavior
Briggs earlier formulae, modified by H. E. Cramer Company
Final rise attained at source
All plumes move horizontally and will fully intercept elevated
terrain
29
-------
Plumes above mixing height are ignored
Plume rise ts limited when u at stack height approaches or exceeds
stact exit yeloctty
Does not simulate fumigation
Ttlted plume used for pollutants with, fall velocity specified
Buoyancy-induced dispersion (source-specific!
h. Horizontal Wind Field
Homogeneous and steady-state
t. Vertical Wind Field
Zero vertical velocity
Homogeneous in direction
Exponential law defines speed
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Semi-empirical Gaussian plume
Cramer dispersion coefficients
R. Vertical Dispersion
Semi-empirical Gaussian plume
Cramer dispersion coefficients
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Exponential decay (based upon timel
m. Physical Removal
Gravitational settling velocity
Dry deposition
Exponential washout (based upon timel
n. Boundary Conditions
Perfect vertical reflection at the level of the effective mixing
height for all pollutants
Perfect vertical reflection at ground level for pollutants with
zero settling velocity
Zero vertical reflection at ground level for pollutants with finite
settling velocity
Actual mixing height i;s constant above sea level; effective mixing
height ts constant above terrain
29a
-------
Background
No provision
Evaluation Studies
Several such studies by H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.
Proposed EPA Action
SHORTZ is recommended to be included in the Guideline on Air Quality
Models for routine use to estimate concentrations of 24 hours or
less in complex terrain comprised of urban areas or industrialized
valleys, meeting the urban criteria of Section 5.5, provided
default values built into the computer code are used for the
technical options. Vertical temperature gradients should be
specified according to Table 2-4 of the User's Instructions.
Model Availability
The two-volume user's guide and magnetic tape containing the
SHORTZ and LONGZ computer programs are available from H. E.
Cramer Company at a cost of $250.
Requests should be directed to the attention of:
Mr. Harry V. Geary
H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 8049
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
30
-------
2.6 LONGZ
Reference: Etforklund, J. R., and J. P. Bowers: "User's Instructions for
the SHQRTZ and LONGZ Computer Programs. Volumes 1 and 2."
TR-79-131-Q1. H. E. Cramer Co., Inc. University of Utah
Research Park, P. 0. Box 8Q49., Salt Lake City, Utah 841Q8.
Abstract : LONGZ utilizes the steady-state, univariate, Gaussian
formulation for estimating seasonal average concentrations
due to emissions from stacks, buildings and area sources.
The total concentration at each receptor due to all sources
is output. An option which considers losses due to deposition
is deemed inappropriate by the authors for complex terrain,
and is not discussed herein.
Equations: For a single stack, the mean seasonal concentration at the
point (r,0l with respect to the stack is given by
x£fr,e,z} =
——— y I — s{6) vf k , (i)
/Sfrae' L. [ u, Hj>M
i, j, k
where
exp
Vi,k,
- £ exp [- \
n=-<»
and
2nHm;i,k.z + Hi,k.i
O . ,
z;i,k,£
(2)
x„Cr,0} = average concentration for season £ at the
receptor located at radius r, direction e
k = scaling factor to provide proper units for x
lT = mean wind speed (m/s) at plume height H
= standard deviation (m) of the vertical
concentration distribution at distance r
31
-------
f4
Hm = effective mixing height
^i k i ~ P°^utant emission rate, which may be^held
' ' constant or varied, according to the i wind-
speed category, k stability or trme-of-
day category and season [mass per unit of
time}.
• ^ k = frequency of occurrence of the ith wind-
>J» ' speed.category, j wind direction category
and k stability or time-of-day category
for the i season
A01 = the sector width in radians
S{0} = a smoothing function between adjacent
sector center!ines
&e' -
A6
- 0'
S{0} H
|ej
'9j
- 0 ' | < A0 '
6'I > A0'
0'. = the angle measured in radians fr*om north to
J the centerline of the j wind-direction
sector
e' = the angle measured in radians from north to
the point (r>0)
i » wind-speed category
j = wind-direction category
k = stability or time-of-day category
ji = season
z = height above ground (.always zero)
The Vertical Term given by Equation 2 is changed to the form
2"* a
i.k.f
z;i,M
2H,
m;i,M
when the exponential terms in Equation 2 become non-zero for
n = 3.
32
-------
1+2
Vi,M * <
I
n=l
exp
1
2nHm;i ,k,£.
; exp
1
'6Hm;i ,k,Jt
c.
2
^ °z;i,k ,
~ 2
• az;i,k ,
/2tT
z;i ,k
m;i ,k,x,
; exp
r 1 ( 6Hm;i»k,
l/M "W
>0
where r" =* the downwind distance, measured along the plume
axis, from the upwind edge of the area source (m).
Equation 1 is used by L0N6Z to calculate ground-level concentrations
for building sources with the initial vertical dimension a given by
the building height divided by 2.15 and the initial lateral dimension
4.3 a given by the diameter of a circle with the same horizontal area
as the building. A virtual point source is used to account for the
initial lateral dimension of the source.
The seasonal average concentration within an area source attributable
to the source's own emissions is given by
XfcCriV01 "
2K
z
v/2rr x y ...
oJo i, j ,k
i, k, i, j , k, &
u {h} a' . ,
i E;i,k
ln
°E;i.k (r"+1) + h
+ h
i.k.i
33
-------
a. Input Requirements
Meteorological data: STAR type joint frequency distributions of
meteorological conditions are utilized
Source data: See definition of Q above
Receptor data: Receptor loci are designated only in a polar
coordinate system
b. Output
Same as SHORTZ
c. Model Options
Only seasonal average concentrations are output
d. - i. All items are the same as SHORTZ
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Homogeneous distribution of pollutants across sector is distributed
k - p. All items are the same as SHORTZ
q, Proposed EPA Action
LONGZ is recommended to be included in the Guideline on Air Quality
Models for routine use to estimate long-term average concen-
trations in complex terrain comprised of urban or industrialized
valleys, meeting the urban criteria of Section 5.5, provided
default values built into the computer code are used for the
technical options. Vertical temperature gradients should be
specified according to Table 2-4 of the User's Instructions.
r. Model Availability
The two-volume user's guide and magnetic tape containing the SHORTZ
and LONGZ computer programs are available from H. E. Cramer
Company at a cost of $250.
Requests should be directed to the attention of:
Mr. Harry V. Geary
H. E. Cramer Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 8049
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
34
-------
34a
-------
3.0 Models Requiring a Demonstration of Equivalence
These models would not be recommended for general use. They would
be identified in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, but would not be
discussed in Appendix A ~ Summaries of Recommended Air Quality Models.
Their use would be allowed if it could be demonstrated that they
provide the same estimates as the recommended model for a specific
application and they will subsequently be executed in that mode. They
could also be used on a case-by-case basis with specific options not
available in a recommended model if it could be demonstrated, using
criteria in Section 6 of the Guideline, that they are more appropriate
for a specific application.
