# Appendix A. Supplemental Details on Fac ility Selection, Mete orology Data, and Modeling Parcel Design

## [This page intentionally left blank.]

### 2/15/2011 A-i DRAFT 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

A-1 Supplemental Site Selection Details .............................................................................. A-1

A-1.1 PB-HAP Emission Rates ......................................................................................... A-1 A-1.2 Proximity to Water Bodies ....................................................................................... A-1 A-1.3 Proximity to Agricultural Land ................................................................................. A-2 A-1.4 Average Rainfall ...................................................................................................... A -5 A-1.5 Wind Speed and Direction ...................................................................................... A-5 A-1.6 Local Change in Elevation ...................................................................................... A-5 A-1.7 Furnace Type .......................................................................................................... A -5 A-1.8 Geographic Representativeness ............................................................................. A-5 A-2 Supplemental Stack Details for the Selected Facilities .................................................. A-6 A-3 Supplemental Meteorology Details for the Selected Facilities ....................................... A-9 A-4 Supplemental Modeling Environment Details .............................................................. A-13 A-4.1 Land Use nearby the Selected Facilities ............................................................... A-13 A-4.2 Determining Surface Parcel Vegetation Types ..................................................... A-15 A-4.3 Air Parcel Concentric Squares .............................................................................. A-16

### 2/15/2011 A-ii DRAFT 

## [This page intentionally left blank.]

### 2/15/2011 A-iii DRAFT 

# LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1. Results of Site Selection Criteria for Fourteen Secondary Lead Smelting Sites .... A-3 Table A-2. The Emissions and Physical Source Parameters for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown Facilities, for each Emission Source Emitting at Least One of the Four PB-HAPs Currently Considered for Multipathway Analysis ......... A-8 Table A-3. The Source Groups Used for TRIM.FaTE Modeling, Along with the Emissions and Height of Each Source Group, for the Exide Frisco and

Revere Middletown Facilities ................................................................................. A-9

### 2/15/2011 A-iv DRAFT 

## [This page intentionally left blank.]

### 2/15/2011 A-v DRAFT 

# LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1. Wind Roses Representing Wind Flow Conditions Near the Exide Frisco Facility ..................................................................................................... A-10 Figure A-2. Wind Roses Representing Wind Flow Conditions Near the Revere Middletown Facility ............................................................................................. A-11 Figure A-3. The Frequency Distribution of Estimated Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights near the Exide Frisco Facility ................................................................ A-12 Figure A-4. The Frequency Distribution of Estimated Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights near the Revere Middletown Facility .................................................... A-12 Figure A-5. Land use within the Upper Trinity Basin, in which the Exide Frisco Facility

is Located ........................................................................................................... A-14 Figure A-6. Land Use within the Upper Hudson Basin, in which the Revere Middletown Facility is Located, as well as the nearby Lower Hudson and Upper Delaware Basins ............................................................................... A-15 Figure A-7. Cumulative Percent of Total Divalent Mercury Emissions Deposited (Figure 5 from the Internal ICF Case Study using ISCST3) ............................... A-17 Figure A-8. The Air Parcels for the Exide Frisco Facility. The Source Parcel at the

Center is not Labeled ......................................................................................... A-18 Figure A-9. The Air Parcels for the Revere Middletown Facility. The Source Parcel

at the Center is not Labeled ............................................................................... A-19

### 2/15/2011 A-vi DRAFT 

## [This page intentionally left blank.]

### 2/15/2011 A-1 DRAFT 

# A-1 Supplemental Site Selection Details

The proposed facilities were identified by a methodology that evaluated data for eight selection criteria. These criteria include are listed below, ranked in order of importance:

1. Emission rates of PB-HAPs; 2. Proximity to water bodies; 3. Proximity farmland; 4. Average rainfall; 5. Average wind speed and direction; 6. Smelting furnace type; 7. Local change in elevation; and 8. Geographic representativeness of sites throughout the US.

Criteria involving local meteorology, land use, or geography were evaluated based on data for

50 km 2 

## areas surrounding each facility. Further details about the methods and data for each

criterion are described in the sections below.

Results from this facility selection evaluation are summarized in Table A-1. Each row in the table presents the secondary lead smelting facility, and each column is a different criterion for evaluation. Results are color-coded to better present the impact of the results on site selection (green being the best, red being not good). Selected facilities are bolded. Details for each of

the selected facilities are further detailed in the section below.



