air quality modeling - pubs.awma.org

The Magazine for Environmental Managers

Air QualityModeling

October 2016

Stakeholders discuss the proposedchanges to EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models

Table of Contents

em • The Magazine for Environmental Managers • A&WMA • October 2016

Columns

IT Insight: Restructuring the EH&S Software Industryby Jill Barson Gilbert

So far, 2016 is a year for the recordbooks. Half-a-dozen major deals wereannounced in the first half of this yearalone, restructuring the industry as we know it.

Association News

Message from the President: Fall Means Budget Season for A&WMAby Brad Waldron

In Memoriam:Roger C. Westman (1945–2016)

Departments

Canadian Report

Calendar of Events

JA&WMA Table of Contents Vol. 66, No. 10

In July 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, “Guidelineon Air Quality Models”. Then, in August 2015, EPA held its most recent modeling conference, the 11th Conference on AirQuality Modeling. The conference updated the more than 250 attendees on the current status and proposed revisions to theGuideline. Subsequently, the comment period for the proposed changes closed October 27, 2015. Now, after some time ofreflection, this issue of EM offers several articles focused on a few of the most salient aspects of the proposed changes to theGuideline. The final Guideline is expected to be published this fall.

Air Quality Modelingby Anthony J. Sadar

Forum: Air Permit Modeling:Where Do We Stand?by Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM,QEP, TRC Environmental Corporation

Prognostic MeteorologicalData: A New Approach forRepresentative MeteorologicalData in Regulatory DispersionModeling Applicationsby Thomas S. Wickstrom,Karthikeyan (Surya) Ramaswamy,and Mark E. Garrison, ERM

Buoyant Fugitive Sources—BUOYLINE Approach toModelingby George J. Schewe, CCM,QEP, Trinity Consultants Inc.

Using Physical Modeling to Refine Downwash Inputsto AERMODby Sergio Guerra and Ron Petersen, CPP Inc.

Model video and photo courtesy of CPP Inc.

Message from the President


Nothing says impending change like the onset of fall. Theair becomes crisp. The kids are back into the full swing ofschool. Election fever is coming to a boil. And while it isn’tcommon for significant regulatory change at this time ofyear, all of these things bring about nuances which highlightthat things aren’t going to stay the same.

Cooler air is a commodity here in Las Vegas. With summerheat easily pushing past 100 degrees F, the fall brings a nicereprieve, but it also brings a significant shift in weather patterns.More wind coming from the Pacific. More dust and pollen inthe air. More allergies kicking up as everything is coated witha fine dust until winter. It all arrives in a rush. No gradualchange like I was used to on the East Coast. It just shows up one day and stays for a couple months.

However, even with the change, it isn’t what it was. Winterhere is unpredictable. We see snow in the air. The temperaturedrops below freezing one night, and stays in the 50s thenext. Planning becomes a challenge because the only consis-tency is fluctuation. But beyond everything, we know thatnext spring will bring with it a return to triple digits and thelovely desert heat we enjoy.

Right now our election season is in full swing, and no one isreally sure how things will go. Many Americans are likely tomake their decisions in the polling booth, me included. Theone common belief is that this election will result in a signifi-cant shift for the United States. These are two of the mostpolarizing candidates for President seen in a long time, andthe election could change the entire landscape of the country.

For A&WMA, fall means budget season. It means lookingback on the preceding year and making decisions aboutwhat we think the next year will bring. It means discussionsabout the strategic plan and the effectiveness of programsand initiatives. It means looking for feedback from our members about what they want from the Association.

So as fall begins and starts to lead us into winter, what arethe things you plan on allowing to change and run theircycle? Recognizing that the circle of life tells us that the passing of one thing means the birth of another, sometimeswe have to make the decision to let some things go, so thatthe future can knock on our door. If only everything were so predictable. em

by Brad Waldron » [email protected]

Fall Means Budget Seasonfor A&WMA

Cover Story by Anthony J. Sadar


Air Quality Modeling

In July 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W,“Guideline on Air Quality Models”. Then, in August 2015, EPAheld its most recent modeling conference—the 11th Conferenceon Air Quality Modeling—at the agency’s pastoral ResearchTriangle Park, NC campus. The conference updated the morethan 250 attendees on the current status and proposed revi-sions to the Guideline. Subsequently, the comment period forthe proposed changes closed October 27, 2015. A synopsis

of the conference and the public hearing on the associatedrulemaking, including a brief discussion of the most significantsubstantive proposed revisions to the Guideline, was publishedin the December 2015 issue of EM.1 The Guideline changesare expected to be finalized by early fall 2016.

In April 2016, A&WMA conducted a three-day modelingconference, titled “Guideline on Air Quality Models: The NewPath” (http://aqmodels.awma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/

Cover Story by Anthony J. Sadar


03/Air-Quality-Models-Final-Program.pdf). And, of course,A&WMA’s Annual Conference & Exhibition this past June inNew Orleans offered numerous papers on air modeling. Between these two events, dozens of presentations were giventhat addressed major portions of the proposed revisions.

Now, after some time of reflection, this issue of EM offersseveral articles focused on a few of the most salient aspects of the proposed changes to the Guideline. Strategies for moreefficient compliance with the anticipated new guide are givenin addition to helpful insight into modeling practice in general.We invite you to discover some new perspective on air qualitymodeling issues by reading the following articles:

• “Air Permit Modeling: Where Do We Stand?” by Gale Hoffnagle;

• “Prognostic Meteorological Data: A New Approach for Representative Meteorological Data in Regulatory Dispersion Modeling Applications” by Thomas Wickstrom,Karthikeyan Ramaswamy, and Mark Garrison;

• “Buoyant Fugitive Sources—BUOYLINE Approach forModeling” by George Schewe; and

• “Using Physical Modeling to Refine Downwash Inputs toAERMOD” by Sergio Guerra and Ron Petersen.

As the science of air quality modeling continues to advance,concepts addressed in this issue and the recent conferenceproceedings should help to produce future changes to theGuideline that both improve the atmospheric environmentand make sense to the modeling community. em

Anthony J. Sadar, CCM, is with the Allegheny County Health Department, Air Quality Program, in Pittsburgh, PA, and is a memberof EM’s Editorial Advisory Committee (EAC). E-mail: [email protected].

Reference1. Sadar, A.J. Dispatch from the 11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling; EM December 2015, pp 20-23.

This article describes the progress toward finalizing 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix W, “Guideline on Air Quality Models.”

FORUM: Air Permit Modeling: Where Do We Stand?

Air Permit Modeling by Gale F. Hoffnagle


Forum invites authors to share their opinions on environmental issues with EM readers. Opinions expressed in Forum are those of the author(s), and do not reflect official A&WMA policy. EM encourages your participation by either responding directly to this Forum or addressing another issue of interest to you. E-mail: [email protected].



