UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NINTH CONFERENCE ON AIR QUALITY MODELING 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

EPA Auditorium 

109 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

October 9, 2008 

 

V O L U M E 1 OF 2 

_______________________ 

P A G E S 1 - 450 

______________________ 

 

The above entitled meeting was called to order by Tyler J. Fox 

PRESIDING OFFICER: 

TYLER J. FOX 

Group Leader 

Air Quality Modeling Group (C439-01) 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

EPA 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 
 Vol. 1, p. 2 

 A P P E A R A N C E S 

 _____________________ 

 

 Presiding: Tyler Fox, Leader, Air Quality Modeling 

 Group, EPA 

 

 ________________________________________ 

 

 

 
 Vol. 1, p. 3 

 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 

 _________________________________ 

 

 

 Topic Presenter Page No. 

 _____ _________ ________ 

 

 Introduction and Tyler Fox 6 

 Opening Remarks Richard “Chet” Wayland 

 

 Clarification Roger Brode 39 

 Memoranda 

 

 National Air Toxics Ted Palma 59 

 Assessment - 2002 

 

 AERMOD Experiences Leigh Bacon 79 

 Birmingham Area 

 Particle Study 

 

 Photochemical Grid Ralph Norris 96 

 Models for NEPA 

 

 Use of Gridded Met Bret Anderson 108 

 Data 

 

 MM5 to AERMOD Tool Roger Brode 110 

 Implementation 

 Mesoscale Model Data Herman Wong 123 

 Reformatted Program 

 

 Questions Audience 132 

 

 Lunch Recess 142 

 

 AERMOD Implementation Randy Robinson 143 

 Work Group 

 AERMOD Update Roger Brode 187 

 

 AERSCREEN Update James Thurman 192 

 

 AERMIC Update Roger Brode 204 

 Questions Audience 218 

 

 CALPUFF Status/Update Tyler Fox 238 

 EPA’s Perspective 
 Vol. 1, p. 4 

 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 

 _________________________________ 

 (Continued) 

 ___________ 

 

 

 Topic Presenter Page No. 

 _____ _________ ________ 

 

 Overview CALPUFF Roger Brode 253 

 VISTAS Version 

 CALPUFF Chemistry Prakash Karamchandani 274 

 Improvements 

 CALPUFF Development, Joe Scire 288 

 Maintenance & 

 Evaluation 

 

 
 Vol. 1, p. 5 

 The following NINTH CONFERENCEE ON AIR 

 QUALITY MODELING, was held at the United States 

 Environmental Protection Agency, Building C, Auditorium 

 C-111, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and was 

 transcribed by, Judy D Hall, Transcriptionist, Quality Staffing, 

 Cary, NC on Thursday, October 9, 2008, commencing at 8:00 a.m. 

 ________________________________________ 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 6 

 2 Tyler Fox: All right, I think we're ready to start. 

 3 Imagine that -- on time! I want to welcome everybody 

 4 to our nice and lovely EPA facility here in RTP, North 

 5 Carolina. We've got quite a bit in two days in store 

 6 for you. We appreciate the attendance and hope your 

 7 trip here was not very eventful and hope your time 

 8 here is eventful. We do have a lot in store and let's 

 9 start with introductory remarks from Chet Wayland, our 

10 Division Director. 

11 Chet Wayland: Thank you Tyler and I would like to 

12 echo Tyler's welcome to everybody here. I will tell 

13 you and Tyler may go into more detail. There may be a 

14 fire alarm sometime today. We're not sure. It's Fire 

15 Prevention Week and there's a vicious rumor there will 

16 be a fire alarm. If there is, it's not a big deal. 

17 Everything can stay in the room so far as your laptop 

18 as it's a secure building. We all will just go out to 

19 the Visitor's Parking lot and they'll call us back in. 

20 But we'll keep our fingers crossed that they will do 

21 it tomorrow and not today. There is a vicious rumor 

22 going around the office that it may come today. 

23 Anyway, a lot of you may have heard there's been a lot 

24 of change in EPA in the past three years. We had 

25 reorganization and a lot has happened since the last 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 7 

 2 modeling conference. I believe the last conference 

 3 was Tyler's first as a group leader for the modeling 

 4 group. For me, this is my first modeling conference 

 5 as the division director of Air Quality Assessment 

 6 Division. It's not a new area for me, however; I 

 7 started in EPA back in 1991 in the Air Quality 

 8 Modeling Group under Joe Tikvart and I think everybody 

 9 in the modeling group has ties to Joe. I learned a 

10 lot under Joe and a lot of what I'm trying to do with 

11 the group today with the modeling in particular goes 

12 back to those days. Some people may groan at that and 

13 some people may cheer depending on what your opinion 

14 was of Joe, but I learned a lot under Joe and I 

15 appreciate the guidance he gave me as a young staff 

16 person. But one of the things -- it's one of our 

17 first conferences where we have AERMOD, the new 

18 regulatory model. Not only AERMOD, but we have 

19 CALPUFF as well. One of the things I learned back in 

20 my early days was that it's most important when we're 

21 talking about air quality modeling is the integrity of 

22 the model. These models are used for a variety of 

23 purposes and scientific integrity is something that is 

24 very important in how we use these models and we can't 

25 do that necessarily alone with just EPA. I think the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 8 

 2 modeling group right now is one of the best groups of 

 3 people we've had in years, except when I was in there, 

 4 of course. It really is a great group of individuals 

 5 and it's a lot of young talents who are striving to 

 6 make sure we have the best models that we have for 

 7 folks to use. Modeling is not something that's done 

 8 just for EPA. It's a modeling community. One of the 

 9 things I appreciate about the 9th Modeling Conference 

10 and the modeling conferences in the past is that it's 

11 an opportunity for people to get together and share 

12 their ideas and talk about how we can make things 

13 work. In the old days when we were gearing up for 

14 ISC, we were a beginning process and people were 

15 working together collaboratively to see how we can 

16 make this model work and how do we use this, how do we 

17 make it better. We developed a Modeling Clearinghouse 

18 which is a great vehicle for sharing information. 

19 What happened over time, however, is that we all got 

20 comfortable with that process. We all said we've been 

21 running ISC for years and we know how to do this and 

22 not communicating how to use this application. I 

23 don't think I need to tell anybody how I'm doing this. 

24 I think we have been creating some problems. To be 

25 quite honest with you, over time we've had not rogue 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 9 

 2 models out there running around but we've had rogue 

 3 applications where they may be perfectly legitimate 

 4 but nobody else knew what was going on because the 

 5 Clearinghouse was not being used. We were not 

 6 communicating like we were. When we started 

 7 developing AERMOD, we had a lot of communication 

 8 initially on the development and production, but now 

 9 we need to continue that aspect. One of the things I 

10 want to stress at this workshop as well as stress to 

11 Tyler's folks in my division is that we cannot do this 

12 alone. We have to have open communication with the 

13 modeling community and with the regulatory community 

14 about how these models are used. Not only are we 

15 battling with one model now that we have AERMOD, we 

16 have CALPUFF as well and we can't have models out 

17 there kind of being used haphazardly because what that 

18 does is it creates problems for the regulatory side as 

19 the scientific side. So one of the things I want to 

20 institute as a new division director in this division 

21 is getting back with the integrity that we once had 

22 with these models. And that doesn't mean that EPA 

23 sits up here and says okay we know the answer and this 

24 is how you do this and everybody else just has to 

25 follow along. That's absolutely the wrong way to do 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 10 

 2 it. It's a collaborative effort and we have to sit 

 3 here together as a community be it private, public, 

 4 research, academia, or whatever and talk about what is 

 5 the best method to move science forward in these 

 6 models and what's the best way to use the applications 

 7 of these models and we need input. It has to be a 

 8 collaborative process and if someone does discover 

 9 issues with the models that it is sent back to the 

10 Clearinghouse. If someone wants to use the model in a 

11 way that is different that has been approved, that 

12 goes through the Clearinghouse so that everybody is 

13 aware of it, so that when that instance comes up 

14 again, it's not something new -- it's something that 

15 has been documented and vetted through the community. 

16 And I really want to strive to push us back into that 

17 mode. It's not a burdensome mode; it's a positive 

18 mode. Yeah, it takes a little more effort to run 

19 something through the Clearinghouse, but it saves us 

20 months and months and even years of work down the road 

21 when it has been vetted through the community. So I'm 

22 really excited about where we're going with the 

23 Clearing house. We're re-energizing it and getting 

24 back into using it. I'm excited about where we are 

25 with the two models. One of the things we've seen 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 11 

 2 from the regulatory perspective is that AERMOD Model 

 3 is much more complicated than ISC and as a result 

 4 we're running into all kinds of issues on how it's 

 5 being used. Some of it is issues that people just 

 6 don't understand it yet. They haven't had the 

 7 familiarity with AERMOD that they've had with ISC and 

 8 so they're making a mistake as to how they are 

 9 applying it or they may not understand the input 

10 properly. Those things will be worked out in time, 

11 but we need to work as a community to share those 

12 things with those things within the state and local 

13 agencies and make sure they understand how to use this 

14 model. It's an extremely powerful tool and it has 

15 numerous applications, but we need to make sure we're 

16 following the guidelines that we've laid out as to how 

17 these models should be used. And as people make 

18 changes to these models they need to go through the 

19 full vetting process so that everybody is aware of 

20 what is going on and how they can be used. I think 

21 it's an exciting time to be in the air quality 

22 modeling field. When I was here in the early nineties 

23 with this group, we were just starting the 

24 photochemical regulatory aspects and it was really 

25 exciting to be there on the cutting edge and say let's 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 12 

 2 look at how we can use these new models. We are on 

 3 the cutting edge again and we've got brand new models 

 4 out there and we have old models that we have revamped 

 5 and are trying to use and I think what we're seeing is 

 6 a revitalization as far as the new modeling goes. We 

 7 all became somewhat lax over the years because it was 

 8 turn the crank and do the modeling. We're now seeing 

 9 now that we have better tools and we're also seeing 

10 new applications from people asking if they can use 

11 AERMOD for this or that and we have to say we're not 

12 sure. We need to look at it and evaluate it and test 

13 it to see if it applies in that particular situation. 

14 We've got forces that we didn't have to deal with in 

15 the past and we had ozone exceedances in Wyoming which 

16 is something that we never had to deal with back in 

17 the nineties. So we've got cases where we are looking 

18 for new environmental issues and I think we have the 

19 tools but we need to make sure those tools are applied 

20 properly. It was funny last night as I was sitting on 

21 the runway in Philadelphia trying to get home and they 

22 pulled us away from the gate and said the wind has 

23 shifted and they're now going to send us off on the 

24 other runway in the opposite direction and there will 

25 be about a forty- five minute delay. Then in about a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 13 

 2 minute and thirty seconds they came on and said the 

 3 wind shifted again and we're going off on another 

 4 runway and there will be another delay. This went on 

 5 for about an hour and a half, and I thought what a 

 6 great omen for the modeling conference if the wind can 

 7 change that fast and they shift thirty or forty 

 8 airplanes around like that. But I do think change is 

 9 something we all have to deal with, and as I was 

10 sitting on the plane talking to folks about it with 

11 folks about it everybody was gripping about this and 

12 that. One guy sitting behind me said wind changes and 

13 things change and you just have to deal with it and in 

14 the modeling world we have to do the same thing. Five 

15 years, ten years from now we may be dealing with 

16 different models or dealing with revised versions of 

17 the current models. We may be dealing with new 

18 problems but the key to all of this is working 

19 together. When I came into this job two years ago, my 

20 fundamental goal was to be a collaborative 

21 organization and not to work in silence and not to 

22 work in a vacuum. We cannot solve all the problems by 

23 ourselves in this division in this modeling group. We 

24 need your expertise. We need your input and we value 

25 that input and we need to be sure we have this 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 14 

 2 process. One of the reasons this modeling conference 

 3 was set up was to bring these folks together every two 

 4 years or so to talk about these issues. But it can't 

 5 just be when we're here. It has to be throughout the 

 6 year so I encourage you to get involved and use the 

 7 Clearinghouse when you have that opportunity or you 

 8 have that need to do so. Get involved with work 

 9 groups in passing information back to Tyler and his 

10 folks. That's the only way we're going to solve 

11 problems and move modeling forward. It's a complex 

12 issue as you all know and it's not something EPA can 

13 do all by itself. I really appreciate you being here 

14 and taking the time to come and I hope this won't be a 

15 one time deal where you come and relay your 

16 information here. This needs to be an ongoing process 

17 and I would also ask for some patience since you guys 

18 know when you work for the government you have certain 

19 rules and requirements we have to deal with. We have 

20 the regulatory process we have to go through. It may 

21 be burdensome and it may take time but it is what it 

22 is and we have to deal with that and I respect that 

23 process. I don't always agree with everything we have 

24 to do, but I respect that process. Therefore, we may 

25 not get to something as fast as you would like and it 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 15 

 2 can't be changed overnight. But it's not for lack of 

 3 trying to make things better. It's just that we have 

 4 to deal with the processes as they are and sometimes 

 5 that process is bureaucratic in nature, but that 

 6 shouldn't discourage us from bringing new ideas 

 7 forward and trying to work together as a community. 

 8 I've looked over the agenda and it looks to be a very 

 9 packed agenda with a lot of information. I think you 

10 guys are going to have a great conference and I think 

11 it's going to be a busy meeting in seeing everything 

12 you have to do. Unfortunately, I can't be here this 

13 morning, but I would trade places with any of you 

14 because I have to go to the dentist right after this. 

15 If anyone would like to swap with me and do that 

16 instead that would be great. But I do plan to get 

17 back here this afternoon and tomorrow as well. Again, 

18 I thank you for coming for what you bring to the 

19 modeling community and to the modeling program is 

20 invaluable. Your expertise, your years of knowledge, 

21 your insight into looking at things from a different 

22 perspective are all critical to the process. I'm very 

23 pleased with the staff that I have in this division to 

24 work on modeling and I think they are exceptional 

25 people. They are open to suggestions and they are 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 16 

 2 open to getting feedback and I encourage folks to 

 3 provide that information and use this opportunity to 

 4 talk about these ideas. It is up to all of us to 

 5 communicate. We will communicate with you but we 

 6 would also expect and hope that you will also 

 7 communicate back to us and provide insight. And so 

 8 with that I hope you have a wonderful meeting. I'm 

 9 looking forward to working with all of you for the 

10 next several years in my new position. I think it's 

11 going to be a great partnership and I think this 

12 conference is going to be a good start to a new 

13 personal relationship for me that we can continue for 

14 years to come. Thank you very much and have a great 

15 conference. 

16 Tyler Fox: Thank you Chet for your remarks and also 

17 for providing us with a very good contact that we will 

18 have over in the next two days and beyond. As you can 

19 see Chet's not only familiar with our program but we 

20 benefit greatly from his support within the division 

21 and it's very good to have Chet leading us into the 

22 future. Now, I get the job of going through some of 

23 the logistics but before I get into that I had an 

24 opportunity to talk with Joe Tikvart a few weeks back 

25 and I was mentioning all the things that are going on 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 17 

 2 and as Chet was talking about all the changes. Joe 

 3 looked at me and smiled and mentioned that he was 

 4 thankful that it was my job now rather than his. But 

 5 he said the more things change the more things stay 

 6 the same. And even though in some cases the names and 

 7 faces will change the issues we confront, as Chet was 

 8 pointing out, the way we had done things in the past 

 9 and the issues that we confronted then are really the 

10 same situation we face today. And I think we need to 

11 look to the past and as you can see we are trying to 

12 reinstitute new things such as Chet mentioned the 

13 Model Clearing House that we will get into shortly in 

14 trying to bring back some of the ways we did things in 

15 the past. For one reason or another we kind of lost 

16 our way on that. We need to clarify what our roles 

17 and responsibilities and the ability to use that as a 

18 template or blueprint to work on those things now. As 

19 Chet said, it's only going to get more challenging 

20 which will make it more interesting for all of us in 

21 terms of these models, modeling science, and these 

22 challenges I think are opportunities that our air 

23 quality program brings us into the future. Let's turn 

24 to some of the logistics and formalities before we 

25 start. First I would like for all of us to thank and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 18 

 2 recognize Peter Eckhoff for doing all the logistics 

 3 and administrative stuff. If we could just give him a 

 4 hand. Applause. We greatly benefit from the 

 5 accommodations and all the set up and the like. I 

 6 have asked Peter to walk through the surroundings and 

 7 the like. As Chet said, knock on wood that we don't 

 8 have a fire drill. If we do, we would go upstairs and 

 9 out to the visitor's lot. In your public comment you 

10 can say never ever again hold the conference in RTP. 

11 Peter Eckhoff: Why they want to hold a fire drill 

12 when there's a chance of rain I'm not sure...especially 

13 with the conference here and with a bunch of ninth 

14 graders coming in too. Are they joining us? No 

15 they're not. In case the fire alarm goes off, they 

16 will announce it and say there's been an emergency. 

17 We will file out the exits here and go upstairs and 

18 out the main doors you all came in and into the 

19 visitor's parking lot on the other side of the flag 

20 pole. Let's see what else. We have some amenities 

21 here. For those of you who may want internet access. 

22 There are five terminals up in the library at the top 

23 of the stairs and to your right. As a matter of fact 

24 we have an excellent library. Outside the doors here 

25 is a Cafe‚ and they are open from 6:30 am to 10:00 am 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 19 

 2 and from 11:00 am to 2:00 pm. They have grilled 

 3 sandwiches, hot food, and its good food. The 

 4 restrooms are on the other side of the stairs. Just 

 5 go down past the phones and there will be a narrow 

 6 hall off to the left and the men and ladies restrooms 

 7 are on the left. If you go past the elevators you 

 8 will be stopped by a guard so just turn around and go 

 9 back and take a right. We're in the age of 

10 electronics and this is my electronic lease. If you 

11 need to get hold of me my number is 672-6533. The 

12 emergency telephone number here is 541-2900 and Edna 

13 is our group secretary and her number is 541-5561. 

14 Around noon time we'll break for an hour. We have a 

15 nice trail and it takes about an hour to walk around. 

16 It's out these back doors but you will probably need 

17 somebody with you who has an EPA or Federal badge in 

18 order to get back inside or you will have to walk all 

19 the way around. If you want us to recommend a few 

20 area restaurants just let us know. Judy Hall is going 

21 to be our conference recorder. Judy raise your hand. 

22 If you are like me spelling last names and sometimes 

23 first names is a challenge. I've forgiven a lot of 

24 people because I know how they have spelled my name. 

25 Apparently there are about three or four dozen ways to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 20 

 2 spell it. Up the stairs and behind the guard's desk 

 3 there's a gift shop with cards, sodas, coffee and some 

 4 local newspapers. Anyway I think that's about it. Oh 

 5 yeah, we have three wireless mikes in the aisle here 

 6 and they feed into our speakers here and Judy has a 

 7 recording device on her table picking up our 

 8 conference. So if you go to ask a question the person 

 9 nearest the mike just bring it over to the person with 

10 the question. There is a button on the front of it 

11 and I think they all say on. The other thing is the 

12 lighting. This is fairly dim. Is this good for you? 

13 It that better? We'll go with this one. Okay. 

14 Tyler Fox: Thanks Pete. And the store upstairs is 

15 open until 3:00 and you can find a variety of things 

16 such as snacks and the like. Like Pete said your 

17 movements will be restricted by guards around the 

18 facility but don't hesitate to ask one of us if you 

19 have any questions. I have a couple of things I would 

20 like to take care of before we move into the first 

21 session. One is we have a number of the regional 

22 office folks here and if you could all stand up and 

23 introduce yourself and let everybody know who you are 

24 that would be great. Randy Robinson, Region 5. 

25 (inaudible) Thank you guys and as Chet was saying we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 21 

 2 cannot do it all ourselves and that goes for the 

 3 program offices as well. If not for the modeling 

 4 offices in the region and their expertise we wouldn't 

 5 be successful here. We continue to rely on them and 

 6 you should as well. We also have folks in my group 

 7 here and to be fair if you could stand up. We don't 

 8 have everyone obviously, but go ahead and introduce 

 9 yourself . Roger Brode, James Thurman, Pete Eckhoff. 

10 Later on you will probably see Karen Wesson who has 

11 worked a lot on AERMOD and Kirk Baker who is doing a 

12 lot on the photo chemical models will be joining us as 

13 well. Now, let me go through some of the ground rules 

14 and then we can go ahead and start and I'll walk 

15 through the agenda. Everybody should have gotten a 

16 final agenda out there as we made a few changes today. 

17 We'll be starting with the Appendix W Refresher and 

18 you'll see presentations in the time and minutes 

19 allotted. What we would like to do is have the 

20 presenters present in the session and then we'll open 

21 the questions and answers afterwards. That way we can 

22 try and keep our time here to about fifteen to twenty 

23 minutes after each session. If you can't resist the 

24 temptation and you really have to ask a question feel 

25 free to write it down, pass it up, and we'll keep it 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 22 

 2 on the front and we'll make sure that question gets 

 3 asked. Also recognize that we won't be able to 

 4 address everything here and now but the docket is open 

 5 and you're able to provide public comment for another 

 6 month following this conference. If you don't think 

 7 of something and don't ask the question, you can 

 8 always make comments through that process and we will 

 9 take it into account as we move forward. In some of 

10 the sessions, we will have introductions by either by 

11 me or other folks. Hopefully that will provide an 

12 appropriate context for you as you will see that what 

13 we're talking about here as it relates to the 

14 discussions we had in the 8th Modeling Conference and 

15 hopefully you will see both the progress and the 

16 issues we are facing and that we need your input on 

17 your ideas and thoughts as well. Let me make sure we 

18 have got everything. The only other thing is that if 

19 anybody was not able to get to Pete or myself about a 

20 public presentation for tomorrow afternoon please 

21 catch us in the break or sometime before tomorrow at 

22 noon. We'll get you on the agenda and get you all set 

23 up. The public session is from 2:00 on tomorrow 

24 afternoon. We've already got about two hours or so 

25 scheduled from the public in terms of those 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 23 

 2 presentations. We try and limit everybody to about 

 3 ten minutes. You can go over and request more time if 

 4 necessary but in order to fit everybody in we are 

 5 trying to limit it to that. There is some 

 6 availability for someone if there's a need or desire 

 7 to do so. Obviously after the conference maybe early 

 8 next week we'll get all the presentations up and 

 9 available to the public. Recognizing that this is a 

10 public meeting we are having it recorded and having a 

11 transcript submitted to the docket and made available 

12 as well. Please be aware that it will be made 

13 available to the public so anything that you don't 

14 want to reveal to the public you probably shouldn't 

15 say it here or submit it in your comments as this is 

16 all an open process. With that, we'll go ahead and 

17 start. I'll hand the beginning session off to myself. 

18 I was hoping I could hand it off to somebody else. 

19 Enjoy the dentist. 

20 The first session and the objectives here following 

21 what Chet said let's remind us of the processes and 

22 structure we have in place and make sure we are 

23 effectively using it and are letting you know of the 

24 efforts the EPA has taken on and the efforts you have 

25 made here. It takes a community and obviously we want 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 24 

 2 to and encourage you to participate in this and 

 3 hopefully you'll have a better idea of the processes 

 4 in place and your role and hopefully we can have some 

 5 discussions afterwards. In case you didn't know. Of 

 6 course those of you at the 8th Modeling Conference may 

 7 remember that I ask you to go on a fancy ride with me 

 8 because at the time AERMOD was not promulgated and I 

 9 just ask all of you to pretend as if it would and it 

10 was. I promised you that it would and it was as of 

11 November, 2005 and was published in the Federal 

12 Registry on December 9, 2005 we had the one year 

13 grandfather period where you could in the transition 

14 use the ISC or AERMOD. But as of December 9, 2006, 

15 AERMOD was promulgated and replaced the ISC3. There 

16 is a new Appendix W available as I said and is 

17 published and there's a copy on SCRAM and for more 

18 information about the modeling system and the code 

19 itself and the documentation. Again it's available on 

20 SCRAM. We've taken a lot of effort to update SCRAM 

21 and hope to make it more successful. We hope you will 

22 take your time to go there and utilize the information 

23 that we're trying to make available to you all. Back 

24 to the here and now I'm going to reflect back on what 

25 we said that our vision was and the elements we expect 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 25 

 2 from the 8th Modeling Conference. I'll walk through the 

 3 things that we have been doing so that you are aware 

 4 of them and put them in the context of response here. 

 5 And as I said hand it off to Roger to talk about 

 6 clarification memos something that we're trying to 

 7 start a more broader guidance and information to all. 

 8 And then I'll come back and stress the importance of 

 9 some of the processes as we move forward. For those 

10 of you here who were at the 8th Modeling Conference 

11 remember what I said about being new and what we 

12 wanted to do is kind of challenge the status quo and 

13 question the status quo and what we're doing. I think 

14 we would all agree we were in a situation where the 

15 system was leading us rather than us leading the 

16 system. So with the help of a number of folks in the 

17 group what we wanted to do is restate what our mission 

18 was and obviously to lead and promote collaborative 

19 efforts in this field to improve source culpabilities 

20 as you will see later on in a number of discussions 

21 especially with the non-guideline discussions. We've 

22 gone beyond that. Of course Chet mentioned these 

23 models are relevant and appropriate for use outside of 

24 permitting and supervision and we're looking into that 

25 and there will be some presentations on that as well. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 26 

 2 As part of that you've got to have some focal points 

 3 and there are four elements that we stress. I'll 

 4 mention two that I think are particularly relevant 

 5 here as we talk about process and look at the things 

 6 we've been doing 

 7 The first element is to foster a collaborative 

 8 environment aimed at strengthening our expertise and 

 9 working relationships not just within EPA, but across 

10 the Federal agencies, and scientific community to 

11 reestablish the leadership role that we have and to 

12 promote best science and evaluation methods. Chet 

13 mentioned integrity and that's really what this is all 

14 about. That spans just not in the application models 

15 that's in the Appendix W but broadly speaking as folks 

16 in my group and our division support air quality 

17 programs broadly. 

18 The fourth element that relates here is to promote a 

19 community approach to model development and acceptance 

20 that promotes the best use of science continued 

21 improvement in modeling science and data but make it 

22 timely in terms of use in regulatory arena. I hope 

23 you'll see some of the things that we've done to 

24 promote that as well. 

25 Soon after the 8th Modeling Conference there was a lot 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 27 

 2 of discussion and the regional office presented two 

 3 recommendations to our the Air Division Directors: 

 4 One related to the need for OAQPS to enhance its 

 5 expertise regarding this new generation and the next 

 6 generation of near-field models. The other related to 

 7 accelerating the reinstatement of an active and 

 8 effective model clearinghouse to bring that expertise 

 9 the permitting and SIP applications. We have 

10 responded since then and in fact are working on a 

11 number of things prior to that responded well to these 

12 things. 

13 Let me walk you through a couple of those to 

14 illustrate and hopefully to inform you of where we 

15 are. I'll start where we are with the AERMOD modeling 

16 systems. Obviously a new model we're going to have 

17 implementation issues. You'll know that back in the 

18 8th Modeling Conference (inaudible) Al Cimorelli did a 

19 presentation on the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. 

20 We are relying on this workgroup to effectively guide 

21 OAQPS through the implementation issues so that we can 

22 effectively identify and resolve them for the 

23 betterment of the model and for your benefit. That 

24 part of the process will engage collaboratively with 

25 the regional, state and local folks and bring those 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 28 

 2 issues to light and make sure we are coordinating and 

 3 prioritizing the things that we do in terms of 

 4 improving that model to meet the needs that you have. 

 5 On the other side we've got AERMIC and some of you 

 6 will recall that AERMIC was the committee that brought 

 7 us AERMOD thankfully. They originally formed in 1991 

 8 and charged to develop replacement for ISCST at the 

 9 time. Their efforts resulted in the promulgation of 

10 AERMOD. 

11 What we're looking to do with AERMIC is to address the 

12 scientific aspects of the model and make sure they 

13 work in partnership with us and the AERMOD 

14 implementation work group to identify scientific 

15 aspects and other items within the model that really 

16 need to be addressed separately and perHAPS take more 

17 time. Maybe even be seen more in a research mode and 

18 then do that work and feed it into the process 

19 throughout the AERMOD implementation work group so 

20 that we balance both the implantation issues and the 

21 scientific issues related to the model and have both 

22 those entities working in tandem and in support of the 

23 model and in support of you and across the modeling 

24 community. 

25 Just to highlight the fact and we'll hear more in the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 29 

 2 AERMOD session but this new committee met in RTP 

 3 during March and in July as well. So there have been 

 4 two separate meetings and they have been very 

 5 effective. What we've got is a new membership that 

 6 really consists of the members from before that are in 

 7 the public or EPA arena. Co-chaired by Roger Brode 

 8 and Jeff Weil. Then we have Akula Venkatram, UC- 

 9 Riverside, Al Cimorelli, Region 3, Bret Anderson, 

10 Region 7 and Vlad Isakov, who works in our research 

11 and development. Right now we've got the basis for a 

12 more community style not totally but at least bringing 

13 the community together to work on these scientific 

14 issues. We'll hear more about the work group later in 

15 the AERMOD session from Randy. So that relates to 

16 AERMOD and the way we are trying to be proactive in 

17 managing and working through these issues. 

18 We also have CALPUFF and we have an update process 

19 there and it's our responsibility to perform an 

20 independent assessment of CALPUFF when updating to new 

21 versions and responding to new issues and any other 

22 types of changes in the model that need to be brought 

23 into the EPA approved version. Obviously the 

24 complexity of CALPUFF requires a pretty extensive 

25 assessment and understanding of changes to interpret 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 30 

 2 these changes and to provide you and you in the public 

 3 arena the confidence in that model as it is applied 

 4 under Appendix W. And consistently with UARG these 

 5 approvals are made by EPA. 

 6 What we did is we developed a CALPUFF update tool and 

 7 protocol that was introduced by (inaudible) Desmond 

 8 Bailey and Roger Brode at the 8th Modeling Conference. 

 9 We have actually applied that tool. What it does and 

10 again you'll hear a little more about this in the 

11 CALPUFF session. It basically compares two versions 

12 of the model 1 proposed a new version (beta) and the 

13 current regulatory version (base.) It looks at the 

14 differences across 10 preset scenarios. Those 

15 scenarios were defined preciously and touched upon but 

16 certainly available through a number of presentations 

17 and include a variety of different domains and 

18 situations to be able to test the model. Again to the 

19 best of our ability given those available (inaudible) 

20 scenarios. It provides a consistent and standardized 

21 approach or methodology for assessing the and then 

22 being able to interpret those so that when we update 

23 the model in that very clear and transparent process 

24 and provide that documentation through SCRAM to you 

25 and the public. You can have the understanding that 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 31 

 2 we did and the confidence in those applications. 

 3 We have successfully applied this tool as part of two 

 4 updates: One was from the original Version 5.7 to 

 5 5.711a back in Dec 2005. Then more recently we 

 6 engaged quite a bit with the model developer and folks 

 7 at Vistas who were very thankful to, given some of the 

 8 issues that were brought up in the (inaudible) process 

 9 in the application of CALPUFF there. We looked at 

10 updating the Version from 5.711a to 5.8 on June 2007 

11 and you'll hear quite a bit more about this in the 

12 afternoon session about CALPUFF. 

13 The other thing I would like to remind folks about is 

14 that we have annual regional, state and local 

15 workshops. In fact Appendix W refers to these and 

16 they are critically important in terms of providing 

17 the type of interactions and gaining the input and 

18 providing information to regional, state and local 

19 agencies. So it allows us to provide clarification on 

20 the models and ensure consistency throughout to 

21 clarify the intent of the guidance. Again showing 

22 consistency. You can see throughout here it is really 

23 meant to make sure we have a proper and communication 

24 flow and an avenue by which we can discuss these 

25 things. It's extremely important and has been very 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 32 

 2 valuable over the past three years or four years or so 

 3 as we have been engaging in these new models. 

 4 Giving a little history here we had our 2008 workshop 

 5 back in June in Denver. Just an FYI it was our 30th 

 6 workshop. We've been at this for a long time since 

 7 1978 ... we skipped one year. The attendance there is 

 8 limited to EPA, OAQPS folks or broadly EPA and 

 9 regional office folks. That was really the focus at 

10 the beginning. Now we also include state and local 

11 agencies. They are a critical part if not the most 

12 critical part of these workshops in terms of getting 

13 information out and getting information in to us. In 

14 Denver we had about 90 total folks. As you can see we 

15 had representation from 10 EPA Regional Offices, 29 

16 States, 5 local agencies, and as well as FLMs 

17 Since 2005 we've made all the presentations available 

18 on SCRAM so you can go to the appropriate place in 

19 SCRAM and find the modeling conferences and find each 

20 individual workshop and access the agenda from each 

21 and those presentations are available in PDF form. 

22 It's another way in which you all can benefit from the 

23 information that's communicated here, it is all 

24 publically available. There's nothing presented here 

25 for the most part that is not been made available to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 33 

 2 the public. Again it is critical. In past discussion 

 3 and I think we brought this up in the workshop. I 

 4 think Joe Tikvart once said if you are not checking 

 5 SCRAM on a daily basis or weekly basis you are not in 

 6 the know. That's definitely back in vogue here 

 7 because we're using it and trying to use it 

 8 effectively to get information out. That's another 

 9 processing and way in which we ensure communication 

10 and coordination and ultimately collaboration is 

11 through these workshops. 

12 Now you heard Chet mention the Clearing House quite a 

13 bit and the Regional Offices mentioned that we needed 

14 to have an active and effective Clearing House. For 

15 one reason or another because we got comfortable with 

16 the situation that we were dealing with we stopped 

17 using the Clearing House. We didn't maintain it and 

18 we had some loss in key staff and the like. We forgot 

19 how valuable this mechanism is. And it is an 

20 effective mechanism by which the Regional Offices can 

21 get our program offices current on implementation 

22 issues related to modeling under the modeling 

23 guidelines. And it is actually referred to under 

24 Appendix W here appropriate venue and avenue by which 

25 that can be accomplished. It is a formal part of the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 34 

 2 language we used to work and a formal part obviously 

 3 how we work now and in the future. The goals are 

 4 clearly to promote national consistency and make sure 

 5 that we can engage in a timely way to advise folks in 

 6 terms of the interpretation of guidance. Again as 

 7 issues arise, the clearing house is really focused on 

 8 individual (inaudible) specific situations. We don't 

 9 necessarily handle generic or broad issue necessarily. 

10 Although they are taken into consideration and flow 

11 into the process and actually Roger will touch on the 

12 clarification memo to get at the more general broad 

13 issues. It will definitely minimize the bad 

14 precedents that may get set. It allows us to engaged 

15 early in the process on these issues and the memoranda 

16 provides critical support to the regional, state and 

17 local agencies and you all in terms of the 

18 interpretation and can in fact be used in some legal 

19 proceedings and the like to provide the necessary 

20 justification and cover for the modeling that we've 

21 done in support of particular actions. It does put 

22 both a buffer around certain things so that it is 

23 clearly understood why that approach was taken in that 

24 circumstance. On the other side of the coin if you 

25 have a situation similar to that you can apply and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 35 

 2 look to these things as a way to more easily and more 

 3 quickly do what you need to do because you've got a 

 4 good precedent in that case of being able to follow. 

 5 Now in the end it allows to inform the development 

 6 guidance ultimately through the process of consensus 

 7 building. 

 8 Now in terms of the operation of the clearing house, 

 9 technical issues are the focus so modeling issues are 

10 the focus of the clearing house. Obviously there have 

11 been policy issues and other things and sometimes it's 

12 hard to distinguish technical and policy issues but we 

13 are really trying to focus on the technical model 

14 issues to be handled by our group OAQPS and other 

15 technical experts and provide review by the policy 

16 staff as part of that process. If Policy issues come 

17 through or if policy issues come up in discussion, 

18 those would be submitted to the clearing house but 

19 hopefully will have had communication so that they 

20 will be referred to our new source review group headed 

21 by Roger (inaudible) and that is in our Air Quality 

22 Policy Division so you could and should expect a 

23 response in that case from Bill Harnett and his 

24 division. The new source review group would be the 

25 group responsible and Roge (inaudible) is the group 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 36 

 2 leader. And we would provide technical support and 

 3 input as appropriate. As has as come up recently and 

 4 requested by our policy division and unlike past 

 5 process, we can have situations where our response or 

 6 memo will be reviewed by OGC. Given some of the 

 7 situations going on in court and other types of things 

 8 and for our own protection as well. In terms of 

 9 interpreting Appendix W and the likes having that type 

10 of review, we hope to have that review handled in a 

11 timely manner. 

12 Now the process so that you know. Its specific 

13 actions the state will contact the region. It's a 

14 formal process and the region writes a memo to us with 

15 a clear statement of the issue, their recommended 

16 approach and a justification of that approach. That 

17 would again be submitted formally to the Clearing 

18 House. We will facilitate the solutions and write a 

19 formal response. And again we would be providing that 

20 response memo format back and then we'll summarize and 

21 archive these decisions in a searchable database 

22 MCHISRS which I'll talk about through SCRAM and there 

23 are some important updates there for you to know 

24 about. And we would present a summary of actions and 

25 the like and discuss those at our workshop and have an 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 37 

 2 annual report as well consistent with past practices 

 3 to get back to the way we did things before. And out 

 4 of that we would obviously we would be able to develop 

 5 guidance as appropriate being aware of these issues 

 6 and aware of the solutions and other types of things 

 7 that people are working through and those could take 

 8 the form of a policy memo for a report or rule making 

 9 if necessary. 

10 So let me touch on MCHISRS quickly 

11 Our old system you may be familiar with or you may not 

12 be familiar with because it was only accessible to 

13 epa.gov folks. Formal memos and MICHISRS records were 

14 separate on SCRAM. The new system as of May, 2007, 

15 allows full public access as to the database. So you 

16 can search and find this material. We've linked the 

17 records with both the requesting memo from the 

18 regional office and our response. So they are paired 

19 so you can see what we are responding to. To the 

20 extent possible, we will make available supporting 

21 documentation if that was available. Once again it is 

22 searchable by topic. I'll show you a slide in a 

23 minute and show you some of the fields and I urge you 

24 to go and check it out. We are still in the process 

25 of cleaning things up and making sure we've got all 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 38 

 2 the records there and they include some informal 

 3 records. Previously we had formal and informal 

 4 records and what we're doing is going about the 

 5 process of cleaning out some of the informal records 

 6 that really aren't as useful as one might think and 

 7 focus on the formal records. If we don't have the 

 8 type of documentation we need in electronic form that 

 9 we need in going back and make that available. 

10 Transparency and full disclosure, availability of 

11 information supporting the type of communication we 

12 need on these issues. 

13 Here's a screen shot of SCRAM with the Modeling 

14 Clearing House. You can access the Clearing House 

15 through here. Also the clarification memo section 

16 that Roger will be talking about in a moment is also 

17 accessible through here. Then it's a very easy online 

18 search here. The system is a nice compliment to the 

19 system I believe that region 7 or 8 has on the policy 

20 side here. We actually have a link and I don't think 

21 you can see it. Actually you do. Its region 7 and a 

22 guidance database there at the bottom. That really is 

23 the storage place for a lot of the policy type memos 

24 and the like. 

25 At this point I'm going to hand this off to Roger and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 39 

 2 allow him to go through the process and define for you 

 3 what the clarification memos are. Again it's pretty 

 4 important from a general perspective how the Clearing 

 5 House will handle specific items. But in order to 

 6 engage in this area of new models and the like. A lot 

 7 of the issues that require us to not reinterpret 

 8 Appendix W but to clarify Appendix W for all of you so 

 9 that we're working consistently 

10 Roger Brode: Thank you Tyler. I'll try to clarify 

11 what clarification memoranda is all about? First 

12 let's talk about what the role of these memoranda is 

13 from our perspective and talk about the process that 

14 we set up to go through and generate these memoranda 

15 as needed. Then maybe review some of the references 

16 in Appendix W that Tyler has already shown you in 

17 terms of regional workshop as far as need to clarify 

18 guidance or the intent of guidance and consistency in 

19 application of guidance. Then remind you or mention 

20 the two who have mentioned already and make you aware 

21 of some pending issues or particular issues that we 

22 are looking at that may result in clarification memos 

23 sometime in the future. 

24 So the role of these memos is basically trying to 

25 address issues that arise and have broad implications. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 40 

 2 They're not coming up in the context of specific 

 3 permit application which would go through the Model 

 4 Clearing House process that Tyler has just presented. 

 5 They are intended to serve as reminders or 

 6 clarification in response to new issues that might 

 7 arise. We have a new model out there and new issues 

 8 have come up and we need to clarify what the intent of 

 9 guidance is in relation to that issue or concerns that 

10 Appendix We might not be followed in some cases. 

11 Again the intent is to foster consistency in the 

12 application of Appendix W guidance. So these issues 

13 that are addressed through these clarification memos 

14 may be things that come up through our ongoing OAQPS 

15 assessments or through regular interaction we have 

16 with regional office modeling contacts. We have 

17 monthly calls with regional offices. In terms of 

18 process, we have an internal review process so before 

19 a clarification memo goes out it certainly goes 

20 through internal review from our group and our 

21 division. Chet Wayland being the director spoke to 

22 you at the beginning of the day. And as needed go 

23 through Air Quality Policy Division Office of General 

24 Council (OGC) depending on the nature of the memo and 

25 the potential impact that it may have. We also have 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 41 

 2 so far gone through review by Regional Office modeling 

 3 contacts as we have identified issues and drafts of 

 4 these memoranda so they are involved in that process 

 5 as well. So they are typically issued as a memo to 

 6 Regional Offices either through modeling contacts 

 7 directly or in some case to the Air Division Directors 

 8 in each region depending on the magnitude of the issue 

 9 or the scope of the impact and also distributed on 

10 SCRAM. So if a new memo is released you will see it 

11 on the recent additions under SCRAM website and also 

12 archived on the SCRAM web page. As you can see under 

13 the permit modeling guidance down at the bottom under 

14 the Appendix W guidance there's a link for 

15 clarification memos and that's the memo clarification 

16 page which shows includes the two that have already 

17 been issued. I won't go into too much detail. Tyler 

18 showed you some of this in the presentation showing 

19 the Clearing House as far as process. There are 

20 several places in Appendix W that discusses the need 

21 to clarify guidance in some cases and the importance 

22 of consistency in the application of guidance. So I 

23 won't go through these in too much detail as all of 

24 you all are familiar with Appendix W... I'm sure. 

25 Here are the two that have already been issued. The 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 42 

 2 first once that came out was addressed in the 

 3 regulatory status of proprietary versions of AERMOD 

 4 and was issued in December of 2007. That was 

 5 motivated in response to frequent questions regarding 

 6 the status of parallelized versions of AERMOD. AIRMET 

 7 did a great job in designing the technical aspects of 

 8 AERMOD model but one of the issues we have gotten 

 9 feedback on is that AERMOD is too slow. Our response 

10 to that is that a number of third party vendors have 

11 developed a faster version of it. But given that they 

12 are proprietary products the question came up what is 

13 their status. Appendix W clearly addresses that in 

14 many places and we issued a memo to clarify that a 

15 preferred model cannot be proprietary. We laid out 

16 what requirements would need to be met in order for 

17 these proprietary products to be used in a permanent 

18 application. 

19 The second one that came up more recently addresses 

20 the regulatory status of CALPUFF modeling system for a 

21 near field application. That was motivated by 

22 concerns that Appendix W guidance might not being 

23 followed in all cases and also some technical issues 

24 and concerns that have started to come up. 

25 I'll just say something briefly about the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 43 

 2 clarification memo for CALPUFF. We'll be talking 

 3 about that this afternoon in the CALPUFF session. One 

 4 main point EPA preferred model for near-field 

 5 regulatory applications is AERMOD as 2006 the 

 6 guideline does refer to CALPUFF as an option that may 

 7 be considered on a case-by-case basis as an 

 8 alternative model for near-field applications 

 9 involving complex winds. So if (inaudible) 

10 characteristics in the wind fields are crucial to 

11 determine the wind values, that might be a situation 

12 where AERMOD may not be appropriate and CALPUFF may be 

13 appropriate since it's a (inaudible) puff model. This 

14 is subject to approval by reviewing authority and 

15 subject to requirements in paragraph 3.2.2(e) of 

16 Appendix W, when there is no preferred model or where 

17 another model is considered more appropriate. So 

18 those are the main points and some supporting 

19 information has been issued in a staff memorandum 

20 regarding technical issues related to CALPUFF near21 field applications posted on SCRAM on September 26, 

22 2008. 

23 Also I want to take this opportunity to let you know 

24 about a couple of issues that are sort of pending. 

25 Potential issues we are currently looking at are 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 44 

 2 addressed in some ways through this clarification 

 3 memo. One has to do with the use of ASOS vs. 

 4 observer-based National Weather Service data with 

 5 AERMOD and treatment of missing airport data in 

 6 AERMOD. 

 7 The implementation of EPA formula for Good Engineering 

 8 Practice (GEP) stack height in AERMOD which includes 

 9 prime downwash. It's an issue triggered by the fact 

10 that implementation relates to the prime downwash 

11 output. I'll say a little bit about each of these. 

12 The one about the airport data and AERMOD. Here is 

13 some background information related to that. One is 

14 that the AERMOD requirements for data completeness 

15 differ from ISCST3, which required 100% completeness 

16 under regulatory default option. AERMOD doesn't 

17 impose that requirement in its design and that wasn't 

18 an oversight. That was intentional. 

19 Also over ten years ago there was a sensitivity study 

20 done the sensitivity of the ISCST3 model to ASOS vs. 

21 observer-based data from airports. There were some 

22 concerns at the time. We knew that the automated 

23 surface observing systems being put in airports had 

24 limitations in terms of the cloud cover. It only went 

25 up to 12,000 feet so if it was overcast at 16,000 it 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 45 

 2 would show up as clear below 12,000 feet. Quite a 

 3 difference between clear and overcast in terms of 

 4 (inaudible) stability so we need to understand what 

 5 impact might that have on our modeling programs. 

 6 Sensitivity analysis was conducted with ISC and there 

 7 were certainly some sensitivities that were found at 

 8 the time. For ISC generally if there was a 

 9 significant difference, the difference was that using 

10 ASOS data produced higher concentrations than using 

11 observant based data. That might be okay for us but 

12 not as good for you. At least it wasn't something 

13 that required us to say no you can't use it. So it 

14 was kind of left a little vague case by case. I 

15 acknowledge there may be cases where ASOS data might 

16 not be appropriate but we're not going to say no. The 

17 question has come up and been out there for a while. 

18 Well, how is AERMOD going to respond in that same 

19 situation? Partly through the activities of the 

20 AERMOD implementation workgroup and some assistance 

21 from contractors, we (inaudible) conducted that 

22 analysis with AERMOD and actually found that AERMOD 

23 due to some formulations in AERMOD that it is less 

24 sensitive especially to that cloud cover issue. So 

25 that's good news. We're better off with AERMOD than 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 46 

 2 ISC in regard to that. So it would be good to get 

 3 that information out there and clarify that. And we'll 

 4 hear more about that this afternoon. Another 

 5 important issue that's arisen is with the advent of 

 6 ASOS is with the Missing NWS data more extensive with 

 7 advent of ASOS these automotive surface observing 

 8 systems and also the adoption of the METAR standard 

 9 for reporting airport data. We've seen a lot more 

10 missing data than we did in the early 90's or earlier 

11 than that. So that's a new issue that's come up 

12 within the modeling community. Missing airport data 

13 was pretty rare when ISC required 100% data capture so 

14 it wasn't that big of a deal but today missing data is 

15 not that rare with ASOS and METAR. Basically METAR 

16 introduced a new variable wind code which means when 

17 the wind direction is variable we don't know what is 

18 missing but the wind speed is not missing and not 

19 calm. We need to address how this is being handled. 

20 We're finding out this is being addressed differently 

21 in different agencies and so on. We need to try and 

22 clarify that but also introduces an option that we are 

23 looking at which is to potentially use another data 

24 archive (inaudible) set because the one minute ASOS 

25 wind data. It turns out right now we're using a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 47 

 2 single 2-minute average reported sometime before the 

 3 hour. That's our standard weather observation for the 

 4 model if that single 2-minute average is calm the hour 

 5 is treated as calm and so on. But there's actually 

 6 archive that are publically available that has 2- 

 7 minute averages reported every minute. So we actually 

 8 have 60 overlapping values and we're looking at 

 9 utilizing that as an additional resource to supplement 

10 the standard observations that could drastically 

11 reduce the calm and missing winds in the airport 

12 records. 

13 The second one I'll give you some background on. I 

14 probably should have gone to the gift shop and gotten 

15 a bottle of water. But anyway it has to do with the 

16 implementation of GEP formula height in AERMOD and 

17 this is actually where AERMOD turns currently turns 

18 off building downwash effects if stack height is 

19 greater than or equal to EPA formula for GEP formula 

20 height. The formula is Hgep. Hgep = Hb + 1.5L, where 

21 Hb = building height above stack base and L = lesser 

22 of building height and projected width. I'm sure most 

23 of you are familiar with this. 

24 AERMOD implementation is consistent with all previous 

25 versions of AERMOD and all previous versions of ISC 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 48 

 2 including ISC5. What's happened is that we've seen 

 3 significant discontinuities in AERMOD impacts have 

 4 been noted for stacks that straddle that formula 

 5 height so the stack just above gets no downwash effect 

 6 much lower concentration on the stack just below. 

 7 We're talking millimeters difference. Could have a 

 8 much higher concentration in orders of magnitude in 

 9 some cases. That's a little bit unsettling. Turns 

10 out this issue was actually presented as a comment at 

11 the 7th Modeling Conference and it was the (inaudible) 

12 committee that recommended the EPA consider changing 

13 ISC-PRIME. To eliminate discontinuity the EPA 

14 response to that initial comment was that current 

15 implementation is a requirement imposed by GEP Stack 

16 Height Regulations. End of story I guess. However, 

17 seeing the magnitude of discontinuities again orders 

18 of magnitudes, one case was eight orders of magnitude 

19 different based on a hair difference in stack height. 

20 That's not very comforting so we decided to re-examine 

21 this position. And our current assessment is that 

22 AERMOD should be modified to remove this criterion for 

23 turning off downwash effects. So before doing that we 

24 want to make sure we got all the bases covered and 

25 intention is this is something that could be addressed 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 49 

 2 through a clarification memo as to what the issue is 

 3 and why we need to make this change. Ultimately it 

 4 would result in a change in the model perHAPS. This 

 5 is a summary of the line of reasoning behind that 

 6 current assessment. If you go to GEP Stack Height 

 7 regulations define GEP stack height as the greater of: 

 8 - 65 meters (de minimis GEP height); 

 9 - EPA formula height; or 

10 - Height determined by field study or fluid 

11 modeling demonstration. 

12 So based on the definition, EPA formula height does 

13 not apply below 65 meters. The discontinuities we 

14 have seen are primarily a concern for shorter stacks, 

15 usually with squat buildings. So stacks that are 

16 about 65 meters were not aware of an issue with that 

17 formula for those types of sources. 

18 Pre-PRIME downwash algorithms defined vertical extent 

19 of wake influence generally consistent with EPA 

20 formula height, resulting in little, if any, 

21 discontinuity. So it really wasn't an issue in that 

22 case. It's just been carried forward through the 

23 years. 

24 The vertical extent of wake influence in PRIME 

25 formulation can extend well above the EPA formula 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 50 

 2 height and that's what's gotten us into these wind 

 3 field studies. 

 4 Wind tunnel studies clearly support wake influences 

 5 above EPA formula height for some stack/building 

 6 geometries. 

 7 So that's what's motivating that and not sure how soon 

 8 it will get resolved but just wanted to inform the 

 9 community. I think Tyler is going to take over again 

10 with some processes. Any questions? Thank you. 

11 Tyler Fox: Thank you Roger. I'm not doing a very 

12 good job of keeping us on time but will try and get 

13 some time back. Let me continue with the importance 

14 of process here. Obviously the importance of the 

15 Clearing House process has been stressed as of late. 

16 Particularly in regard to the recent promulgation of 

17 CALPUFF and AERMOD and it really emphasizes the formal 

18 process. I can't stress that enough. Just so you 

19 know and we've talked about this with the regional 

20 office. Informal contacts with OAPQS staff does not 

21 constitute consulting with the Clearing House. If 

22 somebody talks to you and says don't worry everything 

23 is fine and I've talked to the Clearing House or 

24 whatever that thing might be. That's not the case if 

25 you don't have a memo in your hand or a process like 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 51 

 2 these two. These are the only ones we've had over the 

 3 past couple of years. Another issue we've been 

 4 discussing at the workshops with the regional, state 

 5 and local folks is if you're not being consulted with 

 6 or by the Clearing House and if you feel as if you 

 7 need to then you need to stress that with the folks 

 8 you are dealing with. I just want to make that 

 9 clear'crystal clear hopefully. There has been quite a 

10 bit of confusion. I know with emails and all it's 

11 really tempting. But it's really what the Clearing 

12 House says. So unless you get that formal memo, the 

13 Clearing House hasn't really said anything. 

14 The other thing is getting back to the importance of 

15 modeling protocol in order to get review and input 

16 early in the process both by EPA and FLM's. I don't 

17 believe we have any federal land representatives here 

18 over the next couple of days. But they are an 

19 important element of this process as well. Getting 

20 those protocols in and defining clearly the models or 

21 the options you are pursing in the course of doing 

22 your modeling, it is critically important. It's not 

23 something I think is formerly required by Appendix W, 

24 but it's a very useful instrument to communicate and 

25 understand on these things and provide the essential 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 52 

 2 background if you are going through the clearing house 

 3 or if you are going to consult with the program office 

 4 on interpretation and the regional offices as well. I 

 5 would stress getting back into practice of providing 

 6 those early in the process. I just want to stress 

 7 this is not dictatorial or mandatory control. This is 

 8 really respecting the roles and responsibilities of 

 9 the various stakeholders. From applicant to reviewing 

10 authority to us and to the public, these processes are 

11 in place to provide the type of structure and, as we 

12 said before, the confidence and integrity of the model 

13 as applied. 

14 We need to get back to understanding what our roles 

15 and responsibilities are. And when we have people 

16 interpreting the guidance or interpreting Appendix W 

17 or providing recommendations and not seeking guidance 

18 or input from regional offices, and not seeking 

19 guidance from us or not putting it through the 

20 Clearing House, it puts us all in potentially harms 

21 way. We certainly don't want to see anything come up 

22 in legal review or overturning of an action and so 

23 it's critically important we follow this process and 

24 we respect the process and we respect each other's 

25 roles as part of that process. As I said Appendix W 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 53 

 2 recognized this from the very start and we have to 

 3 have this national consistency. With that national 

 4 consistency we can have the security of mind that 

 5 we're supplying these models in the appropriate way. 

 6 And to the extent we need to provide ways in which to 

 7 meet the needs for a specific application, we have the 

 8 flexibility under Appendix W to do so. That's the 

 9 Clearing House process that provides that. 

10 I'll close and lead into the next session with there 

11 is a distinction between the regulatory model 

12 applications and those who follow Appendix W and those 

13 that don't. Obviously we focus on (inaudible) 

14 revisions of existing and new sources and NSR and 

15 including PSD. It's applicable to criteria air 

16 pollutants. Obviously we use these models and when 

17 AERMOD is used it doesn't mean it's automatically 

18 under Appendix W situation. AERMOD is being used and 

19 as you will see in the next session and discussion in 

20 the conference we are actively using the model for 

21 other avenues. I think that Appendix W and the 

22 guidelines provide best practices and good guidance 

23 for a starting point for the types of discussions we 

24 need to have. In fact, the way we used it in the 

25 (inaudible) where it didn't fall under Appendix W but 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 54 

 2 we should be consistent and respect Appendix W to the 

 3 full extent that there is overlays and overlaps in 

 4 gray areas and there were. And we have had to deal 

 5 with those as they have come up. But I just want to 

 6 make it clear as you start seeing these models used 

 7 there are situations when Appendix W applies and when 

 8 it doesn't. But in all cases, we need to be following 

 9 the process making sure the best practices and other 

10 types of appropriate communications we're using the 

11 model in the right way. After all the types of 

12 applications will affect the integrity of the model 

13 and both types of application offer us an opportunity 

14 to learn from that experience and to engage in a 

15 process that will hopefully improve that model as we 

16 move forward. 

17 If there are no questions, we can move on to the next 

18 session. 

19 In this session we'll talk about non-guideline 

20 applications and it's appropriate that we have these 

21 should we get into some situations where we see these 

22 things coming up. 

23 We'll have Ted Palma of OAQPS group here to give us an 

24 update on the 2002 National Air Toxics Assessment 

25 (NATA) 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 55 

 2 Then we'll have Leigh Bacon from Alabama DEM 

 3 discussing AERMOD experiences w/Birmingham PM2.5 

 4 study. 

 5 Then we'll have Ralph Morris to talk about the use of 

 6 photochemical models for NEPA and addressing new 

 7 issues out west with new oil and gas wells. A 

 8 situation where we will look at photochemical models 

 9 and their applicability here in a context that is 

10 outside of Appendix W but may be very relevant for 

11 consideration and use currently and in the future for 

12 Appendix W. 

13 For toxic risk assessment in Appendix W, as revised 

14 when we promulgated AERMOD we identified there are 

15 separate guidelines related to the modeling for 

16 facility-specific and community-scale air toxics risk 

17 assessments. They are available through the Air 

18 Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library and the link 

19 is provided there. We wanted to make sure and were 

20 successful in the language to the surprise of some but 

21 we were pretty persistent that we wanted to make sure 

22 that in this promulgation that we set the stage for 

23 folks evolving and moving toward the issue of AERMOD 

24 and not ISC. There's a lot of ISC based and older 

25 generation models basis built into a lot of the models 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 56 

 2 used for toxic risk assessment and broadly other risk 

 3 assessments as well. And we wanted to and were 

 4 successful in getting this language here where we 

 5 committed the agency or committed ourselves making 

 6 sure that we eventually that we would reflect the 

 7 improved formulations of the AERMOD or basically the 

 8 modeling itself as we move forward and incorporate 

 9 them as expeditiously as practicable. I'm pleased to 

10 say that Ted's presentation should give you an 

11 indication of the success there. (inaudible) group 

12 and Ted and Mark Morris who is with us as well. 

13 They've worked effectively with us and will 

14 continually work effectively with us in moving those 

15 types of assessments to embrace AERMOD and other types 

16 of models as we move on. We are also working very 

17 effectively with the (inaudible) standard group. 

18 We'll hear a little more about that tomorrow in the 

19 evaluation session about the application of AERMOD for 

20 the standards and process at least for this process 

21 for the NO2 primary (inaudible) standard, We are 

22 seeing the use of AERMOD and other dispersion models 

23 in the types of exposure assessment that are called 

24 for given the current focus on local scale issues such 

25 as near roadway and as we look at some we look at some 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 57 

 2 of these (inaudible) with primary components or 

 3 primary missions as being a large component that's a 

 4 critical thing to do. 

 5 With that said, Leigh Bacon will provide us with an 

 6 example in Birmingham where consistent with our 

 7 guidance that we provide separately. Brian 

 8 (inaudible) Timin is the lead in the group and we've 

 9 revised the ozone PM and regional haze modeling 

10 guidance. We actually have a single guidance now 

11 instead of a separate guidance for ozone and PM and 

12 regional haze. We've updated it from January, 2001. 

13 We had a draft final that went through a thorough 

14 review back in September, 2006 and we released the 

15 final version in April, 2007. And again you can find 

16 it on SCRAM like everything else and it's available in 

17 PDF form. Again, our lead in our group is Brian 

18 (inaudible). Timin. And within that guidance we bring 

19 up what we call local analysis and we've got 

20 situations and our understanding of the PM 2.5 problem 

21 across the country with the monitoring network and the 

22 like has made us realize that there are local 

23 influences of primary PM on these monitors. In order 

24 to demonstrate attainment, it's necessary to address 

25 these at that local scale. That may not be sufficient 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 58 

 2 to the types of broader grid based chemical modeling 

 3 that has been used up to now in that context. This 

 4 local analysis and new guidance replaces what was 

 5 called the hot spot analysis back in 2001 which 

 6 specified dispersion modeling in unmonitored areas 

 7 with high primary PM2.5 emissions. In the local 

 8 analysis as defined in the guidance we have now looks 

 9 for the potential use of both dispersion models or 

10 fine grid Eulerian models. What we're focusing on 

11 here is what you will realize it's a valuable thing to 

12 do is when you are looking at the contributions in 

13 nonattainment and the impacts of controls there you're 

14 using 12 km or 36 km grid or whatever photo chemical 

15 model you're going to be smoothing those things out 

16 and you may not be taking into account the true 

17 effectiveness of these controls. Let alone the base 

18 line conditions that are affecting that monitor that 

19 are important to account for. So we need to consider 

20 high resolution grid models 1km or finer and follow a 

21 standard guidance as those would apply. We're doing 

22 things there to look at that and there are efforts 

23 going on in St. Louis and other places that will be 

24 very interesting to learn from. And we've got 

25 dispersion modeling that would be and could be 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 59 

 2 appropriately applied in these areas but you need to 

 3 combine those results in some way with the photo 

 4 chemical modeling that's also being done and the 

 5 guidance provides a framework not a prescripted but a 

 6 framework to follow. We went through this process 

 7 just so you know we held and sponsored back in 

 8 October, 2007, a local analysis where we brought 

 9 together in Chicago a number of states who were 

10 interested in this and going through the process of 

11 trying to apply dispersion models or fine grid models 

12 to address the types of local primary impacts on their 

13 monitors as part of their demonstration efforts. You 

14 can see here a list of the areas that participated in 

15 that and the workshop itself is available on SCRAM 

16 with the presentations and the like so you can go back 

17 and we're thankful that we have Leigh here to provide 

18 the details in Birmingham. With that said let me hand 

19 this over to Ted Palma. He will walk us through the 

20 2002 NATA. 

21 Ted Palma: Thank you Tyler. I think you set that up 

22 real nice. I think the next three talks, as he said; 

23 with the non guideline models. I guess that makes us 

24 a bunch of mavericks. My group, SBAG, handles most of 

25 the of the risk characterizations that come through 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 60 

 2 the agency. Right now this is one of the many 

 3 projects national air toxic assessments. We're also 

 4 working on residual risk assessments and everyone of 

 5 those residual risk assessments come through our 

 6 office. As Tyler said, we're trying to work as 

 7 closely as we can with his group to try to make sure, 

 8 even though it doesn't say in Appendix W; we have to 

 9 do under the guidelines. We're trying to mimic that 

10 as closely as possible and some of the progress we've 

11 made in the last couple of years will show you that. 

12 So I'm going to talk about NATA. I'd like to refer to 

13 NATA as the single largest modeling application done 

14 and I'll show you some of the numbers in a second. I 

15 have to give a lot of that credit to Steve Fudge who's 

16 sitting over here, as a contractor with ECR, did 

17 perHAPS 99% of the modeling. Some of the numbers are 

18 daunting as you'll see in a couple of seconds. 

19 What is NATA? NATA is characterization of air toxics 

20 across the nation. Keep in mind toxics are 187 of 

21 them, air toxics, now across the nationwide. At a 

22 census tract resolution if you look at 187 about 177 

23 actually are in our inventory and I'll show you in a 

24 moment. We're at the mercy of the inventory folks. 

25 Now if we have lousy inventories and lousy stack 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 61 

 2 characterizations all of the models we come up with 

 3 are pretty useless if the inventory is not accurate. 

 4 If you look at our national inventory it's a 177 HAPS. 

 5 We also include a very important pollutant that's not 

 6 considered, diesel PM, and that's in there as well. 

 7 We start out with the inventory we model ambient 

 8 concentration as many of you are familiar with and 

 9 then calculate inhalation exposure concentration. Now 

10 this is not the type of assessment if you're worried 

11 about Mercury ingestion from fish. This is not the 

12 type of assessment to give you that. So we don't have 

13 deposition if you are looking at multipathway 

14 assessments. We are only looking at the inhalation 

15 for somebody. We are only looking at sources of 

16 outdoor origin. So if you're worried about off 

17 gassing from your formaldehyde gases from your carpet, 

18 it's not going to cover that as well. We look at both 

19 cancer and noncancerous risks and the number will be 

20 133 HAPS. For every one of those 187 HAPS, or 177 

21 HAPS, we don't have at risk or reference concentration 

22 and we don't have health risks for all these. We'll 

23 continue to develop this and we have a lot of this on 

24 our air toxic website which is also on the TTN where 

25 you can get all sorts of good information on OAQPS 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 62 

 2 guidelines, unit risk estimates and reference 

 3 concentrations all that we would suggest you use in 

 4 your risk characteristics. Different states have 

 5 different one that they use as well. So we did the 

 6 cancer and noncancer for 133 different HAPS. 

 7 

 8 What is NATA? NATA is a tool for most of our states, 

 9 locals and internal to use to kind of gauge themselves 

10 in the air toxic program. It's pretty daunting when 

11 you have 187 HAPS and so many HAPS so where do you 

12 start. We all have limited resources and budgets. So 

13 NATA points you in the right direction as where you 

14 start to look at. 

15 Then a little bit of history and I won't spend too 

16 much time because I know we're behind. But this is 

17 actually our third application of NATA. One of the 

18 things that jumps right at you is why am I doing an 

19 application that is almost seven years old. Six 

20 plus years old. Well, it takes 2-3 years to develop 

21 an inventory and as you see it takes several years to 

22 do this risk characterization and then a couple of 

23 years to get it through the political system. But 

24 we're hoping when is comes out, I'll show you a 

25 schedule in early 2009 for the public, state, and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 63 

 2 regional folks, it should be available much sooner 

 3 than that. We are also planning on some future NATA's 

 4 but I won't talk about that. We're actually working 

 5 on renaming it to NAPA and it has nothing to do with 

 6 grapes and wines. Maybe it will be and we'll have our 

 7 conference in NAPA Valley. But we're hoping to 

 8 integrate at that point criteria air toxics into one 

 9 cohesive modeling. That's still on the drawing board 

10 and maybe in future talks we can talk about that. 

11 That's one of the things'we want to improve the timing 

12 on that. I had mentioned who uses NATA. We have 

13 actually used it some regulatory settings but it's not 

14 the only. Actually NATA went in front of a science 

15 advisory board about four or five years ago. They 

16 said they didn't want NATA to be just a regulatory 

17 application standing on its own. We have used NATA 

18 for our mobile air toxic rule a few years ago but we 

19 used it in context with other things to gauge how some 

20 of these other things are doing. With monitoring, 

21 other assessments, local assessments along with NATA 

22 you can use it in a regulatory setting. 

23 We've also used it and some of you might be familiar 

24 with our air toxic monitoring network that we've set 

25 up on air national toxic trend sites. We use it to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 64 

 2 place trend sites so we're placing them in the areas 

 3 of the country where we think we need the most 

 4 monitoring. We're also using it to support some other 

 5 toxic programs. As I said, many states and 

 6 communities are using NATA on a regular basis. 

 7 I have to show at least one flow diagram since I have 

 8 a lot of scientist in the room. These are the five 

 9 steps to developing NATA. Like I said we're at the 

10 mercy of the inventory. I'll go over each one of 

11 these in a little more detail. Many of the folks in 

12 this room will be familiar with number 2 where we 

13 actually do the dispersion modeling. One of the steps 

14 is that many folks seem to miss is the results of the 

15 dispersion modeling analysis is generally not what 

16 people breathe. When we're doing a risk 

17 characterization, and I'm looking at people's long 

18 term chronic health effects, people don't live at the 

19 fence line of the facility. People don't live at a 

20 census tract centroid or wherever you want to place 

21 your receptors. People like us spend 90% of their 

22 time in an indoor locations like we're doing right 

23 now. So how does that concentration outside relate to 

24 the concentration in this room or wherever you spend 

25 your time. In your house or your car and how do we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 65 

 2 relate that to the concentration from the dispersion 

 3 models. 

 4 We run what we call exposure models to do that and we 

 5 take into account the human activity pattern to come 

 6 up with an exposure concentration or a breathing level 

 7 concentration that someone might breathe. Then we do 

 8 a risk characterization with that. We also did a 

 9 model model comparison and I'll show you some of the 

10 results of that just to see how well it does. 

11 I'll just spend a few minutes on the inventory itself. 

12 Like I said we are at the mercy of the inventory folks 

13 and EFIG here at EPA put together a really good 

14 inventory every three years on toxics. The 2005 

15 inventory is just about ready. In fact I've talked 

16 with folks who have gotten it in the last two days or 

17 so. The 2005 NEI is about to be released any day now 

18 to the public. You should be looking for that. The 

19 2002 NEI was based on a later version of the 2002 NEI 

20 on April, 2007. And those of you who are familiar 

21 with the NEI knows it is broken up into two point 

22 sources or sources where we know the location of that 

23 facility, And non point sources where we get the 

24 inventory for a large area such as a dry cleaning for 

25 instance. I'll get an inventory for Wake County which 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 66 

 2 I live in has X thousand pounds or X tons of perc from 

 3 dry cleaners. But we don't know exactly where these 

 4 dry cleaners are. It's an area source inventory. 

 5 We also have a similar type of inventory ran through 

 6 Mobile 6.2 for folks up in Ann Arbor Michigan put 

 7 together for our mobile sources both on road and off 

 8 road sources. On road would be cars and off road 

 9 would construction vehicles and recreation vehicles 

10 and what not. So we get those types of inventory as 

11 well. But we don't know exactly where the locations 

12 are. So how I treat those in my modeling scenario 

13 comes into play. One of the things you have to be 

14 careful with is you have limited resources and time is 

15 where do I want to put my biggest bag for my buck. I 

16 don't want to over analyze data and spend all sorts of 

17 time on my non point source inventory and try to 

18 characterize those down to the nearest meter when I 

19 don't really know where these things are located. So 

20 I did spend more time on the point source inventory 

21 rather than the non point inventory. I have the point 

22 source inventory results and we'll talk about that in 

23 few seconds. I also have the area source broken down 

24 into subsets so if I want to look into NATA and see 

25 what's coming from the dry cleaning sub category and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 67 

 2 what's coming from the POTW I can get the results and 

 3 look at them that way. 

 4 The same thing with on road as I can look at the 

 5 different on road vehicles and see what's coming out 

 6 of ports and see where my risks are coming from. 

 7 Now getting to the modeling component, how did I model 

 8 the point source category? This is what Tyler was 

 9 talking on a few minutes ago. HEM stands for Human 

10 Exposure Model and this is also available on our FERA 

11 website which is a sister website next to SCRAM. You 

12 can get access to HEM3. HEM up until about two years 

13 was ran with the ISC model. When Tyler and I sat 

14 down, one of the biggest things that kept us from 

15 updating it was the meteorology data. Everyone who 

16 has done some modeling in the past with ISC can go to 

17 SCRAM and get all sorts of meteorology data and 

18 download it and with all the five year data sets that 

19 are out there. Well, Tyler, Roger and myself sat down 

20 and we actually developed meteorology data to run a 

21 national application like this for the whole nations. 

22 We developed over 200 meteorology stations nation wide 

23 and we can talk about that in a little while. 

24 Essentially we have the closest Met station nationwide 

25 approximately 50 km from any given source nationwide 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 68 

 2 with this data set we have. And it's also been 

 3 supplemented by many states data. Wisconsin sent me 

 4 seventeen process stations they have in their state. 

 5 So you are within twelve miles of any point sources in 

 6 Wisconsin and other states have been sending me data 

 7 all along. 

 8 So we're building a nice archive of meteorology data 

 9 to run for these non regulatory applications through 

10 the HEM model for the NATA application as well. Just 

11 looking at the numbers here this is what comes out of 

12 the NEI about sixty thousand facilities. That's why I 

13 think it's probably one of the biggest applications of 

14 the Gaussian model ever. Out of those sixty thousand 

15 facilities there are 131,000 sources there so we 

16 really got to applaud Steve for getting through this. 

17 Two hundred ninety one different pollutants. If you 

18 look at the one hundred seventy seven, there are many 

19 different compounds for several of these things so 

20 there are actually more than the one hundred eighty 

21 eight HPAS HAPS in the Clean Air Act. We modeled the 

22 point sources at a census block resolution. A census 

23 block is about forty people. Census tract is about 

24 four thousand people. There are about 8.2 million 

25 census blocks nationwide. So just start doing the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 69 

 2 math on these numbers here. One hundred thirty one 

 3 thousand sources at 8.2 census blocks. Guess how long 

 4 it took for this to run. I don't want anyone to 

 5 complain about their model taking an overnight run. 

 6 So it was a big time running on many, many PC's and 

 7 Steve had it clustered all over the place and got most 

 8 of it ran in a relatively short period of time. Let's 

 9 go over a couple of model options we did. One of the 

10 big things we did to save some time was ran it through 

11 air toxic option which does the sampling time period 

12 through the model. It kind of expedites the model and 

13 we only ran annual impacts. We did not do short term 

14 impacts which can also slow it down. We did include 

15 terrain. I didn't write it on here but we did not 

16 include things like building downwash and surface 

17 features. We're trying to calculate our risk at the 

18 census block (inaudible) and the census tract. 

19 Generally our thought process on that is even if we 

20 had the data for building downwash would add a lot of 

21 time to the assessment. This is not a regulatory 

22 fence line application. It's an application that 

23 someone is living a kilometer or several thousand 

24 meters from the facility where they spend the majority 

25 of their time. I'm trying to come up with chronic 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 70 

 2 type impact not fence line impact for somebody's 

 3 permit application where a downwash application might 

 4 be important. As I mentioned we had the meteorology 

 5 set nationwide and one of the things that AERMOD 

 6 obviously has the strength to look at the land 

 7 surrounding the facility. Obviously I couldn't do 

 8 that for sixty thousand facilities and do a terrain 

 9 feature run through sixty thousand facilities so we 

10 used airport surface data around these airports to 

11 come up with and use that in our assessment. That's 

12 another simplification that we use but when you look 

13 at the assessment as a whole, we think the results are 

14 pretty good. 

15 For the non point I mentioned we don't know where many 

16 of these are located. We felt like rather than model 

17 another sixty thousand sources and take another couple 

18 of months to run. Let's run these through the old 

19 ASPEN model. This model is still on SCRAM and I saw 

20 it the other day. The model EMSHAP is an emission 

21 process so it takes our inventory at the county type 

22 level and distributes it geographically. You don't 

23 have very thing plucked down in the middle of the 

24 county. It uses the different surrogates such as 

25 population, vehicle miles travel to spread those 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 71 

 2 emissions out over your county and model it at a 

 3 different locations so that you don't get hot clusters 

 4 where you shouldn't really have them. So we modeled 

 5 these using the ASPEN model which is based on an even 

 6 older ISCLT2 model. We modeled these, rather than 

 7 model these at the census block; we felt we would over 

 8 analysis them so we modeled them at the census tract. 

 9 It's more reasonable than the 8.2 million and it's 

10 only 66 thousand census tracts and I talk about the 

11 bins that we broke up the data a few seconds ago. 

12 We also did one other thing. The inventories aren't 

13 perfect. What we tried to do is add a background 

14 concentration. What a background concentration 

15 represents is of several things. These Gaussian 

16 models are limited to 50 km. We also have non 

17 inventory sources that are not included so the 

18 inventory doesn't get a lot of the smaller sources. 

19 So we developed background concentrations and I won't 

20 spend a lot of time on it. We have a report on this 

21 that will be on the website that outlines how we did 

22 this but we have 33 HAPS where we have what we call a 

23 background concentration. We looked at things like 

24 different clean wind sectors using monitoring data. 

25 We looked at emission inventories to develop 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 72 

 2 background estimates when we didn't have adequate 

 3 monitoring data. 

 4 Finally we did a model to monitor comparison where we 

 5 looked at the results from NATA compared to the air 

 6 toxic monitors out there. These are the pollutants 

 7 that we do have a background concentration and the 

 8 different colors just represent the background 

 9 concentrations as we've gone through time from the 

10 different NATA assessments we've done. 

11 We have model to monitor comparisons that may be of 

12 interest to some folks in this room. The rectangles 

13 that you see on the 25th and 75th percentile of all the 

14 monitors as compared to the NATA data. The value of 

15 one would be equal comparison with our NATA results. 

16 They were perfect if you get a nice one. Those two 

17 gray lines is the famous Joe Touma factor of 2 if your 

18 results are within a factor of 2, you're good. You 

19 can see most of the gas pollutants are within a factor 

20 of 2. A couple of outliners out there that we're 

21 looking into might be inventory issues. Remember the 

22 inventory is coming from some states and different 

23 states characterize that inventory differently. Some 

24 do a better job than others. Some inventories we have 

25 to build them up from things like TRI. There were 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 73 

 2 several states who didn't supply inventories in 2002. 

 3 This is some of the non gases some of the metals 

 4 particulate that we looked at and the monitoring data 

 5 that is out there is broken up into two data sets. We 

 6 have TSP monitors that are measuring these 

 7 particulates and you have PM 2.5 monitors that are 

 8 measuring these fine particulates. When you compare 

 9 the NATA results to the PM 2.5 it actually did pretty 

10 well. Compared to most HAPS, Mercury and Selenium 

11 didn't do as well. But for most of HAPS and Arsenic 

12 and those of you who are familiar with toxicity, 

13 Chromium is one of our most toxic metals out there. 

14 We did a pretty decent job in the 2002 NATA compared 

15 to the fine particulate we did a pretty decent job I 

16 think. 

17 I mentioned earlier about exposure characterizations 

18 and once you have this ambient concentration at a 

19 census tract or census block we try to follow people 

20 around. I won't spend a lot of time on this. We have 

21 a model called HAPEM that we run and develop these 

22 exposure ratios. That is the ratio between what's 

23 predicted at that census tract and what people 

24 breathe. It essentially takes into account that 

25 people spend 90% of their time in indoor locations. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 74 

 2 People don't generally spend a lot of time outside. 

 3 So we take into account people driving to school and 

 4 commuting and what not. And this HAPEM model that we 

 5 have account for this in our characterization. Then 

 6 take that breathing level concentration and apply the 

 7 unit risk estimations and the reference concentrations 

 8 to come up with the cancer and noncancer values. 

 9 These will be on our website. Those of you familiar 

10 with our previous NATA characterization we had a 

11 series of maps on the website. Those maps were 

12 costing me about $30,000 a year to actually post these 

13 maps on the website. It's internal EPA funny money 

14 but it gets all clogged up so I'd rather spend my 

15 money on modeling and risk characterization. One of 

16 the things we're looking at is actually exporting the 

17 NATA data into what's called a KML format. You click 

18 on it and bring it up and Google Earth. Right now it 

19 will be in Excel and Access format and I'll give you a 

20 timeline on that in a second and it will be available 

21 at the census tract. For the state and regional folks 

22 in here who want some of the finer resolution data, I 

23 can work on that when that data comes available. 

24 We'll work on that in a year or so. 

25 When will it be released? I get this question all the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 75 

 2 time. We are just about to start a formal preview 

 3 with our local and state partners. We're already 

 4 given it out to many states already where we thought 

 5 there were some issues with the data and inventory. 

 6 The states look at the data for about two or three 

 7 months. They'll give us their feedback on any 

 8 modifications and we're hoping to release this to the 

 9 public in early 2009. 

10 I know we're short of time but here's what some of the 

11 results look like from the national air toxic. We 

12 break the results into Major Sources, Area Sources. 

13 When you define Area Sources from a regulatory point 

14 of view it's the 10/25 tons not the area source as a 

15 model. On and off road and the background, you can 

16 see the two bars that represent the 1999 and the 2000 

17 NATA. Essentially we think the clean act Clean Air 

18 Act is doing a good job if you look at it real quick. 

19 That darker purple line is shorter than the other 

20 line. A lot of it is attributed to... we did revise 

21 our background concentration. So that might not be 

22 something real that's more of a technique. If you 

23 look at the other four categories there, everyone is 

24 shorter in the 2002 than it was in the 1999. That 

25 tells us that our regulations and a lot of our 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 76 

 2 reduction programs are working over time. So we 

 3 should see this as we go forward the assessment will 

 4 get shorter and shorter and you'll see better risk 

 5 characterizations. 

 6 Which HAPS are driving our risks. Above and beyond 

 7 all is Benzene. I don't think that's any shock to 

 8 anyone in here who has done any risk characterization. 

 9 I think Benzene should be a criteria pollutant. Over 

10 30% of risk comes from Benzene. The carbon 

11 tetrachloride that you're seeing is actually coming 

12 from that background numbers. It's coming from the 

13 international transport. There's not a lot of carbon 

14 tetrachloride emitted in this country. There's a 

15 little bit coming from the pulp and paper industry. 

16 But most is coming from long range transport. You 

17 can read the other ones on there. There are about 13 

18 HAPS that make up about 92% of the national air toxic 

19 risk. This is at the national level so if you're 

20 looking at any censes tract block, you'd get different 

21 results. This gives you an idea. This is the source 

22 category that it's coming from. We've pretty much 

23 completed our MACT program which is the biggest 

24 reductions. The major source is about 6% of the risk 

25 where as area sources which we are just starting up 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 77 

 2 and coming out with regulations are a bigger chunk of 

 3 that risk that's left out of there. At nearly 20%, 

 4 the MSAT rule that came out last year which will help 

 5 reduce that chunk of the pie. If we had an air toxic 

 6 satellite to put up there, this is what it would look 

 7 like. This is the NATA results at the county level. 

 8 This is obviously the county level. For those of you 

 9 who saw my presentation in 1999, there were quite a 

10 few orange and red spots up there and a lot of those 

11 are shrinking which is good news. Like I said the air 

12 toxic program is kicking in and it's doing its job. 

13 If you look at some of those lighter blues and yellows 

14 are where you would expect in a large metropolitan 

15 areas. We have a lot of mobile sources to follow the 

16 I-95 corridor up and down the East coast. Southern 

17 California and what not where most of the traffic is. 

18 The big orange one that jumps out at you is Oregon. 

19 It's actually from forest fires and 2002 was a very 

20 tough year for forest fires out in the northwest. 

21 They had fires burning most of the summer and wood 

22 burning sends up a lot of PAH and will show up as a 

23 high risk in that area. 

24 One of the things that moving toward the NAPA approach 

25 is how do these toxics overlay with criteria 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 78 

 2 pollutants. We develop this color wheel to give you 

 3 that idea and that might be real busy for you to see 

 4 on the wheel. You'll have the slides to go back and 

 5 look at it. But essentially it tells us what we have 

 6 done here as plotted out the different areas of non 

 7 attainment nation wide for the ozone and PM. We have 

 8 compared to where the higher toxic areas. Black means 

 9 all three of those are high. Many of the areas 

10 overlap so this tells us when we development programs 

11 we should be looking at both the criteria and air 

12 toxic programs. We need to develop controls that take 

13 care of everything coming out of the facility more 

14 unison in a way. We may be smarter developing our 

15 controls in looking at overlapping these controls over 

16 both criteria and air toxic. 