# A-1.1 PB-HAP Emission Rates

PB-HAP emission rates are indicative of the potential magnitude of non-inhalation exposure concentrations in environmental media near the facility. The criterion for PB-HAP emission rates was evaluated by comparing the facility specific emissions data to the screening levels described in Section 2.2 of the main document. To evaluate this criterion, the facility-specific

emission data for each of the four PB-HAPs were classified as follows:

 

## Facility emission rate is greater than or equal to the screening level, or >1 (green).

 

## Facility emission rate is ≥ 50 percent but < 100 percent of the screening level, or ≥ 0.5 and < 1 (yellow).

 

## Facility emission rate is ≥ 10 percent but < 50 percent of the screening level, or ≥ 0.1 and < 0.5 (orange).

 

## Facility emission rate is < 10 percent of the screening level, or <0.1 (red).

Table A-1 presents results for this criterion. Color codes (identified above) are applied in Table A-1. Green shading indicates the strongest candidates for inclusion in the multipathway

assessment based on the PB-HAP emissions criterion.



# A-1.2 Proximity to Water Bodies

Because some PB-HAPs (e.g., dioxin) accumulate in fish, a criterion was based on the presence of water bodies in the 50 km 2 

## areas surrounding the facilities. ICF previously estimated that lakes that support a food web containing piscivorous fish 1 

## are typically at least 60

1 

### Memorandum from ICF to Deirdre Murphy and Terri Hollingsworth, U.S. EPA. TRIM .FaTE Screening Scenario: Aquatic Food Web Analysis. October 15, 2005.

### 2/15/2011 A-2 DRAFT 

## hectares (0.6 km 2 

## ). In addition, larger water bodies are more likely to be capable of supporting recreational fisherman for human fish consumption than smaller lakes. Emissions are dispersed in the local environment based on the wind speed and direction. Because the wind may blow in many directions, an ideal modeling domain would include multiple sufficiently large water bodies that are sufficiently distant from each other and in varying directions from the facility.

Based on the relative size and proximity of water bodies, each facility was assigned into one of the three categories:

 

## Good: Area surrounding the facility contains greater than one water body larger than 60 hectares that are sufficiently far away from each other (60 degrees or greater) (green).

 

## OK: Surrounding area contains one water body larger than 60 hectares (yellow).

 

## Poor: Surrounding area does not contain a water body larger than 60 hectares (orange).

Results for his selection criterion are shown with color shading in Table A-1. Land-use maps were used to better view water bodies for the selected facilities, and are presented in Section 3

of the main document and in Section A-4.



# A-1.3 Proximity to Agricultural Land

The farm-food chain includes potential ingestion pathways for PB-HAPs, especially for cadmium and BaP. Therefore, in order to estimate potent ial risks from farm-food ingestion, the modeling domains surrounding the facilities should contain cropland. An ideal facility to be modeled would have farmland in multiple distinct areas surrounding the facility. Because emissions are dispersed depending on wind direction, having multiple farms in different locations would be preferable to one area with farmland.

Each facility was placed into one of three bins:

 

## Good: Farmland exists around facility and areas of farmland are sufficiently far away from each other (60 degrees or greater) (green).

 

## OK: Farmland exists around facility but only in one direction from the facility (yellow).

 

## Poor: No farmland in surrounding area (orange).

Land-use maps were used to better view farmland for the selected facilities, and are presented

