Dispersion Modeling 101: ISCST3 vs.

AERMOD
Iowa Chapter AWMA February 14, 2006
Mick Durham Stanley Consultants, Inc.

What we are going to talk about

      Brief History of Dispersion Modeling Industrial Source Complex Model AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) Comparisons The IDNR Connection Questions & Answers

Brief History of Modeling

 Earliest Studies Simulated the Movement of Air
G.I. Taylor, 1915, Eddy Motion in the Atmosphere O.G. Sutton, 1932, A Theory of Eddy Diffusion

 Dispersion of Pollutants (Mainly Particulate) Followed WW II

E.W. Hewson, 1945, Meteorological Control of Atmospheric Pollutants by Heavy Industry E.W. Hewson, 1955, Stack Heights Required to Minimize Ground Level Concentrations Gale, Stewart & Crooks, 1958, The Atmospheric Diffusion of Gases Discharged from a Chimney

Brief History of Modeling

 Birth of Dispersion Parameters
F.A. Gifford, 1960, Atmospheric Dispersion Calculations Using the Gaussian Plume Model F. Pasquill, 1961, The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne Material D. Bruce Turner, 1967, Workbook on Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates Briggs, Gary, 1969, Plume Rise

Brief History of Modeling

 Modeling and the Computer Age
PTMAX, PTMIN, PTMTP, 1972 Air Quality Display Model (AQDM), 1974 Single Source (CRSTER) Model, 1977 Complex Terrain (VALLEY) Model, 1977 Multiple Source (MPTER) Model, 1980

 Pollutant and Environment Specific Models

APRAC, CALINE, HIWAY Carbon Monoxide Models BLP (Bouyant Line and Point Sources); PAL (Point Area and Line Source), 1979; TEM (Texas Episode for Urban Areas) RPM (Reactive Plume Model) for Ozone, 1980

Brief History of Modeling

 Guideline on Air Quality Models
The Guidelines on Air Quality Models, 1978 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix W

 Refined and More Complex Models

Industrial Source Complex (ISC), 1979
 Industrial Short-Term ST Short Industrial Long-Term LT Long-

Complex Terrain (COMPLEX) Dense Gas (DEGADIS) Urban Airshed Model (UAM)

Brief History of Modeling

 Refined and More Complex Models (cont.)
Screening Model (SCREEN) California Line Source (CALINE) and Mobile Source Emission Factors (MOBILE) Puff Models (INPUFF) Visibility (VISCREEN)

Brief History of Modeling

 Advanced Models
Industrial Source Complex Version 2 (ISC2), 1990 Industrial Source Complex Version 3 (ISC3), 1995 California Line Source (CAL3QH3) Urban Airshed Model (UAM-V) (UAMComplex Terrain Dispersion Model (CTDMPLUS) Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model (OCD) Bouyant Line and Point Source (BLP) Area Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) Dense Gas Dispersion Model (DEGADIS 2.1)

Brief History of Modeling

 Todays Models:
AERMOD
 Point, Area, Line Sources  Simple or Complex Terrain  Transport distance up to 50 km

CALPUFF
 Transport from 50 to hundreds of kilometers  Visibility, Regional Haze  Dispersion in Complex Terrain

Complex Dispersion Model Plus Algorithms for Unstable Conditions (CTDMPLUSS)

 Dispersion in Complex Terrain

Brief History of Modeling

 Todays Models (Continued):
Caline3 or CAL3QHC, MOBILE6
 Highway Line sources  Simple Terrain  Carbon Monoxide

Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP)

 Aluminum Reduction plants with buoyant line and point sources  Rural location  Simple Terrain

Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) Multi Ozone

Industrial Source Complex Model

    Introduced in 1979 First adopted as Preferred Model in 1983 Major Revisions 4 times in 27 year history Can remain acceptable as a preferred model until November 9, 2006