35
-------
3.1 MESOPLUME (Mesoscale plume Segment Model).
Rpfprpnre- Benkley, Carl W. and Arthur Bass. "Development of Mesoscali
KeTerence. ^r'K' ^'it Models: Volume 2. User's Guide to MESOPLUME
CMesoscale Plume Segment1 Model." EPA-600/7-80-057. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
Abstract • MESOPLUME is a mesoscale plume segment (or "bent plume")=
^ ' model designed to calculate concentrations of S02 and SO.
over large distances. Plume growth is calculated by finite
difference methods with plume growth parameters fitted to
Turner's plume size (sign©) curves.
Equations:
AQ =
/ / G(s,r,z) dr di
As
CA-1)
/ / u C dr dz
s+As
- / / u C dr d:
where s, r,
directions
, and z are the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical plume
—~, G(s,r, z) (g m s ) is the rate of change (gain-loss) of
pollutant concentration C(s,r,z) (g in 3) by conversion and removal
processes, AQ (g s is the resultant rate of change of pollutant mass
and u fa s M is the wind speed. In the MESOPLUME model G(s r,z) and u
are considered to be constant from s to s + As, where s is the current
distance of a plume segment endpoint from the emitting source, measured
along the plume axis.
MESOPLUME permits the user to specify two possible vertical
distribution functions; (1) a vertical Gaussian profile, ignoring any
effects of the mixing lid H; or (2) a uniform vertical distribution
below the mixing lid.
a f FjP CaSf 1' t*16 Sround~level axial plume concentration CCs,r,0) is
defined at the upwind edge of a plume segment by the expression:
C(s,r,0) =
TT U C7Z(S)
°y(s)
exp
-r
2 a
exp
- z
2a
(A-2)
36
-------
Plumes above mixing height are ignored
Plume rise is limited when u at stack height approaches or exceeds
stack exit velocity
Does not simulate fumigation
Tilted plume used for pollutants with, fall velocity specified
Buoyancy-induced dispersion (source-specific!
h. Horizontal Mind Field
Homogeneous and steady-state
i\ Vertical Wind Field
Zero vertical velocity
Homogeneous in direction
Exponential law defines speed
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Semi-empirical Gaussian plume
Cramer dispersion coefficients
k. Vertical Dispersion
Semi-empirical Gaussian plume
Cramer dispersion coefficients
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Exponential decay (based upon time)
m. Physical Removal
Gravitational settling velocity
Dry deposition
Exponential washout (based upon time)
n. Boundary Conditions
Perfect vertical reflection at the level of the effective mixing
height for all pollutants
Perfect vertical reflection at ground level for pollutants with
zero settling velocity
Zero vertical reflection at ground level for pollutants with finite
settling velocity
Actual mixing height is constant above sea level; effective mixing
height is constant above terrain
37
-------
For Case 2, if the plume altitude (z) lies below the mixed lid H,
the ground-level axial concentration is expressed at the upwind edge of
the plume segment by the expression for uniform vertical mixing:
C(s,r,0)
Q(s)
exp
(A-3)
/2tT u H a (s)
m y
where is the maximum mixing depth encountered by the plume segment
(see Section A.8). If, rather, the plume centerline lies above the
mixing lid, no ground-level concentrations are calculated. At the
downwind edge (s+As) of the plume segment, the ground-level axial
concentration (s+As,r,0) is expressed as:
C(s+ds,r,0)
(Q(s)+(dQ/dt)}&t
/2iT u H o (s+As)
m y
(A-4)
38
-------
Input Requirements
Emission data: location Cx and y coordinatesl, stack height,
emission rate for SQo> emission rate for S07, buoyancy flux for
plume rise, multipliers, by hour of the day, for the emission
rate and for the buoyancy flux; each for up to 10 sources
Meteorological data: Spatially variable, gridded fields of horizontal
(u,v,) wind components, mixing height, and Pasquill stability
class. These data are normally, though not necessarily, obtained
from the output of the MESOPAC program (.Volume 6, EPA 600/7-80-061).
MESOPAC requires, as input, radiosonde observations from one or
more stations, plus the wfnd components at the most relevant
level.
Output
Options: Arrays of ground level concentrations of S02 and S07 for
user-speciffed averaging times at user-specified Intervals
Tables as above for specified receptors only
Arrays of maximum grid point concentration values for the period
of the run
Maximum concentrations as above, but for specified receptors only
Table listing of the time when the first plume segment from each
source reached the edge of the computational grid
The concentrations array may be output to disk for each time
step
Model Options
Alternate plume growth coefficients
Up to 10 non-gridded receptors=
Exponential decay of SO2 to S0^
Dry deposition
Uses 24-hour cycle of emission rate multipliers
Uses 24-hour cycle of buoyancy flux multipliers
Through the MES0FILE postprocessing program (.Volume 5, EPA 600/7-80-060)
line printer plots and calcomp plots are available
Presence of mixing lid
Limitations
Relatively flat terrain
Model is designed primarily for calculating regional scale impacts
Not applicable to area or line sources
Abrupt changes in wind flow over short distances can cause erroneous
results in that vicinity
39
-------
e. Pollutant Types
S02 and SO^
f. Source-Receptor Relatiorishtp
Up to 10 point sources
Calculations made over a grixlded network of receptors
Up to 10 arbitrary receptors are permitted
g. Plume Behavior
Briggs, with buoyancy flux, F, input to the model
Includes fumigation
h. Horizontal Wind Field
Derived gridded wind field specified for each grid square. MESOPAC
derives the values by interpolation between stations and hours
i. Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Incremental plume growth over discrete time steps with plume growth
parameters chosen to approximate Turner's a curves
Plume growth is a function of stability classy
k. Vertical Dispersion
Incremental plume growth over discrete time steps, with plume
growth parameters chosen to approximate a curves of Turner
Plume growth is a function of stability class
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
S02 to So! conversion by means of half-life formula. Half-life is
supplied by the user
m. Physical Removal
See i tem 1. above
40
-------
Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: calculation of deposition is optional. Other-
wise perfect reflection is assumed
Upper boundary: perfect reflection is assumed
Mixing height is input to the model as a function of time and grid
location
Includes option to ignore upper boundary
Background
Not treated
Evaluation Studies
Sensitivity tests and evaluation studies are described in
"Development of Mesoscale Air Quality Simulation Models. Volume 1:
Comparative Studies of Puff, Plume, and Grid Models for Long
Distance Dispersion". EPA 6Q0/7-80-056.
Proposed EPA Action
MESOPLUME can be used for long range transport applications (beyond
50 km) if it can be demonstrated to give the same answers as the
recommended model, MESOPUFF, and will be subsequently executed
in that mode.