The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposedchanges to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, “Guideline on AirQuality Models” on July 29, 2015.1 EPA has promised fourmajor additions to the Guideline. The revised Guideline presented in August 2015 is not complete. More troublingare the effects that the proposed/finalized changes will haveon permitting. These include the increased time it will take to obtain a permit, the increased cost of obtaining the permit,and the increased uncertainty of whether the project will require additional pollution control equipment. These effectsarise from the need to have each permit modeling analysismethodology decided on a case-by-case basis. Applicants

to review and comment on each of the proposals or a fair opportunity to comment on the entire Guideline again, oncethe public can see how it works.

Secondary FormationIn January 2012, Gina McCarthy, the then Assistant Adminis-trator for Air at EPA, granted a petition that the Sierra Club2

had made to require modeling analysis of the secondary formation of ozone and PM2.5. (i.e., pollutants such as SOx,NOx, and VOC emitted from a facility transform by atmosphericchemistry into ozone and PM2.5 in the air after release). Theletter granting the petition promised to take action so that the

with new projects and modifications are going to find it increasingly difficult to complete the modeling portion of construction permits.

EPA Work on the Proposal IncompleteIt is clear from the proposal and admitted in the preamblethat several important pieces of the Guideline revision aremissing. These include:

1. Guidance on photochemical modeling to calculate impacts of secondary pollutant formation due to primaryemissions from a proposed facility or major revision toan existing facility.

2. Significant Impact Levels (SIL) for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) impacts.

3. Guidance on emission rates for requiring full-scale secondary formation modeling.

4. Revised Guidance on calculating impacts in Class I areas.

Subsequently, EPA issued a flurry of memos and draft docu-ments to cover the fact that none of the work on these issueshad been finalized. Therein lies the problem. With the commentperiod completed, being only 90 days from the date of theproposal, the modeling community, state regulators, and theindustrial community did not have the complete guidancethey needed to assess the impact of these rule revisions ontheir permitting activities. It is not clear that, when EPA finalizesthese guidance essentials, the public will get a fair opportunity

next round of revisions to the Guideline would include modeling methodology to address secondary formation. TheJuly 29, 2015, proposal does require that secondary formationbe addressed, but does not provide a method to do so.

EPA issued two policy memoranda,3,4 one each for ozone andPM2.5, and simultaneously issued a proposed draft “Guidanceon the Use of Models.”5 None of these documents tells the userwhen detailed modeling is required, what model to select, orwhat analysis to perform. They only set a framework for somefuture decisions on the appropriate limits and appropriatemodel. The modeling conundrum is that single source modeling of atmospheric chemistry differs substantially frommultisource atmospheric chemistry modeling. No currentregulatory model can address this issue precisely.

Significant Impact LevelsThe proposed Guideline also came with a promise that EPAwould adopt SILs for ozone and PM2.5. If the modeled airquality impact of a new source by itself is below the SIL, thenthe source is insignificant and no further model analysis is required. As an example, if a modeled source contribution is1 part per billion (ppb) of ozone compared to the 70-ppbNational Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), is that impact significant? It is difficult to see that EPA can trulyadopt these SILs. The last time the SILs were in front of theDC Circuit Court, the Court remanded the PM2.5 SIL to EPA.6

The Court also struck down the monitoring concentration levels that EPA and permittees have used since 1980 to avoid

Applicants with new projects and modifications are

going to find it increasingly difficult to complete the

modeling portion of construction permits.



one year’s worth of pre-construction monitoring data. The environmentalists argued that EPA could not assure that ifthe modeled results were below the SIL, that the NAAQS remained protected.

On August 1, 2016, EPA posted draft SILs for ozone andPM2.5 on the EPA Air Quality Modeling Group’s website(https://www.epa.gov/scram). EPA says these are drafts ofproposed guidance. EPA adds that it would like to see howthe SILs work in permitting situations before proceeding tothe proposed Guideline stage. Final rules on this issue arethus significantly delayed.

Emission Rates Subject to Secondary Formation ModelingThe proposed rule came with a promise to provide a newguidance entitled Model Emissions Rates for Precursors(MERPS) for PM2.5 and ozone. As announced, this guidancewould identify emission rates below which extensive secondaryformation modeling would not be required. These rates wouldbe for SO2 and NOx emissions when considering PM2.5,and for NOx and VOC emission rates when consideringozone. Presumably, these emission rates would be higherthan the 15–40 tons per year thresholds, which, under currentPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules, exemptsources from modeling for these pollutants as direct pollutants.EPA says now that it will issue the MERPS guidance once theSILs are proposed. The Sierra Club and others have statedtheir opposition to such raising of thresholds below whichmodeling is not required. Since MERPS are dependent onthe SIL, the delay in the SIL further delays the MERPS.

It is unlikely that many new sources built in the United Stateswill actually need such analysis. This author’s experience, as

Impact on Class I AreasBecause EPA has proposed to remove CALPUFF as a preferredmodel for long-range transport (distances beyond 50 km),there is no preferred model for these analyses of PSD incrementconsumption at Class I areas (i.e., national parks and wildernessareas, as specified in 1982). The increment consumption inClass I areas is a requirement of EPA and is a subject of theGuideline. Without a preferred model, the applicant mustguess what model to use and what methodology to adopt.Additionally, Federal Land Managers require an evaluation of the regional haze impact, as well as sulfate and nitrate disposition in Class I areas. EPA added to the July rule docketthree items: a memorandum10 and two summary reports11,12

on the activities of the Interagency Workgroup on Air QualityModels. Each of these documents tries to explain (not con-vincingly) that the 2005 CALPUFF version that is the currentEPA preferred model does not meet EPA requirements andthat there is no model recommended at this time. In this situation, the applicant has no guidance at all.

Modeling Procss for PSD Permit ApplicantsEPA proposes that each PSD applicant prepare a modelingprotocol for pre-approval by EPA. The proposal indicates thatstates and EPA regional offices are to check with EPA head-quarters—the “Clearinghouse for Air Quality Models”. Whileit has been traditional to prepare a protocol, in the past, thestates approved the protocol in most cases. This was becauseif you met the specifications in the Guideline, you could assume that the protocol was approvable. In many cases, applicants just proceeded with modeling without waiting forapproval, because the state either never approved the protocolor took too long to provide the approval. Now, without anapproved model for long-range transport or secondary formation, the acceptability of a protocol becomes more

noted in a prior paper,7 is that sources of reasonable size donot have significant impact on downwind concentrations fromsecondary formation along the plume path. Others have hadsimilar results except when modeling 1,000-MW coal-firedpower plants.8,9 The formation is insignificant, about a fewpercent of the maximum concentrations, and the secondaryconcentrations occur at very different distances than the maxima due to the primary emissions of that pollutant.

problematic. There may now be as many as four governmentagencies involved. Because of the complexity of these modelsand methods, the expense and risk of modeling before theprotocol is finally approved increases dramatically.