Industrial Source Complex Model

      Gaussian Plume Model Building Downwash Particulate Deposition Point, Area, and Line Sources Complex Terrain Simple Meteorological Data Input

Industrial Source Complex Model

 Has been primary model in Iowa for 27 years  Over 100 facilities have modeled compliance with ISC  Generally the short-term standards have shortcaused greatest predicted non-compliance non-

Industrial Source Complex Model

 Problems with ISCST3:
Modeling of Plume Dispersion is Crude Only 6 possible states (Stability Classes) No variation in most meteorological variables with height No use of observed turbulence data No information about surface characteristics Erroneous depiction of dispersion in convective conditions Substantial overprediction in complex terrain Crude building downwash algorithm

AERMOD
 AERMOD stands for American Meteorological Society/ Environmental Model Protection Agency Regulatory Model  Formally Proposed as replacement for ISC in 2000  Adopted as Preferred Model November 9, 2005

AERMOD
 3 COMPONENTS
AERMET THE METEOROLOGICAL PREPROCESOR AERMAP THE TERRAIN DATA PREPROCESSOR AERMOD THE DISPERSION MODEL

 2 SUPPORT TOOLS
AERSURFACE PROCESSES SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS DATA AERSCREEN PROVIDES A SCREENING TOOL

AERMOD
 AERMOD IS SIMILAR TO ISC IN SETUP
THE CONTROL FILE STRUCTURE IS THE SAME VIRTUALLY ALL THE CONTROL KEYWORDS AND OPTIONS ARE THE SAME

AERMOD
 AERMOD IS DIFFERENT FROM ISC
REQUIRES SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS (ALBEDO, BOWEN RATIO, SURFACE ROUGHNESS) IN AERMET HAS PRIME FOR BUILDING DOWNWASH AND THE BUILDING PARAMETERS ARE MORE EXTENSIVE REQUIRES LONGER COMPUTER RUN TIMES (up to 5 times longer!)

Comparison of Dispersion Model Features: Meteorological Data Input  ISCST3:

One level of data accepted

 AERMOD:
An arbitrarily large number of data levels can be accommodated

Comparison of Dispersion Model Features: Plume Dispersion and Plume Growth Rates
ISCST3: Based upon six discrete stability classes only Dispersion curves are Pasquill-Gifford Choice of rural or urban surfaces only AERMOD: Uses profiles of vertical and horizontal turbulence variable with height Uses continuous growth function Uses many variations of surface characteristics

Comparison of Dispersion Model Features: Complex Terrain Modeling

ISCST3: Elevation of each receptor point input Predictions are very conservative in complex terrain AERMOD: Controlling hill elevation and point elevation at each receptor are input Predictions are nearly unbiased in complex terrain

Comparisons ISC Vs AERMOD

CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS - ratios of AERMOD predicted high concentrations to ISCST3 predicted high concentrations: flat and simple terrain point, volume and area sources. 1hour average high low Total 1.04 4.25 0.32 48 3hour 1.09 2.82 0.26 48 24hour 1.14 3.15 0.24 48 annual 1.33 3.89 0.30 48

AN OVERVIEW FOR THE 8TH MODELING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

Comparisons ISC Vs AERMOD

CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS - ratios of AERMOD predicted high concentrations to ISCST3 (and PRIME) predicted high concentrations: flat terrain point sources with significant bldg downwash ANNUAL AER/ISC3 AER/ISCP ave 1.08 1.05 max 1.35 1.29 min 0.69 0.79 No cases 6 24 H2H AER/ISC3 AER/ISCP 1.25 1.01 1.87 1.14 0.69 0.84 6 3 H2H AER/ISC3 AER/ISCP 0.71 1.05 1.20 1.17 0.38 0.93 6

AN OVERVIEW FOR THE 8TH MODELING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