in Section 3 of the main document and in Section A-4.2/15/2011 A-3DRAFTTable A-1. Results of Site Selection Criteria for Fourteen Secondary Lead Smelting SitesaFacility IDStateFurnace TypeFarmlandLakeAverageRainfall(inchesyear-1)CadmiumEmissionsbMercuryEmissionsbPAHEmissionsbDioxinEmissionsbDescriptionNEIMO0930005Boss, MOBlast &ReverberatorydGoodGood40-507.724.076.342817.57Hilly rural area, no majorpopulation centers. Largeagricultural areas lie to the westand east. Lakes to the south andeast, though they may be verypolluted and unfishable.NEILAT$10672BatonRouge,LABlast &ReverberatoryGoodOK50-700.551.187.706872.64Next to the Mississippi River, 15km north of Baton Rouge. Flatagricultural land lies to the west,north and east.NEI34270ForestCity,MOBlastGoodGood20-400.300.646.406174.93Surrounded by farmland in a flatregion of the Mississippi Valley.10 km east of a large lake andMississippi River.NEI18383Troy,ALBlastOKPoor50-700.801.8623.8022977.17Hilly area of rural Alabama, smalltowns and farms. Streams &rivers in the area, few lakes.NEI38394cMiddletown,NYReverberatoryGoodGood40-500.091.401.897.96Agricultural area in southernNew York. Small lakes arelocated in the area. No largepopulation areas.NEI6493cFrisco,TXBlast &ReverberatoryGoodGood20-400.581.545.284638.64Northern edge of the DallasFort Worth metropolitan area.A large lake lies to the west andagricultural land to the north.NEI32182Indianapolis,INReverberatory &ElectricGoodOK20-400.062.370.348.11West of Indianapolis. Agriculturalland to the east. A large reservoirto the north.NEI31400Muncie,INBlast &ReverberatoryGoodOK20-400.140.620.0120.96Middle of rural Indiana,surrounded by farmland. Twolakes are located southeast. Flat.NEI26338Tampa,FLBlastOKOK40-500.190.464.314162.03East of Tampa, FL. Surroundedby suburban communities, smalllakes, and the Tampa Bay.2/15/2011 A-4DRAFTTable A-1. Results of Site Selection Criteria for Fourteen Secondary Lead Smelting SitesaFacility IDStateFurnace TypeFarmlandLakeAverageRainfall(inchesyear-1)CadmiumEmissionsbMercuryEmissionsbPAHEmissionsbDioxinEmissionsbDescriptionNEI40662Reading,PABlast &ReverberatoryOKPoor40-500.431.251.1621.69Agricultural rural region of easternPA. Mountains run northeast 30km from the site.NEI34021Eagan,MNBlast &ReverberatoryPoorPoor20-400.220.580.0236.9920 km southeast of downtownMinneapolis, surrounded bysuburban communities.NEI117LyonStation,PABlast &ReverberatoryGoodPoor40-500.190.760.0125.20Agricultural region of eastern PA.Mountains run northeast 30 kmfrom the site.NEI21201City ofIndustry,CAElectric &ReverberatoryPoorPoor10-200.061.400.158.88Centered in the middle of the LosAngeles metropolitan area.NEI2CA124838Vernon,CABlast &ReverberatoryPoorPoor10-200.131.090.012.11Centered in the middle of the LosAngeles metropolitan area.aColor key: Green – First rank of suitability for inclusion inthe analysis; Yellow – second rank; Orange – third rank; Red – least suitable for inclusion in the analysisbEmissions are presented as the facility emissions/screening level >1 indicates thatthe emission rate exceeds the screening level.cFacility selected for multipathway modelingdBlast furnace is much larger than reverberatory furnace.

### 2/15/2011 A-5 DRAFT 

# A-1.4 Average Rainfall

Increased rainfall in the area surrounding a facility will likely increase the wet deposition chemical flux. Therefore, greater rainfall rates would likely increase chemical load in the surrounding soil and water bodies. Thirty-year average annual rainfall amounts were collected from the closest meteorological station for each of the fourteen secondary lead smelting

facilities 2 

## , and each facility was ranked based on the average rainfall amount, and placed in the following bins:

 

## 50-70 inches/year (green).

 

## 40-50 inches/year (yellow).

 

## 20-40 inches/year (orange).

 

## 10-20 inches/year (red).



# A-1.5 Wind Speed and Direction

For a select number of facilities that appeared to be representative, wind roses were created from NOAA 1990-1993 meteorological data, 3 

## from the closest available meteorological site to each facility. Wind roses were qualitatively assessed to determine if farmland and water bodies would likely be downwind of the facility. Wind roses are presented in Section 3 of the main body

and in Section A-3 for the selected facilities.



# A-1.6 Local Change in Elevation

The elevations of individual modeling compar tments is not explicitly accounted for in TRIM.FaTE, though the user must estimate the runoff and erosion rates for each compartment based on the elevation gradients within the co mpartment. Geography with fewer elevation peaks and more uniform elevation gradients with in individual modeling compartments was preferable in order to simplify the calculation of these erosion and runoff rates and to make them more representative of the actual elevation gradi ents. Elevation shading maps are presented in

Section 3 of the main document for the selected facilities.



# A-1.7 Furnace Type

Secondary lead smelting operations employ varyi ng furnace types that influence the nature of the air emissions. Although PB-HAP emissions are evaluated in the first criterion described above, blast furnace types also were considered qualitatively. The goal of this criterion was to ensure that the selected facilities are representative of the varying furnace type used in the industry. Furnace types are provided in Table A-1.



# A-1.8 Geographic Representativeness

The final criterion considered the locations (i.e., states) of the facilities. This is not to say that facilities are selected randomly or to be geogr aphically representative of the entire source

2 

### National Climatic Data Center. 1961-1990 Climate Normals, Available online at: http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgibin/climaps/climaps.pl . Last accessed August 06, 2010.