The applicant does not know what modeling is required untilthere is an approved protocol and therefore does not knowthe cost of the modeling. Even using AERMOD, the applicant

The July 29, 2015, proposal does require that

secondary formation be addressed, but does

not provide a method to do so.



will not know which buttons to push until there is an approvedprotocol. The EPA proposal centralizes the approval of proto-cols in one small group at headquarters, potentially resultingin a backlog of protocol reviews and even more time addedto the permit process.

EPA has proposed that AERMOD be the only preferredmodel. EPA even insists that long-range transport modelingcan be done by modeling with AERMOD out to 50 km13

and if the impact is below the regulatory threshold at 50 km,no further modeling need be done. A Gaussian steady-statemodel should not be used for this purpose or for any purposebeyond the transport distance of one hour. For instance, ifthe wind speed is 10 miles per hour the model is only reasonable out to 10 miles.

Even if the applicant does not need to evaluate long-rangetransport (i.e., no Class I area within 300 km) or secondaryformation, there are numerous additional changes to AERMODitself14 that EPA has not yet approved, which the applicantmight wish to use. Use of those changes, until the proposal is finalized, are not available unless EPA grants an exemption.

Practical ResultsThe filing and processing of a PSD permit application willtake much longer due to the proposed added requirementsof the Guideline. Getting the protocol approved by four ormore agencies and not being able to move forward with themodeling until approved is a formula for excessive time delays.We know this because of the excessive times required nowfor permitting when states and regional EPA offices have

required these types of modeling in anticipation of thesechanges to the Guideline. Time is money and an applicant’sbusiness decisions depend on timing, as much as any otherfactor in determining the viability of the permitting process.

The costs of providing the modeling for PSD permits will risesubstantially. The preparation of a protocol, the defense of theproposed protocol, the modeling with more advanced andcomplex models, which are executable by fewer consultingorganizations, and the preparation of much longer, and morecomplex modeling reports will all add costs to the preparationof a permit. The potential exists for the modeling to predictimpacts that will require further controls at the source.

SummaryThe proposed revisions to the Guideline do not meet theCongressional intent (as noted in the 1977 Amendments tothe U.S. Clean Air Act) to specify with “reasonable particularity”the modeling to be done in a PSD application or any regula-tory requirement for modeling. The case-by-case approachrequired by individual protocols for each project is not “reasonable particularity”. There are many unknowns aheadbecause EPA has not completed its work. It appears that thepermit applicant’s modeling will require more time, cost, anduncertainty without any yet discernable benefit to the envi-ronment. In the interim, applicants are at a complete loss asto what modeling to do. It is likely that businesses will shyaway, even more so than in the past, from the PSD permittingprocess. It will simply be easier, cheaper, and quicker to build elsewhere. em

Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP, is with TRC Environmental Corporation, Windsor, CT. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address

Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule; Fed. Register 2015, 80 (145), 45340-45387.2. “Letter to Mr. Robert Ukeiley” Letter dated January 4, 2012, and signed by Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.3. “Proposed Approach for Demonstrating Ozone PSD Compliance”. Memorandum dated June 30, 2015, from Tyler Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.4. “Proposed Approach for Demonstrating PM2.5 PSD Compliance”. Memorandum dated June 30, 2015, from Tyler Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.5. Draft Guidance on the use of models for assessing the impacts of emissions from single sources on the secondary forms pollutants ozone and PM2.5; EPA-454/

P-15-001, July 2015.6. Sierra Club vs. EPA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, January 22, 2013.7. Hoffnagle, G. “Methods for Single Source Ozone and PM2.5 Analysis.” Presented at the A&WMA Conference, Guideline on Air Quality Models: The Path

Forward, Raleigh, NC, March 2013.8. “Comparison of Single-Source Air Quality Assessment techniques for Ozone and PM2.5”. ENVIRON Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

September 2012.9. Baker, K.T.; Kelly, J.F. Single Source Impacts estimates with Photochemical Model Source Sensitivity and Apportionment Approaches; Atmos. Environ. 2014,

96, 288-274.10. “Supplemental Information for EPA’s 2009 Draft report regarding Reassessment of IWAQM Phase 2 Recommendations”. Memorandum dated June 30,

2015, from Tyler Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.11. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling Phase 3 Summary Report: Near-Field Single Source Secondary Impacts; EPA-454/P-15-002, July 2015.12. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling phase 3 Summary Report: Long-Range Transport and Air Quality Related Values; EPA-454/P-15-003, July 2015.13. Technical Support Document (TSD) for AERMOD-based Assessments of Long-Range Transport Impacts for Primary Pollutants; EPA 454/B-15-003, July 2015.14. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD; EPA-454/B-03-001, July 2015.

EPA’s proposed revisions to the Guideline represents the first time that

meteorological data from prognostic models have been identified as an

option for refined single-source regulatory dispersion modeling analyses

in the near-field. This article provides a case study example of their use.

Prognostic Meteorological Data:A New Approach for Representative Meteorological Data in Regulatory Dispersion Modeling Applications

Prognostic Meteorological Data by Thomas Wickstrom, Karthikeyan Ramaswamy, and Mark Garrison




Air quality dispersion models have long been used to meetthe requirements of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) regulations to determine a project’s potential impactson air quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) guidance with respect to the use of air quality modelsin support of regulatory permitting applications is found inAppendix W of 40 CFR 51 (“Guideline on Air Quality Models”). The proper use of air quality models requires considerable attention to the appropriateness of data used as input into the analysis.

One particularly important input data stream for air qualitydispersion models is meteorological data that are representativeof the model application site. The process of identifying anappropriate source of meteorological data and the requireddemonstration that the data are representative of an applicationsite is typically addressed via an air quality modeling protocol.If representative meteorological data are not available, theonly option that sources have had historically is to conduct a site-specific meteorological monitoring program. The datacollected from the meteorological monitoring program arethen used as input into the air quality modeling analysis.

The Guideline requires that a minimum of one year of site-specific meteorological data be collected for use in regulatoryair quality modeling analyses. The time and investment

needed to implement a successful site-specific meteorologicalmonitoring program is often seen as a fatal flaw in the planning stages for capital projects, and can influence decision-makers to view project sites with issues related tometeorological data representativeness as less desirable options when considering multiple project locations.

A New ApproachFortunately, a new approach to the development of meteoro-logical data for use in regulatory modeling analyses has beenproposed by EPA, and may offer decision-makers more flexibility in choosing potential project sites.

EPA proposed various revisions to the Guideline on July 29,2015. One of these revisions is a new recommendation forthe use of meteorological data generated by prognostic meteorological models in regulatory modeling applications.Prognostic meteorological models are three-dimensional atmospheric models that are used to predict meteorologicalvariables at a specified time step, at grid points across a widedomain. These models start from an initialization point usingdata derived from the vast network of surface and upper airobservations across the United States.