Model Availability
The MESO Models and accompanying user's guides and related studies
are available from the National Technical Information Service. The
models and related programs are on magnetic tape and the documentation
is comprised of six volumes. The accession numbers and related costs
are:
Magnetic tape: PB 80-227 549
Volume 1 : PB 80-227 580
Volume 2 : PB 80-227 598
Volume 3 : PB 80-227 796
Volume 4 : PB 80- 227 804
Volume 5 : PB 80- 227 812
Volume 6 : PB 80- 228 042
$•720.00
$ 13.00
$ 10.00
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
$- 7.00
$ 7.00
Requests should be sent to:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
41
-------
3.2 MULTIMAX
Reference: Moser, J. H. "MULTIMAX: An Air Dispersion Modeling Program
for Multiple Sources, Receptors, and Concentration Averages."
Shell Development Company, Westhollow Research Center, P. 0.
Box 1380, Houston, TX 77001, August 1979.
Abstract : MULTIMAX is a Gaussian plume model applicable to both urban
and rural areas. It can be used to calculate highest and
second-highest concentrations, for each of several averaging
times due to up to 100 sources arbitrarily located.
Equations:
x =
_!
2ttu oy az
3l 93
for az <_ 1.6L
CD
x = —? 9i
/2ir uL a..
for az > 1.6L
(2)
L = mixing height (m)
H
(stack height + plume rise)-(difference in elevation
between receptor and base of stack)
g-, - exp
[¦ i tfl
93
n=-°°
I exp |£ t
1 2nL-H 2"
exp
1*
2nL+H
42
-------
a. Input Requirements
Emissions data: emission rate, physical stack height, stack gas
exit velocity, stack inside diameter, stack gas temperature
Meteorological data:* hourly surface weather data including
ceiling, wind direction, wind speed, temperature, opaque cloud
cover. Daily mixing height is also required.
b. Output
Highest and second-highest concentrations for the year at each
receptor for averaging times of 1, 3, and 24 hours
Annual arithmetic average at each receptor
Input and results saved on mass-storage
c. Model Options
Sampling time correction
Calibration
Choice of 3 terrain options or no terrain
Wind speed adjustment with height
Source contribution
Specify receptors individually, define as circle or arc, or define
as a line
d. Limitations
Not applicable to area and line sources
Use care when applying to low-level sources
e. Pollutant Types
Treats a single inert pollutant
f. Source-Receptor Relationship
Up to 100 point sources, no area sources
Point sources at arbitrary location
Unique stack height for each source
Unique topographic elevation for each receptor; must be below top
of stack
Receptors can be described individually as lines or as arcs
These data are input into a preprocessor program which prepares the
data for input to the model. The same preprocessor program is used for
CRSTER, RAM, MPTER, and ISC.
43-
-------
Plume Behavior
Briggs final plume rise formulae
Does not treat fumigation or downwash
If plume height exceeds mixing height, concentrations further
downwind assumed equal to zero
Horizontal Wind Field
Uses user-supplied hourly wind speeds
Uses user-supplied hourly wind directions (nearest 10 degrees),
internally modified by addition of a random integer value between
-4 degrees and +5 degrees
Wind speeds corrected for release height based on power law variation
exponents from DeMarrais, different exponents for different
stability classes, reference height = 10 meters
Constant, uniform (steady-state) wind assumed within each hour
Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
Horizontal Dispersion
Semi-empirical/Gaussian plume
Six stability classes used; Turner Class 7 treated as Class 6
Dispersion coefficients from Turner; no further adjustments made
for variations in surface roughness, transport
Averaging time adjustment optional
Vertical Dispersion
Semi-empirical/Gaussian plume
Six stability classes used; Turner Class 7 treated as Class 6
Dispersion coefficients from Turner; no further adjustments made
for variations in surface roughness or transport
Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Not treated
Physical Removal
Not treated
44
-------
Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: perfect reflection at the same height as the
receptor
Upper boundary: perfect reflection
Multiple reflections handled by summation of series until
a = 1.6 x mixing height
Uniform vertical distribution thereafter
Mixing height is constant and follows topographic variations;
Taken from base of stack for determining whether plume punches
through
Taken from receptor elevation for determining vertical concentration
distribution
Mixing height for a given hour is obtained by suitable interpolation
using data from soundings taken twice a day. Interpolation
technique dependent on mode of operation (urban or rural) and
calculated stability class for the hour in question as well as
the stability class for the hour just preceding sunrise
Background
Not treated
Evaluation Studies
With appropriate selection of options, can be made equivalent to
CRSTER; therefore model evaluation studies for CRSTER apply
Proposed EPA Action
MULTIMAX can be used if it can be demonstrated to give the same
estimates as the recommended model for the same application and will
subsequently be executed in that mode.
MULTIMAX can also be used on a case-by-case basis with specific
options not available In the recommended model if it can be
demonstrated, using criteria in Section 6, to be reliable and
applicable to the site and site source.
Model Availability
MULTIMAX: An Air Dispersion Modeling Program for Multiple Sources,
Receptors, and Concentration Averages. PB 80-170-178, $12.50.
Computer tape for MULTIMAX: PB-80-170-160, $300.00.
Requests should be sent to:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5825 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
45
-------
3.3 MPSDM (MULTIPLE POINT SOURCE DIFFUSION MODEL)
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., User's Guide to
MPSDM. ERT Document No. M-l86-001-630. Environmental
Research and Technology, Inc., Concord, MA. August 1980.
MPSDM is a steady-state, univariate/bivariate, empirical,
Gaussian model for calculating sequential/case-by-case
concentrations of one/two case-by-case concentrations of
one/two inert pollutants per run at user specified receptors
in simple/complex terrain as a result of multiple point
sources.
xto.o.z) = exp [4
{.»[¦ HflV- H rai} 1,1
where
(x,y,z) are the (upwind, cross-wind, and vertical)
components of a Cartesian Coordinate System, such
that the receptor point is located at or vertically
above the origin (expressed in units of length) and
the source is at the point (x, -y, H);
x(0,0,z) is the pollutant concentration at receptor location
(Q,0,zl (mass/length3);
H ts the effective height (stack height plus plume
rise) of emission, that is, the centerline height
of the plume (length);
q is the source strength (mass/time); and
a,o are dispersion coefficients that are measures of
' cross-wind and vertical plume spread. These two
parameters are functions of downwind distance (length)
and atmospheric stability.
Reference:
Abstract :
Equations:
46
-------
Hourly ground-level pollutant concentrations for unlimited
mixing conditions can be obtained by setting z = 0 in
Equation 1. The resulting equation is:
exe [-7 ( ^)2J-exp [ "H^)2] (2)
An error function routine is used to calculate concentrations
at center!ine or off center!ine of the user-specified plume
width (I.e., sector-averaged concentrations).
47
-------
Input Requirements
Emissions data: Hourly or constant emission rate, stack gas
temperature and exit velocity.