3 

### NOAA Hourly Surface Meteorological Data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

### 2/15/2011 A-6 DRAFT 

## category. However, the locations were considered to ensure that the proposed facilities do not introduce an obvious geographic bias. Facility locations are presented in Table A-1.



# A-2 Supplemental Stack Details for the Selected Facilities

As described in Section 3.1.2 of the main document, it was necessary to estimate hourly plume rise for emission sources at the selected facilities. The following methodology was used to calculate hourly plume rise for each source:

 

## Use the Briggs equations 4 

## for plumes dominated by buoyancy forces, and use the ASME equation 5 

## for plumes dominated by momentum forces. 6

 

## Use the average vertical temperature gradients per Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class to estimate the ambient air temperature at the source height (i.e., Table 18.4 of the

Seinfeld and Pandis book 6 

## ).

o The gradients are provided in ranges; the midpoint value of each range was

used.

 

## Use the average vertical potential temperature gradients per Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class to estimate the “S2” variable in the Briggs equations (i.e., Table 18.4 of the

Seinfeld and Pandis book 6 

## ).

o The gradients are provided in ranges; the midpoint value of each range was used, except for the neutral stability class – its midpoint is 0 ◦ 

## C m -1 

## , so 0.001 ◦ 

## C

m -1 

## was used instead.

 

## If hourly Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class values are not available, estimate them using the Turner methodology. 7 

## This methodology is recommended by EPA. 8

 

## Estimate the wind speed at the source height using the wind profile power law, using a power-law exponent that was determined by the hourly Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class and using the “rural” setting. 9

 

## Calculate the plume rise at a lateral distance equivalent to the side length of the TRIM source compartment.

4 

### Briggs plume rise equations: (1) Briggs, G.A. (1969) Plume Rise . U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Critical Review

Series T/D 25075; (2) Briggs, G.A. (1971) Some re cent analyses of plume rise observations, in Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress , edited by H.M. Englund and W.T. Beery. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1029-1032; and, (3) Briggs, G.A. (1974) Diffusion estimation for small emissions, in Environmental Research Laboratories Air Resources Atmospheric Tur bulence and Diffusion Laboratory 1973 Annual Report , USAEC Rep. ATDL-106. National Oceanic and Atmospher ic Administration, Washington, D.C.

5 

### ASME plume rise equation: American So ciety of Mechanical Engineers (1973) Recommended Guide for the

Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents , 2 nd 

### ed. ASME, New York.

6 

### The Briggs and ASME methodologies are summariz ed in Seinfeld, J.H. and S.N. Pandis (1998) Atmospheric

Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change , Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 931-933.

7 

### Turner stability methodology: Turner, D.B. ( 1964) A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area, in Journal of Applied

Meteorology , Vol. 3, pp. 83-91.

8 

### Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Mo deling Applications, EPA-454/R- 99-005, February 2000, pp.

6-12 through 6-14 and 6-32 through 6-33.

9 

### Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Mo deling Applications, EPA-454/R- 99-005, February 2000, pp.

6-8 through 6-9.

### 2/15/2011 A-7 DRAFT 

## o This lateral downwind distance was used in order capture the plume rise within the source box before the plume was then laterally advected into surrounding compartments.

Table A-2 shows the physical source parameters of each source at Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown that emits at least one of the four PB-HAPs that TRIM.FaTE currently considers for multipathway analysis. Table A-2 also shows the coordinates of each source, though these coordinates were not specifically used in the TRIM.FaTE model setup (emission sources were placed in an arbitrary location within the TRIM.FaTE source compartment). Some of these sources have very similar physical parameters, so for the purposes of evaluating plume rise, some sources were grouped together and their physical parameters were averaged. The plume rise group designations are shown in Table A-2; the averaged physical parameter values are not shown but can be calculated using the data in the table. These groupings are advantageous because they accelerate the plume ri se calculations and, if they are used in modeling, they reduce the complexity of the model setup.

For nearly all of the hours of the meteorology data gathered for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown facilities, all of the plume rise source groups listed in Table A-2 released emissions into the mixing layer rather than into the upper-air layer. The median plume rise across all meteorology hours ranged from less than 1 m (Exide Frisco STK1) to about 18 m (Revere Middletown STK4), and the maximum plume rise value for a particular hour was about 186 m (Revere Middletown STK4).