Prognostic models have been used for decades in weatherforecasting, and have also been used in large-scale air quality

Figure 1. Location of Martins Creek meteorological monitoring station.



studies as the meteorological input into gridded air qualitymodels such as CAMx and CMAQ. The new recommendationin EPA’s proposed revisions to the Guideline represents thefirst time that meteorological data from prognostic modelshave been identified as an option for refined single-sourceregulatory dispersion modeling analyses in the near-field.

Specifically, EPA has recommended that the Mesoscale ModelInterface (MMIF) program be used to process MesoscaleModel 5 (MM5) or Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)prognostic model data to generate input for AERMET undercertain situations. As stated in EPA’s proposed revisions to the Guideline:

8.4.5.1 Discussiona. For some modeling applications, there maynot be a representative NWS or comparablemeteorological station available (e.g., complexterrain), and it may be cost prohibitive or infeasible to collect adequately representativesite-specific data. For these cases, it may benecessary to use prognostic meteorologicaldata in a regulatory modeling application.

Clearly, EPA’s chosen language in the revisions to the Guide-line supports the conclusion that a lack of representative meteorological data would no longer represent the potentialfatal flaw that it once may have for the early stages of capitalproject planning.

Meteorological data representativeness is often an issue whenan application site is situated in an area of complex terrain.Terrain features can have a highly localized influence on windspeed and wind direction as well as temperature. Air qualitymodel application sites situated in complex terrain settingshave often been required to conduct site-specific meteoro-logical monitoring analyses to support regulatory permittingactivity. Therefore, it seems reasonable to evaluate EPA’s recommendations for the use of prognostic meteorologicaldata in a complex terrain setting. If prognostic meteorologicaldata can be developed for a complex terrain application sitethat are similar to actual site-specific meteorological observations,then it should follow that the use of prognostic meteorologicaldata is an appropriate substitute for a costly and lengthy meteorological monitoring program.

A Sample Case StudyThe Martins Creek model evaluation database was one ofseveral databases used in the evaluation of AERMOD leadingup to the promulgation of AERMOD as the regulatory default dispersion model in 2005. The Martins Creek studyincludes observed meteorological data from May 1, 1992 to

May 19, 1993 from a 10-m tower and Doppler SODAR system, as well as actual time-varying emissions of sulfurdioxide from the now retired Martins Creek Steam ElectricStation (MCSES) and other nearby sources. Observed sulfurdioxide monitor data from seven monitors located in complex terrain to the east and southeast of MCSES wereavailable from the same time period.

The Martins Creek database represents a long-term modelevaluation study for monitors in complex terrain. The locationof Martins Creek, PA, is shown in Figure 1. As the figureshows, Martins Creek is proximate to a large ridge (ScottsMountain) to the east and southeast. This ridge has a notableeffect on the observed winds at Martins Creek, particularly at the lowest profile levels. Prognostic data developed for theMartins Creek site should be able to reproduce the effects of the terrain on the winds at various profile heights.

In order to effectively capture the influences of terrain, theprognostic data must be configured at a resolution that canproperly resolve the land use and terrain features of concern.The resolution at which a prognostic meteorological model isexecuted is dependent on the model application. In the caseof the intent of the Appendix W proposal, the applicationshould be focused on resolving site-specific meteorologicalconditions, particularly wind speeds and directions.

Figure 2. Martins Creek land use comparisons by WRF grid size.



For the evaluation of prognostic meteorological model per-formance at Martins Creek, 30-m (1 arc second) horizontalresolution data for both terrain and land use were utilized for high resolution WRF analyses. These inputs to the WRFmodel were obtained from global publicly available resourcesincluding ASTER Global DEM (USGS) and Multi-ResolutionLand Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) at 30-m resolution.Figure 2 presents land use as seen by WRF at the 4 km, 1.33km, and 444 m grid resolution. This series of plots illustratethe beneficial effect, in terms of greater accuracy of land usecharacterization, of reducing the grid size used in WRF. Inparticular, the 444-m grid resolution appears to improve thischaracterization significantly.

Terrain in the vicinity of Martins Creek reaches elevationsover 350 m to the southeast of the measurement location, onScotts Mountain. Figure 3 presents a visualization of terrainelevations, created from 30-m National Elevation Dataset(NED) data files. The minimum contour in this figure was setat 150 m, approximately 75 m above the base of the meas-urement station. In terms of potential terrain effects on thewind field, the measurement station is in a broad valleywhere it is expected that the winds would be channeled in a southwest to northeast direction.

As noted previously, it is important that WRF “see” the terrainfeatures relevant to the location of interest. Figure 4 presentsa comparison of terrain characterizations for different WRFgrid sizes. This figure demonstrates that at lower resolutiongrid sizes, terrain features can be incorrectly characterized; at the 4-km grid size, Scotts Mountain is greatly diminished.The land use and terrain figures demonstrate that grid

resolution is an important consideration in ensuring accuratecharacterization of the geophysical features used by WRF.

Evaluation of WRF PerformanceOnce the resolution of the prognostic meteorological modelis configured to capture the land use and terrain of the appli-cation site, the resulting meteorological variables producedby the prognostic model can be compared to actual observed meteorological data. Table 1 presents a summaryof the statistical evaluation of WRF at a 444-m grid resolution,at the 10-m profile level. This statistical evaluation was per-formed using WRF-predicted meteorological variables at theMartins Creek monitoring site location, compared to observa-tions at the monitoring site.

As shown in Table 1, WRF performed quite well for bothwind direction and temperature in simulating the observeddata. The bias for wind direction ranged from 1 to -14 degrees(average -5.64 degrees) while the bias for temperatureranged from -0.6 to 1.4 K (average 0.2 K). The bias for windspeed ranged from 0.73 to 1.36 m/s (average 0.97 m/s),while the root-mean-square error (RMSE) for wind speed,which is within the benchmark prescribed, ranged from 1.36 to 1.77 m/s (average 1.56 m/s).

Figure 3. Terrain in the vicinity of Martins Creek.

Figure 4. Martins Creek terrain comparisons by WRF grid size.



Though the WRF simulation met all the benchmarks exceptthe wind speed bias, it should be recognized that the expec-tations for prognostic model performance in complex terrainmight not be as high as flat terrain applications. It should be also noted that the North American Regional Reanalysis(NARR) datasets used in the WRF simulation for the period1992 and 1993 were compiled with relatively less densedata points than the recent dataset available from UniversityCorporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). Even withthese limitations, the comparisons illustrate a good correlationbetween predicted and observed patterns.

The WRF simulations of hourly wind speed and temperaturefor a brief period in May 1992, compared to measured data,are also illustrated in the time series shown in Figure 5. Theillustrations presented in Figure 5 provide valuable objectiveinformation about the performance of WRF compared tomeasurements at a single location.

