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 27711Vol. 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 PerspectiveVol. 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 &

EvaluationVol. 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 last1 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 the1 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 rogue1 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 do1 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 seen1 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's1 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 a1 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 this1 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 it1 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 are1 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 on1 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 and1 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 am1 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 to1 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 we1 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 it1 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 those1 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 want1 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 expect1 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 lot1 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 those1 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 the1 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 interpret1 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 that1 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 very1 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 to1 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 the1 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 and1 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 group1 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 an1 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 all1 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 and1 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 have1 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. The1 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 the1 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 are1 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 it1 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 than1 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 a1 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 ISC1 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 addressed1 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 formula1 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 like1 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 essential1 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 W1 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 but1 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 models1 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 some1 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 sufficient1 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 be1 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 through1 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 stack1 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 OAQPS1 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, and1 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 to1 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 we1 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 which1 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 and1 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 nationwide1 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 the1 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 chronic1 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 those1 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 develop1 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 were1 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 the1 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 our1 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 up1 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 criteria1 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 technology1 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 part1 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 increment1 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, the1 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 the1 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 did1 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 if1 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 of1 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 of1 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 micrograms1 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 the1 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 some1 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 certain1 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 cell1 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 too1 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 with1 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 are1 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 my1 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 in1 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 impacts1 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 the1 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 of1 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 to1 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 our1 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 grid1 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 see1 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, EPA1 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 in1 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 to1 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 a1 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 the1 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 up1 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 used1 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 dropped1 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 MM51 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 how1 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 in1 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. Should1 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 of1 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 that1 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, as1 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 we1 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 develop1 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't1 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 know1 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 and1 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. This1 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 to1 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 that1 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 of1 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 we1 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) data1 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 pre1 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 initial1 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 to1 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 data1 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 lot1 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 the1 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 purposely1 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), and1 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. The1 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 latest1 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 to1 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 urban1 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 and1 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 the1 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 plot1 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 stations1 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 601 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 already1 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 people1 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 the1 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 what1 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 been1 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 guess1 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 what1 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 of1 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 we1 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 if1 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 fresh1 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 got1 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 and1 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 more1 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 optional1 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. And1 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 to1 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 some1 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 have1 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 it1 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 codes1 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 of1 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 the1 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 for1 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 full1 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 some1 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 the1 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 and1 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 has1 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 is1 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 a1 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 terminal1 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 file1 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, I1 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 developed1 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 SRTM1 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 have1 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 run1 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 meteorology1 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 moisture1 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 you1 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 surf1 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 m1 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 or1 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 101 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 boundary1 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 to1 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 modify1 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 exit1 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 to1 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. AERMOD1 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/AMD1 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 the1 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 would1 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 the1 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 an1 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 urban1 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 been1 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 guidance1 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 and1 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 thought1 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 capped1 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 then1 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 the1 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. When1 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 the1 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 to1 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 probably1 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 we1 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 in1 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 in1 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 in1 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 bases1 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 the1 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 that1 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 for1 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 up1 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 something1 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 say1 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 what1 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 as1 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 from1 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 to1 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 we1 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 but1 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 and1 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 for1 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 developer1 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 and1 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 we1 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 go1 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 complete1 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 enhancements1 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 the1 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. The1 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 next1 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 was1 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 as1 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 may1 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 problematic1 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 model1 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 enough1 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 slope1 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 or1 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 to1 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 is1 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 AERMOD1 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 apply1 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 about1 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. It1 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 options1 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 the1 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 when1 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 mentioned1 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 the1 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 differences1 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 those1 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 CALPUFF1 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 emitted1 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 read1 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 error1 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 for1 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 is1 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 the1 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 of1 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 other1 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 figured1 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 the1 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 the1 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 to1 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 can1 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 loss1 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. In1 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 make1 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 to1 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 some1 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 for1 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 to1 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 be1 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 say1 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 concentrations1 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 the1 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 is1 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 the1 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 still1 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 a1 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 sub1 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 for1 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 would1 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 thing1 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

_____________ 34 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

251 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

251 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

251 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

251 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 in1 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 this1 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 other1 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 each1 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 starting1 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 and1 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) and1 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 we1 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 used1 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 both1 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 tunnel1 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 Appendix1 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 group46 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 the1 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 of1 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. The1 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 wind1 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 would1 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 may1 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 on1 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 CALPUFF1 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 than1 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 CALPUFF1 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 be1 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 concentration1 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 who1 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 getting1 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 a1 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 data1 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't1 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 else1 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 data1 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 the1 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 used1 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 have1 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 the1 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 domain1 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 tunnel1 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 it1 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 in1 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 implementation17 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 for1 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 always1 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 individuals1 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 highlight1 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, as1 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 a1 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 of1 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 reference1 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 sensible1 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 sub1 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 use1 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 who1 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 should27 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 is1 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 the1 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 of1 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 ____ _______ __________________________

4445 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 data1 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 or28 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 ratio1 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 match1 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 modeling1 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. So1 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 a1 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 there1 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 new1 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 trying1 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 relation1 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 about1 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 with1 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. We1 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 this1 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 conference1 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 typical1 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 and1 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 of1 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 we1 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 NCDC1 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 situation1 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 looks1 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. We1 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 the1 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 photochemical1 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 original1 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 work1 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 I1 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 are21 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 was1 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 cause1 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 01 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 the1 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 valleys45 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 running1 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 want1 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 in1 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 the1 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 ____ _______ ________________

2526 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, and1 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 individual1 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 Modeling1 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 in1 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 and1 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 prime1 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 site1 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 monitors1 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 most1 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 turbulence1 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 a1 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 to1 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 of1 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 then1 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