17 Tyler Fox: Thank you Ted. Nicely presented both 

18 during the presentation and especially at the end 

19 there. There are obviously benefits of working 

20 together from a modeling standpoint as we move forward 

21 identifying multi pollutants solutions to 

22 environmental problems. Chet mentioned that OAQPS is 

23 reorganized we have a division that once was an 

24 emission standard division responsible for (inaudible) 

25 and area source rules and the risk and technology 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 79 

 2 reviews are now going to be looking into sector based 

 3 approaches that help identify or look at those type of 

 4 areas where you have multi pollutant issues and look 

 5 at the sectors contributing that and focus programs to 

 6 get both criteria and air toxics. Obviously with 

 7 climate on the horizon as well green house gases will 

 8 also be important to get to. 

 9 Next we have Leigh Bacon from Alabama DEM. And 

10 although she has 49 slides she has assured me that 

11 she... 

12 Leigh Bacon: Don't know if it's a good thing to go 

13 after Ted or not. I was pretty impressed with the 

14 number of sources we're doing until we saw what he was 

15 doing. We just sat back there and thought everything 

16 he is saying is pretty much what we're saying. EI is 

17 the key as the component to the BAP studies. I'm a 

18 fast talker even though I'm a southern girl. So I 

19 think we can get through this pretty quickly. Thank 

20 you to Tyler and his group for having us talk. This 

21 has been an interesting year and a half almost two 

22 years process that we originally slated 6 months for. 

23 We're hopeful that it will end soon. As you 

24 know EPA designated areas for the annual PM.2.5 

25 standard a few years back and EPA designated part 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 80 

 2 of the Birmingham area, part of Jefferson, all of 

 3 Jefferson, Shelby, and a small portion of Walker 

 4 counties as nonattainment for the annual 

 5 standard. Current PM2.5 Design Values - 2005- 

 6 2007: North Bham - 18.9 ug/m3 (18.7), Wylam - 

 7 17.7 ug/m3 (17.5). However there was an 

 8 influence of fires on these so the numbers in 

 9 parentheses reflect the design values associated 

10 with removal of exceptional days. Obviously the 

11 NAAQS is still at 15 and we are over. Obviously 

12 we had to develop had an attainment demonstration 

13 to provide EPA with the plan for coming into 

14 attainment. Well, prior to that the Jefferson 

15 County Department of Health contracted with a 

16 firm to identify what are the problems at those 

17 inner monitors. They are clearly higher than 

18 other monitors in the county. We have very good 

19 distribution of monitors in that area. Based on 

20 those conclusions, what we've been focusing on is 

21 the reduction of direct inner (inaudible) PM fine 

22 in the area immediately surrounding these 

23 monitors. It obviously relies on reductions from 

24 National programs such as CAIR which we're 

25 planning as if it still exists. We're in denial. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 81 

 2 And so we began to develop the 2002 baseline 

 3 modeling using VISTAS which is our (inaudible) 

 4 regional planning organization in the southeast 

 5 and then we did some 2009 modeling and now we're 

 6 looking into 2012 as well. And we are using, as 

 7 Tyler mentioned earlier, we are using an 

 8 integrated approach to show attainment. 

 9 These are our monitors in the Birmingham area and 

10 actually these are not all. I don't know what 

11 happens on Power Point. In the far eastern part of 

12 the county, we also have a monitor and we have 

13 another monitor just south of the Hoover monitor. 

14 The two monitors directly in the middle of the map 

15 are the monitors that show higher concentration than 

16 those in the (inaudible) rest of the NAA. These are 

17 designed back in 2000. You can see that North 

18 Birmingham and Wylam have shown values greater than 

19 the standard. We do have some good news. We've 

20 done QAQC on the first two quarters of this year and 

21 we have had amazing lower concentrations. We don't 

22 know why but we're very glad to take it. 

23 This is the (inaudible) bar chart speciating the 

24 local PM.2.5 design value for the 2005 to 2007 

25 period. You can see clearly there is an increment 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 82 

 2 above the other monitors in the areas. Providence 

 3 is our far western monitor. We kind of call it 

 4 background. Technically it's background. You can 

 5 see that the ENVAIR study will showed you that there 

 6 is a regional component, an urban component and 

 7 local area component to the problem in Birmingham. 

 8 The numbers in the middle are the design values 

 9 themselves. 

10 We started doing all this process with 

11 VISTAS back in 2000 when we started doing 

12 haze. We did some modeling some 2009 and 

13 2018 modeling for haze. We also looked at 

14 the CAIR modeling that was done. What it 

15 basically told us was that we would get 

16 better (inaudible) than from our 

17 nonattainment ozone plans. We'd get about a 

18 microgram per cubic meter reduction. But 

19 it's not enough. We knew it would help, but 

20 it wouldn't bring us into attainment by 

21 2010. And so the first question we asked 

22 ourselves'are there any other reductions in 

23 local PM possible. Where is it coming from 

24 and who's emitting it and how it is being 

25 emitted? Again the original component, the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 83 

 2 ENVAIR study decided that the regional 

 3 component was approximately 12-14 mg/m3, 

 4 general urban - ~2 mg/m3, local - ~3-4 mg/m3 

 5 that has been revised by (inaudible) the 

 6 BAPS workgroup through the process. There 

 7 are multiple lines of evidence that do link 

 8 to excess to several geographical source 

 9 complexes. These monitors are literally on 

10 top of some of our industry. One of our 

11 industry is 300 meters from our north 

12 Birmingham monitor. 

13 So the ENVAIR study dated a number of the now 

14 (inaudible) ways to try and determine what are the 

15 causes and who are the causes and what makes up the 

16 excess. Again we decided that it couldn't just take 

17 regional PM reductions, it had to take local 

18 reductions. We decided to focus our attention on 

19 those first complexes. The problem with this and it 

20 really gets back to what Ted was saying is that 

21 emissions inventory is the key. And many of these 

22 sources are very intermittent in terms of emissions to 

23 semi-continuous. We have transportation; we have a 

24 large corridor there with three or four major 

25 highways. We also have trucking and rail yards in the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 84 

 2 area. So what do we do? We'll just model and see 

 3 what happens. 

 4 This is just some of the pictures of the monitor of 

 5 pollution. This is pollution roses and you can see 

 6 the... that's the monitor. It's not actually there it's 

 7 actually attached farther to your left in the 

 8 boundaries. That's the whole facility that's just the 

 9 middle I guess where the (inaudible). Not only that 

10 there are homes that are in the immediate area of many 

11 of these facilities. 

12 This is the North Birmingham monitor. You'll see a 

13 rail yard in the upper middle of the slide and you'll 

14 see two other facilities. This is just a sample and 

15 we're not just picking on these. We have a lot of 

16 these facilities but the pollution rows obviously 

17 indicate this is a predominate wind direction. So we 

18 took the findings from the monitoring study and 

19 (ENVAIR study) and contracted with ENVIRON/Alpine 

20 Geophysics to conduct a whole new attainment 

21 demonstration. We awarded the contract in December, 

22 2006 using the CMAQ platform with MM5/SMOKE 

23 integration and using the AERMOD model to evaluate 

24 local source impacts. 

25 We have George (inaudible) Schewe is here and he did 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 85 

 2 all of the AERMOD modeling so all the questions I will 

 3 direct to George. He has already volunteered to 

 4 everything. Thanks George. 

 5 Honestly, what doesn't kill you will make you 

 6 stronger. I don't know how many revision on this 

 7 contract we made. I think we are up to five 

 8 extensions, revisions additional modeling. We have so 

 9 many different stakeholders so we made an effort to 

10 make our process transparent. It's almost too 

11 transparent. Everybody got involved. Believe me it 

12 was very involved. And so you know we took the stance 

13 we'd rather the involvement early instead of being 

14 litigated. When we turn in our SIP we will probably 

15 still be litigated. That's okay, as Tyler said; this 

16 is new territory the integration of photo chemical and 

17 (inaudible) dispersion models. Joe Sims and Tim 

18 Martin are colleagues of mine. Ten or eleven 

19 (inaudible) revisions have been made of this 

20 inventory. There's uncertainty in marrying two models 

21 that are intended for different purposes and highly 

22 variable emissions. Many sources which have never 

23 been involved in a modeling study like this. We 

24 developed our inventories. Our emission factors for 

25 many of the factors are poorly defined even if 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 86 

 2 available. We many times had to weigh a perfect 

 3 inventory against time and resources. We did fix as 

 4 many errors as we can but as of this morning George 

 5 told me we have a few more issue that we have to work 

 6 with. Many small sources may have an impact and 

 7 sources you may never have considered before when we 

 8 looked at the magnitude that would have an impact. 

 9 So we are willing to admit that we make some mistakes. 

10 They made more'no they didn't make more that's just a 

11 joke. We did ask for active involvement but if we had 

12 known how difficult it would be we have considered we 

13 might have contracted for the inventory development. 

14 Many of these sources have never been characterized. 

15 We did run SMOKE outputs were run through CAMx to 

16 produce consistent hourly emissions profiles to 

17 be input into AERMOD. Our studies showed a 

18 clear "local sources" signature, especially for 

19 primary PM2.5, CMAQ, even with 4 km grid 

20 spacing, was not considered adequate to resolve 

21 impacts due to local emission controls. The 

22 guidance chose AERMOD. Which local sources 

23 should be modeled? We decided to cast our net 

24 very wide. 

25 If you lived within Any source within 5 km of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 87 

 2 either monitor with PM2.5 emissions greater than 

 3 1 tpy (~1/4 lb/hr) was included. Between 5 - 10 

 4 km of either monitor, any source with PM2.5 

 5 emissions greater than 4 tpy (~1 lb/hr) was 

 6 included. We also did some Q/d and Q/d2 analyses 

 7 which supported the above criteria fairly well. 

 8 We did a pretty good job. We identified a total 

 9 of 46 facilities identified; roughly 1200 

10 individual emitting sources. Included point, 

11 area, volume and buoyant lines. Initial 

12 discussions with EPA and among the study 

13 participants led to a 1 km X 1 km AERMOD receptor 

14 grid with 100 meter spacing. We had a lot of 

15 property issues. We ended up with a 200 m X 200 

16 m Cartesian grid with 100 meter spacing. For the 

17 attainment demonstration, concentrations will be 

18 averaged across all receptors. For culpability 

19 and RACT, concentrations at the monitor were 

20 used. We used 2002 met data - same as base case 

21 emission data year. This is where Roger and 

22 James Thurman and others at OAQPS provided us 

23 with invaluable assistance. 

24 We have some pretty good met data in the area. 

25 Birmingham is in a large wide valley with a series of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 88 

 2 bridges that run northeast to southwest. The valleys 

 3 are pretty shallow but are very broad. So we had an 

 4 ASOS station at our airport which is probably four 

 5 miles from the nearest monitor. We also had a SEARCH 

 6 site which is run by a Southern Company which is co- 

 7 located at the NBHM monitor which we thought would be 

 8 fantastic. But we had some issues with some missing 

 9 data sometimes. We had the one minute data that Roger 

10 had talked about earlier. So we decided to use the 

11 one minute data that was augmented by ASOS data were 

12 necessary. We really like the SEARCH data but we had 

13 too many issues with quality control. 

14 I hope you can this busy map. The black line is the 

15 PM 2.5 Birmingham monitor. The one minute data is the 

16 green and the SEARCH data is the blue. So the SEARCH 

17 data was valuable but it was unfortunate that we 

18 couldn't use it in this application. But the green 

19 line represents the data that we did use. This is the 

20 first quarter of 2002. So we ran AERMOD for our 

21 facilities and we assessed significance as they pulled 

22 it out of the hat. And we decided that we would use a 

23 (inaudible) significance level of 0.2 microgram per 

24 (inaudible) cubic meter. The facilities whose 

25 facility wide AERMOD concentration was 0.2 micrograms 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 89 

 2 per cubic meter or higher we flagged it and then 

 3 within each facility any process that was greater than 

 4 0.2microgram per cubic meter was asked to do a RACT 

 5 analysis. When we looked at primary PM and when we 

 6 did model performance we looked at the monitors. So 

 7 we expected AERMOD to predict lower concentrations 

 8 than daily FRM since the monitor doesn't know the 

 9 difference between local sources and regional sources. 

10 After having some discussion with some of our 

11 stakeholders, we revised what our local component was 

12 about ~3 ug/m3 at NBHM and 2 at WYLM. And I know that 

13 Roger would disagree with this statement but we 

14 typically think of AERMOD as a conservative model. 

15 Taking all this into account I want to show you some 

16 of our AERMOD results. Let me also say this is an 

17 older version of our inventory. We've had multiply 

18 revision of our inventory since then. So we think 

19 model performance is a little better. As you can see 

20 we expected a 3mg contribution from our local sources 

21 and we got roughly 33mg contribution in 2002 and 20mg 

22 in 2009. Wylam did much better. Wylam was expected 

23 at about 2 ug/m3 and we got 6 ug/m3 and 5 ug/m3. 

24 Obviously some of our concerns were focused on our N 

25 Birmingham monitor. Again that's the monitor with the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 90 

 2 industry literally 300 meters away. 

 3 So this is some of our model performance statistics. 

 4 I just chose some quarters. I chose 2002. Sequences 

 5 are modeled values and the observation are in black. 

 6 The Wylam monitor looks pretty good. The first 

 7 quarter of 2002 and second quarter (inaudible). The 

 8 monitor doesn't know the difference in local, urban or 

 9 regional. This is just ranked so you can see pretty 

10 good agreement. We're very happy with Wylam's 

11 results. 

12 This is another quarter. The is the wind frequency 

13 distribution and you can see AERMOD did have some 

14 issues at the lower level. Again the model 

15 performance is pretty good. 

16 So we agreed with the expected patterns in general as 

17 they are always lower than the monitors. Again we 

18 expected the local industries about 2 ug/m3 and the 

19 (inaudible) modeled values were approximately 6. 

20 ug/m3. And AERMOD was rarely greater than 10 times 

21 the local component. We had a few other issues. 

22 Again red is the model and black is the observed. We 

23 saw consistently higher concentrations using AERMOD at 

24 the North Birmingham monitor from the local sources. 

25 That was second quarter, third quarter we had some 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 91 

 2 spikes as high as a 110 and 115 ug/m3 when the 

 3 monitors [ed. were ]reading about 25 ug/m3. 

 4 (inaudible) As you can see the model values are always 

 5 higher than the observed values. Then again that was 

 6 third and fourth quarters. So this is pretty 

 7 consistent across all quarters and again consistent 

 8 issues with our winds especially greater than 50 mg 

 9 per cubic meter. This is calm winds sorry I should 

10 have said that. 

11 We had dramatic over predictions it was almost always 

12 higher than our FRM. The annual mean is low greater 

13 than 5 times what we expected. Almost half the year 

14 greater than 10 times, two thirds of the year greater 

15 than five times and heavy in that top range, greater 

16 than 30 ug/m3. 

17 These model performance plots show you they're pretty 

18 good for Birmingham. There is a marked difference in 

19 the performance between North Birmingham and Wylam. 

20 The facilities at North Birmingham are much closer to 

21 the monitor than at Wylam. I guess this isn't a 

22 relevant statement because there are several 

23 industries at Wylam that are within two or three 

24 kilometers. But we had much much closer. 

25 Should we expect AERMOD to perform poorly for certain 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 92 

 2 source characterizations or are we asking the model to 

 3 do too much? What are our expectations for AERMOD? 

 4 We have made many revisions to our emissions rate our 

 5 first characterizations. How will these changes 

 6 affect AERMOD? We don't and don't know if we want to 

 7 know. We want to show compliance to CMAQ. If we can 

 8 show compliance to CMAQ I'll show you why in a minute. 

 9 I don't know if we will go to AERMOD for our 

10 attainment demonstration. We do think that future 

11 modeling and exercises modeling exercises like this 

12 should focus on refining photochemical models to 

13 handle at very small grid scales. It's not that we 

14 have problems with AERMOD we just don't know if this 

15 is the best way to precede. We ran AERMOD for local 

16 sources and we ran CMAQ, all sources, and we took out 

17 the local sources. Then we married the two to see 

18 what the differences would be. The results to obtain 

19 our future projections. We followed EPA model 

20 guidance again we can't stress how thankful we are to 

21 EPA Region 4 for all their involvement, not just 

22 modeling but a lot of policy discussions and 

23 questions. But it's still difficult to determine if 

24 this is an appropriate model for this situation. CMAQ 

25 'all-source' runs used the 1x1 and 3x3 grid cell 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 93 

 2 averaging around NBHM and WYLM models and then I'll 

 3 show you the CMAQ and AERMOD runs. 

 4 Our 2002. North Birmingham is the first two and Wylam 

 5 is the next two 2002 and 2009. so you're seeing a 

 6 reduction in the model of about a microgram and a half 

 7 at North Birmingham and about the same at Wylam. This 

 8 is everybody running CMAQ at about 4km. And it's just 

 9 using those cells. 

10 This is AERMOD so we went from 16.7 in 2009 to 15.7 

11 ug/m3. We went from 15.5 at Wylam in 2009 to 15.0 

12 ug/m3. One would think this is good news and we've 

13 spent a lot of time how comfortable we are with the 

14 results. We believe the answer is between the two. 

15 This is just the same thing in a table format. All 

16 sources we saw about a microgram and a half. VISTAS 

17 recognized that Atlanta and Birmingham were having 

18 some issues in 2009 so they ran some 2012 modeling for 

19 us for our boundary conditions. That was done in July 

20 and August timeframe. Everybody provided their up to 

21 date emissions inventory. This was the first time we 

22 put the BAPS inventory into that modeling. And so 

23 this helped us get an idea going into 2012 what would 

24 the magnitude of our reductions be. 

25 They look promising and it's important not to look too 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 94 

 2 closely at the number per se, but rather the signal. 

 3 We were very happy. This is too good to be true and 

 4 it was. It's okay because we think the results show 

 5 that controls in GA and AL will help bring the area 

 6 into attainment in 2012. 

 7 This is Alabama and it's very busy. And I apologize. 

 8 The two biggest bars are the Jefferson county, North 

 9 Birmingham and Wylam. The third bar the one that's 

10 really low is the ASIP of our 2012 with the BAPS 

11 inventory in it and it showed about 13.9 at North 

12 Birmingham and I was speechless which is rare. Again, 

13 it really provides us with a lot of confidence that we 

14 might be able to get there in 2012. We're going to 

15 propose an attainment date as expeditiously as 

16 practical based on the implementation of federal, 

17 state and local measures. We do believe 2012 is the 

18 best year for us. However, we are going to model both 

19 2009 and 2012. We're going to account for CAIR at 

20 this point our modeling is running we are going to 

21 account for CAIR and any mobile source controls, We 

22 got a lot of RACT controls and we are really happy 

23 with our RACT. We had ten sources that had to go 

24 through RACT. They offered a lot of things they 

25 didn't have to offer and we were very pleased with 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 95 

 2 that. 

 3 Again, we will continue to do this until we have an 

 4 attainment plan that shows attainment standard and 

 5 then those will be modified as JCDH permits. That's 

 6 all I have today. 

 7 Tyler Fox: Thanks a lot. Obviously a lot of good 

 8 work going on there and another indication of when we 

 9 engage and work collaboratively and talk about these 

10 things because there aren't any real clear issues. We 

11 are really venturing into new ground. Also as you saw 

12 there, we are looking at pairing AERMOD results in 

13 time and space. We've been doing some recent work, as 

14 I mentioned, with Karen Martin's group and Mrs. 

15 (inaudible) group and CMAQ. Roger will be talking 

16 about that tomorrow. Obviously we learn quite a bit 

17 when we look at those types of performance. It's a 

18 different way of holding our models to a more rigor in 

19 those types of applications which is appropriate when 

20 you're looking at exposure and risk type of assessment 

21 or attainment demonstration given the nature of those 

22 problems versus the nature of the problems when we're 

23 evaluating permitting. 

24 The final presentation here is Ralph Morris. Ralph 

25 will take us into our break. I apologize that we are 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 96 

 2 running about 15 minutes over but we'll get that back 

 3 somehow. Then we'll have a break and come back. I 

 4 did want to introduce this as we're moving away from 

 5 the (inaudible) tables. (inaudible) couldn't be here 

 6 today. He has removed all (inaudible) with respect to 

 7 those tables. So we have to find ways in which we can 

 8 address ozone and other types of issues and 

 9 photochemical models are one area we need to pursue. 

10 Ralph is here to give us some information as to how 

11 that was used in oil and gas flow. 

12 Ralph Morris: Thanks Tyler. Before I start I would 

13 like to give some two examples of my history with 

14 Appendix W. I started air quality as a consultant 29 

15 years ago and when I say 29 ago I mean 29 because that 

16 was October, 1979. Looking at this crowd that makes 

17 me a young buck. So early on in the early 80's it was 

18 in the RAM model which was the guideline model at that 

19 time. I found a bug in a very large application I was 

20 running. I called the person on it and they said it 

21 can't be because it's the EPA guideline model there 

22 are no bugs. I said well it's a bug and I can see it 

23 there and I know how to modify and fix it. There was 

24 silence. You're going to modify (inaudible) model so 

25 I decided to work around it and then I had to clear my 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 97 

 2 sources so it didn't go through the spot with the bug. 

 3 Later in my career in the late 80's I worked hard to 

 4 get the (inaudible) model listed as model, the 

 5 photochemical grid model. In 1990 I succeeded it was 

 6 the guideline model for ozone modeling. Then we came 

 7 up with new (inaudible) chemistry for (inaudible). 

 8 And all the two years of testing we had to do we had 

 9 to do it all over again. And so I spent the next few 

10 years trying to get (inaudible). You're locked in 

11 there and the kind of tests you have to do so that 

12 they have integrity like Chet said is a critical part 

13 of it. 

14 So I'm going to talk not about NATA and not NAPA. I'm 

15 going to talk about NETA which is the National 

16 Environmental Policy Act and I'm sure you all have 

17 heard about EISs that people have to do. You have to 

18 expose the impacts not just the air quality impacts, 

19 all the environmental impacts even some non 

20 environmental impacts. I'll try to go through this 

21 pretty quickly. If you're like me, you're ready for 

22 the break. 

23 This is not guided by Appendix W on the air quality, 

24 but the part I'm going to talk about is by using the 

25 best science available. That's kind of the mantra in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 98 

 2 doing it. 

 3 In particular I'm talking about potential oil and gas 

 4 developments in the western states. On public lands 

 5 and then the federal agencies whoever is in charge. 

 6 Could be Bureau of Land Management, could be the 

 7 forest services or tribal agencies. They have to do 

 8 environmental impact statements to disclose to the 

 9 public and to the other federal agencies of what the 

10 air quality impacts plus all the impacts. I'm going 

11 to talk about a particular application in and a 

12 history of Wyoming. As you may have heard rumors 

13 there is an efforts in increasing domestic. I think 

14 it's drill baby drill. I think I got that right. 

15 As you can see the projections in 2008. I don't have 

16 a full year there yet but it's growing. There are 

17 efforts to make it grow even more so it's something 

18 you have to deal with. The development of an oil and 

19 gas production project on federal land usually 

20 involves the preparation of an EIS or EA under NEPA 

21 that discloses the potential environment effects of 

22 the project. One of the things you have to do is 

23 includes air quality modeling to show project impacts 

24 on criteria pollutant concentrations, visibility, and 

25 deposition. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 99 

 2 I found some history of (inaudible) in south west 

 3 Wyoming. Before 1996 it was qualitative. I'll 

 4 describe what this means Moxa Arch that set many 

 5 precedents. Jonah and Pinedale EIS in and around 1997 

 6 was the first big CALPUFF applications. Pinedale EIS 

 7 actually bought a low NOx burner at local power plant 

 8 to mitigate their impact. There was a large study in 

 9 1997 and 1999 that SWWYTAF develop a comprehensive 

10 CALPUFF Database and that was used for many years. 

11 Moving on to 2000 we had the flag guidance. More 

12 recently the Jonah Infill EIS project was done. In 

13 2005 they made a mistake and put ozone monitors in out 

14 there. At the same time that happened, the Pinedale 

15 Supplemental EIS was going on and they had to do ozone 

16 modeling to address ozone so they had to do a 

17 photochemical grid model. (inaudible) 

18 In the Four Corners area they started running 

19 photochemical grid models. In 2008 and 2009 there's a 

20 Continental Divide-Creston EIS use PGM for air 

21 quality, visibility and deposition (No CALPUFF) 

22 So here's the measurements in 2005 which is the first 

23 year they measured high exceedance in the Jonah 

24 (inaudible) Project area in southwest Wyoming. Up to 

25 this point there running AERMOD for near-field impacts 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 100 

 2 and CALPUFF for far-field AQ and AQRV impacts but they 

 3 don't feed ozone so they had to bring a photochemical 

 4 grid model. 

 5 This is the oil and gas development. Where's the 

 6 pointer. Anyway up there in the top right the highest 

 7 and to the right is the Pinedale (inaudible) Project 

 8 areas and right next to that is (inaudible) CDC 

 9 Project areas and we'll talk a little about Moxa Arch 

10 the long purple one on the left. The continental 

11 divide is way over on the right. But the high ozone 

12 is right to the left of Wyoming being Pinedale, Jonah 

13 and (inaudible) CDC. 

14 Kind of history 2006 Moxa Arch and Hiawatha (MA&H) 

15 O&G Infill Projects were going on. They're using 

16 AERMOD for near sources and CALPUFF for far field. 

17 Pretty much a standard practice. We had the ozone 

18 (inaudible) in 2005 and 2006. In 2007 we went off to 

19 field studies and measured the ozone exceedance and 

20 they didn't show up. But in 2008 they came back with 

21 a vengeance and they were maxing out over 122 PPD 

22 which is higher than Denver and much higher than most 

23 non attainment areas. 

24 So these gas and oil developments had to have more 

25 grid modeling to do their assessments to look at the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 101 

 2 ozone issues in about 2007. And we're doing this 

 3 because of the work by the Western Regional air 

 4 partnership developing background databases. We did 

 5 that and did some ozone analysis including the 

 6 Pinedale stuff that was issued. We needed to go back 

 7 because we were not looking at ozone in the past. 

 8 You'll see inventories that are not exactly up to 

 9 snuff. We had to go back and redo all the modeling 

10 for Hiawatha and Moxa Arch. At that point we are kind 

11 of wondering why we're running CALPUFF to get sulphur 

12 and nitrate impact when we're running a perfectly good 

13 model to get the sulphur and nitrate impacts using a 

14 more complete chemistry. So at that point we are 

15 dropping CALPUFF and doing everything with the 

16 photochemical grid modeling. 

17 But I do want to talk about continental divide which 

18 started off with the stakeholder process proposing to 

19 just use AERMOD and a photochemical grid model for all 

20 the air quality and AQR/AQRV impacts. This a fairly 

21 large projects about 9,000 new wells. There will be 

22 15,000 after the way things are going. This is the 

23 first EIS to propose to use photochemical grid model 

24 to perform both ozone and AQ/AQRV analysis at the far 

25 field. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 102 

 2 It is also the first EIS to do a comprehensive 

 3 emission inventory for oil and gas production sources 

 4 and it was done by Doug Blewitt and (inaudible) in 

 5 this room. So this is an example of the location of 

 6 the drill rigs for the five counties in SW Wyoming and 

 7 there are a bunch more not shone. Locations of the 

 8 producing wells and you can see the (inaudible) areas 

 9 are right there in the (inaudible) Patrick and up to 

10 the northeast of Pinedale/Jonah area and then south of 

11 Colorado you can see mountain circles. So a lot of 

12 (inaudible) the same area. But to support these 

13 photochemical grid modeling for these oil and gas 

14 things we had to do an environmental (inaudible) 

15 modeling. This is the 36/12 km environmental modeling 

16 where we picked the 12 actually it's for other gas and 

17 oils in the area and the Four Corners areas. 

18 Just to show you MM5 evaluations. As for the Jonah 

19 model which is further south and next to the Wind 

20 River range which has a kind of northwest or 

21 southeast. Early on with the CALMET modeling in 2002 

22 which is on the left. You can see it didn't see the 

23 Wind River Range. Excuse me with 12km MM5 and the 

24 observed data which is a different year is (inaudible) 

25 you can see north, northwest, southeast orientation of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 103 

 2 the Wind River Range that channels the flow. And then 

 3 we run MM5 to get the surface data and we see we can 

 4 get that at 4km. So we you can see using MM5 high 

 5 resolution you will pick up flows that has a history 

 6 of channeling and (audible) that you don't see if we 

 7 take 12km MM5 data and put it through CALPUFF or 

 8 CALMET. I think we've talked about that. 

 9 This is the photochemical grid model domain where we 

10 have a 36 domain from the (audible) carrying all the 

11 continental US domain. We have more than 60,000 

12 sources. Then we run that to get (inaudible) for our 

13 12/4km domain where we do our impact which is shown 

14 here. You see the continental divide (inaudible) area 

15 there with the monitoring sites and we still use 

16 AERMOD for the near source impact. But we'll 

17 (inaudible) for the 12/4km grid with the project and 

18 without the project you get the potential impacts as 

19 well as with cumulative impacts. Going back to the 

20 NEPA mantra we are trying to use the best science 

21 available is which is what we feel we have right now 

22 in these applications. 

23 So this is some of our PGO photochemical models and 

24 configuration we are using and think this is the best 

25 and latest science. We do have an issue as to how to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 104 

 2 simulate the winter high ozone events in SWWY. We 

 3 have some ideas on what's causing it. Will the model 

 4 pick it up is another story. These are very non 

 5 traditional ozone events. I've been doing ozone 

 6 modeling for about 28 years. This is not a typical 

 7 one but we do have some ideas. 

 8 There are some challenges in this. One is monitoring 

 9 network not as dense as is typical for urban areas. 

10 One is how to use EPA-guidance projection approach 

11 using relative modeling results? How to perform model 

12 evaluation without a detail monitoring (inaudible) 

13 that we used to have when we had to do urban 

14 (inaudible) and with CALPUFF we don't have to worry 

15 about that because you don't have to compare model 

16 results to measurements. These photochemical grid 

17 model applications we always (inaudible) the model 

18 back to what was observed to give us a sense if the 

19 model is performing correctly. 

20 How do you use photochemical grid models to obtain 

21 project-specific and cumulative impacts? How do you 

22 use ozone and PM source apportionment to obtain 

23 incremental contributions? Use ozone and PM source 

24 apportionment to obtain incremental contributions. 

25 That also allows us to figure out how much our 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 105 

 2 projects are contributing to the ozone in the high 

 3 ozone areas. 

 4 The final challenge when we are already violating the 

 5 new standard. How do you ask for more sources and not 

 6 violate the standards. We can't it's hard to show. 

 7 It's up to the (inaudible) to figure out how they are 

 8 going to reduce emissions to show compliance. 

 9 (inaudible). So this is not the only application that 

10 we are doing photochemical models and NEPA related 

11 studies. We are also using CMAQ model for southwest 

12 Wyoming and the Four Corners region. And also EPA 

13 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model for 

14 Uinta Basin Air Quality Study in northeast Utah. 

15 My conclusions here are we do have some recent 

16 advances allows for the more routine use of PGMs for 

17 NEPA EIS/EA air quality assessments. We talked about 

18 this two years ago, but with the two-way grid nesting 

19 and flexi-nesting (inaudible). I'll talk about 

20 tomorrow about the plume in grid model for near source 

21 chemistry and plume dispersion. The ozone and PM 

22 source apportionment is the way to get individual 

23 source impacts. The other is the advances in database 

24 availability and expertise RPO process over the last 

25 six years has developed advanced photochemical grid 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 106 

 2 model databases across the US and also trained a lot 

 3 of people to use. 

 4 Of course computing speed and doubling computing speed 

 5 every 18 months or so. Then we have a PGM software 

 6 MM5/WRF meteorological; SMOKE/CONCEPT emissions; post- 

 7 processing tools. So the current round of NEPA 

 8 related studies demonstrate utility of PGMs for this 

 9 kind of application is not guideline application. I 

10 mentioned BLM Moxa Arch and Hiawatha EISs in SWWY and 

11 the Uinta Basin Air Quality Study (UBAQS). The Utah 

12 Four Corners Air Quality Task Force NM/CO. Finally 

13 the BLM/WDEQ Continental Divide Creston EIS SWWY. The 

14 extra effort kept these databases in use. 

15 This process is an ongoing process and there are a lot 

16 of agencies involved. It's not the Model Clearing 

17 House but model guideline applications. They're the 

18 ones involved and some of the people in this room like 

19 Kevin (inaudible) Golden, Region 8 and there a lot of 

20 states involved as well as the operators. Of course 

21 BLM is right there and some of the other consultants. 

22 So I'll turn it over to you. 

23 Tyler Fox: Thank you Ralph. I appreciate that. As 

24 we saw with Ted, Leigh and now Ralph there's quite a 

25 bit going on. It's actually pretty exciting to see 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 107 

 2 the photochemical model is being used here and trying 

 3 to advance us there. We'll hear more about that in 

 4 the next session with respect to gridded met and 

 5 tomorrow with respect to the use of photochemical grid 

 6 models and techniques within those models like plume 

 7 in grid and source apportionment in trying to address 

 8 the types of problems we have. 

 9 We're running 15 minutes behind so we'll take a 15 

10 minute break and be back here about 11:10. We'll have 

11 an hour for the next session and we'll get back on 

12 time in terms of breaking for lunch at 12:15. See you 

13 back in 15 minutes. 

14 Tyler Fox: Welcome back and hopefully everybody took 

15 advantage of that break. We'll go for about the next 

16 hour or so. As Pete mentioned there is a cafeteria 

17 right over here. In the meantime, we'll look for a 

18 pointer. Obviously that would have come in handy 

19 earlier. 

20 The next session is on the Use of Gridded MET. We 

21 have Bret Anderson from EPA Region 7 here to basically 

22 chair this section. Then we'll have Roger and Herman 

23 Wong go through Development Efforts in terms of 

24 building tools to deliver these gridded data directly 

25 to AERMOD and to CALPUFF respectively. Bret. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 108 

 2 Bret Anderson: 

 3 I think it's necessary to step back a moment in time 

 4 like Tyler did in his introduction to talk about where 

 5 we were at the 8th Modeling Conference. Tyler 

 6 highlighted four critical or essential elements for 

 7 the 8th Modeling Conference. This was the second 

 8 essential element. It was to promote and facilitate 

 9 the use of gridded meteorological 

10 data including state-of-practice "National Weather 

11 Service (NWS) meteorological analyses to improve 

12 modeling science and performance for near-field, 

13 permits, toxics and direct PM)." 

14 That was one of the underlying themes for the 8th 

15 Modeling Conference and there was a panel discussion 

16 on how can gridded meteorological model data be used. 

17 There was a presentation by Noah on the Philadelphia 

18 case study where MM5 data had been extracted and been 

19 used in the first study nationally that had been done 

20 to use AERMOD data and MM5 directly into AERMOD. So 

21 what's happened since the 8th Modeling Conference? 

22 After the 8th Modeling Conference, OAQPS formed a 

23 gridded meteorological workgroup in 2005 to discuss 

24 sources and various uses of gridded meteorology in 

25 dispersion modeling. In addition to this, EPA 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 109 

 2 development of MM5-to-AERMOD tool in 2006. 

 3 In 2007 EPA published MM5-AERMOD Philadelphia Study 

 4 which was in the Journal of Waste Management. At CMAQ 

 5 this week we see the UNC development of MCIP-to-AERMOD 

 6 prototype in 2007-2008. Most recently in 2008 EPA 

 7 development of MM5-to-CALPUFF prototype. 

 8 Now that we have that we ask where do we go from here 

 9 as there are some inconsistencies coming up as a 

10 result of this. First we need tools in order to do 

11 that. You'll see two separate presentations on tools 

12 that EPA has undertook to develop. We have to 

13 complete the development of this software and 

14 documentation for the gridded meteorological data 

15 conversion tools. 

16 The next thing is both important for AERMOD and 

17 CALPUFF is to develop testing protocols for the 

18 gridded met products. Yes you get a file that is 

19 compatible either with AERMOD or CALPUFF. But that 

20 doesn't mean that the product is any better. There 

21 has to be some rigorous testing protocols that go into 

22 this so that we understand are the data files getting 

23 better and how the model responds. Ultimately this 

24 would lead to development of guidance on the 

25 application of gridded meteorological products in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 110 

 2 dispersion modeling applications. That's something 

 3 that you'll see there are generic guidances already 

 4 exist in the form of PM ozone regional haze guidance 

 5 that have fairly lengthy section on performance 

 6 evaluations for meteorological that are used for 

 7 photochemical modeling things along this line. This 

 8 takes on an entirely new flavor because now we are 

 9 getting into issues especially for AERMOD where we're 

10 using the gridded meteorological products. And we're 

11 getting into the issues of site 

12 representativeness'does this satisfy or is this any 

13 better than National Weather Service data going to the 

14 nearest National Weather Service site. 

15 This is a whole new paradigm that we're in that even 

16 in the gridded meteorological modeling community that 

17 we're going to have to address that we've not looked 

18 at before. I just kind of tee that up from where we 

19 were to where we're at. Right now I'll turn this over 

20 to Roger. He'll be talking about the MM5 to AERMOD 

21 tool that he has been working on. 

22 

23 Roger Brode: 

24 Thanks Bret for the background on that. I'll be 

25 talking the MM5 to AERMOD tool and I apologize to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 111 

 2 those who have seen this presentation before as it's 

 3 not a whole lot different. Hopefully many people 

 4 haven't. 

 5 To give you an idea as to where we are with this: 

 6 Present the problem statement. What's making us think 

 7 about pursuing this and what's the objective and 

 8 describe the tool as it stands right now. It's sort 

 9 of a preliminary tool that has been developed. And 

10 look at one example test case where we have applied 

11 the tool for the Detroit area. And then discuss the 

12 next steps and that's something we want to get to as 

13 quickly as possible as this is a good forum to get 

14 some feedback on regarding that. 

15 So the problem statement is of course meteorological 

16 data are key inputs to air quality models such as 

17 AERMOD. Everybody knows that. 

18 NWS data currently used in most cases; however but met 

19 sites may not be representative of source locations 

20 due to proximity or other issues with AERMOD the 

21 representativeness of surface characteristics have now 

22 come to the forefront as far as issue in implementing 

23 the model and applying the model so that's a new 

24 dimension in the problem. Upper air data sparsely 

25 located, especially in mountainous areas in the west. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 112 

 2 We are also finding a newer issue that's emerged with 

 3 airport data that we have significant gaps in NWS data 

 4 due to calms and variable winds; frequency of gaps has 

 5 increased with the advent of ASOS began in the 1990's 

 6 and pretty much completed by late 1990's and then the 

 7 METAR standard in July, 1996 which they introduced a 

 8 variable wind code. Variable winds means one 

 9 direction is missing and we don't know where the wind 

10 is going but we have a wind speed for you. Well, 

11 that's not very helpful for this dispersion model 

12 where we need to say where the plume is going. Onsite 

13 meteorological data collection is an option but is 

14 also an expensive and time consuming. 

15 Potential solution that could alleviate some of the 

16 issues by using outputs from prognostic gridded 

17 meteorological models to drive the dispersion models. 

18 As Bret said, this is something that has been talked 

19 about for a while. These are now being routinely used 

20 and datasets have been generated pretty routinely and 

21 these could be beneficial for use in dispersion models 

22 like AERMOD. 

23 They are being used in other regulatory modeling 

24 context with CALMET/CALPUFF for long range transport 

25 applications. The initial effort was to develop a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 113 

 2 tool that provides spatially consistent AERMOD inputs. 

 3 So you select the Grid cell based on 

 4 application/source location so that overcomes the 

 5 sparsity of observed data. I don't have to look for 

 6 the nearest airport for something I can just pick the 

 7 grid cell where my source resides. And you can get 

 8 surface and upper-air data located in same grid cell. 

 9 And hourly values available for every grid cell. 

10 So the tool allows AERMOD to use parameters calculated 

11 by MM5's advanced atmospheric physics options 

12 including the heat flux, friction velocity, PBL 

13 height. What's not provided by MM5 data that AERMOD 

14 needs we are able to calculate it from the date it's 

15 available. So this just shows the two different 

16 approaches. On the left is the traditional approach 

17 in using AERMET. You feed it airport or other input 

18 data input data plus surface characteristics and 

19 AERMET processes it (inaudible) files (inaudible) for 

20 AERMOD. 

21 On the right is the MM5 AERMOD tool currently designed 

22 to take gridded MET data from MM5 in this case. 

23 Beyond that we certainly would consider more 

24 (inaudible) models. Feed it through the tool and then 

25 it outputs data again formatted for AERMOD. So the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 114 

 2 test case we've done so far is to apply it to the 

 3 Detroit area. The Detroit area is an area currently 

 4 being studied for multi pollutant SIPS demonstration 

 5 platform. We are going to be studying it a lot. We 

 6 have extracted 2002 MM5 data for the grid cell 

 7 containing the Detroit metropolitan airport. And we 

 8 extracted 30x30 grid cell 

 9 sub-domain from the larger 12 kilometer MM5 domain to 

10 be a little bit more manageable in terms of file size 

11 to feed through MM5 AERMOD. So we applied the tool 

12 and the traditional airport data to AERMED approach 

13 and compared the results. 

14 This just shows the domain. The larger red box on the 

15 right is the 12 kilometer eastern domain and the 

16 smaller red box is not an MM5 domain. That is the 

17 30x30 grid cell sub-domain of the data we extracted to 

18 feed with the tool. That shows the grid cell that was 

19 selected. The sort of orange dot is where we think 

20 the airport tower is located. That's the metropolitan 

21 airport right there. We're right on the edge of the 

22 city sort of the southwest side of Detroit city. 

23 There's windroses for 2002 airport on the left and the 

24 gridded data on the right for the lowest level. They 

25 look pretty similar not too bad as it's pretty flat up 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 115 

 2 there. The wind speeds at this point have not been 

 3 adjusted. On the left the anemometer at the airport 

 4 resumes 10 meters and on the right is the first-half 

 5 sigma level from MM5 for about 19 meters. So that is 

 6 one difference, but overall they look pretty similar. 

 7 We did a very simple sensitivity analysis. We picked 

 8 nine sources, point sources ranging in release height 

 9 buoyancy some with downwash and some without. From a 

10 ground level non buoyant source up to a 100 meter 

11 buoyant source with no building. 

12 These are comparisons of the 24 hour averages for 

13 rural dispersion. On the left you have is the H1H, 

14 On the right H2H point per hour average. Then you 

15 have AERMET traditional airport results and the MM5 

16 results and the ratio between the two. So the AERMOD 

17 prediction based on MM5 inputs divided by the AERMOD 

18 prediction based on airport input. Generally it 

19 doesn't look too bad between ratio of 1 to 2 including 

20 all most all sources except for the non buoyant ground 

21 level source where you see MM5 results much higher. 

22 That wasn't too surprising based on the earlier study 

23 that Bret mentioned that is documents in the paper for 

24 Philadelphia. That was an earlier 

25 pre-prototype if this idea, but a factor of 10 higher. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 116 

 2 So just decided to look at what's happening. The MM5 

 3 data for that H1H 24-hour average again this is a 

 4 ground level non buoyant source that not surprisingly 

 5 shows light wind speed. Don't know if we have a 

 6 pointer yet, but you can sort of see the wind speed 

 7 column there. Those are meters per second. There's 

 8 quite a few wind speeds below 1 meter per second, but 

 9 they're not all ridiculous .01 or something. Can 

10 AERMOD impose a minimum wind speed for dilution of 

11 about .28 or 0.3 meters per second. We'll talk about 

12 that in a second. 

13 Let's see what's going on at the airport for the same 

14 day and it's very consistent. Eighteen hours of calm 

15 okay so again it's a similar picture consistent 

16 between the two except when you feed the airport data 

17 through AERMET we're going to be not calculating for 

18 eighteen of those hours and to get your twenty four 

19 hour average with the calm policy you add up the six 

20 non calm plus twelve zeros and divide by eighteen. 

21 Suddenly that day goes from H1H down to your much 

22 lower. 

23 So you go back to that again. The first time we did 

24 this we didn't have air surface. Is this working at 

25 all? So we didn't have air surface and we just used 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 117 

 2 the same roughness length (inaudible) that came out of 

 3 the MM5 model for that grid cell which was about 0.3 

 4 meters and that seemed reasonable. So that was the 

 5 first comparison. 

 6 Later air surface was developed. Went back and re-ran 

 7 it with the roughness estimated at the airport from 

 8 air surface which was quite a bit lower. This was 

 9 kind of approximate but a little bit less than a tenth 

10 of meters so about a factor of five differences. We 

11 re-ran AERMET with that surface characteristics and 

12 the ratio went down by almost a factor. So that's 

13 interesting. 

14 Then I'll mention the 1-minute ASOS data so that's a 

15 lot of calm. There's not anything we can do about 

16 that. We know that the ground level non buoyant 

17 source that's going to be the worst case 

18 meteorological conditions that we're throwing out. 

19 That kind of raises some concern all by itself. But 

20 we looked at the 1-minute ASOS data so we went back 

21 and supplemented the airport with the 1-minute ASOS 

22 winds to calculate hourly average when reducing draft 

23 to the number of calms and variable. We ran that 

24 supplemented airport data through air surface through 

25 AERMET with air surface inputs and the ratio dropped 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 118 

 2 quite a bit. For the H2H, we went from initially a 

 3 factor of 7 higher with the MM5 data to a factor ratio 

 4 of 1.2 roughly. That's an interesting result. It 

 5 doesn't say either one is great but it's an 

 6 interesting result. So that's kind of. I was hoping 

 7 we have more test cases to show you but I guess I was 

 8 afraid they wouldn't look as good as that or 

 9 something. Actually we didn't have a lot of time. I 

10 think that's interesting. 

11 Our plans just to summarize we have developed this 

12 tool it's in draft form. We've done some miniature 

13 comparisons. Preliminary results are pretty 

14 encouraging especially when we supplement the airport 

15 with 1-minute winds. We think the basic approach is 

16 promising, but we still feel considerable work that 

17 remains to be done before we feel we can endorse this 

18 for regulatory modeling. It's something that we have 

19 to pursue. It's a technology that we expect will get 

20 better on its own without EPA having to fund it. So 

21 we want to be able to position ourselves to take 

22 advantage of it. 

23 As far as next steps, that's probably the more 

24 important thing. It's a busy slide but we want to do 

25 more detail comparisons with results from the MM5 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 119 

 2 AERMOD tool versus the airport data both looking at 

 3 the meteorology more closely as well as dispersion 

 4 results. 

 5 Do additional sensitivity analyses using the MET input 

 6 from each approach, including: wider range of source 

 7 types; different options for interpolation of MM5 

 8 grid. When I get into details a little later but I'll 

 9 talk about that. I didn't get to details here. 

10 Basically you've got the MM5 as a staggered grid so 

11 you have winds at dot points, temperature at cross 

12 points and the initial one is to interpolate the scale 

13 of perimeters to the nearest dot point of the wind and 

14 use the nearest dot point to your location. But we 

15 can do (inaudible) interpolation each independently. 

16 There are different approaches we can use. We know 

17 how sensitive how it is and does one work better than 

18 the other or not. Those are the questions we have to 

19 ask and answer and then look. 

20 The way we initially did it here is we've used the 

21 full profile winds and temperature derived from MM5 

22 for that grid cell and fed that into AERMOD through 

23 the profile files. As if I had a tower that went up 

24 5,000 meters we could do some sensitivity analysis if 

25 we had partial sub-sets of the MM5 data. We don't how 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 120 

 2 sensitive the results are to that. Then looking at 

 3 the grid to grid variability, we picked Detroit 

 4 metropolitan airport because it's the major airport 

 5 for the city but it's right on the edge of the city. 

 6 Now the (inaudible) I will mention later. In terms of 

 7 air surface there is some uncertainty when you run air 

 8 surface you feed it to location of your MET tower. We 

 9 found out those locations aren't always documented 

10 very accurately. In fact the published location of 

11 that tower would have put it in the next grid cell 

12 which would have been all rural. How sensitivity is 

13 it to that. You can read that. 

14 We also want to extend it to other areas. One to 

15 Birmingham, AL, sort of building on the work that has 

16 already been done. The BAP studies that we've heard 

17 of this morning. And Atlanta, GA, we did some work 

18 recently. I'll talk more about it tomorrow. Looking 

19 at AERMOD for the NO2 (inaudible) NAAQS review. So 

20 looking at some other areas. 

21 We plan to coordinate in a collaborative way with UNC 

22 for example what they're doing with CIP2AERMOD and 

23 they're doing some other work with FAA. So we want to 

24 kind of work jointly with that. My feeling is that 

25 EPA we're probably not getting where we want to be in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 121 

 2 terms of the use of gridded MET data just based on EPA 

 3 resources and (inaudible). We're going to need to 

 4 collaborate and benefit from the broader community and 

 5 other researches that are interested in that. We hope 

 6 to do that in a coordinated way as much as possible so 

 7 that we're not duplicating efforts and wasting 

 8 resources. That'll be difficult but that's kind of 

 9 our goal. Beyond that since I have been doing 

10 modeling over the domain of Detroit city I could have 

11 grid cells over the whole city. Why not use grid 

12 cells for each source. May not be a perfect solution 

13 but maybe be better than using one for the whole 

14 domain like we do now for the airport data. There are 

15 ideas, different way to utilize this (inaudible) 

16 resource that we need to talk about. 

17 Ultimately I think the key is we are going to have to 

18 validate the use of MM5 AERMOD data against some field 

19 studies data. We have a lot of field studies that 

20 have been used in evaluating AERMOD and that's in our 

21 plans. I don't know how soon we're going to get there 

22 but ultimately that will sort of be the proof. 

23 You'll hear more about MM5 CALPUFF in a minute. But 

24 it's a similar but somewhat different approach to 

25 taking MM5 data directly into CALPUFF model. Should 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 122 

 2 we couple those two efforts? We have one tool that 

 3 does that. Or build on the MCIP-to-AERMOD. MCIP is 

 4 the met process for the CMAQ model. And what UNC has 

 5 done is MCIP to AERMOD so then they can send feed MCIP 

 6 with either MM5 or more data. They don't need to 

 7 change the tool. That was the original proposed 

 8 design for this tool was that two (inaudible) process 

 9 that resource didn't permit developing that complete 

10 of a system. But that makes a lot of sense. As near 

11 prognostic models come into being and talk about 

12 hosting an invited workshop on use of gridded 

13 meteorological for dispersed model and guide to the 

14 best use of this science. Putting the prognostic 

15 meteorological modeling community experts together 

16 with dispersion model experts and figure what the 

17 issues are and best ways to work through them. 

18 So as the range of options for developing met inputs 

19 to models expands, we have airport data we have 

20 onsite, we have 1-minute ASOS on site, gridded met 

21 data whatever. Other (inaudible) that are either here 

22 or maybe emerging or in the future. Ultimately we 

23 need to look at developing criteria for acceptance of 

24 whatever meteorological data you have for whatever 

25 model you have for that application. That's kind of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 123 

 2 an issue that hopefully we need to get a better handle 

 3 on. 

 4 Finally I don't know how soon but we need to have 

 5 questions how to disseminate this technology to user 

 6 community. Do we give a tool, you get your own MM5 

 7 data, have fun or do we actually does EPA develop an 

 8 archive of MM5 data and you just go online and 

 9 download the data. I'm all set to go. Put all the 

10 consultants out of business maybe. 

11 That's kind of where we are with that. I think Herman 

12 is going to talk next about the MM5 CALPUFF tool. 

13 Tyler Fox: We'll be holding questions until after the 

14 next session. 

15 Herman Wong: I'll be talking about the Mesoscale 

16 Model Data Reformatted Program that we have been 

17 working on for the past couple of years here. Region 

18 10 has interested in using this scale model to guide 

19 EPA programs. In fact about nine or ten years ago, we 

20 had asked to provide contract money to state of 

21 Alaska. We had Joe Scire do some evaluations using 

22 the Mesoscale model up in Alaska specifically using 

23 the output from, excuse me, output from CALMET to 

24 drive ISC3 AERMOD and CALPUFF. The purpose of that 

25 particular study was on terrain and the results that 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 124 

 2 came back from that state was in fact good. So we 

 3 (inaudible) in using Mesoscale data being either from 

 4 WRF or MM5 to drive (inaudible) models. Particularly 

 5 right now we're interested in using this data to drive 

 6 CALPUFF and the (inaudible) version that Joe Scire 

 7 recently placed on his website. For the past couple 

 8 of years, Faye Anderson, at Region 7, Tim Allan and 

 9 (inaudible) and myself have been working on a 

10 (inaudible) scope program to use particular 

11 meteorology data from MM5 and WRF and CALPUFF. 

12 This program that we're working on is an alternative 

13 to CALMET not necessarily a replacement. CALMET has 

14 its own niche here. But we thought for what we were 

15 looking to do with that model (inaudible) we didn't 

16 need all those options in it. We thought it would be 

17 (inaudible) in using CAMx and CMAQ and reformat 

18 meteorological data used using CALPUFF. 

19 Recently Bret created an initial code to convert the 

20 MM5 data and it could be read directly into CALPUFF. 

21 We also wrote in options in there where MM5 doesn't 

22 have those needed meteorology parameters that the 

23 program would calculate those 

24 parameters. At the same time we also wrote a work 

25 scope to test the program to make it bullet proof, as 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 125 

 2 Tim Allan likes to call it, and for a contractor to do 

 3 it for us. We do have limited resources and cannot 

 4 always spend our time doing these types of fun 

 5 projects. We do have to do government work. I think 

 6 I just talked about that. Moving right along. 

 7 Some of the calculated parameters that we'll be 

 8 calculating will be convective velocity scale, surface 

 9 friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, air density, 

10 and surface relative humidity. I'm sorry I have been 

11 sick for the past few days. 

12 We did provide this work scope to Tyler Fox and he 

13 thought it was a good idea. And Tyler Fox graciously 

14 provided money to us for a contractor to review the 

15 code and make sure it has all the bells and whistles. 

16 However, the work scope we wrote it wasn't enough 

17 budget to cover it all. So we couldn't get any 

18 freebies from the contractor whatsoever. A joke 

19 there. 

20 We're paring down on the work scope, but I'm not sure 

21 what part we're paring down. In talking to the 

22 contractor we expect that phase of work scope to be 

23 completed in 2-4 months by contractor from the date of 

24 the agreement in regards to cost. 

25 Any work that is not completed by the contractor we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 126 

 2 will be completed internally. Probably Region 7. We 

 3 will also do some independent evaluations tests on the 

 4 program after we get it back. 

 5 Some of the highlights of the work scope I thought it 

 6 would be nice for you to know. 

 7 Review Region 7 code that Bret had put together 

 8 including the reading and reformatting of meteorology 

 9 and geophysical parameters. (inaudible) Review 

10 parameters that will have to be diagnosis/calculated. 

11 The contractor may have other options that they want 

12 us to consider. We also want the program to run on 

13 different platforms. (inaudible) What I like about 

14 this program is the (inaudible) capability output 

15 statistical comparisons observed to measure from the 

16 program. A lot of times we get applications or 

17 studies from contractors to just use the MM5 and it 

18 goes into CALPUFF without providing statistics to us. 

19 What we're intending to do with the contractor is to 

20 put some option in it that offers statistics to 

21 measure data for stuff like wind direction. We also 

22 have an option to generate some visual graphs to 

23 compare wind roses. We also incorporate output hourly 

24 predicted meteorology so we can compare to the 

25 measured data. Another aspect of this is to develop 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 127 

 2 documentation that describes all parameters, 

 3 algorithms, and methods that are being used so that 

 4 the users can understand just how it does it. Another 

 5 feature we want is to lay out code structure. The 

 6 last time I have seen any code structure to identify 

 7 any (inaudible). I don't remember which one. 

 8 (inaudible) One of the final items we are including 

 9 is to identify some switches that users can use in 

10 this particular program. 

11 While all that is going on, work is being done by the 

12 contractor. We are also generating some workgroups 

13 including EPA, Forest Service, National Park Service 

14 and Fish & Wildlife Service to develop statistics, 

15 benchmarks, and methods to calculate missing 

16 parameter. Outside testers and evaluators of the 

17 program and get some outside approval. If all goes 

18 well, we will submit to OAQPS for approval to the 

19 Model Clearing House. 

20 The reason Region 10 is interested in this program is 

21 that we have a lot of exploratory and developing 

22 operations in the Outer Continental Shelf of Beaufort 

23 Sea and in the open water of the Chukchi Sea. 

24 Back in 2006 MMS submitted to EPA an over water 

25 transport called CALPUFF version 6 point. I don't 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 128 

 2 remember numbers. What'd we like to do is because we 

 3 will need all the bells and whistles to reformat the 

 4 program to grant meteorology to go into the over water 

 5 model. In preparing for this, Shell came in 2006 

 6 indicating to us that they want to drill and put some 

 7 pipelines out there to process oil. At that time, 

 8 2006, we asked Shell Oil to collect meteorology data a 

 9 proper distance from their property because it costs a 

10 lot of money. 

11 Most recently in March of this year I sent a letter to 

12 Shell saying that I strongly urge you that data that 

13 would be collected at the outer continental shelf up 

14 on the Beaufort Sea. Shell came back late this summer 

15 and agreed that they would collect data using buoys 

16 out in the OCS. Those buoys would be located anywhere 

17 from 5 to 10 miles in the OCS and at 15 to 25 miles of 

18 OCS. They have at least four buoys out there 

19 collecting surface observation as well sea surface 

20 temperatures and wave height. 

21 We expect Shell to collect that data sometime in last 

22 summer of 2009. I should add that Shell also agreed 

23 to put a profiler on one of the islands so that they 

24 will be collecting temperature profile there for us. 

25 What I intend to do with the data and I let Shell know 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 129 

 2 that. We will provide that data to University of 

 3 Alaska. We are working with University of Alaska on 

 4 the WRF model which they are currently developing an 

 5 ice model up there. As you know, there's a lot of ice 

 6 up there unless we have more global warming ice won't 

 7 matter. We are working with them and we intend to 

 8 provide that data for them to use to assimilate that 

 9 data to WRF and to use it to (inaudible) to do the 

10 performance evaluation. 

11 They are currently evaluating the polar version of WRF 

12 and have also looked at some of the issues that we 

13 have with our concerns about us not recommending use 

14 of (inaudible) on the Sea Breeze (inaudible) so they 

15 are currently looking at the impacts of (inaudible) on 

16 those (inaudible) patterns. 

17 In the 2006 version of CALPUFF, MMS requested Joe 

18 Scire include the core product elements into CALPUFF. 

19 The elements are used to drive the (inaudible) 

20 parameters over water. At this point and time, 

21 (inaudible) we had to include those core program 

22 (inaudible). That's the thing we had to consider and 

23 that's partly why we asked Shell to collect 

24 (inaudible) shelf data and weight information. 

25 Now EPA Region 10 will work with MMS to evaluate and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 130 

 2 test CALPUFF Version 6 using tracer gas experiments. 

 3 Shell will providing tracer gas experiments to us and 

 4 we will be doing our own independent evaluation using 

 5 the information data he used. Basically he used it 

 6 and fed it to CALMET the surface file for OCS and to 

 7 compare tracer gas experiments results. We'll do the 

 8 same thing with our independent evaluation as well as 

 9 other analysis but we were often running MM5 or WRF 

10 for those periods. We will see how those results 

11 compare where he used CALMET and we used the 

12 reformatted program. We expect this will take 2-3 

13 years depending on our availability as well as the 

14 pressure on EPA Region 10 to permit of drilling permit 

15 in OCS. 

16 Just so you have an idea that you know what we're 

17 looking at. This is the Beaufort Sea and these are 

18 lease areas that Shell has where they intend to drill. 

19 This is the (inaudible) where the located platform 

20 once they find oil out there. This area here ranges 

21 anywhere from 3 to 28 miles from the coast line. The 

22 same area in which I think (inaudible) one billion 

23 dollars leases where Shell would like to drill as well 

24 as Phillips. Phillips came to our office and talked 

25 to us about their proposed activities out there. This 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 131 

 2 area is not outside of OCS but between 60 and 180 

 3 miles out in open water. 

 4 Oh man...Okay. This is the modeling domain that the 

 5 University of Alaska is using in testing the WRF with 

 6 the ice model currently. They'll do some additional 

 7 testing in Phase 2.. But I just wanted you folks to 

 8 see that this domain is 10 km (inaudible) and 

 9 encompasses both Beaufort and Chukchi Sea and over the 

10 land areas which we are not looking at. 

11 The advantage of working with the University of Alaska 

12 is that they're doing a lot of the testing for us in 

13 terms of the WRF model using their new icing program. 

14 They're also doing for us besides doing the core 

15 evaluation using the (inaudible) buoys and upper air. 

16 They will generate five years of high testing for us 

17 to use. It is my desire to take that data and use it 

18 in CALPUFF or over water so that we won't have to do 

19 this again. The oil companies will not have to say 

20 that they don't want to do this. Use this WRF data in 

21 the reformat program and the CALPUFF over water 

22 program. Again the CALPUFF version 6 is intended to 

23 replace OCD. It is a newer and better science and if 

24 you read the introduction to the users guide CALPUFF 

25 version 6 it will indicate that is the purpose is to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 132 

 2 replace OCD with version 6. 

 3 Bret Anderson: Are there any questions for either 

 4 Roger or Herman. Do we have to go through the process 

 5 of stating your name? State your name and 

 6 facilitation for the record. 

 7 Gale Hoffnagle: Seemed like what you did is to 

 8 fix ASOS data until it matched MM5 data. Is that 

 9 right? 

10 Roger Brode: I filled in gaps in the ASOS data 

11 with other ASOS data that were more highly resolved 

12 temporally and didn't arbitrarily applied a three knot 

13 threshold. 

14 Gale Hoffnagle: What's your conclusion from that 

15 process? 

16 Roger Brode: I don't know if we have a firm 

17 conclusion, like I said, it doesn't say that either 

18 one of them is right. They are both probably wrong 

19 but the fact that supplementing the ASOS data with the 

20 1-minute winds brought it in to pretty close agreement 

21 with what we're seeing in the MM5 data was an 

22 interesting and encouraging result. One thing that it 

23 does suggest is using standard ASOS data as is for 

24 modeling low level plume. This may be problematic 

25 because you're throwing out large chunks of data that 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 133 

 2 you know that it is going to provide us the results in 

 3 the wrong way from our perspective. 

 4 Gale Hoffnagle: Right. And so the normal 

 5 correction at least for some category sources should 

 6 be using 1-minute data not necessarily going to MM5. 

 7 Roger Brode: Right. I think MM5 is the longer 

 8 term vision that addresses other issues. The fact 

 9 that I don't have any airport data is representative 

10 what do I do? Put up a tower well I don't want to do 

11 that. If I can use prognostic data and we have 

12 confidences it's going to give reasonable results. 

13 Then that's good for all of us. That's why I 

14 mentioned earlier one of the things that we are 

15 thinking about addressing through a clarification memo 

16 is treatment of airport data in AERMOD. One is ASOS 

17 because the sensitivity study I mentioned we have 

18 redone it. We need to document that more fully. We 

19 plan to do that. We actually went beyond what was 

20 done with ISC in terms of AERMOD sensitivity to ASOS 

21 verses observant based data. You will see a little 

22 more about that with Randy's presentation on AIWG. 

23 Bob Paine from ENSR: I'll see if this microphone 

24 is working. Oh? Turn it on. Now it's working. It's 

25 working too well. Bob Paine from ENSR. A couple of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 134 

 2 questions and one is: when will BETA test versions of 

 3 these programs be released to the public? 

 4 Tyler Fox: For the AERMOD tool as Roger 

 5 indicated was a quite of bit of testing left that we 

 6 need to do. And obviously we will work with regional 

 7 offices and the state and local folks to try and 

 8 understand the nuances there before we release 

 9 something broadly to the public. Similar to the 

10 experiences we've had with air screen and air surface. 

11 Long story short there is no firm date. On the 

12 CALPUFF side I guess I should commend Herman not only 

13 soldiering through his presentation given his throat 

14 and the like. But for being proactive in identifying 

15 the future need that he is going to have in region 10 

16 and dealing with the situation, working with us and 

17 others collaboratively across regional offices and 

18 pursuing a solution both in tool development and 

19 application that will allow the tool to be developed 

20 in a way that will bring the best science to bare for 

21 the situation. And using the clearing house probably 

22 to allow it to be used in that 2-3 year period. That 

23 may the first time in which that tool and the results 

24 of which become public in a formal sense. Again it 

25 would depend on our resources and the time that we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 135 

 2 have available to get that out there. But we will go 

 3 through the same type of testing process again with 

 4 the regional, state and local folks. PerHAPS there 

 5 will be ways in which we engage with parts of the 

 6 community in a selective way and seek your input in 

 7 terms of how best you might see and others in the room 

 8 may see a way to play a role there. Again there is no 

 9 firm date. 

10 Bob Paine: A follow up question is on the MM5 

11 WRF to CALPUFF and then bypassing CALMET. Since 

12 CALMET can already take the MM5 data, why do you need 

13 to bypass CALMET? 

14 Bret Anderson: It's you know you can look at it 

15 from different perspectives. One of the primary 

16 things is this is not intended to be a replacement for 

17 CALMET but as Herman indicated it's intended to be an 

18 alternative to. Part of the running any like okay for 

19 the people who are running multiple year simulations. 

20 If you're doing three years worth of CALMET you know 

21 CALMET/CALPUFF. Logistics file side you're talking 

22 multiple gigabytes worth of data. This presents to 

23 the user community potential alternative in terms of 

24 going straight from MM5 to CALPUFF and then bypassing 

25 large (inaudible) data sets and large (inaudible) data 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 136 

 2 sets. It potentially has the alternative of being 

 3 able to speed up the permit review process. In come 

 4 cases this is an attractive alternative. As I said, 

 5 you'll find it is not intended to be a replacement. 

 6 There is clearly an application where CALMET is the 

 7 preferred or the more appropriate application. The 

 8 model that you may find where there might be where 

 9 there's no more to be gain from running one verses the 

10 other like in flat terrain. You know over the mid 

11 west for example you might find that might be suitable 

12 for that. It really boils down to a philosophical 

13 issue just you know in terms of logistics. 

14 Bob Paine: Okay. One more quick question for 

15 Roger. If you have gridded met data for AERMOD and 

16 you had a lot of sources that extend over more than 

17 one grid square, would you consider multiple grid 

18 inputs to AERMOD for the same run? 

19 Roger Brode: I think I mentioned that in an 

20 earlier presentation as one of the ideas we talked 

21 about looking at. Yeah. If you have a domain that 

22 covers more than one grid cell why not use each source 

23 with its own grid cell. It would be not an over night 

24 change but a relatively manageable change to AERMOD 

25 just to add multiple met input option and then pre 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 137 

 2 sort just to assign it to which met file you wanted or 

 3 even if you did coordinates it would pick it based on 

 4 location. So that's something that could be 

 5 implemented but we need to study it. But it may not 

 6 be a perfect solution but if we can demonstrate that 

 7 it's no worse and hopefully little better than 

 8 assuming completely uniformed then maybe can make 

 9 progress to that. 

10 Pete Manousos: I'm from First Energy. I'm a 

11 meteorologist. I have a question for Roger. What 

12 when you say tool is this a series executables that 

13 you are extracting the data from the grid? Is it a 

14 grid file that you're extracting the data from. Just 

15 elaborate briefly on that. 

16 Roger Brode: Sure. The MM5 AERMOD tool is 

17 (inaudible) program that extracts data from MM5.out 

18 files. So the raw and then the .out files and the 

19 users specifies the location either coordinates, 

20 latitude, longitude, (inaudible) or a grid cell if you 

21 know which one you want to do. Then extract MM5 data 

22 for that grid cell. 

23 Pete Manousos: Is that one year interpolation is 

24 that correct? 

25 Roger Brode: Right. Now the initial 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 138 

 2 implementation picks the closest dot point. The wind 

 3 location to that location you entered and then 

 4 interpolates the smaller parameters to that location. 

 5 And that becomes your grid cell. Again, there are 

 6 different ways that could be done. I think that is 

 7 sort of consistent with what the MM5 CALPUFF or 

 8 CALMET. 

 9 Pete Manousos: Okay. Just to follow up with 

10 what Bob was saying. If you have as series of points 

11 around that line there's an opportunity to perHAPS run 

12 AERMOD in an ensemble. That might be something to 

13 look at and get like a PDF most likely second high 

14 concentration or something like that. 

15 Roger Brode: Again that gets back to non 

16 regulatory application model where that type of 

17 information could be used might not be as clear how it 

18 would be used in the regulatory permitting, But yes 

19 that certainly makes sense. 

20 Arney Srackangast: This is in the same topic as 

21 far as the MM5 or WRF AERMOD input. Are the surface 

22 parameters coming directly from the MM5 such as the 

23 convective parameters, etc., or is there some blend 

24 with AERSURFACE? Where does AERSURFACE that's 

25 completely out of the picture come in as opposed to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 139 

 2 all these parameters coming directly out of the 

 3 meteorology model? In addition to that, could this be 

 4 utilized to eliminate urban versus rural switches in 

 5 AERMOD so you can something directly from land use. 

 6 Roger Brode: There are a couple of questions 

 7 there. I think the last one is a very good question. 

 8 I hope I remember to get that. Again, this is just an 

 9 initial design for this draft tool. It currently uses 

10 whatever information is output from MM5 that AERMOD 

11 can use. So the (inaudible) it'll use it. The heat 

12 flux sits there and actually uses (inaudible). We 

13 actually recalculate (inaudible) from each flux and 

14 (inaudible) star. Whatever is not there, AERMOD the 

15 tool will calculate like the . 

16 Again a lot of this depends on what options you select 

17 in MM5. Some MM5 options will give you certain output 

18 others won't. Right now the tool is not designed to 

19 be generic for whatever MM5 options you might select. 

20 Looks for what is available. It's designed for this 

21 specific data set. Currently it's been tested on 2002 

22 MM5 platform data that's used in all CMAQ 

23 photochemical modeling. Again that's just one 

24 approach. The initial there's been a lot of 

25 discussion about other approaches taking the data 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 140 

 2 through AERMET. That's something we still might 

 3 revisit. A sort of more interim step might be to just 

 4 use the profiles to develop (inaudible) upper air 

 5 data. Then it can go through AERMET with your own 

 6 surface data. Especially out west if I have site 

 7 specific surface measurements that I'm confident in 

 8 using. But there's no upper air data in sight using 

 9 gridded met to generate (inaudible) upper air data to 

10 go through AERMET. Seems like a pretty straight 

11 forward approach. That's something we've talked about 

12 pursuing as well. That will be a smaller step down 

13 that path. Right now we are sort of at the beginning 

14 of the path and there's a lot of different paths we 

15 can go down which is one reason why we haven't gotten 

16 further. Because I don't want to go too far down the 

17 wrong path and then realize we wasted a lot of 

18 resources. Of course we have a lot of issues to deal 

19 with but that's it. 

20 The question about urban is one that has been talked 

21 about. I think it was mentioned in that paper Bret 

22 referred to in the AWMA May, 2007. And right now 

23 ideally we would be able to do that to speed up the 

24 urban grid cell from MM5 or WRF and not have to turn 

25 on the urban option in AERMOD. Not sure we have a lot 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 141 

 2 of confidence in current grid models photochemical or 

 3 prognostic models to simulate the urban boundary layer 

 4 in the way that AERMOD would need to do that. There's 

 5 been some work that's been done in urbanizing MM5 and 

 6 or WRF and that's kind of what we would need to 

 7 urbanize prognostic met model that actually does 

 8 capture the important aspects of the urban boundary 

 9 layer for dispersion modeling purposes before we could 

10 say yes turn off the urban switch. It's something we 

11 will have to study as we go further with this. 

12 Dick Perry: Beeline software. Roger I had a 

13 question that was sparked by you saying how attractive 

14 having a 5 km tower would be effectively. And yet in 

15 AERMET processing the user goes to all the trouble of 

16 finding a (inaudible) run and virtually nothing is 

17 done with it. Where it's appropriate it's a much 

18 taller tower than 5 km. Has there been any looking 

19 done at utilizing that data for a little better upper 

20 air description. 

21 Roger Brode: Well not really to speak of. I 

22 guess in terms of (inaudible) we are lucky if we get 

23 two (inaudible) soundings per day (inaudible). So 

24 there's sort of a temporal resolution issue there what 

25 can we really extract from that full profile from the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 142 

 2 upper air (inaudible). I know early on in the 

 3 development of AERMOD/AERMET at one point talked about 

 4 whether to use the (inaudible) to sort of do a later 

 5 check on the boundary layer height calculations to see 

 6 if any adjustments need to be made. That never got 

 7 implemented. I guess in terms of MM5 AERMOD we 

 8 basically have that full profile every hour. So I 

 9 think that's what makes it a more meaningful resource 

10 to use because if you feed it into the profile file as 

11 profile of winds and temperatures all the way up. 

12 Does that make sense? 

13 Tyler Fox: I want to thank all the presenters 

14 for this morning session. We will have an hour and 

15 ten minutes or so for lunch. Everybody here there may 

16 be a crunch, little lines in the cafeteria so we'll 

17 see you at 1:15 and we will spend an afternoon on 

18 AERMOD and CALPUFF. Thank you. 

19 (Due to technical issues with the recorder, the first 

20 part of Tyler's speech was not recorded) 

21 Tyler Fox: James will do Air Screen and Roger 

22 will do Air Surface and then we'll have an AERMIC 

23 update from Roger. Other than Bret we planned it as 

24 such that none of the other members of the AERMIC 

25 committee could be available. Not that we purposely 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 143 

 2 did it that way, but they had other conflicts. 

 3 Unfortunately we don't have Al and other folks here as 

 4 we have in the past. Then we'll have the Q&A session. 

 5 Without any further ado I'll just hand this over to 

 6 Randy. We put yours on here Randy? There it is. 

 7 Randy Robinson: Thanks Tyler. As he mentioned 

 8 my name is Randy Robinson. I work with EPA Region 5 

 9 office in Chicago. What I was asked to do today was 

10 to provide an overview and update on the AERMOD 

11 Implementation Workgroup. This was a work group that 

12 was introduced at the last conference. We'll get you 

13 up to speed on what's been going on since then. 

14 I'm going to talk about providing a little background 

15 on AIWG. That's the acronym for our group. Discuss 

16 group organization and purpose. Discuss issue 

17 identification and how we prioritize those issues. 

18 Touch a bit on the accomplishments so far with this 

19 group. Then talk about the issues that are currently 

20 being worked on and whether there is some activity 

21 going on with the sub group which I'll mention in a 

22 minute. 

23 A little bit of background there was an initial AERMOD 

24 implementation work group that was initiated in April 

25 2005. It was co-chaired by Al Cimorelli (R3), and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 144 

 2 Warren Peters (OAQPS). The members of that group I 

 3 believe it was a pretty large group. There may be 25- 

 4 30 members consisting of states, local agencies and 

 5 EPA Regional offices. They set up 3 goals for 

 6 themselves. That was to come up with a recommendation 

 7 on how we were going to handle AERMOD implementation 

 8 issues going into the future. Put information into an 

 9 Implementation Guide that would be useful to help 

10 people out there using the model. And also to try and 

11 identify all the unresolved issues related to AERMOD 

12 that were out there. This was a successful work 

13 group. I say it was successful because they had a 

14 beginning and they had an end. The end came with the 

15 Final Report April 2006 and that final report has 

16 proved to be real useful for the current version of 

17 the implementation work group which I'm going to talk 

18 a little about now. 

19 This full AIWG group is co-chaired by myself and Roger 

20 Brode (OAQPS), and the make up is similar to the 

21 original only smaller. We've got state 

22 representatives local agency representatives, regional 

23 offices and headquarters. We had our initial call in 

24 January, 2007, so we have been at this a little over a 

25 year and a half or so. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 145 

 2 The purpose of the current AIWG is to advise OAQPS on 

 3 implementation issues, provides input for budgeting 

 4 considerations or planning considerations. Put 

 5 together action plans that are needed that may require 

 6 us to work with other groups. Primarily that would be 

 7 the AERMIC group which is the sort of scientific 

 8 technical group associated with AERMOD as Roger 

 9 mentioned earlier and will mention again later. Just 

10 in general provide feedback to OAQPS on how the 

11 process is working, how's the clearinghouse process 

12 working, communication materials and kind of a 

13 sounding board for headquarters. 

14 I mentioned the initial AIWG group. One of their 

15 goals was to identify all the issues they could 

16 associate with AERMOD. They did a good job and came 

17 up with a list of 57 issues that were categorized 

18 either as bug fixes, mandatory work that needs to be 

19 done, model improvements. Those kind of things. In 

20 our first couple of calls we looked at that list and 

21 we said well that's tough to get your arms around that 

22 large a list. So we narrowed it down to 10 through a 

23 very democratic voting process. Further narrowed it 

24 down to 3 and developed Subgroups and had chairs step 

25 up for those sub groups. They're listed here. The 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 146 

 2 three sub groups that we have are: 

 3 ASOS/Met Data - Alan Dresser (NJDEP) / 

 4 Joe Sims (ADEM) 

 5 Urban Issues - Margaret Valis (NYDEC) 

 6 Surface Characteristics - Doris Jung (CO DPHE) 

 7 Having said that we also recognize that all the issues 

 8 on that list are important. We just needed to narrow 

 9 it down so we can manage it. We have been able to 

10 knock off some of those items over the last year and a 

11 half. We put some in a kind of low hanging fruit 

12 category. Others are being worked over time and all 

13 the issues are important. But these are the three 

14 main areas we have been focusing on. I guess I should 

15 mention in addition to this an ad hoc group that has 

16 been organized and has had a couple of calls that have 

17 dealt with specifically GEP kinds of issues. They are 

18 formally a part of AIWG but came about as a result of 

19 the initial list of issues. 

20 What have we accomplished over the last year and a 

21 half or so? A couple of things that I'm highlighting 

22 here. One is updating the AERMOD Implementation 

23 Guide. That was something that the original AIWG 

24 group had listed as a goal. They did put out an 

25 original guide in September, 2005. The latest 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 147 

 2 version that we have of the AERMOD Implementation 

 3 Guide is dated January 9, 2008. Generally the 

 4 revisions to that document include: We've revised the 

 5 structure. There are a lot of new sections in the met 

 6 data in the processing area as well as some new text 

 7 in the urban applications. I'll talk a little more 

 8 about that in a minute. Another accomplishment is the 

 9 development of the AERSURFACE methodology and the 

10 release of the AERSURFACE tool. We'll hear more about 

11 this later on. But it's a tool that automates the 

12 process of generating the surface characteristics that 

13 you need to run in AERMOD. And this is one of the 

14 significant accomplishments associated with this 

15 group. 

16 Specifically the improvements to the new structure 

17 we've added the Table of Contents. We've got a 

18 "what's new" section. If you have the old version 

19 memorized and a new one comes out you can go to that 

20 what's new and you'll know what's changed. Added a 

21 Background and Purpose section. Added some 

22 references. Fundamentally it's designed to be easier 

23 for EPA to revise and update and also easier for 

24 people to find what relevant information they are 

25 looking for. Hopefully it's an easier document to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 148 

 2 use. In terms of the other updates to the guide that 

 3 fall under the meteorological data and processing 

 4 section relating to determining surface 

 5 characteristics, there's a section with a discussion 

 6 of representativeness some general recommendations on 

 7 things to consider when you're looking at 

 8 representativeness of your surface characteristics. 

 9 As I mentioned an updated very lengthy discussion on 

10 the new method on determining surface characteristics 

11 which is tied into the release of the tool that 

12 implements that which is the AERSURFACE tool. In 

13 addition, there were updates to sections talking about 

14 processing upper air data. Just some recommendations 

15 on options you should be selecting when you're 

16 downloading data from the upper cell web site. 

17 Also information on processing sites specific met in 

18 urban areas. Some general considerations to take into 

19 account if you are in an urban area whether using 

20 national weather data or site specific onsite data 

21 some recommendations there. Other areas that were 

22 updated include Urban Applications. In terms of the 

23 urban/rural determination an update to that is a 

24 change to the recommendation that moves from source by 

25 source determination as to whether it should be urban 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 149 

 2 or rural based on the Auer/Irwin technique to a more 

 3 general recommendation that you should look at. Look 

 4 at the modeling domain and the area that is impacting 

 5 your sources as a whole to see what the heat island 

 6 impact might be on the group of sources. Other 

 7 changes include population input we've got some 

 8 recommendations if you're modeling urban and AERMOD 

 9 you use population as a surrogate to represent the 

10 heat island impact. There are some recommendations in 

11 there on determining the appropriate population. I'll 

12 talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Also 

13 a clarification of the urban roughness length. We 

14 felt there was some misunderstanding of what this 

15 value was that AERMOD was asking for. We clarify in 

16 there it is to be used to characterize the urban heat 

17 island impact and it's not a value that should 

18 represent the roughness difference between your source 

19 site and your met sight. I think there has been some 

20 misunderstanding about what that value is to be used 

21 for and we've set a default value in the 

22 implementation guide that represents the regulatory 

23 mode of the model. 

24 Okay I've mentioned we have the 3 sub groups. The 

25 ASOS data met data group, the urban issues group and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 150 

 2 the surface characteristic group. I'm going to 

 3 briefly talk about each sub group sort of highlight 

 4 the issues they are dealing with and highlight a 

 5 couple of actions items that they are currently 

 6 involved with. In a lot of these slides I've stolen 

 7 from the sub group chairs so I appreciate that. I 

 8 think Joe is the only sub group chair here. With 

 9 respect to the ASOS and met data processing sub group 

10 they determined a group of issues they were going to 

11 focus on. One was the impact ASOS data versus pre12 ASOS data on AERMOD concentrations. Secondly they 

13 wanted to look at the guidance and tools for missing 

14 data and improving quality assessment and reporting in 

15 AERMOD. 

16 Thirdly impact of light winds in AERMOD and then 

17 lastly use of hourly average ASOS winds and this is 

18 referring to the 2-minute average winds that Roger was 

19 talking about earlier this morning. I'm going to talk 

20 a little bit more about Bullet 1 and Bullet 4 just to 

21 provide some information on what the sub group has 

22 been involved with there. 