Comparisons ISC Vs AERMOD

Duane Arnold Energy Center Data (Palo, IA) Ratio of Modeled Conc to Observed:
 AERMOD: 0.69 (1-hr avg 46m release) (1 ISC-Prime: 0.76 (1-hr avg 46m release) ISC(1 AERMOD: 0.25 (1-hr avg 24m release) (1 ISC-Prime: 0.29 (1-hr avg 24m release) ISC(1 AERMOD: 0.51 (1-hr avg 1m release) (1 ISC-Prime: 0.38 (1-hr avg 1m release) ISC(1-

Comparisons ISC Vs AERMOD

 Presentation at EUEC conference by Bob Paine, TRC:
 AERMOD consistently showed better or comparable performance with ISCST3  In flat terrain, AERMOD and ISCST3 predictions are comparable, but AERMOD has higher annual averages  In complex terrain, AERMOD predictions are markedly lower  Building downwash predictions will often be lower, especially for stacks located some distance from controlling buildings  Overall, more confidence in accuracy of AERMOD results

Comparisons ISC Vs AERMOD

 Our Recent Experience:
Annual concentrations higher with AERMOD by 1010-15% Short term concentrations similar without downwash Short-term concentrations generally lower with Shortbuilding downwash by 20%

The IDNR Connection

 IDNR will allow use of either ISCST3 or AERMOD until November 9, 2006  Meteorological Data will be provided by IDNR for eight stations  Compliance with ISCST3 and nonnoncompliance by AERMOD must be addressed

Questions & Answers

AERMOD
Feature Types of Sources Plume Rise ISCST3 Point, Area, Volume Uses Briggs equations with Stack-top wind speed and vertical temp gradient One level of data accepted AERMOD Point, Area, Volume In stable use Briggs In convective uses random convective velocities Comments Models are Comparable AERMOD superior in accounting for convective updrafts and downdrafts AERMOD can adapt multiple levels of data to various stack and plume heights More accurate portrayal of actual conditions More accurate portrayal of actual conditions More options to depicts urban characteristics

Met Data Input

An arbitrarily large number of data levels can be accommodated

Profiling Met Data Plume Dispersion

Only wind speed is profiled Gaussian treatment in horizontal and vertical Urban option either on or off

Urban Treatment

Creates profiles for wind, temperature and turbulence Same for stable only; non-Gaussian probability density in vertical for unstable conditions Population is specified so treatment can consider a variety of urban conditions; sources can individually be modeled urban or rural

AERMOD
Feature Surface Characteristics ISCST3 Choice of rural of urban Boundary Layer Wind speed, mixing height, and stability class AERMOD Selection by direction and month of roughness length, albedo, and Bowen ratio Five update methodologies for improved boundary layer interpretation Comments Provide significantly more options in selecting sfc characteristics Provides parameters for use with up-to-date planetary boundary layer parameterization Provides more realistic sequence of the diurnal mixing height changes Uses digital data for terrain heights and preprocessor (AERMAP) advanced streamline algorithms

Mixed layer Height

Holzworth, based on afternoon mixing ht

Has convective and mechanical mixing layer ht based upon sensible heat flux Controlling hill elevation and point elevation at each receptor using DEM data

Terrain Depiction

Elevation at each receptor point

AERMOD
Feature Plume Growth Rates ISCST3 Pasquill-Gifford dispersion curves and 6 stability classes Plume If plume is above lid Interaction with zero concentration Mixing Lid on ground Convective Plume Mechanical lid is Interaction with ignored; assumed Mixing Lid infinitely high Stable Building Combination HuberDownwash Snyder and ScireSchulman algorithms; many discontinuities AERMOD Uses profiles of vertical and horizontal turbulence; variable with height; Three plume components: updrafts, downdrafts, and stable layer dispersion Mechanical mixing layer near surface; plume reflection from elevated lid New PRIME downwash algorithms Comments Turbulence- based plume growth with height superior to 6 classes Avoids potential under-prediction due to all of nothing approach Advancement over simplistic ISC approach AERMOD benefits from tech advances of PRIME