A valuable supplement to the statistical evaluation, and a critical element of an overall evaluation especially for locationswhere measured data of suitable quality are not available,consists of visualizations of the vertical structure and spatial

Figure 5: Time series: Wind speed and temperature. Figure 6: Wind rose comparisons at Martins Creek.

Benchmark

Avgerage

Minimum

Maximum

May-92

Jun-92

Jul-92

Aug-92

Sep-92

Oct-92

Nov-92

Dec-92

Jan-93

Feb-93

Mar-93

Apr-93

Wind Direction

Bias (deg)

<±10

-5.64

-14.16

1.44

-2.77

-0.75

1.44

-3.09

-4.31

-1.52

-11.05

-14.16

-13.63

-4.83

0.95

-14.01

Temperature

Bias (K)

<±2

0.20

-0.62

1.42

0.07

-0.62

0.92

1.42

0.62

0.43

0.09

-0.15

-0.18

0.00

-0.23

0.00

Bias (m/s)

<±0.5

0.97

0.73

1.36

0.73

0.88

1.18

0.93

1.36

1.34

0.90

0.93

0.79

0.98

0.87

0.81

RMSE (m/s)

<±2

1.56

1.36

1.77

1.40

1.36

1.64

1.49

1.77

1.69

1.56

1.40

1.45

1.59

1.61

1.73

Table 1. Statistical results of the WRF evaluation at Martins Creek, PA.

Wind Speed



patterns of the predicted wind direction and wind speed profiles. Figure 6 presents wind roses developed from the full year of meteorological data, first based on observations atthe 10-m tower and at selected SODAR levels (top row) andsecond based on WRF predictions at the closest grid cell tothe measurement location (bottom row). The WRF windroses shown in this figure represent the 444-m grid spacing.WRF-predicted wind speeds are generally higher than themeasured values, and somewhat more terrain influence appears in the 300-m winds (i.e., winds from the northeast).Nonetheless, this figure shows that the vertical patterns meas-ured at Martins Creek, which reflect diminishing influence ofterrain with height, are well-represented by the WRF-predicted wind profiles.

ConclusionsThe evaluations presented here demonstrate that WRF is capable of developing wind fields that compare well with site-specific measurements, and that the response to terrain(evaluated qualitatively) adds to the confidence that WRF-derived wind profiles are useable for near-field modeling incomplex terrain. These conclusions support the use of WRFas proposed by EPA in the revisions to the Guideline. In addition, prognostic data in general, when configured to resolve local terrain and land use, is an acceptable alternativeto measured meteorological data and can potentially offersignificant flexibility in facility siting at the early stages of capital project development. em

Thomas S. Wickstrom is a senior scientist, Karthikeyan (Surya) Ramaswamy is a senior engineer, and Mark E. Garrison is atechnical fellow, all with ERM, Malvern, PA. E-mail: [email protected].

In Next Month’s Issue…

Mobile Sensor Technology An update on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)work to evaluate sensor performance, as well as a discussion of theapproaches various agencies or interested parties are taking to meetthe challenges of interpreting the real-time data provided by sen-sors in the context of air quality standards with much longer aver-aging times.

Also look for…EtceteraEPA Research Highlights

This article describes the advent of a model specifically to address buoyant

rooftop emissions.

BUOYLINEApproach to Modeling

Buoyant Fugitive Sources

BUOYLINE Approach to Modeling by George J. Schewe




Characterization of sources of airborne emissions is generallystraightforward for sources such as stacks and vents, storagepiles, continuous versus intermittent releases, high flow versuslow flow through a stack, and at the location for which theemissions emanate. Even vertical, horizontal, and other anglesof release can be accommodated by adjusting the volume flow.However, the release of fugitive rooftop emissions has beensomething of an enigma in terms of their characterization formodeling. Whether these emissions are released from anopen top roof monitor, a slatted configuration, an open side-walled cupola, or just a long hole in the roof, selecting an appropriate modeling approach has been more of an artthan a science. Previously, modelers have set up rows ofpseudo-point sources, elongated and elevated area sources,volumes sources at rooftop, volume sources with rooftopemissions but at the size of the whole supporting structure,and combinations thereof. With all of these configurations,model accuracy and representativeness have sometimes beensold short as there has been very little has been reported in the literature as to model evaluations of any of these characterizations or the tools to support them.

Beyond this brisk walk through yesterday’s tools and approachesfor rooftop emissions, one more consideration must be noted.That is, all rooftop emission sources are not the same. So evenif the modeling community including consultants, educationalresearchers, and government scientists at the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had been clever enoughto devise a recommended approach, one approach wouldhave been insufficient to characterize the variety of rooftopemission sources. These differences include the rooftop configuration, forced flow versus natural flow, gases and particulate differences, and of course, a key component—whether the emissions and combined airflow is warmer thanthe ambient air. The reason temperature differential is impor-tant is that combined rooftop fugitive emissions and gaseswarmer than ambient air will tend to rise in the atmosphere,a phenomenon known as plume rise.

Plume rise, of course, is not a new phenomenon being reported in this article. When a gas is heated and releasedinto a lower atmospheric temperature, the gas is said to lift or have buoyancy because the gas is less dense than the ambient air. Plume rise is common at sources where buoyantgases being released carry the plume aloft at heights higherthan the point of release (i.e., the stack top). At some pointdownwind, the plume becomes neutrally buoyant (i.e., itstops rising) because ambient air has been mixed (entrained)into the plume. The reason this is important even for openrooftop vents and roof monitors is that the dispersion modelsare sensitive to these “final” plume heights when calculatingdownwind ambient air concentrations. If the rooftop emissionsbeing modeled are hot or even warm with respect to the ambient atmospheric conditions and if the model being useddoes little to consider this plume rise, the concentration estimates

Figure 1. Typical aluminum smelter rooftop configuration. A typical arrangement of ridge vents at an aluminum smelterwith an elongated rooftop vent. The buoyancy is related to the elongated internal arrangement of potrooms and otheroperations. These are both emission and heat emitting.

Source: http://www.mining.com/aluminum-giant-alcoa-to-close-its-three-smelters-in-canada-81140.



that are calculated may err on the high side and place suchoccurrences closer to the facility sources than they really are.

Although the atmospheric science described above has beenwell-documented for more than 30 years (and stack plumerise accounted for), the phenomenon with respect to rooftopfugitive emissions have not been accounted for in either ofthe primary regulatory models, including the IndustrialSource Complex Model (ISCST, ISCST2, and ISCST3) and

AERMOD. Recently, EPA has acknowledged that such an approach is worthy of inclusion in AERMOD.1

The Advent of a Model to Address Buoyant Rooftop EmissionsIn July 1980, two young modelers, Joseph Scire and LloydSchulman (now household names in the modeling community)introduced a dispersion model that could “simulate the trans-port and diffusion of emissions from aluminum reduction plants.

Figure 2. Typical arrangement of aluminum furnaces. An internal building configuration at an aluminum smelter.