23 In terms of the ASOS verses the pre-ASOS predictions. 

24 Here the activity was to compare AERMOD comparing 

25 using pre-ASOS and the ASOS met data. Looking at the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 151 

 2 same National Weather Service stations during the same 

 3 times. It is essentially redoing the 1997 ASOS and 

 4 pre-ASOS study that was conducted for ISCST3. That 

 5 was done and the results the conclusions that the sub 

 6 group came up with based on that analysis was that 

 7 overall the use of ASOS date in AERMOD was generally 

 8 less of an issue than it was with ISCST3. In 

 9 particular the lack of complete cloud cover that you 

10 get with the ASOS data was much less an issue for 

11 AERMOD than for the ISCST3. 

12 Here's some of the information that was generated. 

13 You are looking at plot on the left is for AERMOD and 

14 the plot on the right is for ISC. The Y Axis is the 

15 difference in the two met data sets that were used. 

16 In this particular plot it's a comparison of the 

17 conventional observation met data in one case. In the 

18 other case, we've substituted in ASOS clouds so for 

19 the observational data it's observer temperature, 

20 winds and clouds. In the other case we substituted in 

21 ASOS clouds combined with the observer temperature and 

22 winds for the ISC. There's a variety average of times 

23 along this. This is for point source. As you can see 

24 for AERMOD the inclusion of the ASOS clouds didn't 

25 really make too much of a difference. The ISC plot 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 152 

 2 actually this is a plot that is equivalent to one of 

 3 the plots in the 1997 study. There were more 

 4 differences in the ISC version in the ISC plot than 

 5 the AERMOD which isn't necessarily surprising given 

 6 how ISC stabilities are determined compared with 

 7 AERMOD's stabilities are determined. This plot is 

 8 similar except where comparing the full ASOS 

 9 temperature winds and clouds with the convention 

10 observer based temperature winds and clouds for AERMOD 

11 and for ISC. The different symbols are for the six 

12 met stations. And again here you can see more of a 

13 difference with AERMOD than when we just replaced the 

14 clouds; more along the lines of what we were seeing 

15 with ISCST3. In general we felt the use of ASOS data 

16 was with our AERMOD was good or better than it was 

17 with ISC. Overall that's less of an issue. The use 

18 of ASOS data is overall less of an issue with AERMOD. 

19 Another area of work that the met data issues group is 

20 looking at is the hourly average winds. You heard a 

21 little bit about that this morning. Just a little bit 

22 of an explanation. Currently as you're all aware we 

23 used 2-minute average winds taken about 10 minutes 

24 before the hour. 2-minute winds averages are 

25 available every minute for first order stations 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 153 

 2 starting in 2000, other sites starting in 2005. So 

 3 what we can do is to take those 2-minute averages and 

 4 compute hourly average winds. The expectation is that 

 5 this would reduce the number of calms and reduce the 

 6 number of missing data currently reported. Also what 

 7 would be the impact on that if you ran it through 

 8 AERMOD? 

 9 We've done the hourly averaging and as you can imagine 

10 there are a number of decisions you have to make when 

11 doing that in terms of what are your thresholds, how 

12 much data do you need to do your average. So we've 

13 come up with a methodology, it may not be the 

14 methodology, but it's a methodology of averaging the 

15 winds and thought of what would be the standard ASOS 

16 data compared with the hybrid or the average. Here 

17 we've got a five year period of record. On the bottom 

18 we have the various wind speed categories starting 

19 with calm, missing and variable. And the various wind 

20 speed category. The thing to point out is the number 

21 of calms is reduced when you do the hourly average. 

22 The number missing hours is reduced when you do the 

23 annual average and the number variables are reduced. 

24 And again variable is if you have an hour between 2 

25 and 6 knots but the wind direction varies by 60 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 154 

 2 degrees or more it is classified as a variable which 

 3 would be classified as a missing for our group. The 

 4 hybrid really speaks to that. 

 5 Another example of this is Oklahoma City. Again the 

 6 hourly average you see the reduction in calms. See 

 7 the reduction in variable hours. A few more hours 

 8 below 3 knots. We took that information and we 

 9 modeled it to see what the results looked like. And 

10 again this is for Detroit and for Oklahoma City and 

11 the Y Axis is the ratio of the hourly average 

12 concentration to the standard ASOS concentration. 

13 There is a variety of source categories here arranging 

14 from low level non buoyant sources to more higher 

15 buoyant sources. Overall we see an increase in 

16 prediction when using the hourly met data. It varies 

17 from source to source somewhat but I guess it's not 

18 surprising for both Oklahoma and Detroit seeing 

19 generally slightly higher predictions with the hourly 

20 met data. 

21 We'll move on to the urban issues sub group which some 

22 of the issues that they decided were a priority were 

23 urban/rural determination and guidance on population 

24 input for urban option. The urban issues work group 

25 has been instrumental in the changes that have already 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 155 

 2 been made in the AERMOD Implementation Guide. They 

 3 also contributed in the text that clarified the urban 

 4 roughness length. They were involved with methods for 

 5 quantifying heat island effect and I'll show some 

 6 images in a minute. 

 7 And then lastly have an issue of enhanced dispersion 

 8 from large heat sources not related to population. 

 9 I'm going to focus a little bit on the population 

10 input issue. As you know if you're modeling urban and 

11 AERMOD you need population as surrogate to capture the 

12 enhanced dispersion you'll see in the nighttime due to 

13 the heat island. The magnitude of the population that 

14 you use is inversely related to the model 

15 concentrations that you'll get. So there is a desire 

16 not to overestimate the amount of population that 

17 you'll be using in the model to make sure you're being 

18 conservative on your concentrations. 

19 The good news is that I don't think AERMOD is 

20 extremely sensitive to this parameter. But there is 

21 still a desire what population is appropriate. What 

22 should we be using? The group has borrowed some of 

23 the information that's been used in the Detroit multi24 pollutant pilot study. This particular plot on the 

25 left is plotted census tract population density people 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 156 

 2 per square per km. If you were looking at that and I 

 3 think the box is for the AERMOD domain that is being 

 4 considered. If you look at that it's a little tough 

 5 to get your arms around it and try to determine what 

 6 is the urbanized area and what is the population I 

 7 should be using. One technique that was used in 

 8 Detroit is to take this information the density 

 9 gridded on the 6x6 km basis and I think one thing that 

10 does it helps to organize the data a little better. 

11 It helps you get a handle on what is the urban area 

12 that might be contributing to the heat island impact. 

13 This was the technique that was used in Detroit and we 

14 took that said well it did a good job of sort of 

15 simplifying the image for Detroit. How about a more 

16 messier area like the northeast? This is a New York 

17 City example and Margaret Ballis has done all this 

18 work and really done a tremendous job. But on the 

19 left is the greater New York City area population 

20 density is again plotted there. If you take that 

21 information and grid it on a 6x6 km basis you end up 

22 with this image. Then what Margaret was able to use 

23 was to use the 750 people per square km threshold that 

24 is in the guideline and delineated and it's a bit of 

25 judgment call but delineated what she thought was the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 157 

 2 urban population was in that 750 people per square km 

 3 threshold. The good news is that using on this side 

 4 the population of the census tract selected is about 

 5 fourteen and a half million using the gridded approach 

 6 she came up with a similar population. The question 

 7 is still out there though as to what is the 

 8 appropriate population. This doesn't necessarily get 

 9 at that and that is one thing we are trying to refine 

10 as to obviously fourteen million is probable not the 

11 right number to model if you've got a source or two 

12 located in Manhattan. 

13 So one of the things we are also looking at is 

14 combining the population information with other data 

15 that may help delineate the urban heat island which is 

16 what we are trying to get at. 

17 This is some land cover data that shows impervious 

18 land cover. Again you can overlay that on the 

19 population density to maybe give you a better feeling 

20 of what is the urban core that might be impacting your 

21 model area. As I said this is still work in progress 

22 and we're trying to refine. The hope is to come up 

23 with a methodology that people can implement to 

24 generate population data from that application. 

25 This one last area that is also being explored is what 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 158 

 2 we're really interested in trying to get at the heat 

 3 impact is what is the temperature difference in the 

 4 urban and rural areas. And we've discovered that NASA 

 5 has satellite images that might provide that kind of 

 6 information and these are a couple of examples. So we 

 7 are looking into what is the potential for using these 

 8 satellite images that show you the temperature 

 9 radiance for our urban kinds of modeling and maybe the 

10 future is that the temperature differences is directly 

11 input into the model or maybe we can use this kind of 

12 information to sort of collaborate the population data 

13 that we are using. But we are just really starting to 

14 interact with the NASA folks on this. We'll see where 

15 that goes. 

16 Lastly the surface characteristic subgroup. Their 

17 three main issues that they identified was lack of 

18 representative met data. What do you do if you don't 

19 have any representative met data and I think the 

20 future is possibly gridded met data or the MM5 to 

21 AERMOD that we heard about earlier or maybe it's the 

22 up over down seems like I've hearing about for a long 

23 time. But I think that's an issue that is ultimately 

24 sort of out of this sub group's hands but we'll see 

25 what happens there. This sub group has also been 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 159 

 2 involved in the surface parameter determination and 

 3 we're quite involved in the testing and development of 

 4 the AERSURFACE methodology and testing the different 

 5 radius that are recommended for the surface roughness 

 6 parameters. I'll talk more about that in a second. 

 7 Then lastly representativeness process met data you 

 8 know can we develop something that can give us some 

 9 criteria or some information on is the met data that 

10 I've generated to run in AERMOD is it representative 

11 of my source location or is it conservative or what 

12 kind of differences should I expect. So that's some 

13 of the road that this group is going down. 

14 Real quickly this is some of the modeling work that 

15 the sub group has done and it's focused on Baldwin met 

16 data and source information and this is a site 

17 southeast of St. Louis in Illinois. Baldwin is the 

18 site specific met tower Belleville is the National 

19 Weather [ed. Service] station located about 20 miles 

20 to the northwest or so. The graph here shows the land 

21 use area around Baldwin which is site specific and the 

22 land used around Belleville which is the nearest 

23 National Weather Service station which is what you 

24 would grab and use most likely. 

25 Here is wind roses for Baldwin and Belleville I guess 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 160 

 2 you know the directionally they look reasonably 

 3 similar. One of the things that really jump out is 

 4 the number of calms you get less than 0% and 24% calms 

 5 at the National Weather [ed. Service] station. Again 

 6 that's evident in the bar chart below which shows the 

 7 wind speed distribution. 

 8 This a plot that examined more directly the impact of 

 9 calculating your surface roughness based on a 1 km 

10 radius from your tower verses based on a 3 km radius 

11 from your tower. The recent AERSURFACE methodology 

12 recommends the 1 km for surface roughness calculation. 

13 This is the 1 km circle this is 3 km for the site 

14 specific and the numbers in the middle don't know if 

15 you can read those or not. But those represent the 

16 difference between the 1 km surface roughness and the 

17 3 km. For example this sector right here is 250 % 

18 which means that the 1 km surface roughness is 250% 

19 higher than the 3 km for that particular sector. 

20 That's the only one that's really different. The 

21 other ones are 10% to 20% difference. For the 

22 National Weather Service site similar map, I think all 

23 the 1 km surface roughness value are less that were 

24 produced at a 3 km radius and at a bit higher 

25 percentage than we saw for site specific. So what 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 161 

 2 does that translate to in terms of model 

 3 concentrations is one of the things the sub group is 

 4 looking at. On the Y AXIS is the ratio of the 1 km 

 5 surface roughness prediction to the 3 km radius 

 6 concentration prediction for a whole slug of 

 7 difference sources ranging from area sources to 

 8 buoyant sources to non buoyant volume sources. 

 9 Generally not a whole lot of difference for this site 

10 specific tower which is this particular plot. A 

11 couple of sources show up as being slightly lower 

12 using the 1 km but generally it didn't make much 

13 difference for the site specific tower. For the 

14 National Weather Service tower comparing the 1 km to 

15 the 3 km ratio increased differences mostly predicting 

16 a little bit higher with the 1 km roughness. Had one 

17 source that popped up over two times higher than the 

18 original prediction. A little bit more sensitivity 

19 with the National Weather Service station. The group 

20 is doing more modeling of different sites and trying 

21 to get a better understanding of what kind of impact 

22 we're seeing. There's also efforts to look at some of 

23 the field studies relative to these data basis as 

24 well. 

25 If you remember nothing else, these are some kind of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 162 

 2 final points. AIWG is I guess I would call it an 

 3 inclusive process, relying on the states and locals 

 4 and other folks who have experience and knowledge in 

 5 using the model to advise EPA on these implementation 

 6 issues. There's been a tremendous amount of good work 

 7 that's been done by this group at this point and 

 8 continues to be done. We realize that communication 

 9 is critical and it doesn't do us any good to generate 

10 some information that may be useful and not really 

11 communicate. So we try when we get new implementation 

12 guides we put them up on SCRAM and maybe we need to 

13 think of different ways to broadcast when we do have 

14 new information. But communication is the key, it 

15 flows outward and you guys 

16 bring the issues with AERMOD we'd like to hear about 

17 it as well. 

18 Then lastly I want to thank again all the members of 

19 the AIWG group as they are donating their time and 

20 efforts and have done a tremendous job. That's it. 

21 Tyler Fox: Thank you Randy. I just want to echo the 

22 appreciation from our standpoint Randy, Roger and the 

23 rest of the workgroup members. As you can see it's 

24 not only impressive reflection of people but a 

25 reflection of work that's moving us forward that if we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 163 

 2 hadn't been communicating and bringing that collection 

 3 of people together we wouldn't have been able to get 

 4 this far. I'll talk while you go ahead and prepare 

 5 that. Next we have Roger on the status and updates 

 6 and the specifics of the AERMOD modeling of the system 

 7 itself. I would like to recognize the efforts of the 

 8 implementation work and after Roger talks we'll get 

 9 more specifics on the AERSURFACE tool that Randy 

10 mentioned that one of the AERMOD implementation work 

11 sub groups was focusing on and I think Bob Paine 

12 asking about releasing tools and the like. That's one 

13 example where I think by engaging with the state and 

14 local folks as well as the regional offices we can get 

15 a lot of testing and work through the demos or beta 

16 versions of these tool and get them but maybe not 

17 necessarily bullet proof as someone mentioned this 

18 morning but in a suitable form to get into your hands 

19 so that you have got something good and have some 

20 confidence in working with it. As I mentioned or 

21 tried to indicate this morning as we move forward the 

22 gridded met tools for AERMOD and CALPUFF we look to 

23 work through the same type of process and engaging 

24 with the state, local and regional offices first to go 

25 through that testing. But as I indicated to Bob if 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 164 

 2 there's a way in which and there are interested 

 3 parties here or out there or in the community we would 

 4 certainly look to provide that to gain your insight 

 5 and experience as well. It's obviously something as 

 6 Chet said in the beginning we can't do it ourselves 

 7 and working through these collaborative processes 

 8 definitely get us much further along than we otherwise 

 9 would and we will continue to rely on these types of 

10 collaborative processes as we move forward. I'll hand 

11 it over to Roger. 

12 Roger Brode: Thank you Tyler. Sorry I wasn't 

13 here at the beginning to express my acknowledgment and 

14 appreciation for all the assistance that Randy has 

15 provided as co-chair of the workgroup. I really 

16 appreciate that and have enjoyed that very much. And 

17 also to express once again how appreciative and 

18 encouraged and impressed I am at the especially the 

19 state members how committed they are to this process 

20 that has been going on close to two years now. And 

21 people hardly miss a call usually with the full group 

22 and the sub group that's like two calls a month very 

23 consistent level of participation. We're really 

24 encouraged by that and we hope to continue that. 

25 We've discussed sort of to keep things kind of fresh 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 165 

 2 maybe rotations of membership on the group or could a 

 3 different sub group for a while that's something we 

 4 haven't implemented yet. Also with the (inaudible) 

 5 this year sort of revisiting the AIWG list of 

 6 priorities and activities in light of AERMIC plans and 

 7 any adjustments that need to be made there. I want to 

 8 thank you very much for that. 

 9 I'm going to give you a recap of AERMOD status 

10 and then talk about some recent developments with the 

11 AERMOD modeling system and inform you of some other 

12 AERMOD related activities that have been going on 

13 within our office. I guess Tyler mentioned so 

14 everybody here is aware AERMOD was promulgated as EPA15 preferred near-field model in Federal Register notice 

16 dated November 9, 2005, with effective date of 

17 December 9, 2005, with one-year grandfather period. 

18 Since that time there were some significant updates 

19 made to all of three main AERMOD components AERMOD 

20 dispersion model, AERMET met processor and AERMET 

21 (inaudible) processor and briefly summarize those. 

22 They've been out there for a while so I'm pretty sure 

23 most of you are aware of those. They're listed in the 

24 Model Change Bulletin as well as some addenda to the 

25 User Guide. Two key areas of focus when I first got 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 166 

 2 there that go into Version 06341 of AERMET and AERMAP 

 3 but issues related to processing the newer format of 

 4 surface weather service data. Think we've got a 

 5 pretty good handle on that. There were a lot of 

 6 changes with AERMET for handling that. 

 7 For AERMAP, a lot of issues to associate with how 

 8 the horizontal datum conversion reference datum 

 9 conversion was taking place to get coordinates for 

10 your source or whatever from old topographic maps 

11 generally those coordinate are going to be referenced 

12 to an older datum, North America Datum 27 is basically 

13 what model of the earth was use to represent those 

14 coordinates. And the newer datum is NAD 83 so a lot 

15 of newer elevation data is in that 83 but some 

16 elevation data is in that 27. So dealing with the 

17 conversion from your source coordinates in one datum 

18 to terrain elevation coordinates in another datum 

19 that's a complication of AERMAP that we've had to deal 

20 with and I think we have addressed a lot of those 

21 issues. There are still a few bugs left over and that 

22 certainly wasn't bullet proof. But I think we made 

23 some significant progress there. 

24 Now more importantly what you're probably more 

25 interested in is the recent AERMOD developments and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 167 

 2 the updates to all three AERMOD components have been 

 3 completed conversion dated 08280. Had hoped they 

 4 would be posted before you got here. Depending on how 

 5 fast you travel they may be posted before you get 

 6 home. It's very close to trying to make them as 

 7 bullet proof as we can. For one thing it's a time 

 8 consuming and I don't want to call it painful but it 

 9 certainly a demanding process to go through these 

10 kinds of updates. And we don't want to do them 

11 anymore often than we have to. So this should make 

12 you aware that these are going to be released on SCRAM 

13 as soon as possible. Another motivation for getting 

14 the especially the AERMOD update out is that we want 

15 to release a draft version of AERSCREEN. Screening 

16 version right now the version of AERMOD out there now 

17 will not work with AERSCREEN. So that wouldn't make 

18 much sense to get AERSCREEN out first. So that's 

19 another thing driving us to reach this milestone. 

20 Some of the documentation may come a little bit later 

21 but the basic information will be there as new 

22 options. Just to give you an overview of what changes 

23 have been made: I guess as far as all three 

24 components some miscellaneous bug fixes and 

25 enhancements have been made and I'll give you more 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 168 

 2 details in the following slides. Some of the 

 3 improvements have been made to try and make the code 

 4 more portability across different compilers and 

 5 platforms. I think we've made some progress on that. 

 6 In terms of the EPA executables that are going to be 

 7 released on SCRAM we've updated to Intel Fortran 

 8 Compiler for Windows for those. Just making that 

 9 upgrade will speed the model up to I think about 40% 

10 generally compared to the Compaq Visual Fortran that 

11 are out there now. We might be able to do even better 

12 than that. Something we will have to look into. 

13 User's Guides are in the process of being updated to 

14 incorporate all the Addenda. I think each of those 

15 components have a main User Guide and an Addendum so 

16 we need to get those blended. We sort of started that 

17 process. It's a time consuming process. We're not 

18 going to get that done before these are released but 

19 hopefully at least you'll have all the information you 

20 need to run the model. 

21 Get into a little more detail about AERMOD in 

22 particular. Randy mentioned one of the activities of 

23 the Implementation Work Group and one of the items in 

24 the Implementation Guide Update addressed the use of 

25 the urban roughness length parameter it's an optional 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 169 

 2 parameter on the urban option part when you select an 

 3 urban option for AERMOD and the default value is 1.0. 

 4 Probably shouldn't have been made an option to the 

 5 user because as Randy indicated. It came to our 

 6 attention that people didn't really understand what 

 7 that value was used for. So a decision was made to as 

 8 reflected in the Implementation Guide that any value 

 9 other than 1.0 should be treated as a non default 

10 option. So what we've done in this version of AERMOD 

11 is make it explicitly a non default option. It 

12 doesn't mean you can't use a different value but you 

13 will have to turn off the default switch and provide 

14 justification for that. 

15 Just some other enhancements for hour to vary 

16 emissions by hour-of-day and day-of-week . More 

17 recent enhancement was made to the hourly emission 

18 file option that allows you to (inaudible) by hour for 

19 all source type. Then for point sources you can vary 

20 the exit velocity and exit temperature. But we 

21 (inaudible) for providing to area source to also vary 

22 the release heights and initial dispersion coefficient 

23 by hour. And one thing that has motivated that is a 

24 lot of focus recently on modeling and how best to 

25 model emission from mobile sources in AERMOD. And 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 170 

 2 there's a lot of information out there that those 

 3 parameters may vary depending on the wind direction 

 4 relative to the road and so on if your vehicle mix if 

 5 you want to have an effective (inaudible) for 

 6 (inaudible) of light and heavy duty vehicles. and 

 7 maybe that mix varies by rush hour or night time. 

 8 This will give you the flexibility to change that. So 

 9 that's a recent addition that's been made. 

10 I want to make you aware of a significant bug with the 

11 ozone limiting method option if you use OLM with the 

12 OLMGROUP keyword then you have problems. And given 

13 the significance of the impact of the bug more details 

14 in Addendum to Model Change Bulletin. It's the worst 

15 kind of bug that you can have with the model. Its 

16 model runs gives you numbers and the numbers are 

17 almost always wrong and sometimes significantly 

18 (inaudible) in the wrong direction. If it had not 

19 been such a busy summer, we probably would have put 

20 out a bug alert notice to the community but we're 

21 getting the model fixed anyway. You'll read more 

22 about that. At least make people aware of that. 

23 Fortunately it's a non default option so it's not used 

24 all that widely. If you don't use OLM keyword then 

25 OLM is okay by itself as far as we know. We had to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 171 

 2 make the change to AERMOD to be able to read the 

 3 screen meteorology coming from AERSCREEN so we've done 

 4 that. Generally improved efficiency of memory 

 5 allocation especially for AREAPOLY sources. Another 

 6 recent change was the decision to go ahead and sort of 

 7 upgrade to use of double precision for nearly all non- 

 8 integer variables in the model. So there's been some 

 9 long-standing questions or issues about possible 

10 sensitivity to resolution or precision in the 

11 computation for UTM coordinates since the UTM northern 

12 coordinates is seven digits and borderline for single 

13 precision computation. So we have done that 

14 explicitly in the code and think its working pretty 

15 good. There are some other benefits it improved 

16 consistency of results across different compilers and 

17 computing platforms. I think as you hear later about 

18 some plans that AERMET has for enhancing AERMOD I 

19 think it also provides a firmer foundation for some of 

20 the enhancements we envision down the road. 

21 I know this is a lot of information to digest but so 

22 I'll try to move as quickly as I can. So AERMAP and 

23 AERMOD have been the main focus on the more recent 

24 changes. Some things just fix AERMAP but AERMAP we've 

25 made significant changes first to address some 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 172 

 2 problems with processing Alaska DEM files. As you go 

 3 far enough north due to the longitude lines getting 

 4 closer together. As you go further north, there is a 

 5 non-uniform spacing in terms of the longitude verses 

 6 latitude horizontal spacing of the nodes and we fixed 

 7 the problem with that. But we've gone ahead and 

 8 upgraded AERMAP to support newer elevation data 

 9 sources which is specifically the National Elevation 

10 Dataset (NED), NED is now available for the whole US 

11 from USGS Seamless Data Server in GeoTIFF format which 

12 AERMAP can process. So you go to that server you 

13 download one file for your domain, you have but one 

14 datum so you don't have to worry about mixed datum 

15 within your domain and basically have one file for 

16 your whole domain is possibly one option. I think 

17 that's a significant enhancement. We will probably 

18 update the AERMOD Implementation Guide to go along 

19 with this to recommend migrating to use of NED as soon 

20 as practical. I'm not saying you have to and it's 

21 something we may entertain later. We need to get more 

22 familiar with the data to make sure there aren't other 

23 problems but so far we feel that NED is the higher 

24 quality data set than DEM. We know a lot of issues 

25 with DEM data. One being just the fact that you have 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 173 

 2 different horizontal data in neighboring DEM files so 

 3 that's an issue. Now the default format for that data 

 4 from the server is (inaudible) you just have to 

 5 remember to change that. But that'll be in your user 

 6 guide. We also gone ahead and enhanced AERMAP to 

 7 support use of mixed DEM files. When the issues have 

 8 come up over the past two years if you're using the 

 9 7.5-min DEM file or data for your application. If 

10 part of your domain for the DEM 7.5 minute quadrangle 

11 is completely over water for part of your domain there 

12 is no data for that quadrangle and that can create 

13 some problems with setting up your receptor grids and 

14 so on your domain. So what you can do now is feed it 

15 all 7.5 data you have and then if you have a gap like 

16 that just feed it one degree file to fill that gap. 

17 It'll use the higher resolution data to first get the 

18 elevations and then just fill in the gap with the one 

19 degree data. Of course with the met data you don't 

20 have to worry about that but at least that flexibility 

21 is still there. And that kind of motivates somewhat 

22 by both the mixed DEM and NED is to make the domain 

23 key words optional. So if I go to the seamless data 

24 server and download the domain of NED data while I've 

25 already defined the domain why do I have to do it 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 174 

 2 again in AERMAP? So you just take the domain now of 

 3 your inputs to AERMAP the default will be to use all 

 4 the available data. That basically controls just how 

 5 much of the elevation file is used to determine the 

 6 critical (inaudible) height scale. Doesn't affect the 

 7 elevation just the height scale. 

 8 I don't know why this was in there earlier but the 

 9 included keyword that's in AERMOD to feed in receptor 

10 information or source information is now supported in 

11 AERMAP. And let's see I'm trying to remember all the 

12 changes are it's been a lot but we're getting close. 

13 This was a recent decision you'll hear about 

14 AERSURFACE in a minute. AERSURFACE uses the standard 

15 convention of West longitude being negative. 

16 Everybody else in the world looks at it that way. 

17 AERMAP looks at it the other way so we've decided to 

18 go ahead and switch to the standard convention in 

19 AERMAP. The only place it really shows up as an issue 

20 is if you define your domain in terms of latitude and 

21 longitude. If you don't define a domain doesn't 

22 matter at all. If you define a domain in terms of 

23 (inaudible) doesn't matter but if you use (inaudible) 

24 as domain it will interpret negative as West longitude 

25 and positive to the East. But we've also put in codes 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 175 

 2 that will check to see if you forgot to change it. So 

 3 if it sees a problem processing it with the correct 

 4 convention it'll say well would it work if they didn't 

 5 change it so that seems to be working okay so you 

 6 don't necessarily have to change your old inputs it'll 

 7 give you a warning that they have been switched. But 

 8 I think in the long run it will make things easier and 

 9 simpler because you do your lower left upper right for 

10 both and the other you do the switch. And then 

11 finally allocatable array storage at runtime as in 

12 AERMOD. Should probably have questions after each 

13 one. 

14 AERMET is a bit shorter list. There's been lots going 

15 on but it's a cosmetic bug in terms of the station 

16 elevation. The last update added the option for using 

17 the specified station elevation on the location card. 

18 The fact is it was only used in one case and there was 

19 with (inaudible) if it was missing in the data file. 

20 A lot of people didn't realize it was only used there. 

21 Over time we have expanded that to use station 

22 elevation for all surface formats. And some formats 

23 have the elevation in the data file which we were not 

24 using so it's using that. So we are basically 

25 updating it and making it more robust in terms of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 176 

 2 defining the station elevation using what's available. 

 3 Basically that is used in finding station pressure if 

 4 it's missing any data rather than using the default 

 5 sea level pressures. There are a couple of problems 

 6 that have shown up. One was processing the sub-hourly 

 7 inputs for site-specific data that came up recently. 

 8 I won't go into any detail but we corrected some 

 9 problems there. Then there was a problem that hasn't 

10 shown up too often in terms of time zone adjustments 

11 if we had site specific data in one time zone and 

12 wanted to use with surface data from the next time 

13 zone there were some problems there and we fixed that. 

14 We've also had a minor enhancement but the currently 

15 AERMET looks for the 12Z sounding to use for 

16 calculating the convective mixing heights and it gives 

17 you plus or minus more in hours. So it's 11, 12 or 

18 13Z will be accepted. We've added a user option to 

19 define that window differently. Part of it is 

20 motivated by if we do go down the road (inaudible) air 

21 data derived from MM5 data then we don't want to be 

22 limited to the 12Z (inaudible) data because we're have 

23 hourly sounding. In fact 12Z is not the ideal 

24 sounding for the East coast in the middle of the 

25 summer because the sun has already come up so the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 177 

 2 sounding probably reflects some reflective boundary 

 3 layer and we don't adjust for that. Finally we fixed 

 4 the problem with the FIXISHD. There were some ISHD 

 5 files that AERMET crashed on. We released a utility 

 6 as an interim solution to fix the data. You don't 

 7 have to do that anymore. So that's an overview of 

 8 where we are at with AERMET. 

 9 Our AERMOD system updates are very close to being 

10 released. Hopefully you will see them very soon. 

11 Check SCRAM regularly. I hope they're bullet proof 

12 but they probably maybe not if you run a spit ball 

13 through. I hope they're last two weeks. But we're be 

14 glad to hear about any of the problems you have and 

15 we'll try and fix them as quickly as we can. 

16 So other activities we in fact we have gotten some 

17 resources to update the APTI course 423 on Dispersion 

18 of Air Pollution, Theory and Model Application, to 

19 reflect AERMOD model. Sort of gotten through the 

20 first phase of that and it'll take a while. We hope 

21 to continue that this fiscal year. As Tyler mentioned 

22 there a lot of in house applications of AERMOD that we 

23 have been involved in, I don't want to go into a lot 

24 of detail here but I'm going to talk about it a couple 

25 of these tomorrow in terms of evaluating AERMOD for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 178 

 2 non regulatory applications. One of them was 

 3 mentioned already this morning the ADEM BAPS study in 

 4 Birmingham. More recently we got involved in applying 

 5 AERMOD for use in an exposure assessment for land area 

 6 to support the current NO2 NAAQS review. Talk about 

 7 that a little more. But some common themes that have 

 8 come up in all of these is that AERMOD has a problem 

 9 with light winds and over predicts or not. And then 

10 the representativeness of the meteorological data and 

11 source characterization issues was mentioned this 

12 morning, uncertain in emissions, and then again, we're 

13 applying the model in a different context here that 

14 was illustrated this morning. We had one PM 

15 temperature at 2.5 or actually 2. Two monitors 

16 evaluating how the model performs at this specific 

17 location paired in space certainly even paired in time 

18 to some degree and that goes beyond expectations that 

19 has been placed on the model for routine regulatory 

20 applications. Again I'll talk about that more 

21 tomorrow morning. 

22 Also kind of develop infrastructure to support more 

23 efficient updates to the modeling system. I wish we 

24 had gotten further down this road but I think we've 

25 learned a lot in the last two years. With the full 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 179 

 2 assessment of the impact of model changes for example 

 3 going to double precision we want to document what 

 4 that impact is. It's not very much, but one of the 

 5 things that motivated though was the recent case that 

 6 came up that showed greater sensitivity not related to 

 7 the (inaudible) coordinates but just the way the 

 8 source emissions spread of source emissions and how 

 9 they are grouped it turns out that group call 

10 consistently predicted about 3% lower impact than if 

11 you summed the impact from all the sub groups. And 

12 that was all to do with precision because you had a 

13 wide range of impacts from sources. Some of them got 

14 truncated in the group (inaudible) but as they were 

15 grouped there was there wasn't as wide a range and 

16 they didn't get truncated. So that was one of the 

17 motivations in doing that at this time. But through 

18 more developing more effective procedures to challenge 

19 model changes prior to release, including going 

20 through different compilers and different platforms 

21 and so on. Automating the process of assessing 

22 impacts of changes through the consequence analysis 

23 and also we want to do the same with the model 

24 evaluation databases to make sure there is any changes 

25 in model performance that might be expected if some 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 180 

 2 significant bug comes up. Then procedures for 

 3 notifying community of significant bugs like I 

 4 mentioned with the Illinois (inaudible) Kincaid Power 

 5 Plant(?) bug. That was pretty significant. I think 

 6 we would like to have sort of a bug alert system. An 

 7 alert would go up on SCRAM here's about you really 

 8 need to know about and then a bug tracking page 

 9 identifying the bug. Sort work around if there is a 

10 way through or not and then kind of keep you updated 

11 on the stats. It's been predicted to be released in 

12 the next update or whatever. That's something we'd 

13 like to have just to make sure that you get the 

14 information you need to apply the model appropriately. 

15 Then clearer procedures and mechanism for reporting 

16 problems to EPA but haven't figured out exactly what 

17 that is but we do hear about things and if we do we 

18 will try and address them as fast as we can. Some 

19 other activities to associate to AERMOD course 

20 coordinating with the work group and with AERMET some 

21 of the issues that have come up in those context is 

22 modeling impacts from haul roads has come up a lot in 

23 the last couple of years. And there has been some 

24 coordination with Car Refinery Association and some 

25 other state coverts assessing potential updates to the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 181 

 2 emissions factors. So they do recognize that 

 3 emissions is an important part and the model is not 

 4 going to be any good if you give it the wrong emission 

 5 rate. Obviously. Or if it is good it's for the wrong 

 6 reasons. Also we're looking 

 7 at assessing source characterization options or issues 

 8 to develop best practices to recommend use for 

 9 modeling haul roads emissions. Part of it is the 

10 consistency and some 

11 groups say you should (inaudible) [model] a haul road 

12 with the zero release and zero dispersion and others 

13 say you should use the height of the truck or 

14 something. So we hope to be able to provide that but 

15 hopefully it is based on some sound principles as 

16 well. And then the met data representative issue we 

17 did conduct a more detail sensitivity analysis of 

18 AERMOD to (inaudible) characteristics and we presented 

19 a conference paper at this past AWMA Annual 

20 Conference in June in Portland and we plan to expand 

21 conference paper to more complete EPA report 

22 documenting that sensitivity report. 

23 Again as Randy mentioned working through AIWG and 

24 AERMIC to try to come up with some better ways to 

25 improve the guidance on surface characteristics and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 182 

 2 met data representativeness even sort of evaluate or 

 3 validate your AERSURFACE based on 

 4 some of the work Randy mentioned looking at the 

 5 evaluation data sets to understand what's going on. I 

 6 actually did some tests recently just to see for 

 7 Kincaid would it make any difference. If by using the 

 8 actual source and the actual field study data; if the 

 9 AERSURFACE was 1 km or the AERSURFACE is 3 km, does it 

10 impact model performance? In face it didn't much. 

11 What was noticeable if I used AERSURFACE inputs with a 

12 10 meter on site data. It appeared to improve model 

13 performance compared to the surface characteristics 

14 that we came up with earlier to sound meteorological 

15 judgment whatever in the initial study before 

16 AERSURFACE was released. So that's it on AERMOD model 

17 system updates. I guess I should take the question 

18 slides out. 

19 I'll give you a little bit more details about the 

20 AERSURFACE tool. You've heard a little bit about it 

21 already. So again assess the current tool and the 

22 implementation issues with AERSURFACE that maybe you 

23 are aware of or not. And share some plans for 

24 enhancing AERSURFACE. I'll try to be fast but you 

25 want to hear about AERSCREEN. Basically AERMOD has 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 183 

 2 met data needs as summarized it was designed to accept 

 3 the same met input as ISC basically in NWS surface and 

 4 upper air data. It's also designed to accept more 

 5 robust met input and however the advanced boundary 

 6 layer algorithms require the search surface 

 7 characteristics: albedo, Bowen ratio, surface 

 8 roughness. So that sensitivity to surface 

 9 characteristics is one of the main implementation 

10 issues with AERMOD. I think we knew it was going to 

11 be and it may have exceeded our expectations as far as 

12 the magnitude of an issue. But I still think it is 

13 manageable and I think it's better than ignoring it. 

14 AERSURFACE what is it? It is a tool designed to 

15 assist 

16 with determining surface characteristics for use in 

17 AERMET and/or AERSCREEN. Initial version of 

18 AERSURFACE was released on SCRAM on January 11, 2008. 

19 Just as sort of an acknowledgement and clarification, 

20 there was a program called AERSURFACE that was 

21 developed earlier. I guess primarily to the auspices 

22 of the State of West Virginia. It is basically the 

23 same concept but uses different land covered data and 

24 different processing method. So don't get them 

25 confused this is a different program. Anyway it is 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 184 

 2 not currently considered part of the AERMOD regulatory 

 3 modeling system but as a tool to assist in that 

 4 process. And basically as Randy mentioned it is noted 

 5 in the January updates to the Implementation Guide the 

 6 recommended methods to determine surface 

 7 characteristics were changed. Those change methods 

 8 were implemented in AERSURFACE and they are listed 

 9 here. The original recommendation I guess in the 

10 AERMET User Guide was use an area weighted average 

11 within 3 km of the source of the met tower. Plain and 

12 simple, but once we got into it, we realized there 

13 were some problems with that. So we decided to 

14 incorporate inverse-distance weighting on the 

15 calculation for surface roughness as the sector gets 

16 wider. Basically, you end up if you just do straight 

17 area weight is you weight surface characteristics 

18 further from the met tower more than closer 

19 indirectly. So we had to adjust for that. Since 

20 sensitivity of the model to roughness or (inaudible) 

21 is based on the (inaudible) knot we feel it more 

22 appropriately to use a geometric mean which is 

23 basically in (inaudible) averages a log. For a Bowen 

24 ratio, we feel a geometric is more appropriate as well 

25 because it is a ratio. And then as the domain a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 185 

 2 default domain recommend 1 km radius for surface 

 3 roughness and for Bowen ratio albedo the 

 4 implementation guide already acknowledged distinction 

 5 between surface roughness which clearly needs to be 

 6 representative of the met tower we feel. Bowen ratio 

 7 and albedo affect the convective boundaries 

 8 (inaudible) layers in the model which is going to be 

 9 more of an issue with taller stacks which are going to 

10 be influenced over a much larger domain. There's sort 

11 of a separation there and what we've done in this 

12 recommendation is as well I (inaudible) design is to 

13 separate them so for Bowen ratio and albedo. The 

14 default is no sector or distance dependency average or 

15 10x20 km domain. There's a number of options 

16 available. Current version supports 1992 data and 

17 NLCD data this is 30 meter horizontal resolution and 

18 it's in a (inaudible) Geo-tiff format and there are 21 

19 categories. 

20 I guess one of the main issues we dealt with is the 

21 land cover data is not designed for the purpose of 

22 estimating roughness at airports. If you notice one 

23 of the categories is commercial industrial 

24 transportation. So at an airport, it's the airport 

25 runway and the open parking lot and the terminal 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 186 

 2 building and any other commercial or industrial 

 3 buildings nearby are all going to be in the same 

 4 category. We're covering the full range of surface 

 5 roughness influences all in one category without being 

 6 to distinguish one from the other. That's not very 

 7 helpful. So that's why one of the things we did was 

 8 (inaudible) at an airport or not and if I am then I 

 9 assume a different mix of that category if I'm not. 

10 That's reflected in this table so for surface 

11 roughness you'd have category 23. Here's the 

12 assumed roughness for an airport and there it is if 

13 you're not at an airport. That's the best we can do 

14 for now and I don't think it's perfect, but that's 

15 what 1993 NLCD data for North Carolina. That's 

16 Raleigh/Durham areas and the airport is down there and 

17 the orange is the urban recreational grass category 

18 which we have a pretty good handle on. The dark red 

19 is the developed category and the runway, the terminal 

20 and any commercial building and anything concrete is 

21 basically in that same color. 

22 Another issue we ran into is that we discovered that 

23 one of the key input is the location of the met tower 

24 because you're going to get the land cover around the 

25 1 km radius of the met tower. But the standard file 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 187 

 2 that we anticipated we're referring people to get that 

 3 information for that location has turned out to be 

 4 very unreliable. For Raleigh/Durham for example it 

 5 was up by over 2 km so that's not very good. So use 

 6 of erroneous station location especially if I'm off by 

 7 2 km I'm looking at a 1 km radius that kind of 

 8 comprises the validity of the results. We discovered 

 9 this partly through this ASOS cyclone wind study there 

10 are some links on the NCDC site for two hundred states 

11 along the Gulf and East Coast stations that could be 

12 subject to influences of tropical cyclones. They sent 

13 somebody out to the met tower and they determined the 

14 anemometer height and actually estimated surface 

15 roughness, a compass points at each of those 

16 locations. That information is available on the NCDC 

17 web site. They also had GPS and coordinates and 

18 that's how we discovered they were different and this 

19 one generally seemed to be more accurate but not 

20 always. That's the problem. This kind of slices two 

21 sets together and what's the difference? The 

22 immediate difference seems to be about 500 meters. 

23 But the number of cases are over 1 km. I think JFK is 

24 almost 4 km difference. So that's a problem. We've 

25 highlighted in the user's guide. At this point, I 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 188 

 2 don't know what else we can do. 

 3 At some point we might kind of provide some 

 4 suggestions on here's what you might go through to 

 5 verify it one way or another. I'm hoping that state 

 6 agencies might be in the best position to compile that 

 7 information and share it with modelers. 

 8 We actually have some plans to enhance AERSURFACE in 

 9 significant ways not necessarily to deal with that 

10 station location problem. We want to support the 2001 

11 NCLD data for one thing is more representative 

12 temporally for a lot of applications. It is also 

13 expanded to include Alaska and we actually have a 

14 graph beta test version that does support both types. 

15 Should be released on SCRAM soon but currently in 

16 review with the workgroup. We also have GeoTIFF 

17 Reader to deal with some problems that came to our 

18 attention. If you want to supplement NLCD data with 

19 other information we think we can actually provide 

20 some additional files to give an average height of 

21 obstacles or at least some estimate that might allow 

22 it to distinguish between the runway and a building. 

23 The other problem is the 2001 categories are different 

24 than the 1992 and they are not any better as far as 

25 surface roughness at airports. All of the developed 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 189 

 2 categories are now in these four categories 21, 22, 

 3 23, and 24. The only difference between them is the 

 4 percent of pervious land cover. Unfortunately the 

 5 urban recreational grass category we had before for 

 6 the grassy areas around the runway, that shows up as 

 7 developed open space. So basically at an airport you 

 8 can go from developed open space and developed high 

 9 intensity just by going from the grass to the runway. 

10 Depending on how much of the grid cell is on the 

11 runway or on the grass. 

12 In some ways it's even worse than before. We've had 

13 to come up with a way to adapt to that through this 

14 draft version that addresses 92 there's the two for 

15 Raleigh/Durham. 1992 and 2001 so you see that orange 

16 recreational grass is now this light pink which has 

17 developed open space but it could be part of the 

18 runway could be developed open space if it's barely 

19 runway. What we're looking at is there is two 

20 elevation data sets and NED I mentioned for AERMET is 

21 being upgraded to handle the NED data. There's also 

22 SRTM data. We think we can use both these data sets 

23 at roughly same resolution as the land cover data to 

24 estimate the average height of obstacles. That data 

25 represents ground elevations just as the SRTM 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 190 

 2 represents elevations of obstacles whatever reflected 

 3 the signal to the Shuttle. The elevation data are 

 4 with respect to the reflective surface, which may be 

 5 vegetation, man-made features or bare earth. So we 

 6 think by coupling these two to get an average height 

 7 of obstacles within the land covered data we can 

 8 distinguish: "Am I at a runway, building or what?". 

 9 And so we decided to check and see if it would really 

10 work. That's the NED data on the left for 

11 Raleigh/Durham airport and that's SRTM. We brought 

12 them into AERMET and (inaudible) greater receptor, 

13 calculated elevation and that's the plotted the 

14 difference in elevation. The difference is there is 

15 some wide open space with very little difference and 

16 that's projected the light is higher elevation, dark 

17 is low. That's the overlay on the land cover data so 

18 you can see the difference in elevation picks up the 

19 trees very clearly and even some of the terminal 

20 buildings. There's another plot. 

21 We decided to go downtown Durham. There's the Durham 

22 ball park famous for the Bull Durham movie. Just see 

23 how it would work in the city. That's the SRTM data 

24 on the left, that's the Durham freeway, that's the 

25 satellite view so this is all reference at that point. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 191 

 2 We did the same thing to apply the difference in 

 3 elevation. Then you see some pretty peaks showing up 

 4 where the taller buildings are in Durham. That's 

 5 encouraging. Decided to go to DC for a conference 

 6 same sort of thing. There is land cover data, 

 7 Washington Monument and it actually picked that up 

 8 pretty good. That's the projected map version, the 

 9 dot is the monument and that's overlay. That's 

10 encouraging that that actually has value. It's not 

11 without problems. 

12 This is Chicago. That's NED data pretty flat. That's 

13 kind of a busier SRM data and that area looks kind of 

14 weird and that's a data gap. We see elevations of 

15 over 100 meters so we are picking up very tall 

16 buildings obviously. For our purposes we don't care 

17 if it's a 100 meter or 200 meter. If its 1 meter or 

18 10 that's important. 

19 Apparently in the very downtown urban core there's 

20 some gaps and that kind of makes sense. If you have a 

21 30 meter grid cell and this is supposed to be the 

22 height of the reflecting surface and the reflecting 

23 surface changes from 0 to 300 like very quickly and 

24 then the same thing shows up at (inaudible). So 

25 basically there are some issues but I think we have 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 192 

 2 some options to improve it and we are going to pursue 

 3 them. I guess it's sort of that in the past we should 

 4 have been data limited in terms of these dispersion 

 5 models. We've got airport data what else are you 

 6 going to use. We've got land covered data what else 

 7 are you going to use. But I think we are being more 

 8 data driven now so we got land covered data plus these 

 9 elevation files to give us some useful information. 

10 We've got gridded prognostic met data. We've got 

11 remote sensoring of all kinds of things. So I think 

12 it's an exciting time as Chet mentioned this morning 

13 to be in this field. I'll now hand it over to my 

14 distinguished and highly valued colleague James 

15 Thurman for AERSCREENING. 

16 James Thurman: I'm just going to give you an update 

17 on AERSCREEN and on the status and update of AERMET 

18 Just as a brief overview, I'll go over who's in the 

19 workgroup, description and features of AERSCREEN. 

20 This will be brief more brief than if you were at the 

21 regional model workshop. Some initial test results, 

22 brief description MAKEMET which is meteorology for 

23 AERSCREEN, a brief summary of the stages in AERSCREEN 

24 and questions at the end of the whole section. 

25 The workgroup consists of Jim Haywood, Chair, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 193 

 2 Michigan, Karen Wesson, EPA, Roger Brode, EPA, James 

 3 Thurman, EPA, Bob Paine, ENSR, Lloyd Schulman, TRC and 

 4 I want to acknowledge Herman Wong, EPA Region 10 who 

 5 helped with MAKEMET. 

 6 AERSCREEN is a DOS tool that runs AERMOD in a 

 7 screening mode for a single source. Right now it 

 8 can't do multiple sources at once so you have to do 

 9 each source one at a time. It calls MAKEMET, BPIPPRM 

10 and AERMAP to generate necessary AERMOD inputs and in 

11 the Spring of 2008, incorporates output from 

12 AERSURFACE but does not currently call AERSURFACE 

13 itself so you have to run AERSURFACE. 

14 The SCREEN option was added to AERMOD in 1995 and 

15 forces the model to calculate centerline concentration 

16 for each source/receptor/meteorology combination. It 

17 does 

18 1-hour averages and NOCHKD selected option to 

19 eliminate date sequence checking in the met file 

20 because it's not real dates like you would normally 

21 see in an AERMOD run. 

22 The features of AERSCREEN were initially developed by 

23 Jim Haywood. You can enter the data via prompts or by 

24 input file and I'll show you an example of an input 

25 file. Source types currently support a point, volume, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 194 

 2 rectangular area, circular area, and flare sources. 

 3 You can't do area polygon sources. You can do flat or 

 4 complex terrain and when you are into complex terrain 

 5 AERSCREEN calls AERMAP to generate terrain height. We 

 6 don't use terrain for rectangular area sources; kind 

 7 of messy for that. You can also use the PRIME 

 8 building downwash. You would need to give stack 

 9 location and direction relative to building center, 

10 building dimensions, the direction of long building 

11 dimension from north and we don't use it for either 

12 area source or volume sources and AERSCREEN calls 

13 BPIPPRM at the prompt to generate the necessary input 

14 for AERMOD. AERSCREEN does not include deposition and 

15 the meteorology comes from the MAKEMET program. The 

16 User would specify min and max temperatures for the 

17 location, minimum wind speed, anemometer height and 

18 surface characteristics and other variables come from 

19 internal matrices in MAKEMET. 

20 Some more features: User can specify probe distance 

21 for terrain processing. I think at the 8th Modeling 

22 Conference this may have been internally calculated 

23 but now you can specify that. Right now we decided to 

24 make the default of 5 km for flat terrain with or 

25 without building downwash or rectangular area sources. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 195 

 2 The only time you use anything other than 5 is for 

 3 terrain processing. You can include flagpole 

 4 receptors and the elevation of source location for 

 5 PROFBASE keyword in AERMOD even for flat terrain. 

 6 That's for potential temperature profile calculation. 

 7 You can do rural or urban source and urban population. 

 8 You can specify ambient air distance or fence line 

 9 distance to calculate concentrations. You can specify 

10 source location in geographic or UTM coordinates when 

11 you're doing terrain processing. Regardless of how 

12 you put it in it converts it to UTM coordinates. We 

13 just added this last week actually just to have 

14 AERSCREEN give AERMAP something consistent. And it 

15 includes a search routine to find worst case impact 

16 using the RANKFILE output in AERMOD and it will find 

17 the concentration, date, direction, distance, and 

18 meteorological conditions associated with that max 

19 concentration. We also added a feature to find the 

20 maximum concentration for automatic receptor distances 

21 and AERSCREEN has specified distances of receptors. 

22 When you're doing terrain or buildings modeling, you 

23 do a ring of different directions of receptors so it 

24 finds the max concentration of distance regardless of 

25 direction. You can re-use previous AERSCREEN run 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 196 

 2 files. When you run AERSCREEN it generates an input 

 3 file and then you can use that input file changing 

 4 some of the options so you don't have to do it from 

 5 the prompts every time. AERSCREEN does errors checks 

 6 on AERMOD and AERMAP output and writes to a log file. 

 7 It includes factors for 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and 

 8 annual averages - based on upper bound of SCREEN3 

 9 factors right now. Early on Roger decided to go with. 

10 - 3-hour: 1.0 (0.90 +/- 0.10) 

11 - 8-hour: 0.9 (0.70 +/- 0.20) 

12 - 24-hour: 0.6 (0.40 +/- 0.20) 

13 - Annual: 0.1 (0.08 +/- 0.02) 

14 

15 Some work done I think by Jim Haywood or Herman for 

16 several AERMOD and AERSCREEN runs and pretty much the 

17 factors picked seemed to do pretty well. And 

18 initially AERSCREEN tests have shown good results 

19 across wide a range of applications and 'good' to find 

20 a reasonable conservatism compared to AERMOD. 

21 Here are some studies done by Jim Haywood, Karen 

22 Wesson, Roger and Bob Paine. You can see from the 

23 maximum median results are pretty good. So far so 

24 good. 

25 MAKEMET is the program to generate the meteorology 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 197 

 2 used in AERSCREEN and loops through several 

 3 parameters: Wind speed (stable and convective), cloud 

 4 cover (stable and convective), max/min ambient temp 

 5 (stable and convective), solar elevation angle (stable 

 6 and convective), convective velocity scale (w*) 

 7 (convective only), and mechanical mixing heights 

 8 scales. Then it uses AERMET subroutines to calculate 

 9 u* and L, and also calculates convective mixing 

10 heights. In MAKEMET, if you run stand alone you can 

11 specify multiple wind directions. For AERSCREEN, uses 

12 wind direction of 270 from the West is easier. So 

13 you will generate surface and profile files for 

14 running AERMOD so you'll generate the dot .SFC and 

15 .PFL files that you would use in AERMOD. 

16 So what's changed recently in the past this year was 

17 input surface characteristics. There are three 

18 methods of inputting surface characteristics into 

19 AERSCREEN. User defined one number for albedo, one 

20 number for Bowen ration and one number for surface 

21 roughness. It doesn't vary through the year or 

22 spatially. 

23 Seasonal tables from AERMET User's Guide (Tables 4-1, 

24 4-2, 4-3) 

25 User specifies dominant land use type and moisture 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 198 

 2 conditions for the source location. Listed are the 8 

 3 land use types: Water, deciduous forest, coniferous 

 4 forest, swamp, cultivated land, grassland, urban, 

 5 desert shrub land. 

 6 AERSURFACE output: User enters AERSURFACE output 

 7 filename or AERMET stage 3 input filename. When you 

 8 run AERMET you have to put surface characteristics in. 

 9 That can be annual, seasonal, or monthly or 1 to 12 

10 surface roughness sectors. AERSURFACE is run for the 

11 source location so you don't have to worry about that 

12 representative problem when you use airport data. It 

13 may not be temporal representative because you use 

14 1992 NLCD but you don't have to worry about the 

15 spatial part of it. 

16 MAKEMET is run for each temporal, sector combination 

17 and met files generated for each combination. So when 

18 you use user define you will generate one file for 

19 surface and one for upper air. Seasonal you will 

20 generate four one for each season and AERSURFACE 

21 depending on temporal resolution and your spacial 

22 resolution it can be anywhere from 1 to 144 if you did 

23 your one annual sector or monthly 12 sector. It's not 

24 too bad they're not that big. 

25 How does AERSCREEN work? Basically as the user you 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 199 

 2 would input and validate the data. Then the program 

 3 will take over and generate meteorological files and 

 4 run BPIPPRM and AERMAP for the source if necessary. 

 5 You can get source elevation from AERMAP if you're not 

 6 sure what it is. Then the program says - Is there a 

 7 source-receptor 

 8 direction dependency?? If not, that means you are 

 9 running flat terrain with no downwash and you're not 

10 running a rectangular area source, than execute PROBE. 

11 If there is a dependency that means you are running a 

12 terrain with or without downwash or rectangular area 

13 source, execute FLOWSECTOR. In the 8th Modeling 

14 Conference it executed PROBE and FLOWSECTOR now we 

15 split them. Regardless of the PROBE and FLOWSECTOR 

16 output from one of those goes to REFINE routine which 

17 finds the worst case impact. It refines the receptors 

18 and reruns AERMOD and you'll get your final output. 

19 This is an example of an input file and basically this 

20 is the whole file itself is an AERMOD input file but 

21 AERSCREEN reads its header information and the 

22 asterisk reads as comments for AERMOD. Your source 

23 date is here, this is a point source, building data. 

24 This Y means you have a building here with dimensions 

25 and other inputs. Here's your met data and under surf 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 200 

 2 you'll see the nine that means use AERSURFACE. Then 

 3 terrain data flags and the coordinates and then the 

 4 other flags and inputs that are going to AERSCREEN 

 5 such as are they metric or English. You'll get inputs 

 6 from the prompts your data can be English but from the 

 7 input file they are metric. And R/U, Population, 

 8 Ambient Distance, Flag Pole and Flag Pole Height. 

 9 It's a pretty good way of inputting the data this file 

10 has actually grown since I started last August. 

11 This is the validation page so when you put your 

12 inputs in from the prompt or the input file, AERSCREEN 

13 will list all your inputs and then you have the 

14 options down at the bottom of changing any of the 

15 source data, building data, terrain data or met data. 

16 If you want it to yes or no. When it says change 

17 source data you cannot change source type. You can 

18 change parameters. If you are happy with everything 

19 hit enter and AERSCREEN starts the run. 

20 When you run terrain data it will ask you if you want 

21 to use a previous AERMAP output and that's all in the 

22 user documentation. That's the only time you have to 

23 interact with the program. 

24 The summary of stages are: PROBE is for flat terrain 

25 no downwash. 5 km default probe distance (25 m 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 201 

 2 spacing) in one direction. They are positive in the X 

 3 direction so that's 200 receptors and you have your 

 4 fence line direction. AERMOD is executed for each 

 5 temporal/spatial sector of Surface Characteristic (SC) 

 6 so if you are doing annual 2 sectors that's two AERMOD 

 7 runs. The other stage is FLOWSECTOR. For rectangular 

 8 area sources, 5 km probe distance (25 m spacing) for 5 

 9 degree diagonals, AERMOD run for each SC 

10 temporal/spatial sector for each diagonal. If you had 

11 seven diagonals at monthly 12 sectors, for surface 

12 roughness that's a lot of runs and we decided to 

13 invoke the TOXICS option to speed up the model. Other 

14 sources in FLOWSWCTOR such as point volume and 

15 circular areas that means you're using terrain or 

16 building downwash. Receptors every 10 degrees out to 

17 PROBE distance so you have a network of receptors and 

18 each degree radial run separately. Direction specific 

19 terrain and projected building dimensions are used for 

20 whatever direction you're going. And AERMOD is run 

21 for each SC temporal sector, annual, seasonal or 

22 monthly, but for the upwind spatial sector of the 

23 direction being processed and I'll show you an 

24 example. The final sub routine is REFINE. It finds 

25 the overall maximum concentration from PROBE or 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 202 

 2 FLOWSECTOR. REFINE is to use meteorology and SC 

 3 associated with maximum concentration as well as 

 4 terrain and/or downwash, use terrain heights and 

 5 projected building dimensions of direction of maximum 

 6 concentration and then refine receptor spacing to 1, 

 7 2, or 5 m increments around that distance that will 

 8 refine the maximum concentration as close to the max 

 9 as you can. 

10 These are the receptor networks for PROBE and 

11 FLOWSECTOR. So for PROBE, you go out 5 km and you're 

12 going to run each of the surface characteristics 

13 resolutions you have. Then for rectangular area 

14 sources, AERSCREEN will calculate the mathematical 

15 diagonal of the rectangle using opposite and adjacent 

16 sides in the angle. Starting at 0 degrees it goes up 

17 every 5 degrees and then one diagonal past the 

18 mathematical value. So you're going to run each one 

19 of these through AERMOD for each spatial and temporal 

20 sector. So if you had monthly AERSURFACE output with 

21 12 sectors you will run each one of these diagonals 

22 for that. This is a lot of runs and used to take 

23 hours but now with the TOXICS option only a few 

24 minutes. 

25 Then for other sources in FLOWSECTOR these are the 10 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 203 

 2 degree radials. For example, the 10 degree radial, 

 3 I'm going to find the upwind direction which is 190 

 4 degrees and whatever surface roughness sector that is 

 5 the surface characteristics you will use. So you're 

 6 using the upwind sector. So you don't have to loop 

 7 through all the spatial sectors for point volume or 

 8 circular area sources and in FLOWSECTOR. 

 9 This is an example of output see the concentration is 

10 really high so these are hypothetical sources. This 

11 is the maximum 1-hour concentration calculated by 

12 AERMOD and these are the scaled concentrations that 

13 AERSCREEN will calculate from that maximum 1-hour. 

14 Then AERSCREEN will give you the distance from the 

15 source and what direction. If you are using terrain 

16 it will give you the receptor relative height to the 

17 source elevation. In this case our receptor was 5 

18 meters below our source in terms of terrain 

19 differences. Under that the ambient boundary this is 

20 the max concentration for all directions calculated 

21 the ambient distance. From the regional workshop it 

22 used to be in the same direction but two weeks ago we 

23 changed it so these two are not the same direction. 

24 It used to be the same direction but no longer the 

25 case. So if you see this case at the ambient boundary 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 204 

 2 at 30 meters which I think is the ambient distance 

 3 it's actually in a different direction 110 degrees 

 4 verses 180. 

 5 What's the future of AERSCREEN? We'll have the draft 

 6 release package out right after AERMOD, AERSCREEN at 

 7 the same time. It'll have AERSCREEN and MAKEMET 

 8 executables. I don't know about BPIPPRM but you can 

 9 download BPIPPRM, AERMOD, AERMAP and AERSURFACE from 

10 SCRAM website. There will be some user documentation 

11 and example case. We've written a limited user guide 

12 and it should help it's kind of a technical 

13 support/user guide. It tells you more about AERSCREEN 

14 than you probably want to know. Guess I'll hand it 

15 off to Tyler. 

16 Tyler Fox: We're making great time. Now we'll do 

17 AERMIC Update with Roger and then have questions and 

18 we'll have our afternoon break. 

19 Roger Brode: As Randy mentioned earlier, I guess at 

20 the AERMIC Implementation Work Group and the three sub 

21 groups who were formed to focus three main areas. I 

22 guess two regional workshops ago; the point came up 

23 what about BPIP downwash issues. Why is that not in 

24 the top three so basically presented to the group so 

25 maybe we could form an ad hoc group anybody want to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 205 

 2 volunteer. We actually got four states that 

 3 volunteered for this sort of ad hoc BPIP prime work 

 4 group. We've had some calls not a lot but I think we 

 5 have made a little progress in scoping out defining 

 6 what the issues are and you can only manage so many 

 7 groups at a time. But I think we're going to get back 

 8 together. 

 9 Just want to briefly share what the group came up with 

10 as far as some of the issues. Again it emerged from 

11 the 2007 regional model work shop and like I said it's 

12 not formally part of AIWG but certainly some similar 

13 interests. Some of the issues we came up with and 

14 this is something that was discussed at a few 

15 workshops ago. It came to our attention based on the 

16 criteria in BPIP. If you have two structures with the 

17 same GEP height which one does it use? It uses the 

18 one with the smallest projected width. In AERMOD with 

19 prime that is not always going to give you the worst 

20 answer. 

21 Probably wasn't as much an issue before prime. That's 

22 an issue that needs to be addressed. If you have a 

23 building and you got a difference of 2 millimeter 

24 probably best not to do it as 2 separate tiers, not 

25 very realistic. But on the other hand we could modify 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 206 

 2 BPIP just to change that to use one with the larger 

 3 width that will give you the most conservative result 

 4 with prime. On the other hand, another issue with 

 5 BPIP we are aware of is with very long narrow 

 6 buildings, BPIP has the protected building length with 

 7 AERMOD so the projected width and projected building 

 8 length. So for this case if you have a narrow long 

 9 building then the wind is at an angle. Projected 

10 building length could be much larger and longer than 

11 the actual long building. And the wake cavity 

12 structure is defined in relation to that projected 

13 building. So what that can do is displace the cavity 

14 in space quite a bit from where it is physical in 

15 relation to the building. So that can create a 

16 problems and it may be that splitting the building may 

17 be a way to address that issue. So we don't want to 

18 fix one problem and then hamper ourselves in 

19 addressing another. So we're at least again defining 

20 some of the issues. Again probably the biggest issue 

21 might be is the original criteria in BPIP for 

22 selecting the dominate tier for the downwash 

23 algorithms might not always be applicable for prime 

24 and that was the basically the single tier that had 

25 the highest GEP height within the region of influence. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 207 

 2 Well with the old algorithms ISC3 didn't really know 

 3 where the stack was in relation to the building so it 

 4 didn't matter. But with Prime it does take into 

 5 account the stack building geometry so if you have a 

 6 basically a structure that is a 100 meters high right 

 7 next to the stack that's going to have a lot more 

 8 influence on the stack in terms of down wash than a 

 9 102 meter structure. So somehow that needs to be 

10 taken into account and right now it's not. There are 

11 some issues perHAPS with the use of wind power to 

12 drive equivalent building dimensions partly in 

13 relation to the same issue. You know in ISC3 the 

14 model didn't know where the building was in relation 

15 to the stack so it didn't really matter if you put the 

16 EPD next to the stack and the actual building was 

17 displaced. The model didn't care but with prime it 

18 does. You might want to think about revisiting some 

19 of the criteria for guidance to develop EPD for older 

20 ISC3 in relation to prime downwash algorithms. We 

21 have implemented some Beta test options to deal with 

22 capped/horizontal stacks. At least part of that is 

23 listed in the AERMOD Implementation Guide is that the 

24 Model Clearing House procedures for simulating a 

25 capped or horizontal stack which was to set the exit 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 208 

 2 velocity very low and put in an effective stack 

 3 diameter to maintain the flow rate. Therefore 

 4 maintaining the buoyancy. That's not going to work 

 5 with Prime because Prime uses a stack diameter input 

 6 into the model to define the initial radius of the 

 7 plume. That can mess up the plume calculation quite a 

 8 bit. So you shouldn't use that procedure for downwash 

 9 sources and prime algorithms. So we haven't gotten a 

10 lot of feedback from the community on this. This is 

11 an issue that is kind of sitting out there. But what 

12 we need is some test data to do some kind of 

13 validation that this sort of simple approach. 

14 Basically, to adapt the same principles that were in 

15 that Model Clearing House procedure for non-downwash 

16 stacks. Sort of adapt those to be used within prime 

17 downwash algorithms. If there is some wind tunnel 

18 data out there or something that could inform that 

19 whether that is working or not that would be helpful. 

20 Did I mention the discontinuity for stacks that 

21 straddle the EPA formula height earlier? The 

22 horizontal meander algorithm currently not 

23 incorporated in PRIME part. There was not a lot of 

24 time to do it and there was some complications. The 

25 goal initially was putting Prime into AERMOD was to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 209 

 2 keep Prime as intact as possible. That was just a 

 3 decision that was made. It might not be an important 

 4 issue but on the other hand Prime doesn't account for 

 5 up wind dispersion for plume released within the 

 6 cavity due to the cavity recirculation. So if your 

 7 stack is downwind from the building and you have a 

 8 receptor closer to the building you're getting no 

 9 impact when in fact you could be getting very high 

10 impacts. That is showing up in some wind tunnel 

11 studies and not sure how to fix that. 

12 PRIME was designed to include partial plume 

13 entrainment into the cavity, but the wake effects 

14 switch is all-or-nothing either its downwash or not. 

15 One thought might be could we incorporate partial 

16 entrainment approach there. These are minor 

17 adjustments and don't know how quickly or if we are 

18 going to pursue these. They are motivated by some 

19 concerns that there might be some discontinuities in 

20 the model especially for convective conditions where 

21 you have a lot of near wake, up draft and down draft 

22 influences on the plume maybe that all or nothing may 

23 be an important issues in terms of whether the 

24 building downwash is going to apply or not. The light 

25 wind speed issue comes up a lot with AERMOD. AERMOD 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 210 

 2 is designed to accept wind speed below 1 meter per 

 3 second. The affected lower limit for speed used in 

 4 AERMOD is about 0.3 meter per second but what's the 

 5 minimum wind speed needed to generate a wake from the 

 6 building? I don't know if we have a clear answer to 

 7 that. Just a quick background on the BPIP Prime work 

 8 group because this was an issue that came up with 

 9 AERMIC. 

10 I have until 3:30 with questions...with questions? 

11 AERMIC update just to give you a quick history of 

12 AERMIC, reconstituted AERMIC, summary of AERMIC 

13 Activities, and future plans for AERMOD - Overview. 

14 As Tyler mentioned this morning AMS/EPA Regulatory 

15 Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) initially formed 

16 in 1991; charged to develop replacement for ISCST 

17 based on state-of-the-science. It only took 15 years 

18 but AERMOD promulgated Dec. 2006. The committee and 

19 you can see the new committee members. 

20 - Roger Brode, OAQPS, Co-chair 

21 - Jeff Weil, CIRES-NCAR, Co-chair 

22 - Akula Venkatram, UC-Riverside 

23 - Al Cimorelli, EPA Region 3 

24 - Bret Anderson, EPA Region 7 

25 - Vlad Isakov, EPA/ORD/AMD 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 211 

 2 New AERMIC committee has held two meetings in RTP 

 3 (March and July 2008), with third meeting tentatively 

 4 planned for mid-November. First meeting AERMIC 

 5 reviewed status of AERMOD modeling system and 

 6 activities of AIWG at initial meeting. Looking at the 

 7 activities of the Implementation Work Group sort of 

 8 assessing the issues and some of the studies that have 

 9 been done. Going into the key priority of AERMIC has 

10 been the urban formulation in AERMOD. I think that 

11 was an issue in AERMIC mind even before AERMOD was 

12 promulgated there were some issues there. Sensitivity 

13 of the population how do you know what population to 

14 input. I won't go into all the details. But in the 

15 early discussions with the committed it was quickly 

16 recognized there were significant overlap among many 

17 issues, including Urban, Surface Characteristics and 

18 Met Data. Urban issues and surface characteristics 

19 and a lot of the urban issues have to do with surface 

20 characteristics in addition to the psuedo-convective 

21 urban heat island effect and also have higher 

22 roughness in the urban area than you typically do at 

23 the airport site where the met data is being corrected 

24 and so on. 

25 Prior to the first meeting we had gone through the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 212 

 2 development of AERSURFACE and looked at the idea of 

 3 supplementing AERSURFACE, the land (inaudible) and 

 4 AERSURFACE with the elevation files. So it was very 

 5 interesting process to be a part of the AERMIC came up 

 6 with an idea to utilize more of this data in the model 

 7 and might be able to address these issues. 

 8 Also discussed the building downwash in issues so 

 9 that's why I gave you an overview of the BPIP Prime AD 

10 Hoc work group first. One of the recommended 

11 incorporating building processing function within 

12 AERMOD to take it out of BPIP Prime so you don't have 

13 to have a separate BPIPPRM processor. Another thing 

14 to facilitates assessment of additional options for 

15 processing building information for PRIME. One of the 

16 big issues is that by simple criterion of the 

17 structure with the GEP height regardless of where it 

18 is in relation to the stack that's a problem. By 

19 feeding all the data into AERMOD to give us an 

20 opportunity to study some different approaches to 

21 refine that criteria in a way it would make sense. 

22 Why not just loop all the structures but don't think 

23 we want to do that as a default option but at least it 

24 would be a way to do tests on that just to document 

25 the degree of sensitivity to this issue perHAPS. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 213 

 2 Might even offer the opportunity to combine influences 

 3 from multiple structures. Prime does offer benefit 

 4 that it defines the three dimensional structure and 

 5 location of the wake for a building. So maybe there 

 6 is some way to combine influences from nearby 

 7 structures and wake. 

 8 Another activity that AERMIC has pursued in fact 

 9 to develop an alternative AERMIC has developed an 

10 alternative implementation for horizontal meander 

11 algorithm. As I mentioned earlier one of the big 

12 complaints we still get along with all the other 

13 issues even though a lot of people have issues with 

14 surface characteristics sensitivity or source 

15 characterization problems their biggest complaint is 

16 that AERMOD is too slow. The horizontal meander 

17 algorithm is one factor in making it slower because 

18 that algorithm incorporates up wind dispersion and 

19 AERMOD is required to do calculations for every 

20 source, every receptor every hour. Where ISC only 

21 looked at center line plus or minus 50 degrees for 

22 each source so that by itself slows the model down by 

23 a factor or 3 or so on average by doing all the 

24 factors instead of 100 degrees out 360. 

25 So we're looking at an approach that would 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 214 

 2 preserve the centerline value from current 

 3 implementation but eliminates upwind dispersion 

 4 component that could be appropriate for short term 

 5 averages. It would be sort of a regulatory option 

 6 that could be used. The standard operation would not 

 7 change and you could say I don't want up wind 

 8 dispersion I am only doing short term averages so it 

 9 would speed the model up with hardly any difference in 

10 results at all. May require additional guidance on 

11 when and how often it can be used especially if you 

12 have long term averages because we know the bias for 

13 long term averages would be for lower concentrations. 

14 So we're considering implementing this in AERMOD 

15 and we're not quite there yet. And we still need to 

16 do some more assessment of it but it could be 

17 something to speed up the mode. And also our goal is 

18 to eliminate the inconsistency between volume and area 

19 sources in AERMOD because right now the horizontal 

20 meander algorithm (inaudible) and volume sources in 

21 the model but not area sources. So the reason that's 

22 important is if I'm doing a modeling of mobile source 

23 emissions say a roadway the two approaches is you can 

24 use the AERMOD one is a string of volume sources in 

25 case meander would be applied. The other would be the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 215 

 2 longative (?) area sources in that case meander 

 3 wouldn't be if we could eliminate that inconsistency 

 4 that would be a nice goal to achieve. 

 5 So AERMIC has discussed the use of gridded 

 6 prognostic meteorological data with the model and we 

 7 will provide science support for the development and 

 8 evaluation of options related to this effort. They 

 9 recommend implementing and testing approach of 

10 processing gridded met data as pseudo-observations 

11 through AERMET. That was an option considered early 

12 on. And we're not sure how or when we're going to do 

13 that. Also suggested to invite experts in gridded 

14 meteorological modeling community to next (or future) 

15 AERMIC meeting to discuss some of the science issues 

16 involved there. Beyond that looking at other options 

17 to incorporate some non-steady-state characteristics 

18 in AERMOD modeling system by using multiple grids and 

19 we talked about that this morning. As for gridded met 

20 data why not pick the grid cell for each source 

21 location and what else can we do from there. 

22 Future plans for AERMOD that AERMIC has come up 

23 with again this is not a detail yet sort of a vision. 

24 Building on plans to enhance AERSURFACE by combining 

25 land cover and elevation data, AERMIC is working on an 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 216 

 2 approach to address a wide range of issues by 

 3 utilizing this data directly in the model. As I 

 4 mentioned earlier, the recommendation is to 

 5 incorporate the BPIP Prime functions into AERMOD and 

 6 the land cover and elevation data (SRTM-NED) will be 

 7 fed directly to AERMOD as well. So this will 

 8 eliminate preprocessing functions. Then AERMOD would 

 9 have the ability and information available to maybe do 

10 might not be up or down approach to adjust meteorology 

11 but maybe over the river and through the woods 

12 approach but I don't know. 

13 It sure has sketched out a preliminary technique 

14 to do that and we plan to implement it and start 

15 testing it but haven't gotten very far. The idea is 

16 to provide that information to the model gives us a 

17 lot of opportunity that wouldn't exist keeping it in 

18 separate preprocesses. 

19 Those meteorology adjustments will account for effect 

20 of urban canopy on wind profiles. So the roughness 

21 affect of the urban area on meteorology would not 

22 really accounting for directly right now in the AERMOD 

23 formulation. This would be a way to deal with that. 

24 So if this works, it could eliminate many 

25 implementation issues, especially related to urban 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 217 

 2 applications. There would no longer be a distinction 

 3 between "rural" and "urban" sources. That would 

 4 determine on source by source basis based on the 

 5 information available for the model. That would mean 

 6 there would be no requirement to estimate "effective" 

 7 population as surrogate for urban influences. It 

 8 would allow for dealing with spatial and temporal 

 9 variability of urban heat island influence which we 

10 don't do now. Right now if it's urban it's urban even 

11 though we know it's not a uniform urban influence. 

12 The representativeness of met data will always be an 

13 issue, but influence of surface characteristic 

14 variability should be mitigated if an approach like 

15 this can work. It's not going to be perfect, but 

16 again I'm looking at it from the perspective that if 

17 we can do it and demonstrate value at it in doing 

18 that. And when I mean value it I mean the model 

19 performance field data actually improves. Then that 

20 seems like a good thing even though that may not be 

21 perfect. That's a lot of work that needs to be done. 

22 Again incorporating all that information into the 

23 model can eliminate the preprocessors but having 

24 access to the data might allow some other enhancements 

25 to be considered. For example an option that has been 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 218 

 2 mentioned for training purposes is to have direction- 

 3 specific hill height scales sort of like building down 

 4 wash. Terrain influences is not identical but there's 

 5 some similarity to training influences and building 

 6 down wash influences. And having all the information 

 7 there in the model would make it much easier to 

 8 implement that than it would be right now. So you 

 9 wouldn't have to loop through you know feed all that 

10 direction specific height scale to the model first and 

11 let it figure it out. So that's one example. 

12 This new structure for AERMOD we think would also 

13 better accommodate future enhancements as new data 

14 sources emerge. As we mentioned we've had some 

15 interaction with folks from NASA and in fact one of 

16 the members said he might come to the conference but I 

17 don't know if he is here. Using remote sensing 

18 information in terms of surface temperature gradiants 

19 to inform the urban heat island aspect of the model. 

20 The downside is that it will not make AERMOD faster, 

21 but hopefully at that time we'll have faster 

22 computers. I guess that's it. Questions? No 

23 questions? All right. 

24 Patrick McKean: With ENSR. I have a couple of 

25 questions. Is there going to be any interim guidance 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 219 

 2 issued in the cases of 1992 and 2001 and old data may 

 3 not be representative of that year? This is a case in 

 4 the West even when you've upgraded to 2001 if there is 

 5 rapid growth in the area will that be accounted for. 

 6 Roger: That is something we have discussed I don't 

 7 think we have interim guidance really clearly in mind 

 8 yet. One of the things we have talked about is making 

 9 AERSURFACE more robust in being able to process land 

10 cover data in the SIP format maybe from an alternative 

11 data source so if you have land cover data in 

12 (inaudible) and can make some modifications to the 

13 land cover through that kind of mechanism and then 

14 export it to the (inaudible) format that AERSURFACE 

15 can read. I know it's also come up you know we'd had 

16 a lot of interaction with OTAQ in terms of mobile 

17 sources emissions and conformity plans where you plan 

18 a new highway project you are going to be changing 

19 land cover quite a bit as part of the project and how 

20 do you account for those influences so it's an issue 

21 that we're aware of. 

22 One of the ideas in AERSURFACE is it produces the 

23 inputs to go to AERMET in stage 3 also produces text 

24 files that is a data dump of the gridded land cover 

25 for each of the domain for the surface roughness and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 220 

 2 the ratio of the (inaudible) in a form if you have the 

 3 right tools you could be able to import that and do 

 4 some adjustments there perHAPS. That might be one way 

 5 to do it. I think the question is what is the 

 6 (inaudible) if you do have to do it. We don't have a 

 7 clear answer on that. Hopefully the sensitivity isn't 

 8 great enough to be a deciding factor and it's a 

 9 legitimate question. 

10 Patrick McKean: Yes it's come up several times in 

11 some the applications we've done. 

12 Roger Brode: The other again AERSURFACE is not a 

13 regulatory required tool I mean it's a tool to assist 

14 in doing that so you can run AERSURFACE. We hope that 

15 people will when they look at AERSURFACE outputs 

16 review them and see if they make sense and see if they 

17 are reasonable. We have seen some problems with the 

18 land cover data where there has been recreational 

19 grass areas around the runway instead of showing up as 

20 urban recreational grass shows up as low density 

21 residential even though there's a photo that doesn't 

22 show any houses there . I mean if there are a lot of 

23 data problems that's been in other things like in ASOS 

24 there's data problems, land cover there's data 

25 problem, we don't know where the met tower is thought 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 221 

 2 we did but don't. That presents a lot of challenges 

 3 and we hope people will take some time and QA the data 

 4 going in and coming out. You might be able to make a 

 5 well informed meteorological sound judgment kind of 

 6 adjustment as long as you can defend that 

 7 appropriately to the appropriate agency. 

 8 Patrick McKean: This might go to Jeff. Did you guys 

 9 ever try to recreate the inverse waiting type of 

10 approach with more like (inaudible) instead of using a 

11 GeoTiff? 

12 Participant: Yes we did. (inaudible) 

13 Patrick McKean: Okay. 

14 Roger Brode: A couple of members of the workgroup 

15 have been working on that maybe they already had state 

16 systems with their own state land cover data set up 

17 through EROS and have been trying to replicate the 

18 methodology. We may learn more from their activities 

19 along these lines. 

20 Patrick McKean: Okay. One more question. When will 

21 the beta option to turn stack to downwash for 

22 individual sources become guidelines. Isn't there an 

23 option or a beta version where you can turn stack to 

24 downwash for individual sources? 

25 Roger Brode: I don't think so. There's the capped 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 222 

 2 and horizontal release beta option. 

 3 Patrick McKean: That might be it. Yeah. Thank you. 

 4 It has to do with stack to downwash as to whether or 

 5 not you can turn it on or off for individual sources 

 6 that are capped or horizontal if you have a mixture of 

 7 source types. 

 8 Roger Brode: Right. The Model Clearing House 

 9 procedures for modeling capped stacks could send you 

10 to the issue of stack to downwash that you could set 

11 the (inaudible) very low, trying to affect the 

12 diameter and turn stack downwash off. That's kind of. 

13 The fact is if it's (inaudible) downwash it didn't 

14 apply downwash so you wouldn't need to do it there. 

15 Right now the main point is that procedure should not 

16 be used for stacks that are subject to building 

17 downwash. My guess is that most capped stacks are 

18 subject to building downwash. 

19 Patrick McKean: Well we had an application where we 

20 had some capped stacks that were heaters at a gas 

21 processing facility that were sitting out in the 

22 middle of nowhere and if it was influenced by all the 

23 buildings. 

24 Roger Brode: Maybe what we need to be clear on is that 

25 if your stack is not subject to building downwash then 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 223 

 2 the capped stack option in AERMOD applies to the 

 3 clearing house procedure. You don't have to do 

 4 anything; just input the normal stack parameters, 

 5 stack height, velocity, actual diameter. It does the 

 6 rest and takes care of it so it will not 

 7 apply downwash for that so I think there's no reason 

 8 why you couldn't use capped stacks for non-downwash 

 9 source in AERMOD. It's just more of a matter has it 

10 been verified that it fully influences the clearing 

11 house procedure. Maybe we need to be clearer about 

12 that. Does that make sense? 

13 Patrick McKean: Yeah. 

14 Peter Manousos: Pete again. Sort of a consensual 

15 question about running this as a DOS application. 

16 Have you guys had any discussion about migrating away 

17 from providing a DOS application? I guess rumor has 

18 it that Windows will not be allowing that interaction 

19 on the command [ed. line] through the command prompt 

20 anymore in the near future. 

21 Roger Brode: That rumor has been around for at least 

22 20 years. 

23 Peter Manousos: Yeah I know. But you can see it as 

24 you get into upgrades of Windows. 

25 Roger Brode: I think right now by hard wiring the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 224 

 2 input file name if you have everything in the right 

 3 folder you just double click on AERMOD exc. And it 

 4 will run. I think that shouldn't be an issue as it's 

 5 been a rumor for a long time and it just makes it more 

 6 difficult to use it properly. But I guess there are 

 7 issues with VISTAS that we haven't fully resolved. I 

 8 have heard that AERSURFACE might not work under VISTAS 

 9 for operating system. I don't know, but if anybody 

10 has any clear information about that please share it 

11 with us. We haven't been able to investigate that. 