Adding plume rise to each plume rise source group reduces the number of hours where the pollutants are emitted into the mixing layer by up to about 1 percent. This does not meet the 5 percent criterion that triggers the modeling of hourly plume rise values, so static source heights were modeled for both facilities. To further simplify the source setup for modeling, the sources were further grouped based on their heights. Because TRIM.FaTE was run with a minimum mixing height of 20 m, sources shorter than 20 m will always release their emissions into the mixing layer, and these sources were grouped for each facility. Sources taller than 20 m were grouped by similar height values (i.e., if sources had height values within 5 m of each other, they were grouped). For each modeling group, the emissions were summed across the component sources and the source height was equal to the shortest component source (a health-conservative choice). The modeling group designations are shown in Table A-2, andthese modeling groups and their emissions and modeling source heights are shown in Table A3.2/15/2011 A-8 DRAFTTable A-2. The Emissions and Physical Source Parameters for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown Facilities, for eachEmission Source Emitting at Least One of the Four PB-HAPs Currently Considered for Multipathway AnalysisFacilitySourceGroup forPlumeRiseEstimationFinalSourceGroup forModelingLatitudeLongitudeStackHeight (m)StackDiameter(m)Exit Gas Velocity(ms-1)Exit GasTemperature(degrees K)Emissionsof CadmiumCompounds(tons year-1)Emissions ofDioxins/Furansas 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs(tons year-1)Emissionsof DivalentMercury(tons year-1)Emissionsof PAHsas BaP(tons year1)Exide FriscoFUGaSTKA33.139674 -96.828742 3.048 0.0009144 9.14E-05 2.95E+02 1.91E-02 0.00E+00 1.72E-030.00E+00STK1 STKA33.13974 -96.83049 11.28 0.171 1.68E+00 3.20E+02 2.73E-07 0.00E+00 7.27E-050.00E+00STK2 STKC33.14037 -96.82743 22.86 0.811 1.48E+01 2.97E+02 1.37E-05 0.00E+00 5.29E-050.00E+00STK3 STKC33.14045 -96.82759 22.86 1.676 2.02E+01 3.03E+02 6.40E-05 0.00E+00 3.10E-040.00E+00STK4 STKB33.140516 -96.827846 30.63 1.615 5.27E+00 3.06E+02 8.30E-05 0.00E+00 8.77E-050.00E+00STK5 STKB33.140078 -96.828102 31.24 1.521 1.76E+01 3.08E+02 7.53E-04 0.00E+00 2.95E-040.00E+00STK6 STKB33.140825 -96.827101 32.16 1.804 1.49E+01 2.98E+02 1.25E-04 0.00E+00 2.81E-040.00E+00STK7 STKB33.140678 -96.828029 33.83 1.372 1.66E+01 3.16E+02 1.92E-04 4.26E-06 1.81E-041.90E-03RevereMiddletownFUGaSTKA41.459595 -74.36037 3.048 0.0009144 9.14E-05 2.95E+02 1.58E-03 0.00E+00 1.42E-040.00E+00STK1 STKA41.46033 -74.35969 10.1 1.918.42E+00 2.94E+02 2.18E-05 0.00E+00 1.71E-040.00E+0041.46035 -74.35975 10.1 1.188.42E+00 2.94E+02 2.82E-05 0.00E+00 1.81E-040.00E+00STK2 STKA41.46093 -74.35979 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 9.18E-06 0.00E+00 1.15E-040.00E+0041.46095 -74.35983 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 9.24E-06 0.00E+00 1.07E-040.00E+0041.46097 -74.35989 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 7.00E-06 0.00E+00 8.81E-050.00E+0041.46099 -74.35993 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 6.96E-06 0.00E+00 9.53E-050.00E+00STK3 STKA41.4598 -74.36022 13.11 1.14 2.30E+01 2.94E+02 1.43E-05 0.00E+00 1.44E-040.00E+0041.45981 -74.36027 13.11 1.14 2.30E+01 2.94E+02 1.48E-05 0.00E+00 1.40E-040.00E+00STK4 STKA41.45982 -74.36012 18.29 1.22 1.86E+01 3.32E+02 1.28E-03 6.00E-09 9.64E-045.06E-05STK5 STKC41.46127 -74.35994 30.48 1.37 1.02E+01 3.39E+02 5.89E-06 0.00E+00 5.55E-050.00E+00STK6 STKB41.46028 -74.35973 60.96 1.42 1.81E+01 3.26E+02 6.57E-05 1.30E-09 5.23E-046.30E-04a“FUG” indicates a fugitive source. Fugitive sources are not treated differently from stack sources in TRIM.FaTE.