Source: http://www.tigeroptics.com/TA/photo/view.php?gal=users;site,cms,files&s=orig&f=ENV%235_HF_Aluminum_ smelter_emissions.pdf.



Aluminum reduction plants are a complex arrangement ofemission sources, composed of parallel, low-level, buoyantline sources called potrooms interspersed, typically, by shortpoint sources.” “Some of the buoyant emissions from the reduction process escape through a continuous ridge ventila-tor, which is a few meters wide running the length of the potroom.” The name of this model was the Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) Dispersion Model.2 Figures 1 and 2show typical external and internal potroom arrangements.

As recognized in Scire and Schulman’s 1980 paper,3 the consideration of plume rise from buoyant sources is critical in calculating accurate ground-level concentrations of thesources’ emissions (see Figure 3). This was recognized veryearly in EPA’s treatment of point sources (stacks and vents) inadopting the theory and equations of Gary Briggs for plumerise.4 While scientists have recognized that plumes with release temperatures above ambient temperatures for linesources are buoyant for many years, not until the introductionof the BLP Model were modelers able to account for it.

Previous to the development of BLP, early attempts to modelthe buoyant ridge emissions as a line of point sources waspromising in that it allowed the consideration of plume rise.However, when using a line of point sources, the entrainment

of air as the plume was carried downwind differed from theactual entrainment from a long vent of adjacent plumes.Point sources assumed nearby horizontally entrained air wasambient, thereby cooling each plume, becoming neutrallybuoyant and resulting in higher calculated impacts close tothe source. In reality, the nearby air was is from other plumeelements at higher temperatures and thus, the plume remains buoyant farther downwind.

EPA has the responsibility to recommend specific models andmodeling procedures for regulatory air quality complianceanalysis of new and modified sources of emissions. The BLPModel has been recommended for several decades as theappropriate model to use for buoyant line sources, most recently in the “Guideline on Air Quality Models,” Section4.2.2.c, Refined Analytical Techniques, which states “If buoyant plume rise from line sources is important for themodeling analysis, the recommended model is BLP.”

One conundrum facing modelers that needed to use theBLP Model came after the 2005 adoption of the AERMODModel as the regulatory model for nearfield modeling. AERMOD did not consider buoyant line sources. BLP did not consider fugitive emissions. BLP was limited to a smallnumber of receptors (some users expanded this number by changing the code but it can be difficult to obtain EPA approval for these type of changes). And most importantly,BLP used the PCRAMMET meteorological data processorwhich generated specific stability classes (six classes fromvery unstable, A, to stable, F) while AERMOD uses AERMET,which calculates a continuum of atmospheric turbulence overmany conditions in estimating atmospheric parameters in theplanetary boundary layer. Because of the need to considerdifferent source types in the most representative manner, userstypically concatenated the results of the two models, certainlya tedious process with cumulative results that were somewhatdifficult to interpret when attempting to identify critical receptors,events, and influencing meteorological conditions.

BLP: Now a Part of AERMOD…AlmostToday, dispersion modeling continues to play a central role inthe regulation of sources and emissions in the U.S. air qualitymanagement program. Since 2005, the science of dispersionand transport in the planetary boundary layer has matured,leading to the need for an update to the Guideline. In responseto the many outstanding issues, EPA responded with proposedrevisions including the addition of the BLP Model to AERMOD.

On July 14, 2015, EPA published the proposed “Revision tothe Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to theAERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation ofApproaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter;

Figure 3. Buoyant plume rise above physicalstack height.



Proposed Rule,” which was subsequently published in theFederal Register on July 29, 2015.5 The proposed revisionsindicate that the BLP Model has been incorporated into AERMOD and that BLP is no longer a preferred stand-alonemodel. In AERMOD, the BLP Model is an option calledBUOYLINE, which is selected as a source type for individualsource locations that are characterized by a composite buoy-ant line source with averaged parameters. EPA proposes theuse of BLP as a default option in the model when needednot requiring further justification.

The proposed changes to the Guideline also reference adocket item regarding EPA’s development and evaluation of the performance of the AERMOD-BLP option.6 In thisevaluation, a buoyant line source was modeled in BLP and in AERMOD/BLP. For the one- and four-day data sets of meteorology used in the testing, the models compared wellbut, upon using a full year of meteorology, the receptorsclosest to the buoyant line sources had much higher concen-trations in AERMOD/BLP than BLP alone. Upon further review, some of the receptors were determined to be locateddirectly on the line sources but others in the same situationhad lower concentrations. The model testers and evaluatorshad not pursued this evaluation any further and concludedthat these issues required further exploration. Nonetheless,

BLP is recommended to be made a sub-model of AERMODunder the July 2015 proposed guidelines.

ConclusionChallenges surrounding the application of dispersion modelsfor buoyant line sources have been around as long as disper-sion modeling has been used for regulatory purposes—morethan 40 years. The use of the BLP Model while perhaps elegant in its treatment of nearby buoyant ridge vents hasbeen limited based on array size, source types considered,and limitation of using older formatted meteorological datasets. Meanwhile, permitting for new and modified sourcesgoes on, air dispersion modeling is still required, and sourcesmust still show compliance with ambient air quality standards.Recognizing this need, EPA has implemented BLP directlywithin the framework of AERMOD. Although this seems tobe welcome progress, initial testing based on tweaking ofmodel switches and initial conditions did not prove satisfyingin terms of combined AERMOD/BLP model performance.The redemption of this performance was hopefully fulfilledsince the proposed guidelines were released in July 2015and now as of the printing of this article, we stand ready touse the final, improved version as will be promoted by thefully promulgated 2016 version of the Guideline on AirQuality Models. em

Challenges surrounding the application of dispersion

models for buoyant line sources have been around

as long as dispersion modeling has been used for

regulatory purposes—more than 40 years.

George J. Schewe, CCM, QEP, is with Trinity Consultants, Covington, Kentucky. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. 40 CFR Part 51, Federal Register Vol. 80 No. 145, pp 45340-45387, Section IV.A.2.5, July 29, 2015.2. Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) Dispersion Model User’s Guide; Document P-7304B; Environmental Research & Technology, Inc., Concord, MA, July 1980.3. Scire, J.S.; Schulman, L.L. Modeling Plume Rise from Low-Level Buoyant Line and Point Sources.

Presented at the Second Joint Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology and Second Conference on Industrial Meteorology, New Orleans, LA, March 24-28, 1980.

4. Briggs, G.A. Plume Rise; Air Resources Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1969.5. 40 CFR Part 51, Federal Register Vol. 80 No. 145, pp 45340-45387, July 29, 2015; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/11thmodconf/EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0310-0001.pdf.6. AERMOD/BLP Development and Testing; EPA-454/P-15-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park,

NC, July 2015.

The authors advocate for the use of physical modeling practices to help refine

and improve downwash inputs to the AERMOD modeling tool.