12 Arney Srackangast: I was curious for AIWG and AERMIC 

13 how the public provides input on setting priorities in 

14 the model. It doesn't seem as though there is any 

15 other representatives other than agencies in those 

16 organizations. 

17 Tyler Fox: Yeah. I think that's a good question. I 

18 think that the presumption that we're working under is 

19 from the both regional offices and state/local 

20 agencies perspective they are bringing out these 

21 issues that they are dealing with on an application 

22 basis on and bringing those things to the forefront of 

23 OAQPS. So we're working on the assumption that they 

24 are an effective means by which those issues come to 

25 us and we both identify and prioritize them. When 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 225 

 2 AERMIC was first established we had representatives 

 3 from AMS and the name reflects that in terms of the 

 4 collaboration between AMS and EPA. Some individuals 

 5 representing the private sector were part of that 

 6 through that association. When the AERMOD was not a 

 7 regulatory model and in the development phase that was 

 8 appropriate. But once the model is in the regulatory 

 9 arena, it becomes difficult and becomes a little more 

10 dicey in terms of managing this whole system and 

11 making sure that you've got considerations across the 

12 board. Other than having a huge assortment or 

13 consortium of ways by which we formally do that which 

14 would again take time and resources away from actually 

15 doing the things we need to do given the constrained 

16 resources and budget we are operating under. We 

17 determine that the more effective means to move 

18 forward was as we presented it. There is still as 

19 Roger indicated a need for us to have through SCRAM, 

20 or other means, a way in which input can be received 

21 on a timely basis; big or small bugs and beyond. We 

22 are continuing to work and strive towards that and 

23 that would be another mechanism by which people can 

24 provide that information. 

25 Roger Brode: I'll just add this meeting is really the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 226 

 2 formal ideal format for that to submit comments to in 

 3 the context of the modeling conference itself. Of 

 4 course it's every 2 years or so. 

 5 Tyler Fox: As I said earlier, recognize you have a 

 6 month from the date of tomorrow to submit things into 

 7 the docket for formal consideration by the agency. 

 8 Then again we will continue to work on other means by 

 9 which people can provide information. There are a 

10 number of situations and applications that come up for 

11 these issues and we are very much aware of. Unless 

12 there are situations that people feel they are not 

13 being represented and can inform us about that. I'm 

14 hoping that the way in which we have organized 

15 ourselves to move forward will respect and reflect 

16 those kinds of things. 

17 Arney Srackangast: As a follow up to that, I did not 

18 see any itemized priorities in either of these in 

19 terms of what is the priority of these and I would 

20 phrase that in terms of where is the speed of AERMOD 

21 in the priorities of these types of things? Thank 

22 you. 

23 Tyler Fox: Well as you presented just the compilers 

24 speeds us up by 40%. In fact in terms of interaction 

25 that we have the timeframe and the time it takes to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 227 

 2 run AERMOD is always something that is mentioned and 

 3 we're trying to deal with that issue through every 

 4 upgrade and update that we put forward. Hopefully the 

 5 complier when you get home and Roger has everything up 

 6 and we put on SCRAM you will realize that up to 40% 

 7 increase in run time. 

 8 Roger Brode: I think that's one of the motivations 

 9 for the alternative meander option that could be used 

10 to speed up many applications. I think it's certainly 

11 on the list of priorities. I think if we didn't have 

12 such a wide range of compelling technical issues and 

13 the validity and integrity of how the model is applied 

14 then the speed would be a higher priority. I always 

15 find out there are more efficient ways to apply the 

16 model in many cases. 

17 Bob Paine: From ENSR with a couple of AERSCREEN 

18 questions. One is users have been asked to 

19 demonstrate that a meteorological site is 

20 representative of an application site. I would 

21 suggest that when you have AERSURFACE input available 

22 to AERSCREEN you would run AERSURFACE both for the met 

23 side and application site, feed it into AERSCREEN, and 

24 see if the actual modeled peak concentration peak are 

25 significant. If they are not you can probably 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 228 

 2 conclude that the met site is adequately represented 

 3 of the application site. 

 4 Roger Brode: I think that's a worthwhile suggestion 

 5 to pursue. I think if they do show a little 

 6 difference that is certainly comforting and if they 

 7 don't I'm not sure what that means. I think we need 

 8 to study this a little better to understand how to 

 9 interpret the results. But I think it's worth looking 

10 at to see what we can learn from that. 

11 Bob Paine: Because right now there is no real 

12 quantitative way to say how to compare the met site to 

13 the application site from surface characteristics. 

14 The other question I had is I would recommend that 

15 MAKEMET output could be used in lieu of onsite 

16 meteorology as input for full AERMOD application as a 

17 way to show compliance. That is to say to completely 

18 replace if you don't have onsite data or 

19 representative meteorological data. Could you use 

20 MAKEMET input and deem it conservative enough to 

21 replace the need for representative meteorological 

22 data? 

23 Roger Brode: I think the mechanism to do that will be 

24 there and it is a topic that has been discussed within 

25 the AERSCREEN workgroup. But we're at a point that we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 229 

 2 haven't really tested it and don't know how 

 3 comfortable we will be with that or not. It is 

 4 something again it is worthwhile investigating that 

 5 option basically a multi source screening technique 

 6 but I don't think we are prepared to say thumbs up or 

 7 thumbs down at this point. 

 8 Dick Perry: Beeline Software. Before I had a couple 

 9 of questions but before I started some of the 

10 discussions before I got up to the microphone. I just 

11 want to make a statement that I can directly attest to 

12 the fact that is different from previous years that 

13 when problems are brought to the attention 

14 specifically Roger they do get addressed in a timely 

15 manner. It's not that blank wall that existed a few 

16 years back when something was brought to their 

17 attention. So that's been very gratifying to see. 

18 Roger Brode I appreciate that comment but I know this 

19 past summer has been quite unusual and if other have a 

20 different experience than that I apologize. 

21 Dick Perry: Okay. First Randy just a quick question. 

22 When you did the 1 to 3 km test did you do any change 

23 of the airport setting between the two? 

24 Randy Robinson: No I don't think there was any change 

25 in the airport setting it was simply a difference in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 230 

 2 the radius you were looking at when you were 

 3 generating this. 

 4 Dick Perry: It was an airport setting for both 

 5 distances. 

 6 Randy Robinson: Right. 

 7 Dick Perry: Given the interest in PM 2.5 Roger, has 

 8 there been a movement that were evaluation progress in 

 9 that Method 2 (two) that was also added not too long 

10 ago to the AERMOD? 

11 Roger Brode: Method 2 is one of the options in AERMOD 

12 for deposition particle deposition fairly small 

13 particles. I guess I would just say no, but 

14 deposition in general is an issue that is working its 

15 way [ed. up] the priority list. It's getting more and 

16 more attention and I think it's going to bubble up to 

17 where we are going to be able to address some of those 

18 but so far I'm not aware of much additional work 

19 that's been done yet. 

20 Dick Perry: Last one is just a nip in AERMAP did you 

21 add the open PIP source. 

22 Roger Brode: Yes all source types are supported in 

23 AERMAP now. 

24 George Schewe: From Hiperism Consultants. My 

25 questions revolve around AERMOD equivalence in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 231 

 2 acceptability. As you know, there are some of us out 

 3 there who have versions of AERMOD that are even faster 

 4 than [ed. the EPA version] (inaudible) and we don't 

 5 believe compilers are the answer. On reading Appendix 

 6 W, I do understand and you explained to us that the 

 7 determination of the acceptability of the model is the 

 8 regional office responsibility. I think that's clear. 

 9 The use of alternative models does require an 

10 equivalence demonstration according to Appeneix W. 

11 Specifically to show that it may be "treated for 

12 practical purposes as the preferred model." This 

13 leads to the issue of the availability of the model 

14 evaluation data base. Now we checked on your web site 

15 yesterday and the one is out of date. We couldn't use 

16 it with 07026 and we've often wondered what the does 

17 the EPA do in evaluating its model before release. So 

18 this is the focus of my three questions. 

19 Is the creation and maintenance of this data base an 

20 OAQPS or a regional responsibility? That's questions 

21 1. Question number 2. Is there a model evaluation 

22 data base that is agreed upon by both OAQPS and the 

23 Regional Offices? Question number 3. If it exists is 

24 it suitable for use in an equivalence demonstration to 

25 which both OAQPS and the regional office would be in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 232 

 2 agreement with. We cannot proceed on an equivalent 

 3 demonstration until we have clear guidance on this. 

 4 Roger Brode: Well I think the clarification 

 5 memorandum we issued on this referred to the test 

 6 cases developed with AERMOD as a reasonable starting 

 7 point. 

 8 George Schewe: Insufficient. 

 9 Roger Brode: We agree they are insufficient and 

10 that's why I indicated that some applications specific 

11 tests should also be done. The next update to AERMOD 

12 will include a wider range of test cases that will be 

13 more robust. By doing that we are not saying this is 

14 sufficient it will just be a more complete set of 

15 tests that can be used. As far as the evaluation data 

16 bases the data is out there and I think the only 

17 obstacle in using those is changing the version date 

18 for the AERMET and the header of the met file and 

19 that's not a difficult exercise to complete. I don't 

20 know that this outweighs evaluation data sets by 

21 themselves add all that much more value in terms of 

22 equivalency demonstration in this context or not. As 

23 I mentioned earlier, one of the infrastructure 

24 development activities that I wish we were further 

25 along with was to get the evaluation data bases 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 233 

 2 updated to the point we can use them routinely in 

 3 almost automatic fashion to compare AERMOD performance 

 4 against field studies. Version A versus B similar to 

 5 what you heard a little bit about in terms of the 

 6 CALPUFF modeling system that test data set. For now, 

 7 I guess it's still up to the appropriate reviewing 

 8 [ed. authority] (inaudible) to make a decision or 

 9 determination on what the appropriate equivalency 

10 demonstration is for that given application. 

11 Bruce Egan Egan Environmental Inc. I think 

12 (inaudible) Roger Brode said something to the effect 

13 as to wondering of requesting comments about what the 

14 minimum speed is to create wake effects behind 

15 buildings. And that's sort of a fluid mechanics 

16 question. It strictly depends upon the size of the 

17 (inaudible) Reynolds Number in atmospheric size flows. 

18 (inaudible) Reynolds Numbers are always greater than 

19 2,000 to 2,500, the criteria distinguishing between 

20 laminar flow and turbulent flow around structures, 

21 (inaudible) turbulence so you almost always have a 

22 turbulent wake behind a building that will be very 

23 similar in characteristics. The wakes will always 

24 look alike over a wide range of wind speeds. even if 

25 you're in triple quadruplet (inaudible). I think the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 234 

 2 other way to phrase the question as to where you want 

 3 to go is to think about what is the minimum speed that 

 4 would have an organized flow and I think you could 

 5 probably look at that in the context of something much 

 6 less than a meter per second for example. As long as 

 7 you have an organized flow then you would have 

 8 turbulence that would stay behind the building. If 

 9 it's just sort of in a sense that if the local flow 

10 is not organized because (inaudible) upwind and trees 

11 are disturbing the larger flow then probably you don't 

12 have a good flow that you could find a wake behind a 

13 conventional looking building. 

14 Roger Brode: Thank you for those useful comments. 

15 Bruce Egan: Sure. 

16 George Schewe: Trinity Consultants. What is your 

17 recommendation for using the new ASOS data sets 23505 

18 where we're getting calls to the tune of 20 to 25 to 

19 30%. I asked you this question last week Roger. So 

20 right now you're talking about going to the 1 minute 

21 or 2 minute [ed. averaged] (inaudible) data to kind of 

22 replace that. Right now in the interim we get that 

23 many calms and start calculating 24 hour values and 

24 the more calms we get the lower our numbers go so the 

25 question is any thoughts what we can do with that 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 235 

 2 right now? 

 3 Roger Brode: I think that's why we're considering 

 4 this idea putting out a clarification memorandum on 

 5 use of ASOS data with AERMOD and dealing with missing 

 6 airport data with AERMOD. I don't think we have an 

 7 answer but I think which you pointed out if there's a 

 8 real question that arises as to the representiveness 

 9 of that data set especially for applications involving 

10 lower level releases where part of the data that 

11 you're throwing out or ignoring is clearly the part 

12 that is worse case meteorology for that kind of 

13 source. So I think it would be up to right now would 

14 interaction between applicant and reviewing authority 

15 as to whether the met data being used for the 

16 application is appropriate and representative and 

17 adequate and so on. That's a legitimate question that 

18 would be brought up in that context. Right now we 

19 haven't made a direct firm statement one way or the 

20 other. Other than to inform the community that it's 

21 an issue we feel we need to try an address. 

22 In terms of the ASOS data, one of the big obstacles we 

23 have in moving forward quickly 

24 with that is that the data files themselves are not in 

25 a clean consistent format. They define the format for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 236 

 2 the files but the data files themselves don't always 

 3 conform to that format. So there's a lot of practical 

 4 obstacles in processing the 1 minute data cleanly. So 

 5 we've done it on a case by case basis for a number of 

 6 applications and non-regulatory applications. It has 

 7 given us an opportunity to learn more about that data 

 8 to see if we like it or if it's useful or not. That's 

 9 a big obstacle that we're not sure how soon we will be 

10 able to work around that and there may always be a bad 

11 file that we may run across and haven't accounted for. 

12 Right now the tentative plan would be to possibly 

13 modify AERMET to read in that as an optional data 

14 resource to supplement the other types of data 

15 available. 

16 Tom Robertson: Environmental Quality Management. You 

17 mentioned a couple of times haul roads and mining type 

18 issues. Are you guys ready to make recommendations to 

19 the states and the staff as to whether it's a long, 

20 skinny road, short road, wide road, a box or a line? 

21 Because you get a different answer either way you 

22 model it so now you're shopping geometry. There's a 

23 function of what the correct answer is and you get a 

24 different opinion from every permit writer. 

25 Roger Brode: I think we're still on a road to come up 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 237 

 2 with that kind of information. We wanted it to be 

 3 based as soundly as it can be on what is actually 

 4 happening with those emissions. One other point I 

 5 would mention there in some cases there may be 

 6 influences that are affecting plumes from haul roads 

 7 that we're not accounting for. That would be if there 

 8 was a building very near to the roadway then building 

 9 downwash may be affecting the emissions from the 

10 roadway that currently unaccounted for. Downwash is 

11 only applied for point sources currently. That's 

12 something we have discussed. Again given the 

13 capability of the downwash algorithm the fact that we 

14 know where the wake is in space maybe we can apply 

15 building downwash effects on blind sources or even 

16 part of area sources. We have already started doing 

17 some very preliminary testing to see what impact that 

18 would have. If it is important then maybe another 

19 option would be instead of using a string of volume 

20 sources to use a bigger array a denser array of point 

21 sources to define the roadway. If there is a building 

22 nearby then the building downwash would likely apply. 

23 We need to look at that more closely to get a more 

24 comfortable feeling that what the downwash algorithm 

25 is doing in those cases makes sense. That's something 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 238 

 2 we have considered as a possible option that would be 

 3 for down the road, sorry for the pun, as an 

 4 enhancement that might help. 

 5 Tyler Fox: thank you. Now you have earned your 

 6 afternoon break just after 3:45 and we'll finish the 

 7 afternoon off with CALPUFF. 

 8 Tyler Fox: We're in the home stretch if we can all 

 9 gather back. It's been a long day and it's not even 

10 4:00 and we're scheduled to go until 6:00. Hopefully 

11 we can get through this somewhat quickly but not too 

12 quickly. As you can see in the agenda there is quite 

13 a bit of road to cover here so we'll have a total of 

14 five presentations. They vary from 15 to 30 minutes 

15 each. I'm hopefully going to get through pretty 

16 quickly. I'll be 15 minutes or less, Roger has 20 

17 minutes or so and so does Prakash and then Bret and 

18 Joe have 30 minutes a piece. I think that adds up. 

19 So that's the set up for this session. 

20 I'm charged with giving a status and update and what 

21 you'll see is it's really kind of a chronology of 

22 events that have happened over the past three years or 

23 so in respect to CALPUFF. Just to make sure we have 

24 the context in which EPA has been working under with 

25 the community, model and the like and where we stand. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 239 

 2 Then I'll hand it off to get into more detail to Roger 

 3 and from the EPA side Bret's evaluation as well. 

 4 I'll start with some of the history here. 

 5 Obviously the modeling system was promulgated in 

 6 April, 2003, and includes CALMET and CALPUFF. It was 

 7 promulgated as EPA's preferred model for long-range 

 8 transport (LRT) applications, beyond 50 km, primarily 

 9 for Class I increments analysis. At the time the 

10 model developer arranged to maintain control of code 

11 development and distribution and copyrighted code. 

12 Since then we obviously have established an agreement 

13 through both memo from Peter Tsirigotis and letter 

14 from myself to assure that an agreement with [ed. 

15 Earth Tech] (inaudible) that EPA as I mentioned 

16 earlier maintains the approprobilability of regulatory 

17 version of CALPUFF. It's also identified in Appendix 

18 W for near-field applications involving "complex 

19 winds" on a case-by-case basis. Roger touched upon 

20 the clarification memo earlier and will get into more 

21 details later on in this session. It's also used for 

22 Class I AQRV [ed. Air Quality Related Values] 

23 analyses, not under Appendix W purview. But obviously 

24 we coordinate closely with the Federal Land Managers 

25 in that process. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 240 

 2 So taking a step back and kind of understanding the 

 3 score card of the various versions that we've been 

 4 working with and the dates they were originally made 

 5 available. We started with the promulgated version 

 6 5.7. There was an update although it was a number of 

 7 years after the availability of it 5.711a. That was 

 8 the first time we used the update tool and were able 

 9 to update the regulatory version to address bug fixes 

10 that were obviously important to us to clear out of 

11 the way for regulatory use of this model. There were 

12 two versions of the VISTAS model and I'll talk about 

13 that a little bit. Then there was a subsequent 

14 release in June, 2007, that corresponded to the 

15 coordination with the model developer to get an 

16 updated version of this model. Version 5.8 and that's 

17 where we currently stand as of today. There is as 

18 Herman Wong mentioned today and those of you who are 

19 familiar with modeling system are aware in April, 

20 2006, MMS developed a version 6.112 that has over 

21 water capabilities and other types of changes to the 

22 model that they contracted directly with the model 

23 developer on. 

24 So let me walk through the chronology here and give 

25 you feedback or give you information I should say 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 241 

 2 about the discussions especially within the federal 

 3 purview and reminder that these are slides and 

 4 information that we first put out to the public back 

 5 when we had our 2007 Regional, State and Local 

 6 Modelers Work Shop. Those presentations are 

 7 publically available on SCRAM. We walked through a 

 8 similar set as this to update people about the status 

 9 because of the situation going on during the analysis 

10 for BART. So we've also got similar slides from this 

11 year's workshop that also provides information along 

12 these lines. These are things that may not be 

13 commonly understood or knowledge from your stand point 

14 so that's why we're taking the time to go through 

15 these to set the table. 

16 In Spring of 2006, we had some meetings across the 

17 federal agencies in particle EPA, FLM, MMS for those 

18 of us who have a critical interest and have been using 

19 this model system. The reason is Earth Tech sells 

20 CALPUFF rights to TRC in April 2006 and that kind of 

21 alerted us to a situation that we hadn't really 

22 thought about. And also we were engaging through our 

23 update tools to update to the VISTAS experienced 

24 difficulties in being able to successful use that 

25 update tool to update the regulatory version from what 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 242 

 2 we had done which was causing frustration in the 

 3 community, frustration in the VISTAS process, 

 4 frustrations for us and frustration for everybody. We 

 5 needed to step back and talk with the federal 

 6 agencies. Some of the issues we discussed included 

 7 the lack of adequate documentation, the responsiveness 

 8 to issues by developer and the need for funding to 

 9 address any issues from Federal community, despite 

10 regulatory status. Given those issues we felt it was 

11 important to get the insight and opinions from other 

12 federal agencies. In response to that, we contacted 

13 TRC and reminded them as the new proprietors or owners 

14 of the model that there is a requirement that it meets 

15 Appendix W requirements for regulatory models. You 

16 can see them here and to basically reaffirm that the 

17 type of agreement we had with you on. It was critical 

18 that we understood that the model would be maintained 

19 and continued to be made available as it had before. 

20 In fact I met with Joe [ed. Scire] in Denver during a 

21 conference and we had a number of discussions about 

22 this situation. I definitely used my concern about 

23 the status of CALPUFF and we had general agreement on 

24 where we needed to go with respect to these things as 

25 well as to the need from the version of standpoint as 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 243 

 2 I indicated here to really get to a point as I 

 3 described with the update tool. You had a regulatory 

 4 version and the Beta version and we're operating in 

 5 that duel universe and we could reduce the level of 

 6 frustration and confusion that will result from having 

 7 multiple versions. NOTE: CALPUFF model/code cannot 

 8 be proprietary. 

 9 In response we got basically the Use Agreement 

10 indicating the continued copy write of the model as 

11 changes are made and modifications those would have to 

12 be delivered to TRC with documentation and 

13 instructions for use. And also a reminder that the 

14 User Agreements also stated that it's really the 

15 user's responsibility to determine the appropriateness 

16 for any particular application and that liability was 

17 assumed by the users in that context. 

18 So I mentioned the update tool. Here's the diagram 

19 and Roger will get into more details. The Base and 

20 BETA comparisons using a pre-established set of 

21 sources of meteorology and terrain should provide for 

22 consequence analysis to understand those differences. 

23 Interpret and resolve them to the extent necessary and 

24 then document that fully. We did that after having 

25 these discussions we wanted to move forward from 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 244 

 2 Version 5.7 to Version 5.711a. We got the Model 

 3 Change Bulletin, looked at the application of the 

 4 update tool and the results there could clearly 

 5 identify the differences to bug fixes and move forward 

 6 and improving in that same timeframe. A lot of the 

 7 discussions we were having as we were internally 

 8 engaging in this update was whether or not we needed 

 9 to move from Version 5.7 to 5.711a or just bypass that 

10 and directly go to the VISTAS version which was more 

11 commonly being used by the community. It became 

12 apparent in that conversation that our best scenario 

13 was to make this initial change to rid ourselves of 

14 the bug fixes and went through the process as we had 

15 outlined in the 8th Modeling Conference to do that and 

16 it was a successful application and update. Of course 

17 it still left unresolved the issue between then that 

18 new updated version of CALPUFF and the VISTAS version 

19 that folks had been using. So at that time we began 

20 in earnest the process of updating to 5.754 and then 

21 engage in some discussions to understand some of the 

22 differences. We received indication from Joe and TRC 

23 that there was going to be a new VISTAS version 

24 referring back to the score card. So rather than 

25 getting caught again one step behind, we needed to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 245 

 2 make a decision whether or not we focused on that 

 3 previous version or the newer version that was going 

 4 to be made available. It was fully expected that the 

 5 states and others would be using in the BART process 

 6 and the like. So we decided to refocus our update 

 7 efforts on that new version to make sure we could 

 8 attempt to take care of our bug fixes but also to take 

 9 advantage of the newer features and latest corrections 

10 for the benefits of you all and that in fact included 

11 MMS updates for over water that Herman mentioned. 

12 So as we began applying that update tool we found some 

13 fairly large unresolved issues but I won't go through 

14 these that I have listed here. Roger will provide 

15 more details. It was problematic in terms of 

16 interpreting what we are seeing because we didn't know 

17 whether or not we had full documentation of the 

18 changes. We couldn't attribute these types of 

19 observed differences to our understanding of the 

20 differences between the Base and the BETA version in 

21 this case for the regulatory version and the new 

22 version we were looking at. And so we were kind of 

23 stuck in a situation it was impossible basically for 

24 us to proceed without further information from the 

25 model developer and others in the community. While we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 246 

 2 are engaging this and waiting for information to flow 

 3 about the newer version to see whether or not, there 

 4 were key pieces of documentation or information we 

 5 were missing. 

 6 The BART applications by the states were moving 

 7 forward in "good faith." What we talked about this 

 8 morning is there are certain applications that come 

 9 under Appendix W and some that don't. We had made a 

10 determination in working with Air Quality Policy 

11 Division Todd Halls. I don't know if he's with us but 

12 he worked with us closely in terms of the language 

13 that went into BART and we're pretty clear there was a 

14 separate set of requirements or understanding of how 

15 and what models could be used under BART. Certainly 

16 CALPUFF fit the bill in terms of being able to address 

17 these single source questions. But it wasn't the only 

18 model that could but a number of states used CALPUFF. 

19 And they wanted to use the best available model 

20 version and they wanted to take advantage of the best 

21 science. So what we had talked about within the 

22 regional office modeling community from the EPA 

23 standpoint is that what we wanted to do was to attempt 

24 to be "consistent" with App W and "wall off" any 

25 potential bad precedents. Very good intentions but 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 247 

 2 very difficult to deal with in a situation where as 

 3 you develop meteorological data sets which take quite 

 4 a bit of time to develop. As you use and the states 

 5 use this model and the modeling system in one context 

 6 either they or perhaps their higher managers ask the 

 7 obvious question why can't we use it for permitting? 

 8 So the problem became one where most were eusuing the 

 9 VISTAS which was not currently approved under Appendix 

10 W which provides the rules of the game for NSR/PSD 

11 permit modeling. And through the provision of the 

12 meteorological data sets through CALMET there are also 

13 some potential concerns of the update tool addresses 

14 both CALMET and CALPUFF. Some of the differences we 

15 saw that we were unable to interpret could have been 

16 coming from that tool as part of the regulatory 

17 modeling system. So again EPA was faced with the 

18 difficult situation in dealing with the regulatory 

19 application in BART and managing that but trying to 

20 ensure the consistency and the integrity of the models 

21 as they are applied under Appendix W. Not a very good 

22 situation to deal with in clearing the air on CALPUFF 

23 here. Given the frustrations that were existing in 

24 the community and kind of at that time the 

25 communications that were not really coordinated and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 248 

 2 EPA has quite a role in that. We had to make a clear 

 3 statement to the community and to the regional office 

 4 modelers and that occurred in January, 2007. That 

 5 statement was specifically the answer was no that you 

 6 could not use the VISTAS version unless you wanted to 

 7 go through the process of demonstrating it 

 8 applicability and appropriateness as an alternative 

 9 model. No you could not use the CALMET meteorological 

10 data set because they were not based on a regulatory 

11 approved part of the CALPUFF modeling system. We had 

12 to make that distinction because we can't put into 

13 danger the permit actions and the reliance on the 

14 modeling and have anything overturned or you in the 

15 community using something that in the end causing a 

16 problem in that permit process. So the safest and the 

17 most appropriate means to move forward at that time 

18 was to stick to the version that we had approved. Now 

19 at that time, Region 4 communicated that VISTAS and I 

20 spoke with Pat Brewer and what she had a great 

21 interest in and we very much appreciated it was to try 

22 and facilitate discussions so that we can move forward 

23 in a way for their sakes leading the way for everybody 

24 across the nation that we could engage in a process to 

25 get the information that OAQPS needed. Allow time for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 249 

 2 the review that was needed through the update tool 

 3 process or the protocol process so we got the request 

 4 for the information and we proceeded to get that 

 5 information through communications with Joe and others 

 6 at TRC. That obviously helped us tremendously in 

 7 moving forward. They became more aware of the update 

 8 tool and the process and the protocol itself which was 

 9 very helpful I think for the community. We became 

10 much more aware of the code and got critical pieces of 

11 documentation. 

12 Now speeding up to more recent times because Roger and 

13 Bret will cover the issues that we found in that 

14 process and then where we are now and where we are 

15 going in the future. Suffice to say in our 

16 interaction the problems were much more than bug fixes 

17 and we'll get into that more later in the session. 

18 Long story short is that we were able to get to the 

19 point of successful applying the update tool with 

20 sufficient documentation and understanding of the 

21 model, to update the regulatory version 5.8 in June, 

22 2007, establishing the CALPUFF modeling system from a 

23 regulatory standpoint is CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST. 

24 And so we feel pretty good about the current state of 

25 the world in dealing both with the modeling developer 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 250 

 2 and our federal agency partners and you all in the 

 3 public, regional offices states and local folks. 

 4 Unfortunately as you saw in Roger's presentation on 

 5 AERMOD, we've got quite a bit going on and on our 

 6 plate with respect the development and maintenance in 

 7 that model. around that time our office director, 

 8 Steve Page, made a decision not to renew our inter 

 9 agency agreement with NOAA. As some of you may know, 

10 my group had a branch of NOAA meteorologist that were 

11 available through NOAA to EPA and they provided quite 

12 a bit of support both from meterology standpoint and 

13 dispersion model standpoint. And despite the fact 

14 that we had lost key staff like John Irwin and others 

15 over time, they were part of the group in providing 

16 valuable support in that effort. 

17 At this time we learned that, that was support that we 

18 were not going to be able to count on in the future. 

19 So as you may know folks like Joe Touma, Brian 

20 Orndorff and Dennis Atkinson have assumed careers with 

21 NOAA or other accommodations. We're in a situation 

22 where we are dealing with quite a bit of reduction in 

23 resources here. Thankfully we were able to get Bret 

24 Anderson on a detail Region 7 tour here at least for 6 

25 months and really start looking at this situation and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 251 

 2 what we found caused us some concern from a science 

 3 and implementation standpoint and really reminded us 

 4 of what we needed to do was to go back what we had 

 5 planned when we had originally talked to the Federal 

 6 partners some years prior that we needed to update the 

 7 IWAQM process. IWAQM goes through performance 

 8 evaluations because the recommendations that were in 

 9 our IWAQM were irrelevant. The model had passed us by 

10 and we needed to go ahead and update that. Again we 

11 unfortunately were not able to engage in that process 

12 as effectively and as timely as I would have liked. 

13 And we would have benefited from but that little 

14 promulgation of AERMOD got in the way of that. 

15 Unfortunately I should say it was fortunate for all of 

16 us that we got through that process. So we really 

17 needed to go back and make sure that we went ahead and 

18 did what we said we were going to do and commit to the 

19 resources. I appreciate management in Region 7 

20 allowing Bret to come and do that because we wouldn't 

21 have been able to move forward in a way that we have 

22 if it weren't for his efforts and others at OAQPS and 

23 the regional offices supporting us throughout. We 

24 provided these concerns at our workshop with the 

25 regional, state and local folks to let them know we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 252 

 2 have gone through a process and it hasn't been as 

 3 timely as we would have liked. Right now we are 

 4 pending any assessment of versions after 5.8 for the 

 5 version 6 updates until we can resolve the issues we 

 6 see. What we want to do is complete these performance 

 7 evaluations and understand what we are dealing with so 

 8 that we can have a firm handle on the science and its 

 9 implementation within the model. So that we can then 

10 provide the community with the confidence they need in 

11 any update. We certainly planned to get further along 

12 than we did so that we could present more detailed 

13 performance evaluation information and the like. 

14 Before now, we certainly would have liked to be able 

15 to spend more time engaging with the model developer 

16 on these issues so that we can then have a more 

17 effective engagement here at the 9th Modeling 

18 Conference. Unfortunately that has not necessarily 

19 all come about but here we are and here we are able to 

20 at least provide what information we have and a clear 

21 understanding of what we see and have concerns about. 

22 Then hopefully get your input as well as input from 

23 others about that situation and help perhaps to move 

24 forward. 

25 So I'll hand it off to Roger now and then we'll go 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 253 

 2 through the session. I'll come back at the end to 

 3 summarize where we are from regulatory standpoint. 

 4 Roger Brode: Thank you Tyler. I'll see if I can 

 5 manage the time effectively and get the most important 

 6 information out there. Here's an outline and a long 

 7 outline for 20 minutes but just give some overview 

 8 assessment of the VISTAS version that Tyler referred 

 9 to. And share some of the information regarding some 

10 unresolved technical issues that we have with some of 

11 the enhancement in version 5.8. Touch on the near 

12 field clarification memo on a little more detail. 

13 Discuss in more detail some examples of complex wind 

14 situations where use of CALPUFF in the air field might 

15 be suggested or considered. But also discuss some 

16 technical issues and concerns related to that type of 

17 application. And then for other issues. 

18 This is stuff Tyler mentioned about EPA role as far as 

19 approving and determining when the version (inaudible) 

20 CALPUFF is approved for regulatory use and the tool is 

21 you saw that diagram before as well. This is just a 

22 quick slide showing the results of the initial 

23 assessment that came back by applying that tool at 

24 that point v5.756. We also took longer than we would 

25 have liked but we recently posted the complete 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 254 

 2 documentation in a report on SCRAM as referred 

 3 referenced down below. 

 4 Again we saw quite a range of differences from -46% 

 5 difference, to +83% difference much different than 

 6 what we had seen the first time this update tool had 

 7 been applied where we saw differences as insignificant 

 8 there was only one difference higher than 1% and that 

 9 was a 5% difference. But everything was clearly 

10 identifiable as due to a single bug fixture maybe two 

11 I forget which. So we struggled a little bit with 

12 this but as Tyler mentioned once we got some 

13 additional implementation working with TRC and what I 

14 think it was especially helpful was they provided some 

15 interim versions of the modeling system to facilitate 

16 isolating impact to different types of model changes. 

17 One being bug fixes and two other types of changes so 

18 that's what is listed there. I won't go into a lot of 

19 details here as it's in that document. But we 

20 conducted a number of tests and again it was to 

21 isolate the effects of bug fixes verses the category 

22 called non optional technical enhancements. These 

23 were changes made to the formulation that could affect 

24 results. But the user didn't really have any control 

25 over it. Then finally optional technical enhancements 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 255 

 2 that the user could control. 

 3 So what we found the significant differences could be 

 4 attributed to each of these three known factors. I 

 5 think sort of a suggestion from the signal we were 

 6 getting was that it was mostly bug fixes that needed 

 7 to be taken care of and the sooner the better. We 

 8 were certainly interested in responding in a timely 

 9 matter, but we felt we had to go through this process. 

10 Surprisingly, a little bit of time one of those 

11 factors, the new default parameters for optional 

12 technical enhancements (kind of a lengthy title), that 

13 actually contributed to the largest differences. 

14 This is another table from that report that shows 

15 percent differences to bug fixes. Someone take there 

16 it is. The column on the left is due to bug fixes, 

17 column 6 is non optional technical enhancements and 

18 the new default parameters and the final column is 

19 where we ended up in terms of version 5.8. So the new 

20 default parameters -- well this is a little more 

21 detail by source. So you can see there is differences 

22 for every source and every scenario ranging quite a 

23 range, but one thing to point out. This is by 

24 comparison in the precious assessment done as Tyler 

25 pointed out these are the percent differences we saw. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 256 

 2 Again .002%, .003% and the one that stood out was 

 3 about 5% difference for one source and one scenario 

 4 and that was all traceable to a specific bug fix which 

 5 we could easily verify that was the cause. That was a 

 6 little easier to manage. This update tool goes 

 7 through a range of scenarios domain sizes, 

 8 meteorological inputs, other options and different 

 9 source configuration source types. The results I just 

10 showed you are the differences in high range values 

11 sort of the design value differences. One of the 

12 things we realize when we got into this deeper is that 

13 those differences could be a tip of the 

14 iceberg. They might be skewed to impacts more near 

15 field even though long term transport is the prime 

16 regulatory nitch for the model. So we started looking 

17 at what the percent difference is across the domain 

18 and we saw some spots like this where you can ask is 

19 that the same model you might ask. That added to the 

20 concerns and this was the plot similar contour plot 

21 that was done a percent difference across the domain. 

22 This was called test 4 which at that time test 4 was 

23 suppose to be any troublesome comparisons. So all the 

24 changes that were made to the previous version should 

25 make it equivalent to the VISTAS version. So all the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 257 

 2 known causes of the differences have been eliminated 

 3 and we still have differences of that magnitude. 

 4 Again close in there's not a lot of difference, but 

 5 you know within a 100 km if your class 1 area is there 

 6 you will see a difference 5,000% difference. So just 

 7 want to clarify this as tables are significant in 

 8 their own right but just a tip of the iceberg. So we 

 9 go to the point that we approved version 5.8 but we 

10 still have some unresolved technical concerns 

11 regarding how the optional technical enhancements for 

12 mixing height algorithms. You mentioned the MMS 

13 enhancement that MMS funded some enhancements to the 

14 CALPUFF modeling system for use over water. One of 

15 the issues they addressed in that was the CALMET 

16 didn't count for the convective mixing height over 

17 water. So it's just mechanical mixing height you 

18 could underestimate the depth boundary layer like the 

19 Gulf of Mexico. So they made some convective mixing 

20 height changes to CALMET for mixing over water. But 

21 in doing that for the Gulf of Mexico it could stay 

22 convective for day and night on end for a long period 

23 of time. So this convective boundary layer could sort 

24 of grow without bounds so that was an issue. 

25 So some new default parameters were incorporated. The 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 258 

 2 threshold buoyancy energy flux over land and over 

 3 water. So these are new parameters that were part of 

 4 the new found enhancements of MMS for over water 

 5 dispersion. But the way they were implemented they 

 6 were applied as well over land. So the THRESHS is 

 7 over land and the THRESHW is over water and the user 

 8 might not initially be aware they are using these new 

 9 parameters. The defaults for these parameters are 

10 different than the previous models would behave that 

11 didn't have those parameters. So that was something 

12 that we uncovered in sorting out what is the 

13 difference between these two versions of the model. 

14 So the way it's designed is the threshold buoyancy 

15 flux required to sustain convective mixing height 

16 growth; however, in looking at the code its suggested 

17 as it has been implemented as soon as the sensible 

18 heat flux falls below the threshold, the convective 

19 mixing height is immediately assigned the value of 0m 

20 for that hour which eliminates any convective 

21 turbulence for that grid cell. But a new convective 

22 boundary layer may form for subsequent hours. In the 

23 default mode in applying CALMET that behavior is 

24 masked somewhat by other defaults within CALMET, 

25 including the default minimum mixing height of 50m, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 259 

 2 and the mixing height that goes to CALPUFF is the 

 3 higher of the mechanical and convective mixing 

 4 heights. 

 5 Also there's an average of as the overall mixing 

 6 height, and the default option for upwind a of the 

 7 grid cells. That would mask this effect to some 

 8 degree. The convective velocity scale which is path to 

 9 CALPUFF as a parameter that determines how much 

10 convective turbulence is in the atmosphere. That is 

11 also set to 0 for convective mixing height. That 

12 effect is still going to be path to the modeling 

13 system. So these are some figures that sort of 

14 illustrate one of the scenarios in test the data set. 

15 These are three successive hours on one of the days in 

16 Scenario 4. This is the scenario with the Shenandoah 

17 Valley, Shenandoah National Park sort of up to here. 

18 This is a plot of convection boundary layer height 

19 with the default threshold is 0.05 W/m2/m. So it 

20 happens as the boundary layer gets higher you need 

21 more boundary energy flux to sustain it. So you see 

22 the red is pretty up as boundary layer height. It's 

23 hard to read those but they are 1,000 feet to 1,500 

24 meters perhaps. In the next hour parts of the domain 

25 dropped to 0 because of the threshold. In the next 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 260 

 2 hour those parts start to rebound and these other 

 3 parts dropped to 0. This is the kind of behavior we 

 4 found in these tests and this is a time series plot of 

 5 convective mixing height where one of the grid cells 

 6 within that domain showing convective mixing height so 

 7 about five or six days there the first day the normal 

 8 convective mixing height increases then drops 

 9 throughout the day. Here's one that gets pretty high 

10 then it drops and then a little bit of boundary layer. 

11 This one is probably most illustrative where 

12 convection mixing height goes up and drops at noon to 

13 0 and then goes back up cause it's a (inaudible) break 

14 or something. But anyway. 

15 This is just to illustrate that these are options from 

16 the modeling system and this is an issue that we are 

17 concerned about that really hasn't been resolved. We 

18 don't feel that is realistic behavior. What we ended 

19 up agreeing to in order to approve version 5.8 was 

20 that the non optional technical enhancement first of 

21 all those were problematic because the user can't 

22 control and it's affecting the result. They were sort 

23 of folded under the optional technical enhancements so 

24 they were sort of removed as a potential cause of 

25 differences so that simplified things. That was 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 261 

 2 helpful. 

 3 Then a new regulatory default switch was added to 

 4 CALMET. Prior to that there was no regulatory default 

 5 switch in CALMET. There was one in CALPUFF that would 

 6 allow technical enhancements to be in the model code 

 7 but again this (inaudible) partitioned them off in 

 8 terms of not being used for regulatory applications 

 9 until a fuller assessment could be made. There was 

10 another change an optional technical enhancement 

11 another threshold parameter in CALPUFF that also had 

12 some limited defects. 

13 Once we got all that done this is the final assessment 

14 results. Test 8 is you know supposedly these are only 

15 differences to bug fixes. And it's very similar to 

16 test 5 not exactly because in the process some 

17 additional bugs were found and some minor differences 

18 were attributed. At least we go to the point where we 

19 understood here's the difference. As long as you 

20 don't use the new threshold options and don't use the 

21 optional technical enhancements it's all about bug 

22 fixes and we understand what the differences are. 

23 That's important and at least we go to the point where 

24 we had that level of confidence. But there are some 

25 still issues. The new MREG option for example just as 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 262 

 2 a way of caution it's not that well documented yet. 

 3 Maybe it's more so in the CALMET data and (inaudible) 

 4 file that's provided with the modeling system. We 

 5 have come to realize there is no default value for 

 6 that parameter and assigned to the value of 0 which is 

 7 to not enforce the regulatory defaults and we've 

 8 actually encountered a few people using the model that 

 9 ran it without realizing they need to change it to 1 

10 to turn on the regulatory default. Just to make you 

11 aware of that. 

12 But just in terms of technical details there is still 

13 a lot that should be better documented. I made the 

14 point the magnitude of differences that we've seen 

15 between version 5.8 even with all these optional 

16 technical enhancements sort of partitioned off and the 

17 previous version of CALPUFF sort of raises some 

18 questions of the validity of the original modeling 

19 evaluations that were done to support CALPUFF 

20 promulgation. As Tyler mentioned fortunately we got 

21 Bret to come on detail and he's been doing some work 

22 along those lines. We actually we could extend it to a 

23 year which means we would have a lot more information 

24 to share now but at least we have made some 

25 significant progress down that path. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 263 

 2 One other issue that has come up quite a bit is PG 

 3 verses turbulence dispersion option in CALPUFF. 

 4 Currently the regulatory option is to use the PG as 

 5 preferred option. Question came through clearinghouse 

 6 addressed in March 2006 have indicated that it is not 

 7 an automatic switch. Just because AERMOD has been 

 8 promulgated and using turbulence as dispersion doesn't 

 9 mean we switch to that option as a preferred option in 

10 CALPUFF. It doesn't say that we don't agree 

11 turbulence is better than PG as far as the basic 

12 science but that a separate assessment should be made 

13 of that before making that switch. That assessment is 

14 underway, but again we don't have as many details here 

15 as we would like to share. But there is some PG-class 

16 dependencies in the modeling system even with 

17 turbulence option. That's something we need to get a 

18 better understanding of and figure out how to work 

19 through that. 

20 Tyler already mentioned enhancements. Another issue 

21 is the near-field Clarification Memo. Thought I'd 

22 give you a little more detail it's been on SCRAM for a 

23 while. The main is that the EPA-preferred model for 

24 near-field is AERMOD. CALPUFF is not the EPA25 preferred model for near-field applications, but may 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 264 

 2 be considered as an alternative model on a case-by- 

 3 case basis for near-field applications involving 

 4 "complex winds," subject to approval by the reviewing 

 5 authority approval. The reference in the Appendix W 

 6 that link it to the alternative model section are for 

 7 cases when there is no preferred model. So a complex 

 8 wind situation where non steady state effects are so 

 9 overwhelming that I know a Gaussian straight line 

10 plume model cannot give me a reliable answer. So when 

11 there's no preferred model then that's a situation 

12 that CALPUFF can be considered. But still needs to 

13 meet some requirements that are referenced in the 

14 guidelines. One issue is as far as I know no such 

15 applications have come through the Model Clearing 

16 House. So we haven't really developed a knowledge base 

17 of experience on when it works, how it works best or 

18 how to apply it. 

19 This was just a statement from the Preamble to the 

20 Federal Registry Notice promulgating CALPUFF. "We 

21 will require approval to be obtained prior to 

22 accepting CALPUFF for complex wind situations, as this 

23 will ensure and so on. As experience is gained in 

24 using CALPUFF for complex wind situations, acceptance 

25 will become clear and those cases that are problematic 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 265 

 2 will be better identified." 

 3 But unfortunately we haven't had the opportunity 

 4 to do that because nothing has come through the 

 5 process. That goes to the main point that how I 

 6 mentioned earlier in terms of the process. You 

 7 know my applicant has a deadline and they want to 

 8 get a permit and I don't have time to go to the 

 9 clearing house so you didn't. So now we're in a 

10 situation where if we had used that process maybe 

11 we would be in a better situation now in terms of 

12 understanding CALPUFF and how best to apply it in 

13 these situations than we are at this time. It's 

14 sort of the Model Clearing House needs to be 

15 looked at as a long term investment. It's not 

16 necessarily going to pay off tomorrow but over 

17 time as we gain experience and this is basically 

18 what happened with ISC. Things started to become 

19 more routine and clear and precedence had been 

20 worked out. It's going to pay off over time and 

21 hopefully over time it will be utilized more than 

22 it has. These are some of the requirements that 

23 are listed in Section 3.2.2e of Appendix W to 

24 meet for use of an alternative model in cases 

25 where there is no preferred model or this model 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 266 

 2 is better than the preferred model. 

 3 The basic steps are a determination that 

 4 treatment of complex winds is critical to 

 5 estimating design concentrations; if it isn't 

 6 then AERMOD is the preferred model. You can 

 7 always submit CALPUFF as an alternative model but 

 8 you have to meet the requirements for that. Then 

 9 a determination [ed. is needed] that the 

10 preferred model is not appropriate or less 

11 appropriate than CALPUFF; that's where you get 

12 into that. Once you've done that and it says 

13 AERMOD is not appropriate or CALPUFF is more 

14 appropriate, then you need to meet those five 

15 criteria. Each of these involve a specific 

16 consideration become complex winds by their 

17 nature are very often unique. 

18 It's a lot of slides. That's sort of the 

19 clarification of guidance aspect of it but I 

20 guess we're now also going to get into more 

21 technical issues. How much time do I have? Not 

22 much. 

23 Let's talk about what complex winds are. There 

24 are examples of complex winds not deeply 

25 technical because I'm not technically deep enough 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 267 

 2 to do that. Down-slope/down-valley flows under 

 3 light wind stable conditions. That's one 

 4 example. Cross-valley circulations due to 

 5 differential heating under convective conditions 

 6 so one side of the valley is under sun light and 

 7 the other side is under shade. So that's going 

 8 to create differential heating which could 

 9 produce a cross valley circulation habit. Valley 

10 channeling may be driven by different conditions. 

11 So there's a list of different types. Grid 

12 resolution and availability of representative met 

13 data may be significant issues for a near-field. 

14 Do you have adequate data resolution to resolve 

15 the important terrain features and other factors 

16 to inform the model to get the wind speeds 

17 correctly? One thing to point out is that in 

18 these situations very often you are going to have 

19 significant horizontal and vertical 

20 discontinuities in wind, temperature, etc. So 

21 those are critical to understand in order to 

22 properly simulate non study state dispersion. 

23 Here are some graphics to illustrate that kind of 

24 illustrate slope flows, night time, radiative 

25 cooling occurs, cool airs drain down the slope 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 268 

 2 and then pulls in the valley. Then in the 

 3 daytime if this side is getting heated you get 

 4 upslope flows in the daytime. Then with the 

 5 thermal structure so there are some important 

 6 thermal structure that exist in these valley 

 7 situations. Especially if there are light wind 

 8 night time stable conditions where you have the 

 9 drainage that is the dominant flow pattern -- 

10 that might be important. 

11 Another category is coastal influences like sea 

12 breeze circulations that occur by difference in 

13 heating between the land and water. One of the 

14 features that is important in coastal situations 

15 or may be important is the thermal internal 

16 boundary layer near the coast during the daytime 

17 (inaudible). We have a stable flow in the 

18 daytime, the on shore flow, the sea breeze or 

19 Lake Breeze that encounters the land and you get 

20 a convective boundary layer that develops thermal 

21 internal boundary layer. So grid that resolution 

22 and representative of met data may be significant 

23 issues there. The importance of the TIBL may 

24 vary from source type specifically more important 

25 for elevated releases if you have a tall stack or 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 269 

 2 a apartment right on the coast the plume is going 

 3 to be released in that on shore stable flow and 

 4 not disperse very much and it intersects the top 

 5 of the TIBL then you get fumigations. But low 

 6 level sources might be less important. First you 

 7 have to understand what the complex wind 

 8 influences are that are important in that 

 9 situation. And how are those influences going to 

10 be right to your source. If I have a buoyant 

11 source I'm going to be more concerned about the 

12 thermal structure or as concerned about thermal 

13 structure in the valley perhaps. If you don't 

14 get the thermal structure right for buoyant 

15 source you could have perfectly resolved ideal 

16 wind fields but if the plume is in the wrong grid 

17 layer it could be going in a different direction. 

18 So there's a lot of complexity involved there and 

19 we're trying to make the community aware of that. 

20 These are general issues so the influence will 

21 vary considerably based on the source 

22 characteristics and where the source is in the 

23 domain. Trying to look for the main points 

24 because I don't have much time. 

25 The availability of representative met input to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 270 

 2 inform the system so that's an issue that needs 

 3 to be addressed. Do you have the proper inputs 

 4 for the modeling system to resolve the important 

 5 features of the complex winds toward that 

 6 application? 

 7 Will the modeling system be able to utilize that site 

 8 specific information? These are important 

 9 considerations and then model performance and 

10 uncertainty. Just want to point out another document 

11 recent Staff Memorandum, dated September 26, 2008, 

12 provides additional details regarding these issues and 

13 tries to talk through the different situations you may 

14 have and where it might make sense or might not. Some 

15 of the considerations at least you need to look at 

16 when applying CALPUFF in a near-field situation. The 

17 modeling evaluation is certainly one of those. 

18 CALPUFF modeling system performance for near-field 

19 complex wind applications is not well-documented yet 

20 and that was an issue that we have discussed ten years 

21 ago when they were looking at in promulgating CALPUFF 

22 and what role will CALPUFF have for near field 

23 situations. The IWAQM Phase 2 report includes some 

24 CALPUFF evaluation results for Kincaid (flat terrain) 

25 and Lovett (complex terrain) and Lovett evaluation is 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 271 

 2 the one that has been sighted in an earlier 

 3 communication and those results look pretty good. 

 4 This is a figure from the IWAQM phase showing CALPUFF 

 5 performance which is the solid dots verses CTMDPLUS 

 6 the open dots and it does very well. That's the one 

 7 to one line this is the 

 8 Q-Q plot and that's the two to one line so CTMDPLUS we 

 9 know from its evaluation it was about a factor or two 

10 over prediction but CALPUFF actually does better. 

11 However, CALPUFF was applied with CTDMPLUS met inputs, 

12 bypassing CALMET. So it didn't rely on non space 

13 state meteorology inputs. This is not consistent with 

14 motivation for CALPUFF near-field applications under 

15 paragraph 7.2.8 of Appendix W, which is to "fully 

16 treat the time and space variations of meteorology 

17 effects on transport and dispersion." 

18 Therefore, these evaluation results are not relevant 

19 to near-field applications under that paragraph. 

20 So there are various methods for evaluating models. 

21 I'll just jump ahead and show this is one thing that 

22 Bret had worked on was to actually redo the near-field 

23 complex wind evaluation with Lovett using CALMET. 

24 Looked at a range of options in CALPUFF and actually 

25 tried to utilize the onsite data from the Lovett site. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 272 

 2 Here's fractional bias calculated from Robust Highest 

 3 Concentration so for three hours Robust Highest 

 4 concentrations. This is AERMOD for reference it did 

 5 very well. That was one of the data bases AERMOD was 

 6 developed on. In CALPUFF there was quite a range 

 7 though. In terms of the options we had PG dispersion 

 8 with half height adjustment, AERMOD turbulence, with 

 9 half height, PG dispersion with the strain based 

10 adjustment in CALPUFF, AERMOD turbulence with the and 

11 the strain based and sort of like we did with IWAQM 

12 report on page 2 put AERMOD profile date in half 

13 height adjustment. Those weres the different 

14 scenarios we looked at. 

15 The easiest to look at Q-Q plots there are a lot of 

16 figures and symbols there. The purple one there is 

17 AERMOD that has been documented. You see quite a 

18 range in terms of performance result based on running 

19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 

20 fields for this application. Most of them tend to 

21 over predict and the one that gives the largest over 

22 prediction is AERMOD turbulence with the strain based 

23 terrain adjustment which one could argue is the most 

24 scientific option available. This is for the 24-hour 

25 with similar patterns there. CALPUFF with AERMOD 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 273 

 2 inputs does quite well. That's the blue the upside 

 3 triangle, but where we are right now is that we see 

 4 some significant sensitivity to the dispersion and 

 5 terrain options in this type of evaluation. The more 

 6 advanced option turbulence based dispersion strain 

 7 based terrain adjustments exhibited the poorest 

 8 performance in this case. CALPUFF with AERMOD 

 9 profiles did the best in terms of the CALPUFF 

10 configuration similar to what we did before using 

11 CTDMPLUS profile. 

12 One caveat is these evaluation results are very 

13 preliminary and will be updated based on additional 

14 insights into treatment of tower data in CALMET. So 

15 that's one of the issues is if I have one of the 

16 representatives on sight, met data documenting the 

17 wind or temperature profile, how can I inform the 

18 modeling system with that information. How can I 

19 utilize that and is discussed in more detail in that 

20 document. 

21 So that's kind of where we're at right now and we have 

22 some concerns that I don't think it can just be 

23 applied with the assumption if I have complex winds 

24 then it's going to work. We need to have some more 

25 demonstration that it is working and how best to apply 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 274 

 2 it for it to work appropriately and that's sort of our 

 3 goal over time. For now, we are sort of saying let's 

 4 pause and get a better handle on it. 

 5 Tyler Fox: Thank you Roger. I know there is a lot to 

 6 digest here. Just imagine if we had gotten everything 

 7 done we wanted. What we have next is at the time EPA 

 8 was working on things the American Petroleum Institute 

 9 had put out an RFP to address some of the chemistry in 

10 CALPUFF and they contracted with AER. Prakash 

11 Karamchandani is here with us thankfully from CAMx 

12 workshop and will be here for two days. And so, we're 

13 going to get the perspective from more of the 

14 scientific standpoint in terms of the secondary 

15 formation in chemistry that we haven't been looking 

16 at. At least until now. 

17 Prakash Karamchandani: Thank you Tyler. I'm going to 

18 be talking about some of the improvements we've made 

19 to the CALPUFF chemistry. This work was sponsored by 

20 API as Tyler mentioned. The motivation was concern 

21 that the treatment of chemistry in CALPUFF was 

22 outdated and overly simplified. What we've done in 

23 this study is to address some of these issues that 

24 could be done with the resources that were available 

25 for the study. I'll talk briefly in the end about 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 275 

 2 handling those aspects of the chemistry that were not 

 3 included in our current scope of work. 

 4 Before I begin I would like to provide some 

 5 perspective I would like to compare CALPUFF with 

 6 SCICHEM. Some of you might not have heard of SCICHEM 

 7 it is a reactive puff model which is a chemistry 

 8 version of SCIPUFF. SCIPUFF is an alternative 

 9 dispersion model in the EPA guidelines and SCIPUFF was 

10 developed by ARAP. SCICHEM includes chemistry which I 

11 will talk about it in a minute. So like CALPUFF 

12 SCICHEM is a non-study state puff model which allows 

13 splitting of puffs like CALPUFF. It uses 2nd order 

14 closure diffusion. The key difference between CALPUFF 

15 and SCICHEM is that SCICHEM allows the full treatment 

16 of photochemistry similar to what you'll see in grid 

17 models like CMAQ and CAMx. That also makes it more 

18 expensive than CALPUFF, which can restrict its use for 

19 routine kinds of applications. 

20 So the issues we were dealing with the gas phase 

21 chemistry, the PM chemistry and the 

22 aqueous-phase chemistry, The gas-phase chemistry is 

23 highly simplified but difficult to replace with 

24 comprehensive chemistry - it requires a fair amount of 

25 recoding within the current framework of CALPUFF. It 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 276 

 2 also increases the complexity of model and as you just 

 3 heard we talked about SCICHEM which has the complex 

 4 chemistry and it would be like reinventing the wheel 

 5 to spend a significant amount of effort to include 

 6 full chemistry in CALPUFF, which would make it more 

 7 expensive and complex and kind of hinder its use for 

 8 regulatory applications. We do have ideas on how it 

 9 can be improved or at least how the treatment of 

10 chemistry can be improved by using techniques similar 

11 to what we heard about this morning to couple AERMOD 

12 and CALMET and we're going to extend the same concept 

13 by using photochemical grid model results to provide 

14 the background concentrations to CALPUFF. 

15 So the approach we took focused on improving the 

16 treatments for PM formation and cloud chemistry to 

17 bring them more in line in what you see in CMAQ and 

18 CAMx. We also found an existing error in the RIVAD 

19 gas-phase chemistry option and updated the RIVAD 

20 chemistry rate constants. And we tried to make sure 

21 that all the changes that were made to the model were 

22 included as new options so you don't lose any of your 

23 earlier options that were already in CALPUFF. For 

24 example there are four options for chemistry in 

25 CALPUFF (MCHEM=1,2,3,4). So the new chemistry options 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 277 

 2 are MCHEM=5 and MCHEM=6. 

 3 Let's look at the chemistry of NOx plumes and the 

 4 three stages of the gas phase chemistry. So in the 

 5 early stages of the plume we have NO/NO2/O3 chemistry 

 6 and the RIVAD chemistry mechanism treats this stage of 

 7 the plume and part of the second stage where we have 

 8 formation of sulfate and nitrate. So it takes the 

 9 ozone concentrations and calculates the OH 

10 concentration from that. It doesn't treat the 

11 chemistry of the plume in the far field where you will 

12 have the full VOC/NOx chemistry and for that of course 

13 you need full photochemical mechanism. 

14 The error we found or the mistake we found was that at 

15 the end of each time step the ozone concentration is 

16 reset to the background concentration in the puffs 

17 which is not true near the stack and I will show you a 

18 demonstration of that in a minute. So basically after 

19 every time step, the code must be corrected to account 

20 for the O3 depletion in the puff in the early stages of 

21 plume dispersion. 

22 So the way we fixed it was to store the puff O3 history 

23 and calculate a new puff O3 concentration at each time 

24 step as a weighted averate of the puff O3 

25 concentration at the previous time step and the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 278 

 2 background O3 concentration. 

 3 This slide will illustrate what I'm talking about. 

 4 This is actually a comparison of SCICHEM with plume 

 5 measurements, downwind of the Cumberland Power Plant 

 6 at a distance of 11 km. As you can see, the ozone in 

 7 the plume is depleted by 45 ppb in the model as 

 8 compared to 50 ppb in the observations. So that's the 

 9 kind of depletion that we were trying to get when we 

10 made this correction. Of course the further you go 

11 downwind, this effect goes away so it's mostly 

12 important near the source. 

13 The current treatment of PM chemistry in CALPUFF 

14 includes formation of inorganic species (sulfate, 

15 nitrate and ammonium) and organic species (secondary 

16 organic aerosols, SOA) H2SO4 and HNO3 lead to the 

17 formation of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate 

18 according to a simple gas/particle algorithm that uses 

19 a constant NH3 concentration. It also includes a 

20 treatment for the formation of SOA from anthropogenic 

21 and biogenic VOCs (developed for Wyoming DEQ). It's a 

22 simplified treatment that only includes toluene and 

23 xylene as anthropogenic SOA precursors. This option 

24 is not documented in the users guide because I believe 

25 the users guide was last updated in 2000. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 279 

 2 

 3 Okay. So for the new chemistry, like I said, the 

 4 objective was to bring CALPUFF more in line with 

 5 existing models like CMAQ and CAMx. 

 6 The new PM chemistry in CALPUFF is the following: 

 7 Formation of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate is 

 8 treated with the thermodynamic equilibrium model 

 9 ISORROPIA; inorganic PM formation that is now 

10 consistent with that of other operational models 

11 (e.g., CMAQ) while retaining computational efficiency; 

12 formation of SOA includes oxidation of anthropogenic 

13 VOCs (aromatics, long-chain alkanes and PAH) by OH to 

14 form condensable products, which are partitioned 

15 according to Pankow's absorption algorithm (based on 

16 MADRID formulation). Tomorrow I will talk briefly 

17 about MADRID. 

18 

19 Coming to the original CALPUFF cloud chemistry, there 

20 is no explicit treatment of aqueous-phase chemistry. 

21 In the MESOPUFF-II chemistry option uses a simple 

22 parameterization is used to approximate the increased 

23 oxidation of SO2 in the presence of clouds or fog: it 

24 is a function of relative humidity (RH) and may 

25 significantly under estimate SO2 oxidation rates when 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 280 

 2 clouds are present and may overestimate SO2 oxidation 

 3 when clouds are not present but RH is high. 

 4 

 5 So the new aqueous-phase chemistry module implemented 

 6 in CALPUFF is again based on CMAQ treatment. It 

 7 includes SO2 oxidation by hydrogen peroxide and ozone 

 8 as well as iron and manganese catalyzed oxidation by 

 9 oxygen. And it includes gas-aqueous equilibria to 

10 calculate liquid-phase concentrations and cloud pH. 

11 

12 So, the updates were implemented and tested in both 

13 versions of CALPUFF that are currently available which 

14 are version 6 or 6.1.1.2 (I think), which was 

15 discussed earlier. (Version 6 is the MMS version) as 

16 well as the EPA approved version 5.8 which was 

17 released in June, 2007. We also conducted box model 

18 sensitivity studies with the old and new inorganic PM 

19 modules to look at the effect of a number of variables 

20 with both the current version of the PM module and 

21 with the new version (ISORROPIA). 

22 

23 We also did some CALPUFF testing using a plume 

24 chemistry data base that we have used in previous 

25 studies with SCICHEM and CALPUFF. As I mentioned 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 281 

 2 before, the new options are MCHEM = 5,6. MCHEM=5 is 

 3 the new treatment including the ozone correction for 

 4 the gas phase chemistry and the ISORROPIA module. And 

 5 MCHEM=6 includes the organic PM module; the cloud 

 6 chemistry is activated by using a switch which already 

 7 exists in CALPUFF called MAQCHEM. This switch existed 

 8 but was not used in the current version of CALPUFF. 

 9 

10 I'll briefly discuss the box-model sensitivity studies 

11 with the inorganic PM modules. We looked at the 

12 sensitivity of the original CALPUFF module (MESOPUFF) 

13 and new CALPUFF module (ISORROPIA) to relative 

14 humidity; temperature; background ammonia; background 

15 sulfate, and total nitrate. 

16 I won't go over all the studies but just give you a 

17 flavor what we found. We actually have a report that 

18 describes these studies in more detail. So looking at 

19 the sensitivity to relative humidity (MESOPUFF refers 

20 to not just the MESOPUFF chemistry option but to the 

21 inorganic PM module which is currently in CALPUFF. We 

22 just gave it the name of MESOPUFF for comparison 

23 purposes) you can see for all the cases we tested 

24 here where we kept all the parameters constant and 

25 varied the RH, there is a difference between the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 282 

 2 MESOPUFF and the ISORROPIA results where ISORROPIA 

 3 tends to predict much lower particulate nitrate than 

 4 the current scheme. If you look at the last figure on 

 5 the right hand side, it shows the fraction of the 

 6 total nitrate that is in the particulate form. As you 

 7 go up to higher humidity you get more particulate 

 8 nitrate, but MESOPUFF is always considerably higher 

 9 than ISORROPIA. 

10 

11 If you look at the temperature sensitivity, at the 

12 high temperature both modules predict a lower fraction 

13 of PM nitrate, which makes sense. As you go to lower 

14 temperatures, you start having more condensation of 

15 gas phase nitric acid to the particle phase. 

16 Again as in the relative humidity case, we see 

17 generally higher PM nitrate values predicted by 

18 MESOPUFF than by ISORROPIA except at the very lowest 

19 temperature, which is -10 degrees Centigrade where we 

20 see higher PM nitrate calculated by ISORROPIA than by 

21 MESOPUFF. 

22 

23 I talked about the ozone correction, and for this 

24 case, the differences are not large at a downwind 

25 distance of 11 km. We don't see a lot of differences 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 283 

 2 in the plume NO2 but there could be situations where 

 3 the correction could have an impact. For example, the 

 4 plume could be compact for a long period of time and 

 5 you could have ozone depletion going on for an 

 6 extended period of time. 

 7 

 8 This slide shows the comparison of plume nitric acid 

 9 and plume particulate nitrate from the original 

10 chemistry mechanism and original PM treatment 

11 (MCHEM=3) with the results from MCHEM=5, which is the 

12 new treatment. You don't see much effect on the plume 

13 nitric acid but if you look at the figure below, which 

14 is the PM nitrate, we see that for these conditions, 

15 which are basically dry, the humidity is low and there 

16 is no formation of PM nitrate. You see that the 

17 MCHEM=5 option produces much lower particulate nitrate 

18 than the MCHEM=3 option. So then we increased the 

19 humidity to 95% to see what happens since that's when 

20 you would expect more nitrate in the particle phase to 

21 form. We see a big difference between the two schemes 

22 in terms of the PM nitrate that has formed. 

23 

24 This slide compares the results from the two organic 

25 PM modules; this comparison only includes those 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 284 

 2 anthropogenic precursors that are currently in 

 3 CALPUFF, which are toluene and xylene (we also 

 4 included PAH and higher aljkanes in the new mechanism 

 5 but we didn't use them for this comparison because the 

 6 original CALPUFF doesn't have them). 

 7 

 8 You can see a fairly large difference again between 

 9 the two modules in the formation of SOA in the plume. 

10 In this case, we see much higher formation in the 

11 newer module and part of this is related to the 

12 incorrect treatment of temperature dependence in the 

13 original CALPUFF SOA partitioning coefficients. 

14 

15 Finally for the aqueous-phase chemistry tests, the 

16 cloud cover and liquid water content were hard-coded. 

17 This slide shows that a significant amount of SO2 is 

18 converted to sulfate by clouds. 

19 

20 One of the short-comings in CALPUFF which people are 

21 aware of is the ammonia limitation issue which 

22 basically allows the full amount of ammonia to be 

23 available to all puffs. That could lead to over 

24 estimation of PM nitrate. This short-coming is 

25 handled currently in the post-processor of CALPUFF 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 285 

 2 (CALUTIL) which basically recalculates the inorganic 

 3 PM partitioning at receptor locations to make sure 

 4 that this problem doesn't happen. 

 5 

 6 But this slide kind of shows this problem - if you 

 7 look at the black line it shows you the maximum PM 

 8 nitrate you can expect if there was no sulfate to 

 9 react with the ammonia. So if all the ammonia was 

10 available for PM nitrate then that would be the 

11 maximum you could form for the given amount of ammonia 

12 that we use in this case. But in CALPUFF you can form 

13 a lot more than the theoretical maximum, so there is a 

14 limitation that we need to be aware of. 

15 

16 So what we are doing right now? We are actually 

17 currently evaluating CALPUFF with the Southwest 

18 Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF) data base. We 

19 are also doing some additional model updates. We are 

20 updating the ammonia limitation method in POSTUTIL to 

21 use the ISORROPIA algorithm. And we are also looking 

22 at allowing vertical profiles in input ammonia 

23 concentrations. So this modification accounts for the 

24 fact that you expect ammonia concentrations to be 

25 higher near the surface because it is usually emitted 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 286 

 2 from surface sources and to go down with altitude. 

 3 

 4 So I talked briefly about the fact that the gas-phase 

 5 chemistry was not improved in the sense that we didn't 

 6 incorporate the full treatment of chemistry in this 

 7 work. Again partly because of the effort it would 

 8 require, partly because it was not clear that it was 

 9 necessary to do it. One possible approach and this is 

10 just an extension of what we heard earlier today is to 

11 use a photo chemical grid module like CMAQ or CAMx to 

12 provide the three-dimensional model outputs that can 

13 be used in CALPUFF. So basically it would be tools 

14 that convert CMAQ to CALPUFF or CAMx to CALPUFF 

15 similar to the MM5 to AERMOD tools that were discussed 

16 earlier. This will provide a more realistic 

17 specification of the oxidant concentrations like OH 

18 and Ozone as well as ammonia and provide temporal and 

19 spatial variability. Running the photochemical grid 

20 models is becoming more and more common now. 

21 

22 We have an example of this coupling in SCICHEM and 

23 there are two versions of SCICHEM. One is a stand 

24 alone or off line version where you basically run it 

25 just like a puff model. It has the capability to read 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 287 

 2 3-D outputs from MM5 and CMAQ; SCICHEM also runs on 

 3 line within a grid model and we'll talk about that 

 4 tomorrow. In that version you basically embed SCICHEM 

 5 inside the grid model and there's a two way 

 6 interaction between SCICHEM and the host grid model. 

 7 The off line version is cheaper because you only run 

 8 CMAQ once and basically do all your source simulations 

 9 with SCICHEM using those outputs. With the on line 

10 version, you have more interaction between the plume 

11 model and the grid model. 

12 

13 Another recommendation (as I mentioned before we hard14 coded the cloud fields to test the aqueous-phase 

15 chemistry option), is to incorporate cloud fields in 

16 the model, but we believe that actually the newer 

17 tools that EPA is looking at will include cloud fields 

18 in CALMET and CALPUFF. 

19 

20 I would like to end by thanking API for provided 

21 funding for this study and the ongoing CALMET/CALPUFF 

22 evaluation study with the SWWYTAF data base and the 

23 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality who 

24 provided the SWWYTAF data base for model application 

25 and evaluation for the ongoing evaluation study. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 288 

 2 Thank you. 

 3 

 4 Tyler Fox : Thanks Prakash. We appreciate those 

 5 perspectives from the more chemistry side and the work 

 6 that you guys are doing with API. Next we have Joe 

 7 Scire to present CALPUFF Development, Maintenance & 

 8 Evaluation. 

 9 Joe Scire : Thank you very much. I appreciate the 

10 time that has been allocated to talk about CALPUFF and 

11 being invited to be a part of the conference. I would 

12 say you remember I don't get to ask questions at my 

13 own session here. There are a number of things I 

14 would like to clarify through written comments like 

15 those that Roger presented and what Tyler presented. 

16 There are some issues related to how some of the tests 

17 were done that I don't agree with. 

18 In particular under Lovett evaluation there's a 

19 technique used that basically cancels out upper air 

20 data with the surface date. We became aware of this 

21 just recently but I think more input from us into the 

22 evaluation would help solve many of the questions EPA 

23 has. Also the issue of PG dependencies in the model. 

24 It is very clear there are PG dependencies in the [ed. 

25 model] (inaudible) so it's not a mystery or an error 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 289 

 2 it's just the way the model is designed. We can 

 3 clarify that so that hopefully that doesn't keep 

 4 getting raised as a concern. You'll understand how it 

 5 works and why it works that way. Just one other point 

 6 about the old evaluations. We have done, in fact, 

 7 evaluation work with Kincaid both with the original 

 8 version of the model and the more recent version. We 

 9 found the evaluation studies were quite similar and 

10 there was really no change in the performance of the 

11 model. I think that may have been published in a 

12 conference proceeding if I'm not mistaken. I have a 

13 lot to talk about so I want to move ahead. I want to 

14 talk about CALPUFF development maintenance and also 

15 the evaluation of the model. 

16 First the development. We upgrade the model on a 

17 continual basis as clients have certain requirements 

18 as new features are implemented. It's a continual 

19 project and it's basically in terms of involvement 

20 mostly defined by client needs. It results in 

21 improvement of the model. An example is what we heard 

22 from Prakash about a chemistry set rule becomes part 

23 of the model and will be available to everybody under 

24 the copyright use agreement so that we will have that 

25 eventually a part of the system that can be used for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 290 

 2 other applications. That's a very good method because 

 3 it allows everybody to get the advantage of everybody 

 4 else's work and eventually you will have a very 

 5 powerful system. CALPUFF system undergoes continual 

 6 refinement and development, with new features and 

 7 productivity enhancements. EPA provides no funding 

 8 for development which I guess is reasonable but they 

 9 also do not provide maintenance activities. TRC and 

10 my previous employer, [ed. Earth Tech], (inaudible) 

11 provided maintenance without funding. 

12 In terms of what the modeling community gets for their 

13 involvement, we have developed many tools and have 

14 made them available to the public without cost. That 

15 includes graphical interfaces and visualization tools 

16 which are distributed to the public without cost. 

17 In addition the technical developments that are made 

18 are put through a BETA process and eventually become 

19 part of the developmental version of the model. That 

20 includes the EPRI PRIME downwash module, flexible 

21 coordinate transformations, all of the MMS updates for 

22 coastal applications which were substantial. Some 

23 enhancements funded by VISTAS, some enhancements 

24 funded by the Forest Service, some enhancements funded 

25 by NASA and many others. Because the code is 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 291 

 2 available on the web site and we do allow development, 

 3 others have developed modules which are useful. That 

 4 includes the Hybrid puff-particle version of the model 

 5 which I will talk about tomorrow. This a PH.D Thesis 

 6 in Switzerland. Also large-particle settling 

 7 (volcanic ash) - Italy and solar radiation effects on 

 8 canyon sidewalls and plume shadowing and terrain 

 9 shadowing efforts. These are special versions of the 

10 model and some of them will make their way into the 

11 official version or at least the developmental 

12 version. Now there's -- we'll probably remain as side 

13 versions. 

14 We've tried as best we can to implement procedures 

15 that come up as being required by the regulatory 

16 community needs without federal funding but we 

17 distributes these codes to the public for free. Two 

18 examples of the EPA BART 98th percentile computations 

19 which were needed. It was done and released. Also 

20 the new recently proposed 2008 visibility methodology 

21 is part of the version 6 code. We are under 

22 restrictions as Tyler mentioned that we cannot change 

23 the regulatory codes and we don't. But we put these 

24 changes out there for testing and comments and we like 

25 to get feedback on things like this as the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 292 

 2 developmental version of the model or Beta test 

 3 version. 

 4 But there has been a lot of work done in keeping the 

 5 processors updated to accept new or revised data 

 6 formats as those of you who deal with surface date 

 7 knows there is Samson, (inaudible) five or six 

 8 different versions of met data. Basically, we are up 

 9 to date on all of those as they come up. Something we 

10 undertake. Normally these are not funded but 

11 occasionally (inaudible) they are funded. 

12 Also we have developed interfaces to many prognostic 

13 meteorological models such as MM5, WRF, RUC, RAMS and 

14 ETA and [ed. provide] these codes to the public for 

15 free. I was noticing that this might be in the area 

16 where EPA could have benefited from ???????? 

17 (changed battery in recorder and missed part of 

18 Scire's talk) 

19 Sources separately, scaling them, and adding them 

20 together. Animating the (inaudible) model with whole 

21 range of tools that can be applied to AERMOD. 

22 Model development continues with the processing 

23 options for different terrain data. There is what's 

24 called the (inaudible) method which attempts to 

25 address the issues of the (inaudible) limitations of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 293 

 2 aerosol nitrate. There is the (inaudible) version of 

 3 CALMET. The various interfaces to various prognostic 

 4 models, the core algorithms, the convection mixing 

 5 over water. some of these have already been mentioned. 

 6 We put the (inaudible) turbulence profile in CALPUFF. 

 7 It's meant nothing more than to provide the same type 

 8 of vertical structure of the turbulence as AERMOD 

 9 does. CALPUFF has something very similar based on the 

10 same science but pre-dating AERMOD so we wanted to see 

11 how the two would compare. In the evaluations we have 

12 done they were very similar. 

13 There is a sub hourly version of the model that's 

14 version 6. There is ability to look at [ed. cooling] 

15 (inaudible) tower plumes and visual plume length, 

16 turbo advection. I'll talk a little about that 

17 later. Back trajectory analysis and oil platform 

18 downwash. 

19 We are currently putting in a nested grid option for 

20 CALMET and some other changes including the ability to 

21 quantitatively evaluate the performance of the 

22 meteorological model. We agree as to what was said 

23 earlier as to how important that is and this will be 

24 part of the system so that that it will be very easy 

25 to do. Then animations and looking at different other 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 294 

 2 things. 

 3 This is not a complete list but over the years there 

 4 have been many many tools developed and basically all 

 5 of them have been made available to the public after 

 6 some time for shaking out bugs and to develop the 

 7 documentation. I think that's an important benefit. 

 8 In terms of model maintenance, it is a struggle. We 

 9 are not the government and not a non profit 

10 organization. When we give the code away for free and 

11 then work to maintain the code it is a strain on the 

12 outsets and resources of the company. But we've done 

13 it since the development of CALPUFF was started; we 

14 continue to do and will continue to do it. We enjoy 

15 funding from government agencies such as EPA, but we 

16 don't get it. It doesn't matter and we will continue 

17 to do the model maintenance, always have been and 

18 always will as far as we can. 

19 When we get reports of bugs, and we get dozens of them 

20 we investigate each one. Sometimes this takes quite a 

21 bit of time because a report might be something like 

22 the model stops what should I do? Well, you'll have 

23 to give me more information. And a lot of time I'll 

24 see in my email box three messages from the same 

25 person and the third one I read first says I figured 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 295 

 2 it out. Those I like. 

 3 I'd say roughly three quarters of the problems have to 

 4 do with data, or hardware or input errors, user type 

 5 issues. If we can figure out what the problem is and 

 6 how to correct it, we will provide that. Again it is 

 7 something that is very time consuming and we're not 

 8 like a service where we have contracts to provide 

 9 online help or telephone help. When it relates to 

10 potential errors we'll take it seriously and fix the 

11 problem. 

12 Bugs are isolated and fixed with detailed updates to 

13 in-code documentation and version/level journaling, 

14 etc. At first, when Roger was talking about the EPA 

15 model option tool, it was not available on the web 

16 site and we weren't sure what versions and what the 

17 tool did exactly. We weren't able to run it in our 

18 initial tests that VISTAS consideration back and 

19 forth. We did request and receive a copy of this. 

20 So now we've been running it for EPA and providing 

21 that not so much for providing that because I think 

22 they run it independently themselves. At least we'll 

23 catch and fix any issues before it gets to EPA. We've 

24 done that in the last model change updates. I think 

25 that's been helpful in well potentially explaining the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 296 

 2 process. 

 3 But this is another issue. It has taken a lot of time 

 4 to get model changes accepted. The first bulletin 

 5 change was almost two years from the time the bug 

 6 fixes were released until it was accepted. And EPA 

 7 has acknowledged that is too long and has committed to 

 8 try to excel that by working with us and we would also 

 9 like that to be accelerated. 

10 The separate and more complex issues of model 

11 enhancements. If a bug is discovered it really should 

12 get into the regulatory version of the model. It 

13 should not wait months or years. If we can develop 

14 procedures with EPA to make that happen and we are 

15 willing to do whatever we can to make that process as 

16 simple as possible. It will help. 

17 Part of the problem why the VISTAS code changes were 

18 so complicated was simply the large amount of time 

19 that has changed since the last update and there was a 

20 lot to sort out. It was sorted out and we worked 

21 together with EPA to do that but it was a lot of work 

22 for us as well as for EPA. Although VISTAS did fund a 

23 portion of that I would say less than 50% was funded 

24 by VISTAS. There were a lot more hours spent on that 

25 than we were awarded on that contract. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 297 

 2 That was a major effort but we got through it. In 

 3 the past as far as I'm concerned it was about 18 

 4 months or something like that since we actually did 

 5 most of the work. Although we talked about it quite a 

 6 bit today, I think what's more important is procedure 

 7 going forward. There are two outstanding model 

 8 bulletin changes that have been noted and they were 

 9 waived action by EPA. I think I realize things are 

10 busy, but yet I think bug fixes should be a prirority 

11 with the agency because using a version of the model 

12 with a known bug is not acceptable from the user 

13 community point of view. We've provided the Model 

14 Change Bulletin, software we provided that on DVD and 

15 EPA has that and we're waiting some feedback on that. 

16 Okay. 

17 What's suppose to happen? The Plan. Much of this was 

18 hashed out with EPA several years ago and many staff 

19 has changed and management has changed. The idea 

20 behind this approach of this public/private 

21 partnership was that recognition that we develop with 

22 company and that's how we do make our money. We do 

23 charge for model enhancement. We don't make money in 

24 code we provide everything for free and provide all 

25 this other stuff. We do make money in revising the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 298 

 2 model to improve it. We haven't development of the 

 3 model or BETA test version which allows us to do 

 4 whatever we want as long as we try to maintain 

 5 consistency with the regulatory version with one 

 6 particular set of options. 

 7 That's the thing if we have a new option we try to 

 8 make sure that it can be turned off so that EPA at 

 9 various intervals can review can review that option 

10 and decide if they like it or if they want it off this 

11 regulatory version of the mode. That's how it's 

12 suppose to work that's the whole process and was 

13 designed that way. Ultimately that is what happened 

14 with VISTAS there was an element they didn't like 

15 which was this mixing height convection over land. 

16 But it was an input not a code issue. All you had to 

17 do is change the input to 0 and EPA can issue a memo 

18 that says for regulatory use we want that value to 0 

19 and it's nothing more than that on that particular 

20 feature. 

21 We appreciate the feedback we got on that but I think 

22 we have other ideas on how to accomplish the same sort 

23 of thing with the mixing height that would eliminate 

24 that particular problem. But without having the 

25 ability to put in another mixing height scheme and to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 299 

 2 have testing done the model would never advance. 

 3 That's important because that is what makes the 

 4 funding available for the other things that are 

 5 important. 

 6 Anyway, that's what should happen. I think in reality 

 7 there has been delays in simple bug fixes like Model 

 8 Change Bulletin A that were pretty simple. As I 

 9 pointed out it had almost no change in concentration 

10 but it was a two year process to get that adopted. 

11 Also it hasn't been a clear path in getting review of 

12 model enhancements by EPA. The model enhancements 

13 which we think couldn't help the model performance in 

14 certain situations, but there is no time table and I 

15 don't know if there is any mechanicsm to do that. 