Meteorological data: Hourly wind speed, wind direction, air temperature
and mixing height; and vertical temeprature difference or stability
class.
Air quality data: Observed concentrations at any monitor for any
or all hours (case-by-case mode only) will be compared with
estimates, or (sequential mode only) will be used to determine
background levels.
Output
MPSDM produced hourly-averaged concentrations for the sequential
mode of operation. A post-processing program, ANALYSIS, is used
to produce averages for longer periods. The case-by-case mode
produces statistics on each case, and a summary of all cases run
together.
Model Options
Stacktip downwash
User-specified plume (sector) width and/or stability categories
Flat or complex terrain
Case-by-case or sequential analysis
Buoyancy-induced dispersion
Background levels from input monitoring data
Choice of dispersion parameters
Hourly or constant source data
Univariate or btvariate Gaussian distribution of pollutants in
plume
Limitations
Stable pollutants only
No lower limit on distance for fumigation
Maximum of 15 km downwind distance
Pollutant Types
One or two inert pollutants
Source-Receptor Relationship
Arbitrary locations for sources and receptors
Actual terrain elevations may be specified and accounted for by
plume-height adjustments
Actual separation between each source/receptor pair used
Receptors at ground level
48
-------
g. Plume Behavior
Briggs plume rise formulas, including that for partial (or total)
penetration of plume into elevated inversion
Stack-tip downwash
Fumigation
Total reflection at the mixing height of pollutant above or below
top of mixing layer, and at ground level
Stack-tip downwash
A buoyancy-induced dispersion algorithm is optional
h. Horizontal Wind Field
User-supplied hourly wind speed and direction specify horizontally
homogeneous, steady-state conditions
Wind speeds vary with height according to user-designated profiles
for each stability
Specifiable in whole degrees from 1 degree to 360 degrees
i. Vertical Wind Field
Implied vertical velocities exist at tops of stacks and over rough
terrain when the algorithms for downwash and plume-height adjustment
are respectively invoked by the model; otherwise, implied value
is zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Optionally uses input Gaussian diffusion coefficients or input
angular horizontal plume width
Hourly stability (five classes ~ very unstable through slightly
stable! internally from input vertical temperature gradient and
mean wind speed
k. Vertical Dispersion
Same as (jl, except angular spread is not specifiable and not used
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
None
m. Physical Removal
None
49
-------
Boundary Conditions
Ground is optionally a perfect reflector
No upper boundary
Background
Background concentrations are estimated internally, using input
observed concentrations
Evaluation Studies
Two studies are available in the literature. The model was
independently fit to the observed data in each case.
Proposed EPA Action
MPSDM can be used if it can be demonstrated to give the same
estimates as a recommended model for the same application and
will subsequently be executed in that mode.
MPSDM can be used on a case-by-case basis with specific options not
available in the recommended model if it can be demonstrated,
using the criteria in Section 6, to be reliable and applicable to
the site and source.
Model Availability
Anyone wishing to review the MPSDM model should contact Environmental
Research- & Technology, Inc. At present no cost has been identified
for the user's manual or the model.
Requests should be directed to:
Mr. Joseph A. Curreri
Air Quality Center
3 Militia Drive
Lexington, Massachusetts 01743
50
-------
3.4 SCSTER (Multi-Source Model)
Reference:
Abstract :
Equations;
Program Documentation for Multi-Source SCSTER Model EN7408SS,
Southern Company Services, Inc., Technical Engineering
Systems, 64 Perimeter Center East, Atlanta, GA 30346.
SCSTER is a modified version of the EPA CRSTER model. The
primary distinctions of SCSTER are its capability to consider
multiple sources that are not necessarily collocated, its
enhanced receptor specifications, its variable plume height
terrain adjustment procedures and plume distortion from
directional wind shear.
/2it uL Oy
L » mixing height Cm)
H = (stack height + plume rise)-(difference in elevation
between receptor and base of stack)
x 2iru^CTy a2 ^3
for az <_ 1.6L (1)
* " ,r-V . 91
for a2 > 1.6L (2)
„ - +r .... r 1 /2nL-H\ 21 .. r 1 /2nL+Hl2
93 - I exp i- j (—j I + exp - j [-j—J
n=-« *-
51
-------
Input Requirements
Emissions data: emission rate, stack gas exit velocity, stack gas
temperature, stack exit diameter , physical stack height, elevation
of stack base, coordinates of stack location. The variable
emission data can be monthly or annual averages
Meteorological data: hourly surface weather data including cloud
ceiling, opaque cloud cover, wind direction, wind speed and
temperature. A daily mixing height is required.
Output
Tables are given for each averaging time and the highest 50
concentrations or source contribution of individual point sources
at up to 20 receptor locations for each averaging period.
Ltsting of daily maximum 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations
An option provides for a magnetic tape of all 1-hour concentrations
Tables of both highest and second-highest concentrations
Model Options
Four different terrain adjustment methods; variable averaging
times, monthly emission data, half-life application, transitional
plume rise, actual anemometer height, wind shear, wind profile,
plume boundary indicator
Limitations
Not applicable to area or line sources
Pollutant Types
Treats a single pollutant
Source-Receptor Relationship
Can handle up to 60 separate stacks at varying locations and 15
receptor rings
Provides four terrain adjustments including the CRSTER full terrain
height adjustment and a half-height for receptors above stack
height
Plume Behavior
Briggs final plume rise formulae
Contains options to incorporate wind shear with a method developed
by Maddukuri and Slawson
Applies a half-height correction in complex terrain
Provides for transitional plume rise at receptors close to source
52
-------
h. Horizontal Wind Field
User-supplied hourly wind speeds
User-supplied hourly wind directions internally modified by addition
of a random integer value between -4 and +5 degrees
Wind speeds corrected for release height based on power law variation
exponents from DeMarrais, different exponents for different
stability classes; reference height of 7 m
Steady-state wind assumed within each hour
i. Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Semi-empirical Gaussian plume
Uses 6 stability classes, Turner class 7 is treated as class 6
Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients
k. Vertical Dispersion
Semi-empirical/Gaussian plume
Six stability classes used, Turner class 7 treated as Class 6
Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients
1, Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Allows user input half-life
m. Physical Removal
Not treated
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: perfect reflection at the same height as the receptor
Upper boundary: perfect reflection
Multiple reflections handled by summation of series until
a 3 1.6 x mixing height
Uniform vertical distribution thereafter
o. Background
Not treated
53
-------
p. Evaluation Studies
See CRSTER discussion
Evaluation of certain individual options provided in user's manual
No evaluation studies of SCSTER provided
q. Proposed EPA Action
SCSTER can be used if it can be demonstrated to give the same
estimates as a recommended model for the same application and
will subsequently be executed in that mode.
SCSTER can be used on a case-by-case basis with specific options
not available in a recommended model if it can be demonstrated,
using criteria in Section 6, to be reliable and applicable to the
site and source.
r. Model Availability
The SCSTER model and user's manual are available at no charge to a
limited number of persons through Southern Company Services. A
magnetic tape must be provided for those desiring the model.