Using Physical Modeling to Refine Downwash Inputs to AERMOD

Using Physical Modeling to Refine Downwash Inputs to AERMOD by Sergio Guerra and Ron Petersen




Achieving compliance in dispersion modeling can be quitechallenging because of the tight National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS). In addition, the tool used to evaluateambient impacts—AERMOD—has limitations that, in manycases, produce higher than normal concentrations due to theinherent assumptions and simplifications in its formulation. In the case of downwash, the theory used to estimate theseeffects was developed for a limited set of building types.However, these formulations are commonly used indiscrimi-nately for all types of buildings. Furthermore, the downwashtheory used in AERMOD is more than 15 years old and hasyet to be updated based on our current scientific understand-ing of these effects.

Downwash EffectsBuilding downwash is the effect that is produced by airflowover and around structures. This effect forms localized cavityzones that can readily force pollutants down to ground leveland result in an increase in concentrations. In dispersionmodeling these effects are accounted for by mathematical algorithms developed from field and laboratory observations.These algorithms are based on a set of assumptions and generalizations that summarize the complexity of the physicalphenomena. In the case of building downwash in AERMODand other dispersion models (e.g., ISC, CALPUFF, SCICHEM),wind tunnel testing was used to develop a set of streamlinesfrom a limited set of building types. This information was parametrized into the Plume Rise Model Enhancements(PRIME) algorithms that calculate downwash effects in AERMOD.

The input to PRIME comes from the Building Profile InputProgram (BPIP), which is a preprocessor that uses the building

inputs from a facility and summarizes them into a single rectangular building for each of the 36 wind directions. Thisrectangular building is fed into PRIME to develop the down-wash characteristics for a specific project. BPIP and PRIMEassume that the structures are angular (i.e., have sharpedges) and solid. However, if the actual structure is not solidor has no sharp corners, the theory in the model is inaccurate.That is the case for porous and streamlined structures such as tanks and hyperbolic cooling towers.

Theory Limitations in BPIP/PRIMEThere are three main issues that can produce unreasonablyhigh concentrations due to downwash in AERMOD. The firstone relates to wind coming at an angle for long and narrowstructures. In this case, BPIP will create an artificially largebuilding, as shown in Figure 1. This large building will signifi-cantly increase the wake height used to calculate downwash.As shown in Figure 2, the starting point for the wake growthmoves farther upwind (location A vs. location B in Figure 2),which means that the height of the wake is much taller at thelee edge of the building than it should be if the wake growthstarted at location B. In addition, building wake turbulenceenhancement should in reality start at location C while PRIMEassumes it starts at location D. This results in an overstatedwake height at location D and an overstated amount of turbulence enhancement. Both of these problems will likelylead to higher ground-level concentrations than in reality.

The second issue with the current formulation in PRIME isthat it assigns turbulence enhancement effects up to theheight of the wake boundary, which is significantly larger forlong and narrow buildings when wind comes at an angle, asshown in Figure 2. In modeling evaluations, this condition

Figure 1. Artificial building (light blue) created byBPIP for a long/narrow structure when wind blowsat an angle.

Figure 2. Wake characteristics for a long/narrowbuilding with wind blowing at an angle based onBPIP assumptions.



requires a much higher stack to clear that turbulent zone thatwill force the plume down to the ground faster than in reality.Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, such as theone in Figure 3, confirm the results obtained from wind tunneltesting where downwash effects extend barely above theheight of the building.

The third issue relates to streamlined and porous structureswhich the model treats as solid rectangles. In reality, thedownwash characteristics of these structures are significantlydifferent than those for the BPIP-assumed rectangular building.For example, a building about half the height of the originalstructure can usually cause the same downwash effects as theporous building shown in Figure 4. These and other issueshave been documented by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and others.1 This is relevant because researchperformed by Petersen2 and Petersen and Beyer-Lout3 hasshown that AERMOD concentrations can be two to eight timeshigher than reality, based upon the building configuration(e.g., when the building width and/or length are greater than about 3.5 times the height).

How to Diagnose Building Inputs to AERMOD?Among the different inputs to the model, the one that is mostcommonly ignored relates to building downwash. However,as described above, downwash effects can cause significantoverprediction of concentrations in AERMOD. To diagnosewhether downwash may be overestimating concentrations, asimple evaluation may be performed for all stacks and winddirections. The output from BPIP includes the dimensionsand location of the single rectangular building that describesthe downwash characteristics for each wind direction. Thisoutput can be further analyzed by calculating the ratios ofBPIP-derived building width and/or length to building height.When these ratios are above 3.5, overestimations of down-wash effects are commonly observed. These calculations canbe done in a spreadsheet, however, there is also a free webtool (http://www.cppwind.com/what-we-do/air-permitting/bpip-diagnostic-tool#/) available to diagnose the magnitudeof these overpredictions due to downwash. This tool generatesa report indicating areas that may not accurately representdownwash effects.

Use of Wind Tunnel Testing to Correct Building DimensionsWind tunnel modeling remains the best available scientifictool for studying fluid dynamics in complex environments, including wind flow patterns around buildings and structures.

Figure 3. CFD Simulation showing mean velocities for a1:1:2 (H:W:L) building.

Watch the video at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75gxNA7onQ

Figure 4. Downwash effects for a porous structure based on traditional and EBD methods.



Wind tunnel testing4 was used in the development of thePRIME algorithms we now use to assign downwash effects in AERMOD. This same method can also be used to determinethe building dimensions that best characterize the buildingenvironment at a site. This process is more accurate because

it relies in the actual physical makeup of a site to determinedownwash characteristics. In contrast, BPIP relies on a set ofnumerical assumptions used to average tier heights andmerge buildings to determine a single rectangular buildingthat describes each wind direction at a site.

Equivalent building dimension (EBD) studies are currentlyperformed by first characterizing the dispersion profile char-acteristics at a site for each wind direction of concern. This isdone by releasing a tracer from a stack, as shown in Figure 5,and measuring the maximum ground-level (MGL) concentra-tions downwind from each stack with an automated traverse,as shown in Figure 6. Then, the site structure is replaced by a rectangular building and its MGL concentrations are compared to those from the original site case (Figure 7). This process is repeated with buildings of various dimensionsplaced at different locations until acceptable agreement withthe original site case is achieved.

The criteria for defining whether or not two concentrationprofiles are similar is to determine the smallest building which:(1) produces an overall maximum concentration exceeding90 percent of the overall maximum concentration observedwith all site structures in place; and (2) at all longitudinal distances, produces ground level concentrations that exceedthe ground-level concentration observed with all site structuresin place less 20 percent of the overall MGL concentrationwith all site structures in place. These criteria have been

Figure 5. Automatic traverse used to measure maximum ground-level concentration profiles at different distances from the stack.