### 2/15/2011 A-9 DRAFT 

## Table A-3. The Source Groups Used for TRIM.FaTE Modeling, Along with the Emissions and Height of Each Source Group, for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown Facilities

Facility Final

Source Group for Modeling Source Height

(m) Emissions of

Cadmium Compounds (tons year -1 

## ) Emissions of

Dioxins/Furans as 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs (tons year -1 

## ) Emissions of

Divalent Mercury (tons year -1 

## ) Emissions of

PAHs as BaP (tons year -1 

## )

Exide Frisco STKA 3.048 1.91E-02 0.00E+00 1.79E-03 0.00E+00

STKB 30.63 1.15E-03 4.26E-06 8.45E-04 1.90E-03

STKC 22.86 7.77E-05 0. 00E+00 3.62E-04 0.00E+00

Revere

Middletown STKA 3.048 2.97E-03 6.00E-09 2.15E-03 5.06E-05

STKB 60.96 6.57E-05 1.30E-09 5.23E-04 6.30E-04

STKC 30.48 5.89E-06 0. 00E+00 5.55E-05 0.00E+00



# A-3 Supplemental Meteorology Deta ils for the Selected Facilities

Calm winds occurred for about 9 percent of the modeled hours for the Exide Frisco facility and about 6 percent of the modeled hours for the Revere Middletown facility. In TRIM.FaTE modeling, calm winds cause chemical mass to build up in the source compartment and stagnate over the rest of the modeling region until the next positive wind speed. As such, all calm wind

values were set to 0.75 ms -1 

## for modeling.

As shown in Figure A-1 for the Exide Frisco facility, wind speeds during precipitation events tended to be about the same as during times without precipitation. Wind speeds less than 3.5

m s -1 

## occur about 41 percent of the time without precipitation and 39 percent of the time during precipitation events, and wind speeds greater than 9 m s -1 

## occur about 4 percent of the time without precipitation and 5 percent of the time during precipitation events.

For the Exide Frisco facility, the frequency distri bution of wind directions was very different depending on precipitation status. During times with no precipitation, southerly winds dominate (53 percent of the time), so areas north of the facility should experience the greatest dry deposition. During precipitation events, northerly winds dominate (35 percent of the time), so areas south of the facility should experience the greatest wet deposition. Irrespective of precipitation status, westerly winds occur least frequently (7 percent of the time overall), so areas east of the facility should experience the least total deposition.

As shown in Figure A-2 for the Revere Middletown facility, wind speeds during precipitation events tend to be larger than during times without precipitation. Wind speeds less than 3.5 m s 1 

## occur about 50 percent of the time without precipitation and 40 percent of the time during precipitation events, and wind speeds greater than 9 m s -1 

## occur about 4 percent of the time without precipitation and 5 percent of the time during precipitation events.

The frequency distribution of wind directions was very different depending on precipitation status. During times with no precipitation, westerly winds dominate (41 percent of the time), so areas east of the facility should experience the greatest dry deposition. During precipitation events, easterly winds dominate (50 percent of the time), so areas west of the facility should experience the greatest wet deposition. Irrespective of precipitation status, southerly winds occur least frequently (17 percent of the time overall), so areas north of the facility should experience the least total deposition.

### 2/15/2011 A-10 DRAFT 

## Hourly mixing heights were estimated using the upper-air data along with EPA’s Mixing Height Program (to calculate morning and afternoon mixing heights) 10 

## , the PCRAMMET program (to interpolate hourly mixing heights) 11 

## , and the TRIMet program (to establish a 20-m minimum mixing height) 12 

## . For the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown facilities, Figures A-3 and A-4, respectively, show frequency distributions of maximum (afternoon) and minimum (morning) daily mixing heights, as calculated from the final hourly mixing heights output by TRIMet.

Figure A-1. Wind Roses Representing Wind Flow Conditions Near the Exide Frisco Facility a

a 

### From the surface hourly meteorological data from the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport

(WBAN ID 03927) for years 1990-1993 13

10 

### EPA Mixing Height Program: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/metobs data_procaccpro gs.htm#mixing

11 

### PCRAMMET: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/metobs data_procaccpr ogs.htm#pcrammet

12 

### TRIMet: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/fate_download.html

13 

### NOAA Hourly Surface Meteorological Data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 

### (b) Times with No Precipitation (c) Times With Precipitation NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 

### (a) All Times

WIND SPEED
(m/s)

>= 9.0

7.5 - 9.0

5.0 - 7.5

3.5 - 5.0

2.0 - 3.5

0.5 - 2.0

Calms: 0.00%

### 2/15/2011 A-11 DRAFT 

## Figure A-2. Wind Roses Representing Wind Flow Conditions Near the Revere Middletown Facility a

a 

### From the surface hourly meteorological data from the Allentown International

Airport (WBAN ID 14737) for years 1990-1993 13 NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 

### (b) Times with No Precipitation (c) Times With Precipitation NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 

### (a) All Times

WIND SPEED
(m/s)