16 We are in a bit of a bind on some of this as well. 

17 For example, there have been negative comments made by 

18 EPA in some of the presentations regarding the 

19 sharpness, the continuities in temperature fields and 

20 other fields. And it's ironic in a way because one of 

21 the VISTAS changes that was removed from the 

22 regulatory version (inaudible) rather than the nearest 

23 station technique it did a (inaudible). It may be it 

24 has to do with the timing that need to get things too 

25 quickly at that point in time in the process. I can 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 300 

 2 understand that. 

 3 But I think there is a process for having enhancements 

 4 reviewed and approved it would be very helpful. 

 5 Especially because EPA is making negative comments 

 6 about the lack of that in the model. I think well our 

 7 hands are tied if we cannot change the model we cannot 

 8 improve it. That's one example and there are several 

 9 others actually in that same category. We feel like 

10 this should be more of a constructive dialog with the 

11 purpose of the criticism to be to resolve the problems 

12 rather than to simply disclose or to highlight them. 

13 In terms of (inaudible) TRC the agreements we've got 

14 in the regulatory version have been adhered to 

15 meretriciously we don't change the model regulatory 

16 version even when it has bugs it is out there as if 

17 they have approved it. 

18 Why have things been more not going according to plan? 

19 I think partly accordingly what EPA said to me, Tyler 

20 in particular, there are staff issues with the loss of 

21 staff over a number of years. And I think of there 

22 has been some loss of some institutional memory and 

23 continuity in the process. Some of the things that 

24 EPA has said they wanted to do and maybe they have 

25 changed their minds. But I think there is some loss 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 301 

 2 of continuity there. 

 3 EPA presentations at 2007 and 2008 R/S/L Modelers 

 4 Workshops contain misleading statements about CALPUFF, 

 5 and include examples that do not reflect good modeling 

 6 practice. One I'll point out which is very much black 

 7 and white. There is a comment about lack of adequate 

 8 documentation, user's guide last updated in 2000, and 

 9 many important technical details are not documented, 

10 except in code. 

11 And then there's this kind of non specific issue about 

12 reference to serious unresolved technical concerns. 

13 Many of those concerns are just a lack of 

14 understanding of how the model works. We can help 

15 with that and resolve those unresolved issues. But I 

16 think there should be more communication about those 

17 directly -- exactly what is the question and answers 

18 will be provided. 

19 And the documentation -- this is the black and white 

20 part. There's a March, 2006, updated users guide that 

21 has been available on the internet since 2006. It's 

22 185 pages long and 3 volumes in comparison to the 

23 original users guide that was 853 pages long. I think 

24 the documentation is in very great detail and it is 

25 consistent with the model or any other model. In 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 302 

 2 fact, there is a professor at the University of 

 3 Calvary that said to me that she thought the MMS 

 4 reports were like a text book. It explained 

 5 everything like what she uses in her courses. I think 

 6 we have criticism about poor documentation while at 

 7 the same time people are saying the documentation is 

 8 pretty adequate. 

 9 I don't know if this was just not known to EPA or what 

10 the issue was. I was surprised to see it in the 

11 regional workshop presentation. I will point out that 

12 the modeling group of EPA had a representative on the 

13 science review board for that project. So that goes 

14 to (inaudible) was not known to EPA but in fact 

15 participated in that. They made contributions in 

16 helping correct the (inaudible) projects. Also Dirk 

17 Hirkoff on that project at the 2007 Workshop and he 

18 used the users guide and their availability in that 

19 presentation. We've also made reference to the 

20 evaluation studies that have been done there in 

21 condensation. I think it's systematic of a 

22 communication problem and I'm not quite sure it's not 

23 something I would have thought to ask do you know 

24 about it because given the situation it should have 

25 been known by EPA. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 303 

 2 Constructive criticism is good and helpful and it 

 3 helps advance the quality of the model. If we have a 

 4 problem with the model, we'll contact the developer 

 5 and let them know some of the bugs that we came 

 6 across. I think it helps with the issues. I think 

 7 the vague and not very specific criticism is not so 

 8 helpful and I would say we should try to have details 

 9 with direct communication. Often I find out about 

10 problems by presentations made publicly by EPA at 

11 various public forums rather than contacting me. I 

12 think that's less than helpful. 

13 I won't get into the VISTAS version. I think it's 

14 much too complicated to get into here. There are a 

15 number of technical enhancements that are in the model 

16 that are worth consideration by EPA. So I think that 

17 would be helpful if that could be worked into the 

18 priority list in some way. I feel like it would be 

19 very helpful to us as well as to the public if the 

20 data that EPA is presenting at these various forums is 

21 made available to the public. The data sets not just 

22 the summary. And I think you know it's part of the 

23 checks and balances. Is what you're saying correct, 

24 are you doing things correctly, having public input 

25 into that will only help the process. It will make 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 304 

 2 everything strong and more reliable so I would request 

 3 that the EPA provide the data that is used in the 

 4 presentations and various reports in the workshops and 

 5 any staff member and any other clearing house memos. 

 6 Okay, well. I like the direct communication, much 

 7 more effect instead of using public forum to criticize 

 8 the mode. The criticism isn't the problem I think the 

 9 issue should be constructive with the focus in 

10 resolving the issue. I think that's where more work 

11 could be done. 

12 This is from Bret Anderson's presentation. He 

13 uses an example of a horrible model. What on earth is 

14 this? He has attributed it to CALPUFF being less than 

15 perfect. What it is showing is a Bull's eye pattern 

16 of wind speeds associated with the station located in 

17 the center of the bull's eye with the strong flow 

18 coming from another source presumably a MM5. What it 

19 really represents is MM5 winds do not match 

20 observations. Is that a CALPUFF issue or MM5 issues 

21 or is it an observations issue. Is that observation 

22 representative? I'm not sure, but I think there's 

23 more to this instead of saying that MM5 or CALMET is 

24 producing a bad wind field. 

25 The other issue is that there are at least 4 ways to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 305 

 2 run this model and three of them will solve this 

 3 issue. I can tell you, I can guarantee you there is a 

 4 way to eliminate it entirely 100% of the time if you 

 5 want to do that. 

 6 One is to run the model in NOOBS mode using MM5 only 

 7 fields. Very simple to the effort is being done to 

 8 these processes that have been described earlier 

 9 today. Those are almost equivalent to the NOOBS that 

10 exist in the current version of CALMET. You will not 

11 see this bull's eye if you just configure CALMET to 

12 run in that mode. That's equivalent to say that you 

13 believe the MM5 fields and you want to use them. If 

14 you believe the observations, and have less confidence 

15 in the MM5 data, you can run CALMET in the pure 

16 obserservation mode that would eliminate the problem 

17 as well or you can just change. 

18 If you run it in a hybrid mode with MM5 and use 

19 inappropriate values of R1/R2, you can get this every 

20 time and make it happen whenever you want. But I 

21 think you can also make it go away. So I think much 

22 of this has to do with running the model in a poor 

23 way. So let me show you an example. This is from 

24 Sydney in Australia. We have identified data and we 

25 have a NOOBS runs and things look okay. There's some 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 306 

 2 variability. This is basically (inaudible) MM5 date. 

 3 You can see the observations these arrows over here. 

 4 You can run in the (inaudible) that's only with 

 5 observation and you will get something that looks 

 6 reasonably with some constructure to it. There is 

 7 some variability to the winds and it's reproduced in 

 8 the resulting field. 

 9 You can run it in the hybrid mode and you get more 

10 emphasis maybe on the MM5 data and certainly the 

11 bull's eye will disappear. Also, you can run it in a 

12 mode where you will get the bull's eye. My point is 

13 why would you run it this way? Why not run it in one 

14 of the three other modes it makes more sense. 

15 Just as another point here. What does AERMOD do? 

16 The bull's eye looks ridiculous but what the MM5 has 

17 is an infinite bull's eye one station goes out 

18 forever. Even if you have the bull's eye in there it 

19 doesn't mean that that's actually producing bad 

20 results in terms of the concentrations. All you are 

21 saying is that there is a change in the direction of 

22 the flow. Okay. 

23 What can we do? What I wanted to propose was to 

24 have a SAC Committee to help with technical issues to 

25 provide feedback, providing a formal mechanism for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 307 

 2 having input from EPA, land managers, MMS and 

 3 consultants I believe the introduction of consultants 

 4 and industry into the review groups would be very 

 5 valuable. This isn't any kind of regulatory policy 

 6 and not to set any kind of issues that would infringe 

 7 on EPA's responsibilities or MMS responsibilities. 

 8 Yet it's a way of formalizing a mechanism to having 

 9 input and I think it could help. So we're likely to 

10 organize something like invitations to groups to join. 

11 Whether or not they do, we can probably go ahead with 

12 it. We do this without funding through technology and 

13 have meetings through web links and other things like 

14 that. 

15 But I think I teach a lot of courses with CALPUFF 

16 and the interaction we get during the courses are very 

17 extremely valuable. A formalized issue like this 

18 where land managers can say what they're thinking and 

19 what they want and EPA can say that as well as MMS. 

20 Other agencies I don't know. It can only help. It's 

21 the kind of the model that EPA is using with the 

22 (inaudible) committees so I would say this is worth 

23 doing. 

24 The final item is the model applicability and 

25 evaluation. I'm not going to go into this too much, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 308 

 2 but I do have some examples where EPA has expressed 

 3 concern about the wide (inaudible) change of the 

 4 concentrations. You have to remember that's point by 

 5 point hour by hour. If you change the wind by 5 

 6 degrees, you make it 1,000% change in the 

 7 concentration. This doesn't mean there's a terrible 

 8 thing happening, it just happens. 

 9 So I have some examples of this in what is coming up. 

10 I am going over and I apologize but it's my one chance 

11 to have some input into this. 

12 Comparing the models I believe CALPUFF is the viable 

13 option for the near field. It has many new features 

14 that EPA says they would like to develop in AERMOD 

15 that exists now today. You don't have to wait for 

16 two, three, four years to get special variable in flow 

17 you can get it today. I think that was the intent of 

18 Appendix W when it was promulgated and I think it's 

19 something that is allowed; in fact, encouraged. The 

20 causality affects which means the plume only travels 

21 so far in one time step. You can't if you have 1 

22 meter per second winds the plume only goes to 2.6 km 

23 in that time step. CALPUFF accounts for that AERMOD 

24 has plume that goes to infinity every hour. 

25 Not just AERMOD any study state model due to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 309 

 2 (inaudible) 

 3 Surface characteristics I want to talk about. I 

 4 think there are major problems in how AERMOD handles 

 5 receptors. It looks upwind to determine downwind 

 6 dispersion. It looks upwind of the met site. What 

 7 determines the downwind of dispersion is the 

 8 turbulence of the downwind source of the met station. 

 9 You have a backwards situation here. 

10 CALPUFF will treat turbulence downwind of each 

11 source. Horizontal wind variability you don't have 

12 with AERMOD, you have it with CALPUFF now today with 

13 CALPUFF. Calm winds (inaudible) the conservative or 

14 not conservative depending on whether you have more 

15 than six hours of calm or fewer than six hours of 

16 calm. CALPUFF will treat the calm winds. 

17 Now (inaudible) memory of emissions in previous 

18 hours. AERMOD doesn't do it every hour (inaudible) it 

19 doesn't remember what's been emitted previously. 

20 CALPUFF retains previous hours emissions. Coastal 

21 effects of fumigation; there is no TIBL of fumigation 

22 in AERMOD and CALPUFF has an expensive one. 

23 EPA has said in its clarification that AERMOD is the 

24 model for complex terrain. It cannot handle complex 

25 terrain. I think there's some issues that need to be 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 310 

 2 considered when you evaluate that. One is its use of 

 3 the single met station to characterize flow not just 

 4 for the facility but all background sources. The use 

 5 of surface characteristics upwind of meteorological 

 6 station not downwind of all sources. Especially 

 7 (inaudible) it's lack of causality effects in the 

 8 straight-line trajectories. 

 9 I think EPA's argument is that that really matters 

10 is the desired concentration saying more of the line 

11 of sight from the source. I think it is flawed for 

12 two reasons. One is NAAQS and PSD are not facilities 

13 standard, they are cumulative standards. It's not 

14 just the impact of one source it's the impact of all 

15 the background sources that is dealing with that 

16 source. 

17 The second point is it is not just the design 

18 concentration that is important. When you have 

19 cumulative sources whether you are above the SILs or 

20 below the SILs or a predicated violation caused by a 

21 different source. In practice it's a very important 

22 effect predicted violation those lower concentrations 

23 (inaudible) time and space with AERMOD can result in a 

24 very serious issue in terms of coming to incorrect 

25 conclusions. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 311 

 2 This is looking at a complex terrain case. These 

 3 are CALMET winds you can see the (inaudible) 

 4 channeling and we'll look at the three sources in the 

 5 upper portion. CALPUFF suggests that these plume in 

 6 directions in terms of air value, cumulative impacts 

 7 (inaudible) and all that. The background sources 

 8 we're calling the income source which is this one 

 9 project source. So we're using that data with the 

10 AERMOD (inaudible). The AERMOD not surprisingly takes 

11 the plume and will drive it into the terrain. It 

12 doesn't have the ability to do the complexion and it's 

13 not just the AERMOD but any study state model will do 

14 this. You're not necessarily guaranteed to have the 

15 correct concentration when that plume infringes on the 

16 terrain. The alternative model is suggesting the 

17 terrain (inaudible) plume. If you look at all three 

18 sources, you get this. I think the issue of the 

19 representative of the method that is used to model 

20 with the AERMOD facility source is the critical issue 

21 to determine whether a study state model should apply. 

22 You will also see the other AERMOD 

23 characteristics of having upwind shadows associated 

24 with the random portion of the plume. I'm going to 

25 talk about that as well. I don't think you can say 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 312 

 2 this is an appropriate complex terrain case to use 

 3 AERMOD. I don't think you have to do a model 

 4 evaluation. I think based on the characteristics of 

 5 the model you can argue this is a strong case to use 

 6 CALPUFF in a near field application. 

 7 Let's go to the second case the sea breeze case 

 8 on flat terrain so terrain is not an issue. This is 

 9 Boston and we have sea breeze from the Boston Logan 

10 airport station. We put in the sources in CALPUFF and 

11 you see something like this. Opposite flows you see 

12 the interaction of the true background sources here 

13 and this source going in an opposite direction. If 

14 you run this with AERMOD, using this station as the 

15 source of the met data you will get a plume going in 

16 this direction and these two plumes going in this 

17 direction. I think that is suggesting that there are 

18 issues in AERMOD capabilities is doing a correct 

19 cumulative impact. Also in random plume there are 

20 some problems with the random plume element in AERMOD 

21 that creates a halo around every source when you apply 

22 cumulative impacts. Basically if the source is larger 

23 enough and the situation is right you can up wind 

24 concentrations a range of plume that that results in 

25 concentrations being predicted upwind concentrations 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 313 

 2 in a random plume that can even exceed downwind 

 3 concentrations and SILs. You may have a background 

 4 source interacting with that shadow which causes a 

 5 violation to which your source will deemed 

 6 responsible. 

 7 In case you are not aware, this is the way the 

 8 model works. Main plume, coherent plume and there is 

 9 a circle of the random plume. Some of the plume mass 

10 in the coherent plume is taken out and distributed 

11 radially around the source including upwind at 50 km 

12 including upwind at 90 km. I understand the written 

13 rational for that algorithm but I think it can cause 

14 some operations difficulties. 

15 How much of that plume is taken out and put in 

16 the random plume? Well, under stable conditions it 

17 pretty small maybe 15% up to 5 to 15% functioning 

18 distance. But in light winds speeds it is substantial 

19 from 40% up to 2/3 of the plume mass is actually 

20 assigned to the random plume. So let's take that 

21 unstable case and look at a situation where we have 

22 the source here with the wind blowing to the SE. 

23 Behind the source is terrain and if you look at the 

24 upwind (inaudible) around the AERMOD impact you can 

25 see qualitatively here the numbers are higher than the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 314 

 2 numbers down wind. How can that happen? It can 

 3 happen because the (inaudible) between the terrain and 

 4 the plume is used in that characterization in that 

 5 random plume. So because this terrain behind the 

 6 stack you're getting the large area of 15 to 20 km in 

 7 length that are higher than the highest concentration 

 8 [ed. predicted] (inaudible). If you happen to have 

 9 another background source infringing on this source 

10 from the other side even though your plume is going 

11 down this way there may be a violation here to which 

12 you'd be predicted to be significant. That's the 

13 issue I see with the random plume and applying it on a 

14 regulatory basis when you have multi source impacts. 

15 I'm going to skip some of this. 

16 I did want to say a couple of words about the big 

17 issue here. We're not talking about the details of 

18 one land use type verses another or is it a runway. 

19 We're talking about a big issue. When you decide what 

20 land use you use to determine the roughness in AERMOD 

21 you look upwind at the met station. What really 

22 determines the dispersion is what's happening downwind 

23 of the source. If you have a number of different 

24 sources, and this is what this is representing if you 

25 are 1 km radius is this. This says when the wind is 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 315 

 2 blowing downwind you are in the low roughness land but 

 3 according to the actual land use you're in the high 

 4 roughness land. So why is this right? What is the 

 5 direction for using the opposite land use? 50 km 

 6 downwind would be applied. You could be in the 

 7 vicinity of sources (inaudible) at some point there 

 8 after the roughness downwind has (inaudible). I've 

 9 also plotted the AERMOD roughness on source A and 

10 source B. You can imagine the number of sources in 

11 the modeling domain. You'll be using the upwind 

12 roughness of the met station for all these sources in 

13 a typical simulation. If you believe that formulation 

14 of the model of the AERMOD and most people do in 

15 CALPUFF as well. You believe the turbulence controls 

16 the dispersion and the surface characteristics 

17 controls turbulence. If you believe all those things 

18 how can you accept that? You use the wrong turbulence 

19 downwind of these stacks. Does it matter, well it 

20 does matter. We looked at the 1 km and 3 km method we 

21 just took the first application we had. I don't know 

22 if its representative and I doubt if it's the worst or 

23 the best. But you're getting changes of 123%, 100% 

24 and 89% from design concentration from this source. 

25 Looking at the difference of the roughness from the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 316 

 2 two sites, the fact is of 1/3 and 50% so this matters. 

 3 The factor (inaudible) is a pretty big change in the 

 4 concentration when you're doing a regulatory study. 

 5 The other point I wanted to make was when Roger showed 

 6 the ratios of the model outputs and said these were 

 7 huge percentage changes. As I said if you change any 

 8 input even simple ones and in this case the data 

 9 mirror that was in AERMOD. Change wind directions or 

10 anything, you can get enormous changes. The data 

11 mirror for this same case which it was admitted as a 

12 serious but you can find 7,000 or 10,000 changes in 

13 AERMOD. So I don't think those results that EPA is 

14 expressing concern about are really that unusual or 

15 unexpected. You change the wind in CALMET a little 

16 bit you are going to get a point by point differences 

17 because plume goes to a different receptor. 

18 (inaudible) Is it a sign of a horrible problem, I 

19 don't think so. 

20 Since you've been nice enough to allow me to 

21 continue, I won't go through the evaluations. I just 

22 want to make one point. I know some of the people 

23 involved in AERMOD and respect them greatly and it's a 

24 outstanding formulation in terms of its technical 

25 content and a big advancement in science. It still 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 317 

 2 has limitations because it's a study state model. All 

 3 I'm saying is recognize the limitations and allow the 

 4 use of the non study state model which was the intent 

 5 of Appendix W when appropriate. There are 17 

 6 evaluations studies 7 are promulgated. There are no 

 7 studies of those 17 where cumulative impact assessment 

 8 was done and none where there were multiple sources in 

 9 complex terrain. There was one coastal line group 

10 that involved downwash. There were no studies that 

11 include large buildings. I understand from the 

12 discussions today that you are aware of the issue with 

13 large buildings and that is helpful. 

14 Sometimes AERMOD doesn't work well in the case of 

15 the large building. AERMOD was predicting over ten 

16 times the observation and CALPUFF was conservative but 

17 doing much better in terms of the evaluation. 

18 Just in terms of the chemistry this is CALPUFF 

19 performance on the data predicting sulfate that 

20 Prakash is going to apply on a complete model. This 

21 is the one to one line for sulfate even for the 

22 simplest chemistry in CALPUFF does very well in 

23 predicting the sulfate concentrations. (inaudible) 

24 but that's the way the model would be used typically. 

25 For nitrate it still looks reasonably good within a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 318 

 2 factor of two and bouncing around the one to one line. 

 3 In terms of the numbers for the annual averages, the 

 4 sulfate pretty close and the nitrate more concern on 

 5 the SO2 but the factor within a factor of two, the 

 6 last column is a pretty good relative to expectations. 

 7 I will just leave you with this. EPA has 

 8 highlighted this in one of their memos. It says, 

 9 consistency in the selection and application of models 

10 and data based should be sought, even in case-by-case 

11 analyses. I think its valid they chose to highlight 

12 that portion of paragraph 1d. I'll just point this 

13 out, such consistency is not, however, promoted at the 

14 expense of model and data base accuracy. In cases 

15 where clearly there are non study state conditions 

16 there should not be new obstacles put in the path of 

17 applying CALPUFF in those kinds of cases. If an 

18 argument can be made and an objective group of people 

19 agree that the case is not a study state I think it 

20 should be allowed. This is basically following along 

21 that. Thanks very much. Am I the last one? Okay. 

22 Tyler Fox: Alright. Thank you Joe for that 

23 information and perspective I appreciate it. I 

24 appreciate the patience of the folks in the audience 

25 as well. I'm not sure we expected an AERMOD sub 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 319 

 2 section in terms of the critique and the like. We are 

 3 significantly over so I will suggest the following 

 4 approach. We still have the CALPUFF Performance 

 5 Evaluation that Bret Anderson is presenting. We could 

 6 go until 6:30 and then have questions but then we'd 

 7 get pretty late. So what I'm going to suggest if you 

 8 will indulge us here is that we go ahead and start the 

 9 morning with that. We will skip the summary of day 1 

10 discussions and we'll go ahead and start at 8:30 and 

11 finish the presentation as it relates to the 

12 performance evaluation of CALPUFF and move on and take 

13 questions at that point and time. Have you all 

14 reflected on what you've heard so far? 

15 A couple of things before we leave is that I 

16 fully understand and appreciate and agree with what 

17 Joe presented on the need to have two way 

18 communication flows and collaboration and have a 

19 process that will ensure the integrity of the models 

20 under Appendix W. You heard that from Chet and from 

21 me and you see that in the work that folks have been 

22 doing. I think we have a responsibility as the agency 

23 to pursue these things in a way that ensures that that 

24 is both part of the process and fortunately or 

25 unfortunately the folks who are responsible for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 320 

 2 interpreting Appendix W are the program office and the 

 3 regional offices. I think it's pretty clear in terms 

 4 of Appendix W as was laid out in a clarification memo 

 5 as we've discussed previously and identified here. We 

 6 are not reinterpreting the Appendix W or guidance. We 

 7 are clarifying what has been there. Changes in staff 

 8 and other types of things are really irrevelevent in 

 9 terms of that because it is our responsibility, Chet 

10 Wayland's responsibility, if not Steve Page's 

11 responsibility as the office director of OAQPS to 

12 provide the interpretation and the like. 

13 I can tell you we take that we take that 

14 seriously and we take it so seriously that we feel as 

15 if we need to understand and be able to address these 

16 questions and provide the information in a timely way 

17 so you can relate to that. We have responsibility to 

18 the regional offices, the states and local agencies to 

19 inform them of concerns that we have and highlight 

20 these things as part of the process to inquire about 

21 them and ultimately resolve them. The process that we 

22 use is to resolve them as Joe suggested involves a 

23 committee and the like parallel to what we've done 

24 with AERMOD. But I just want to emphasize the fact 

25 that this is not a CALPUFF verses AERMOD and I would 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 321 

 2 really like to get beyond that. I think it lowers the 

 3 level of the discussion and I think we should be above 

 4 that. 

 5 There is a role for AERMOD and its promulgated 

 6 after 15 years and its certainly not a perfect model. 

 7 We will take all the information into advisement as to 

 8 its ability to handle the complex situations and other 

 9 routine situations it has to. We hold all models to 

10 the same level of critique and demands and the need to 

11 be able to address those situations appropriately that 

12 fits the purpose through evaluations and the like and 

13 apply both to AERMOD and for CALPUFF. It's not as 

14 simple an argument under Appendix W to just say that 

15 one model cancels another model should be used and can 

16 without substantiation that that model can handle it. 

17 That is what it means to have integrity in terms of 

18 these models and that's what we will be pursuing as 

19 long as I'm the group leader of the modeling group, as 

20 long as Chet's the division director and as long as we 

21 are charged with that responsibility to you and the 

22 public you can be assured that that's what we're going 

23 to do. 

24 Appreciate your patience, appreciate the first 

25 day a lot of material. We'll see you the first thing 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Vol. 1, p. 322 

 2 tomorrow morning. 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 323 

 2 KEYWORD INDEX 

 _____________ 

 3 
 4 1. AERMAP 21. cell 

 5 2. AERMET 22. cells 

 6 3. AERMOD 23. chemistry 

 7 4. AERSCREEN 24. clarification memo 

 8 5. AERSURFACE 25. Class I 

 9 6. air 26. clearing house 

10 7. albedo 27. Model Clearing House 

11 8. algorithm 28. complex 

12 9. algorithms 29. concentration 

13 10. appendix 30. concentrations 

14 11. ASOS 31. convective 

15 12. atmosphere 32. data 

16 13. BART 33. database 

17 14. Birmingham 34. databases 

18 15. boundary 35. datum 

19 16. Bowen 36. default 

20 17. calm 37. DEM 

21 18. CALMET 38. dispersion 

22 19. calms 39. domain 

23 20. CALPUFF 40. downwash 

24 

25 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 324 

 2 KEYWORD INDEX 

 _____________ 

 3 

 4 41. downwind 61. ISC 

 5 42. EPA 62. ISC-PRIME 

 6 43. ETA 63. IWAQM 

 7 44. Federal 64. layer 

 8 45. fence line 65. layers 

 9 46. file 66. long range transport 

10 47. files 67. MAKEMET 

11 48. grade 68. mesoscale 

12 49. gridded 69. met 

13 50. group 70. meteorological 

14 51. groups 71. mixing 

15 52. guidance 72. MM5 

16 53. guide 73. model 

17 54. guideline 74. model evaluation 

18 55. guidelines 75. modelers 

19 56. heat island 76. modeling 

20 57. humidity 77. Monin-Obukhov 

21 58. implement 78. monitor 

22 59. implementation 79. monitors 

23 60. implementing 80. NATA 

24 

25 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 325 

 2 KEYWORD INDEX 

 _____________ 

 3 

 4 81. NCDC 101. PRIME 

 5 82. near-field 102. processor 

 6 83. NEPA 103. processors 

 7 84. non regulatory 104. profile 

 8 85. NOAA 105. promulgated 

 9 86. NSR 106. promulgation 

10 87. NWS 107. protocol 

11 88. OAQPS 108. protocols 

12 89. observation 109. PSD 

13 90. observations 110. puff 

14 91. observed 111. ratio 

15 92. ozone 112. ratios 

16 93. parameter 113. receptor 

17 94. parameters 114. reformatted 

18 95. particle 115. regulatory 

19 96. PBL 116. roughness 

20 97. Phase 2 117. RUC 

21 98. photochemical 118. rule 

22 99. plume 119. run 

23 100. precedents 120. rural 

24 

25 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 326 

 2 KEYWORD INDEX 

 _____________ 

 3 

 4 121. scale 141. tracer 

 5 122. scaling 142. turbulence 

 6 123. SCRAM 143. urban 

 7 124. screening 144. variability 

 8 125. sensitivity 145. weather 

 9 126. service 146. wind 

10 127. site 147. wind speed 

11 128. slope 148. wind speeds 

12 129. source 149. winds 

13 130. speed 150. work group 

14 131. stack 151. 

15 132. stacks 152. 

16 133. statistical 153. 

17 134. steady state 154. 

18 135. surface 155. 

19 136. surrogate 156. 

20 137. temperature 157. 

21 138. terrain 158. 

22 139. toxic 159. 

23 140. toxics 160. 

24 

25 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 327 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "AERMAP" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 166 2 there that go into Version 06341 of AERMET and AERMAP 

 7 166 7 For AERMAP, a lot of issues to associate with how 

 8 166 19 that's a complication of AERMAP that we've had to deal 

 9 171 22 I'll try to move as quickly as I can. So AERMAP and 

10 171 24 changes. Some things just fix AERMAP but AERMAP we've 

11 172 8 upgraded AERMAP to support newer elevation data 

12 172 12 AERMAP can process. So you go to that server you 

13 173 6 guide. We also gone ahead and enhanced AERMAP to 

14 174 2 again in AERMAP? So you just take the domain now of 

15 174 3 your inputs to AERMAP the default will be to use all 

16 174 11 AERMAP. And let's see I'm trying to remember all the 

17 174 17 AERMAP looks at it the other way so we've decided to 

18 174 19 AERMAP. The only place it really shows up as an issue 

19 193 10 and AERMAP to generate necessary AERMOD inputs and in 

20 194 5 AERSCREEN calls AERMAP to generate terrain height. We 

21 195 14 AERSCREEN give AERMAP something consistent. And it 

22 196 6 on AERMOD and AERMAP output and writes to a log file. 

23 199 4 run BPIPPRM and AERMAP for the source if necessary. 

24 199 5 You can get source elevation from AERMAP if you're not 

25 200 21 to use a previous AERMAP output and that's all in the 

26 204 9 download BPIPPRM, AERMOD, AERMAP and AERSURFACE from 

27 230 20 Dick Perry: Last one is just a nip in AERMAP did you 

28 230 23 AERMAP now. 

29 

30 Page Ref No. Keyword = "AERMET" 

31 ____ _______ __________________ 

32 

33 113 17 in using AERMET. You feed it airport or other input 

34 113 19 AERMET processes it (inaudible) files (inaudible) for 

35 115 15 have AERMET traditional airport results and the MM5 

36 116 17 through AERMET we're going to be not calculating for 

37 117 11 re-ran AERMET with that surface characteristics and 

38 117 25 AERMET with air surface inputs and the ratio dropped 

39 140 2 through AERMET. That's something we still might 

40 140 5 data. Then it can go through AERMET with your own 

41 140 10 go through AERMET. Seems like a pretty straight 

42 141 15 AERMET processing the user goes to all the trouble of 

43 165 20 dispersion model, AERMET met processor and AERMET 

44 166 2 there that go into Version 06341 of AERMET and AERMAP 

45 166 6 changes with AERMET for handling that. 

46 171 18 some plans that AERMET has for enhancing AERMOD I 

47 175 14 AERMET is a bit shorter list. There's been lots going 

48 176 15 AERMET looks for the 12Z sounding to use for 

49 177 5 files that AERMET crashed on. We released a utility 

50 177 8 where we are at with AERMET. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 328 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermet" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 180 20 coordinating with the work group and with AERMET some 

 7 183 17 AERMET and/or AERSCREEN. Initial version of 

 8 184 10 AERMET User Guide was use an area weighted average 

 9 189 20 elevation data sets and NED I mentioned for AERMET is 

10 190 12 them into AERMET and (inaudible) greater receptor, 

11 192 17 on AERSCREEN and on the status and update of AERMET 

12 197 8 scales. Then it uses AERMET subroutines to calculate 

13 197 23 Seasonal tables from AERMET User's Guide (Tables 4-1, 

14 198 7 filename or AERMET stage 3 input filename. When you 

15 198 8 run AERMET you have to put surface characteristics in. 

16 215 11 through AERMET. That was an option considered early 

17 219 23 inputs to go to AERMET in stage 3 also produces text 

18 232 18 for the AERMET and the header of the met file and 

19 236 13 modify AERMET to read in that as an optional data 

20 

21 Page Ref No. Keyword = "AERMOD" 

22 ____ _______ __________________ 

23 

24 7 17 first conferences where we have AERMOD, the new 

25 7 18 regulatory model. Not only AERMOD, but we have 

26 9 7 developing AERMOD, we had a lot of communication 

27 9 15 battling with one model now that we have AERMOD, we 

28 11 2 from the regulatory perspective is that AERMOD Model 

29 11 7 familiarity with AERMOD that they've had with ISC and 

30 12 11 AERMOD for this or that and we have to say we're not 

31 21 11 worked a lot on AERMOD and Kirk Baker who is doing a 

32 24 8 because at the time AERMOD was not promulgated and I 

33 24 14 use the ISC or AERMOD. But as of December 9, 2006, 

34 24 15 AERMOD was promulgated and replaced the ISC3. There 

35 27 15 are. I'll start where we are with the AERMOD modeling 

36 27 19 presentation on the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. 

37 28 7 us AERMOD thankfully. They originally formed in 1991 

38 28 10 AERMOD. 

39 28 13 work in partnership with us and the AERMOD 

40 28 19 throughout the AERMOD implementation work group so 

41 29 2 AERMOD session but this new committee met in RTP 

42 29 15 the AERMOD session from Randy. So that relates to 

43 29 16 AERMOD and the way we are trying to be proactive in 

44 42 3 regulatory status of proprietary versions of AERMOD 

45 42 6 the status of parallelized versions of AERMOD. AIRMET 

46 42 8 AERMOD model but one of the issues we have gotten 

47 42 9 feedback on is that AERMOD is too slow. Our response 

48 43 5 regulatory applications is AERMOD as 2006 the 

49 43 12 where AERMOD may not be appropriate and CALPUFF may be 

50 44 5 AERMOD and treatment of missing airport data in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 329 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 44 6 AERMOD. 

 7 44 8 Practice (GEP) stack height in AERMOD which includes 

 8 44 12 The one about the airport data and AERMOD. Here is 

 9 44 14 that the AERMOD requirements for data completeness 

10 44 16 under regulatory default option. AERMOD doesn't 

11 45 18 Well, how is AERMOD going to respond in that same 

12 45 20 AERMOD implementation workgroup and some assistance 

13 45 22 analysis with AERMOD and actually found that AERMOD 

14 45 23 due to some formulations in AERMOD that it is less 

15 45 25 that's good news. We're better off with AERMOD than 

16 47 16 implementation of GEP formula height in AERMOD and 

17 47 17 this is actually where AERMOD turns currently turns 

18 47 24 AERMOD implementation is consistent with all previous 

19 47 25 versions of AERMOD and all previous versions of ISC 

20 48 3 significant discontinuities in AERMOD impacts have 

21 48 22 AERMOD should be modified to remove this criterion for 

22 50 17 CALPUFF and AERMOD and it really emphasizes the formal 

23 53 17 AERMOD is used it doesn't mean it's automatically 

24 53 18 under Appendix W situation. AERMOD is being used and 

25 55 3 discussing AERMOD experiences w/Birmingham PM2.5 

26 55 14 when we promulgated AERMOD we identified there are 

27 55 23 folks evolving and moving toward the issue of AERMOD 

28 56 7 improved formulations of the AERMOD or basically the 

29 56 15 types of assessments to embrace AERMOD and other types 

30 56 19 evaluation session about the application of AERMOD for 

31 56 22 seeing the use of AERMOD and other dispersion models 

32 70 5 set nationwide and one of the things that AERMOD 

33 84 23 integration and using the AERMOD model to evaluate 

34 85 2 all of the AERMOD modeling so all the questions I will 

35 86 17 be input into AERMOD. Our studies showed a 

36 86 22 guidance chose AERMOD. Which local sources 

37 87 13 participants led to a 1 km X 1 km AERMOD receptor 

38 88 20 first quarter of 2002. So we ran AERMOD for our 

39 88 25 facility wide AERMOD concentration was 0.2 micrograms 

40 89 7 we expected AERMOD to predict lower concentrations 

41 89 14 typically think of AERMOD as a conservative model. 

42 89 16 of our AERMOD results. Let me also say this is an 

43 90 13 distribution and you can see AERMOD did have some 

44 90 20 ug/m3. And AERMOD was rarely greater than 10 times 

45 90 23 saw consistently higher concentrations using AERMOD at 

46 91 25 Should we expect AERMOD to perform poorly for certain 

47 92 3 do too much? What are our expectations for AERMOD? 

48 92 6 affect AERMOD? We don't and don't know if we want to 

49 92 9 I don't know if we will go to AERMOD for our 

50 92 14 have problems with AERMOD we just don't know if this 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 330 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 92 15 is the best way to precede. We ran AERMOD for local 

 7 93 3 show you the CMAQ and AERMOD runs. 

 8 93 10 This is AERMOD so we went from 16.7 in 2009 to 15.7 

 9 95 12 there, we are looking at pairing AERMOD results in 

10 99 25 this point there running AERMOD for near-field impacts 

11 100 16 AERMOD for near sources and CALPUFF for far field. 

12 101 19 just use AERMOD and a photochemical grid model for all 

13 103 16 AERMOD for the near source impact. But we'll 

14 107 25 to AERMOD and to CALPUFF respectively. Bret. 

15 108 20 to use AERMOD data and MM5 directly into AERMOD. So 

16 109 16 The next thing is both important for AERMOD and 

17 109 19 compatible either with AERMOD or CALPUFF. But that 

18 110 9 getting into issues especially for AERMOD where we're 

19 110 20 to Roger. He'll be talking about the MM5 to AERMOD 

20 110 25 talking the MM5 to AERMOD tool and I apologize to 

21 111 17 AERMOD. Everybody knows that. 

22 111 20 due to proximity or other issues with AERMOD the 

23 112 22 like AERMOD. 

24 113 2 tool that provides spatially consistent AERMOD inputs. 

25 113 10 So the tool allows AERMOD to use parameters calculated 

26 113 13 height. What's not provided by MM5 data that AERMOD 

27 113 20 AERMOD. 

28 113 21 On the right is the MM5 AERMOD tool currently designed 

29 113 25 it outputs data again formatted for AERMOD. So the 

30 114 11 to feed through MM5 AERMOD. So we applied the tool 

31 115 16 results and the ratio between the two. So the AERMOD 

32 115 17 prediction based on MM5 inputs divided by the AERMOD 

33 116 10 AERMOD impose a minimum wind speed for dilution of 

34 119 2 AERMOD tool versus the airport data both looking at 

35 119 22 for that grid cell and fed that into AERMOD through 

36 120 19 at AERMOD for the NO2 (inaudible) NAAQS review. So 

37 121 18 validate the use of MM5 AERMOD data against some field 

38 121 20 have been used in evaluating AERMOD and that's in our 

39 122 5 done is MCIP to AERMOD so then they can send feed MCIP 

40 123 24 drive ISC3 AERMOD and CALPUFF. The purpose of that 

41 133 16 is treatment of airport data in AERMOD. One is ASOS 

42 133 20 done with ISC in terms of AERMOD sensitivity to ASOS 

43 134 4 Tyler Fox: For the AERMOD tool as Roger 

44 136 15 Roger. If you have gridded met data for AERMOD and 

45 136 18 inputs to AERMOD for the same run? 

46 136 24 change but a relatively manageable change to AERMOD 

47 137 16 Roger Brode: Sure. The MM5 AERMOD tool is 

48 138 12 AERMOD in an ensemble. That might be something to 

49 138 21 far as the MM5 or WRF AERMOD input. Are the surface 

50 139 5 AERMOD so you can something directly from land use. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 331 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 139 10 whatever information is output from MM5 that AERMOD 

 7 139 14 (inaudible) star. Whatever is not there, AERMOD the 

 8 140 25 on the urban option in AERMOD. Not sure we have a lot 

 9 141 4 in the way that AERMOD would need to do that. There's 

10 142 3 development of AERMOD/AERMET at one point talked about 

11 142 7 implemented. I guess in terms of MM5 AERMOD we 

12 142 18 AERMOD and CALPUFF. Thank you. 

13 143 10 to provide an overview and update on the AERMOD 

14 143 23 A little bit of background there was an initial AERMOD 

15 144 7 on how we were going to handle AERMOD implementation 

16 144 11 identify all the unresolved issues related to AERMOD 

17 145 8 technical group associated with AERMOD as Roger 

18 145 16 associate with AERMOD. They did a good job and came 

19 146 22 here. One is updating the AERMOD Implementation 

20 147 2 version that we have of the AERMOD Implementation 

21 147 13 you need to run in AERMOD. And this is one of the 

22 149 8 recommendations if you're modeling urban and AERMOD 

23 149 15 value was that AERMOD was asking for. We clarify in 

24 150 12 ASOS data on AERMOD concentrations. Secondly they 

25 150 15 AERMOD. 

26 150 16 Thirdly impact of light winds in AERMOD and then 

27 150 24 Here the activity was to compare AERMOD comparing 

28 151 7 overall the use of ASOS date in AERMOD was generally 

29 151 11 AERMOD than for the ISCST3. 

30 151 13 You are looking at plot on the left is for AERMOD and 

31 151 24 for AERMOD the inclusion of the ASOS clouds didn't 

32 152 5 the AERMOD which isn't necessarily surprising given 

33 152 7 AERMOD's stabilities are determined. This plot is 

34 152 10 observer based temperature winds and clouds for AERMOD 

35 152 13 difference with AERMOD than when we just replaced the 

36 152 16 was with our AERMOD was good or better than it was 

37 152 18 of ASOS data is overall less of an issue with AERMOD. 

38 153 8 AERMOD? 

39 155 2 been made in the AERMOD Implementation Guide. They 

40 155 11 AERMOD you need population as surrogate to capture the 

41 155 19 The good news is that I don't think AERMOD is 

42 156 3 think the box is for the AERMOD domain that is being 

43 158 21 AERMOD that we heard about earlier or maybe it's the 

44 159 10 I've generated to run in AERMOD is it representative 

45 162 16 bring the issues with AERMOD we'd like to hear about 

46 163 6 and the specifics of the AERMOD modeling of the system 

47 163 10 mentioned that one of the AERMOD implementation work 

48 163 22 gridded met tools for AERMOD and CALPUFF we look to 

49 165 9 I'm going to give you a recap of AERMOD status 

50 165 11 AERMOD modeling system and inform you of some other 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 332 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 165 12 AERMOD related activities that have been going on 

 7 165 14 everybody here is aware AERMOD was promulgated as EPA- 

 8 165 19 made to all of three main AERMOD components AERMOD 

 9 166 25 interested in is the recent AERMOD developments and 

10 167 2 the updates to all three AERMOD components have been 

11 167 14 the especially the AERMOD update out is that we want 

12 167 16 version right now the version of AERMOD out there now 

13 168 21 Get into a little more detail about AERMOD in 

14 169 3 urban option for AERMOD and the default value is 1.0. 

15 169 10 option. So what we've done in this version of AERMOD 

16 169 25 model emission from mobile sources in AERMOD. And 

17 171 2 make the change to AERMOD to be able to read the 

18 171 18 some plans that AERMET has for enhancing AERMOD I 

19 171 23 AERMOD have been the main focus on the more recent 

20 172 18 update the AERMOD Implementation Guide to go along 

21 174 9 included keyword that's in AERMOD to feed in receptor 

22 175 12 AERMOD. Should probably have questions after each 

23 177 9 Our AERMOD system updates are very close to being 

24 177 19 reflect AERMOD model. Sort of gotten through the 

25 177 22 there a lot of in house applications of AERMOD that we 

26 177 25 of these tomorrow in terms of evaluating AERMOD for 

27 178 5 AERMOD for use in an exposure assessment for land area 

28 178 8 come up in all of these is that AERMOD has a problem 

29 180 19 other activities to associate to AERMOD course 

30 181 18 AERMOD to (inaudible) characteristics and we presented 

31 182 16 AERSURFACE was released. So that's it on AERMOD model 

32 182 25 want to hear about AERSCREEN. Basically AERMOD has 

33 183 10 issues with AERMOD. I think we knew it was going to 

34 184 2 not currently considered part of the AERMOD regulatory 

35 193 6 AERSCREEN is a DOS tool that runs AERMOD in a 

36 193 10 and AERMAP to generate necessary AERMOD inputs and in 

37 193 14 The SCREEN option was added to AERMOD in 1995 and 

38 193 21 see in an AERMOD run. 

39 194 14 for AERMOD. AERSCREEN does not include deposition and 

40 195 5 PROFBASE keyword in AERMOD even for flat terrain. 

41 195 16 using the RANKFILE output in AERMOD and it will find 

42 196 6 on AERMOD and AERMAP output and writes to a log file. 

43 196 16 several AERMOD and AERSCREEN runs and pretty much the 

44 196 20 a reasonable conservatism compared to AERMOD. 

45 197 14 running AERMOD so you'll generate the dot .SFC and 

46 197 15 .PFL files that you would use in AERMOD. 

47 199 18 and reruns AERMOD and you'll get your final output. 

48 199 20 is the whole file itself is an AERMOD input file but 

49 199 22 asterisk reads as comments for AERMOD. Your source 

50 201 4 fence line direction. AERMOD is executed for each 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 333 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 201 6 so if you are doing annual 2 sectors that's two AERMOD 

 7 201 9 degree diagonals, AERMOD run for each SC 

 8 201 20 whatever direction you're going. And AERMOD is run 

 9 202 19 of these through AERMOD for each spatial and temporal 

10 203 12 AERMOD and these are the scaled concentrations that 

11 204 6 release package out right after AERMOD, AERSCREEN at 

12 204 9 download BPIPPRM, AERMOD, AERMAP and AERSURFACE from 

13 205 18 one with the smallest projected width. In AERMOD with 

14 206 7 AERMOD so the projected width and projected building 

15 207 23 listed in the AERMOD Implementation Guide is that the 

16 208 25 goal initially was putting Prime into AERMOD was to 

17 209 25 wind speed issue comes up a lot with AERMOD. AERMOD 

18 210 4 AERMOD is about 0.3 meter per second but what's the 

19 210 13 Activities, and future plans for AERMOD - Overview. 

20 210 18 but AERMOD promulgated Dec. 2006. The committee and 

21 211 5 reviewed status of AERMOD modeling system and 

22 211 10 been the urban formulation in AERMOD. I think that 

23 211 11 was an issue in AERMIC mind even before AERMOD was 

24 212 12 AERMOD to take it out of BPIP Prime so you don't have 

25 212 19 feeding all the data into AERMOD to give us an 

26 213 16 that AERMOD is too slow. The horizontal meander 

27 213 19 AERMOD is required to do calculations for every 

28 214 14 So we're considering implementing this in AERMOD 

29 214 19 sources in AERMOD because right now the horizontal 

30 214 24 use the AERMOD one is a string of volume sources in 

31 215 18 in AERMOD modeling system by using multiple grids and 

32 215 22 Future plans for AERMOD that AERMIC has come up 

33 216 5 incorporate the BPIP Prime functions into AERMOD and 

34 216 7 fed directly to AERMOD as well. So this will 

35 216 8 eliminate preprocessing functions. Then AERMOD would 

36 216 22 really accounting for directly right now in the AERMOD 

37 218 12 This new structure for AERMOD we think would also 

38 218 20 The downside is that it will not make AERMOD faster, 

39 223 2 the capped stack option in AERMOD applies to the 

40 223 9 source in AERMOD. It's just more of a matter has it 

41 224 3 folder you just double click on AERMOD exc. And it 

42 225 6 through that association. When the AERMOD was not a 

43 226 20 phrase that in terms of where is the speed of AERMOD 

44 227 2 run AERMOD is always something that is mentioned and 

45 228 16 meteorology as input for full AERMOD application as a 

46 230 10 ago to the AERMOD? 

47 230 11 Roger Brode: Method 2 is one of the options in AERMOD 

48 230 25 questions revolve around AERMOD equivalence in 

49 231 3 there who have versions of AERMOD that are even faster 

50 232 6 cases developed with AERMOD as a reasonable starting 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 334 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 232 11 tests should also be done. The next update to AERMOD 

 7 233 3 almost automatic fashion to compare AERMOD performance 

 8 235 5 use of ASOS data with AERMOD and dealing with missing 

 9 235 6 airport data with AERMOD. I don't think we have an 

10 250 5 AERMOD, we've got quite a bit going on and on our 

11 251 14 promulgation of AERMOD got in the way of that. 

12 263 7 an automatic switch. Just because AERMOD has been 

13 263 24 near-field is AERMOD. CALPUFF is not the EPA14 266 6 then AERMOD is the preferred model. You can 

15 266 13 AERMOD is not appropriate or CALPUFF is more 

16 272 4 concentrations. This is AERMOD for reference it did 

17 272 5 very well. That was one of the data bases AERMOD was 

18 272 8 with half height adjustment, AERMOD turbulence, with 

19 272 10 adjustment in CALPUFF, AERMOD turbulence with the and 

20 272 12 report on page 2 put AERMOD profile date in half 

21 272 17 AERMOD that has been documented. You see quite a 

22 272 22 prediction is AERMOD turbulence with the strain based 

23 272 25 with similar patterns there. CALPUFF with AERMOD 

24 273 8 performance in this case. CALPUFF with AERMOD 

25 276 11 to what we heard about this morning to couple AERMOD 

26 286 15 similar to the MM5 to AERMOD tools that were discussed 

27 292 21 range of tools that can be applied to AERMOD. 

28 293 8 of vertical structure of the turbulence as AERMOD 

29 293 10 same science but pre-dating AERMOD so we wanted to see 

30 306 15 Just as another point here. What does AERMOD do? 

31 308 14 that EPA says they would like to develop in AERMOD 

32 308 23 in that time step. CALPUFF accounts for that AERMOD 

33 308 25 Not just AERMOD any study state model due to 

34 309 4 think there are major problems in how AERMOD handles 

35 309 12 with AERMOD, you have it with CALPUFF now today with 

36 309 18 hours. AERMOD doesn't do it every hour (inaudible) it 

37 309 22 in AERMOD and CALPUFF has an expensive one. 

38 309 23 EPA has said in its clarification that AERMOD is the 

39 310 23 (inaudible) time and space with AERMOD can result in a 

40 311 10 AERMOD (inaudible). The AERMOD not surprisingly takes 

41 311 13 not just the AERMOD but any study state model will do 

42 311 20 with the AERMOD facility source is the critical issue 

43 311 22 You will also see the other AERMOD 

44 312 3 AERMOD. I don't think you have to do a model 

45 312 14 you run this with AERMOD, using this station as the 

46 312 18 issues in AERMOD capabilities is doing a correct 

47 312 20 some problems with the random plume element in AERMOD 

48 313 24 upwind (inaudible) around the AERMOD impact you can 

49 314 20 land use you use to determine the roughness in AERMOD 

50 315 9 also plotted the AERMOD roughness on source A and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 335 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aermod" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 315 14 of the model of the AERMOD and most people do in 

 7 316 9 mirror that was in AERMOD. Change wind directions or 

 8 316 13 AERMOD. So I don't think those results that EPA is 

 9 316 23 involved in AERMOD and respect them greatly and it's a 

10 317 14 Sometimes AERMOD doesn't work well in the case of 

11 317 15 the large building. AERMOD was predicting over ten 

12 318 25 as well. I'm not sure we expected an AERMOD sub 

13 320 24 with AERMOD. But I just want to emphasize the fact 

14 320 25 that this is not a CALPUFF verses AERMOD and I would 

15 321 5 There is a role for AERMOD and its promulgated 

16 321 13 apply both to AERMOD and for CALPUFF. It's not as 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "AERSCREEN" 

19 ____ _______ _____________________ 

20 

21 167 15 to release a draft version of AERSCREEN. Screening 

22 167 17 will not work with AERSCREEN. So that wouldn't make 

23 167 18 much sense to get AERSCREEN out first. So that's 

24 171 3 screen meteorology coming from AERSCREEN so we've done 

25 182 25 want to hear about AERSCREEN. Basically AERMOD has 

26 183 17 AERMET and/or AERSCREEN. Initial version of 

27 192 15 Thurman for AERSCREENING. 

28 192 17 on AERSCREEN and on the status and update of AERMET 

29 192 19 workgroup, description and features of AERSCREEN. 

30 192 23 AERSCREEN, a brief summary of the stages in AERSCREEN 

31 193 6 AERSCREEN is a DOS tool that runs AERMOD in a 

32 193 22 The features of AERSCREEN were initially developed by 

33 194 5 AERSCREEN calls AERMAP to generate terrain height. We 

34 194 12 area source or volume sources and AERSCREEN calls 

35 194 14 for AERMOD. AERSCREEN does not include deposition and 

36 195 14 AERSCREEN give AERMAP something consistent. And it 

37 195 21 and AERSCREEN has specified distances of receptors. 

38 195 25 direction. You can re-use previous AERSCREEN run 

39 196 2 files. When you run AERSCREEN it generates an input 

40 196 5 the prompts every time. AERSCREEN does errors checks 

41 196 16 several AERMOD and AERSCREEN runs and pretty much the 

42 196 18 initially AERSCREEN tests have shown good results 

43 197 2 used in AERSCREEN and loops through several 

44 197 11 specify multiple wind directions. For AERSCREEN, uses 

45 197 19 AERSCREEN. User defined one number for albedo, one 

46 198 25 How does AERSCREEN work? Basically as the user you 

47 199 21 AERSCREEN reads its header information and the 

48 200 4 other flags and inputs that are going to AERSCREEN 

49 200 12 inputs in from the prompt or the input file, AERSCREEN 

50 200 19 hit enter and AERSCREEN starts the run. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 336 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aerscreen" 

 4 ____ _______ _____________________ 

 5 

 6 202 14 sources, AERSCREEN will calculate the mathematical 

 7 203 13 AERSCREEN will calculate from that maximum 1-hour. 

 8 203 14 Then AERSCREEN will give you the distance from the 

 9 204 5 What's the future of AERSCREEN? We'll have the draft 

10 204 6 release package out right after AERMOD, AERSCREEN at 

11 204 7 the same time. It'll have AERSCREEN and MAKEMET 

12 204 13 support/user guide. It tells you more about AERSCREEN 

13 227 17 Bob Paine: From ENSR with a couple of AERSCREEN 

14 227 22 to AERSCREEN you would run AERSURFACE both for the met 

15 227 23 side and application site, feed it into AERSCREEN, and 

16 228 25 the AERSCREEN workgroup. But we're at a point that we 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "AERSURFACE" 

19 ____ _______ ______________________ 

20 

21 138 24 with AERSURFACE? Where does AERSURFACE that's 

22 147 9 development of the AERSURFACE methodology and the 

23 147 10 release of the AERSURFACE tool. We'll hear more about 

24 148 12 implements that which is the AERSURFACE tool. In 

25 159 4 the AERSURFACE methodology and testing the different 

26 160 11 from your tower. The recent AERSURFACE methodology 

27 163 9 more specifics on the AERSURFACE tool that Randy 

28 174 14 AERSURFACE in a minute. AERSURFACE uses the standard 

29 182 3 validate your AERSURFACE based on 

30 182 9 AERSURFACE was 1 km or the AERSURFACE is 3 km, does it 

31 182 11 What was noticeable if I used AERSURFACE inputs with a 

32 182 16 AERSURFACE was released. So that's it on AERMOD model 

33 182 20 AERSURFACE tool. You've heard a little bit about it 

34 182 22 implementation issues with AERSURFACE that maybe you 

35 182 24 enhancing AERSURFACE. I'll try to be fast but you 

36 183 14 AERSURFACE what is it? It is a tool designed to 

37 183 18 AERSURFACE was released on SCRAM on January 11, 2008. 

38 183 20 there was a program called AERSURFACE that was 

39 184 8 were implemented in AERSURFACE and they are listed 

40 188 8 We actually have some plans to enhance AERSURFACE in 

41 193 12 AERSURFACE but does not currently call AERSURFACE 

42 193 13 itself so you have to run AERSURFACE. 

43 198 6 AERSURFACE output: User enters AERSURFACE output 

44 198 10 surface roughness sectors. AERSURFACE is run for the 

45 198 20 generate four one for each season and AERSURFACE 

46 200 2 you'll see the nine that means use AERSURFACE. Then 

47 202 20 sector. So if you had monthly AERSURFACE output with 

48 204 9 download BPIPPRM, AERMOD, AERMAP and AERSURFACE from 

49 212 2 development of AERSURFACE and looked at the idea of 

50 212 3 supplementing AERSURFACE, the land (inaudible) and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 337 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "aersurface" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 212 4 AERSURFACE with the elevation files. So it was very 

 7 215 24 Building on plans to enhance AERSURFACE by combining 

 8 219 9 AERSURFACE more robust in being able to process land 

 9 219 14 export it to the (inaudible) format that AERSURFACE 

10 219 22 One of the ideas in AERSURFACE is it produces the 

11 220 12 Roger Brode: The other again AERSURFACE is not a 

12 220 14 in doing that so you can run AERSURFACE. We hope that 

13 220 15 people will when they look at AERSURFACE outputs 

14 224 8 have heard that AERSURFACE might not work under VISTAS 

15 227 21 suggest that when you have AERSURFACE input available 

16 227 22 to AERSCREEN you would run AERSURFACE both for the met 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "air" 

19 ____ _______ _______________ 

20 

21 7 5 as the division director of Air Quality Assessment 

22 7 7 started in EPA back in 1991 in the Air Quality 

23 7 21 talking about air quality modeling is the integrity of 

24 11 21 it's an exciting time to be in the air quality 

25 13 8 airplanes around like that. But I do think change is 

26 17 22 challenges I think are opportunities that our air 

27 26 16 in my group and our division support air quality 

28 27 3 recommendations to our the Air Division Directors: 

29 35 21 by Roger (inaudible) and that is in our Air Quality 

30 40 23 through Air Quality Policy Division Office of General 

31 41 7 directly or in some case to the Air Division Directors 

32 42 6 the status of parallelized versions of AERMOD. AIRMET 

33 44 5 AERMOD and treatment of missing airport data in 

34 44 12 The one about the airport data and AERMOD. Here is 

35 44 21 observer-based data from airports. There were some 

36 44 23 surface observing systems being put in airports had 

37 46 9 for reporting airport data. We've seen a lot more 

38 46 12 within the modeling community. Missing airport data 

39 47 11 reduce the calm and missing winds in the airport 

40 53 15 including PSD. It's applicable to criteria air 

41 54 24 update on the 2002 National Air Toxics Assessment 

42 55 16 facility-specific and community-scale air toxics risk 

43 55 17 assessments. They are available through the Air 

44 60 3 projects national air toxic assessments. We're also 

45 60 19 What is NATA? NATA is characterization of air toxics 

46 60 21 them, air toxics, now across the nationwide. At a 

47 61 24 our air toxic website which is also on the TTN where 

48 62 10 in the air toxic program. It's pretty daunting when 

49 63 8 integrate at that point criteria air toxics into one 

50 63 18 for our mobile air toxic rule a few years ago but we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 338 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "air" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 63 24 with our air toxic monitoring network that we've set 

 7 63 25 up on air national toxic trend sites. We use it to 

 8 68 21 eight HPAS HAPS in the Clean Air Act. We modeled the 

 9 69 11 air toxic option which does the sampling time period 

10 70 10 used airport surface data around these airports to 

11 72 5 looked at the results from NATA compared to the air 

12 75 11 results look like from the national air toxic. We 

13 75 17 NATA. Essentially we think the clean act Clean Air 

14 76 18 HAPS that make up about 92% of the national air toxic 

15 77 5 reduce that chunk of the pie. If we had an air toxic 

16 77 11 are shrinking which is good news. Like I said the air 

17 78 11 we should be looking at both the criteria and air 

18 78 16 both criteria and air toxic. 

19 79 6 get both criteria and air toxics. Obviously with 

20 88 4 ASOS station at our airport which is probably four 

21 96 14 Appendix W. I started air quality as a consultant 29 

22 97 18 expose the impacts not just the air quality impacts, 

23 97 23 This is not guided by Appendix W on the air quality, 

24 98 10 air quality impacts plus all the impacts. I'm going 

25 98 23 includes air quality modeling to show project impacts 

26 99 20 Continental Divide-Creston EIS use PGM for air 

27 101 3 because of the work by the Western Regional air 

28 101 20 the air quality and AQR/AQRV impacts. This a fairly 

29 105 13 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model for 

30 105 14 Uinta Basin Air Quality Study in northeast Utah. 

31 105 17 NEPA EIS/EA air quality assessments. We talked about 

32 106 11 the Uinta Basin Air Quality Study (UBAQS). The Utah 

33 106 12 Four Corners Air Quality Task Force NM/CO. Finally 

34 111 16 data are key inputs to air quality models such as 

35 111 24 dimension in the problem. Upper air data sparsely 

36 112 3 airport data that we have significant gaps in NWS data 

37 113 6 the nearest airport for something I can just pick the 

38 113 17 in using AERMET. You feed it airport or other input 

39 114 7 containing the Detroit metropolitan airport. And we 

40 114 12 and the traditional airport data to AERMED approach 

41 114 20 the airport tower is located. That's the metropolitan 

42 114 21 airport right there. We're right on the edge of the 

43 114 23 There's windroses for 2002 airport on the left and the 

44 115 3 adjusted. On the left the anemometer at the airport 

45 115 15 have AERMET traditional airport results and the MM5 

46 115 18 prediction based on airport input. Generally it 

47 116 13 Let's see what's going on at the airport for the same 

48 116 16 between the two except when you feed the airport data 

49 116 24 this we didn't have air surface. Is this working at 

50 116 25 all? So we didn't have air surface and we just used 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 339 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "air" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 117 6 Later air surface was developed. Went back and re-ran 

 7 117 7 it with the roughness estimated at the airport from 

 8 117 8 air surface which was quite a bit lower. This was 

 9 117 21 and supplemented the airport with the 1-minute ASOS 

10 117 24 supplemented airport data through air surface through 

11 117 25 AERMET with air surface inputs and the ratio dropped 

12 118 14 encouraging especially when we supplement the airport 

13 119 2 AERMOD tool versus the airport data both looking at 

14 120 4 metropolitan airport because it's the major airport 

15 120 7 air surface there is some uncertainty when you run air 

16 121 14 domain like we do now for the airport data. There are 

17 122 19 to models expands, we have airport data we have 

18 125 9 friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, air density, 

19 131 15 evaluation using the (inaudible) buoys and upper air. 

20 133 9 that I don't have any airport data is representative 

21 133 16 is treatment of airport data in AERMOD. One is ASOS 

22 134 10 experiences we've had with air screen and air surface. 

23 140 4 use the profiles to develop (inaudible) upper air 

24 140 8 using. But there's no upper air data in sight using 

25 140 9 gridded met to generate (inaudible) upper air data to 

26 141 20 air description. 

27 142 2 upper air (inaudible). I know early on in the 

28 142 21 Tyler Fox: James will do Air Screen and Roger 

29 142 22 will do Air Surface and then we'll have an AERMIC 

30 148 14 processing upper air data. Just some recommendations 

31 176 20 motivated by if we do go down the road (inaudible) air 

32 177 18 of Air Pollution, Theory and Model Application, to 

33 183 4 upper air data. It's also designed to accept more 

34 185 22 estimating roughness at airports. If you notice one 

35 185 24 transportation. So at an airport, it's the airport 

36 186 8 (inaudible) at an airport or not and if I am then I 

37 186 12 assumed roughness for an airport and there it is if 

38 186 13 you're not at an airport. That's the best we can do 

39 186 16 Raleigh/Durham areas and the airport is down there and 

40 188 25 surface roughness at airports. All of the developed 

41 189 7 developed open space. So basically at an airport you 

42 190 11 Raleigh/Durham airport and that's SRTM. We brought 

43 192 5 models. We've got airport data what else are you 

44 195 8 You can specify ambient air distance or fence line 

45 198 12 representative problem when you use airport data. It 

46 198 19 surface and one for upper air. Seasonal you will 

47 211 23 the airport site where the met data is being corrected 

48 229 23 of the airport setting between the two? 

49 229 25 in the airport setting it was simply a difference in 

50 230 4 Dick Perry: It was an airport setting for both 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 340 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "air" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 235 6 airport data with AERMOD. I don't think we have an 

 7 239 22 Class I AQRV [ed. Air Quality Related Values] 

 8 246 10 determination in working with Air Quality Policy 

 9 247 22 situation to deal with in clearing the air on CALPUFF 

10 253 14 situations where use of CALPUFF in the air field might 

11 285 18 Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF) data base. We 

12 288 19 technique used that basically cancels out upper air 

13 311 6 directions in terms of air value, cumulative impacts 

14 312 10 airport station. We put in the sources in CALPUFF and 

15 

16 Page Ref No. Keyword = "albedo" 

17 ____ _______ __________________ 

18 

19 183 7 characteristics: albedo, Bowen ratio, surface 

20 185 3 roughness and for Bowen ratio albedo the 

21 185 7 and albedo affect the convective boundaries 

22 185 13 separate them so for Bowen ratio and albedo. The 

23 197 19 AERSCREEN. User defined one number for albedo, one 

24 

25 Page Ref No. Keyword = "algorithm" 

26 ____ _______ _____________________ 

27 

28 208 22 horizontal meander algorithm currently not 

29 213 11 algorithm. As I mentioned earlier one of the big 

30 213 17 algorithm is one factor in making it slower because 

31 213 18 that algorithm incorporates up wind dispersion and 

32 214 20 meander algorithm (inaudible) and volume sources in 

33 237 13 capability of the downwash algorithm the fact that we 

34 237 24 comfortable feeling that what the downwash algorithm 

35 278 18 according to a simple gas/particle algorithm that uses 

36 279 15 according to Pankow's absorption algorithm (based on 

37 285 21 use the ISORROPIA algorithm. And we are also looking 

38 313 13 rational for that algorithm but I think it can cause 

39 

40 Page Ref No. Keyword = "algorithms" 

41 ____ _______ ______________________ 

42 

43 49 18 Pre-PRIME downwash algorithms defined vertical extent 

44 127 3 algorithms, and methods that are being used so that 

45 183 6 layer algorithms require the search surface 

46 206 23 algorithms might not always be applicable for prime 

47 207 2 Well with the old algorithms ISC3 didn't really know 

48 207 20 ISC3 in relation to prime downwash algorithms. We 

49 208 9 sources and prime algorithms. So we haven't gotten a 

50 208 17 downwash algorithms. If there is some wind tunnel 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 341 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "algorithms" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 257 12 mixing height algorithms. You mentioned the MMS 

 7 293 4 models, the core algorithms, the convection mixing 

 8 

 9 Page Ref No. Keyword = "appendix" 

10 ____ _______ ____________________ 

11 

12 21 17 We'll be starting with the Appendix W Refresher and 

13 24 16 is a new Appendix W available as I said and is 

14 26 15 that's in the Appendix W but broadly speaking as folks 

15 30 4 under Appendix W. And consistently with UARG these 

16 31 15 workshops. In fact Appendix W refers to these and 

17 33 24 Appendix W here appropriate venue and avenue by which 

18 36 9 interpreting Appendix W and the likes having that type 

19 39 8 Appendix W but to clarify Appendix W for all of you so 

20 39 16 in Appendix W that Tyler has already shown you in 

21 40 10 Appendix We might not be followed in some cases. 

22 40 12 application of Appendix W guidance. So these issues 

23 41 14 the Appendix W guidance there's a link for 

24 41 20 several places in Appendix W that discusses the need 

25 41 24 you all are familiar with Appendix W... I'm sure. 

26 42 13 their status. Appendix W clearly addresses that in 

27 42 22 concerns that Appendix W guidance might not being 

28 43 16 Appendix W, when there is no preferred model or where 

29 51 23 something I think is formerly required by Appendix W, 

30 52 16 interpreting the guidance or interpreting Appendix W 

31 52 25 roles as part of that process. As I said Appendix W 

32 53 8 flexibility under Appendix W to do so. That's the 

33 53 12 applications and those who follow Appendix W and those 

34 53 18 under Appendix W situation. AERMOD is being used and 

35 53 21 other avenues. I think that Appendix W and the 

36 53 25 (inaudible) where it didn't fall under Appendix W but 

37 54 2 we should be consistent and respect Appendix W to the 

38 54 7 there are situations when Appendix W applies and when 

39 55 10 outside of Appendix W but may be very relevant for 

40 55 12 Appendix W. 

41 55 13 For toxic risk assessment in Appendix W, as revised 

42 60 8 even though it doesn't say in Appendix W; we have to 

43 96 14 Appendix W. I started air quality as a consultant 29 

44 97 23 This is not guided by Appendix W on the air quality, 

45 231 5 believe compilers are the answer. On reading Appendix 

46 239 17 version of CALPUFF. It's also identified in Appendix 

47 239 23 analyses, not under Appendix W purview. But obviously 

48 242 15 Appendix W requirements for regulatory models. You 

49 246 9 under Appendix W and some that don't. We had made a 

50 247 9 VISTAS which was not currently approved under Appendix 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 342 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "appendix" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 247 21 as they are applied under Appendix W. Not a very good 

 7 264 5 authority approval. The reference in the Appendix W 

 8 265 23 are listed in Section 3.2.2e of Appendix W to 

 9 271 15 paragraph 7.2.8 of Appendix W, which is to "fully 

10 308 18 Appendix W when it was promulgated and I think it's 

11 317 5 of Appendix W when appropriate. There are 17 

12 319 20 under Appendix W. You heard that from Chet and from 

13 320 2 interpreting Appendix W are the program office and the 

14 320 4 of Appendix W as was laid out in a clarification memo 

15 320 6 are not reinterpreting the Appendix W or guidance. We 

16 321 14 simple an argument under Appendix W to just say that 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ASOS" 

19 ____ _______ ________________ 

20 

21 44 3 memo. One has to do with the use of ASOS vs. 

22 44 20 done the sensitivity of the ISCST3 model to ASOS vs. 

23 45 10 ASOS data produced higher concentrations than using 

24 45 15 acknowledge there may be cases where ASOS data might 

25 46 6 ASOS is with the Missing NWS data more extensive with 

26 46 7 advent of ASOS these automotive surface observing 

27 46 15 not that rare with ASOS and METAR. Basically METAR 

28 46 24 archive (inaudible) set because the one minute ASOS 

29 88 4 ASOS station at our airport which is probably four 

30 88 11 one minute data that was augmented by ASOS data were 

31 112 5 increased with the advent of ASOS began in the 1990's 

32 117 14 Then I'll mention the 1-minute ASOS data so that's a 

33 117 20 we looked at the 1-minute ASOS data so we went back 

34 117 21 and supplemented the airport with the 1-minute ASOS 

35 122 20 onsite, we have 1-minute ASOS on site, gridded met 

36 132 8 fix ASOS data until it matched MM5 data. Is that 

37 132 10 Roger Brode: I filled in gaps in the ASOS data 

38 132 11 with other ASOS data that were more highly resolved 

39 132 19 but the fact that supplementing the ASOS data with the 

40 132 23 does suggest is using standard ASOS data as is for 

41 133 16 is treatment of airport data in AERMOD. One is ASOS 

42 133 20 done with ISC in terms of AERMOD sensitivity to ASOS 

43 146 3 ASOS/Met Data - Alan Dresser (NJDEP) / 

44 149 25 ASOS data met data group, the urban issues group and 

45 150 9 respect to the ASOS and met data processing sub group 

46 150 11 focus on. One was the impact ASOS data versus pre47 150 12 ASOS data on AERMOD concentrations. Secondly they 

48 150 17 lastly use of hourly average ASOS winds and this is 

49 150 23 In terms of the ASOS verses the pre-ASOS predictions. 

50 150 25 using pre-ASOS and the ASOS met data. Looking at the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 343 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "asos" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 151 3 times. It is essentially redoing the 1997 ASOS and 

 7 151 7 overall the use of ASOS date in AERMOD was generally 

 8 151 10 get with the ASOS data was much less an issue for 

 9 151 18 other case, we've substituted in ASOS clouds so for 

10 151 21 ASOS clouds combined with the observer temperature and 

11 151 24 for AERMOD the inclusion of the ASOS clouds didn't 

12 152 8 similar except where comparing the full ASOS 

13 152 15 with ISCST3. In general we felt the use of ASOS data 

14 152 18 of ASOS data is overall less of an issue with AERMOD. 

15 153 15 winds and thought of what would be the standard ASOS 

16 154 12 concentration to the standard ASOS concentration. 

17 187 9 this partly through this ASOS cyclone wind study there 

18 220 23 data problems that's been in other things like in ASOS 

19 234 17 recommendation for using the new ASOS data sets 23505 

20 235 5 use of ASOS data with AERMOD and dealing with missing 

21 235 22 In terms of the ASOS data, one of the big obstacles we 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "atmosphere" 

24 ____ _______ ______________________ 

25 

26 259 10 convective turbulence is in the atmosphere. That is 

27 

28 Page Ref No. Keyword = "BART" 

29 ____ _______ ________________ 

30 

31 241 10 for BART. So we've also got similar slides from this 

32 245 5 states and others would be using in the BART process 

33 246 6 The BART applications by the states were moving 

34 246 13 that went into BART and we're pretty clear there was a 

35 246 15 and what models could be used under BART. Certainly 

36 247 19 application in BART and managing that but trying to 

37 291 18 examples of the EPA BART 98th percentile computations 

38 

39 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Birmingham" 

40 ____ _______ ______________________ 

41 

42 57 6 example in Birmingham where consistent with our 

43 59 18 the details in Birmingham. With that said let me hand 

44 80 2 of the Birmingham area, part of Jefferson, all of 

45 81 9 These are our monitors in the Birmingham area and 

46 81 18 Birmingham and Wylam have shown values greater than 

47 82 7 local area component to the problem in Birmingham. 

48 83 12 Birmingham monitor. 

49 84 12 This is the North Birmingham monitor. You'll see a 

50 87 25 Birmingham is in a large wide valley with a series of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 344 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "birmingham" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 88 15 PM 2.5 Birmingham monitor. The one minute data is the 

 7 89 25 Birmingham monitor. Again that's the monitor with the 

 8 90 24 the North Birmingham monitor from the local sources. 

 9 91 18 good for Birmingham. There is a marked difference in 

10 91 19 the performance between North Birmingham and Wylam. 

11 91 20 The facilities at North Birmingham are much closer to 

12 93 4 Our 2002. North Birmingham is the first two and Wylam 

13 93 7 at North Birmingham and about the same at Wylam. This 

14 93 17 recognized that Atlanta and Birmingham were having 

15 94 9 Birmingham and Wylam. The third bar the one that's 

16 94 12 Birmingham and I was speechless which is rare. Again, 

17 120 15 Birmingham, AL, sort of building on the work that has 

18 178 4 Birmingham. More recently we got involved in applying 

19 

20 Page Ref No. Keyword = "boundary" 

21 ____ _______ ____________________ 

22 

23 93 19 us for our boundary conditions. That was done in July 

24 141 3 prognostic models to simulate the urban boundary layer 

25 141 8 capture the important aspects of the urban boundary 

26 142 5 check on the boundary layer height calculations to see 

27 177 2 sounding probably reflects some reflective boundary 

28 183 5 robust met input and however the advanced boundary 

29 203 19 differences. Under that the ambient boundary this is 

30 203 25 case. So if you see this case at the ambient boundary 

31 257 18 could underestimate the depth boundary layer like the 

32 257 23 of time. So this convective boundary layer could sort 

33 258 22 boundary layer may form for subsequent hours. In the 

34 259 18 This is a plot of convection boundary layer height 

35 259 20 happens as the boundary layer gets higher you need 

36 259 21 more boundary energy flux to sustain it. So you see 

37 259 22 the red is pretty up as boundary layer height. It's 

38 260 10 then it drops and then a little bit of boundary layer. 

39 268 16 boundary layer near the coast during the daytime 

40 268 20 a convective boundary layer that develops thermal 

41 268 21 internal boundary layer. So grid that resolution 

42 

43 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Bowen" 

44 ____ _______ _________________ 

45 

46 183 7 characteristics: albedo, Bowen ratio, surface 

47 184 23 basically in (inaudible) averages a log. For a Bowen 

48 185 3 roughness and for Bowen ratio albedo the 

49 185 6 representative of the met tower we feel. Bowen ratio 

50 185 13 separate them so for Bowen ratio and albedo. The 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 345 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "bowen" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 197 20 number for Bowen ration and one number for surface 

 7 

 8 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calm" 

 9 ____ _______ ________________ 

10 

11 46 19 calm. We need to address how this is being handled. 

12 47 4 model if that single 2-minute average is calm the hour 

13 47 5 is treated as calm and so on. But there's actually 

14 47 11 reduce the calm and missing winds in the airport 

15 91 9 per cubic meter. This is calm winds sorry I should 

16 102 21 southeast. Early on with the CALMET modeling in 2002 

17 103 8 CALMET. I think we've talked about that. 

18 112 24 context with CALMET/CALPUFF for long range transport 

19 116 14 day and it's very consistent. Eighteen hours of calm 

20 116 19 hour average with the calm policy you add up the six 

21 116 20 non calm plus twelve zeros and divide by eighteen. 

22 117 15 lot of calm. There's not anything we can do about 

23 123 23 the output from, excuse me, output from CALMET to 

24 124 13 to CALMET not necessarily a replacement. CALMET has 

25 130 6 and fed it to CALMET the surface file for OCS and to 

26 130 11 compare where he used CALMET and we used the 

27 135 11 WRF to CALPUFF and then bypassing CALMET. Since 

28 135 12 CALMET can already take the MM5 data, why do you need 

29 135 13 to bypass CALMET? 

30 135 17 CALMET but as Herman indicated it's intended to be an 

31 135 20 If you're doing three years worth of CALMET you know 

32 135 21 CALMET/CALPUFF. Logistics file side you're talking 

33 136 6 There is clearly an application where CALMET is the 

34 138 8 CALMET. 

35 153 19 with calm, missing and variable. And the various wind 

36 239 6 April, 2003, and includes CALMET and CALPUFF. It was 

37 247 12 meteorological data sets through CALMET there are also 

38 247 14 both CALMET and CALPUFF. Some of the differences we 

39 248 9 model. No you could not use the CALMET meteorological 

40 249 23 regulatory standpoint is CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST. 

41 257 15 the issues they addressed in that was the CALMET 

42 257 20 height changes to CALMET for mixing over water. But 

43 258 23 default mode in applying CALMET that behavior is 

44 258 24 masked somewhat by other defaults within CALMET, 

45 261 4 CALMET. Prior to that there was no regulatory default 

46 261 5 switch in CALMET. There was one in CALPUFF that would 

47 262 3 Maybe it's more so in the CALMET data and (inaudible) 

48 271 12 bypassing CALMET. So it didn't rely on non space 

49 271 23 complex wind evaluation with Lovett using CALMET. 

50 272 19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 346 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calm" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 273 14 insights into treatment of tower data in CALMET. So 

 7 276 12 and CALMET and we're going to extend the same concept 

 8 287 18 in CALMET and CALPUFF. 

 9 287 21 funding for this study and the ongoing CALMET/CALPUFF 

10 293 3 CALMET. The various interfaces to various prognostic 

11 293 20 CALMET and some other changes including the ability to 

12 304 23 more to this instead of saying that MM5 or CALMET is 

13 305 10 exist in the current version of CALMET. You will not 

14 305 11 see this bull's eye if you just configure CALMET to 

15 305 15 in the MM5 data, you can run CALMET in the pure 

16 309 13 CALPUFF. Calm winds (inaudible) the conservative or 

17 309 15 than six hours of calm or fewer than six hours of 

18 309 16 calm. CALPUFF will treat the calm winds. 

19 311 3 are CALMET winds you can see the (inaudible) 

20 316 15 unexpected. You change the wind in CALMET a little 

21 

22 Page Ref No. Keyword = "CALMET" 

23 ____ _______ __________________ 

24 

25 102 21 southeast. Early on with the CALMET modeling in 2002 

26 103 8 CALMET. I think we've talked about that. 

27 112 24 context with CALMET/CALPUFF for long range transport 

28 123 23 the output from, excuse me, output from CALMET to 

29 124 13 to CALMET not necessarily a replacement. CALMET has 

30 130 6 and fed it to CALMET the surface file for OCS and to 

31 130 11 compare where he used CALMET and we used the 

32 135 11 WRF to CALPUFF and then bypassing CALMET. Since 

33 135 12 CALMET can already take the MM5 data, why do you need 

34 135 13 to bypass CALMET? 

35 135 17 CALMET but as Herman indicated it's intended to be an 

36 135 20 If you're doing three years worth of CALMET you know 

37 135 21 CALMET/CALPUFF. Logistics file side you're talking 

38 136 6 There is clearly an application where CALMET is the 

39 138 8 CALMET. 

40 239 6 April, 2003, and includes CALMET and CALPUFF. It was 

41 247 12 meteorological data sets through CALMET there are also 

42 247 14 both CALMET and CALPUFF. Some of the differences we 

43 248 9 model. No you could not use the CALMET meteorological 

44 249 23 regulatory standpoint is CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST. 

45 257 15 the issues they addressed in that was the CALMET 

46 257 20 height changes to CALMET for mixing over water. But 

47 258 23 default mode in applying CALMET that behavior is 

48 258 24 masked somewhat by other defaults within CALMET, 

49 261 4 CALMET. Prior to that there was no regulatory default 

50 261 5 switch in CALMET. There was one in CALPUFF that would 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 347 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calmet" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 262 3 Maybe it's more so in the CALMET data and (inaudible) 

 7 271 12 bypassing CALMET. So it didn't rely on non space 

 8 271 23 complex wind evaluation with Lovett using CALMET. 

 9 272 19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 

10 273 14 insights into treatment of tower data in CALMET. So 

11 276 12 and CALMET and we're going to extend the same concept 

12 287 18 in CALMET and CALPUFF. 

13 287 21 funding for this study and the ongoing CALMET/CALPUFF 

14 293 3 CALMET. The various interfaces to various prognostic 

15 293 20 CALMET and some other changes including the ability to 

16 304 23 more to this instead of saying that MM5 or CALMET is 

17 305 10 exist in the current version of CALMET. You will not 

18 305 11 see this bull's eye if you just configure CALMET to 

19 305 15 in the MM5 data, you can run CALMET in the pure 

20 311 3 are CALMET winds you can see the (inaudible) 

21 316 15 unexpected. You change the wind in CALMET a little 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calms" 

24 ____ _______ _________________ 

25 

26 112 4 due to calms and variable winds; frequency of gaps has 

27 117 23 to the number of calms and variable. We ran that 

28 153 5 this would reduce the number of calms and reduce the 

29 153 21 of calms is reduced when you do the hourly average. 

