Appendix A. Supplemental Details on Facility Selection, Meteorology 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 km2

 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 km2

 areas surrounding the facilities. ICF previously 

estimated that lakes that support a food web containing piscivorous fish1

 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 km2). 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 potential 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-3 

Table A-1. Results of Site Selection Criteria for Fourteen Secondary Lead Smelting Sit

Facility ID State Furnace Type Farmland Lake 

Average 

Rainfall 

(inches 

year-1) 

Cadmium 

Emissionsb Mercury Emissionsb PAH Emissionsb Dioxin Emissionsb 

NEIMO0930005 Boss, MO Blast & Reverberatoryd Good Good 40-50 7.72 4.07 6.34 2817.57NEILAT$10672 

Baton 

Rouge, 

LA 

Blast & 

Reverberatory Good OK 50-70 0.55 1.18 7.70 6872.64 

NEI34270 

Forest 

City, 

MO 

Blast Good Good 20-40 0.30 0.64 6.40 6174.93 

NEI18383 Troy, AL Blast OK Poor 50-70 0.80 1.86 23.80 22977.17 NEI38394c

Middletown, 

 NY 

Reverberatory Good Good 40-50 0.09 1.40 1.89 7.96

NEI6493c Frisco, TX Blast & Reverberatory Good Good 20-40 0.58 1.54 5.28 4638.64NEI32182 

Indianapolis, 

IN 

Reverberatory & 

Electric Good OK 20-40 0.06 2.37 0.34 8.11 

NEI31400 Muncie, IN Blast & Reverberatory Good OK 20-40 0.14 0.62 0.01 20.96 NEI26338 Tampa, FL Blast OK OK 40-50 0.19 0.46 4.31 4162.03 
2/15/2011 A-4 

Table A-1. Results of Site Selection Criteria for Fourteen Secondary Lead Smelting Sit

Facility ID State Furnace Type Farmland Lake 

Average 

Rainfall 

(inches 

year-1) 

Cadmium 

Emissionsb Mercury Emissionsb PAH Emissionsb Dioxin Emissionsb 

NEI40662 Reading, PA Blast & Reverberatory OK Poor 40-50 0.43 1.25 1.16 21.69 NEI34021 Eagan, MN Blast & Reverberatory Poor Poor 20-40 0.22 0.58 0.02 36.99 NEI117 

Lyon 

Station, 

PA 

Blast & 

Reverberatory Good Poor 40-50 0.19 0.76 0.01 25.20 

NEI21201 

City of 

Industry, 

CA 

Electric & 

Reverberatory Poor Poor 10-20 0.06 1.40 0.15 8.88 

NEI2CA124838 Vernon, CA Blast & Reverberatory Poor Poor 10-20 0.13 1.09 0.01 2.11 

a Color key: Green – First rank of suitability for inclusion in the analysis; Yellow – second rank; Orange – third rank; Red – least suitable for 

b Emissions are presented as the facility emissions/screening level >1 indicates that the emission rate exceeds the screening level. c Facility selected for multipathway modeling

d Blast 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 

facilities2

, 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 compartments 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 compartment. Geography with fewer elevation 

peaks and more uniform elevation gradients within 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 gradients. 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 varying 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 geographically 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 equations4 for plumes dominated by buoyancy forces, and use the 

ASME equation5

 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 book6

). 

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 book6

). 

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 recent 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 Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory 1973 Annual Report, USAEC Rep. 

ATDL-106. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 5

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

Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, 2nded. ASME, New York. 6

 The Briggs and ASME methodologies are summarized 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 Modeling 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 Modeling 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 rise 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, and 

these modeling groups and their emissions and modeling source heights are shown in Table A3.
2/15/2011 A-8 

Table A-2. The Emissions and Physical Source Parameters for the Exide Frisco and Revere Middletown 

Emission Source Emitting at Least One of the Four PB-HAPs Currently Considered for Multipath

Facility 

Source 

Group for 

Plume 

Rise 

Estimation 

Final 

Source 

Group for 

Modeling 

Latitude Longitude Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Exit Gas Velocity (ms-1) Exit Gas Temperature (degrees K) Emissions of Cadmium Compounds (tons year-1) Emiss

Dioxins

as 2,3

TCDD 

(tons 

Exide Frisco FUGa STKA 33.139674 -96.828742 3.048 0.0009144 9.14E-05 2.95E+02 1.91E-02 0.00

STK1 STKA 33.13974 -96.83049 11.28 0.171 1.68E+00 3.20E+02 2.73E-07 0.00STK2 STKC 33.14037 -96.82743 22.86 0.811 1.48E+01 2.97E+02 1.37E-05 0.00STK3 STKC 33.14045 -96.82759 22.86 1.676 2.02E+01 3.03E+02 6.40E-05 0.00STK4 STKB 33.140516 -96.827846 30.63 1.615 5.27E+00 3.06E+02 8.30E-05 0.00STK5 STKB 33.140078 -96.828102 31.24 1.521 1.76E+01 3.08E+02 7.53E-04 0.00STK6 STKB 33.140825 -96.827101 32.16 1.804 1.49E+01 2.98E+02 1.25E-04 0.00STK7 STKB 33.140678 -96.828029 33.83 1.372 1.66E+01 3.16E+02 1.92E-04 4.26

Revere Middletown FUGa STKA 41.459595 -74.36037 3.048 0.0009144 9.14E-05 2.95E+02 1.58E-03 0.00

STK1 STKA 41.46033 -74.35969 10.1 1.91 8.42E+00 2.94E+02 2.18E-05 0.00

41.46035 -74.35975 10.1 1.18 8.42E+00 2.94E+02 2.82E-05 0.00

STK2 STKA 41.46093 -74.35979 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 9.18E-06 0.00

41.46095 -74.35983 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 9.24E-06 0.0041.46097 -74.35989 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 7.00E-06 0.0041.46099 -74.35993 11.89 1.14 1.84E+01 2.94E+02 6.96E-06 0.00

STK3 STKA 41.4598 -74.36022 13.11 1.14 2.30E+01 2.94E+02 1.43E-05 0.00

41.45981 -74.36027 13.11 1.14 2.30E+01 2.94E+02 1.48E-05 0.00

STK4 STKA 41.45982 -74.36012 18.29 1.22 1.86E+01 3.32E+02 1.28E-03 6.00STK5 STKC 41.46127 -74.35994 30.48 1.37 1.02E+01 3.39E+02 5.89E-06 0.00STK6 STKB 41.46028 -74.35973 60.96 1.42 1.81E+01 3.26E+02 6.57E-05 1.30

a “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 Details 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 distribution 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 s1

 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 

Facilitya

 

a

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

(WBAN ID 03927) for years 1990-199313

 

10 EPA Mixing Height Program: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/metobsdata_procaccprogs.htm#mixing 11 PCRAMMET: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/metobsdata_procaccprogs.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 Facilitya

a

 From the surface hourly meteorological data from the Allentown International 

Airport (WBAN ID 14737) for years 1990-199313

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 Facilitya

 

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 1990-199314

Figure A-4. The Frequency Distribution of Estimated Morning and Afternoon Mixing 

Heights near the Revere Middletown Facilitya

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 1990-199314

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

<=5000

Frequency (%)

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

<=6000

Frequency (%)

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 significantly 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 the 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 use15 within the Upper Trinity Basin, in which the Exide Frisco Facility 

is Located 
2/15/2011 A-15 DRAFT

Figure A-6. Land Use15 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 NLCD15) 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 study16 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 ISC Analysis at the NY TRIM Site”, prepared by ICF 

International, Draft, 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 ISCST316,17) 

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