Requests should be directed to:
Mr. Bryan Baldwin
Research Specialist
Southern Company Services
Post Office Box 2625
54
-------
3.5 TCM (TEXAS CLIMATOLOGICAL MODEL)
Reference: Staff of the Texas Air Control Board, Users' Guide to the
TEXAS CLIMATOLOGICAL MODEL (TCM). Texas Air Control Board,
Permits Section, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin, TX 78723
Abstract : TCM is a climatological steady-state Gaussian plume model
for determining long-term (seasonal or annual arithmetic)
average pollutant concentrations of non-reactive pollutants.
Equations:
„ ,, x 32 x 106 Q f $ (k,m) _nl-_H^ ^ m
c?(k-) = -{WpTZT \ az(m)expL-2c2(m)2J j IW
where
Q is the source emission rate, grams per second
£ is the distance from the stack to the receptor, meters
? (k,m) is the meteorological joint frequency function
k is the index of wind direction sector which contains the
vector from the source to the point considered
m is the index for the atmospheric stability class
U*(H,m) is the weighted averaged wind speed for stability class m
at stack height H, meters per'second
cz(m) is the standard deviation of the concentration distribution
in the vertical direction, meters
H is the effective stack height, which is the sum of stack height
and plume rise, meters
The vertical standard deviation function may be approximated by a
power curve as follows: cz = a(m)
55
-------
The equation for the pollutant concentration in tne center of the
square containing the area source is
V
2 Q Ux/2)
1-b(m)
i(k,rr.)
U*(m)a(m) [l-b(m)] (2)
where
U*(m) is the weighted average wind speed (measured at a height
of 10 meters) for stability class m, meters/second
Ax is the receptor (calculation) grid spacing, meters
a(m) and b(m) are functions of atmospheric stability class rr..
Values used in this calculation were determined by Gifford
and Hanna.
o
Q is the area source emission rate, gm/km-sec.
$ (k,m) is the meteorological joint frequency function
k is the wind sector index
The pollutant concentration in the i _th (i=l, 2, 3, 4) square from the area
source is:
X -7 U,r(m) a(m)[1 -b(rr.)] ^ ) - (2i-l) ] ,k,m;
The weighted average wind speed, U*m , for stability class m is defined
as
16 6
2 2 e(k,f„,m)
ux„= k=i >=] (n\
1 y ¦ ¦"' ^ 1 ^ . V • /
'^ 6 s^^rn)
" 2 U{
k=l £=1 *
Where:
\ r'- 5 ' - 5 ' /
k
X.
m
U:
is the meteorological joint frequency function
is the wind sector index
is the wind speed class index
is the atmospheric stability class index
is the central wind speed for wind speed class
56
-------
Input Requirements
Meteorological data: stability wind rose and average temperature
Source data: point source coordinates emission rates (by pollutant),
stack height, stack diameter, stack gas exit velocity, stack gas
temeprature; area source coordinates (southwest corner!, size,
emission rate.
Air quality data: needed only for use of the calibration option
Output
Period average concentrations listed, displayed in map format, or
punched on cards at the user's option
Culpability list option provides the contributions of the five
highest contributors at each receptor
Maximum concentration option provides the maximum concentration for
each scenario(run)
Model Options
Source culpability list
Exponential decay
Calibration
Urban or rural mode
Transitional plume rise
Limitations
Stationary point and area source with point source predominant
Plat, uncomplicated terrain
Steady state meteorology
Pollutant Types
Treats up to two inert pollutants
Source-Receptor Relationship
Arbitrary location of point sources and area sources
Arbitrary location and spacing of rectangular grid of receptors
(Area source grid is best defined in terms of the receptor grid, so
that the receptors fall in the center of the area source)
Plume Behavior
Briggs1 plume rise equations used for point sources
Momentum rise included
Two-thirds power law used when transitional rise (rising state)
option is selected
Treats flares
57
-------
h. Horizontal Wind Field
Characteristic wind speed is calculated for each direction-
stability class combination
This characteristic speed is the inverse of the average inverse
speed for the stability-wind direction combination
Wind speed is adjusted to stack height by a power law as in CDM
i. Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
CIimatological approach, i.e., narrow plume assumption
Uniform distribution within each 22.5 degree sector
k. Vertical Dispersion
Gaussian plume as defined by Turner, with fit as used in CDM
Seven stability classes used
Pasquill "A" through "F" with daytime "D" and nighttime"D"
given separately
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Exponential decay, user input half-life
m. Physical Removal
Exponential decay only
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary tground): perfect reflection
Upper boundary (top of mixing layer): no effect
o. Background
Not explicit, but can by input as the "zeroth order" term in the
calibration coefficient
p. Evaluation Studies
Studies underway
58
-------
Proposed EPA Action
TCM can be used if it can be demonstrated to give the same estimates
as a recommended model for the same application and will subsequently
be executed in that mode.
TCM can be used on a case-by-case basis with specific options not
available in the recommended model if it can be demonstrated,
using criteria in Section 6, to be reliable and applicable to the
site and source.
Model Availability
The TEM and TCM models are available from the Texas Air Control
Board at a cost of $20.00 each for the user's manual and $80.00
each for the user's manual/model package.
Requests should be directed to:
Data Processing Division
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, Texas 78723
59
-------
i ut
1 M r a
A v«
-------
The pollutant concentration in the ith_ (i=1,2,3,A) square downwind of
the area source is:
Uo is the surface wind speed (measured at a height of 10 meters)
in meters/second'
Ax is the receotor (calculation) qrid spacing in meters
a(S) and b(S) are functions of atmospheric stability
Class S. Values used in this calculation were deter-
mined by Gifford and Hanna.
Q is the area source emission rate in igm/km2/sec.