30 154 6 hourly average you see the reduction in calms. See 

31 160 4 the number of calms you get less than 0% and 24% calms 

32 234 23 many calms and start calculating 24 hour values and 

33 234 24 the more calms we get the lower our numbers go so the 

34 

35 Page Ref No. Keyword = "CALPUFF" 

36 ____ _______ ___________________ 

37 

38 7 19 CALPUFF as well. One of the things I learned back in 

39 9 16 have CALPUFF as well and we can't have models out 

40 29 18 We also have CALPUFF and we have an update process 

41 29 20 independent assessment of CALPUFF when updating to new 

42 29 24 complexity of CALPUFF requires a pretty extensive 

43 30 6 What we did is we developed a CALPUFF update tool and 

44 30 11 CALPUFF session. It basically compares two versions 

45 31 9 in the application of CALPUFF there. We looked at 

46 31 12 afternoon session about CALPUFF. 

47 42 20 the regulatory status of CALPUFF modeling system for a 

48 43 2 clarification memo for CALPUFF. We'll be talking 

49 43 3 about that this afternoon in the CALPUFF session. One 

50 43 6 guideline does refer to CALPUFF as an option that may 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 348 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calpuff" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 43 12 where AERMOD may not be appropriate and CALPUFF may be 

 7 43 20 regarding technical issues related to CALPUFF near- 

 8 50 17 CALPUFF and AERMOD and it really emphasizes the formal 

 9 99 6 was the first big CALPUFF applications. Pinedale EIS 

10 99 10 CALPUFF Database and that was used for many years. 

11 99 21 quality, visibility and deposition (No CALPUFF) 

12 100 2 and CALPUFF for far-field AQ and AQRV impacts but they 

13 100 16 AERMOD for near sources and CALPUFF for far field. 

14 101 11 of wondering why we're running CALPUFF to get sulphur 

15 101 15 dropping CALPUFF and doing everything with the 

16 103 7 take 12km MM5 data and put it through CALPUFF or 

17 104 14 (inaudible) and with CALPUFF we don't have to worry 

18 107 25 to AERMOD and to CALPUFF respectively. Bret. 

19 109 17 CALPUFF is to develop testing protocols for the 

20 109 19 compatible either with AERMOD or CALPUFF. But that 

21 121 23 You'll hear more about MM5 CALPUFF in a minute. But 

22 121 25 taking MM5 data directly into CALPUFF model. Should 

23 123 12 is going to talk next about the MM5 CALPUFF tool. 

24 123 24 drive ISC3 AERMOD and CALPUFF. The purpose of that 

25 124 6 CALPUFF and the (inaudible) version that Joe Scire 

26 124 11 meteorology data from MM5 and WRF and CALPUFF. 

27 124 18 meteorological data used using CALPUFF. 

28 124 20 MM5 data and it could be read directly into CALPUFF. 

29 126 18 goes into CALPUFF without providing statistics to us. 

30 127 25 transport called CALPUFF version 6 point. I don't 

31 129 17 In the 2006 version of CALPUFF, MMS requested Joe 

32 129 18 Scire include the core product elements into CALPUFF. 

33 130 2 test CALPUFF Version 6 using tracer gas experiments. 

34 131 18 in CALPUFF or over water so that we won't have to do 

35 131 21 the reformat program and the CALPUFF over water 

36 131 22 program. Again the CALPUFF version 6 is intended to 

37 131 24 you read the introduction to the users guide CALPUFF 

38 134 12 CALPUFF side I guess I should commend Herman not only 

39 135 11 WRF to CALPUFF and then bypassing CALMET. Since 

40 135 24 going straight from MM5 to CALPUFF and then bypassing 

41 138 7 sort of consistent with what the MM5 CALPUFF or 

42 142 18 AERMOD and CALPUFF. Thank you. 

43 163 22 gridded met tools for AERMOD and CALPUFF we look to 

44 233 6 CALPUFF modeling system that test data set. For now, 

45 238 7 afternoon off with CALPUFF. 

46 238 23 so in respect to CALPUFF. Just to make sure we have 

47 239 6 April, 2003, and includes CALMET and CALPUFF. It was 

48 239 17 version of CALPUFF. It's also identified in Appendix 

49 241 20 CALPUFF rights to TRC in April 2006 and that kind of 

50 242 23 the status of CALPUFF and we had general agreement on 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 349 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calpuff" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 243 7 multiple versions. NOTE: CALPUFF model/code cannot 

 7 244 18 new updated version of CALPUFF and the VISTAS version 

 8 246 16 CALPUFF fit the bill in terms of being able to address 

 9 246 18 model that could but a number of states used CALPUFF. 

10 247 14 both CALMET and CALPUFF. Some of the differences we 

11 247 22 situation to deal with in clearing the air on CALPUFF 

12 248 11 approved part of the CALPUFF modeling system. We had 

13 249 22 2007, establishing the CALPUFF modeling system from a 

14 249 23 regulatory standpoint is CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST. 

15 253 14 situations where use of CALPUFF in the air field might 

16 253 20 CALPUFF is approved for regulatory use and the tool is 

17 257 14 CALPUFF modeling system for use over water. One of 

18 259 2 and the mixing height that goes to CALPUFF is the 

19 259 9 CALPUFF as a parameter that determines how much 

20 261 5 switch in CALMET. There was one in CALPUFF that would 

21 261 11 another threshold parameter in CALPUFF that also had 

22 262 17 previous version of CALPUFF sort of raises some 

23 262 19 evaluations that were done to support CALPUFF 

24 263 3 verses turbulence dispersion option in CALPUFF. 

25 263 10 CALPUFF. It doesn't say that we don't agree 

26 263 24 near-field is AERMOD. CALPUFF is not the EPA27 264 12 that CALPUFF can be considered. But still needs to 

28 264 20 Federal Registry Notice promulgating CALPUFF. "We 

29 264 22 accepting CALPUFF for complex wind situations, as this 

30 264 24 using CALPUFF for complex wind situations, acceptance 

31 265 12 understanding CALPUFF and how best to apply it in 

32 266 7 always submit CALPUFF as an alternative model but 

33 266 11 appropriate than CALPUFF; that's where you get 

34 266 13 AERMOD is not appropriate or CALPUFF is more 

35 270 16 when applying CALPUFF in a near-field situation. The 

36 270 18 CALPUFF modeling system performance for near-field 

37 270 21 ago when they were looking at in promulgating CALPUFF 

38 270 22 and what role will CALPUFF have for near field 

39 270 24 CALPUFF evaluation results for Kincaid (flat terrain) 

40 271 4 This is a figure from the IWAQM phase showing CALPUFF 

41 271 10 over prediction but CALPUFF actually does better. 

42 271 11 However, CALPUFF was applied with CTDMPLUS met inputs, 

43 271 14 motivation for CALPUFF near-field applications under 

44 271 24 Looked at a range of options in CALPUFF and actually 

45 272 6 developed on. In CALPUFF there was quite a range 

46 272 10 adjustment in CALPUFF, AERMOD turbulence with the and 

47 272 19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 

48 272 25 with similar patterns there. CALPUFF with AERMOD 

49 273 8 performance in this case. CALPUFF with AERMOD 

50 273 9 profiles did the best in terms of the CALPUFF 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 350 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calpuff" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 274 10 CALPUFF and they contracted with AER. Prakash 

 7 274 19 to the CALPUFF chemistry. This work was sponsored by 

 8 274 21 that the treatment of chemistry in CALPUFF was 

 9 275 5 perspective I would like to compare CALPUFF with 

10 275 11 will talk about it in a minute. So like CALPUFF 

11 275 13 splitting of puffs like CALPUFF. It uses 2nd order 

12 275 14 closure diffusion. The key difference between CALPUFF 

13 275 18 expensive than CALPUFF, which can restrict its use for 

14 275 25 recoding within the current framework of CALPUFF. It 

15 276 6 full chemistry in CALPUFF, which would make it more 

16 276 14 the background concentrations to CALPUFF. 

17 276 23 earlier options that were already in CALPUFF. For 

18 276 25 CALPUFF (MCHEM=1,2,3,4). So the new chemistry options 

19 278 13 The current treatment of PM chemistry in CALPUFF 

20 279 4 objective was to bring CALPUFF more in line with 

21 279 6 The new PM chemistry in CALPUFF is the following: 

22 279 19 Coming to the original CALPUFF cloud chemistry, there 

23 280 6 in CALPUFF is again based on CMAQ treatment. It 

24 280 13 versions of CALPUFF that are currently available which 

25 280 23 We also did some CALPUFF testing using a plume 

26 280 25 studies with SCICHEM and CALPUFF. As I mentioned 

27 281 7 exists in CALPUFF called MAQCHEM. This switch existed 

28 281 8 but was not used in the current version of CALPUFF. 

29 281 12 sensitivity of the original CALPUFF module (MESOPUFF) 

30 281 13 and new CALPUFF module (ISORROPIA) to relative 

31 281 21 inorganic PM module which is currently in CALPUFF. We 

32 284 3 CALPUFF, which are toluene and xylene (we also 

33 284 6 original CALPUFF doesn't have them). 

34 284 13 original CALPUFF SOA partitioning coefficients. 

35 284 20 One of the short-comings in CALPUFF which people are 

36 284 25 handled currently in the post-processor of CALPUFF 

37 285 12 that we use in this case. But in CALPUFF you can form 

38 285 17 currently evaluating CALPUFF with the Southwest 

39 286 13 be used in CALPUFF. So basically it would be tools 

40 286 14 that convert CMAQ to CALPUFF or CAMx to CALPUFF 

41 287 18 in CALMET and CALPUFF. 

42 288 7 Scire to present CALPUFF Development, Maintenance & 

43 288 10 time that has been allocated to talk about CALPUFF and 

44 289 14 talk about CALPUFF development maintenance and also 

45 290 5 powerful system. CALPUFF system undergoes continual 

46 293 6 We put the (inaudible) turbulence profile in CALPUFF. 

47 293 9 does. CALPUFF has something very similar based on the 

48 294 13 it since the development of CALPUFF was started; we 

49 301 4 Workshops contain misleading statements about CALPUFF, 

50 304 14 this? He has attributed it to CALPUFF being less than 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 351 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "calpuff" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 304 20 observations. Is that a CALPUFF issue or MM5 issues 

 7 307 15 But I think I teach a lot of courses with CALPUFF 

 8 308 12 Comparing the models I believe CALPUFF is the viable 

 9 308 23 in that time step. CALPUFF accounts for that AERMOD 

10 309 10 CALPUFF will treat turbulence downwind of each 

11 309 12 with AERMOD, you have it with CALPUFF now today with 

12 309 13 CALPUFF. Calm winds (inaudible) the conservative or 

13 309 16 calm. CALPUFF will treat the calm winds. 

14 309 20 CALPUFF retains previous hours emissions. Coastal 

15 309 22 in AERMOD and CALPUFF has an expensive one. 

16 311 5 upper portion. CALPUFF suggests that these plume in 

17 312 6 CALPUFF in a near field application. 

18 312 10 airport station. We put in the sources in CALPUFF and 

19 315 15 CALPUFF as well. You believe the turbulence controls 

20 317 16 times the observation and CALPUFF was conservative but 

21 317 18 Just in terms of the chemistry this is CALPUFF 

22 317 22 simplest chemistry in CALPUFF does very well in 

23 318 17 applying CALPUFF in those kinds of cases. If an 

24 319 4 approach. We still have the CALPUFF Performance 

25 319 12 performance evaluation of CALPUFF and move on and take 

26 320 25 that this is not a CALPUFF verses AERMOD and I would 

27 321 13 apply both to AERMOD and for CALPUFF. It's not as 

28 

29 Page Ref No. Keyword = "cell" 

30 ____ _______ ________________ 

31 

32 92 25 'all-source' runs used the 1x1 and 3x3 grid cell 

33 113 3 So you select the Grid cell based on 

34 113 7 grid cell where my source resides. And you can get 

35 113 8 surface and upper-air data located in same grid cell. 

36 113 9 And hourly values available for every grid cell. 

37 114 6 have extracted 2002 MM5 data for the grid cell 

38 114 8 extracted 30x30 grid cell 

39 114 17 30x30 grid cell sub-domain of the data we extracted to 

40 114 18 feed with the tool. That shows the grid cell that was 

41 117 3 the MM5 model for that grid cell which was about 0.3 

42 119 22 for that grid cell and fed that into AERMOD through 

43 120 11 that tower would have put it in the next grid cell 

44 136 22 covers more than one grid cell why not use each source 

45 136 23 with its own grid cell. It would be not an over night 

46 137 20 latitude, longitude, (inaudible) or a grid cell if you 

47 137 22 for that grid cell. 

48 138 5 And that becomes your grid cell. Again, there are 

49 140 24 urban grid cell from MM5 or WRF and not have to turn 

50 148 16 downloading data from the upper cell web site. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 352 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "cell" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 189 10 Depending on how much of the grid cell is on the 

 7 191 21 30 meter grid cell and this is supposed to be the 

 8 215 20 data why not pick the grid cell for each source 

 9 258 21 turbulence for that grid cell. But a new convective 

10 

11 Page Ref No. Keyword = "cells" 

12 ____ _______ _________________ 

13 

14 93 9 using those cells. 

15 121 11 grid cells over the whole city. Why not use grid 

16 121 12 cells for each source. May not be a perfect solution 

17 259 7 grid cells. That would mask this effect to some 

18 260 5 convective mixing height where one of the grid cells 

19 

20 Page Ref No. Keyword = "chemistry" 

21 ____ _______ _____________________ 

22 

23 97 7 up with new (inaudible) chemistry for (inaudible). 

24 101 14 more complete chemistry. So at that point we are 

25 105 21 chemistry and plume dispersion. The ozone and PM 

26 274 9 had put out an RFP to address some of the chemistry in 

27 274 15 formation in chemistry that we haven't been looking 

28 274 19 to the CALPUFF chemistry. This work was sponsored by 

29 274 21 that the treatment of chemistry in CALPUFF was 

30 275 2 handling those aspects of the chemistry that were not 

31 275 7 it is a reactive puff model which is a chemistry 

32 275 10 developed by ARAP. SCICHEM includes chemistry which I 

33 275 21 chemistry, the PM chemistry and the 

34 275 22 aqueous-phase chemistry, The gas-phase chemistry is 

35 275 24 comprehensive chemistry - it requires a fair amount of 

36 276 4 chemistry and it would be like reinventing the wheel 

37 276 6 full chemistry in CALPUFF, which would make it more 

38 276 10 chemistry can be improved by using techniques similar 

39 276 16 treatments for PM formation and cloud chemistry to 

40 276 19 gas-phase chemistry option and updated the RIVAD 

41 276 20 chemistry rate constants. And we tried to make sure 

42 276 24 example there are four options for chemistry in 

43 276 25 CALPUFF (MCHEM=1,2,3,4). So the new chemistry options 

44 277 3 Let's look at the chemistry of NOx plumes and the 

45 277 4 three stages of the gas phase chemistry. So in the 

46 277 5 early stages of the plume we have NO/NO2/O3 chemistry 

47 277 6 and the RIVAD chemistry mechanism treats this stage of 

48 277 11 chemistry of the plume in the far field where you will 

49 277 12 have the full VOC/NOx chemistry and for that of course 

50 278 13 The current treatment of PM chemistry in CALPUFF 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 353 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "chemistry" 

 4 ____ _______ _____________________ 

 5 

 6 279 3 Okay. So for the new chemistry, like I said, the 

 7 279 6 The new PM chemistry in CALPUFF is the following: 

 8 279 19 Coming to the original CALPUFF cloud chemistry, there 

 9 279 20 is no explicit treatment of aqueous-phase chemistry. 

10 279 21 In the MESOPUFF-II chemistry option uses a simple 

11 280 5 So the new aqueous-phase chemistry module implemented 

12 280 24 chemistry data base that we have used in previous 

13 281 4 the gas phase chemistry and the ISORROPIA module. And 

14 281 6 chemistry is activated by using a switch which already 

15 281 20 to not just the MESOPUFF chemistry option but to the 

16 283 10 chemistry mechanism and original PM treatment 

17 284 15 Finally for the aqueous-phase chemistry tests, the 

18 286 5 chemistry was not improved in the sense that we didn't 

19 286 6 incorporate the full treatment of chemistry in this 

20 287 15 chemistry option), is to incorporate cloud fields in 

21 288 5 perspectives from the more chemistry side and the work 

22 289 22 from Prakash about a chemistry set rule becomes part 

23 317 18 Just in terms of the chemistry this is CALPUFF 

24 317 22 simplest chemistry in CALPUFF does very well in 

25 

26 Page Ref No. Keyword = "clarification memo" 

27 ____ _______ ______________________________ 

28 

29 34 12 clarification memo to get at the more general broad 

30 38 15 through here. Also the clarification memo section 

31 39 11 what clarification memoranda is all about? First 

32 40 19 a clarification memo goes out it certainly goes 

33 43 2 clarification memo for CALPUFF. We'll be talking 

34 49 2 through a clarification memo as to what the issue is 

35 133 15 thinking about addressing through a clarification memo 

36 235 4 this idea putting out a clarification memorandum on 

37 239 20 the clarification memo earlier and will get into more 

38 253 12 field clarification memo on a little more detail. 

39 263 21 is the near-field Clarification Memo. Thought I'd 

40 320 4 of Appendix W as was laid out in a clarification memo 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Class I" 

43 ____ _______ ___________________ 

44 

45 239 9 for Class I increments analysis. At the time the 

46 239 22 Class I AQRV [ed. Air Quality Related Values] 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 354 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "clearing house" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________________ 

 5 

 6 10 23 Clearing house. We're re-energizing it and getting 

 7 17 13 Model Clearing House that we will get into shortly in 

 8 33 12 Now you heard Chet mention the Clearing House quite a 

 9 33 14 to have an active and effective Clearing House. For 

10 33 17 using the Clearing House. We didn't maintain it and 

11 34 7 issues arise, the clearing house is really focused on 

12 35 8 Now in terms of the operation of the clearing house, 

13 35 10 the focus of the clearing house. Obviously there have 

14 35 18 those would be submitted to the clearing house but 

15 38 14 Clearing House. You can access the Clearing House 

16 40 4 Clearing House process that Tyler has just presented. 

17 41 19 the Clearing House as far as process. There are 

18 50 15 Clearing House process has been stressed as of late. 

19 50 21 constitute consulting with the Clearing House. If 

20 50 23 is fine and I've talked to the Clearing House or 

21 51 6 or by the Clearing House and if you feel as if you 

22 51 13 Clearing House hasn't really said anything. 

23 52 2 background if you are going through the clearing house 

24 52 20 Clearing House, it puts us all in potentially harms 

25 53 9 Clearing House process that provides that. 

26 127 19 Model Clearing House. 

27 134 21 the situation. And using the clearing house probably 

28 207 24 Model Clearing House procedures for simulating a 

29 208 15 that Model Clearing House procedure for non-downwash 

30 222 8 Roger Brode: Right. The Model Clearing House 

31 223 3 clearing house procedure. You don't have to do 

32 265 9 clearing house so you didn't. So now we're in a 

33 265 14 sort of the Model Clearing House needs to be 

34 304 5 any staff member and any other clearing house memos. 

35 

36 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Model Clearing House" 

37 ____ _______ ________________________________ 

38 

39 17 13 Model Clearing House that we will get into shortly in 

40 127 19 Model Clearing House. 

41 207 24 Model Clearing House procedures for simulating a 

42 208 15 that Model Clearing House procedure for non-downwash 

43 222 8 Roger Brode: Right. The Model Clearing House 

44 265 14 sort of the Model Clearing House needs to be 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 355 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "complex" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 14 11 problems and move modeling forward. It's a complex 

 7 29 24 complexity of CALPUFF requires a pretty extensive 

 8 43 9 involving complex winds. So if (inaudible) 

 9 83 9 complexes. These monitors are literally on 

10 83 19 those first complexes. The problem with this and it 

11 194 4 complex terrain and when you are into complex terrain 

12 253 13 Discuss in more detail some examples of complex wind 

13 264 7 cases when there is no preferred model. So a complex 

14 264 22 accepting CALPUFF for complex wind situations, as this 

15 264 24 using CALPUFF for complex wind situations, acceptance 

16 266 4 treatment of complex winds is critical to 

17 266 16 consideration become complex winds by their 

18 266 23 Let's talk about what complex winds are. There 

19 266 24 are examples of complex winds not deeply 

20 269 7 have to understand what the complex wind 

21 269 18 So there's a lot of complexity involved there and 

22 270 5 features of the complex winds toward that 

23 270 19 complex wind applications is not well-documented yet 

24 271 23 complex wind evaluation with Lovett using CALMET. 

25 273 23 applied with the assumption if I have complex winds 

26 276 2 also increases the complexity of model and as you just 

27 276 3 heard we talked about SCICHEM which has the complex 

28 276 7 expensive and complex and kind of hinder its use for 

29 296 10 The separate and more complex issues of model 

30 309 24 model for complex terrain. It cannot handle complex 

31 311 2 This is looking at a complex terrain case. These 

32 311 12 doesn't have the ability to do the complexion and it's 

33 312 2 this is an appropriate complex terrain case to use 

34 317 9 complex terrain. There was one coastal line group 

35 321 8 its ability to handle the complex situations and other 

36 

37 Page Ref No. Keyword = "concentration" 

38 ____ _______ _________________________ 

39 

40 48 6 much lower concentration on the stack just below. 

41 48 8 much higher concentration in orders of magnitude in 

42 61 8 concentration as many of you are familiar with and 

43 61 9 then calculate inhalation exposure concentration. Now 

44 61 21 HAPS, we don't have at risk or reference concentration 

45 64 23 now. So how does that concentration outside relate to 

46 64 24 the concentration in this room or wherever you spend 

47 65 2 relate that to the concentration from the dispersion 

48 65 6 up with an exposure concentration or a breathing level 

49 65 7 concentration that someone might breathe. Then we do 

50 71 14 concentration. What a background concentration 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 356 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "concentration" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________________ 

 5 

 6 71 23 background concentration. We looked at things like 

 7 72 7 that we do have a background concentration and the 

 8 73 18 and once you have this ambient concentration at a 

 9 74 6 take that breathing level concentration and apply the 

10 75 21 our background concentration. So that might not be 

11 81 15 are the monitors that show higher concentration than 

12 88 25 facility wide AERMOD concentration was 0.2 micrograms 

13 138 14 concentration or something like that. 

14 154 12 concentration to the standard ASOS concentration. 

15 161 6 concentration prediction for a whole slug of 

16 193 15 forces the model to calculate centerline concentration 

17 195 17 the concentration, date, direction, distance, and 

18 195 19 concentration. We also added a feature to find the 

19 195 20 maximum concentration for automatic receptor distances 

20 195 24 finds the max concentration of distance regardless of 

21 201 25 the overall maximum concentration from PROBE or 

22 202 3 associated with maximum concentration as well as 

23 202 6 concentration and then refine receptor spacing to 1, 

24 202 8 refine the maximum concentration as close to the max 

25 203 9 This is an example of output see the concentration is 

26 203 11 is the maximum 1-hour concentration calculated by 

27 203 20 the max concentration for all directions calculated 

28 227 24 see if the actual modeled peak concentration peak are 

29 272 3 Concentration so for three hours Robust Highest 

30 277 10 concentration from that. It doesn't treat the 

31 277 15 the end of each time step the ozone concentration is 

32 277 16 reset to the background concentration in the puffs 

33 277 23 and calculate a new puff O3 concentration at each time 

34 277 25 concentration at the previous time step and the 

35 278 2 background O3 concentration. 

36 278 19 a constant NH3 concentration. It also includes a 

37 299 9 pointed out it had almost no change in concentration 

38 308 7 concentration. This doesn't mean there's a terrible 

39 310 10 is the desired concentration saying more of the line 

40 310 18 concentration that is important. When you have 

41 311 15 correct concentration when that plume infringes on the 

42 314 7 length that are higher than the highest concentration 

43 315 24 and 89% from design concentration from this source. 

44 316 4 concentration when you're doing a regulatory study. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 357 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "concentrations" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________________ 

 5 

 6 45 10 ASOS data produced higher concentrations than using 

 7 62 3 concentrations all that we would suggest you use in 

 8 71 19 So we developed background concentrations and I won't 

 9 72 9 concentrations as we've gone through time from the 

10 74 7 unit risk estimations and the reference concentrations 

11 81 21 we have had amazing lower concentrations. We don't 

12 87 17 attainment demonstration, concentrations will be 

13 87 19 and RACT, concentrations at the monitor were 

14 89 7 we expected AERMOD to predict lower concentrations 

15 90 23 saw consistently higher concentrations using AERMOD at 

16 98 24 on criteria pollutant concentrations, visibility, and 

17 150 12 ASOS data on AERMOD concentrations. Secondly they 

18 155 15 concentrations that you'll get. So there is a desire 

19 155 18 conservative on your concentrations. 

20 161 3 concentrations is one of the things the sub group is 

21 195 9 distance to calculate concentrations. You can specify 

22 203 12 AERMOD and these are the scaled concentrations that 

23 214 13 long term averages would be for lower concentrations. 

24 266 5 estimating design concentrations; if it isn't 

25 272 4 concentrations. This is AERMOD for reference it did 

26 276 14 the background concentrations to CALPUFF. 

27 277 9 ozone concentrations and calculates the OH 

28 280 10 calculate liquid-phase concentrations and cloud pH. 

29 285 23 concentrations. So this modification accounts for the 

30 285 24 fact that you expect ammonia concentrations to be 

31 286 17 specification of the oxidant concentrations like OH 

32 306 20 results in terms of the concentrations. All you are 

33 308 4 concentrations. You have to remember that's point by 

34 310 22 effect predicted violation those lower concentrations 

35 312 24 concentrations a range of plume that that results in 

36 312 25 concentrations being predicted upwind concentrations 

37 313 3 concentrations and SILs. You may have a background 

38 317 23 predicting the sulfate concentrations. (inaudible) 

39 

40 Page Ref No. Keyword = "convective" 

41 ____ _______ ______________________ 

42 

43 125 8 calculating will be convective velocity scale, surface 

44 138 23 convective parameters, etc., or is there some blend 

45 176 16 calculating the convective mixing heights and it gives 

46 185 7 and albedo affect the convective boundaries 

47 197 3 parameters: Wind speed (stable and convective), cloud 

48 197 4 cover (stable and convective), max/min ambient temp 

49 197 5 (stable and convective), solar elevation angle (stable 

50 197 6 and convective), convective velocity scale (w*) 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 358 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "convective" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 197 9 u* and L, and also calculates convective mixing 

 7 209 20 the model especially for convective conditions where 

 8 257 16 didn't count for the convective mixing height over 

 9 257 19 Gulf of Mexico. So they made some convective mixing 

10 257 22 convective for day and night on end for a long period 

11 257 23 of time. So this convective boundary layer could sort 

12 258 15 flux required to sustain convective mixing height 

13 258 18 heat flux falls below the threshold, the convective 

14 258 20 for that hour which eliminates any convective 

15 258 21 turbulence for that grid cell. But a new convective 

16 259 3 higher of the mechanical and convective mixing 

17 259 8 degree. The convective velocity scale which is path to 

18 259 10 convective turbulence is in the atmosphere. That is 

19 259 11 also set to 0 for convective mixing height. That 

20 260 5 convective mixing height where one of the grid cells 

21 260 6 within that domain showing convective mixing height so 

22 260 8 convective mixing height increases then drops 

23 267 5 differential heating under convective conditions 

24 268 20 a convective boundary layer that develops thermal 

25 

26 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

27 ____ _______ ________________ 

28 

29 26 21 improvement in modeling science and data but make it 

30 36 21 archive these decisions in a searchable database 

31 37 15 allows full public access as to the database. So you 

32 38 22 guidance database there at the bottom. That really is 

33 44 4 observer-based National Weather Service data with 

34 44 5 AERMOD and treatment of missing airport data in 

35 44 12 The one about the airport data and AERMOD. Here is 

36 44 14 that the AERMOD requirements for data completeness 

37 44 21 observer-based data from airports. There were some 

38 45 10 ASOS data produced higher concentrations than using 

39 45 11 observant based data. That might be okay for us but 

40 45 15 acknowledge there may be cases where ASOS data might 

41 46 6 ASOS is with the Missing NWS data more extensive with 

42 46 9 for reporting airport data. We've seen a lot more 

43 46 10 missing data than we did in the early 90's or earlier 

44 46 12 within the modeling community. Missing airport data 

45 46 13 was pretty rare when ISC required 100% data capture so 

46 46 14 it wasn't that big of a deal but today missing data is 

47 46 23 looking at which is to potentially use another data 

48 46 25 wind data. It turns out right now we're using a 

49 66 16 don't want to over analyze data and spend all sorts of 

50 67 15 updating it was the meteorology data. Everyone who 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 359 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 67 17 SCRAM and get all sorts of meteorology data and 

 7 67 18 download it and with all the five year data sets that 

 8 67 20 and we actually developed meteorology data to run a 

 9 68 2 with this data set we have. And it's also been 

10 68 3 supplemented by many states data. Wisconsin sent me 

11 68 6 Wisconsin and other states have been sending me data 

12 68 8 So we're building a nice archive of meteorology data 

13 69 20 had the data for building downwash would add a lot of 

14 70 10 used airport surface data around these airports to 

15 71 11 bins that we broke up the data a few seconds ago. 

16 71 24 different clean wind sectors using monitoring data. 

17 72 3 monitoring data. 

18 72 14 monitors as compared to the NATA data. The value of 

19 73 4 particulate that we looked at and the monitoring data 

20 73 5 that is out there is broken up into two data sets. We 

21 74 17 NATA data into what's called a KML format. You click 

22 74 22 in here who want some of the finer resolution data, I 

23 74 23 can work on that when that data comes available. 

24 75 5 there were some issues with the data and inventory. 

25 75 6 The states look at the data for about two or three 

26 87 20 used. We used 2002 met data - same as base case 

27 87 21 emission data year. This is where Roger and 

28 87 24 We have some pretty good met data in the area. 

29 88 9 data sometimes. We had the one minute data that Roger 

30 88 11 one minute data that was augmented by ASOS data were 

31 88 12 necessary. We really like the SEARCH data but we had 

32 88 15 PM 2.5 Birmingham monitor. The one minute data is the 

33 88 16 green and the SEARCH data is the blue. So the SEARCH 

34 88 17 data was valuable but it was unfortunate that we 

35 88 19 line represents the data that we did use. This is the 

36 99 10 CALPUFF Database and that was used for many years. 

37 101 4 partnership developing background databases. We did 

38 102 24 observed data which is a different year is (inaudible) 

39 103 3 we run MM5 to get the surface data and we see we can 

40 103 7 take 12km MM5 data and put it through CALPUFF or 

41 105 23 source impacts. The other is the advances in database 

42 106 2 model databases across the US and also trained a lot 

43 106 14 extra effort kept these databases in use. 

44 107 24 building tools to deliver these gridded data directly 

45 108 10 data including state-of-practice "National Weather 

46 108 16 on how can gridded meteorological model data be used. 

47 108 18 case study where MM5 data had been extracted and been 

48 108 20 to use AERMOD data and MM5 directly into AERMOD. So 

49 109 14 documentation for the gridded meteorological data 

50 109 22 this so that we understand are the data files getting 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 360 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 110 13 better than National Weather Service data going to the 

 7 111 16 data are key inputs to air quality models such as 

 8 111 18 NWS data currently used in most cases; however but met 

 9 111 24 dimension in the problem. Upper air data sparsely 

10 112 3 airport data that we have significant gaps in NWS data 

11 112 13 meteorological data collection is an option but is 

12 113 5 sparsity of observed data. I don't have to look for 

13 113 8 surface and upper-air data located in same grid cell. 

14 113 13 height. What's not provided by MM5 data that AERMOD 

15 113 18 data input data plus surface characteristics and 

16 113 22 to take gridded MET data from MM5 in this case. 

17 113 25 it outputs data again formatted for AERMOD. So the 

18 114 6 have extracted 2002 MM5 data for the grid cell 

19 114 12 and the traditional airport data to AERMED approach 

20 114 17 30x30 grid cell sub-domain of the data we extracted to 

21 114 24 gridded data on the right for the lowest level. They 

22 116 3 data for that H1H 24-hour average again this is a 

23 116 16 between the two except when you feed the airport data 

24 117 14 Then I'll mention the 1-minute ASOS data so that's a 

25 117 20 we looked at the 1-minute ASOS data so we went back 

26 117 24 supplemented airport data through air surface through 

27 118 3 factor of 7 higher with the MM5 data to a factor ratio 

28 119 2 AERMOD tool versus the airport data both looking at 

29 119 25 we had partial sub-sets of the MM5 data. We don't how 

30 121 2 terms of the use of gridded MET data just based on EPA 

31 121 14 domain like we do now for the airport data. There are 

32 121 18 validate the use of MM5 AERMOD data against some field 

33 121 19 studies data. We have a lot of field studies that 

34 121 25 taking MM5 data directly into CALPUFF model. Should 

35 122 6 with either MM5 or more data. They don't need to 

36 122 19 to models expands, we have airport data we have 

37 122 21 data whatever. Other (inaudible) that are either here 

38 122 24 whatever meteorological data you have for whatever 

39 123 7 data, have fun or do we actually does EPA develop an 

40 123 8 archive of MM5 data and you just go online and 

41 123 9 download the data. I'm all set to go. Put all the 

42 123 16 Model Data Reformatted Program that we have been 

43 124 3 (inaudible) in using Mesoscale data being either from 

44 124 5 right now we're interested in using this data to drive 

45 124 11 meteorology data from MM5 and WRF and CALPUFF. 

46 124 18 meteorological data used using CALPUFF. 

47 124 20 MM5 data and it could be read directly into CALPUFF. 

48 126 21 measure data for stuff like wind direction. We also 

49 126 25 measured data. Another aspect of this is to develop 

50 128 8 2006, we asked Shell Oil to collect meteorology data a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 361 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 128 12 Shell saying that I strongly urge you that data that 

 7 128 15 and agreed that they would collect data using buoys 

 8 128 21 We expect Shell to collect that data sometime in last 

 9 128 25 What I intend to do with the data and I let Shell know 

10 129 2 that. We will provide that data to University of 

11 129 8 provide that data for them to use to assimilate that 

12 129 9 data to WRF and to use it to (inaudible) to do the 

13 129 24 (inaudible) shelf data and weight information. 

14 130 5 the information data he used. Basically he used it 

15 131 17 to use. It is my desire to take that data and use it 

16 131 20 that they don't want to do this. Use this WRF data in 

17 132 8 fix ASOS data until it matched MM5 data. Is that 

18 132 10 Roger Brode: I filled in gaps in the ASOS data 

19 132 11 with other ASOS data that were more highly resolved 

20 132 19 but the fact that supplementing the ASOS data with the 

21 132 21 with what we're seeing in the MM5 data was an 

22 132 23 does suggest is using standard ASOS data as is for 

23 132 25 because you're throwing out large chunks of data that 

24 133 6 be using 1-minute data not necessarily going to MM5. 

25 133 9 that I don't have any airport data is representative 

26 133 11 that. If I can use prognostic data and we have 

27 133 16 is treatment of airport data in AERMOD. One is ASOS 

28 133 21 verses observant based data. You will see a little 

29 135 12 CALMET can already take the MM5 data, why do you need 

30 135 22 multiple gigabytes worth of data. This presents to 

31 135 25 large (inaudible) data sets and large (inaudible) data 

32 136 15 Roger. If you have gridded met data for AERMOD and 

33 137 13 you are extracting the data from the grid? Is it a 

34 137 14 grid file that you're extracting the data from. Just 

35 137 17 (inaudible) program that extracts data from MM5.out 

36 137 21 know which one you want to do. Then extract MM5 data 

37 139 21 specific data set. Currently it's been tested on 2002 

38 139 22 MM5 platform data that's used in all CMAQ 

39 139 25 discussion about other approaches taking the data 

40 140 5 data. Then it can go through AERMET with your own 

41 140 6 surface data. Especially out west if I have site 

42 140 8 using. But there's no upper air data in sight using 

43 140 9 gridded met to generate (inaudible) upper air data to 

44 141 19 done at utilizing that data for a little better upper 

45 146 3 ASOS/Met Data - Alan Dresser (NJDEP) / 

46 147 6 data in the processing area as well as some new text 

47 148 3 fall under the meteorological data and processing 

48 148 14 processing upper air data. Just some recommendations 

49 148 16 downloading data from the upper cell web site. 

50 148 20 national weather data or site specific onsite data 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 362 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 149 25 ASOS data met data group, the urban issues group and 

 7 150 9 respect to the ASOS and met data processing sub group 

 8 150 11 focus on. One was the impact ASOS data versus pre- 

 9 150 12 ASOS data on AERMOD concentrations. Secondly they 

10 150 14 data and improving quality assessment and reporting in 

11 150 25 using pre-ASOS and the ASOS met data. Looking at the 

12 151 10 get with the ASOS data was much less an issue for 

13 151 15 difference in the two met data sets that were used. 

14 151 17 conventional observation met data in one case. In the 

15 151 19 the observational data it's observer temperature, 

16 152 15 with ISCST3. In general we felt the use of ASOS data 

17 152 18 of ASOS data is overall less of an issue with AERMOD. 

18 152 19 Another area of work that the met data issues group is 

19 153 6 number of missing data currently reported. Also what 

20 153 12 much data do you need to do your average. So we've 

21 153 16 data compared with the hybrid or the average. Here 

22 154 16 prediction when using the hourly met data. It varies 

23 154 20 met data. 

24 156 10 does it helps to organize the data a little better. 

25 157 14 combining the population information with other data 

26 157 17 This is some land cover data that shows impervious 

27 157 24 generate population data from that application. 

28 158 12 information to sort of collaborate the population data 

29 158 18 representative met data. What do you do if you don't 

30 158 19 have any representative met data and I think the 

31 158 20 future is possibly gridded met data or the MM5 to 

32 159 7 Then lastly representativeness process met data you 

33 159 9 criteria or some information on is the met data that 

34 159 16 data and source information and this is a site 

35 161 23 the field studies relative to these data basis as 

36 166 4 surface weather service data. Think we've got a 

37 166 15 of newer elevation data is in that 83 but some 

38 166 16 elevation data is in that 27. So dealing with the 

39 172 8 upgraded AERMAP to support newer elevation data 

40 172 11 from USGS Seamless Data Server in GeoTIFF format which 

41 172 22 familiar with the data to make sure there aren't other 

42 172 24 quality data set than DEM. We know a lot of issues 

43 172 25 with DEM data. One being just the fact that you have 

44 173 2 different horizontal data in neighboring DEM files so 

45 173 3 that's an issue. Now the default format for that data 

46 173 9 7.5-min DEM file or data for your application. If 

47 173 12 is no data for that quadrangle and that can create 

48 173 15 all 7.5 data you have and then if you have a gap like 

49 173 17 It'll use the higher resolution data to first get the 

50 173 19 degree data. Of course with the met data you don't 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 363 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 173 23 key words optional. So if I go to the seamless data 

 7 173 24 server and download the domain of NED data while I've 

 8 174 4 the available data. That basically controls just how 

 9 175 19 with (inaudible) if it was missing in the data file. 

10 175 23 have the elevation in the data file which we were not 

11 176 4 it's missing any data rather than using the default 

12 176 7 inputs for site-specific data that came up recently. 

13 176 11 if we had site specific data in one time zone and 

14 176 12 wanted to use with surface data from the next time 

15 176 21 data derived from MM5 data then we don't want to be 

16 176 22 limited to the 12Z (inaudible) data because we're have 

17 177 6 as an interim solution to fix the data. You don't 

18 178 10 the representativeness of the meteorological data and 

19 179 24 evaluation databases to make sure there is any changes 

20 181 16 well. And then the met data representative issue we 

21 182 2 met data representativeness even sort of evaluate or 

22 182 5 evaluation data sets to understand what's going on. I 

23 182 8 actual source and the actual field study data; if the 

24 182 12 10 meter on site data. It appeared to improve model 

25 183 2 met data needs as summarized it was designed to accept 

26 183 4 upper air data. It's also designed to accept more 

27 183 23 same concept but uses different land covered data and 

28 185 16 available. Current version supports 1992 data and 

29 185 17 NLCD data this is 30 meter horizontal resolution and 

30 185 21 land cover data is not designed for the purpose of 

31 186 15 what 1993 NLCD data for North Carolina. That's 

32 188 11 NCLD data for one thing is more representative 

33 188 18 attention. If you want to supplement NLCD data with 

34 189 20 elevation data sets and NED I mentioned for AERMET is 

35 189 21 being upgraded to handle the NED data. There's also 

36 189 22 SRTM data. We think we can use both these data sets 

37 189 23 at roughly same resolution as the land cover data to 

38 189 24 estimate the average height of obstacles. That data 

39 190 3 the signal to the Shuttle. The elevation data are 

40 190 7 of obstacles within the land covered data we can 

41 190 10 work. That's the NED data on the left for 

42 190 17 is low. That's the overlay on the land cover data so 

43 190 23 how it would work in the city. That's the SRTM data 

44 191 6 same sort of thing. There is land cover data, 

45 191 12 This is Chicago. That's NED data pretty flat. That's 

46 191 13 kind of a busier SRM data and that area looks kind of 

47 191 14 weird and that's a data gap. We see elevations of 

48 192 4 have been data limited in terms of these dispersion 

49 192 5 models. We've got airport data what else are you 

50 192 6 going to use. We've got land covered data what else 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 364 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 192 8 data driven now so we got land covered data plus these 

 7 192 10 We've got gridded prognostic met data. We've got 

 8 193 23 Jim Haywood. You can enter the data via prompts or by 

 9 198 12 representative problem when you use airport data. It 

10 199 2 would input and validate the data. Then the program 

11 199 23 date is here, this is a point source, building data. 

12 199 25 and other inputs. Here's your met data and under surf 

13 200 3 terrain data flags and the coordinates and then the 

14 200 6 from the prompts your data can be English but from the 

15 200 9 It's a pretty good way of inputting the data this file 

16 200 15 source data, building data, terrain data or met data. 

17 200 17 source data you cannot change source type. You can 

18 200 20 When you run terrain data it will ask you if you want 

19 208 12 we need is some test data to do some kind of 

20 208 18 data out there or something that could inform that 

21 211 18 Met Data. Urban issues and surface characteristics 

22 211 23 the airport site where the met data is being corrected 

23 212 6 with an idea to utilize more of this data in the model 

24 212 19 feeding all the data into AERMOD to give us an 

25 215 6 prognostic meteorological data with the model and we 

26 215 10 processing gridded met data as pseudo-observations 

27 215 20 data why not pick the grid cell for each source 

28 215 25 land cover and elevation data, AERMIC is working on an 

29 216 3 utilizing this data directly in the model. As I 

30 216 6 the land cover and elevation data (SRTM-NED) will be 

31 217 12 The representativeness of met data will always be an 

32 217 19 performance field data actually improves. Then that 

33 217 24 access to the data might allow some other enhancements 

34 218 13 better accommodate future enhancements as new data 

35 219 2 issued in the cases of 1992 and 2001 and old data may 

36 219 10 cover data in the SIP format maybe from an alternative 

37 219 11 data source so if you have land cover data in 

38 219 24 files that is a data dump of the gridded land cover 

39 220 18 land cover data where there has been recreational 

40 220 23 data problems that's been in other things like in ASOS 

41 220 24 there's data problems, land cover there's data 

42 221 3 and we hope people will take some time and QA the data 

43 221 16 systems with their own state land cover data set up 

44 228 18 replace if you don't have onsite data or 

45 228 19 representative meteorological data. Could you use 

46 228 22 data? 

47 231 14 evaluation data base. Now we checked on your web site 

48 231 19 Is the creation and maintenance of this data base an 

49 231 22 data base that is agreed upon by both OAQPS and the 

50 232 15 tests that can be used. As far as the evaluation data 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 365 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 232 16 bases the data is out there and I think the only 

 7 232 20 know that this outweighs evaluation data sets by 

 8 232 25 along with was to get the evaluation data bases 

 9 233 6 CALPUFF modeling system that test data set. For now, 

10 234 17 recommendation for using the new ASOS data sets 23505 

11 234 21 or 2 minute [ed. averaged] (inaudible) data to kind of 

12 235 5 use of ASOS data with AERMOD and dealing with missing 

13 235 6 airport data with AERMOD. I don't think we have an 

14 235 9 of that data set especially for applications involving 

15 235 10 lower level releases where part of the data that 

16 235 15 as to whether the met data being used for the 

17 235 22 In terms of the ASOS data, one of the big obstacles we 

18 235 24 with that is that the data files themselves are not in 

19 236 2 the files but the data files themselves don't always 

20 236 4 obstacles in processing the 1 minute data cleanly. So 

21 236 7 given us an opportunity to learn more about that data 

22 236 13 modify AERMET to read in that as an optional data 

23 236 14 resource to supplement the other types of data 

24 247 3 you develop meteorological data sets which take quite 

25 247 12 meteorological data sets through CALMET there are also 

26 248 10 data set because they were not based on a regulatory 

27 259 14 illustrate one of the scenarios in test the data set. 

28 262 3 Maybe it's more so in the CALMET data and (inaudible) 

29 267 13 data may be significant issues for a near-field. 

30 267 14 Do you have adequate data resolution to resolve 

31 268 22 and representative of met data may be significant 

32 271 25 tried to utilize the onsite data from the Lovett site. 

33 272 5 very well. That was one of the data bases AERMOD was 

34 273 14 insights into treatment of tower data in CALMET. So 

35 273 16 representatives on sight, met data documenting the 

36 280 24 chemistry data base that we have used in previous 

37 285 18 Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF) data base. We 

38 287 22 evaluation study with the SWWYTAF data base and the 

39 287 24 provided the SWWYTAF data base for model application 

40 288 20 data with the surface date. We became aware of this 

41 292 5 processors updated to accept new or revised data 

42 292 8 different versions of met data. Basically, we are up 

43 292 23 options for different terrain data. There is what's 

44 295 4 do with data, or hardware or input errors, user type 

45 303 20 data that EPA is presenting at these various forums is 

46 303 21 made available to the public. The data sets not just 

47 304 3 that the EPA provide the data that is used in the 

48 305 15 in the MM5 data, you can run CALMET in the pure 

49 305 24 Sydney in Australia. We have identified data and we 

50 306 10 emphasis maybe on the MM5 data and certainly the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 366 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "data" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 311 9 project source. So we're using that data with the 

 7 312 15 source of the met data you will get a plume going in 

 8 316 8 input even simple ones and in this case the data 

 9 316 10 anything, you can get enormous changes. The data 

10 317 19 performance on the data predicting sulfate that 

11 318 10 and data based should be sought, even in case-by-case 

12 318 14 expense of model and data base accuracy. In cases 

13 

14 Page Ref No. Keyword = "database" 

15 ____ _______ ____________________ 

16 

17 36 21 archive these decisions in a searchable database 

18 37 15 allows full public access as to the database. So you 

19 38 22 guidance database there at the bottom. That really is 

20 99 10 CALPUFF Database and that was used for many years. 

21 105 23 source impacts. The other is the advances in database 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "databases" 

24 ____ _______ _____________________ 

25 

26 101 4 partnership developing background databases. We did 

27 106 2 model databases across the US and also trained a lot 

28 106 14 extra effort kept these databases in use. 

29 179 24 evaluation databases to make sure there is any changes 

30 

31 Page Ref No. Keyword = "datum" 

32 ____ _______ _________________ 

33 

34 166 8 the horizontal datum conversion reference datum 

35 166 12 to an older datum, North America Datum 27 is basically 

36 166 14 coordinates. And the newer datum is NAD 83 so a lot 

37 166 17 conversion from your source coordinates in one datum 

38 166 18 to terrain elevation coordinates in another datum 

39 172 14 datum so you don't have to worry about mixed datum 

40 

41 Page Ref No. Keyword = "default" 

42 ____ _______ ___________________ 

43 

44 44 16 under regulatory default option. AERMOD doesn't 

45 149 21 for and we've set a default value in the 

46 169 3 urban option for AERMOD and the default value is 1.0. 

47 169 9 other than 1.0 should be treated as a non default 

48 169 11 is make it explicitly a non default option. It 

49 169 13 will have to turn off the default switch and provide 

50 170 23 Fortunately it's a non default option so it's not used 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 367 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "default" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 173 3 that's an issue. Now the default format for that data 

 7 174 3 your inputs to AERMAP the default will be to use all 

 8 176 4 it's missing any data rather than using the default 

 9 185 2 default domain recommend 1 km radius for surface 

10 185 14 default is no sector or distance dependency average or 

11 194 24 make the default of 5 km for flat terrain with or 

12 200 25 no downwash. 5 km default probe distance (25 m 

13 212 23 we want to do that as a default option but at least it 

14 255 11 factors, the new default parameters for optional 

15 255 18 the new default parameters and the final column is 

16 255 20 default parameters -- well this is a little more 

17 257 25 So some new default parameters were incorporated. The 

18 258 23 default mode in applying CALMET that behavior is 

19 258 25 including the default minimum mixing height of 50m, 

20 259 6 height, and the default option for upwind a of the 

21 259 19 with the default threshold is 0.05 W/m2/m. So it 

22 261 3 Then a new regulatory default switch was added to 

23 261 4 CALMET. Prior to that there was no regulatory default 

24 262 5 have come to realize there is no default value for 

25 262 10 to turn on the regulatory default. Just to make you 

26 

27 Page Ref No. Keyword = "DEM" 

28 ____ _______ _______________ 

29 

30 49 11 modeling demonstration. 

31 55 2 Then we'll have Leigh Bacon from Alabama DEM 

32 57 24 to demonstrate attainment, it's necessary to address 

33 59 13 monitors as part of their demonstration efforts. You 

34 79 9 Next we have Leigh Bacon from Alabama DEM. And 

35 80 12 we had to develop had an attainment demonstration 

36 84 21 demonstration. We awarded the contract in December, 

37 87 17 attainment demonstration, concentrations will be 

38 92 10 attainment demonstration. We do think that future 

39 95 21 or attainment demonstration given the nature of those 

40 106 8 related studies demonstrate utility of PGMs for this 

41 114 4 being studied for multi pollutant SIPS demonstration 

42 137 6 be a perfect solution but if we can demonstrate that 

43 145 23 very democratic voting process. Further narrowed it 

44 163 15 a lot of testing and work through the demos or beta 

45 167 9 certainly a demanding process to go through these 

46 172 2 problems with processing Alaska DEM files. As you go 

47 172 24 quality data set than DEM. We know a lot of issues 

48 172 25 with DEM data. One being just the fact that you have 

49 173 2 different horizontal data in neighboring DEM files so 

50 173 7 support use of mixed DEM files. When the issues have 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 368 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "dem" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 173 9 7.5-min DEM file or data for your application. If 

 7 173 10 part of your domain for the DEM 7.5 minute quadrangle 

 8 173 22 by both the mixed DEM and NED is to make the domain 

 9 217 17 we can do it and demonstrate value at it in doing 

10 227 19 demonstrate that a meteorological site is 

11 231 10 equivalence demonstration according to Appeneix W. 

12 231 24 it suitable for use in an equivalence demonstration to 

13 232 3 demonstration until we have clear guidance on this. 

14 232 22 equivalency demonstration in this context or not. As 

15 233 10 demonstration is for that given application. 

16 248 7 go through the process of demonstrating it 

17 273 25 demonstration that it is working and how best to apply 

18 277 18 demonstration of that in a minute. So basically after 

19 321 10 the same level of critique and demands and the need to 

20 

21 Page Ref No. Keyword = "dispersion" 

22 ____ _______ ______________________ 

23 

24 56 22 seeing the use of AERMOD and other dispersion models 

25 58 6 specified dispersion modeling in unmonitored areas 

26 58 9 for the potential use of both dispersion models or 

27 58 25 dispersion modeling that would be and could be 

28 59 11 trying to apply dispersion models or fine grid models 

29 64 13 actually do the dispersion modeling. One of the steps 

30 64 15 dispersion modeling analysis is generally not what 

31 65 2 relate that to the concentration from the dispersion 

32 85 17 (inaudible) dispersion models. Joe Sims and Tim 

33 105 21 chemistry and plume dispersion. The ozone and PM 

34 108 25 dispersion modeling. In addition to this, EPA 

35 110 2 dispersion modeling applications. That's something 

36 112 11 that's not very helpful for this dispersion model 

37 112 17 meteorological models to drive the dispersion models. 

38 112 21 these could be beneficial for use in dispersion models 

39 115 13 rural dispersion. On the left you have is the H1H, 

40 119 3 the meteorology more closely as well as dispersion 

41 122 16 with dispersion model experts and figure what the 

42 141 9 layer for dispersion modeling purposes before we could 

43 155 7 And then lastly have an issue of enhanced dispersion 

44 155 12 enhanced dispersion you'll see in the nighttime due to 

45 165 20 dispersion model, AERMET met processor and AERMET 

46 169 22 the release heights and initial dispersion coefficient 

47 177 17 resources to update the APTI course 423 on Dispersion 

48 181 12 with the zero release and zero dispersion and others 

49 192 4 have been data limited in terms of these dispersion 

50 209 5 up wind dispersion for plume released within the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 369 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "dispersion" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 213 18 that algorithm incorporates up wind dispersion and 

 7 214 3 implementation but eliminates upwind dispersion 

 8 214 8 dispersion I am only doing short term averages so it 

 9 250 13 dispersion model standpoint. And despite the fact 

10 258 5 dispersion. But the way they were implemented they 

11 263 3 verses turbulence dispersion option in CALPUFF. 

12 263 8 promulgated and using turbulence as dispersion doesn't 

13 267 22 properly simulate non study state dispersion. 

14 271 17 effects on transport and dispersion." 

15 272 7 though. In terms of the options we had PG dispersion 

16 272 9 half height, PG dispersion with the strain based 

17 273 4 some significant sensitivity to the dispersion and 

18 273 6 advanced option turbulence based dispersion strain 

19 275 9 dispersion model in the EPA guidelines and SCIPUFF was 

20 277 21 plume dispersion. 

21 309 6 dispersion. It looks upwind of the met site. What 

22 309 7 determines the downwind of dispersion is the 

23 314 22 determines the dispersion is what's happening downwind 

24 315 16 the dispersion and the surface characteristics 

25 

26 Page Ref No. Keyword = "domain" 

27 ____ _______ __________________ 

28 

29 103 9 This is the photochemical grid model domain where we 

30 103 10 have a 36 domain from the (audible) carrying all the 

31 103 11 continental US domain. We have more than 60,000 

32 103 13 12/4km domain where we do our impact which is shown 

33 114 9 sub-domain from the larger 12 kilometer MM5 domain to 

34 114 14 This just shows the domain. The larger red box on the 

35 114 15 right is the 12 kilometer eastern domain and the 

36 114 16 smaller red box is not an MM5 domain. That is the 

37 121 10 modeling over the domain of Detroit city I could have 

38 121 14 domain like we do now for the airport data. There are 

39 131 4 Oh man...Okay. This is the modeling domain that the 

40 131 8 see that this domain is 10 km (inaudible) and 

41 136 21 about looking at. Yeah. If you have a domain that 

42 149 4 at the modeling domain and the area that is impacting 

43 156 3 think the box is for the AERMOD domain that is being 

44 172 13 download one file for your domain, you have but one 

45 172 15 within your domain and basically have one file for 

46 172 16 your whole domain is possibly one option. I think 

47 173 10 part of your domain for the DEM 7.5 minute quadrangle 

48 173 11 is completely over water for part of your domain there 

49 173 14 so on your domain. So what you can do now is feed it 

50 173 22 by both the mixed DEM and NED is to make the domain 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 370 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "domain" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 173 24 server and download the domain of NED data while I've 

 7 173 25 already defined the domain why do I have to do it 

 8 174 2 again in AERMAP? So you just take the domain now of 

 9 174 20 is if you define your domain in terms of latitude and 

10 174 21 longitude. If you don't define a domain doesn't 

11 174 22 matter at all. If you define a domain in terms of 

12 174 24 as domain it will interpret negative as West longitude 

13 184 25 because it is a ratio. And then as the domain a 

14 185 2 default domain recommend 1 km radius for surface 

15 185 10 be influenced over a much larger domain. There's sort 

16 185 15 10x20 km domain. There's a number of options 

17 219 25 for each of the domain for the surface roughness and 

18 256 7 through a range of scenarios domain sizes, 

19 256 17 at what the percent difference is across the domain 

20 256 21 that was done a percent difference across the domain. 

21 259 24 meters perhaps. In the next hour parts of the domain 

22 260 6 within that domain showing convective mixing height so 

23 269 23 domain. Trying to look for the main points 

24 315 11 the modeling domain. You'll be using the upwind 

25 

26 Page Ref No. Keyword = "downwash" 

27 ____ _______ ____________________ 

28 

29 44 9 prime downwash. It's an issue triggered by the fact 

30 44 10 that implementation relates to the prime downwash 

31 47 18 off building downwash effects if stack height is 

32 48 5 height so the stack just above gets no downwash effect 

33 48 23 turning off downwash effects. So before doing that we 

34 49 18 Pre-PRIME downwash algorithms defined vertical extent 

35 69 16 include things like building downwash and surface 

36 69 20 had the data for building downwash would add a lot of 

37 70 3 permit application where a downwash application might 

38 115 9 buoyancy some with downwash and some without. From a 

39 194 8 building downwash. You would need to give stack 

40 194 25 without building downwash or rectangular area sources. 

41 199 9 running flat terrain with no downwash and you're not 

42 199 12 terrain with or without downwash or rectangular area 

43 200 25 no downwash. 5 km default probe distance (25 m 

44 201 16 building downwash. Receptors every 10 degrees out to 

45 202 4 terrain and/or downwash, use terrain heights and 

46 204 23 what about BPIP downwash issues. Why is that not in 

47 206 22 selecting the dominate tier for the downwash 

48 207 20 ISC3 in relation to prime downwash algorithms. We 

49 208 8 bit. So you shouldn't use that procedure for downwash 

50 208 17 downwash algorithms. If there is some wind tunnel 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 371 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "downwash" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 209 14 switch is all-or-nothing either its downwash or not. 

 7 209 24 building downwash is going to apply or not. The light 

 8 212 8 Also discussed the building downwash in issues so 

 9 221 21 the beta option to turn stack to downwash for 

10 221 24 downwash for individual sources? 

11 222 4 It has to do with stack to downwash as to whether or 

12 222 10 to the issue of stack to downwash that you could set 

13 222 12 diameter and turn stack downwash off. That's kind of. 

14 222 13 The fact is if it's (inaudible) downwash it didn't 

15 222 14 apply downwash so you wouldn't need to do it there. 

16 222 17 downwash. My guess is that most capped stacks are 

17 222 18 subject to building downwash. 

18 222 25 if your stack is not subject to building downwash then 

19 223 7 apply downwash for that so I think there's no reason 

20 237 9 downwash may be affecting the emissions from the 

21 237 10 roadway that currently unaccounted for. Downwash is 

22 237 13 capability of the downwash algorithm the fact that we 

23 237 15 building downwash effects on blind sources or even 

24 237 22 nearby then the building downwash would likely apply. 

25 237 24 comfortable feeling that what the downwash algorithm 

26 290 20 includes the EPRI PRIME downwash module, flexible 

27 293 18 downwash. 

28 317 10 that involved downwash. There were no studies that 

29 

30 Page Ref No. Keyword = "downwind" 

31 ____ _______ ____________________ 

32 

33 209 7 stack is downwind from the building and you have a 

34 278 5 measurements, downwind of the Cumberland Power Plant 

35 278 11 downwind, this effect goes away so it's mostly 

36 282 24 case, the differences are not large at a downwind 

37 309 5 receptors. It looks upwind to determine downwind 

38 309 7 determines the downwind of dispersion is the 

39 309 8 turbulence of the downwind source of the met station. 

40 309 10 CALPUFF will treat turbulence downwind of each 

41 310 6 station not downwind of all sources. Especially 

42 313 2 in a random plume that can even exceed downwind 

43 314 22 determines the dispersion is what's happening downwind 

44 315 2 blowing downwind you are in the low roughness land but 

45 315 6 downwind would be applied. You could be in the 

46 315 8 after the roughness downwind has (inaudible). I've 

47 315 19 downwind of these stacks. Does it matter, well it 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 372 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "EPA" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 6 4 to our nice and lovely EPA facility here in RTP, North 

 7 6 24 of change in EPA in the past three years. We had 

 8 7 7 started in EPA back in 1991 in the Air Quality 

 9 7 25 do that necessarily alone with just EPA. I think the 

10 8 8 just for EPA. It's a modeling community. One of the 

11 9 22 with these models. And that doesn't mean that EPA 

12 14 12 issue as you all know and it's not something EPA can 

13 19 17 somebody with you who has an EPA or Federal badge in 

14 23 24 efforts the EPA has taken on and the efforts you have 

15 26 9 working relationships not just within EPA, but across 

16 29 7 the public or EPA arena. Co-chaired by Roger Brode 

17 29 23 into the EPA approved version. Obviously the 

18 30 5 approvals are made by EPA. 

19 32 8 limited to EPA, OAQPS folks or broadly EPA and 

20 32 15 had representation from 10 EPA Regional Offices, 29 

21 37 13 epa.gov folks. Formal memos and MICHISRS records were 

22 43 4 main point EPA preferred model for near-field 

23 44 7 The implementation of EPA formula for Good Engineering 

24 47 19 greater than or equal to EPA formula for GEP formula 

25 48 12 committee that recommended the EPA consider changing 

26 48 13 ISC-PRIME. To eliminate discontinuity the EPA 

27 49 9 - EPA formula height; or 

28 49 12 So based on the definition, EPA formula height does 

29 49 19 of wake influence generally consistent with EPA 

30 49 25 formulation can extend well above the EPA formula 

31 50 5 above EPA formula height for some stack/building 

32 51 16 early in the process both by EPA and FLM's. I don't 

33 65 13 and EFIG here at EPA put together a really good 

34 74 13 maps on the website. It's internal EPA funny money 

35 79 24 know EPA designated areas for the annual PM.2.5 

36 79 25 standard a few years back and EPA designated part 

37 80 13 to provide EPA with the plan for coming into 

38 87 12 discussions with EPA and among the study 

39 92 19 our future projections. We followed EPA model 

40 92 21 EPA Region 4 for all their involvement, not just 

41 96 21 can't be because it's the EPA guideline model there 

42 104 10 One is how to use EPA-guidance projection approach 

43 105 12 Wyoming and the Four Corners region. And also EPA 

44 107 21 have Bret Anderson from EPA Region 7 here to basically 

45 108 25 dispersion modeling. In addition to this, EPA 

46 109 3 In 2007 EPA published MM5-AERMOD Philadelphia Study 

47 109 6 prototype in 2007-2008. Most recently in 2008 EPA 

48 109 12 that EPA has undertook to develop. We have to 

49 118 20 better on its own without EPA having to fund it. So 

50 120 25 EPA we're probably not getting where we want to be in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 373 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "epa" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 121 2 terms of the use of gridded MET data just based on EPA 

 7 123 7 data, have fun or do we actually does EPA develop an 

 8 123 19 EPA programs. In fact about nine or ten years ago, we 

 9 127 13 including EPA, Forest Service, National Park Service 

10 127 24 Back in 2006 MMS submitted to EPA an over water 

11 129 25 Now EPA Region 10 will work with MMS to evaluate and 

12 130 14 pressure on EPA Region 10 to permit of drilling permit 

13 143 8 my name is Randy Robinson. I work with EPA Region 5 

14 144 5 EPA Regional offices. They set up 3 goals for 

15 147 23 for EPA to revise and update and also easier for 

16 162 5 using the model to advise EPA on these implementation 

17 165 14 everybody here is aware AERMOD was promulgated as EPA18 168 6 In terms of the EPA executables that are going to be 

19 180 16 problems to EPA but haven't figured out exactly what 

20 181 21 conference paper to more complete EPA report 

21 193 2 Michigan, Karen Wesson, EPA, Roger Brode, EPA, James 

22 193 3 Thurman, EPA, Bob Paine, ENSR, Lloyd Schulman, TRC and 

23 193 4 I want to acknowledge Herman Wong, EPA Region 10 who 

24 208 21 straddle the EPA formula height earlier? The 

25 210 23 - Al Cimorelli, EPA Region 3 

26 210 24 - Bret Anderson, EPA Region 7 

27 210 25 - Vlad Isakov, EPA/ORD/AMD 

28 225 4 collaboration between AMS and EPA. Some individuals 

29 231 4 than [ed. the EPA version] (inaudible) and we don't 

30 231 17 the EPA do in evaluating its model before release. So 

31 238 24 the context in which EPA has been working under with 

32 239 3 and from the EPA side Bret's evaluation as well. 

33 239 7 promulgated as EPA's preferred model for long-range 

34 239 15 Earth Tech] (inaudible) that EPA as I mentioned 

35 241 17 federal agencies in particle EPA, FLM, MMS for those 

36 246 22 regional office modeling community from the EPA 

37 247 17 modeling system. So again EPA was faced with the 

38 248 2 EPA has quite a role in that. We had to make a clear 

39 250 11 available through NOAA to EPA and they provided quite 

40 253 18 This is stuff Tyler mentioned about EPA role as far as 

41 263 23 while. The main is that the EPA-preferred model for 

42 263 24 near-field is AERMOD. CALPUFF is not the EPA43 274 7 done we wanted. What we have next is at the time EPA 

44 275 9 dispersion model in the EPA guidelines and SCIPUFF was 

45 280 16 well as the EPA approved version 5.8 which was 

46 287 17 tools that EPA is looking at will include cloud fields 

47 288 22 evaluation would help solve many of the questions EPA 

48 290 7 productivity enhancements. EPA provides no funding 

49 291 18 examples of the EPA BART 98th percentile computations 

50 292 16 where EPA could have benefited from ???????? 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 374 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "epa" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 294 15 funding from government agencies such as EPA, but we 

 7 295 14 etc. At first, when Roger was talking about the EPA 

 8 295 20 So now we've been running it for EPA and providing 

 9 295 23 catch and fix any issues before it gets to EPA. We've 

10 296 6 fixes were released until it was accepted. And EPA 

11 296 14 procedures with EPA to make that happen and we are 

12 296 21 together with EPA to do that but it was a lot of work 

13 296 22 for us as well as for EPA. Although VISTAS did fund a 

14 297 9 waived action by EPA. I think I realize things are 

15 297 15 EPA has that and we're waiting some feedback on that. 

16 297 18 hashed out with EPA several years ago and many staff 

17 298 8 make sure that it can be turned off so that EPA at 

18 298 17 do is change the input to 0 and EPA can issue a memo 

19 299 12 model enhancements by EPA. The model enhancements 

20 299 18 EPA in some of the presentations regarding the 

21 300 5 Especially because EPA is making negative comments 

22 300 19 I think partly accordingly what EPA said to me, Tyler 

23 300 24 EPA has said they wanted to do and maybe they have 

24 301 3 EPA presentations at 2007 and 2008 R/S/L Modelers 

25 302 9 I don't know if this was just not known to EPA or what 

26 302 12 the modeling group of EPA had a representative on the 

27 302 14 to (inaudible) was not known to EPA but in fact 

28 302 25 been known by EPA. 

29 303 10 problems by presentations made publicly by EPA at 

30 303 16 that are worth consideration by EPA. So I think that 

31 303 20 data that EPA is presenting at these various forums is 

32 304 3 that the EPA provide the data that is used in the 

33 307 2 having input from EPA, land managers, MMS and 

34 307 7 on EPA's responsibilities or MMS responsibilities. 

35 307 19 what they want and EPA can say that as well as MMS. 

36 307 21 the kind of the model that EPA is using with the 

37 308 2 but I do have some examples where EPA has expressed 

38 308 14 that EPA says they would like to develop in AERMOD 

39 309 23 EPA has said in its clarification that AERMOD is the 

40 310 9 I think EPA's argument is that that really matters 

41 316 13 AERMOD. So I don't think those results that EPA is 

42 318 7 I will just leave you with this. EPA has 

43 

44 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ETA" 

45 ____ _______ _______________ 

46 

47 292 14 ETA and [ed. provide] these codes to the public for 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 375 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Federal" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 19 17 somebody with you who has an EPA or Federal badge in 

 7 24 11 November, 2005 and was published in the Federal 

 8 26 10 the Federal agencies, and scientific community to 

 9 51 17 believe we have any federal land representatives here 

10 94 16 practical based on the implementation of federal, 

11 98 5 and then the federal agencies whoever is in charge. 

12 98 9 public and to the other federal agencies of what the 

13 98 19 gas production project on federal land usually 

14 165 15 preferred near-field model in Federal Register notice 

15 239 24 we coordinate closely with the Federal Land Managers 

16 241 2 about the discussions especially within the federal 

17 241 17 federal agencies in particle EPA, FLM, MMS for those 

18 242 5 needed to step back and talk with the federal 

19 242 9 address any issues from Federal community, despite 

20 242 12 federal agencies. In response to that, we contacted 

21 250 2 and our federal agency partners and you all in the 

22 251 5 planned when we had originally talked to the Federal 

23 264 20 Federal Registry Notice promulgating CALPUFF. "We 

24 291 16 community needs without federal funding but we 

25 

26 Page Ref No. Keyword = "fence line" 

27 ____ _______ ______________________ 

28 

29 64 19 fence line of the facility. People don't live at a 

30 69 22 fence line application. It's an application that 

31 70 2 type impact not fence line impact for somebody's 

32 195 8 You can specify ambient air distance or fence line 

33 201 4 fence line direction. AERMOD is executed for each 

34 

35 Page Ref No. Keyword = "file" 

36 ____ _______ ________________ 

37 

38 18 17 We will file out the exits here and go upstairs and 

39 109 18 gridded met products. Yes you get a file that is 

40 114 10 be a little bit more manageable in terms of file size 

41 130 6 and fed it to CALMET the surface file for OCS and to 

42 135 21 CALMET/CALPUFF. Logistics file side you're talking 

43 137 2 sort just to assign it to which met file you wanted or 

44 137 14 grid file that you're extracting the data from. Just 

45 142 10 to use because if you feed it into the profile file as 

46 169 18 file option that allows you to (inaudible) by hour for 

47 172 13 download one file for your domain, you have but one 

48 172 15 within your domain and basically have one file for 

49 173 9 7.5-min DEM file or data for your application. If 

50 173 16 that just feed it one degree file to fill that gap. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 376 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "file" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 174 5 much of the elevation file is used to determine the 

 7 175 19 with (inaudible) if it was missing in the data file. 

 8 175 23 have the elevation in the data file which we were not 

 9 186 25 1 km radius of the met tower. But the standard file 

10 193 19 eliminate date sequence checking in the met file 

11 193 24 input file and I'll show you an example of an input 

12 193 25 file. Source types currently support a point, volume, 

13 196 3 file and then you can use that input file changing 

14 196 6 on AERMOD and AERMAP output and writes to a log file. 

15 198 7 filename or AERMET stage 3 input filename. When you 

16 198 18 you use user define you will generate one file for 

17 199 19 This is an example of an input file and basically this 

18 199 20 is the whole file itself is an AERMOD input file but 

19 200 7 input file they are metric. And R/U, Population, 

20 200 9 It's a pretty good way of inputting the data this file 

21 200 12 inputs in from the prompt or the input file, AERSCREEN 

22 224 2 input file name if you have everything in the right 

23 232 18 for the AERMET and the header of the met file and 

24 236 11 file that we may run across and haven't accounted for. 

25 262 4 file that's provided with the modeling system. We 

26 

27 Page Ref No. Keyword = "files" 

28 ____ _______ _________________ 

29 

30 109 22 this so that we understand are the data files getting 

31 113 19 AERMET processes it (inaudible) files (inaudible) for 

32 119 23 the profile files. As if I had a tower that went up 

33 137 18 files. So the raw and then the .out files and the 

34 172 2 problems with processing Alaska DEM files. As you go 

35 173 2 different horizontal data in neighboring DEM files so 

36 173 7 support use of mixed DEM files. When the issues have 

37 177 5 files that AERMET crashed on. We released a utility 

38 188 20 some additional files to give an average height of 

39 192 9 elevation files to give us some useful information. 

40 196 2 files. When you run AERSCREEN it generates an input 

41 197 13 you will generate surface and profile files for 

42 197 15 .PFL files that you would use in AERMOD. 

43 198 17 and met files generated for each combination. So when 

44 199 3 will take over and generate meteorological files and 

45 212 4 AERSURFACE with the elevation files. So it was very 

46 219 24 files that is a data dump of the gridded land cover 

47 235 24 with that is that the data files themselves are not in 

48 236 2 the files but the data files themselves don't always 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 377 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "grade" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 18 14 graders coming in too. Are they joining us? No 

 7 

 8 Page Ref No. Keyword = "gridded" 

 9 ____ _______ ___________________ 

10 

11 107 4 the next session with respect to gridded met and 

12 107 20 The next session is on the Use of Gridded MET. We 

13 107 24 building tools to deliver these gridded data directly 

14 108 9 the use of gridded meteorological 

15 108 16 on how can gridded meteorological model data be used. 

16 108 23 gridded meteorological workgroup in 2005 to discuss 

17 108 24 sources and various uses of gridded meteorology in 

18 109 14 documentation for the gridded meteorological data 

19 109 18 gridded met products. Yes you get a file that is 

20 109 25 application of gridded meteorological products in 

21 110 10 using the gridded meteorological products. And we're 

22 110 16 in the gridded meteorological modeling community that 

23 112 16 issues by using outputs from prognostic gridded 

24 113 22 to take gridded MET data from MM5 in this case. 

25 114 24 gridded data on the right for the lowest level. They 

26 121 2 terms of the use of gridded MET data just based on EPA 

27 122 12 hosting an invited workshop on use of gridded 

28 122 20 onsite, we have 1-minute ASOS on site, gridded met 

29 136 15 Roger. If you have gridded met data for AERMOD and 

30 140 9 gridded met to generate (inaudible) upper air data to 

31 156 9 gridded on the 6x6 km basis and I think one thing that 

32 157 5 fourteen and a half million using the gridded approach 

33 158 20 future is possibly gridded met data or the MM5 to 

34 163 22 gridded met tools for AERMOD and CALPUFF we look to 

35 192 10 We've got gridded prognostic met data. We've got 

36 215 5 So AERMIC has discussed the use of gridded 

37 215 10 processing gridded met data as pseudo-observations 

38 215 13 that. Also suggested to invite experts in gridded 

39 215 19 we talked about that this morning. As for gridded met 

40 219 24 files that is a data dump of the gridded land cover 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "group" 

43 ____ _______ _________________ 

44 

45 7 3 was Tyler's first as a group leader for the modeling 

46 7 4 group. For me, this is my first modeling conference 

47 7 8 Modeling Group under Joe Tikvart and I think everybody 

48 7 9 in the modeling group has ties to Joe. I learned a 

49 7 11 the group today with the modeling in particular goes 

50 8 4 of course. It really is a great group of individuals 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 378 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "group" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 11 23 with this group, we were just starting the 

 7 13 23 ourselves in this division in this modeling group. We 

 8 19 13 is our group secretary and her number is 541-5561. 

 9 21 6 you should as well. We also have folks in my group 

10 25 17 group what we wanted to do is restate what our mission 

11 26 16 in my group and our division support air quality 

12 28 14 implementation work group to identify scientific 

13 28 19 throughout the AERMOD implementation work group so 

14 29 14 issues. We'll hear more about the work group later in 

15 35 14 issues to be handled by our group OAQPS and other 

16 35 20 will be referred to our new source review group headed 

17 35 24 division. The new source review group would be the 

18 35 25 group responsible and Roge (inaudible) is the group 

19 40 20 through internal review from our group and our 

20 54 23 We'll have Ted Palma of OAQPS group here to give us an 

21 56 11 indication of the success there. (inaudible) group 

22 56 17 effectively with the (inaudible) standard group. 

23 57 8 (inaudible) Timin is the lead in the group and we've 

24 57 17 PDF form. Again, our lead in our group is Brian 

25 59 24 a bunch of mavericks. My group, SBAG, handles most of 

26 60 7 closely as we can with his group to try to make sure, 

27 79 20 you to Tyler and his group for having us talk. This 

28 95 14 I mentioned, with Karen Martin's group and Mrs. 

29 95 15 (inaudible) group and CMAQ. Roger will be talking 

30 143 11 Implementation Workgroup. This was a work group that 

31 143 15 on AIWG. That's the acronym for our group. Discuss 

32 143 16 group organization and purpose. Discuss issue 

33 143 19 group. Then talk about the issues that are currently 

34 143 21 going on with the sub group which I'll mention in a 

35 143 24 implementation work group that was initiated in April 

36 144 2 Warren Peters (OAQPS). The members of that group I 

37 144 3 believe it was a pretty large group. There may be 25- 

38 144 13 group. I say it was successful because they had a 

39 144 17 the implementation work group which I'm going to talk 

40 144 19 This full AIWG group is co-chaired by myself and Roger 

41 145 7 the AERMIC group which is the sort of scientific 

42 145 8 technical group associated with AERMOD as Roger 

43 145 14 I mentioned the initial AIWG group. One of their 

44 146 15 mention in addition to this an ad hoc group that has 

45 146 24 group had listed as a goal. They did put out an 

46 147 15 group. 

47 149 6 impact might be on the group of sources. Other 

48 149 25 ASOS data met data group, the urban issues group and 

49 150 2 the surface characteristic group. I'm going to 

50 150 3 briefly talk about each sub group sort of highlight 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 379 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "group" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 150 7 from the sub group chairs so I appreciate that. I 

 7 150 8 think Joe is the only sub group chair here. With 

 8 150 9 respect to the ASOS and met data processing sub group 

 9 150 10 they determined a group of issues they were going to 

10 150 21 provide some information on what the sub group has 

11 151 6 group came up with based on that analysis was that 

12 152 19 Another area of work that the met data issues group is 

13 154 3 would be classified as a missing for our group. The 

14 154 21 We'll move on to the urban issues sub group which some 

15 154 24 input for urban option. The urban issues work group 

16 155 22 should we be using? The group has borrowed some of 

17 158 24 sort of out of this sub group's hands but we'll see 

18 158 25 what happens there. This sub group has also been 

19 159 13 of the road that this group is going down. 

20 159 15 the sub group has done and it's focused on Baldwin met 

21 161 3 concentrations is one of the things the sub group is 

22 161 19 with the National Weather Service station. The group 

23 162 7 that's been done by this group at this point and 

24 162 19 the AIWG group as they are donating their time and 

25 164 21 people hardly miss a call usually with the full group 

26 164 22 and the sub group that's like two calls a month very 

27 165 2 maybe rotations of membership on the group or could a 

28 165 3 different sub group for a while that's something we 

29 168 23 the Implementation Work Group and one of the items in 

30 179 9 they are grouped it turns out that group call 

31 179 14 truncated in the group (inaudible) but as they were 

32 179 15 grouped there was there wasn't as wide a range and 

33 180 20 coordinating with the work group and with AERMET some 

34 204 20 the AERMIC Implementation Work Group and the three sub 

35 204 24 the top three so basically presented to the group so 

36 204 25 maybe we could form an ad hoc group anybody want to 

37 205 4 group. We've had some calls not a lot but I think we 

38 205 9 Just want to briefly share what the group came up with 

39 210 8 group because this was an issue that came up with 

40 211 7 activities of the Implementation Work Group sort of 

41 212 10 Hoc work group first. One of the recommended 

42 250 10 my group had a branch of NOAA meteorologist that were 

43 250 15 over time, they were part of the group in providing 

44 302 12 the modeling group of EPA had a representative on the 

45 317 9 complex terrain. There was one coastal line group 

46 318 18 argument can be made and an objective group of people 

47 321 19 long as I'm the group leader of the modeling group, as 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 380 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "groups" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 8 2 modeling group right now is one of the best groups of 

 7 14 9 groups in passing information back to Tyler and his 

 8 145 6 us to work with other groups. Primarily that would be 

 9 145 25 up for those sub groups. They're listed here. The 

10 146 2 three sub groups that we have are: 

11 149 24 Okay I've mentioned we have the 3 sub groups. The 

12 163 11 sub groups was focusing on and I think Bob Paine 

13 179 11 you summed the impact from all the sub groups. And 

14 181 11 groups say you should (inaudible) [model] a haul road 

15 204 21 groups who were formed to focus three main areas. I 

16 205 7 groups at a time. But I think we're going to get back 

17 307 4 and industry into the review groups would be very 

18 307 10 organize something like invitations to groups to join. 

19 

20 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guidance" 

21 ____ _______ ____________________ 

22 

23 7 15 appreciate the guidance he gave me as a young staff 

24 25 7 start a more broader guidance and information to all. 

25 31 21 clarify the intent of the guidance. Again showing 

26 34 6 terms of the interpretation of guidance. Again as 

27 35 6 guidance ultimately through the process of consensus 

28 37 5 guidance as appropriate being aware of these issues 

29 38 22 guidance database there at the bottom. That really is 

30 39 18 guidance or the intent of guidance and consistency in 

31 39 19 application of guidance. Then remind you or mention 

32 40 9 guidance is in relation to that issue or concerns that 

33 40 12 application of Appendix W guidance. So these issues 

34 41 13 the permit modeling guidance down at the bottom under 

35 41 14 the Appendix W guidance there's a link for 

36 41 21 to clarify guidance in some cases and the importance 

37 41 22 of consistency in the application of guidance. So I 

38 42 22 concerns that Appendix W guidance might not being 

39 52 16 interpreting the guidance or interpreting Appendix W 

40 52 17 or providing recommendations and not seeking guidance 

41 52 19 guidance from us or not putting it through the 

42 53 22 guidelines provide best practices and good guidance 

43 57 7 guidance that we provide separately. Brian 

44 57 10 guidance. We actually have a single guidance now 

45 57 11 instead of a separate guidance for ozone and PM and 

46 57 18 (inaudible). Timin. And within that guidance we bring 

47 58 4 local analysis and new guidance replaces what was 

48 58 8 analysis as defined in the guidance we have now looks 

49 58 21 standard guidance as those would apply. We're doing 

50 59 5 guidance provides a framework not a prescripted but a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 381 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guidance" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 86 22 guidance chose AERMOD. Which local sources 

 7 92 20 guidance again we can't stress how thankful we are to 

 8 99 11 Moving on to 2000 we had the flag guidance. More 

 9 109 24 would lead to development of guidance on the 

10 110 4 exist in the form of PM ozone regional haze guidance 

11 150 13 wanted to look at the guidance and tools for missing 

12 154 23 urban/rural determination and guidance on population 

13 181 25 improve the guidance on surface characteristics and 

14 207 19 of the criteria for guidance to develop EPD for older 

15 214 10 results at all. May require additional guidance on 

16 218 25 questions. Is there going to be any interim guidance 

17 219 7 think we have interim guidance really clearly in mind 

18 232 3 demonstration until we have clear guidance on this. 