>= 9.0

7.5 - 9.0

5.0 - 7.5

3.5 - 5.0

2.0 - 3.5

0.5 - 2.0

Calms: 0.00%

### 2/15/2011 A-12 DRAFT 

## Figure A-3. The Frequency Distribution of Estimated Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights near the Exide Frisco Facility a

a 

### From the surface hourly meteorological data from the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport (WBAN ID 03927) for

years 1990-1993, 13 

### and from the twice-daily upper-air data from the Stephenville Weather Service Meteorological Observatory (WBAN ID 13901) for years 1990-1993 14



## Figure A-4. The Frequency Distribution of Estimated Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights near the Revere Middletown Facility a

a 

### From the surface hourly meteorological data from the Allentown International Airport (WBAN ID 14737)

for years 1990-1993, 13 

### and from the twice-daily upper-air data from the Albany Airport (WBAN ID 14735) for years 1990-1993 14



## Mixing height was used in calculating air concentrations and related processes. In addition, for time periods when the mixing height was less than the source height modeled in TRIM.FaTE, chemical emissions from the source are transferred to an upper-air layer and are not available

14 

### NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/raobs/ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

<=500 >500

<=1000 >1000

<=1500 >1500

<=2000 >2000

<=2500 >2500

<=3000 >3000

<=5000 >3000

<=3500 >3500

<=4000 >4000

<=4500 >4500

<=5000Frequency(%)



## Mixing Height (m)

Morning Afternoon

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

<=500 >500

<=1000 >1000

<=1500 >1500

<=2000 >2000

<=2500 >2500

<=3000 >3000

<=3500 >3500

<=4000 >4000

<=4500 >4500

<=5000 >5000

<=5500 >5500

<=6000Frequency(%)



## Mixing Height (m)

Morning Afternoon

### 2/15/2011 A-13 DRAFT 

## for deposition to modeled soil and water surfaces. If emissions are transferred to an upper-air layer for many hours over the course of modeling, then air concentrations and surface depositions of emitted pollutants would be sign ificantly reduced compared to if no emissions

were transferred.

About 70 percent and 64 percent of morning mixing heights are less than about 500 m for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown facilities, respectively. Morning mixing height frequencies decrease logarithmically with increasing height values. The afternoon mixing height distributions roughly follow a skewed-right Gaussian distribution. The median afternoon mixing height was 1,575 m and 1,720 m for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown facilities, respectively.



# A-4 Supplemental Modeling Environment Details

A-4.1 Land Use nearby the Selected Facilities

Based on the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 15 

## from the US Geological Survey (USGS), land use in the immediate vicinity of the Exide Frisco facility was classified as a mix of grasses, land in agricultural use (for pasture and cropland), water, and commercial and residential uses, with small amounts of forest (see Figure A-5). Land use becomes more urban proceeding southward from the facility towards the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas. Dallas and Fort Worth are the only major metropolitan areas in the Upper Trinity Basin. Compared to the area nearby the facility, the remainder of the Upper Trinity Basin farther away from the facility contain a larger proportion of grassland (to the northwest) and of agricultural areas (to the southeast).

Based on the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 15 

## from the US Geological Survey (USGS), land use in the immediate vicinity of t he Revere Middletown facility was classified as a mix of forest (mostly deciduous), land in agricultural use (for pasture and cropland), water, and commercial and residential uses (see Figure A-6). Land use becomes more urban proceeding southeastward from the facility towards the New York City metropolitan area in the Lower Hudson Basin. The Albany-Schenectady metropolitan area lies about 150 km northwest of the facility within the Upper Hudson Basin, but otherwise the Upper Hudson Basin’s land use patterns are similar to the area immediately around the facility, with more forestland to the north.

15 

### NLCD: http://www.mrlc.gov/ . The 2001 dataset is the most recent.

### 2/15/2011 A-14 DRAFT 

## Figure A-5. Land use 15 

## within the Upper Trinity Basin, in which the Exide Frisco Facility

is Located

### 2/15/2011 A-15 DRAFT 

## Figure A-6. Land Use 15 

## within the Upper Hudson Basin, in which the Revere Middletown Facility is Located, as well as the nearby Lower Hudson and Upper Delaware Basins



# A-4.2 Determining Surface Parcel Vegetation Types

The vegetation type for each surface parcel was determined by calculating the most common land use type (using the 2001 NLCD 15 

## ) in each parcel. Below are further details on these

processes:

 

## “Deciduous Forest” and “Coniferous Forest” TRIM vegetation types:

o The 2001 NLCD contains a “mixed forest” category (in addition to the coniferous and deciduous categories), so if deciduous forest was more common than coniferous forest in a given parcel, then mixed forest was considered to be entirely deciduous; likewise, if coniferous forest was more common than deciduous forest, then mixed forest was considered to be entirely coniferous.