61
-------
a. Input Requirements
Meteorological data: one to 24 scenarios (usually, but not necessarily
one hour each) of stability class, wind speed (or wind speed
class), wind direction (or wind direction sector), ambient
temperature, pollutant half-life, inversion penetration factor,
and mixing height
Emissions data: locations, average emission rates and heights of
emissions for both point and area sources; stack gas temperature,
stack gas exit velocity, and stack inside diameter for point
sources for plume rise calculations
b. Output
The user may specify any one or any combination of six output
options:
(1) concentration list
(2) "spatial array (concentrations displayed as on a map)
(3) punched cards of the concentration list
(4) culpability list (percent contributions of the five
highest contributors to each receptor
(5) maximum concentration, and
(6) point source list
c. Model Options
Source culpability list
Exponential decay
Averaging time adjustment to a
Stack tip downwash y
Treatment of flares
Automatic receptor grid selection
d. Limitations
Steady-state assumption
Flat terrain
Non-reactive pollutants
Area source emissions should be relatively small, not vary greatly
between adjacent sources, and the size of the area source should
be at least as large as the spacing between receptors if possible
e. Pollutant Types
Treats one or two non-reactive pollutants simultaneously
f. Source-Receptor Relationship
Arbitrary locations of point sources and area sources
Arbitrary location and spacing of rectangular grid of receptors
(Area source grid is best defined in terms of the receptor grid so
that the receptors fall in the centers of the area sources
62
-------
9• Plume Behavior
Briggs plume rise equations, including momentum rise, for point
sources
Transitional rise is calculated
Does not treat plume rise for area sources
Does not treat fumigation of building downwash
h. Horizontal Wind Field
User-supplied wind speed and direction
Wind speeds adjusted to release height by power law formula
Steady-state wind assumed
i• Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed equal to zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Gaussian plume coefficients fitted to Turner
k. Vertical Dispersion
Gaussian plume coefficients fitted to Turner
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Exponential decay only, user input half-life
m. Physical Removal
Exponential decay only, user-input half life
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: perfect reflection
Upper boundary; perfect reflection
For distances up to the distance x where a = 0.47L (where L =
mixing height), upper boundary reflection is ignored. Beyond
2x , the plume is assumed to be well-mixed vertically through the
mixing layer. Concentrations between x and 2x are found by
linear interpolation of the vertical tern in the diffusion
equation
o. Background
Not considered
p. Evaluation Studies
Studies are available from the Texas Air Control Board
63
-------
Proposed EPA Action
TEM can be used if it can be demonstrated to give the same estimates
as a recommended model for the same application and will subsequently
be executed in that mode.
TEM can be used on a case-by-case basis with specific options not
available in the recommended model if it can be demonstrated,
using-criteria in Section 6, to be reliable and applicable to the
site and source.
Model Availability
The TEM and TCM models are available from the Texas Air Control
Board at a cost of $20.00 each for the user's manual and $80.00
each for the user's manual/model package.
Requests should be directed to:
Data Processing Division
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, Texas 78723
64
-------
4.0 Models Requiring a Case-By-Case Demonstration
These models would not be recommended for general use. However,
their use would be allowed on a case-by-case basis if it could be
demonstrated, using criteria in Section 6 of the Guideline, that they are
more reliable than a recommended model for a specific application or
they are applicable and reliable for a specific application for which
there is no recommended model.
65
-------
A -\ • 1 r\ :j -5 1
m \J.-J 'A ~A ^
:i &:.* a*
'..4 .v .'• * vj,
r.a »»—« -
4.1 ERTAQ (ERT AIR QUALITY MODEL)
Reference: Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., ERTAQ User's
Guide. ERT Document No. M-0186-0015. Environmental Research
and Technology, Inc., Concord, MA. August 1980.
Abstract : ERTAQ is a multiple point, line and area source dispersion
model which utilizes the univariate Gaussian formula for
multiple reflections. Pollutant deposition and reentrainment
are accountable. Offers an urban/rural option. Calculates
long-term or worst-case concentrations due to arbitrarily
located sources for arbitrarily located receptors above or
at ground level. Background concentrations and calibration
factors at each receptor can be user specified.
Equations: ERTAQ calculates hourly pollution concentrations according
to the specific formula:
xCx.y.zl « J hdf(x,y) vdftx,z,H) df(x,u,T) (1)
where
x is the hourly average concentration Cyg/m3)
x i;s the upwind distance Cm) from receptor to source
y i;s the crosswind distance Cm) from receptor to plume
centerli ne
z is the height Cml of receptor above ground
u is the average wind speed Cm/sec)
Q ts the source strength (gm/sec), assumed constant
H is the effective height (m) of source emissions
T is the decay half-life Csec)
hdf is a horizontal distribution function
vdf is a vertical distribution function
df is a decay function.
For point, line, and area sources there are two horizontal
distributions. They are both defined as functions of c, the
haIf-width of the appropriate sector at distance x downwind
of the source.
4. 9
c = x tan j
where
c is the half-width of sector Cm)
x is the downwind distance (m)
e is 22.5 degrees for uniform distribution, or 45
degrees for triangular distribution.
66
-------
The default distribution is a uniform 22.5 degree distribution
function. It is defined by the formula:
1_ \y\ - c
2c
0 |y| > c
where
c is Q.1989x.
The alternate distribution is a 45 degree triangular distribution.
It is defined by the formula:
Co - y) |y| ^ c
0 |y| > c
where
c is 0.4142*.
The vertical distribution function used by ERTAQ is the
well-known Gaussian distribution, adjusted to include perfect
reflection off the ground surface at z = 0 and the mixing
lid. The precise distribution is:
7k, ,..?(••' }
where
D is the height (m) of mixing lid
a is the vertical dispersion coefficient (m)
j is the summation index.
hdf(x,y) =
hdf(x.y)
67
-------
The vertical dispersion az is calculated by the formula:
cjz = ax*3 + c + d.
a, b, and c are user-specified regression constants which
define a as a function of x. Default values result in
Pasquill-Gifford a . d represents an initial vertical
mixing dimension for urban environments.
For pollutants with a half-life, T, of less than 100 hours,
ERTAQ accounts for decay by multiplying the concentration by
the factor:
df = 2"x/uT
where
x is the effective downwind distance (m) from source
to receptor
u is the mean wind speed (m/s)
T is the half-life of pollutant (seconds).
The effective downwind distance is equal to the actual
downwind distance for point sources, the average downwind
distance for line sources, and the weighted average downwind
distance for area sources. For area sources, the average is
weighted by the crosswind width of the area at the downwind
distances which are evaluated.
When concentrations are calculated by ERTAQ to include
deposition, the hourly concentration equation becomes:
NPTSZ
xCx,y,z) = Y, q£f;i(x) hdf(x,y) vdf(x,z,H) (2)
i=l
where
^effi is the effective emission rate (gm/sec) of
particle size class i
NPTSZ is the number of particle size classes (up to 5)
68
-------
The deposition function is used to account for gravitational
settling and fallout of suspended particles. ERTAQ handles
deposition by considering the total particulate emissions as
being made up of five particle-size classes. Each particle
size settles at a different rate, vd, and therefore the
distribution of particle sizes in tRe plume changes as
distance from the source increases.
0=0 e"axi>vd/u
Meff yo
where
^eff is the effective emission rate (gm/sec) at
distance x downwind
Q is the actual emission rate (gm/sec) at the
source
a,b are coefficients as functions of stability
x is the downwind distance (m)
Vj is the deposition velocity (cm/sec)
u is the wind speed (m/s).
In cases of emissions resulting from wind erosion, the
emission rate can be defined as:
Q0 - %
where Qq the actua-j emission rate (gm/sec)
q is the emission factor
no
WSFAC is the exponent of wind speed
= 1 for linear dependence on wind speed
= 2 for quadratic dependence on wind speed.