19 266 19 clarification of guidance aspect of it but I 

20 320 6 are not reinterpreting the Appendix W or guidance. We 

21 

22 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guide" 

23 ____ _______ _________________ 

24 

25 11 16 following the guidelines that we've laid out as to how 

26 27 20 We are relying on this workgroup to effectively guide 

27 33 23 guidelines. And it is actually referred to under 

28 43 6 guideline does refer to CALPUFF as an option that may 

29 53 22 guidelines provide best practices and good guidance 

30 55 15 separate guidelines related to the modeling for 

31 59 23 with the non guideline models. I guess that makes us 

32 60 9 do under the guidelines. We're trying to mimic that 

33 62 2 guidelines, unit risk estimates and reference 

34 96 18 in the RAM model which was the guideline model at that 

35 96 21 can't be because it's the EPA guideline model there 

36 97 6 the guideline model for ozone modeling. Then we came 

37 97 23 This is not guided by Appendix W on the air quality, 

38 106 9 kind of application is not guideline application. I 

39 106 17 House but model guideline applications. They're the 

40 122 13 meteorological for dispersed model and guide to the 

41 123 18 10 has interested in using this scale model to guide 

42 131 24 you read the introduction to the users guide CALPUFF 

43 144 9 Implementation Guide that would be useful to help 

44 146 23 Guide. That was something that the original AIWG 

45 146 25 original guide in September, 2005. The latest 

46 147 3 Guide is dated January 9, 2008. Generally the 

47 148 2 use. In terms of the other updates to the guide that 

48 149 22 implementation guide that represents the regulatory 

49 155 2 been made in the AERMOD Implementation Guide. They 

50 156 24 is in the guideline and delineated and it's a bit of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 382 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guide" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 165 25 User Guide. Two key areas of focus when I first got 

 7 168 15 components have a main User Guide and an Addendum so 

 8 168 24 the Implementation Guide Update addressed the use of 

 9 169 8 reflected in the Implementation Guide that any value 

10 172 18 update the AERMOD Implementation Guide to go along 

11 173 6 guide. We also gone ahead and enhanced AERMAP to 

12 184 5 in the January updates to the Implementation Guide the 

13 184 10 AERMET User Guide was use an area weighted average 

14 185 4 implementation guide already acknowledged distinction 

15 187 25 highlighted in the user's guide. At this point, I 

16 197 23 Seasonal tables from AERMET User's Guide (Tables 4-1, 

17 204 11 and example case. We've written a limited user guide 

18 204 13 support/user guide. It tells you more about AERSCREEN 

19 207 23 listed in the AERMOD Implementation Guide is that the 

20 221 22 individual sources become guidelines. Isn't there an 

21 264 14 guidelines. One issue is as far as I know no such 

22 275 9 dispersion model in the EPA guidelines and SCIPUFF was 

23 278 24 is not documented in the users guide because I believe 

24 278 25 the users guide was last updated in 2000. 

25 301 8 documentation, user's guide last updated in 2000, and 

26 301 20 part. There's a March, 2006, updated users guide that 

27 301 23 original users guide that was 853 pages long. I think 

28 302 18 used the users guide and their availability in that 

29 

30 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guideline" 

31 ____ _______ _____________________ 

32 

33 43 6 guideline does refer to CALPUFF as an option that may 

34 59 23 with the non guideline models. I guess that makes us 

35 96 18 in the RAM model which was the guideline model at that 

36 96 21 can't be because it's the EPA guideline model there 

37 97 6 the guideline model for ozone modeling. Then we came 

38 106 9 kind of application is not guideline application. I 

39 106 17 House but model guideline applications. They're the 

40 156 24 is in the guideline and delineated and it's a bit of 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guidelines" 

43 ____ _______ ______________________ 

44 

45 11 16 following the guidelines that we've laid out as to how 

46 33 23 guidelines. And it is actually referred to under 

47 53 22 guidelines provide best practices and good guidance 

48 55 15 separate guidelines related to the modeling for 

49 60 9 do under the guidelines. We're trying to mimic that 

50 62 2 guidelines, unit risk estimates and reference 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 383 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "guidelines" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 221 22 individual sources become guidelines. Isn't there an 

 7 264 14 guidelines. One issue is as far as I know no such 

 8 275 9 dispersion model in the EPA guidelines and SCIPUFF was 

 9 

10 Page Ref No. Keyword = "heat island" 

11 ____ _______ _______________________ 

12 

13 149 5 your sources as a whole to see what the heat island 

14 149 10 heat island impact. There are some recommendations in 

15 155 5 quantifying heat island effect and I'll show some 

16 155 13 the heat island. The magnitude of the population that 

17 156 12 that might be contributing to the heat island impact. 

18 157 15 that may help delineate the urban heat island which is 

19 211 21 urban heat island effect and also have higher 

20 217 9 variability of urban heat island influence which we 

21 218 19 to inform the urban heat island aspect of the model. 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "humidity" 

24 ____ _______ ____________________ 

25 

26 125 10 and surface relative humidity. I'm sorry I have been 

27 279 24 is a function of relative humidity (RH) and may 

28 281 14 humidity; temperature; background ammonia; background 

29 281 19 the sensitivity to relative humidity (MESOPUFF refers 

30 282 7 go up to higher humidity you get more particulate 

31 282 16 Again as in the relative humidity case, we see 

32 283 15 which are basically dry, the humidity is low and there 

33 283 19 humidity to 95% to see what happens since that's when 

34 

35 Page Ref No. Keyword = "implement" 

36 ____ _______ _____________________ 

37 

38 27 17 implementation issues. You'll know that back in the 

39 27 19 presentation on the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. 

40 27 21 OAQPS through the implementation issues so that we can 

41 28 14 implementation work group to identify scientific 

42 28 19 throughout the AERMOD implementation work group so 

43 33 21 get our program offices current on implementation 

44 44 7 The implementation of EPA formula for Good Engineering 

45 44 10 that implementation relates to the prime downwash 

46 45 20 AERMOD implementation workgroup and some assistance 

47 47 16 implementation of GEP formula height in AERMOD and 

48 47 24 AERMOD implementation is consistent with all previous 

49 48 15 implementation is a requirement imposed by GEP Stack 

50 94 16 practical based on the implementation of federal, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 384 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "implement" 

 4 ____ _______ _____________________ 

 5 

 6 111 22 come to the forefront as far as issue in implementing 

 7 137 5 implemented but we need to study it. But it may not 

 8 138 2 implementation picks the closest dot point. The wind 

 9 142 7 implemented. I guess in terms of MM5 AERMOD we 

10 143 11 Implementation Workgroup. This was a work group that 

11 143 24 implementation work group that was initiated in April 

12 144 7 on how we were going to handle AERMOD implementation 

13 144 9 Implementation Guide that would be useful to help 

14 144 17 the implementation work group which I'm going to talk 

15 145 3 implementation issues, provides input for budgeting 

16 146 22 here. One is updating the AERMOD Implementation 

17 147 2 version that we have of the AERMOD Implementation 

18 149 22 implementation guide that represents the regulatory 

19 155 2 been made in the AERMOD Implementation Guide. They 

20 157 23 with a methodology that people can implement to 

21 162 5 using the model to advise EPA on these implementation 

22 162 11 communicate. So we try when we get new implementation 

23 163 8 implementation work and after Roger talks we'll get 

24 163 10 mentioned that one of the AERMOD implementation work 

25 165 4 haven't implemented yet. Also with the (inaudible) 

26 168 23 the Implementation Work Group and one of the items in 

27 168 24 the Implementation Guide Update addressed the use of 

28 169 8 reflected in the Implementation Guide that any value 

29 172 18 update the AERMOD Implementation Guide to go along 

30 182 22 implementation issues with AERSURFACE that maybe you 

31 183 9 characteristics is one of the main implementation 

32 184 5 in the January updates to the Implementation Guide the 

33 184 8 were implemented in AERSURFACE and they are listed 

34 185 4 implementation guide already acknowledged distinction 

35 204 20 the AERMIC Implementation Work Group and the three sub 

36 207 21 have implemented some Beta test options to deal with 

37 207 23 listed in the AERMOD Implementation Guide is that the 

38 211 7 activities of the Implementation Work Group sort of 

39 213 10 alternative implementation for horizontal meander 

40 214 3 implementation but eliminates upwind dispersion 

41 214 14 So we're considering implementing this in AERMOD 

42 215 9 recommend implementing and testing approach of 

43 216 14 to do that and we plan to implement it and start 

44 216 25 implementation issues, especially related to urban 

45 218 8 implement that than it would be right now. So you 

46 251 3 and implementation standpoint and really reminded us 

47 252 9 implementation within the model. So that we can then 

48 254 13 additional implementation working with TRC and what I 

49 258 5 dispersion. But the way they were implemented they 

50 258 17 as it has been implemented as soon as the sensible 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 385 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "implement" 

 4 ____ _______ _____________________ 

 5 

 6 280 5 So the new aqueous-phase chemistry module implemented 

 7 280 12 So, the updates were implemented and tested in both 

 8 289 18 as new features are implemented. It's a continual 

 9 291 14 We've tried as best we can to implement procedures 

10 

11 Page Ref No. Keyword = "implementation" 

12 ____ _______ __________________________ 

13 

14 27 17 implementation issues. You'll know that back in the 

15 27 19 presentation on the AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. 

16 27 21 OAQPS through the implementation issues so that we can 

17 28 14 implementation work group to identify scientific 

18 28 19 throughout the AERMOD implementation work group so 

19 33 21 get our program offices current on implementation 

20 44 7 The implementation of EPA formula for Good Engineering 

21 44 10 that implementation relates to the prime downwash 

22 45 20 AERMOD implementation workgroup and some assistance 

23 47 16 implementation of GEP formula height in AERMOD and 

24 47 24 AERMOD implementation is consistent with all previous 

25 48 15 implementation is a requirement imposed by GEP Stack 

26 94 16 practical based on the implementation of federal, 

27 138 2 implementation picks the closest dot point. The wind 

28 143 11 Implementation Workgroup. This was a work group that 

29 143 24 implementation work group that was initiated in April 

30 144 7 on how we were going to handle AERMOD implementation 

31 144 9 Implementation Guide that would be useful to help 

32 144 17 the implementation work group which I'm going to talk 

33 145 3 implementation issues, provides input for budgeting 

34 146 22 here. One is updating the AERMOD Implementation 

35 147 2 version that we have of the AERMOD Implementation 

36 149 22 implementation guide that represents the regulatory 

37 155 2 been made in the AERMOD Implementation Guide. They 

38 162 5 using the model to advise EPA on these implementation 

39 162 11 communicate. So we try when we get new implementation 

40 163 8 implementation work and after Roger talks we'll get 

41 163 10 mentioned that one of the AERMOD implementation work 

42 168 23 the Implementation Work Group and one of the items in 

43 168 24 the Implementation Guide Update addressed the use of 

44 169 8 reflected in the Implementation Guide that any value 

45 172 18 update the AERMOD Implementation Guide to go along 

46 182 22 implementation issues with AERSURFACE that maybe you 

47 183 9 characteristics is one of the main implementation 

48 184 5 in the January updates to the Implementation Guide the 

49 185 4 implementation guide already acknowledged distinction 

50 204 20 the AERMIC Implementation Work Group and the three sub 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 386 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "implementation" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________________ 

 5 

 6 207 23 listed in the AERMOD Implementation Guide is that the 

 7 211 7 activities of the Implementation Work Group sort of 

 8 213 10 alternative implementation for horizontal meander 

 9 214 3 implementation but eliminates upwind dispersion 

10 216 25 implementation issues, especially related to urban 

11 251 3 and implementation standpoint and really reminded us 

12 252 9 implementation within the model. So that we can then 

13 254 13 additional implementation working with TRC and what I 

14 

15 Page Ref No. Keyword = "implementing" 

16 ____ _______ ________________________ 

17 

18 111 22 come to the forefront as far as issue in implementing 

19 214 14 So we're considering implementing this in AERMOD 

20 215 9 recommend implementing and testing approach of 

21 

22 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ISC" 

23 ____ _______ _______________ 

24 

25 8 14 ISC, we were a beginning process and people were 

26 8 21 running ISC for years and we know how to do this and 

27 11 3 is much more complicated than ISC and as a result 

28 11 7 familiarity with AERMOD that they've had with ISC and 

29 24 14 use the ISC or AERMOD. But as of December 9, 2006, 

30 24 15 AERMOD was promulgated and replaced the ISC3. There 

31 45 6 Sensitivity analysis was conducted with ISC and there 

32 45 8 the time. For ISC generally if there was a 

33 46 2 ISC in regard to that. So it would be good to get 

34 46 13 was pretty rare when ISC required 100% data capture so 

35 47 25 versions of AERMOD and all previous versions of ISC 

36 48 2 including ISC5. What's happened is that we've seen 

37 48 13 ISC-PRIME. To eliminate discontinuity the EPA 

38 55 24 and not ISC. There's a lot of ISC based and older 

39 67 13 was ran with the ISC model. When Tyler and I sat 

40 67 16 has done some modeling in the past with ISC can go to 

41 71 6 older ISCLT2 model. We modeled these, rather than 

42 123 24 drive ISC3 AERMOD and CALPUFF. The purpose of that 

43 133 20 done with ISC in terms of AERMOD sensitivity to ASOS 

44 151 14 the plot on the right is for ISC. The Y Axis is the 

45 151 22 winds for the ISC. There's a variety average of times 

46 151 25 really make too much of a difference. The ISC plot 

47 152 4 differences in the ISC version in the ISC plot than 

48 152 6 how ISC stabilities are determined compared with 

49 152 11 and for ISC. The different symbols are for the six 

50 152 17 with ISC. Overall that's less of an issue. The use 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 387 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "isc" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 183 3 the same met input as ISC basically in NWS surface and 

 7 207 2 Well with the old algorithms ISC3 didn't really know 

 8 207 13 relation to the same issue. You know in ISC3 the 

 9 207 20 ISC3 in relation to prime downwash algorithms. We 

10 213 20 source, every receptor every hour. Where ISC only 

11 265 18 what happened with ISC. Things started to become 

12 

13 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ISC-PRIME" 

14 ____ _______ _____________________ 

15 

16 48 13 ISC-PRIME. To eliminate discontinuity the EPA 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "IWAQM" 

19 ____ _______ _________________ 

20 

21 251 7 IWAQM process. IWAQM goes through performance 

22 251 9 our IWAQM were irrelevant. The model had passed us by 

23 270 23 situations. The IWAQM Phase 2 report includes some 

24 271 4 This is a figure from the IWAQM phase showing CALPUFF 

25 272 11 the strain based and sort of like we did with IWAQM 

26 

27 Page Ref No. Keyword = "layer" 

28 ____ _______ _________________ 

29 

30 141 3 prognostic models to simulate the urban boundary layer 

31 141 9 layer for dispersion modeling purposes before we could 

32 142 5 check on the boundary layer height calculations to see 

33 177 3 layer and we don't adjust for that. Finally we fixed 

34 183 6 layer algorithms require the search surface 

35 257 18 could underestimate the depth boundary layer like the 

36 257 23 of time. So this convective boundary layer could sort 

37 258 22 boundary layer may form for subsequent hours. In the 

38 259 18 This is a plot of convection boundary layer height 

39 259 20 happens as the boundary layer gets higher you need 

40 259 22 the red is pretty up as boundary layer height. It's 

41 260 10 then it drops and then a little bit of boundary layer. 

42 268 16 boundary layer near the coast during the daytime 

43 268 20 a convective boundary layer that develops thermal 

44 268 21 internal boundary layer. So grid that resolution 

45 269 17 layer it could be going in a different direction. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 388 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "layers" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 185 8 (inaudible) layers in the model which is going to be 

 7 

 8 Page Ref No. Keyword = "long range transport" 

 9 ____ _______ ________________________________ 

10 

11 76 16 But most is coming from long range transport. You 

12 112 24 context with CALMET/CALPUFF for long range transport 

13 

14 Page Ref No. Keyword = "MAKEMET" 

15 ____ _______ ___________________ 

16 

17 192 22 brief description MAKEMET which is meteorology for 

18 193 5 helped with MAKEMET. 

19 193 9 each source one at a time. It calls MAKEMET, BPIPPRM 

20 194 15 the meteorology comes from the MAKEMET program. The 

21 194 19 internal matrices in MAKEMET. 

22 196 25 MAKEMET is the program to generate the meteorology 

23 197 10 heights. In MAKEMET, if you run stand alone you can 

24 198 16 MAKEMET is run for each temporal, sector combination 

25 204 7 the same time. It'll have AERSCREEN and MAKEMET 

26 228 15 MAKEMET output could be used in lieu of onsite 

27 228 20 MAKEMET input and deem it conservative enough to 

28 

29 Page Ref No. Keyword = "mesoscale" 

30 ____ _______ _____________________ 

31 

32 123 15 Herman Wong: I'll be talking about the Mesoscale 

33 123 22 the Mesoscale model up in Alaska specifically using 

34 124 3 (inaudible) in using Mesoscale data being either from 

35 

36 Page Ref No. Keyword = "met" 

37 ____ _______ _______________ 

38 

39 10 5 the best method to move science forward in these 

40 26 12 promote best science and evaluation methods. Chet 

41 29 2 AERMOD session but this new committee met in RTP 

42 30 21 approach or methodology for assessing the and then 

43 42 16 what requirements would need to be met in order for 

44 46 8 systems and also the adoption of the METAR standard 

45 46 15 not that rare with ASOS and METAR. Basically METAR 

46 49 8 - 65 meters (de minimis GEP height); 

47 49 13 not apply below 65 meters. The discontinuities we 

48 49 16 about 65 meters were not aware of an issue with that 

49 66 18 characterize those down to the nearest meter when I 

50 67 15 updating it was the meteorology data. Everyone who 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 389 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "met" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 67 17 SCRAM and get all sorts of meteorology data and 

 7 67 20 and we actually developed meteorology data to run a 

 8 67 22 We developed over 200 meteorology stations nation wide 

 9 67 24 Essentially we have the closest Met station nationwide 

10 68 8 So we're building a nice archive of meteorology data 

11 69 24 meters from the facility where they spend the majority 

12 70 4 be important. As I mentioned we had the meteorology 

13 73 3 This is some of the non gases some of the metals 

14 73 13 Chromium is one of our most toxic metals out there. 

15 77 14 are where you would expect in a large metropolitan 

16 82 18 microgram per cubic meter reduction. But 

17 83 11 industry is 300 meters from our north 

18 87 14 grid with 100 meter spacing. We had a lot of 

19 87 16 m Cartesian grid with 100 meter spacing. For the 

20 87 20 used. We used 2002 met data - same as base case 

21 87 24 We have some pretty good met data in the area. 

22 88 24 (inaudible) cubic meter. The facilities whose 

23 89 2 per cubic meter or higher we flagged it and then 

24 89 4 0.2microgram per cubic meter was asked to do a RACT 

25 90 2 industry literally 300 meters away. 

26 91 9 per cubic meter. This is calm winds sorry I should 

27 106 6 MM5/WRF meteorological; SMOKE/CONCEPT emissions; post28 107 4 the next session with respect to gridded met and 

29 107 20 The next session is on the Use of Gridded MET. We 

30 108 9 the use of gridded meteorological 

31 108 11 Service (NWS) meteorological analyses to improve 

32 108 16 on how can gridded meteorological model data be used. 

33 108 23 gridded meteorological workgroup in 2005 to discuss 

34 108 24 sources and various uses of gridded meteorology in 

35 109 14 documentation for the gridded meteorological data 

36 109 18 gridded met products. Yes you get a file that is 

37 109 25 application of gridded meteorological products in 

38 110 6 evaluations for meteorological that are used for 

39 110 10 using the gridded meteorological products. And we're 

40 110 16 in the gridded meteorological modeling community that 

41 111 15 So the problem statement is of course meteorological 

42 111 18 NWS data currently used in most cases; however but met 

43 112 7 METAR standard in July, 1996 which they introduced a 

44 112 13 meteorological data collection is an option but is 

45 112 17 meteorological models to drive the dispersion models. 

46 113 22 to take gridded MET data from MM5 in this case. 

47 114 7 containing the Detroit metropolitan airport. And we 

48 114 20 the airport tower is located. That's the metropolitan 

49 115 4 resumes 10 meters and on the right is the first-half 

50 115 5 sigma level from MM5 for about 19 meters. So that is 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 390 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "met" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 115 10 ground level non buoyant source up to a 100 meter 

 7 116 7 column there. Those are meters per second. There's 

 8 116 8 quite a few wind speeds below 1 meter per second, but 

 9 116 11 about .28 or 0.3 meters per second. We'll talk about 

10 117 4 meters and that seemed reasonable. So that was the 

11 117 10 of meters so about a factor of five differences. We 

12 117 18 meteorological conditions that we're throwing out. 

13 119 3 the meteorology more closely as well as dispersion 

14 119 5 Do additional sensitivity analyses using the MET input 

15 119 24 5,000 meters we could do some sensitivity analysis if 

16 120 4 metropolitan airport because it's the major airport 

17 120 8 surface you feed it to location of your MET tower. We 

18 121 2 terms of the use of gridded MET data just based on EPA 

19 122 4 the met process for the CMAQ model. And what UNC has 

20 122 13 meteorological for dispersed model and guide to the 

21 122 15 meteorological modeling community experts together 

22 122 18 So as the range of options for developing met inputs 

23 122 20 onsite, we have 1-minute ASOS on site, gridded met 

24 122 24 whatever meteorological data you have for whatever 

25 124 11 meteorology data from MM5 and WRF and CALPUFF. 

26 124 18 meteorological data used using CALPUFF. 

27 124 22 have those needed meteorology parameters that the 

28 126 8 including the reading and reformatting of meteorology 

29 126 24 predicted meteorology so we can compare to the 

30 127 3 algorithms, and methods that are being used so that 

31 127 15 benchmarks, and methods to calculate missing 

32 128 4 program to grant meteorology to go into the over water 

33 128 8 2006, we asked Shell Oil to collect meteorology data a 

34 136 15 Roger. If you have gridded met data for AERMOD and 

35 136 25 just to add multiple met input option and then pre 

36 137 2 sort just to assign it to which met file you wanted or 

37 137 11 meteorologist. I have a question for Roger. What 

38 139 3 meteorology model? In addition to that, could this be 

39 140 9 gridded met to generate (inaudible) upper air data to 

40 141 7 urbanize prognostic met model that actually does 

41 147 5 structure. There are a lot of new sections in the met 

42 147 9 development of the AERSURFACE methodology and the 

43 148 3 fall under the meteorological data and processing 

44 148 10 the new method on determining surface characteristics 

45 148 17 Also information on processing sites specific met in 

46 149 19 site and your met sight. I think there has been some 

47 149 25 ASOS data met data group, the urban issues group and 

48 150 9 respect to the ASOS and met data processing sub group 

49 150 25 using pre-ASOS and the ASOS met data. Looking at the 

50 151 15 difference in the two met data sets that were used. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 391 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "met" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 151 17 conventional observation met data in one case. In the 

 7 152 12 met stations. And again here you can see more of a 

 8 152 19 Another area of work that the met data issues group is 

 9 153 13 come up with a methodology, it may not be the 

10 153 14 methodology, but it's a methodology of averaging the 

11 154 16 prediction when using the hourly met data. It varies 

12 154 20 met data. 

13 155 4 roughness length. They were involved with methods for 

14 157 23 with a methodology that people can implement to 

15 158 18 representative met data. What do you do if you don't 

16 158 19 have any representative met data and I think the 

17 158 20 future is possibly gridded met data or the MM5 to 

18 159 4 the AERSURFACE methodology and testing the different 

19 159 7 Then lastly representativeness process met data you 

20 159 9 criteria or some information on is the met data that 

21 159 15 the sub group has done and it's focused on Baldwin met 

22 159 18 site specific met tower Belleville is the National 

23 160 11 from your tower. The recent AERSURFACE methodology 

24 163 22 gridded met tools for AERMOD and CALPUFF we look to 

25 165 20 dispersion model, AERMET met processor and AERMET 

26 170 11 ozone limiting method option if you use OLM with the 

27 171 3 screen meteorology coming from AERSCREEN so we've done 

28 173 19 degree data. Of course with the met data you don't 

29 178 10 the representativeness of the meteorological data and 

30 181 16 well. And then the met data representative issue we 

31 182 2 met data representativeness even sort of evaluate or 

32 182 12 10 meter on site data. It appeared to improve model 

33 182 14 that we came up with earlier to sound meteorological 

34 183 2 met data needs as summarized it was designed to accept 

35 183 3 the same met input as ISC basically in NWS surface and 

36 183 5 robust met input and however the advanced boundary 

37 183 24 different processing method. So don't get them 

38 184 6 recommended methods to determine surface 

39 184 7 characteristics were changed. Those change methods 

40 184 11 within 3 km of the source of the met tower. Plain and 

41 184 18 further from the met tower more than closer 

42 185 6 representative of the met tower we feel. Bowen ratio 

43 185 17 NLCD data this is 30 meter horizontal resolution and 

44 186 23 one of the key input is the location of the met tower 

45 186 25 1 km radius of the met tower. But the standard file 

46 187 13 somebody out to the met tower and they determined the 

47 187 22 immediate difference seems to be about 500 meters. 

48 191 15 over 100 meters so we are picking up very tall 

49 191 17 if it's a 100 meter or 200 meter. If its 1 meter or 

50 191 21 30 meter grid cell and this is supposed to be the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 392 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "met" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 192 10 We've got gridded prognostic met data. We've got 

 7 192 22 brief description MAKEMET which is meteorology for 

 8 193 19 eliminate date sequence checking in the met file 

 9 194 15 the meteorology comes from the MAKEMET program. The 

10 195 18 meteorological conditions associated with that max 

11 196 25 MAKEMET is the program to generate the meteorology 

12 197 18 methods of inputting surface characteristics into 

13 198 17 and met files generated for each combination. So when 

14 199 3 will take over and generate meteorological files and 

15 199 25 and other inputs. Here's your met data and under surf 

16 200 5 such as are they metric or English. You'll get inputs 

17 200 7 input file they are metric. And R/U, Population, 

18 200 15 source data, building data, terrain data or met data. 

19 202 2 FLOWSECTOR. REFINE is to use meteorology and SC 

20 203 18 meters below our source in terms of terrain 

21 204 2 at 30 meters which I think is the ambient distance 

22 207 6 basically a structure that is a 100 meters high right 

23 207 9 102 meter structure. So somehow that needs to be 

24 210 2 is designed to accept wind speed below 1 meter per 

25 210 4 AERMOD is about 0.3 meter per second but what's the 

26 211 18 Met Data. Urban issues and surface characteristics 

27 211 23 the airport site where the met data is being corrected 

28 215 6 prognostic meteorological data with the model and we 

29 215 10 processing gridded met data as pseudo-observations 

30 215 14 meteorological modeling community to next (or future) 

31 215 19 we talked about that this morning. As for gridded met 

32 216 10 might not be up or down approach to adjust meteorology 

33 216 19 Those meteorology adjustments will account for effect 

34 216 21 affect of the urban area on meteorology would not 

35 217 12 The representativeness of met data will always be an 

36 220 25 problem, we don't know where the met tower is thought 

37 221 5 well informed meteorological sound judgment kind of 

38 221 18 methodology. We may learn more from their activities 

39 227 19 demonstrate that a meteorological site is 

40 227 22 to AERSCREEN you would run AERSURFACE both for the met 

41 228 2 conclude that the met site is adequately represented 

42 228 12 quantitative way to say how to compare the met site to 

43 228 16 meteorology as input for full AERMOD application as a 

44 228 19 representative meteorological data. Could you use 

45 228 21 replace the need for representative meteorological 

46 230 9 that Method 2 (two) that was also added not too long 

47 230 11 Roger Brode: Method 2 is one of the options in AERMOD 

48 232 18 for the AERMET and the header of the met file and 

49 234 6 less than a meter per second for example. As long as 

50 235 12 that is worse case meteorology for that kind of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 393 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "met" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 235 15 as to whether the met data being used for the 

 7 242 20 In fact I met with Joe [ed. Scire] in Denver during a 

 8 243 21 sources of meteorology and terrain should provide for 

 9 247 3 you develop meteorological data sets which take quite 

10 247 12 meteorological data sets through CALMET there are also 

11 248 9 model. No you could not use the CALMET meteorological 

12 250 10 my group had a branch of NOAA meteorologist that were 

13 250 12 a bit of support both from meterology standpoint and 

14 256 8 meteorological inputs, other options and different 

15 259 24 meters perhaps. In the next hour parts of the domain 

16 267 12 resolution and availability of representative met 

17 268 22 and representative of met data may be significant 

18 269 25 The availability of representative met input to 

19 271 11 However, CALPUFF was applied with CTDMPLUS met inputs, 

20 271 13 state meteorology inputs. This is not consistent with 

21 271 16 treat the time and space variations of meteorology 

22 271 20 So there are various methods for evaluating models. 

23 273 16 representatives on sight, met data documenting the 

24 285 20 updating the ammonia limitation method in POSTUTIL to 

25 290 2 other applications. That's a very good method because 

26 291 20 the new recently proposed 2008 visibility methodology 

27 292 8 different versions of met data. Basically, we are up 

28 292 13 meteorological models such as MM5, WRF, RUC, RAMS and 

29 292 24 called the (inaudible) method which attempts to 

30 293 22 meteorological model. We agree as to what was said 

31 308 22 meter per second winds the plume only goes to 2.6 km 

32 309 6 dispersion. It looks upwind of the met site. What 

33 309 8 turbulence of the downwind source of the met station. 

34 310 3 the single met station to characterize flow not just 

35 310 5 of surface characteristics upwind of meteorological 

36 311 19 representative of the method that is used to model 

37 312 15 source of the met data you will get a plume going in 

38 314 21 you look upwind at the met station. What really 

39 315 12 roughness of the met station for all these sources in 

40 315 20 does matter. We looked at the 1 km and 3 km method we 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "meteorological" 

43 ____ _______ __________________________ 

44 

45 106 6 MM5/WRF meteorological; SMOKE/CONCEPT emissions; post46 108 9 the use of gridded meteorological 

47 108 11 Service (NWS) meteorological analyses to improve 

48 108 16 on how can gridded meteorological model data be used. 

49 108 23 gridded meteorological workgroup in 2005 to discuss 

50 109 14 documentation for the gridded meteorological data 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 394 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "meteorological" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________________ 

 5 

 6 109 25 application of gridded meteorological products in 

 7 110 6 evaluations for meteorological that are used for 

 8 110 10 using the gridded meteorological products. And we're 

 9 110 16 in the gridded meteorological modeling community that 

10 111 15 So the problem statement is of course meteorological 

11 112 13 meteorological data collection is an option but is 

12 112 17 meteorological models to drive the dispersion models. 

13 117 18 meteorological conditions that we're throwing out. 

14 122 13 meteorological for dispersed model and guide to the 

15 122 15 meteorological modeling community experts together 

16 122 24 whatever meteorological data you have for whatever 

17 124 18 meteorological data used using CALPUFF. 

18 148 3 fall under the meteorological data and processing 

19 178 10 the representativeness of the meteorological data and 

20 182 14 that we came up with earlier to sound meteorological 

21 195 18 meteorological conditions associated with that max 

22 199 3 will take over and generate meteorological files and 

23 215 6 prognostic meteorological data with the model and we 

24 215 14 meteorological modeling community to next (or future) 

25 221 5 well informed meteorological sound judgment kind of 

26 227 19 demonstrate that a meteorological site is 

27 228 19 representative meteorological data. Could you use 

28 228 21 replace the need for representative meteorological 

29 247 3 you develop meteorological data sets which take quite 

30 247 12 meteorological data sets through CALMET there are also 

31 248 9 model. No you could not use the CALMET meteorological 

32 256 8 meteorological inputs, other options and different 

33 292 13 meteorological models such as MM5, WRF, RUC, RAMS and 

34 293 22 meteorological model. We agree as to what was said 

35 310 5 of surface characteristics upwind of meteorological 

36 

37 Page Ref No. Keyword = "mixing" 

38 ____ _______ __________________ 

39 

40 176 16 calculating the convective mixing heights and it gives 

41 197 7 (convective only), and mechanical mixing heights 

42 197 9 u* and L, and also calculates convective mixing 

43 257 12 mixing height algorithms. You mentioned the MMS 

44 257 16 didn't count for the convective mixing height over 

45 257 17 water. So it's just mechanical mixing height you 

46 257 19 Gulf of Mexico. So they made some convective mixing 

47 257 20 height changes to CALMET for mixing over water. But 

48 258 15 flux required to sustain convective mixing height 

49 258 19 mixing height is immediately assigned the value of 0m 

50 258 25 including the default minimum mixing height of 50m, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 395 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "mixing" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 259 2 and the mixing height that goes to CALPUFF is the 

 7 259 3 higher of the mechanical and convective mixing 

 8 259 5 Also there's an average of as the overall mixing 

 9 259 11 also set to 0 for convective mixing height. That 

10 260 5 convective mixing height where one of the grid cells 

11 260 6 within that domain showing convective mixing height so 

12 260 8 convective mixing height increases then drops 

13 260 12 convection mixing height goes up and drops at noon to 

14 293 4 models, the core algorithms, the convection mixing 

15 298 15 which was this mixing height convection over land. 

16 298 23 of thing with the mixing height that would eliminate 

17 298 25 ability to put in another mixing height scheme and to 

18 

19 Page Ref No. Keyword = "MM5" 

20 ____ _______ _______________ 

21 

22 84 22 2006 using the CMAQ platform with MM5/SMOKE 

23 102 18 Just to show you MM5 evaluations. As for the Jonah 

24 102 23 Wind River Range. Excuse me with 12km MM5 and the 

25 103 3 we run MM5 to get the surface data and we see we can 

26 103 4 get that at 4km. So we you can see using MM5 high 

27 103 7 take 12km MM5 data and put it through CALPUFF or 

28 106 6 MM5/WRF meteorological; SMOKE/CONCEPT emissions; post29 108 18 case study where MM5 data had been extracted and been 

30 108 20 to use AERMOD data and MM5 directly into AERMOD. So 

31 109 2 development of MM5-to-AERMOD tool in 2006. 

32 109 3 In 2007 EPA published MM5-AERMOD Philadelphia Study 

33 109 7 development of MM5-to-CALPUFF prototype. 

34 110 20 to Roger. He'll be talking about the MM5 to AERMOD 

35 110 25 talking the MM5 to AERMOD tool and I apologize to 

36 113 11 by MM5's advanced atmospheric physics options 

37 113 13 height. What's not provided by MM5 data that AERMOD 

38 113 21 On the right is the MM5 AERMOD tool currently designed 

39 113 22 to take gridded MET data from MM5 in this case. 

40 114 6 have extracted 2002 MM5 data for the grid cell 

41 114 9 sub-domain from the larger 12 kilometer MM5 domain to 

42 114 11 to feed through MM5 AERMOD. So we applied the tool 

43 114 16 smaller red box is not an MM5 domain. That is the 

44 115 5 sigma level from MM5 for about 19 meters. So that is 

45 115 15 have AERMET traditional airport results and the MM5 

46 115 17 prediction based on MM5 inputs divided by the AERMOD 

47 115 21 level source where you see MM5 results much higher. 

48 116 2 So just decided to look at what's happening. The MM5 

49 117 3 the MM5 model for that grid cell which was about 0.3 

50 118 3 factor of 7 higher with the MM5 data to a factor ratio 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 396 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "mm5" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 118 25 more detail comparisons with results from the MM5 

 7 119 7 types; different options for interpolation of MM5 

 8 119 10 Basically you've got the MM5 as a staggered grid so 

 9 119 21 full profile winds and temperature derived from MM5 

10 119 25 we had partial sub-sets of the MM5 data. We don't how 

11 121 18 validate the use of MM5 AERMOD data against some field 

12 121 23 You'll hear more about MM5 CALPUFF in a minute. But 

13 121 25 taking MM5 data directly into CALPUFF model. Should 

14 122 6 with either MM5 or more data. They don't need to 

15 123 6 community. Do we give a tool, you get your own MM5 

16 123 8 archive of MM5 data and you just go online and 

17 123 12 is going to talk next about the MM5 CALPUFF tool. 

18 124 4 WRF or MM5 to drive (inaudible) models. Particularly 

19 124 11 meteorology data from MM5 and WRF and CALPUFF. 

20 124 20 MM5 data and it could be read directly into CALPUFF. 

21 124 21 We also wrote in options in there where MM5 doesn't 

22 126 17 studies from contractors to just use the MM5 and it 

23 130 9 other analysis but we were often running MM5 or WRF 

24 132 8 fix ASOS data until it matched MM5 data. Is that 

25 132 21 with what we're seeing in the MM5 data was an 

26 133 6 be using 1-minute data not necessarily going to MM5. 

27 133 7 Roger Brode: Right. I think MM5 is the longer 

28 135 10 Bob Paine: A follow up question is on the MM5 

29 135 12 CALMET can already take the MM5 data, why do you need 

30 135 24 going straight from MM5 to CALPUFF and then bypassing 

31 137 16 Roger Brode: Sure. The MM5 AERMOD tool is 

32 137 17 (inaudible) program that extracts data from MM5.out 

33 137 21 know which one you want to do. Then extract MM5 data 

34 138 7 sort of consistent with what the MM5 CALPUFF or 

35 138 21 far as the MM5 or WRF AERMOD input. Are the surface 

36 138 22 parameters coming directly from the MM5 such as the 

37 139 10 whatever information is output from MM5 that AERMOD 

38 139 17 in MM5. Some MM5 options will give you certain output 

39 139 19 be generic for whatever MM5 options you might select. 

40 139 22 MM5 platform data that's used in all CMAQ 

41 140 24 urban grid cell from MM5 or WRF and not have to turn 

42 141 5 been some work that's been done in urbanizing MM5 and 

43 142 7 implemented. I guess in terms of MM5 AERMOD we 

44 158 20 future is possibly gridded met data or the MM5 to 

45 176 21 data derived from MM5 data then we don't want to be 

46 286 15 similar to the MM5 to AERMOD tools that were discussed 

47 287 2 3-D outputs from MM5 and CMAQ; SCICHEM also runs on 

48 292 13 meteorological models such as MM5, WRF, RUC, RAMS and 

49 304 18 coming from another source presumably a MM5. What it 

50 304 19 really represents is MM5 winds do not match 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 397 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "mm5" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 304 20 observations. Is that a CALPUFF issue or MM5 issues 

 7 304 23 more to this instead of saying that MM5 or CALMET is 

 8 305 6 One is to run the model in NOOBS mode using MM5 only 

 9 305 13 believe the MM5 fields and you want to use them. If 

10 305 15 in the MM5 data, you can run CALMET in the pure 

11 305 18 If you run it in a hybrid mode with MM5 and use 

12 306 2 variability. This is basically (inaudible) MM5 date. 

13 306 10 emphasis maybe on the MM5 data and certainly the 

14 306 16 The bull's eye looks ridiculous but what the MM5 has 

15 

16 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

17 ____ _______ _________________ 

18 

19 7 2 modeling conference. I believe the last conference 

20 7 3 was Tyler's first as a group leader for the modeling 

21 7 4 group. For me, this is my first modeling conference 

22 7 8 Modeling Group under Joe Tikvart and I think everybody 

23 7 9 in the modeling group has ties to Joe. I learned a 

24 7 11 the group today with the modeling in particular goes 

25 7 18 regulatory model. Not only AERMOD, but we have 

26 7 21 talking about air quality modeling is the integrity of 

27 8 2 modeling group right now is one of the best groups of 

28 8 7 folks to use. Modeling is not something that's done 

29 8 8 just for EPA. It's a modeling community. One of the 

30 8 9 things I appreciate about the 9th Modeling Conference 

31 8 10 and the modeling conferences in the past is that it's 

32 8 16 make this model work and how do we use this, how do we 

33 8 17 make it better. We developed a Modeling Clearinghouse 

34 9 13 modeling community and with the regulatory community 

35 9 15 battling with one model now that we have AERMOD, we 

36 10 10 Clearinghouse. If someone wants to use the model in a 

37 11 2 from the regulatory perspective is that AERMOD Model 

38 11 14 model. It's an extremely powerful tool and it has 

39 11 22 modeling field. When I was here in the early nineties 

40 12 6 a revitalization as far as the new modeling goes. We 

41 12 8 turn the crank and do the modeling. We're now seeing 

42 13 6 great omen for the modeling conference if the wind can 

43 13 14 the modeling world we have to do the same thing. Five 

44 13 23 ourselves in this division in this modeling group. We 

45 14 2 process. One of the reasons this modeling conference 

46 14 11 problems and move modeling forward. It's a complex 

47 15 19 modeling community and to the modeling program is 

48 15 24 work on modeling and I think they are exceptional 

49 17 13 Model Clearing House that we will get into shortly in 

50 21 3 program offices as well. If not for the modeling 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 398 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 22 14 discussions we had in the 8th Modeling Conference and 

 7 24 6 course those of you at the 8th Modeling Conference may 

 8 24 18 information about the modeling system and the code 

 9 25 2 from the 8th Modeling Conference. I'll walk through the 

10 25 10 of you here who were at the 8th Modeling Conference 

11 26 19 community approach to model development and acceptance 

12 26 21 improvement in modeling science and data but make it 

13 26 25 Soon after the 8th Modeling Conference there was a lot 

14 27 8 effective model clearinghouse to bring that expertise 

15 27 15 are. I'll start where we are with the AERMOD modeling 

16 27 16 systems. Obviously a new model we're going to have 

17 27 18 8th Modeling Conference (inaudible) Al Cimorelli did a 

18 27 23 betterment of the model and for your benefit. That 

19 28 4 improving that model to meet the needs that you have. 

20 28 12 scientific aspects of the model and make sure they 

21 28 15 aspects and other items within the model that really 

22 28 21 scientific issues related to the model and have both 

23 28 23 model and in support of you and across the modeling 

24 29 22 types of changes in the model that need to be brought 

25 30 3 arena the confidence in that model as it is applied 

26 30 8 Bailey and Roger Brode at the 8th Modeling Conference. 

27 30 12 of the model 1 proposed a new version (beta) and the 

28 30 18 situations to be able to test the model. Again to the 

29 30 23 the model in that very clear and transparent process 

30 31 6 engaged quite a bit with the model developer and folks 

31 32 19 SCRAM and find the modeling conferences and find each 

32 33 22 issues related to modeling under the modeling 

33 34 20 justification and cover for the modeling that we've 

34 35 9 technical issues are the focus so modeling issues are 

35 35 13 are really trying to focus on the technical model 

36 38 13 Here's a screen shot of SCRAM with the Modeling 

37 40 3 permit application which would go through the Model 

38 40 7 arise. We have a new model out there and new issues 

39 40 16 with regional office modeling contacts. We have 

40 41 2 so far gone through review by Regional Office modeling 

41 41 6 Regional Offices either through modeling contacts 

42 41 13 the permit modeling guidance down at the bottom under 

43 42 8 AERMOD model but one of the issues we have gotten 

44 42 15 preferred model cannot be proprietary. We laid out 

45 42 20 the regulatory status of CALPUFF modeling system for a 

46 43 4 main point EPA preferred model for near-field 

47 43 8 alternative model for near-field applications 

48 43 13 appropriate since it's a (inaudible) puff model. This 

49 43 16 Appendix W, when there is no preferred model or where 

50 43 17 another model is considered more appropriate. So 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 399 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 44 20 done the sensitivity of the ISCST3 model to ASOS vs. 

 7 45 5 impact might that have on our modeling programs. 

 8 46 12 within the modeling community. Missing airport data 

 9 47 4 model if that single 2-minute average is calm the hour 

10 48 11 the 7th Modeling Conference and it was the (inaudible) 

11 49 4 would result in a change in the model perHAPS. This 

12 49 11 modeling demonstration. 

13 51 15 modeling protocol in order to get review and input 

14 51 22 your modeling, it is critically important. It's not 

15 52 12 said before, the confidence and integrity of the model 

16 53 11 is a distinction between the regulatory model 

17 53 20 the conference we are actively using the model for 

18 54 11 model in the right way. After all the types of 

19 54 12 applications will affect the integrity of the model 

20 54 15 process that will hopefully improve that model as we 

21 55 15 separate guidelines related to the modeling for 

22 56 8 modeling itself as we move forward and incorporate 

23 57 9 revised the ozone PM and regional haze modeling 

24 58 2 to the types of broader grid based chemical modeling 

25 58 6 specified dispersion modeling in unmonitored areas 

26 58 15 model you're going to be smoothing those things out 

27 58 25 dispersion modeling that would be and could be 

28 59 4 chemical modeling that's also being done and the 

29 60 13 NATA as the single largest modeling application done 

30 60 17 perHAPS 99% of the modeling. Some of the numbers are 

31 61 7 We start out with the inventory we model ambient 

32 63 9 cohesive modeling. That's still on the drawing board 

33 64 13 actually do the dispersion modeling. One of the steps 

34 64 15 dispersion modeling analysis is generally not what 

35 65 9 model model comparison and I'll show you some of the 

36 66 12 are. So how I treat those in my modeling scenario 

37 67 7 Now getting to the modeling component, how did I model 

38 67 10 Exposure Model and this is also available on our FERA 

39 67 13 was ran with the ISC model. When Tyler and I sat 

40 67 16 has done some modeling in the past with ISC can go to 

41 68 10 the HEM model for the NATA application as well. Just 

42 68 14 the Gaussian model ever. Out of those sixty thousand 

43 68 21 eight HPAS HAPS in the Clean Air Act. We modeled the 

44 69 5 complain about their model taking an overnight run. 

45 69 9 go over a couple of model options we did. One of the 

46 69 12 through the model. It kind of expedites the model and 

47 70 16 of these are located. We felt like rather than model 

48 70 19 ASPEN model. This model is still on SCRAM and I saw 

49 70 20 it the other day. The model EMSHAP is an emission 

50 71 2 emissions out over your county and model it at a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 400 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 71 4 where you shouldn't really have them. So we modeled 

 7 71 5 these using the ASPEN model which is based on an even 

 8 71 6 older ISCLT2 model. We modeled these, rather than 

 9 71 7 model these at the census block; we felt we would over 

10 71 8 analysis them so we modeled them at the census tract. 

11 72 4 Finally we did a model to monitor comparison where we 

12 72 11 We have model to monitor comparisons that may be of 

13 73 21 a model called HAPEM that we run and develop these 

14 74 4 commuting and what not. And this HAPEM model that we 

15 74 15 money on modeling and risk characterization. One of 

16 75 15 model. On and off road and the background, you can 

17 78 20 together from a modeling standpoint as we move forward 

18 81 3 modeling using VISTAS which is our (inaudible) 

19 81 5 and then we did some 2009 modeling and now we're 

20 82 12 haze. We did some modeling some 2009 and 

21 82 13 2018 modeling for haze. We also looked at 

22 82 14 the CAIR modeling that was done. What it 

23 84 2 area. So what do we do? We'll just model and see 

24 84 23 integration and using the AERMOD model to evaluate 

25 85 2 all of the AERMOD modeling so all the questions I will 

26 85 8 extensions, revisions additional modeling. We have so 

27 85 23 been involved in a modeling study like this. We 

28 86 23 should be modeled? We decided to cast our net 

29 89 6 did model performance we looked at the monitors. So 

30 89 14 typically think of AERMOD as a conservative model. 

31 89 19 model performance is a little better. As you can see 

32 90 3 So this is some of our model performance statistics. 

33 90 5 are modeled values and the observation are in black. 

34 90 14 issues at the lower level. Again the model 

35 90 19 (inaudible) modeled values were approximately 6. 

36 90 22 Again red is the model and black is the observed. We 

37 91 4 (inaudible) As you can see the model values are always 

38 91 17 These model performance plots show you they're pretty 

39 92 2 source characterizations or are we asking the model to 

40 92 11 modeling and exercises modeling exercises like this 

41 92 19 our future projections. We followed EPA model 

42 92 22 modeling but a lot of policy discussions and 

43 92 24 this is an appropriate model for this situation. CMAQ 

44 93 6 reduction in the model of about a microgram and a half 

45 93 18 some issues in 2009 so they ran some 2012 modeling for 

46 93 22 put the BAPS inventory into that modeling. And so 

47 94 18 best year for us. However, we are going to model both 

48 94 20 this point our modeling is running we are going to 

49 96 18 in the RAM model which was the guideline model at that 

50 96 21 can't be because it's the EPA guideline model there 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 401 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 96 24 silence. You're going to modify (inaudible) model so 

 7 97 4 get the (inaudible) model listed as model, the 

 8 97 5 photochemical grid model. In 1990 I succeeded it was 

 9 97 6 the guideline model for ozone modeling. Then we came 

10 98 23 includes air quality modeling to show project impacts 

11 99 16 modeling to address ozone so they had to do a 

12 99 17 photochemical grid model. (inaudible) 

13 100 4 grid model. 

14 100 25 grid modeling to do their assessments to look at the 

15 101 9 snuff. We had to go back and redo all the modeling 

16 101 13 model to get the sulphur and nitrate impacts using a 

17 101 16 photochemical grid modeling. 

18 101 19 just use AERMOD and a photochemical grid model for all 

19 101 23 first EIS to propose to use photochemical grid model 

20 102 13 photochemical grid modeling for these oil and gas 

21 102 15 modeling. This is the 36/12 km environmental modeling 

22 102 19 model which is further south and next to the Wind 

23 102 21 southeast. Early on with the CALMET modeling in 2002 

24 103 9 This is the photochemical grid model domain where we 

25 104 3 have some ideas on what's causing it. Will the model 

26 104 6 modeling for about 28 years. This is not a typical 

27 104 11 using relative modeling results? How to perform model 

28 104 15 about that because you don't have to compare model 

29 104 17 model applications we always (inaudible) the model 

30 104 19 model is performing correctly. 

31 105 11 studies. We are also using CMAQ model for southwest 

32 105 13 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model for 

33 105 20 tomorrow about the plume in grid model for near source 

34 106 2 model databases across the US and also trained a lot 

35 106 16 of agencies involved. It's not the Model Clearing 

36 106 17 House but model guideline applications. They're the 

37 107 2 the photochemical model is being used here and trying 

38 108 5 we were at the 8th Modeling Conference. Tyler 

39 108 7 the 8th Modeling Conference. This was the second 

40 108 12 modeling science and performance for near-field, 

41 108 15 Modeling Conference and there was a panel discussion 

42 108 16 on how can gridded meteorological model data be used. 

43 108 21 what's happened since the 8th Modeling Conference? 

44 108 22 After the 8th Modeling Conference, OAQPS formed a 

45 108 25 dispersion modeling. In addition to this, EPA 

46 109 23 better and how the model responds. Ultimately this 

47 110 2 dispersion modeling applications. That's something 

48 110 7 photochemical modeling things along this line. This 

49 110 16 in the gridded meteorological modeling community that 

50 111 23 the model and applying the model so that's a new 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 402 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 112 11 that's not very helpful for this dispersion model 

 7 112 23 They are being used in other regulatory modeling 

 8 117 3 the MM5 model for that grid cell which was about 0.3 

 9 118 18 for regulatory modeling. It's something that we have 

10 121 10 modeling over the domain of Detroit city I could have 

11 121 25 taking MM5 data directly into CALPUFF model. Should 

12 122 4 the met process for the CMAQ model. And what UNC has 

13 122 13 meteorological for dispersed model and guide to the 

14 122 15 meteorological modeling community experts together 

15 122 16 with dispersion model experts and figure what the 

16 122 25 model you have for that application. That's kind of 

17 123 16 Model Data Reformatted Program that we have been 

18 123 18 10 has interested in using this scale model to guide 

19 123 22 the Mesoscale model up in Alaska specifically using 

20 124 15 looking to do with that model (inaudible) we didn't 

21 127 19 Model Clearing House. 

22 128 5 model. In preparing for this, Shell came in 2006 

23 129 4 the WRF model which they are currently developing an 

24 129 5 ice model up there. As you know, there's a lot of ice 

25 131 4 Oh man...Okay. This is the modeling domain that the 

26 131 6 the ice model currently. They'll do some additional 

27 131 13 terms of the WRF model using their new icing program. 

28 132 24 modeling low level plume. This may be problematic 

29 136 8 model that you may find where there might be where 

30 138 16 regulatory application model where that type of 

31 139 3 meteorology model? In addition to that, could this be 

32 139 23 photochemical modeling. Again that's just one 

33 141 7 urbanize prognostic met model that actually does 

34 141 9 layer for dispersion modeling purposes before we could 

35 144 10 people out there using the model. And also to try and 

36 145 19 done, model improvements. Those kind of things. In 

37 149 4 at the modeling domain and the area that is impacting 

38 149 8 recommendations if you're modeling urban and AERMOD 

39 149 23 mode of the model. 

40 154 9 modeled it to see what the results looked like. And 

41 155 10 input issue. As you know if you're modeling urban and 

42 155 14 you use is inversely related to the model 

43 155 17 you'll be using in the model to make sure you're being 

44 157 11 right number to model if you've got a source or two 

45 157 21 model area. As I said this is still work in progress 

46 158 9 radiance for our urban kinds of modeling and maybe the 

47 158 11 input into the model or maybe we can use this kind of 

48 159 14 Real quickly this is some of the modeling work that 

49 161 2 does that translate to in terms of model 

50 161 20 is doing more modeling of different sites and trying 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 403 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 162 5 using the model to advise EPA on these implementation 

 7 163 6 and the specifics of the AERMOD modeling of the system 

 8 165 11 AERMOD modeling system and inform you of some other 

 9 165 15 preferred near-field model in Federal Register notice 

10 165 20 dispersion model, AERMET met processor and AERMET 

11 165 24 Model Change Bulletin as well as some addenda to the 

12 166 13 what model of the earth was use to represent those 

13 168 9 upgrade will speed the model up to I think about 40% 

14 168 20 need to run the model. 

15 169 24 lot of focus recently on modeling and how best to 

16 169 25 model emission from mobile sources in AERMOD. And 

17 170 14 in Addendum to Model Change Bulletin. It's the worst 

18 170 15 kind of bug that you can have with the model. Its 

19 170 16 model runs gives you numbers and the numbers are 

20 170 21 getting the model fixed anyway. You'll read more 

21 171 8 integer variables in the model. So there's been some 

22 177 18 of Air Pollution, Theory and Model Application, to 

23 177 19 reflect AERMOD model. Sort of gotten through the 

24 178 13 applying the model in a different context here that 

25 178 16 evaluating how the model performs at this specific 

26 178 19 has been placed on the model for routine regulatory 

27 178 23 efficient updates to the modeling system. I wish we 

28 179 2 assessment of the impact of model changes for example 

29 179 19 model changes prior to release, including going 

30 179 23 and also we want to do the same with the model 

31 179 25 in model performance that might be expected if some 

32 180 14 information you need to apply the model appropriately. 

33 180 22 modeling impacts from haul roads has come up a lot in 

34 181 3 emissions is an important part and the model is not 

35 181 9 modeling haul roads emissions. Part of it is the 

36 182 10 impact model performance? In face it didn't much. 

37 182 12 10 meter on site data. It appeared to improve model 

38 182 16 AERSURFACE was released. So that's it on AERMOD model 

39 184 3 modeling system but as a tool to assist in that 

40 184 20 sensitivity of the model to roughness or (inaudible) 

41 185 8 (inaudible) layers in the model which is going to be 

42 188 7 information and share it with modelers. 

43 192 21 regional model workshop. Some initial test results, 

44 193 15 forces the model to calculate centerline concentration 

45 194 21 for terrain processing. I think at the 8th Modeling 

46 195 22 When you're doing terrain or buildings modeling, you 

47 199 13 source, execute FLOWSECTOR. In the 8th Modeling 

48 201 13 invoke the TOXICS option to speed up the model. Other 

49 205 11 the 2007 regional model work shop and like I said it's 

50 207 14 model didn't know where the building was in relation 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 404 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 207 17 displaced. The model didn't care but with prime it 

 7 207 24 Model Clearing House procedures for simulating a 

 8 208 6 into the model to define the initial radius of the 

 9 208 15 that Model Clearing House procedure for non-downwash 

10 209 20 the model especially for convective conditions where 

11 210 15 Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) initially formed 

12 211 5 reviewed status of AERMOD modeling system and 

13 212 6 with an idea to utilize more of this data in the model 

14 213 22 each source so that by itself slows the model down by 

15 214 9 would speed the model up with hardly any difference in 

16 214 21 the model but not area sources. So the reason that's 

17 214 22 important is if I'm doing a modeling of mobile source 

18 215 6 prognostic meteorological data with the model and we 

19 215 14 meteorological modeling community to next (or future) 

20 215 18 in AERMOD modeling system by using multiple grids and 

21 216 3 utilizing this data directly in the model. As I 

22 216 16 to provide that information to the model gives us a 

23 217 5 information available for the model. That would mean 

24 217 18 that. And when I mean value it I mean the model 

25 217 23 model can eliminate the preprocessors but having 

26 218 7 there in the model would make it much easier to 

27 218 10 direction specific height scale to the model first and 

28 218 19 to inform the urban heat island aspect of the model. 

29 222 8 Roger Brode: Right. The Model Clearing House 

30 222 9 procedures for modeling capped stacks could send you 

31 224 14 the model. It doesn't seem as though there is any 

32 225 7 regulatory model and in the development phase that was 

33 225 8 appropriate. But once the model is in the regulatory 

34 226 3 the context of the modeling conference itself. Of 

35 227 13 the validity and integrity of how the model is applied 

36 227 16 model in many cases. 

37 227 24 see if the actual modeled peak concentration peak are 

38 231 7 determination of the acceptability of the model is the 

39 231 12 practical purposes as the preferred model." This 

40 231 13 leads to the issue of the availability of the model 

41 231 17 the EPA do in evaluating its model before release. So 

42 231 21 1. Question number 2. Is there a model evaluation 

43 233 6 CALPUFF modeling system that test data set. For now, 

44 236 22 model it so now you're shopping geometry. There's a 

45 238 25 the community, model and the like and where we stand. 

46 239 5 Obviously the modeling system was promulgated in 

47 239 7 promulgated as EPA's preferred model for long-range 

48 239 10 model developer arranged to maintain control of code 

49 240 11 the way for regulatory use of this model. There were 

50 240 12 two versions of the VISTAS model and I'll talk about 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 405 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 240 15 coordination with the model developer to get an 

 7 240 16 updated version of this model. Version 5.8 and that's 

 8 240 19 familiar with modeling system are aware in April, 

 9 240 22 model that they contracted directly with the model 

10 241 6 Modelers Work Shop. Those presentations are 

11 241 19 this model system. The reason is Earth Tech sells 

12 242 14 of the model that there is a requirement that it meets 

13 242 18 that we understood that the model would be maintained 

14 243 7 multiple versions. NOTE: CALPUFF model/code cannot 

15 243 10 indicating the continued copy write of the model as 

16 244 2 Version 5.7 to Version 5.711a. We got the Model 

17 244 15 outlined in the 8th Modeling Conference to do that and 

18 245 25 model developer and others in the community. While we 

19 246 18 model that could but a number of states used CALPUFF. 

20 246 19 And they wanted to use the best available model 

21 246 22 regional office modeling community from the EPA 

22 247 5 use this model and the modeling system in one context 

23 247 11 permit modeling. And through the provision of the 

24 247 17 modeling system. So again EPA was faced with the 

25 248 4 modelers and that occurred in January, 2007. That 

26 248 9 model. No you could not use the CALMET meteorological 

27 248 11 approved part of the CALPUFF modeling system. We had 

28 248 14 modeling and have anything overturned or you in the 

29 249 21 model, to update the regulatory version 5.8 in June, 

30 249 22 2007, establishing the CALPUFF modeling system from a 

31 249 25 the world in dealing both with the modeling developer 

32 250 7 that model. around that time our office director, 

33 250 13 dispersion model standpoint. And despite the fact 

34 251 9 our IWAQM were irrelevant. The model had passed us by 

35 252 9 implementation within the model. So that we can then 

36 252 15 to spend more time engaging with the model developer 

37 252 17 effective engagement here at the 9th Modeling 

38 254 15 interim versions of the modeling system to facilitate 

39 254 16 isolating impact to different types of model changes. 

40 256 16 regulatory nitch for the model. So we started looking 

41 256 19 that the same model you might ask. That added to the 

42 257 14 CALPUFF modeling system for use over water. One of 

43 258 13 difference between these two versions of the model. 

44 259 12 effect is still going to be path to the modeling 

45 260 16 the modeling system and this is an issue that we are 

46 261 6 allow technical enhancements to be in the model code 

47 262 4 file that's provided with the modeling system. We 

48 262 8 actually encountered a few people using the model that 

49 262 18 questions of the validity of the original modeling 

50 263 16 dependencies in the modeling system even with 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 406 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 263 23 while. The main is that the EPA-preferred model for 

 7 263 25 preferred model for near-field applications, but may 

 8 264 2 be considered as an alternative model on a case-by- 

 9 264 6 that link it to the alternative model section are for 

10 264 7 cases when there is no preferred model. So a complex 

11 264 10 plume model cannot give me a reliable answer. So when 

12 264 11 there's no preferred model then that's a situation 

13 264 15 applications have come through the Model Clearing 

14 265 14 sort of the Model Clearing House needs to be 

15 265 24 meet for use of an alternative model in cases 

16 265 25 where there is no preferred model or this model 

17 266 2 is better than the preferred model. 

18 266 6 then AERMOD is the preferred model. You can 

19 266 7 always submit CALPUFF as an alternative model but 

20 266 10 preferred model is not appropriate or less 

21 267 16 to inform the model to get the wind speeds 

22 270 4 for the modeling system to resolve the important 

23 270 7 Will the modeling system be able to utilize that site 

24 270 9 considerations and then model performance and 

25 270 17 modeling evaluation is certainly one of those. 

26 270 18 CALPUFF modeling system performance for near-field 

27 272 19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 

28 273 18 modeling system with that information. How can I 

29 275 7 it is a reactive puff model which is a chemistry 

30 275 9 dispersion model in the EPA guidelines and SCIPUFF was 

31 275 12 SCICHEM is a non-study state puff model which allows 

32 276 2 also increases the complexity of model and as you just 

33 276 13 by using photochemical grid model results to provide 

34 276 21 that all the changes that were made to the model were 

35 278 7 the plume is depleted by 45 ppb in the model as 

36 279 8 treated with the thermodynamic equilibrium model 

37 280 17 released in June, 2007. We also conducted box model 

38 285 19 are also doing some additional model updates. We are 

39 286 12 provide the three-dimensional model outputs that can 

40 286 25 just like a puff model. It has the capability to read 

41 287 3 line within a grid model and we'll talk about that 

42 287 5 inside the grid model and there's a two way 

43 287 6 interaction between SCICHEM and the host grid model. 

44 287 11 model and the grid model. 

45 287 16 the model, but we believe that actually the newer 

46 287 24 provided the SWWYTAF data base for model application 

47 288 23 has. Also the issue of PG dependencies in the model. 

48 288 25 model] (inaudible) so it's not a mystery or an error 

49 289 2 it's just the way the model is designed. We can 

50 289 8 version of the model and the more recent version. We 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 407 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 289 11 model. I think that may have been published in a 

 7 289 15 the evaluation of the model. 

 8 289 16 First the development. We upgrade the model on a 

 9 289 21 improvement of the model. An example is what we heard 

10 289 23 of the model and will be available to everybody under 

11 290 12 In terms of what the modeling community gets for their 

12 290 19 part of the developmental version of the model. That 

13 291 4 includes the Hybrid puff-particle version of the model 

14 291 10 model and some of them will make their way into the 

15 292 2 developmental version of the model or Beta test 

16 292 20 together. Animating the (inaudible) model with whole 

17 292 22 Model development continues with the processing 

18 293 13 There is a sub hourly version of the model that's 

19 293 22 meteorological model. We agree as to what was said 

20 294 8 In terms of model maintenance, it is a struggle. We 

21 294 17 to do the model maintenance, always have been and 

22 294 22 the model stops what should I do? Well, you'll have 

23 295 15 model option tool, it was not available on the web 

24 295 24 done that in the last model change updates. I think 

25 296 4 to get model changes accepted. The first bulletin 

26 296 10 The separate and more complex issues of model 

27 296 12 get into the regulatory version of the model. It 

28 297 7 going forward. There are two outstanding model 

29 297 11 with the agency because using a version of the model 

30 297 13 community point of view. We've provided the Model 

31 297 23 charge for model enhancement. We don't make money in 

32 298 2 model to improve it. We haven't development of the 

33 298 3 model or BETA test version which allows us to do 

34 299 2 have testing done the model would never advance. 

35 299 7 there has been delays in simple bug fixes like Model 

36 299 12 model enhancements by EPA. The model enhancements 

37 299 13 which we think couldn't help the model performance in 

38 300 6 about the lack of that in the model. I think well our 

39 300 7 hands are tied if we cannot change the model we cannot 

40 300 15 meretriciously we don't change the model regulatory 

41 301 3 EPA presentations at 2007 and 2008 R/S/L Modelers 

42 301 5 and include examples that do not reflect good modeling 

43 301 14 understanding of how the model works. We can help 

44 301 25 consistent with the model or any other model. In 

45 302 12 the modeling group of EPA had a representative on the 

46 303 3 helps advance the quality of the model. If we have a 

47 303 4 problem with the model, we'll contact the developer 

48 303 15 number of technical enhancements that are in the model 

49 304 13 uses an example of a horrible model. What on earth is 

50 305 2 run this model and three of them will solve this 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 408 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 305 6 One is to run the model in NOOBS mode using MM5 only 

 7 305 22 of this has to do with running the model in a poor 

 8 307 21 the kind of the model that EPA is using with the 

 9 307 24 The final item is the model applicability and 

10 308 25 Not just AERMOD any study state model due to 

11 309 24 model for complex terrain. It cannot handle complex 

12 311 13 not just the AERMOD but any study state model will do 

13 311 16 terrain. The alternative model is suggesting the 

14 311 19 representative of the method that is used to model 

15 311 21 to determine whether a study state model should apply. 

16 312 3 AERMOD. I don't think you have to do a model 

17 312 5 the model you can argue this is a strong case to use 

18 313 8 model works. Main plume, coherent plume and there is 

19 315 11 the modeling domain. You'll be using the upwind 

20 315 14 of the model of the AERMOD and most people do in 

21 316 6 the ratios of the model outputs and said these were 

22 317 2 has limitations because it's a study state model. All 

23 317 4 use of the non study state model which was the intent 

24 317 20 Prakash is going to apply on a complete model. This 

25 317 24 but that's the way the model would be used typically. 

26 318 14 expense of model and data base accuracy. In cases 

27 321 6 after 15 years and its certainly not a perfect model. 

28 321 15 one model cancels another model should be used and can 

29 321 16 without substantiation that that model can handle it. 

30 321 19 long as I'm the group leader of the modeling group, as 

31 

32 Page Ref No. Keyword = "model evaluation" 

33 ____ _______ ____________________________ 

34 

35 231 21 1. Question number 2. Is there a model evaluation 

36 

37 Page Ref No. Keyword = "modelers" 

38 ____ _______ ____________________ 

39 

40 188 7 information and share it with modelers. 

41 241 6 Modelers Work Shop. Those presentations are 

42 248 4 modelers and that occurred in January, 2007. That 

43 301 3 EPA presentations at 2007 and 2008 R/S/L Modelers 

44 

45 Page Ref No. Keyword = "modeling" 

46 ____ _______ ____________________ 

47 

48 7 2 modeling conference. I believe the last conference 

49 7 3 was Tyler's first as a group leader for the modeling 

50 7 4 group. For me, this is my first modeling conference 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 409 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "modeling" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 7 8 Modeling Group under Joe Tikvart and I think everybody 

 7 7 9 in the modeling group has ties to Joe. I learned a 

 8 7 11 the group today with the modeling in particular goes 

 9 7 21 talking about air quality modeling is the integrity of 

10 8 2 modeling group right now is one of the best groups of 

11 8 7 folks to use. Modeling is not something that's done 

12 8 8 just for EPA. It's a modeling community. One of the 

13 8 9 things I appreciate about the 9th Modeling Conference 

14 8 10 and the modeling conferences in the past is that it's 

15 8 17 make it better. We developed a Modeling Clearinghouse 

16 9 13 modeling community and with the regulatory community 

17 11 22 modeling field. When I was here in the early nineties 

18 12 6 a revitalization as far as the new modeling goes. We 

19 12 8 turn the crank and do the modeling. We're now seeing 

20 13 6 great omen for the modeling conference if the wind can 

21 13 14 the modeling world we have to do the same thing. Five 

22 13 23 ourselves in this division in this modeling group. We 

23 14 2 process. One of the reasons this modeling conference 

24 14 11 problems and move modeling forward. It's a complex 

25 15 19 modeling community and to the modeling program is 

26 15 24 work on modeling and I think they are exceptional 

27 17 21 terms of these models, modeling science, and these 

28 21 3 program offices as well. If not for the modeling 

29 22 14 discussions we had in the 8th Modeling Conference and 

30 24 6 course those of you at the 8th Modeling Conference may 

31 24 18 information about the modeling system and the code 

32 25 2 from the 8th Modeling Conference. I'll walk through the 

33 25 10 of you here who were at the 8th Modeling Conference 

34 26 21 improvement in modeling science and data but make it 

35 26 25 Soon after the 8th Modeling Conference there was a lot 

36 27 15 are. I'll start where we are with the AERMOD modeling 

37 27 18 8th Modeling Conference (inaudible) Al Cimorelli did a 

38 28 23 model and in support of you and across the modeling 

39 30 8 Bailey and Roger Brode at the 8th Modeling Conference. 

40 32 19 SCRAM and find the modeling conferences and find each 

41 33 22 issues related to modeling under the modeling 

42 34 20 justification and cover for the modeling that we've 

43 35 9 technical issues are the focus so modeling issues are 

44 38 13 Here's a screen shot of SCRAM with the Modeling 

45 40 16 with regional office modeling contacts. We have 

46 41 2 so far gone through review by Regional Office modeling 

47 41 6 Regional Offices either through modeling contacts 

48 41 13 the permit modeling guidance down at the bottom under 

49 42 20 the regulatory status of CALPUFF modeling system for a 

50 45 5 impact might that have on our modeling programs. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 410 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "modeling" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 46 12 within the modeling community. Missing airport data 

 7 48 11 the 7th Modeling Conference and it was the (inaudible) 

 8 49 11 modeling demonstration. 

 9 51 15 modeling protocol in order to get review and input 

10 51 22 your modeling, it is critically important. It's not 

11 55 15 separate guidelines related to the modeling for 

12 56 8 modeling itself as we move forward and incorporate 

13 57 9 revised the ozone PM and regional haze modeling 

14 58 2 to the types of broader grid based chemical modeling 

15 58 6 specified dispersion modeling in unmonitored areas 

16 58 25 dispersion modeling that would be and could be 

17 59 4 chemical modeling that's also being done and the 

18 60 13 NATA as the single largest modeling application done 

19 60 17 perHAPS 99% of the modeling. Some of the numbers are 

20 63 9 cohesive modeling. That's still on the drawing board 

21 64 13 actually do the dispersion modeling. One of the steps 

22 64 15 dispersion modeling analysis is generally not what 

23 66 12 are. So how I treat those in my modeling scenario 

24 67 7 Now getting to the modeling component, how did I model 

25 67 16 has done some modeling in the past with ISC can go to 

26 74 15 money on modeling and risk characterization. One of 

27 78 20 together from a modeling standpoint as we move forward 

28 81 3 modeling using VISTAS which is our (inaudible) 

29 81 5 and then we did some 2009 modeling and now we're 

30 82 12 haze. We did some modeling some 2009 and 

31 82 13 2018 modeling for haze. We also looked at 

32 82 14 the CAIR modeling that was done. What it 

33 85 2 all of the AERMOD modeling so all the questions I will 

34 85 8 extensions, revisions additional modeling. We have so 

35 85 23 been involved in a modeling study like this. We 

36 92 11 modeling and exercises modeling exercises like this 

37 92 22 modeling but a lot of policy discussions and 

38 93 18 some issues in 2009 so they ran some 2012 modeling for 

39 93 22 put the BAPS inventory into that modeling. And so 

40 94 20 this point our modeling is running we are going to 

41 97 6 the guideline model for ozone modeling. Then we came 

42 98 23 includes air quality modeling to show project impacts 

43 99 16 modeling to address ozone so they had to do a 

44 100 25 grid modeling to do their assessments to look at the 

45 101 9 snuff. We had to go back and redo all the modeling 

46 101 16 photochemical grid modeling. 

47 102 13 photochemical grid modeling for these oil and gas 

48 102 15 modeling. This is the 36/12 km environmental modeling 

49 102 21 southeast. Early on with the CALMET modeling in 2002 

50 104 6 modeling for about 28 years. This is not a typical 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 411 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "modeling" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 104 11 using relative modeling results? How to perform model 

 7 108 5 we were at the 8th Modeling Conference. Tyler 

 8 108 7 the 8th Modeling Conference. This was the second 

 9 108 12 modeling science and performance for near-field, 

10 108 15 Modeling Conference and there was a panel discussion 

11 108 21 what's happened since the 8th Modeling Conference? 

12 108 22 After the 8th Modeling Conference, OAQPS formed a 

13 108 25 dispersion modeling. In addition to this, EPA 

14 110 2 dispersion modeling applications. That's something 

15 110 7 photochemical modeling things along this line. This 

16 110 16 in the gridded meteorological modeling community that 

17 112 23 They are being used in other regulatory modeling 

18 118 18 for regulatory modeling. It's something that we have 

19 121 10 modeling over the domain of Detroit city I could have 

20 122 15 meteorological modeling community experts together 

21 131 4 Oh man...Okay. This is the modeling domain that the 

22 132 24 modeling low level plume. This may be problematic 

23 139 23 photochemical modeling. Again that's just one 

24 141 9 layer for dispersion modeling purposes before we could 

25 149 4 at the modeling domain and the area that is impacting 

26 149 8 recommendations if you're modeling urban and AERMOD 

27 155 10 input issue. As you know if you're modeling urban and 

28 158 9 radiance for our urban kinds of modeling and maybe the 

29 159 14 Real quickly this is some of the modeling work that 

30 161 20 is doing more modeling of different sites and trying 

31 163 6 and the specifics of the AERMOD modeling of the system 

32 165 11 AERMOD modeling system and inform you of some other 

33 169 24 lot of focus recently on modeling and how best to 

34 178 23 efficient updates to the modeling system. I wish we 

35 180 22 modeling impacts from haul roads has come up a lot in 

36 181 9 modeling haul roads emissions. Part of it is the 

37 184 3 modeling system but as a tool to assist in that 

38 194 21 for terrain processing. I think at the 8th Modeling 

39 195 22 When you're doing terrain or buildings modeling, you 

40 199 13 source, execute FLOWSECTOR. In the 8th Modeling 

41 211 5 reviewed status of AERMOD modeling system and 

42 214 22 important is if I'm doing a modeling of mobile source 

43 215 14 meteorological modeling community to next (or future) 

44 215 18 in AERMOD modeling system by using multiple grids and 

45 222 9 procedures for modeling capped stacks could send you 

46 226 3 the context of the modeling conference itself. Of 

47 233 6 CALPUFF modeling system that test data set. For now, 

48 239 5 Obviously the modeling system was promulgated in 

49 240 19 familiar with modeling system are aware in April, 

50 244 15 outlined in the 8th Modeling Conference to do that and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 412 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "modeling" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 246 22 regional office modeling community from the EPA 

 7 247 5 use this model and the modeling system in one context 

 8 247 11 permit modeling. And through the provision of the 

 9 247 17 modeling system. So again EPA was faced with the 

10 248 11 approved part of the CALPUFF modeling system. We had 

11 248 14 modeling and have anything overturned or you in the 

12 249 22 2007, establishing the CALPUFF modeling system from a 

13 249 25 the world in dealing both with the modeling developer 

14 252 17 effective engagement here at the 9th Modeling 

15 254 15 interim versions of the modeling system to facilitate 

16 257 14 CALPUFF modeling system for use over water. One of 

17 259 12 effect is still going to be path to the modeling 

18 260 16 the modeling system and this is an issue that we are 

19 262 4 file that's provided with the modeling system. We 

20 262 18 questions of the validity of the original modeling 

21 263 16 dependencies in the modeling system even with 

22 270 4 for the modeling system to resolve the important 

23 270 7 Will the modeling system be able to utilize that site 

24 270 17 modeling evaluation is certainly one of those. 

25 270 18 CALPUFF modeling system performance for near-field 

26 272 19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 

27 273 18 modeling system with that information. How can I 

28 290 12 In terms of what the modeling community gets for their 

29 301 5 and include examples that do not reflect good modeling 

30 302 12 the modeling group of EPA had a representative on the 

31 315 11 the modeling domain. You'll be using the upwind 

32 321 19 long as I'm the group leader of the modeling group, as 

33 

34 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Monin-Obukhov" 

35 ____ _______ _________________________ 

36 

37 125 9 friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, air density, 

38 

39 Page Ref No. Keyword = "monitor" 

40 ____ _______ ___________________ 

41 

42 57 21 across the country with the monitoring network and the 

43 58 18 line conditions that are affecting that monitor that 

44 63 20 of these other things are doing. With monitoring, 

45 63 24 with our air toxic monitoring network that we've set 

46 64 4 monitoring. We're also using it to support some other 

47 71 24 different clean wind sectors using monitoring data. 

48 72 3 monitoring data. 

49 72 4 Finally we did a model to monitor comparison where we 

50 72 11 We have model to monitor comparisons that may be of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 413 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "monitor" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 73 4 particulate that we looked at and the monitoring data 

 7 81 12 the county, we also have a monitor and we have 

 8 81 13 another monitor just south of the Hoover monitor. 

 9 82 3 is our far western monitor. We kind of call it 

10 83 12 Birmingham monitor. 

11 84 4 This is just some of the pictures of the monitor of 

12 84 6 the... that's the monitor. It's not actually there it's 

13 84 12 This is the North Birmingham monitor. You'll see a 

14 84 18 took the findings from the monitoring study and 

15 87 2 either monitor with PM2.5 emissions greater than 

16 87 4 km of either monitor, any source with PM2.5 

17 87 19 and RACT, concentrations at the monitor were 

18 88 5 miles from the nearest monitor. We also had a SEARCH 

19 88 7 located at the NBHM monitor which we thought would be 

20 88 15 PM 2.5 Birmingham monitor. The one minute data is the 

21 89 8 than daily FRM since the monitor doesn't know the 

22 89 25 Birmingham monitor. Again that's the monitor with the 

23 90 6 The Wylam monitor looks pretty good. The first 

24 90 8 monitor doesn't know the difference in local, urban or 

25 90 24 the North Birmingham monitor from the local sources. 

26 91 21 the monitor than at Wylam. I guess this isn't a 

27 103 15 there with the monitoring sites and we still use 

28 104 8 There are some challenges in this. One is monitoring 

29 104 12 evaluation without a detail monitoring (inaudible) 

30 

31 Page Ref No. Keyword = "monitors" 

32 ____ _______ ____________________ 

33 

34 57 23 influences of primary PM on these monitors. In order 

35 59 13 monitors as part of their demonstration efforts. You 

36 72 6 toxic monitors out there. These are the pollutants 

37 72 14 monitors as compared to the NATA data. The value of 

38 73 6 have TSP monitors that are measuring these 

39 73 7 particulates and you have PM 2.5 monitors that are 

40 80 17 inner monitors. They are clearly higher than 

41 80 18 other monitors in the county. We have very good 

42 80 19 distribution of monitors in that area. Based on 

43 80 23 monitors. It obviously relies on reductions from 

44 81 9 These are our monitors in the Birmingham area and 

45 81 14 The two monitors directly in the middle of the map 

46 81 15 are the monitors that show higher concentration than 

47 82 2 above the other monitors in the areas. Providence 

48 83 9 complexes. These monitors are literally on 

49 89 6 did model performance we looked at the monitors. So 

50 90 17 they are always lower than the monitors. Again we 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 414 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "monitors" 

 4 ____ _______ ____________________ 

 5 

 6 91 3 monitors [ed. were ]reading about 25 ug/m3. 

 7 99 13 2005 they made a mistake and put ozone monitors in out 

 8 178 15 temperature at 2.5 or actually 2. Two monitors 

 9 

10 Page Ref No. Keyword = "NATA" 

11 ____ _______ ________________ 

12 

13 59 20 2002 NATA. 

14 60 12 So I'm going to talk about NATA. I'd like to refer to 

15 60 13 NATA as the single largest modeling application done 

16 60 19 What is NATA? NATA is characterization of air toxics 

17 62 8 What is NATA? NATA is a tool for most of our states, 

18 62 13 NATA points you in the right direction as where you 

19 62 17 actually our third application of NATA. One of the 

20 63 3 than that. We are also planning on some future NATA's 

21 63 12 on that. I had mentioned who uses NATA. We have 

22 63 14 the only. Actually NATA went in front of a science 

23 63 16 said they didn't want NATA to be just a regulatory 

24 63 17 application standing on its own. We have used NATA 

25 63 21 other assessments, local assessments along with NATA 

26 64 6 communities are using NATA on a regular basis. 

27 64 9 steps to developing NATA. Like I said we're at the 

28 66 24 into subsets so if I want to look into NATA and see 

29 68 10 the HEM model for the NATA application as well. Just 

30 72 5 looked at the results from NATA compared to the air 

31 72 10 different NATA assessments we've done. 

32 72 14 monitors as compared to the NATA data. The value of 

33 72 15 one would be equal comparison with our NATA results. 

34 73 9 the NATA results to the PM 2.5 it actually did pretty 

35 73 14 We did a pretty decent job in the 2002 NATA compared 

36 74 10 with our previous NATA characterization we had a 

37 74 17 NATA data into what's called a KML format. You click 

38 75 17 NATA. Essentially we think the clean act Clean Air 

39 77 7 like. This is the NATA results at the county level. 

40 97 14 So I'm going to talk not about NATA and not NAPA. I'm 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "NCDC" 

43 ____ _______ ________________ 

44 

45 187 10 are some links on the NCDC site for two hundred states 

46 187 16 locations. That information is available on the NCDC 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 415 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "near-field" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 27 6 generation of near-field models. The other related to 

 7 43 4 main point EPA preferred model for near-field 

 8 43 8 alternative model for near-field applications 

 9 99 25 this point there running AERMOD for near-field impacts 

10 108 12 modeling science and performance for near-field, 

11 165 15 preferred near-field model in Federal Register notice 

12 239 18 W for near-field applications involving "complex 

13 263 21 is the near-field Clarification Memo. Thought I'd 

14 263 24 near-field is AERMOD. CALPUFF is not the EPA15 263 25 preferred model for near-field applications, but may 

16 264 3 case basis for near-field applications involving 

17 267 13 data may be significant issues for a near-field. 