 

## “Grasses/Herbs” TRIM vegetation type:

o This was defined as a combination of the “grassland/herbaceous” and “shrub/scrub” 2001 NLCD types.

 

## “Untilled Soil,“ “Untilled Farmland,” “Tilled Soil,” and “Tilled Farmland” TRIM vegetation type:

### 2/15/2011 A-16 DRAFT 

## o The untilled and tilled TRIM land use type were defined as the “pasture/hay” and “cultivated crops” 2001 NLCD types, respectively.

 

## “No Vegetation” TRIM vegetation type:

o The “no vegetation” TRIM vegetation type was defined as a combination of the four developed and the “barren land” 2001 NLCD types.

o Because it is rare for a surface parcel to be truly void of vegetation, a surface parcel cannot be described as “no vegetation” unless at least a majority of the parcel qualifies as “no vegetation.” If “no vegetation” was the most frequent land use type of a parcel but it did not make up a majority, then the next most frequent vegetation type was assigned to the parcel.

 

## Special “Wetlands” TRIM vegetation type:

o TRIM.FaTE is not currently set up to model the various properties of wetlands, marshes, and swamps.

o For a parcel that was not intended to be modeled as a water body, it is possible for its most frequent land use type to be water-related. For example, the “open water,” “woody wetlands,” and “emergent herbaceous wetlands” 2001 NLCD types together could be the most frequent land use type. If these three types together made up a majority of the parcel, then the TRIM vegetation type of the parcel was set as the next most frequent vegetation type, but some specific parcel properties were modified to reflect the fact that the soil was often saturated. For example, the run-off should be larger than for non-saturated soil,

and the erosion should be smaller. The parameters in the Universal Soil Loss Equation were selected specifically to account for a wetlands floor (see Section 3.1.7.1 for more information on soil properties).



# A-4.3 Air Parcel Concentric Squares

The sizes of the concentric air parcel squares were derived from an internal ICF case study 16 

## of the deposition of mercury and PAHs using the ISCST3 model. 17 

## Part of that analysis involved examining the cumulative sum of the modeled deposition of divalent mercury (as a ratio of divalent mercury emissions) with increasing distance from the source. This cumulative sum is reprinted in Figure A-7. Figure A-7 was used as a guide to determining the sizes of the air parcel squares, keeping in mind the following predetermined criteria: (1) the concentric squares should increase exponentially in size going outward from the facility; (2) the number of concentric squares should be "reasonable" (i.e., less than about 6); and (3) the outward-most square should fully encompass all of the watershed surface parcels. It was determined that the side of the first concentric square should be about 2 km away from the side of the source parcel. Figure A-7 shows that the deposited mercury within a 2-km distance from the source might amount to 4 percent of emitted mercury. Using 4 percent as a starting point, it was decided that each concentric square should contain an additional 4 percent of mercury emissions deposited compared to the next-inward square. This leads to four concentric air parcel squares – at 2 km

16 

### Internal study using the ISC3 model: “Summary of IS C Analysis at the NY TRIM Site”, prepared by ICF

International, Dr aft, May 6, 2002

17 

### ISCST3 Model: http://www.epa.gov/ttn /scram/dispersion_alt.htm#isc3

### 2/15/2011 A-17 DRAFT 

## from the side of the source (containing 4 percent deposition of emitted mercury), at 6 km (8 percent), at 15 km (12 percent), and at 39 km (16 percent). The 39-km square should be large enough to encompass all reasonable surface parcel layouts for TRIM.FaTE analyses. If a surface parcel layout was fully contained within one of the smaller air parcel squares (e.g., the 15-km square), then the larger air parcel square(s) (e.g., the 39-km square) should not be used.

Figure A-7. Cumulative Percent of Total Divalent Mercury Emissions Deposited (Figure 5 from the Internal ICF Case Study using ISCST3 16,17 

## )

Figures A-8 and A-9 show the air parcel layouts for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown analyses, respectively. The air parcels overlaid with the surface parcels are shown in Section

3.1.6.5.

### 2/15/2011 A-18 DRAFT 

## Figure A-8. The Air Parcels for the Exide Frisco Facility. The Source Parcel at the Center

is not Labeled

### 2/15/2011 A-19 DRAFT 

## Figure A-9. The Air Parcels for the Revere Middletown Facility. The Source Parcel at the

Center is not Labeled