69
-------
Input Requirements
Emissions data: Up to six pollutants may be specified, citing
quantity and calibration factor for each (and particle size, if
appropriate). Heat rate and height of emission per source for
determining plume height.
Meteorological data: STAR-type, plus ambient air temperature and
mixing height
Air Quality Data: Observed concentration may be input as factor in
calculating background and for calibrating results.
Output
Mean concentrations at designated receptors for long-term mode. In
worst-case mode, concentrations for user-specified meteorological
conditions.
Model Options
Urban/rural
Long-term/worst-case
Nonreactive/first-order pollutant loss
Perfect reflection/deposition
Calibration Background concentration
Reentrainment from ground
Horizontal pollutant distribution either 22.5 (randomly distributed)
or 45 degrees (triangularly distributed)
Logarithmic wind profile coefficients
Limitations
Simple topography and organized flow
Deposition algorithm appropriate only for near-ground sources
Pollutant Types
Up to six pollutants (simultaneously) and up to five size categories
for particles
Source-Receptor Relationship
Up to 501 arbitrarily located point, area and line sources, and up
to 128 arbitrarily located receptors
Arbitrary release heights for all sources
Simple terrain relief
Receptors at or above ground level
70
-------
g. Plume Behavior
Plume rise is calculable for point and area sources
Briggs (1975) plume rise formulae (final rise only)
Briggs calm formula used when u < 1.37 m/s
Does not treat fumigation or downwash
Top of mixed layer is perfect reflector (full or no plume penetration)
Ground surface is total or fractional reflector
No buoyancy-induced dispersion
h. Horizontal Wind Field
Climatological approach (steady state and homogeneous)
16 wind directions, 6 speed classes
Logarithmic vertical profile extrapolates observed wind to release
height for plume rise and to plume height for downwind dilution
(same exponents as ISCl
|. Vertical Wind Speed
Assumed to be zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
Uniform distribution in 22.5 degree sector, or triangular distribution
in 45 degree sector (user specified!
independent of stability
lc. Vertical Dispersion
Semi-empirical/Gaussian plume
Five stability categories (converts all stable to slightly stable
category!
Pasqulll-Gtfford coefficients from Turner
Urban categories shifted one class toward unstable
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
Exponential decay (temporal)
m. Physical Removal
Particle deposition on ground accountable at user's option
n. Boundary Conditions
See g. Plume Behavior
71
-------
o. Background
Calculate background for each pollutant for each receptor
p. Evaluation Studies
No field evaluation submitted
Two formal model comparisons are Included 1n the ERTAQ User's Guide
(comparisons made with COM and PAL).
q. Proposed EPA Action
ERTAQ can be used on a case-by-case basis 1f it can be demonstrated,
using the criteria 1n Section 6, that the model 1s reliable and
applicable to the site and source.
r. Model Availability
Anyone wishing to review the ERTAQ model should contact Environmental
Research & Technology, Inc. At present no cost has been Identified
for the user's:, manuals or the model.
Requests should'be directed to:
Mr. Joseph A. Currerl
A1r Quality Center
3 Militia Drive
Lexington, Massachusetts 01743
72
-------
4.2 RTDM.WC (ROUGH TERRAIN DISPERSION MODEL:WORST CASE)
Reference: Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., User's Guide
for RTDM.WC. ERT Report No. M-0186-000R. Environmental
Research and Technology, Inc., Concord, MA. August 1980.
Abstract : RTDM.WC 1s a dispersion model specifically designed for
estimating worst-case concentrations In areas where terrain
elevations exceed stack top. The model uses a steady state,
empirical Gaussian formulation; the expression for uni-
variate Gaussian distribution (user specifies angle of
sector) 1s used for stable atmospheres, and univariate or
blvarlate for nonstable. The model steps through a series
of user specified meteorological conditions, calculating and
outputtlng a concentration for each case for each receptor.
The user then scans the output for the worst-case situation.
A maximum of 35 receptors 1s assigned to each of 16 radlals
from a common point at which a maximum of ten point sources
of different heights can be assigned.
where for designated univariate pollutant distributions
SW • 2x*tanU/2)
and where for nonstable conditions with the optional bl-
varlate pollutant distribution and using just the second
expression In the brackets of the general formula above,
SW ¦ 2/27 Cy,
which provides centerllne concentrations. Variables are
defined as follows:
Equations:
x
73
-------
x is 1-hour average concentration, yg/m3
Q is pollutant emission rate, g/s
R is reflection factor,
H is the adjusted height above the local terrain, m
d
u is wind speed at plume height, m/s
a is the dispersion rate that is a measure of the vertical
plume spread, m
SW is sector width,
x is downwind distance of receptor, m
4 1s the angular dimension of the sector (e.g., 45°), and
a is the crosswind dispersion coefficient, m.
74
-------
Input Requirements
Emissions data: physical stack height, stack inner radius, stack-
gas temperature and exit velocity, and pollutant emission rate;
a single ground elevation can be entered for the mandatorily
colocated sources
Meteorological data: Range of atmospheric stability classes
(maximum of six); range of wind directions (maximum of 16); range
of wind speed classes (maximum of 6); wind speed for each speed
class; mean ambient temperature; angular plume width for stable
(optional for nonstable)
Air quality data: not applicable
Receptors: downwind distances; terrain elevations
Output
A concentration is output for any receptor(s) so designated for
each of up to 6-6-16 = 576 meteorological conditions. The user
sorts through these for maximum hourly concentration.
Model Options
Fraction of material available in stable plumes for total reflection
from ground
Number of meteorological situations
Dispersion coefficients
Individual and/or total source contributions
Output type
Meteorological persistence factor for model-calculated 1-hour,
3-hour or 24-hour average concentrations
Stack-tip downwash
Limitations
Only for buoyant plumes
Elevated point sources only, collocated (or nearly so)
No building downwash
Treats nonreactive gases only
Significant separation of real sources can cause large errors in
concentrations estimated
Pollutant Types
One nonreactive gaseous pollutant per analysis
75
-------
f. Source-Receptor Relationship
All sources are co-located at the center of a single polar receptor
grid; all receptors are located on radials emanating from source;
16 radials are possible, located directly downwind of sources for
each allowable wind direction; ground elevation is required for
the source and receptor locations; actual source-to-receptor
distances are used; receptors are always at ground level and
always at center!ine of plume when impacted by the plume
g. Plume Behavior
"Half-height" correction imposed by model for nonstable cases in
complex terrain; user controls correction for stable cases (from
no correction to full impingement)
Briggs1 (19751 formulae used; calm formula for wind speeds
< 1.37 m/s
Plume path coefficient (user specified) determines portion of plume
available for reflection from elevated terrain
No fumigation or building downwash
Stack-tip downwash available
Unlimited mixing height assumed
h. Horizontal Wind Field
Steady state and homogeneous for each of six wind speeds, six
stabilities and 16 directions. Speed varies in vertical according
to user-designated power-law relationship
i. Vertical Wind Field
Mathematically zero; an implied vertical velocity is utilized for
plumes moving more or less parallel to slopes
j. Horizontal Dispersion
During stable, utilizes sector averaged concentration (angular
width specified by user)
During nonstable, utilizes user-specified Gaussian, stability-
dependent dispersion coefficients or user-specified constant
angular sector width. Stabilities from very unstable to moderately
stable are possible and are user specified
76
-------
k. Vertical Dispersion
Gaussian stability-dependent dispersion coefficients are user-
specified for very unstable through neutral stability classes
The dispersion coefficients for neutral are substituted by the
model for user-designated stable cases
Stack-tip downwash
Buoyancy-induced dispersion by Pasquill (Ah//T0"J
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
None
m. Physical Removal
None
n. Boundary Conditions
Lower boundary: perfect reflection for portion of plume designated
by user to be available for reflection on slopes
Upper boundary: none
0. Background
Not treated
p. Evaluation Studies
Two validation studies documented in the user's guide
q. Proposed EPA Action
RTDM.WC can be used on a case-by-case basis if it can be demonstrated,
using the criteria in Section 6, that the model is reliable and
applicable to the site and source.