18 270 16 when applying CALPUFF in a near-field situation. The 

19 270 18 CALPUFF modeling system performance for near-field 

20 271 14 motivation for CALPUFF near-field applications under 

21 271 19 to near-field applications under that paragraph. 

22 271 22 Bret had worked on was to actually redo the near-field 

23 

24 Page Ref No. Keyword = "NEPA" 

25 ____ _______ ________________ 

26 

27 55 6 photochemical models for NEPA and addressing new 

28 98 20 involves the preparation of an EIS or EA under NEPA 

29 103 20 NEPA mantra we are trying to use the best science 

30 105 10 we are doing photochemical models and NEPA related 

31 105 17 NEPA EIS/EA air quality assessments. We talked about 

32 106 7 processing tools. So the current round of NEPA 

33 

34 Page Ref No. Keyword = "non regulatory" 

35 ____ _______ __________________________ 

36 

37 68 9 to run for these non regulatory applications through 

38 178 2 non regulatory applications. One of them was 

39 

40 Page Ref No. Keyword = "NOAA" 

41 ____ _______ ________________ 

42 

43 250 9 agency agreement with NOAA. As some of you may know, 

44 250 10 my group had a branch of NOAA meteorologist that were 

45 250 11 available through NOAA to EPA and they provided quite 

46 250 21 NOAA or other accommodations. We're in a situation 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 416 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "NSR" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 53 14 revisions of existing and new sources and NSR and 

 7 247 10 W which provides the rules of the game for NSR/PSD 

 8 

 9 Page Ref No. Keyword = "NWS" 

10 ____ _______ _______________ 

11 

12 46 6 ASOS is with the Missing NWS data more extensive with 

13 111 18 NWS data currently used in most cases; however but met 

14 112 3 airport data that we have significant gaps in NWS data 

15 183 3 the same met input as ISC basically in NWS surface and 

16 

17 Page Ref No. Keyword = "OAQPS" 

18 ____ _______ _________________ 

19 

20 27 4 One related to the need for OAQPS to enhance its 

21 27 21 OAQPS through the implementation issues so that we can 

22 32 8 limited to EPA, OAQPS folks or broadly EPA and 

23 35 14 issues to be handled by our group OAQPS and other 

24 40 14 may be things that come up through our ongoing OAQPS 

25 54 23 We'll have Ted Palma of OAQPS group here to give us an 

26 61 25 you can get all sorts of good information on OAQPS 

27 78 22 environmental problems. Chet mentioned that OAQPS is 

28 87 22 James Thurman and others at OAQPS provided us 

29 108 22 After the 8th Modeling Conference, OAQPS formed a 

30 127 18 well, we will submit to OAQPS for approval to the 

31 145 2 The purpose of the current AIWG is to advise OAQPS on 

32 145 10 in general provide feedback to OAQPS on how the 

33 210 20 - Roger Brode, OAQPS, Co-chair 

34 224 23 OAQPS. So we're working on the assumption that they 

35 231 20 OAQPS or a regional responsibility? That's questions 

36 231 22 data base that is agreed upon by both OAQPS and the 

37 231 25 which both OAQPS and the regional office would be in 

38 248 25 get the information that OAQPS needed. Allow time for 

39 251 22 if it weren't for his efforts and others at OAQPS and 

40 320 11 responsibility as the office director of OAQPS to 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "observation" 

43 ____ _______ _______________________ 

44 

45 47 3 hour. That's our standard weather observation for the 

46 90 5 are modeled values and the observation are in black. 

47 128 19 collecting surface observation as well sea surface 

48 151 17 conventional observation met data in one case. In the 

49 151 19 the observational data it's observer temperature, 

50 306 5 observation and you will get something that looks 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 417 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "observation" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________________ 

 5 

 6 317 16 times the observation and CALPUFF was conservative but 

 7 

 8 Page Ref No. Keyword = "observations" 

 9 ____ _______ ________________________ 

10 

11 47 10 the standard observations that could drastically 

12 278 8 compared to 50 ppb in the observations. So that's the 

13 304 20 observations. Is that a CALPUFF issue or MM5 issues 

14 304 21 or is it an observations issue. Is that observation 

15 305 14 you believe the observations, and have less confidence 

16 306 3 You can see the observations these arrows over here. 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "observed" 

19 ____ _______ ____________________ 

20 

21 90 22 Again red is the model and black is the observed. We 

22 91 5 higher than the observed values. Then again that was 

23 102 24 observed data which is a different year is (inaudible) 

24 104 18 back to what was observed to give us a sense if the 

25 113 5 sparsity of observed data. I don't have to look for 

26 126 15 statistical comparisons observed to measure from the 

27 245 19 observed differences to our understanding of the 

28 

29 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ozone" 

30 ____ _______ _________________ 

31 

32 12 15 the past and we had ozone exceedances in Wyoming which 

33 57 9 revised the ozone PM and regional haze modeling 

34 57 11 instead of a separate guidance for ozone and PM and 

35 78 7 attainment nation wide for the ozone and PM. We have 

36 82 17 nonattainment ozone plans. We'd get about a 

37 96 8 address ozone and other types of issues and 

38 97 6 the guideline model for ozone modeling. Then we came 

39 99 13 2005 they made a mistake and put ozone monitors in out 

40 99 15 Supplemental EIS was going on and they had to do ozone 

41 99 16 modeling to address ozone so they had to do a 

42 100 3 don't feed ozone so they had to bring a photochemical 

43 100 11 divide is way over on the right. But the high ozone 

44 100 17 Pretty much a standard practice. We had the ozone 

45 100 19 field studies and measured the ozone exceedance and 

46 101 2 ozone issues in about 2007. And we're doing this 

47 101 5 that and did some ozone analysis including the 

48 101 7 because we were not looking at ozone in the past. 

49 101 24 to perform both ozone and AQ/AQRV analysis at the far 

50 104 2 simulate the winter high ozone events in SWWY. We 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 418 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ozone" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 104 5 traditional ozone events. I've been doing ozone 

 7 104 22 use ozone and PM source apportionment to obtain 

 8 104 23 incremental contributions? Use ozone and PM source 

 9 105 2 projects are contributing to the ozone in the high 

10 105 3 ozone areas. 

11 105 21 chemistry and plume dispersion. The ozone and PM 

12 110 4 exist in the form of PM ozone regional haze guidance 

13 170 11 ozone limiting method option if you use OLM with the 

14 277 9 ozone concentrations and calculates the OH 

15 277 15 the end of each time step the ozone concentration is 

16 278 6 at a distance of 11 km. As you can see, the ozone in 

17 280 7 includes SO2 oxidation by hydrogen peroxide and ozone 

18 281 3 the new treatment including the ozone correction for 

19 282 23 I talked about the ozone correction, and for this 

20 283 5 you could have ozone depletion going on for an 

21 286 18 and Ozone as well as ammonia and provide temporal and 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "parameter" 

24 ____ _______ _____________________ 

25 

26 127 16 parameter. Outside testers and evaluators of the 

27 155 20 extremely sensitive to this parameter. But there is 

28 159 2 involved in the surface parameter determination and 

29 168 25 the urban roughness length parameter it's an optional 

30 169 2 parameter on the urban option part when you select an 

31 259 9 CALPUFF as a parameter that determines how much 

32 261 11 another threshold parameter in CALPUFF that also had 

33 262 6 that parameter and assigned to the value of 0 which is 

34 279 22 parameterization is used to approximate the increased 

35 

36 Page Ref No. Keyword = "parameters" 

37 ____ _______ ______________________ 

38 

39 113 10 So the tool allows AERMOD to use parameters calculated 

40 124 22 have those needed meteorology parameters that the 

41 124 24 parameters. At the same time we also wrote a work 

42 125 7 Some of the calculated parameters that we'll be 

43 126 9 and geophysical parameters. (inaudible) Review 

44 126 10 parameters that will have to be diagnosis/calculated. 

45 127 2 documentation that describes all parameters, 

46 129 20 parameters over water. At this point and time, 

47 138 4 interpolates the smaller parameters to that location. 

48 138 22 parameters coming directly from the MM5 such as the 

49 138 23 convective parameters, etc., or is there some blend 

50 139 2 all these parameters coming directly out of the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 419 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "parameters" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 159 6 parameters. I'll talk more about that in a second. 

 7 170 3 parameters may vary depending on the wind direction 

 8 197 3 parameters: Wind speed (stable and convective), cloud 

 9 200 18 change parameters. If you are happy with everything 

10 223 4 anything; just input the normal stack parameters, 

11 255 11 factors, the new default parameters for optional 

12 255 18 the new default parameters and the final column is 

13 255 20 default parameters -- well this is a little more 

14 257 25 So some new default parameters were incorporated. The 

15 258 3 water. So these are new parameters that were part of 

16 258 9 parameters. The defaults for these parameters are 

17 258 11 didn't have those parameters. So that was something 

18 281 24 here where we kept all the parameters constant and 

19 

20 Page Ref No. Keyword = "particle" 

21 ____ _______ ____________________ 

22 

23 230 12 for deposition particle deposition fairly small 

24 241 17 federal agencies in particle EPA, FLM, MMS for those 

25 282 15 gas phase nitric acid to the particle phase. 

26 283 20 you would expect more nitrate in the particle phase to 

27 

28 Page Ref No. Keyword = "PBL" 

29 ____ _______ _______________ 

30 

31 113 12 including the heat flux, friction velocity, PBL 

32 

33 Page Ref No. Keyword = "Phase 2" 

34 ____ _______ ___________________ 

35 

36 131 7 testing in Phase 2.. But I just wanted you folks to 

37 270 23 situations. The IWAQM Phase 2 report includes some 

38 

39 Page Ref No. Keyword = "photochemical" 

40 ____ _______ _________________________ 

41 

42 11 24 photochemical regulatory aspects and it was really 

43 55 6 photochemical models for NEPA and addressing new 

44 55 8 situation where we will look at photochemical models 

45 92 12 should focus on refining photochemical models to 

46 96 9 photochemical models are one area we need to pursue. 

47 97 5 photochemical grid model. In 1990 I succeeded it was 

48 99 17 photochemical grid model. (inaudible) 

49 99 19 photochemical grid models. In 2008 and 2009 there's a 

50 100 3 don't feed ozone so they had to bring a photochemical 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 420 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "photochemical" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________________ 

 5 

 6 101 16 photochemical grid modeling. 

 7 101 19 just use AERMOD and a photochemical grid model for all 

 8 101 23 first EIS to propose to use photochemical grid model 

 9 102 13 photochemical grid modeling for these oil and gas 

10 103 9 This is the photochemical grid model domain where we 

11 103 23 So this is some of our PGO photochemical models and 

12 104 16 results to measurements. These photochemical grid 

13 104 20 How do you use photochemical grid models to obtain 

14 105 10 we are doing photochemical models and NEPA related 

15 105 25 six years has developed advanced photochemical grid 

16 107 2 the photochemical model is being used here and trying 

17 107 5 tomorrow with respect to the use of photochemical grid 

18 110 7 photochemical modeling things along this line. This 

19 139 23 photochemical modeling. Again that's just one 

20 141 2 of confidence in current grid models photochemical or 

21 276 13 by using photochemical grid model results to provide 

22 277 13 you need full photochemical mechanism. 

23 286 19 spatial variability. Running the photochemical grid 

24 

25 Page Ref No. Keyword = "plume" 

26 ____ _______ _________________ 

27 

28 105 20 tomorrow about the plume in grid model for near source 

29 105 21 chemistry and plume dispersion. The ozone and PM 

30 107 6 models and techniques within those models like plume 

31 112 12 where we need to say where the plume is going. Onsite 

32 132 24 modeling low level plume. This may be problematic 

33 208 7 plume. That can mess up the plume calculation quite a 

34 209 5 up wind dispersion for plume released within the 

35 209 12 PRIME was designed to include partial plume 

36 209 22 influences on the plume maybe that all or nothing may 

37 264 10 plume model cannot give me a reliable answer. So when 

38 269 2 a apartment right on the coast the plume is going 

39 269 16 wind fields but if the plume is in the wrong grid 

40 277 5 early stages of the plume we have NO/NO2/O3 chemistry 

41 277 7 the plume and part of the second stage where we have 

42 277 11 chemistry of the plume in the far field where you will 

43 277 21 plume dispersion. 

44 278 4 This is actually a comparison of SCICHEM with plume 

45 278 7 the plume is depleted by 45 ppb in the model as 

46 280 23 We also did some CALPUFF testing using a plume 

47 283 2 in the plume NO2 but there could be situations where 

48 283 4 plume could be compact for a long period of time and 

49 283 8 This slide shows the comparison of plume nitric acid 

50 283 9 and plume particulate nitrate from the original 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 421 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "plume" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 283 12 new treatment. You don't see much effect on the plume 

 7 284 9 the two modules in the formation of SOA in the plume. 

 8 287 10 version, you have more interaction between the plume 

 9 291 8 canyon sidewalls and plume shadowing and terrain 

10 308 20 causality affects which means the plume only travels 

11 308 22 meter per second winds the plume only goes to 2.6 km 

12 308 24 has plume that goes to infinity every hour. 

13 311 5 upper portion. CALPUFF suggests that these plume in 

14 311 11 the plume and will drive it into the terrain. It 

15 311 15 correct concentration when that plume infringes on the 

16 311 17 terrain (inaudible) plume. If you look at all three 

17 311 24 with the random portion of the plume. I'm going to 

18 312 15 source of the met data you will get a plume going in 

19 312 19 cumulative impact. Also in random plume there are 

20 312 20 some problems with the random plume element in AERMOD 

21 312 24 concentrations a range of plume that that results in 

22 313 2 in a random plume that can even exceed downwind 

23 313 8 model works. Main plume, coherent plume and there is 

24 313 9 a circle of the random plume. Some of the plume mass 

25 313 10 in the coherent plume is taken out and distributed 

26 313 15 How much of that plume is taken out and put in 

27 313 16 the random plume? Well, under stable conditions it 

28 313 19 from 40% up to 2/3 of the plume mass is actually 

29 313 20 assigned to the random plume. So let's take that 

30 314 4 the plume is used in that characterization in that 

31 314 5 random plume. So because this terrain behind the 

32 314 10 from the other side even though your plume is going 

33 314 13 issue I see with the random plume and applying it on a 

34 316 17 because plume goes to a different receptor. 

35 

36 Page Ref No. Keyword = "precedents" 

37 ____ _______ ______________________ 

38 

39 34 14 precedents that may get set. It allows us to engaged 

40 99 5 precedents. Jonah and Pinedale EIS in and around 1997 

41 246 25 potential bad precedents. Very good intentions but 

42 

43 Page Ref No. Keyword = "PRIME" 

44 ____ _______ _________________ 

45 

46 44 9 prime downwash. It's an issue triggered by the fact 

47 44 10 that implementation relates to the prime downwash 

48 49 24 The vertical extent of wake influence in PRIME 

49 194 7 of messy for that. You can also use the PRIME 

50 205 3 volunteered for this sort of ad hoc BPIP prime work 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 422 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "prime" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 205 19 prime that is not always going to give you the worst 

 7 205 21 Probably wasn't as much an issue before prime. That's 

 8 206 4 with prime. On the other hand, another issue with 

 9 206 23 algorithms might not always be applicable for prime 

10 207 4 didn't matter. But with Prime it does take into 

11 207 17 displaced. The model didn't care but with prime it 

12 207 20 ISC3 in relation to prime downwash algorithms. We 

13 208 5 with Prime because Prime uses a stack diameter input 

14 208 9 sources and prime algorithms. So we haven't gotten a 

15 208 16 stacks. Sort of adapt those to be used within prime 

16 208 23 incorporated in PRIME part. There was not a lot of 

17 208 25 goal initially was putting Prime into AERMOD was to 

18 209 2 keep Prime as intact as possible. That was just a 

19 209 4 issue but on the other hand Prime doesn't account for 

20 209 12 PRIME was designed to include partial plume 

21 210 7 that. Just a quick background on the BPIP Prime work 

22 212 9 that's why I gave you an overview of the BPIP Prime AD 

23 212 12 AERMOD to take it out of BPIP Prime so you don't have 

24 212 15 processing building information for PRIME. One of the 

25 213 3 from multiple structures. Prime does offer benefit 

26 216 5 incorporate the BPIP Prime functions into AERMOD and 

27 256 15 field even though long term transport is the prime 

28 290 20 includes the EPRI PRIME downwash module, flexible 

29 

30 Page Ref No. Keyword = "processor" 

31 ____ _______ _____________________ 

32 

33 165 20 dispersion model, AERMET met processor and AERMET 

34 165 21 (inaudible) processor and briefly summarize those. 

35 212 13 to have a separate BPIPPRM processor. Another thing 

36 

37 Page Ref No. Keyword = "processors" 

38 ____ _______ ______________________ 

39 

40 292 5 processors updated to accept new or revised data 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "profile" 

43 ____ _______ ___________________ 

44 

45 119 21 full profile winds and temperature derived from MM5 

46 119 23 the profile files. As if I had a tower that went up 

47 128 23 to put a profiler on one of the islands so that they 

48 128 24 will be collecting temperature profile there for us. 

49 141 25 can we really extract from that full profile from the 

50 142 8 basically have that full profile every hour. So I 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 423 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "profile" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 142 10 to use because if you feed it into the profile file as 

 7 142 11 profile of winds and temperatures all the way up. 

 8 195 6 That's for potential temperature profile calculation. 

 9 197 13 you will generate surface and profile files for 

10 272 12 report on page 2 put AERMOD profile date in half 

11 273 11 CTDMPLUS profile. 

12 273 17 wind or temperature profile, how can I inform the 

13 293 6 We put the (inaudible) turbulence profile in CALPUFF. 

14 

15 Page Ref No. Keyword = "promulgated" 

16 ____ _______ _______________________ 

17 

18 24 8 because at the time AERMOD was not promulgated and I 

19 24 15 AERMOD was promulgated and replaced the ISC3. There 

20 55 14 when we promulgated AERMOD we identified there are 

21 165 14 everybody here is aware AERMOD was promulgated as EPA22 210 18 but AERMOD promulgated Dec. 2006. The committee and 

23 211 12 promulgated there were some issues there. Sensitivity 

24 239 5 Obviously the modeling system was promulgated in 

25 239 7 promulgated as EPA's preferred model for long-range 

26 240 5 available. We started with the promulgated version 

27 263 8 promulgated and using turbulence as dispersion doesn't 

28 308 18 Appendix W when it was promulgated and I think it's 

29 317 6 evaluations studies 7 are promulgated. There are no 

30 321 5 There is a role for AERMOD and its promulgated 

31 

32 Page Ref No. Keyword = "promulgation" 

33 ____ _______ ________________________ 

34 

35 28 9 time. Their efforts resulted in the promulgation of 

36 50 16 Particularly in regard to the recent promulgation of 

37 55 22 that in this promulgation that we set the stage for 

38 251 14 promulgation of AERMOD got in the way of that. 

39 262 20 promulgation. As Tyler mentioned fortunately we got 

40 

41 Page Ref No. Keyword = "protocol" 

42 ____ _______ ____________________ 

43 

44 30 7 protocol that was introduced by (inaudible) Desmond 

45 51 15 modeling protocol in order to get review and input 

46 249 3 process or the protocol process so we got the request 

47 249 8 tool and the process and the protocol itself which was 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 424 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "protocols" 

 4 ____ _______ _____________________ 

 5 

 6 51 20 those protocols in and defining clearly the models or 

 7 109 17 CALPUFF is to develop testing protocols for the 

 8 109 21 has to be some rigorous testing protocols that go into 

 9 

10 Page Ref No. Keyword = "PSD" 

11 ____ _______ _______________ 

12 

13 53 15 including PSD. It's applicable to criteria air 

14 310 12 two reasons. One is NAAQS and PSD are not facilities 

15 

16 Page Ref No. Keyword = "puff" 

17 ____ _______ ________________ 

18 

19 43 13 appropriate since it's a (inaudible) puff model. This 

20 275 7 it is a reactive puff model which is a chemistry 

21 275 12 SCICHEM is a non-study state puff model which allows 

22 277 20 for the O3 depletion in the puff in the early stages of 

23 277 22 So the way we fixed it was to store the puff O3 history 

24 277 23 and calculate a new puff O3 concentration at each time 

25 277 24 step as a weighted averate of the puff O3 

26 286 25 just like a puff model. It has the capability to read 

27 291 4 includes the Hybrid puff-particle version of the model 

28 

29 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ratio" 

30 ____ _______ _________________ 

31 

32 115 16 results and the ratio between the two. So the AERMOD 

33 115 19 doesn't look too bad between ratio of 1 to 2 including 

34 117 12 the ratio went down by almost a factor. So that's 

35 117 25 AERMET with air surface inputs and the ratio dropped 

36 118 3 factor of 7 higher with the MM5 data to a factor ratio 

37 154 11 the Y Axis is the ratio of the hourly average 

38 161 4 looking at. On the Y AXIS is the ratio of the 1 km 

39 161 15 the 3 km ratio increased differences mostly predicting 

40 183 7 characteristics: albedo, Bowen ratio, surface 

41 184 24 ratio, we feel a geometric is more appropriate as well 

42 184 25 because it is a ratio. And then as the domain a 

43 185 3 roughness and for Bowen ratio albedo the 

44 185 6 representative of the met tower we feel. Bowen ratio 

45 185 13 separate them so for Bowen ratio and albedo. The 

46 197 20 number for Bowen ration and one number for surface 

47 220 2 the ratio of the (inaudible) in a form if you have the 

48 313 13 rational for that algorithm but I think it can cause 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 425 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "ratios" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 73 22 exposure ratios. That is the ratio between what's 

 7 316 6 the ratios of the model outputs and said these were 

 8 

 9 Page Ref No. Keyword = "receptor" 

10 ____ _______ ____________________ 

11 

12 87 13 participants led to a 1 km X 1 km AERMOD receptor 

13 173 13 some problems with setting up your receptor grids and 

14 174 9 included keyword that's in AERMOD to feed in receptor 

15 190 12 them into AERMET and (inaudible) greater receptor, 

16 195 20 maximum concentration for automatic receptor distances 

17 202 6 concentration and then refine receptor spacing to 1, 

18 202 10 These are the receptor networks for PROBE and 

19 203 16 it will give you the receptor relative height to the 

20 203 17 source elevation. In this case our receptor was 5 

21 209 8 receptor closer to the building you're getting no 

22 213 20 source, every receptor every hour. Where ISC only 

23 285 3 PM partitioning at receptor locations to make sure 

24 316 17 because plume goes to a different receptor. 

25 

26 Page Ref No. Keyword = "reformatted" 

27 ____ _______ _______________________ 

28 

29 123 16 Model Data Reformatted Program that we have been 

30 130 12 reformatted program. We expect this will take 2-3 

31 

32 Page Ref No. Keyword = "regulatory" 

33 ____ _______ ______________________ 

34 

35 7 18 regulatory model. Not only AERMOD, but we have 

36 9 13 modeling community and with the regulatory community 

37 9 18 does is it creates problems for the regulatory side as 

38 11 2 from the regulatory perspective is that AERMOD Model 

39 11 24 photochemical regulatory aspects and it was really 

40 14 20 the regulatory process we have to go through. It may 

41 26 22 timely in terms of use in regulatory arena. I hope 

42 30 13 current regulatory version (base.) It looks at the 

43 42 3 regulatory status of proprietary versions of AERMOD 

44 42 20 the regulatory status of CALPUFF modeling system for a 

45 43 5 regulatory applications is AERMOD as 2006 the 

46 44 16 under regulatory default option. AERMOD doesn't 

47 53 11 is a distinction between the regulatory model 

48 63 13 actually used it some regulatory settings but it's not 

49 63 16 said they didn't want NATA to be just a regulatory 

50 63 22 you can use it in a regulatory setting. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 426 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "regulatory" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 68 9 to run for these non regulatory applications through 

 7 69 21 time to the assessment. This is not a regulatory 

 8 75 13 When you define Area Sources from a regulatory point 

 9 112 23 They are being used in other regulatory modeling 

10 118 18 for regulatory modeling. It's something that we have 

11 138 16 regulatory application model where that type of 

12 138 18 would be used in the regulatory permitting, But yes 

13 149 22 implementation guide that represents the regulatory 

14 178 2 non regulatory applications. One of them was 

15 178 19 has been placed on the model for routine regulatory 

16 184 2 not currently considered part of the AERMOD regulatory 

17 210 14 As Tyler mentioned this morning AMS/EPA Regulatory 

18 214 5 averages. It would be sort of a regulatory option 

19 220 13 regulatory required tool I mean it's a tool to assist 

20 225 7 regulatory model and in the development phase that was 

21 225 8 appropriate. But once the model is in the regulatory 

22 239 16 earlier maintains the approprobilability of regulatory 

23 240 9 to update the regulatory version to address bug fixes 

24 240 11 the way for regulatory use of this model. There were 

25 241 25 update tool to update the regulatory version from what 

26 242 10 regulatory status. Given those issues we felt it was 

27 242 15 Appendix W requirements for regulatory models. You 

28 243 3 described with the update tool. You had a regulatory 

29 245 21 this case for the regulatory version and the new 

30 247 16 coming from that tool as part of the regulatory 

31 247 18 difficult situation in dealing with the regulatory 

32 248 10 data set because they were not based on a regulatory 

33 249 21 model, to update the regulatory version 5.8 in June, 

34 249 23 regulatory standpoint is CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST. 

35 253 3 summarize where we are from regulatory standpoint. 

36 253 20 CALPUFF is approved for regulatory use and the tool is 

37 256 16 regulatory nitch for the model. So we started looking 

38 261 3 Then a new regulatory default switch was added to 

39 261 4 CALMET. Prior to that there was no regulatory default 

40 261 8 terms of not being used for regulatory applications 

41 262 7 to not enforce the regulatory defaults and we've 

42 262 10 to turn on the regulatory default. Just to make you 

43 263 4 Currently the regulatory option is to use the PG as 

44 276 8 regulatory applications. We do have ideas on how it 

45 291 15 that come up as being required by the regulatory 

46 291 23 the regulatory codes and we don't. But we put these 

47 296 12 get into the regulatory version of the model. It 

48 298 5 consistency with the regulatory version with one 

49 298 11 regulatory version of the mode. That's how it's 

50 298 18 that says for regulatory use we want that value to 0 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 427 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "regulatory" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 299 22 regulatory version (inaudible) rather than the nearest 

 7 300 14 in the regulatory version have been adhered to 

 8 300 15 meretriciously we don't change the model regulatory 

 9 307 5 valuable. This isn't any kind of regulatory policy 

10 314 14 regulatory basis when you have multi source impacts. 

11 316 4 concentration when you're doing a regulatory study. 

12 

13 Page Ref No. Keyword = "roughness" 

14 ____ _______ _____________________ 

15 

16 117 2 the same roughness length (inaudible) that came out of 

17 117 7 it with the roughness estimated at the airport from 

18 149 13 a clarification of the urban roughness length. We 

19 149 18 represent the roughness difference between your source 

20 155 4 roughness length. They were involved with methods for 

21 159 5 radius that are recommended for the surface roughness 

22 160 9 calculating your surface roughness based on a 1 km 

23 160 12 recommends the 1 km for surface roughness calculation. 

24 160 16 difference between the 1 km surface roughness and the 

25 160 18 which means that the 1 km surface roughness is 250% 

26 160 23 the 1 km surface roughness value are less that were 

27 161 5 surface roughness prediction to the 3 km radius 

28 161 16 a little bit higher with the 1 km roughness. Had one 

29 168 25 the urban roughness length parameter it's an optional 

30 183 8 roughness. So that sensitivity to surface 

31 184 15 calculation for surface roughness as the sector gets 

32 184 20 sensitivity of the model to roughness or (inaudible) 

33 185 3 roughness and for Bowen ratio albedo the 

34 185 5 between surface roughness which clearly needs to be 

35 185 22 estimating roughness at airports. If you notice one 

36 186 5 roughness influences all in one category without being 

37 186 11 roughness you'd have category 23. Here's the 

38 186 12 assumed roughness for an airport and there it is if 

39 187 15 roughness, a compass points at each of those 

40 188 25 surface roughness at airports. All of the developed 

41 197 21 roughness. It doesn't vary through the year or 

42 198 10 surface roughness sectors. AERSURFACE is run for the 

43 201 12 roughness that's a lot of runs and we decided to 

44 203 4 degrees and whatever surface roughness sector that is 

45 211 22 roughness in the urban area than you typically do at 

46 216 20 of urban canopy on wind profiles. So the roughness 

47 219 25 for each of the domain for the surface roughness and 

48 314 20 land use you use to determine the roughness in AERMOD 

49 315 2 blowing downwind you are in the low roughness land but 

50 315 4 roughness land. So why is this right? What is the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 428 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "roughness" 

 4 ____ _______ _____________________ 

 5 

 6 315 8 after the roughness downwind has (inaudible). I've 

 7 315 9 also plotted the AERMOD roughness on source A and 

 8 315 12 roughness of the met station for all these sources in 

 9 315 25 Looking at the difference of the roughness from the 

10 

11 Page Ref No. Keyword = "RUC" 

12 ____ _______ _______________ 

13 

14 292 13 meteorological models such as MM5, WRF, RUC, RAMS and 

15 

16 Page Ref No. Keyword = "rule" 

17 ____ _______ ________________ 

18 

19 37 8 the form of a policy memo for a report or rule making 

20 63 18 for our mobile air toxic rule a few years ago but we 

21 77 4 the MSAT rule that came out last year which will help 

22 289 22 from Prakash about a chemistry set rule becomes part 

23 

24 Page Ref No. Keyword = "run" 

25 ____ _______ _______________ 

26 

27 8 21 running ISC for years and we know how to do this and 

28 9 2 models out there running around but we've had rogue 

29 10 18 mode. Yeah, it takes a little more effort to run 

30 11 4 we're running into all kinds of issues on how it's 

31 12 21 the runway in Philadelphia trying to get home and they 

32 12 24 other runway in the opposite direction and there will 

33 13 4 runway and there will be another delay. This went on 

34 65 4 We run what we call exposure models to do that and we 

35 67 20 and we actually developed meteorology data to run a 

36 68 9 to run for these non regulatory applications through 

37 69 4 it took for this to run. I don't want anyone to 

38 69 5 complain about their model taking an overnight run. 

39 69 6 So it was a big time running on many, many PC's and 

40 70 9 feature run through sixty thousand facilities so we 

41 70 18 of months to run. Let's run these through the old 

42 73 21 a model called HAPEM that we run and develop these 

43 86 15 We did run SMOKE outputs were run through CAMx to 

44 88 2 bridges that run northeast to southwest. The valleys 

45 88 6 site which is run by a Southern Company which is co46 93 8 is everybody running CMAQ at about 4km. And it's just 

47 94 20 this point our modeling is running we are going to 

48 96 2 running about 15 minutes over but we'll get that back 

49 96 20 running. I called the person on it and they said it 

50 99 18 In the Four Corners area they started running 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 429 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "run" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 99 25 this point there running AERMOD for near-field impacts 

 7 101 11 of wondering why we're running CALPUFF to get sulphur 

 8 101 12 and nitrate impact when we're running a perfectly good 

 9 103 3 we run MM5 to get the surface data and we see we can 

10 103 12 sources. Then we run that to get (inaudible) for our 

11 107 9 We're running 15 minutes behind so we'll take a 15 

12 120 7 air surface there is some uncertainty when you run air 

13 126 12 us to consider. We also want the program to run on 

14 130 9 other analysis but we were often running MM5 or WRF 

15 135 18 alternative to. Part of the running any like okay for 

16 135 19 the people who are running multiple year simulations. 

17 136 9 there's no more to be gain from running one verses the 

18 136 18 inputs to AERMOD for the same run? 

19 138 11 around that line there's an opportunity to perHAPS run 

20 141 16 finding a (inaudible) run and virtually nothing is 

21 147 13 you need to run in AERMOD. And this is one of the 

22 159 10 I've generated to run in AERMOD is it representative 

23 168 20 need to run the model. 

24 175 8 I think in the long run it will make things easier and 

25 175 11 finally allocatable array storage at runtime as in 

26 177 12 but they probably maybe not if you run a spit ball 

27 185 25 runway and the open parking lot and the terminal 

28 186 19 is the developed category and the runway, the terminal 

29 188 22 it to distinguish between the runway and a building. 

30 189 6 the grassy areas around the runway, that shows up as 

31 189 9 intensity just by going from the grass to the runway. 

32 189 11 runway or on the grass. 

33 189 18 runway could be developed open space if it's barely 

34 189 19 runway. What we're looking at is there is two 

35 190 8 distinguish: "Am I at a runway, building or what?". 

36 193 13 itself so you have to run AERSURFACE. 

37 193 21 see in an AERMOD run. 

38 195 25 direction. You can re-use previous AERSCREEN run 

39 196 2 files. When you run AERSCREEN it generates an input 

40 197 10 heights. In MAKEMET, if you run stand alone you can 

41 197 14 running AERMOD so you'll generate the dot .SFC and 

42 198 8 run AERMET you have to put surface characteristics in. 

43 198 10 surface roughness sectors. AERSURFACE is run for the 

44 198 16 MAKEMET is run for each temporal, sector combination 

45 199 4 run BPIPPRM and AERMAP for the source if necessary. 

46 199 9 running flat terrain with no downwash and you're not 

47 199 10 running a rectangular area source, than execute PROBE. 

48 199 11 If there is a dependency that means you are running a 

49 200 19 hit enter and AERSCREEN starts the run. 

50 200 20 When you run terrain data it will ask you if you want 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 430 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "run" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________ 

 5 

 6 201 9 degree diagonals, AERMOD run for each SC 

 7 201 18 each degree radial run separately. Direction specific 

 8 201 20 whatever direction you're going. And AERMOD is run 

 9 202 12 going to run each of the surface characteristics 

10 202 18 mathematical value. So you're going to run each one 

11 202 21 12 sectors you will run each one of these diagonals 

12 220 14 in doing that so you can run AERSURFACE. We hope that 

13 220 19 grass areas around the runway instead of showing up as 

14 223 15 question about running this as a DOS application. 

15 224 4 will run. I think that shouldn't be an issue as it's 

16 227 2 run AERMOD is always something that is mentioned and 

17 227 7 increase in run time. 

18 227 22 to AERSCREEN you would run AERSURFACE both for the met 

19 236 11 file that we may run across and haven't accounted for. 

20 272 18 range in terms of performance result based on running 

21 286 19 spatial variability. Running the photochemical grid 

22 286 24 alone or off line version where you basically run it 

23 287 7 The off line version is cheaper because you only run 

24 295 17 tool did exactly. We weren't able to run it in our 

25 295 20 So now we've been running it for EPA and providing 

26 295 22 they run it independently themselves. At least we'll 

27 305 2 run this model and three of them will solve this 

28 305 6 One is to run the model in NOOBS mode using MM5 only 

29 305 12 run in that mode. That's equivalent to say that you 

30 305 15 in the MM5 data, you can run CALMET in the pure 

31 305 18 If you run it in a hybrid mode with MM5 and use 

32 305 22 of this has to do with running the model in a poor 

33 306 4 You can run in the (inaudible) that's only with 

34 306 9 You can run it in the hybrid mode and you get more 

35 306 11 bull's eye will disappear. Also, you can run it in a 

36 306 13 why would you run it this way? Why not run it in one 

37 312 14 you run this with AERMOD, using this station as the 

38 314 18 one land use type verses another or is it a runway. 

39 

40 Page Ref No. Keyword = "rural" 

41 ____ _______ _________________ 

42 

43 115 13 rural dispersion. On the left you have is the H1H, 

44 120 12 which would have been all rural. How sensitivity is 

45 139 4 utilized to eliminate urban versus rural switches in 

46 149 2 or rural based on the Auer/Irwin technique to a more 

47 158 4 urban and rural areas. And we've discovered that NASA 

48 195 7 You can do rural or urban source and urban population. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 431 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "scale" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 56 24 for given the current focus on local scale issues such 

 7 57 25 these at that local scale. That may not be sufficient 

 8 119 12 points and the initial one is to interpolate the scale 

 9 123 18 10 has interested in using this scale model to guide 

10 125 8 calculating will be convective velocity scale, surface 

11 174 6 critical (inaudible) height scale. Doesn't affect the 

12 174 7 elevation just the height scale. 

13 197 6 and convective), convective velocity scale (w*) 

14 203 12 AERMOD and these are the scaled concentrations that 

15 218 10 direction specific height scale to the model first and 

16 259 8 degree. The convective velocity scale which is path to 

17 

18 Page Ref No. Keyword = "scaling" 

19 ____ _______ ___________________ 

20 

21 292 19 Sources separately, scaling them, and adding them 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "SCRAM" 

24 ____ _______ _________________ 

25 

26 24 17 published and there's a copy on SCRAM and for more 

27 24 20 SCRAM. We've taken a lot of effort to update SCRAM 

28 30 24 and provide that documentation through SCRAM to you 

29 32 18 on SCRAM so you can go to the appropriate place in 

30 32 19 SCRAM and find the modeling conferences and find each 

31 33 5 SCRAM on a daily basis or weekly basis you are not in 

32 36 22 MCHISRS which I'll talk about through SCRAM and there 

33 37 14 separate on SCRAM. The new system as of May, 2007, 

34 38 13 Here's a screen shot of SCRAM with the Modeling 

35 41 10 SCRAM. So if a new memo is released you will see it 

36 41 11 on the recent additions under SCRAM website and also 

37 41 12 archived on the SCRAM web page. As you can see under 

38 43 21 field applications posted on SCRAM on September 26, 

39 57 16 it on SCRAM like everything else and it's available in 

40 59 15 that and the workshop itself is available on SCRAM 

41 67 11 website which is a sister website next to SCRAM. You 

42 67 17 SCRAM and get all sorts of meteorology data and 

43 70 19 ASPEN model. This model is still on SCRAM and I saw 

44 162 12 guides we put them up on SCRAM and maybe we need to 

45 167 12 you aware that these are going to be released on SCRAM 

46 168 7 released on SCRAM we've updated to Intel Fortran 

47 177 11 Check SCRAM regularly. I hope they're bullet proof 

48 180 7 alert would go up on SCRAM here's about you really 

49 183 18 AERSURFACE was released on SCRAM on January 11, 2008. 

50 188 15 Should be released on SCRAM soon but currently in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 432 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "scram" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 204 10 SCRAM website. There will be some user documentation 

 7 225 19 Roger indicated a need for us to have through SCRAM, 

 8 227 6 and we put on SCRAM you will realize that up to 40% 

 9 241 7 publically available on SCRAM. We walked through a 

10 254 2 documentation in a report on SCRAM as referred 

11 263 22 give you a little more detail it's been on SCRAM for a 

12 

13 Page Ref No. Keyword = "screening" 

14 ____ _______ _____________________ 

15 

16 167 15 to release a draft version of AERSCREEN. Screening 

17 193 7 screening mode for a single source. Right now it 

18 229 5 option basically a multi source screening technique 

19 

20 Page Ref No. Keyword = "sensitivity" 

21 ____ _______ _______________________ 

22 

23 44 19 Also over ten years ago there was a sensitivity study 

24 44 20 done the sensitivity of the ISCST3 model to ASOS vs. 

25 45 6 Sensitivity analysis was conducted with ISC and there 

26 115 7 We did a very simple sensitivity analysis. We picked 

27 119 5 Do additional sensitivity analyses using the MET input 

28 119 24 5,000 meters we could do some sensitivity analysis if 

29 120 12 which would have been all rural. How sensitivity is 

30 133 17 because the sensitivity study I mentioned we have 

31 133 20 done with ISC in terms of AERMOD sensitivity to ASOS 

32 161 18 original prediction. A little bit more sensitivity 

33 171 10 sensitivity to resolution or precision in the 

34 179 6 came up that showed greater sensitivity not related to 

35 181 17 did conduct a more detail sensitivity analysis of 

36 181 22 documenting that sensitivity report. 

37 183 8 roughness. So that sensitivity to surface 

38 184 20 sensitivity of the model to roughness or (inaudible) 

39 211 12 promulgated there were some issues there. Sensitivity 

40 212 25 the degree of sensitivity to this issue perHAPS. 

41 213 14 surface characteristics sensitivity or source 

42 220 7 clear answer on that. Hopefully the sensitivity isn't 

43 273 4 some significant sensitivity to the dispersion and 

44 280 18 sensitivity studies with the old and new inorganic PM 

45 281 10 I'll briefly discuss the box-model sensitivity studies 

46 281 12 sensitivity of the original CALPUFF module (MESOPUFF) 

47 281 19 the sensitivity to relative humidity (MESOPUFF refers 

48 282 11 If you look at the temperature sensitivity, at the 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 433 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "service" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 44 4 observer-based National Weather Service data with 

 7 108 11 Service (NWS) meteorological analyses to improve 

 8 110 13 better than National Weather Service data going to the 

 9 110 14 nearest National Weather Service site. 

10 127 13 including EPA, Forest Service, National Park Service 

11 127 14 and Fish & Wildlife Service to develop statistics, 

12 151 2 same National Weather Service stations during the same 

13 159 19 Weather [ed. Service] station located about 20 miles 

14 159 23 National Weather Service station which is what you 

15 160 5 at the National Weather [ed. Service] station. Again 

16 160 22 National Weather Service site similar map, I think all 

17 161 14 National Weather Service tower comparing the 1 km to 

18 161 19 with the National Weather Service station. The group 

19 166 4 surface weather service data. Think we've got a 

20 290 24 funded by the Forest Service, some enhancements funded 

21 295 8 like a service where we have contracts to provide 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "site" 

24 ____ _______ ________________ 

25 

26 88 6 site which is run by a Southern Company which is co27 110 11 getting into the issues of site 

28 110 14 nearest National Weather Service site. 

29 122 20 onsite, we have 1-minute ASOS on site, gridded met 

30 140 6 surface data. Especially out west if I have site 

31 148 16 downloading data from the upper cell web site. 

32 148 20 national weather data or site specific onsite data 

33 149 19 site and your met sight. I think there has been some 

34 159 16 data and source information and this is a site 

35 159 18 site specific met tower Belleville is the National 

36 159 21 use area around Baldwin which is site specific and the 

37 160 13 This is the 1 km circle this is 3 km for the site 

38 160 22 National Weather Service site similar map, I think all 

39 160 25 percentage than we saw for site specific. So what 

40 161 9 Generally not a whole lot of difference for this site 

41 161 13 difference for the site specific tower. For the 

42 176 7 inputs for site-specific data that came up recently. 

43 176 11 if we had site specific data in one time zone and 

44 182 12 10 meter on site data. It appeared to improve model 

45 187 10 are some links on the NCDC site for two hundred states 

46 187 17 web site. They also had GPS and coordinates and 

47 211 23 the airport site where the met data is being corrected 

48 227 19 demonstrate that a meteorological site is 

49 227 20 representative of an application site. I would 

50 227 23 side and application site, feed it into AERSCREEN, and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 434 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "site" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 228 2 conclude that the met site is adequately represented 

 7 228 3 of the application site. 

 8 228 12 quantitative way to say how to compare the met site to 

 9 228 13 the application site from surface characteristics. 

10 231 14 evaluation data base. Now we checked on your web site 

11 270 7 Will the modeling system be able to utilize that site 

12 271 25 tried to utilize the onsite data from the Lovett site. 

13 291 2 available on the web site and we do allow development, 

14 295 16 site and we weren't sure what versions and what the 

15 309 6 dispersion. It looks upwind of the met site. What 

16 

17 Page Ref No. Keyword = "slope" 

18 ____ _______ _________________ 

19 

20 267 24 illustrate slope flows, night time, radiative 

21 267 25 cooling occurs, cool airs drain down the slope 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "source" 

24 ____ _______ __________________ 

25 

26 25 19 efforts in this field to improve source culpabilities 

27 35 20 will be referred to our new source review group headed 

28 35 24 division. The new source review group would be the 

29 66 4 dry cleaners are. It's an area source inventory. 

30 66 17 time on my non point source inventory and try to 

31 66 20 I did spend more time on the point source inventory 

32 66 22 source inventory results and we'll talk about that in 

33 66 23 few seconds. I also have the area source broken down 

34 67 8 the point source category? This is what Tyler was 

35 67 25 approximately 50 km from any given source nationwide 

36 75 14 of view it's the 10/25 tons not the area source as a 

37 76 21 results. This gives you an idea. This is the source 

38 76 24 reductions. The major source is about 6% of the risk 

39 78 25 and area source rules and the risk and technology 

40 83 8 to excess to several geographical source 

41 84 24 local source impacts. 

42 86 25 If you lived within Any source within 5 km of 

43 87 4 km of either monitor, any source with PM2.5 

44 92 2 source characterizations or are we asking the model to 

45 94 21 account for CAIR and any mobile source controls, We 

46 103 16 AERMOD for the near source impact. But we'll 

47 104 22 use ozone and PM source apportionment to obtain 

48 104 23 incremental contributions? Use ozone and PM source 

49 105 20 tomorrow about the plume in grid model for near source 

50 105 22 source apportionment is the way to get individual 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 435 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "source" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 105 23 source impacts. The other is the advances in database 

 7 107 7 in grid and source apportionment in trying to address 

 8 111 19 sites may not be representative of source locations 

 9 113 7 grid cell where my source resides. And you can get 

10 115 10 ground level non buoyant source up to a 100 meter 

11 115 11 buoyant source with no building. 

12 115 21 level source where you see MM5 results much higher. 

13 116 4 ground level non buoyant source that not surprisingly 

14 117 17 source that's going to be the worst case 

15 119 6 from each approach, including: wider range of source 

16 121 12 cells for each source. May not be a perfect solution 

17 136 22 covers more than one grid cell why not use each source 

18 148 24 change to the recommendation that moves from source by 

19 148 25 source determination as to whether it should be urban 

20 149 18 represent the roughness difference between your source 

21 151 23 along this. This is for point source. As you can see 

22 154 13 There is a variety of source categories here arranging 

23 154 17 from source to source somewhat but I guess it's not 

24 157 11 right number to model if you've got a source or two 

25 159 11 of my source location or is it conservative or what 

26 159 16 data and source information and this is a site 

27 161 17 source that popped up over two times higher than the 

28 166 10 your source or whatever from old topographic maps 

29 166 17 conversion from your source coordinates in one datum 

30 169 21 (inaudible) for providing to area source to also vary 

31 174 10 information or source information is now supported in 

32 178 11 source characterization issues was mentioned this 

33 179 8 source emissions spread of source emissions and how 

34 181 7 at assessing source characterization options or issues 

35 182 8 actual source and the actual field study data; if the 

36 184 11 within 3 km of the source of the met tower. Plain and 

37 193 7 screening mode for a single source. Right now it 

38 193 9 each source one at a time. It calls MAKEMET, BPIPPRM 

39 193 16 for each source/receptor/meteorology combination. It 

40 193 25 file. Source types currently support a point, volume, 

41 195 4 receptors and the elevation of source location for 

42 195 7 You can do rural or urban source and urban population. 

43 195 10 source location in geographic or UTM coordinates when 

44 198 2 conditions for the source location. Listed are the 8 

45 198 11 source location so you don't have to worry about that 

46 199 4 run BPIPPRM and AERMAP for the source if necessary. 

47 199 5 You can get source elevation from AERMAP if you're not 

48 199 7 source-receptor 

49 199 10 running a rectangular area source, than execute PROBE. 

50 199 13 source, execute FLOWSECTOR. In the 8th Modeling 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 436 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "source" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 199 22 asterisk reads as comments for AERMOD. Your source 

 7 199 23 date is here, this is a point source, building data. 

 8 200 15 source data, building data, terrain data or met data. 

 9 200 17 source data you cannot change source type. You can 

10 203 15 source and what direction. If you are using terrain 

11 203 17 source elevation. In this case our receptor was 5 

12 203 18 meters below our source in terms of terrain 

13 213 14 surface characteristics sensitivity or source 

14 213 20 source, every receptor every hour. Where ISC only 

15 213 22 each source so that by itself slows the model down by 

16 214 22 important is if I'm doing a modeling of mobile source 

17 215 20 data why not pick the grid cell for each source 

18 217 4 determine on source by source basis based on the 

19 219 11 data source so if you have land cover data in 

20 222 7 source types. 

21 223 9 source in AERMOD. It's just more of a matter has it 

22 229 5 option basically a multi source screening technique 

23 230 21 add the open PIP source. 

24 230 22 Roger Brode: Yes all source types are supported in 

25 235 13 source. So I think it would be up to right now would 

26 246 17 these single source questions. But it wasn't the only 

27 255 21 detail by source. So you can see there is differences 

28 255 22 for every source and every scenario ranging quite a 

29 256 3 about 5% difference for one source and one scenario 

30 256 9 source configuration source types. The results I just 

31 268 24 vary from source type specifically more important 

32 269 10 be right to your source. If I have a buoyant 

33 269 11 source I'm going to be more concerned about the 

34 269 15 source you could have perfectly resolved ideal 

35 269 21 vary considerably based on the source 

36 269 22 characteristics and where the source is in the 

37 278 12 important near the source. 

38 287 8 CMAQ once and basically do all your source simulations 

39 304 18 coming from another source presumably a MM5. What it 

40 309 8 turbulence of the downwind source of the met station. 

41 309 11 source. Horizontal wind variability you don't have 

42 310 11 of sight from the source. I think it is flawed for 

43 310 14 just the impact of one source it's the impact of all 

44 310 16 source. 

45 310 21 different source. In practice it's a very important 

46 311 8 we're calling the income source which is this one 

47 311 9 project source. So we're using that data with the 

48 311 20 with the AERMOD facility source is the critical issue 

49 312 13 and this source going in an opposite direction. If 

50 312 15 source of the met data you will get a plume going in 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 437 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "source" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 312 21 that creates a halo around every source when you apply 

 7 312 22 cumulative impacts. Basically if the source is larger 

 8 313 4 source interacting with that shadow which causes a 

 9 313 5 violation to which your source will deemed 

10 313 11 radially around the source including upwind at 50 km 

11 313 22 the source here with the wind blowing to the SE. 

12 313 23 Behind the source is terrain and if you look at the 

13 314 9 another background source infringing on this source 

14 314 14 regulatory basis when you have multi source impacts. 

15 314 23 of the source. If you have a number of different 

16 315 9 also plotted the AERMOD roughness on source A and 

17 315 24 and 89% from design concentration from this source. 

18 

19 Page Ref No. Keyword = "speed" 

20 ____ _______ _________________ 

21 

22 46 18 missing but the wind speed is not missing and not 

23 106 4 Of course computing speed and doubling computing speed 

24 112 10 is going but we have a wind speed for you. Well, 

25 116 5 shows light wind speed. Don't know if we have a 

26 116 6 pointer yet, but you can sort of see the wind speed 

27 116 10 AERMOD impose a minimum wind speed for dilution of 

28 136 3 able to speed up the permit review process. In come 

29 140 23 ideally we would be able to do that to speed up the 

30 143 13 up to speed on what's been going on since then. 

31 153 18 we have the various wind speed categories starting 

32 153 20 speed category. The thing to point out is the number 

33 160 7 wind speed distribution. 

34 168 9 upgrade will speed the model up to I think about 40% 

35 194 17 location, minimum wind speed, anemometer height and 

36 197 3 parameters: Wind speed (stable and convective), cloud 

37 201 13 invoke the TOXICS option to speed up the model. Other 

38 209 25 wind speed issue comes up a lot with AERMOD. AERMOD 

39 210 2 is designed to accept wind speed below 1 meter per 

40 210 3 second. The affected lower limit for speed used in 

41 210 5 minimum wind speed needed to generate a wake from the 

42 214 9 would speed the model up with hardly any difference in 

43 214 17 something to speed up the mode. And also our goal is 

44 226 20 phrase that in terms of where is the speed of AERMOD 

45 227 10 to speed up many applications. I think it's certainly 

46 227 14 then the speed would be a higher priority. I always 

47 233 14 minimum speed is to create wake effects behind 

48 234 3 to go is to think about what is the minimum speed that 

49 249 12 Now speeding up to more recent times because Roger and 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 438 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "stack" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 44 8 Practice (GEP) stack height in AERMOD which includes 

 7 47 18 off building downwash effects if stack height is 

 8 47 21 Hb = building height above stack base and L = lesser 

 9 48 5 height so the stack just above gets no downwash effect 

10 48 6 much lower concentration on the stack just below. 

11 48 15 implementation is a requirement imposed by GEP Stack 

12 48 19 different based on a hair difference in stack height. 

13 49 6 current assessment. If you go to GEP Stack Height 

14 49 7 regulations define GEP stack height as the greater of: 

15 50 5 above EPA formula height for some stack/building 

16 60 25 Now if we have lousy inventories and lousy stack 

17 194 8 building downwash. You would need to give stack 

18 207 3 where the stack was in relation to the building so it 

19 207 5 account the stack building geometry so if you have a 

20 207 7 next to the stack that's going to have a lot more 

21 207 8 influence on the stack in terms of down wash than a 

22 207 15 to the stack so it didn't really matter if you put the 

23 207 16 EPD next to the stack and the actual building was 

24 207 25 capped or horizontal stack which was to set the exit 

25 208 2 velocity very low and put in an effective stack 

26 208 5 with Prime because Prime uses a stack diameter input 

27 209 7 stack is downwind from the building and you have a 

28 212 18 is in relation to the stack that's a problem. By 

29 221 21 the beta option to turn stack to downwash for 

30 221 23 option or a beta version where you can turn stack to 

31 222 4 It has to do with stack to downwash as to whether or 

32 222 10 to the issue of stack to downwash that you could set 

33 222 12 diameter and turn stack downwash off. That's kind of. 

34 222 25 if your stack is not subject to building downwash then 

35 223 2 the capped stack option in AERMOD applies to the 

36 223 4 anything; just input the normal stack parameters, 

37 223 5 stack height, velocity, actual diameter. It does the 

38 268 25 for elevated releases if you have a tall stack or 

39 277 17 which is not true near the stack and I will show you a 

40 314 6 stack you're getting the large area of 15 to 20 km in 

41 

42 Page Ref No. Keyword = "stacks" 

43 ____ _______ __________________ 

44 

45 48 4 been noted for stacks that straddle that formula 

46 49 14 have seen are primarily a concern for shorter stacks, 

47 49 15 usually with squat buildings. So stacks that are 

48 185 9 more of an issue with taller stacks which are going to 

49 207 22 capped/horizontal stacks. At least part of that is 

50 208 16 stacks. Sort of adapt those to be used within prime 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 439 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "stacks" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 208 20 Did I mention the discontinuity for stacks that 

 7 222 9 procedures for modeling capped stacks could send you 

 8 222 16 be used for stacks that are subject to building 

 9 222 17 downwash. My guess is that most capped stacks are 

10 222 20 had some capped stacks that were heaters at a gas 

11 223 8 why you couldn't use capped stacks for non-downwash 

12 315 19 downwind of these stacks. Does it matter, well it 

13 

14 Page Ref No. Keyword = "statistical" 

15 ____ _______ _______________________ 

16 

17 126 15 statistical comparisons observed to measure from the 

18 

19 Page Ref No. Keyword = "steady state" 

20 ____ _______ ________________________ 

21 

22 264 8 wind situation where non steady state effects are so 

23 

24 Page Ref No. Keyword = "surface" 

25 ____ _______ ___________________ 

26 

27 44 23 surface observing systems being put in airports had 

28 46 7 advent of ASOS these automotive surface observing 

29 69 16 include things like building downwash and surface 

30 70 10 used airport surface data around these airports to 

31 103 3 we run MM5 to get the surface data and we see we can 

32 111 21 representativeness of surface characteristics have now 

33 113 8 surface and upper-air data located in same grid cell. 

34 113 18 data input data plus surface characteristics and 

35 116 24 this we didn't have air surface. Is this working at 

36 116 25 all? So we didn't have air surface and we just used 

37 117 6 Later air surface was developed. Went back and re-ran 

38 117 8 air surface which was quite a bit lower. This was 

39 117 11 re-ran AERMET with that surface characteristics and 

40 117 24 supplemented airport data through air surface through 

41 117 25 AERMET with air surface inputs and the ratio dropped 

42 120 7 air surface there is some uncertainty when you run air 

43 120 8 surface you feed it to location of your MET tower. We 

44 125 8 calculating will be convective velocity scale, surface 

45 125 10 and surface relative humidity. I'm sorry I have been 

46 128 19 collecting surface observation as well sea surface 

47 130 6 and fed it to CALMET the surface file for OCS and to 

48 134 10 experiences we've had with air screen and air surface. 

49 138 21 far as the MM5 or WRF AERMOD input. Are the surface 

50 140 6 surface data. Especially out west if I have site 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 440 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "surface" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 140 7 specific surface measurements that I'm confident in 

 7 142 22 will do Air Surface and then we'll have an AERMIC 

 8 146 6 Surface Characteristics - Doris Jung (CO DPHE) 

 9 147 12 process of generating the surface characteristics that 

10 148 4 section relating to determining surface 

11 148 8 representativeness of your surface characteristics. 

12 148 10 the new method on determining surface characteristics 

13 150 2 the surface characteristic group. I'm going to 

14 158 16 Lastly the surface characteristic subgroup. Their 

15 159 2 involved in the surface parameter determination and 

16 159 5 radius that are recommended for the surface roughness 

17 160 9 calculating your surface roughness based on a 1 km 

18 160 12 recommends the 1 km for surface roughness calculation. 

19 160 16 difference between the 1 km surface roughness and the 

20 160 18 which means that the 1 km surface roughness is 250% 

21 160 23 the 1 km surface roughness value are less that were 

22 161 5 surface roughness prediction to the 3 km radius 

23 166 4 surface weather service data. Think we've got a 

24 175 22 elevation for all surface formats. And some formats 

25 176 12 wanted to use with surface data from the next time 

26 181 25 improve the guidance on surface characteristics and 

27 182 13 performance compared to the surface characteristics 

28 183 3 the same met input as ISC basically in NWS surface and 

29 183 6 layer algorithms require the search surface 

30 183 7 characteristics: albedo, Bowen ratio, surface 

31 183 8 roughness. So that sensitivity to surface 

32 183 16 with determining surface characteristics for use in 

33 184 6 recommended methods to determine surface 

34 184 15 calculation for surface roughness as the sector gets 

35 184 17 area weight is you weight surface characteristics 

36 185 2 default domain recommend 1 km radius for surface 

37 185 5 between surface roughness which clearly needs to be 

38 186 4 category. We're covering the full range of surface 

39 186 10 That's reflected in this table so for surface 

40 187 14 anemometer height and actually estimated surface 

41 188 25 surface roughness at airports. All of the developed 

42 190 4 with respect to the reflective surface, which may be 

43 191 22 height of the reflecting surface and the reflecting 

44 191 23 surface changes from 0 to 300 like very quickly and 

45 194 18 surface characteristics and other variables come from 

46 197 13 you will generate surface and profile files for 

47 197 17 input surface characteristics. There are three 

48 197 18 methods of inputting surface characteristics into 

49 197 20 number for Bowen ration and one number for surface 

50 198 8 run AERMET you have to put surface characteristics in. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 441 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "surface" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 198 10 surface roughness sectors. AERSURFACE is run for the 

 7 198 19 surface and one for upper air. Seasonal you will 

 8 201 5 temporal/spatial sector of Surface Characteristic (SC) 

 9 201 11 seven diagonals at monthly 12 sectors, for surface 

10 202 12 going to run each of the surface characteristics 

11 203 4 degrees and whatever surface roughness sector that is 

12 203 5 the surface characteristics you will use. So you're 

13 211 17 issues, including Urban, Surface Characteristics and 

14 211 18 Met Data. Urban issues and surface characteristics 

15 211 19 and a lot of the urban issues have to do with surface 

16 213 14 surface characteristics sensitivity or source 

17 217 13 issue, but influence of surface characteristic 

18 218 18 information in terms of surface temperature gradiants 

19 219 25 for each of the domain for the surface roughness and 

20 228 13 the application site from surface characteristics. 

21 285 25 higher near the surface because it is usually emitted 

22 286 2 from surface sources and to go down with altitude. 

23 288 20 data with the surface date. We became aware of this 

24 292 6 formats as those of you who deal with surface date 

25 309 3 Surface characteristics I want to talk about. I 

26 310 5 of surface characteristics upwind of meteorological 

27 315 16 the dispersion and the surface characteristics 

28 

29 Page Ref No. Keyword = "surrogate" 

30 ____ _______ _____________________ 

31 

32 149 9 you use population as a surrogate to represent the 

33 155 11 AERMOD you need population as surrogate to capture the 

34 217 7 population as surrogate for urban influences. It 

35 

36 Page Ref No. Keyword = "temperature" 

37 ____ _______ _______________________ 

38 

39 119 11 you have winds at dot points, temperature at cross 

40 119 21 full profile winds and temperature derived from MM5 

41 128 24 will be collecting temperature profile there for us. 

42 151 19 the observational data it's observer temperature, 

43 151 21 ASOS clouds combined with the observer temperature and 

44 152 9 temperature winds and clouds with the convention 

45 152 10 observer based temperature winds and clouds for AERMOD 

46 158 3 impact is what is the temperature difference in the 

47 158 8 satellite images that show you the temperature 

48 158 10 future is that the temperature differences is directly 

49 169 20 the exit velocity and exit temperature. But we 

50 178 15 temperature at 2.5 or actually 2. Two monitors 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 442 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "temperature" 

 4 ____ _______ _______________________ 

 5 

 6 195 6 That's for potential temperature profile calculation. 

 7 218 18 information in terms of surface temperature gradiants 

 8 267 20 discontinuities in wind, temperature, etc. So 

 9 273 17 wind or temperature profile, how can I inform the 

10 281 14 humidity; temperature; background ammonia; background 

11 282 11 If you look at the temperature sensitivity, at the 

12 282 12 high temperature both modules predict a lower fraction 

13 282 19 temperature, which is -10 degrees Centigrade where we 

14 284 12 incorrect treatment of temperature dependence in the 

15 299 19 sharpness, the continuities in temperature fields and 

16 

17 Page Ref No. Keyword = "terrain" 

18 ____ _______ ___________________ 

19 

20 69 15 terrain. I didn't write it on here but we did not 

21 70 8 that for sixty thousand facilities and do a terrain 

22 123 25 particular study was on terrain and the results that 

23 136 10 other like in flat terrain. You know over the mid 

24 166 18 to terrain elevation coordinates in another datum 

25 194 4 complex terrain and when you are into complex terrain 

26 194 5 AERSCREEN calls AERMAP to generate terrain height. We 

27 194 6 don't use terrain for rectangular area sources; kind 

28 194 21 for terrain processing. I think at the 8th Modeling 

29 194 24 make the default of 5 km for flat terrain with or 

30 195 3 terrain processing. You can include flagpole 

31 195 5 PROFBASE keyword in AERMOD even for flat terrain. 

32 195 11 you're doing terrain processing. Regardless of how 

33 195 22 When you're doing terrain or buildings modeling, you 

34 199 9 running flat terrain with no downwash and you're not 

35 199 12 terrain with or without downwash or rectangular area 

36 200 3 terrain data flags and the coordinates and then the 

37 200 15 source data, building data, terrain data or met data. 

38 200 20 When you run terrain data it will ask you if you want 

39 200 24 The summary of stages are: PROBE is for flat terrain 

40 201 15 circular areas that means you're using terrain or 

41 201 19 terrain and projected building dimensions are used for 

42 202 4 terrain and/or downwash, use terrain heights and 

43 203 15 source and what direction. If you are using terrain 

44 203 18 meters below our source in terms of terrain 

45 218 4 wash. Terrain influences is not identical but there's 

46 243 21 sources of meteorology and terrain should provide for 

47 267 15 the important terrain features and other factors 

48 270 24 CALPUFF evaluation results for Kincaid (flat terrain) 

49 270 25 and Lovett (complex terrain) and Lovett evaluation is 

50 272 23 terrain adjustment which one could argue is the most 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 443 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "terrain" 

 4 ____ _______ ___________________ 

 5 

 6 273 5 terrain options in this type of evaluation. The more 

 7 273 7 based terrain adjustments exhibited the poorest 

 8 291 8 canyon sidewalls and plume shadowing and terrain 

 9 292 23 options for different terrain data. There is what's 

10 309 24 model for complex terrain. It cannot handle complex 

11 309 25 terrain. I think there's some issues that need to be 

12 311 2 This is looking at a complex terrain case. These 

13 311 11 the plume and will drive it into the terrain. It 

14 311 16 terrain. The alternative model is suggesting the 

15 311 17 terrain (inaudible) plume. If you look at all three 

16 312 2 this is an appropriate complex terrain case to use 

17 312 8 on flat terrain so terrain is not an issue. This is 

18 313 23 Behind the source is terrain and if you look at the 

19 314 3 happen because the (inaudible) between the terrain and 

20 314 5 random plume. So because this terrain behind the 

21 317 9 complex terrain. There was one coastal line group 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "toxic" 

24 ____ _______ _________________ 

25 

26 55 13 For toxic risk assessment in Appendix W, as revised 

27 56 2 used for toxic risk assessment and broadly other risk 

28 60 3 projects national air toxic assessments. We're also 

29 61 24 our air toxic website which is also on the TTN where 

30 62 10 in the air toxic program. It's pretty daunting when 

31 63 18 for our mobile air toxic rule a few years ago but we 

32 63 24 with our air toxic monitoring network that we've set 

33 63 25 up on air national toxic trend sites. We use it to 

34 64 5 toxic programs. As I said, many states and 

35 69 11 air toxic option which does the sampling time period 

36 72 6 toxic monitors out there. These are the pollutants 

37 73 12 and those of you who are familiar with toxicity, 

38 73 13 Chromium is one of our most toxic metals out there. 

39 75 11 results look like from the national air toxic. We 

40 76 18 HAPS that make up about 92% of the national air toxic 

41 77 5 reduce that chunk of the pie. If we had an air toxic 

42 77 12 toxic program is kicking in and it's doing its job. 

43 78 8 compared to where the higher toxic areas. Black means 

44 78 12 toxic programs. We need to develop controls that take 

45 78 16 both criteria and air toxic. 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 444 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "toxics" 

 4 ____ _______ __________________ 

 5 

 6 54 24 update on the 2002 National Air Toxics Assessment 

 7 55 16 facility-specific and community-scale air toxics risk 

 8 55 18 Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library and the link 

 9 60 19 What is NATA? NATA is characterization of air toxics 

10 60 20 across the nation. Keep in mind toxics are 187 of 

11 60 21 them, air toxics, now across the nationwide. At a 

12 63 8 integrate at that point criteria air toxics into one 

13 65 14 inventory every three years on toxics. The 2005 

14 77 25 is how do these toxics overlay with criteria 

15 79 6 get both criteria and air toxics. Obviously with 

16 108 13 permits, toxics and direct PM)." 

17 201 13 invoke the TOXICS option to speed up the model. Other 

18 202 23 hours but now with the TOXICS option only a few 

19 

20 Page Ref No. Keyword = "tracer" 

21 ____ _______ __________________ 

22 

23 130 2 test CALPUFF Version 6 using tracer gas experiments. 

24 130 3 Shell will providing tracer gas experiments to us and 

25 130 7 compare tracer gas experiments results. We'll do the 

26 

27 Page Ref No. Keyword = "turbulence" 

28 ____ _______ ______________________ 

29 

30 233 21 (inaudible) turbulence so you almost always have a 

31 234 8 turbulence that would stay behind the building. If 

32 258 21 turbulence for that grid cell. But a new convective 

33 259 10 convective turbulence is in the atmosphere. That is 

34 263 3 verses turbulence dispersion option in CALPUFF. 

35 263 8 promulgated and using turbulence as dispersion doesn't 

36 263 11 turbulence is better than PG as far as the basic 

37 263 17 turbulence option. That's something we need to get a 

38 272 8 with half height adjustment, AERMOD turbulence, with 

39 272 10 adjustment in CALPUFF, AERMOD turbulence with the and 

40 272 22 prediction is AERMOD turbulence with the strain based 

41 273 6 advanced option turbulence based dispersion strain 

42 293 6 We put the (inaudible) turbulence profile in CALPUFF. 

43 293 8 of vertical structure of the turbulence as AERMOD 

44 309 8 turbulence of the downwind source of the met station. 

45 309 10 CALPUFF will treat turbulence downwind of each 

46 315 15 CALPUFF as well. You believe the turbulence controls 

47 315 17 controls turbulence. If you believe all those things 

48 315 18 how can you accept that? You use the wrong turbulence 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 445 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "urban" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 82 6 is a regional component, an urban component and 

 7 83 4 general urban - ~2 mg/m3, local - ~3-4 mg/m3 

 8 90 8 monitor doesn't know the difference in local, urban or 

 9 104 9 network not as dense as is typical for urban areas. 

10 104 13 that we used to have when we had to do urban 

11 139 4 utilized to eliminate urban versus rural switches in 

12 140 20 The question about urban is one that has been talked 

13 140 24 urban grid cell from MM5 or WRF and not have to turn 

14 140 25 on the urban option in AERMOD. Not sure we have a lot 

15 141 3 prognostic models to simulate the urban boundary layer 

16 141 5 been some work that's been done in urbanizing MM5 and 

17 141 7 urbanize prognostic met model that actually does 

18 141 8 capture the important aspects of the urban boundary 

19 141 10 say yes turn off the urban switch. It's something we 

20 146 5 Urban Issues - Margaret Valis (NYDEC) 

21 147 7 in the urban applications. I'll talk a little more 

22 148 18 urban areas. Some general considerations to take into 

23 148 19 account if you are in an urban area whether using 

24 148 22 updated include Urban Applications. In terms of the 

25 148 23 urban/rural determination an update to that is a 

26 148 25 source determination as to whether it should be urban 

27 149 8 recommendations if you're modeling urban and AERMOD 

28 149 13 a clarification of the urban roughness length. We 

29 149 16 there it is to be used to characterize the urban heat 

30 149 25 ASOS data met data group, the urban issues group and 

31 154 21 We'll move on to the urban issues sub group which some 

32 154 23 urban/rural determination and guidance on population 

33 154 24 input for urban option. The urban issues work group 

34 155 3 also contributed in the text that clarified the urban 

35 155 10 input issue. As you know if you're modeling urban and 

36 156 6 is the urbanized area and what is the population I 

37 156 11 It helps you get a handle on what is the urban area 

38 157 2 urban population was in that 750 people per square km 

39 157 15 that may help delineate the urban heat island which is 

40 157 20 of what is the urban core that might be impacting your 

41 158 4 urban and rural areas. And we've discovered that NASA 

42 158 9 radiance for our urban kinds of modeling and maybe the 

43 168 25 the urban roughness length parameter it's an optional 

44 169 2 parameter on the urban option part when you select an 

45 169 3 urban option for AERMOD and the default value is 1.0. 

46 186 17 the orange is the urban recreational grass category 

47 189 5 urban recreational grass category we had before for 

48 191 19 Apparently in the very downtown urban core there's 

49 195 7 You can do rural or urban source and urban population. 

50 198 4 forest, swamp, cultivated land, grassland, urban, 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 446 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "urban" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 211 10 been the urban formulation in AERMOD. I think that 

 7 211 17 issues, including Urban, Surface Characteristics and 

 8 211 18 Met Data. Urban issues and surface characteristics 

 9 211 19 and a lot of the urban issues have to do with surface 

10 211 21 urban heat island effect and also have higher 

11 211 22 roughness in the urban area than you typically do at 

12 216 20 of urban canopy on wind profiles. So the roughness 

13 216 21 affect of the urban area on meteorology would not 

14 216 25 implementation issues, especially related to urban 

15 217 7 population as surrogate for urban influences. It 

16 217 9 variability of urban heat island influence which we 

17 217 10 don't do now. Right now if it's urban it's urban even 

18 217 11 though we know it's not a uniform urban influence. 

19 218 19 to inform the urban heat island aspect of the model. 

20 220 20 urban recreational grass shows up as low density 

21 

22 Page Ref No. Keyword = "variability" 

23 ____ _______ _______________________ 

24 

25 120 3 the grid to grid variability, we picked Detroit 

26 217 9 variability of urban heat island influence which we 

27 217 14 variability should be mitigated if an approach like 

28 286 19 spatial variability. Running the photochemical grid 

29 306 2 variability. This is basically (inaudible) MM5 date. 

30 306 7 some variability to the winds and it's reproduced in 

31 309 11 source. Horizontal wind variability you don't have 

32 

33 Page Ref No. Keyword = "weather" 

34 ____ _______ ___________________ 

35 

36 44 4 observer-based National Weather Service data with 

37 47 3 hour. That's our standard weather observation for the 

38 108 10 data including state-of-practice "National Weather 

39 110 13 better than National Weather Service data going to the 

40 110 14 nearest National Weather Service site. 

41 148 20 national weather data or site specific onsite data 

42 151 2 same National Weather Service stations during the same 

43 159 19 Weather [ed. Service] station located about 20 miles 

44 159 23 National Weather Service station which is what you 

45 160 5 at the National Weather [ed. Service] station. Again 

46 160 22 National Weather Service site similar map, I think all 

47 161 14 National Weather Service tower comparing the 1 km to 

48 161 19 with the National Weather Service station. The group 

49 166 4 surface weather service data. Think we've got a 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 447 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "wind" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 12 22 pulled us away from the gate and said the wind has 

 7 13 3 wind shifted again and we're going off on another 

 8 13 6 great omen for the modeling conference if the wind can 

 9 13 12 that. One guy sitting behind me said wind changes and 

10 43 10 characteristics in the wind fields are crucial to 

11 43 11 determine the wind values, that might be a situation 

12 46 16 introduced a new variable wind code which means when 

13 46 17 the wind direction is variable we don't know what is 

14 46 18 missing but the wind speed is not missing and not 

15 46 25 wind data. It turns out right now we're using a 

16 50 2 height and that's what's gotten us into these wind 

17 50 4 Wind tunnel studies clearly support wake influences 

18 71 24 different clean wind sectors using monitoring data. 

19 84 17 indicate this is a predominate wind direction. So we 

20 90 12 This is another quarter. The is the wind frequency 

21 102 19 model which is further south and next to the Wind 

22 102 23 Wind River Range. Excuse me with 12km MM5 and the 

23 103 2 the Wind River Range that channels the flow. And then 

24 112 9 direction is missing and we don't know where the wind 

25 112 10 is going but we have a wind speed for you. Well, 

26 114 23 There's windroses for 2002 airport on the left and the 

27 115 2 there. The wind speeds at this point have not been 

28 116 5 shows light wind speed. Don't know if we have a 

29 116 6 pointer yet, but you can sort of see the wind speed 

30 116 8 quite a few wind speeds below 1 meter per second, but 

31 116 10 AERMOD impose a minimum wind speed for dilution of 

32 119 13 of perimeters to the nearest dot point of the wind and 

33 126 21 measure data for stuff like wind direction. We also 

34 126 23 compare wind roses. We also incorporate output hourly 

35 138 2 implementation picks the closest dot point. The wind 

36 153 18 we have the various wind speed categories starting 

37 153 19 with calm, missing and variable. And the various wind 

38 153 25 and 6 knots but the wind direction varies by 60 

39 159 25 Here is wind roses for Baldwin and Belleville I guess 

40 160 7 wind speed distribution. 

41 168 8 Compiler for Windows for those. Just making that 

42 170 3 parameters may vary depending on the wind direction 

43 176 19 define that window differently. Part of it is 

44 187 9 this partly through this ASOS cyclone wind study there 

45 194 17 location, minimum wind speed, anemometer height and 

46 197 3 parameters: Wind speed (stable and convective), cloud 

47 197 11 specify multiple wind directions. For AERSCREEN, uses 

48 197 12 wind direction of 270 from the West is easier. So 

49 206 9 building then the wind is at an angle. Projected 

50 207 11 some issues perHAPS with the use of wind power to 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 448 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "wind" 

 4 ____ _______ ________________ 

 5 

 6 208 17 downwash algorithms. If there is some wind tunnel 

 7 209 5 up wind dispersion for plume released within the 

 8 209 10 impacts. That is showing up in some wind tunnel 

 9 209 25 wind speed issue comes up a lot with AERMOD. AERMOD 

10 210 2 is designed to accept wind speed below 1 meter per 

11 210 5 minimum wind speed needed to generate a wake from the 

12 213 18 that algorithm incorporates up wind dispersion and 

13 214 7 change and you could say I don't want up wind 

14 216 20 of urban canopy on wind profiles. So the roughness 

15 223 18 it that Windows will not be allowing that interaction 

16 223 24 you get into upgrades of Windows. 

17 233 24 look alike over a wide range of wind speeds. even if 

18 253 13 Discuss in more detail some examples of complex wind 

19 264 8 wind situation where non steady state effects are so 

20 264 22 accepting CALPUFF for complex wind situations, as this 

21 264 24 using CALPUFF for complex wind situations, acceptance 

22 267 3 light wind stable conditions. That's one 

23 267 16 to inform the model to get the wind speeds 

24 267 20 discontinuities in wind, temperature, etc. So 

25 268 7 situations. Especially if there are light wind 

26 269 7 have to understand what the complex wind 

27 269 16 wind fields but if the plume is in the wrong grid 

28 270 19 complex wind applications is not well-documented yet 

29 271 23 complex wind evaluation with Lovett using CALMET. 

30 272 19 CALPUFF modeling system with CALMET generated wind 

31 273 17 wind or temperature profile, how can I inform the 

32 304 16 of wind speeds associated with the station located in 

33 304 24 producing a bad wind field. 

34 308 5 point hour by hour. If you change the wind by 5 

35 309 11 source. Horizontal wind variability you don't have 

36 312 23 enough and the situation is right you can up wind 

37 313 22 the source here with the wind blowing to the SE. 

38 314 2 numbers down wind. How can that happen? It can 

39 314 25 are 1 km radius is this. This says when the wind is 

40 316 9 mirror that was in AERMOD. Change wind directions or 

41 316 15 unexpected. You change the wind in CALMET a little 

42 

43 Page Ref No. Keyword = "wind speed" 

44 ____ _______ ______________________ 

45 

46 46 18 missing but the wind speed is not missing and not 

47 112 10 is going but we have a wind speed for you. Well, 

48 116 5 shows light wind speed. Don't know if we have a 

49 116 6 pointer yet, but you can sort of see the wind speed 

50 116 10 AERMOD impose a minimum wind speed for dilution of 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 449 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "wind speed" 

 4 ____ _______ ______________________ 

 5 

 6 153 18 we have the various wind speed categories starting 

 7 160 7 wind speed distribution. 

 8 194 17 location, minimum wind speed, anemometer height and 

 9 197 3 parameters: Wind speed (stable and convective), cloud 

10 209 25 wind speed issue comes up a lot with AERMOD. AERMOD 

11 210 2 is designed to accept wind speed below 1 meter per 

12 210 5 minimum wind speed needed to generate a wake from the 

13 

14 Page Ref No. Keyword = "wind speeds" 

15 ____ _______ _______________________ 

16 

17 115 2 there. The wind speeds at this point have not been 

18 116 8 quite a few wind speeds below 1 meter per second, but 

19 233 24 look alike over a wide range of wind speeds. even if 

20 267 16 to inform the model to get the wind speeds 

21 304 16 of wind speeds associated with the station located in 

22 

23 Page Ref No. Keyword = "winds" 

24 ____ _______ _________________ 

25 

26 43 9 involving complex winds. So if (inaudible) 

27 47 11 reduce the calm and missing winds in the airport 

28 91 8 issues with our winds especially greater than 50 mg 

29 91 9 per cubic meter. This is calm winds sorry I should 

30 112 4 due to calms and variable winds; frequency of gaps has 

31 112 8 variable wind code. Variable winds means one 

32 117 22 winds to calculate hourly average when reducing draft 

33 118 15 with 1-minute winds. We think the basic approach is 

34 119 11 you have winds at dot points, temperature at cross 

35 119 21 full profile winds and temperature derived from MM5 

36 132 20 1-minute winds brought it in to pretty close agreement 

37 142 11 profile of winds and temperatures all the way up. 

38 150 16 Thirdly impact of light winds in AERMOD and then 

39 150 17 lastly use of hourly average ASOS winds and this is 

40 150 18 referring to the 2-minute average winds that Roger was 

41 151 20 winds and clouds. In the other case we substituted in 

42 151 22 winds for the ISC. There's a variety average of times 

43 152 9 temperature winds and clouds with the convention 

44 152 10 observer based temperature winds and clouds for AERMOD 

45 152 20 looking at is the hourly average winds. You heard a 

46 152 23 used 2-minute average winds taken about 10 minutes 

47 152 24 before the hour. 2-minute winds averages are 

48 153 4 compute hourly average winds. The expectation is that 

49 153 15 winds and thought of what would be the standard ASOS 

50 178 9 with light winds and over predicts or not. And then 
 1 Ninth Modeling Conference Keyword Index Vol. 1, p. 450 

 2 

 3 Page Ref No. Keyword = "winds" 

 4 ____ _______ _________________ 

 5 

 6 239 19 winds" on a case-by-case basis. Roger touched upon 

 7 264 4 "complex winds," subject to approval by the reviewing 

 8 266 4 treatment of complex winds is critical to 

 9 266 16 consideration become complex winds by their 

10 266 23 Let's talk about what complex winds are. There 

11 266 24 are examples of complex winds not deeply 

12 270 5 features of the complex winds toward that 

13 273 23 applied with the assumption if I have complex winds 

14 304 19 really represents is MM5 winds do not match 

15 306 7 some variability to the winds and it's reproduced in 

16 308 22 meter per second winds the plume only goes to 2.6 km 

17 309 13 CALPUFF. Calm winds (inaudible) the conservative or 

18 309 16 calm. CALPUFF will treat the calm winds. 

19 311 3 are CALMET winds you can see the (inaudible) 

20 313 18 distance. But in light winds speeds it is substantial 

21 

22 Page Ref No. Keyword = "work group" 

23 ____ _______ ______________________ 

24 

25 28 14 implementation work group to identify scientific 

26 28 19 throughout the AERMOD implementation work group so 

27 29 14 issues. We'll hear more about the work group later in 

28 143 11 Implementation Workgroup. This was a work group that 

29 143 24 implementation work group that was initiated in April 

30 144 17 the implementation work group which I'm going to talk 

31 154 24 input for urban option. The urban issues work group 

32 168 23 the Implementation Work Group and one of the items in 

33 180 20 coordinating with the work group and with AERMET some 

34 204 20 the AERMIC Implementation Work Group and the three sub 

35 211 7 activities of the Implementation Work Group sort of 

36 212 10 Hoc work group first. One of the recommended 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50