r. Model Availability
Anyone wishing to review the RTDM.WC model should contact Environmental
Research & Technology, Inc. At present no cost has been identified
for the user's manuals or the model.
Requests should be directed to:
Mr. Joseph A. Curreri
Air Quality Center
3 Militia Drive
Lexington, Massachusetts 01743
77
-------
78
-------
5.0 Models with No Recommendations
5.1 ELSTAR (ERT, Inc.)
This model was prepared to estimate concentrations of photochemical
oxidants. For the present, detailed requirements for such models are
not addressed in the Guideline. Therefore no recommendation concerning
this model is made here.
5.2 GM Line Source (General Motors Corporation)
This is considered to be a screening model. Screening models
were not requested in the Federal Register solicitation. Therefore no
recommendation concerning its use as a refined model is made here. This
model will be identified as a screening model for motor vehicle line
sources in the Guideline.
5.3 VISIBILITY (ERT, Inc.)
This model was prepared to simulate visibility impairment.
Such models are undergoing a separate review and comment process elsewhere
in EPA and are not considered in detail in the Guideline. Therefore no
recommendation concerning this model is made at this time.
79
-------
80
-------
6.0 Addendum to Appendix A of the Guideline on Atr Qualtty Models
The summary of HIWAY-2 was not completed in time to meet the
printing deadline for the Proposed Revisions to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models. EPA considers HIWAY-2 to be a recommended model for
carbon monoxide as stated on page 21 of the Proposed Revisions to the
Guideline.
81
-------
A. 7 HI WAY-2 (A Highway Air Pollution Model),
Reference: Environmental protection Agency-. User's Guide for HIWAY-2,
Publication No. EpA-6Q0/8-8(l-Q18. Environmental Protection
Agency, ESRL, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 , May 19.80.
Abstract : HTWAY-2 can be used to estimate the concentrations of
nonreacttve pollutants from highway* traffic. This steady-
state Gaussian model can be applied to determine air pollution
concentrations at receptor locations downwind of "at-grade"
and "cut section" highways located In relatively uncomplicated
terrain. The model is applicable for any wind direction,
highway orientation, and receptor location. The model was
developed for situations where horizontal wind flow dominates.
The model cannot consider complex terrain or large obstructions
to the flow such as buildings or large trees.
Equations: The calculation of concentration is made by a numerical
integration of the Gaussian plume point-source equation
over a finite length. The concentration x (gm~3)» from
the line source is given by:
D
p
where
u = wind speed, m sec _1
D = line source length, m
f = point source dispersion function (Equations 1 to 3), m~2
q = emission rate for line source, g m"1 sec"1
l = distance from point A to point R,S, m
A-33
-------
Por stable conditions, or if the mixing height is > 5000 meters:
f " 2*Cy,Z
exp
if z -H
2
exp
1/ z + H
2
(1)
where: <*y ~ standard deviation of the concentration distribution in
the crosswind direction, m
az = standard deviation of the concentration distribution in
the vertical direction, m
z = receptor height above ground, m
H = effective source height, m
y = crosswind distance, m
In unstable or neutral conditions, if
-------
Input Requirements
Meteorological data: one set at a time of hourly averages of wind
speed, wind direction, and mixing height and the Pasquill-Gifford
stability class are required input
Emissions data: a uniform emission rate must be specified for each
line source; height of emission must also be determined- lenqth
width, number of lanes and width of center strip are required '
b. Output
One hourly average concentration at each specified receptor location
c. Model Options
User selects cut or at grade section
Can be run interactively or in batch mode
d. Limitations
Receptors should not be located on the highways or in the cut
sections
e. Pollutant Types
Any non-reactive pollutant
f. Source Receptor Relationship
The coordinates (meters) of the end points of a line source of
length D (meters), representing a single lane extendinq from
point A to point B (see User's Guide Figure 2), are R S and
rB'SB' The direction of the line source from A to B frofl the
n8rtR is 6 (degrees). The coordinates, R,S, of any point along
the line at an arbitrary distance, i (meters), from point A art
given by: K K
R = R^ + i sin $
S = + z cos $
Given a receptor at R. , $., the downwind distance, x (meters}
and the crosswind dtstance, y (meters), of the receptor from
the point R,S for any wind direction 0 (degrees), is given by;
x = (S - Sk) cos 0 + (R - Rk) sin e
y = (S - Sk) sin 0 - (R - Rk) cos 9
A-35
-------
g. Plume Behavior
Does not treat plume rise. Emission height and effective source
height are the same.
h. Horizontal Mind Field
User-supplied hourly average wind direction
User-supplied hourly average wind speed
A wind speed and direction at 2m is preferred
Constant steady-state winds assumed for an hour
An aerodynamic drag factor is applied when winds are parallel to
the roadway and speeds are less than 2 m/sec
i. Vertical Wind Field
Assumed equal to zero
j. Horizontal Dispersion
A semi-empirical dispersion parameter is used
The total horizontal dispersion is that due to ambient turbulence
plus the turbulence generated by the vehicles on the roadway
Beyond 300 m downwind total turbulence is considered to be dominated
by atmospheric turbulence
Three stability classes are considered: unstable, neutral and
stable
k. Vertical Dispersion
Three stability classes are considered
A semi-empirical dispersion parameter is used
1. Chemistry/Reaction Mechanism
None used, non-reactive pollutants only
m. Physical Removal
None used
n. Boundary Conditions
Initial vertical dispersion based on empirically derived formulae
Initial horizontal dispersion assigned a value twice the vertical
dispersion
User-specified mixing height
o. Background
Not treated
A-36
-------
p. Evaluation Studies
Some sensitivity analyses and evaluation included in the User's
Guide
A-37
------- |