Watch the video at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e26mUSWdtc&list=PLn0drSQFO5tbuweUvuLXfLTmiACogUS1a&index=4



accepted on past EPA approved EBD studies5-8 and is a suggested approach in the Tikvart memorandum.9 Oncethese criteria have been achieved, the building dimensionsfrom the wind tunnel analysis that best match with the originalsite are then used in AERMOD in place of the ones generatedby BPIP for the wind direction(s) of concern. In Figure 8, thebuilding that met the two criteria and best matched the original site case was a building of 29 m in height, 58 m in width, and 29 m in length placed upwind of the stack.

As noted in past model clearinghouse guidance9 on the useof EBDs in dispersion models, wind tunnel demonstrationshave been used to develop appropriate building dimensionsfor input to the dispersion model. These simulations are notintended to replace the ambient air quality modeling basedon AERMOD but rather to refine the inputs to the model.Therefore, these analyses have been classified as source characterization studies not subject to the requirementsunder Section 3.2 Alternative Models in the Guideline on Air Quality Models.10

Figure 6. Smoke visualization illustrating the downwashcharacteristics for a site with porous structures.

Watch the video at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYb8UPZZwLw&index=3&list=PLn0drSQFO5tbuweUvuLXfLTmiACogUS1a

Figure 7. Smoke visualization illustrating the downwashcharacteristics for a test rectangular building.

Watch the video at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYb8UPZZwLw&index=3&list=PLn0drSQFO5tbuweUvuLXfLTmiACogUS1a



SummaryAmbient air quality standards are difficult to meet with tradi-tional dispersion modeling techniques. Therefore, it is importantto diagnose all inputs to AERMOD to better determine whetheroverestimations are due to limitations in the model’s theory.When it comes to downwash effects, the BPIP output can beanalyzed to determine whether overestimations of downwashare likely. This information can be useful in determiningwhether refinements on these parameters may be helpful inmitigating overestimation of concentrations. In the case ofbuilding dimensions, the use of wind tunnel testing can be a great option to determine more accurate dimensions tomitigate over-predictions in downwash. This method hasbeen used for over two decades in regulatory modelingyielding significant savings in time and money. em

Figure 8. Sample wind tunnel results comparing thesite structure, EBD, and no building profiles.

Sergio Guerra and Ron Petersen are both with CPP Inc., Fort Collins, CO. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. Petersen, R. A&WMA AB-3 Comments on building and terrain downwash issues. Presented at the 9th Conference on Air Quality Modeling, 2008; Brode, R.

BPIP/PRIME workgroup. Presented at the 9th Conference on Air Quality Modeling, 2008; Petersen, R. A&WMA AB-3 Committee use of equivalent buildingdimensions (EBDs) in AERMOD. Presented at the 10th Conference on Air Quality Modeling, 2012; Brode, R. AERMIC update. Presented at the 10th Conferenceon Air Quality Modeling, 2012; Schulman, L.; Schire, J. Building downwash modeling with AERMOD. Presented at the 10th Conference on Air Quality Modeling,2012; Jones, A.; Dubs, K.; Schire. J. Challenges with modeling the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS Standard: An aluminum plant case study. Presented at the 10th Conferenceon Air Quality Modeling, 2012; and Petersen, R. Building downwash—Problems, solutions, and next generation. Presented at the 11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling, 2015.

2. Petersen, R. Building downwash—Problems, solutions, and next generation. Presented at the 11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling, 2015.3. Petersen, R.; Beyer-Lout, A. Is AERMOD/PRIME overpredicting for short buildings with a large footprint? Presented at the 102nd Annual Conference and Exhibition

of the Air & Waste Management Association, Detroit, MI, June 2009; Paper #517.4. Snyder, W.H. Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion; EPA600/8–81–009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Sciences Research

Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1981.5. Petersen, R.L.; Cochran, B.C. Equivalent Building Dimension Determination and Excessive Concentration Demonstration for Hoechst Celanese Corporation

Celco Plant at Narrows, Virginia; CPP Report No. 93–1026; CPP Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995.6. Petersen, R. L.; Cochran, B.C. Equivalent Building Dimension Determinations for District Energy St. Paul, Inc. Hans O. Nyman Energy Center; CPP Report No.

93-0979; CPP Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995.7. McBee, K.L., Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, Letter to Richard D. Langford, Celco Plant, Narrows, VA, regarding acceptance

of EBD study, March 15, 1995.8. Thornton, J.D., Section Manager, Air Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Letter Approving EBD study for District Energy St. Paul, April 4, 1995. 9. Tikvart, J.A., Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Letter to Brenda Johnson, Regional Modeling Contact, Region

IV and Douglas Neeley, Chief Air Programs Branch, Region IV, July 25, 1994.10. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address

Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Fed Regist. 2015, 80 (145), 45340-45387.

2016 has been an exciting year for the environment, health, and safety

(EH&S) and sustainability software industry, with an unprecedented number

of mergers and acquisitions. With deals announced in the hundreds of millions

of dollars, the total could approach $1 billion. What does this restructuring

mean to the industry, their customers, and prospects?

Restructuringthe EH&S Software Industry

IT Insight by Jill Barson Gilbert, QEP




So far, 2016 is a year for the record books. Half-a-dozenmajor deals were announced in the first half of this year alone,restructuring the industry as we know it (see Figure 1).

The DealsWolters Kluwer, a Netherlands-based global information solutions company, acquired French-based Enablon in Julyfor €250 million ($268 million). Enablon remains an entitywithin the Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory division.1

Enviance, a California-based EH&S cloud software provider,acquired New Hampshire-based Actio Corporation in Junefor an undisclosed amount. The acquisition adds Cloud-basedmaterials and supply chain management solutions.2 This followsthe Enviance sale to Battery Ventures in May 2015.3

Genstar Capital acquired the IHS Operational Excellenceand Risk Management (OERM) business in June, following

the merger of IHS and Markit in March. While financial details were not disclosed, the deal could approach $300 million.Genstar recently rebranded the new company as Sphera.4,5

Intelex, a Canadian software company, acquired Ecocion Environmental Solutions and its Asset and ComplianceTracking System (ACTS) in late June. Financing that Intelexreceived from JMI Equity and HarbourVest in 2015 helpedto fund the acquisition.6

UL acquired cr360, a U.K.-based company, in February foran undisclosed amount. The acquisition adds sustainability,carbon reporting, and compliance capabilities to UL stable of software that includes PureSafety, OHM, and others. Thenew business is called UL EHS Sustainability.7

Bank of Montreal, Georgian Partners, and Norwest VenturePartners invested in Medgate in March in a deal worth

UL acquires cr360 in February.

CR360

Bank of Montreal, Norwest and Georgian acquire for $100-200 million in April.

MEDGATE

Genstar Capital acquires OERM business for $185- $300 million in June.

IHS

Acquires Ecocion ACTS in June.

INTELEX

Acquires Actio Corporation in June.

ENVIANCE

Wolters-Kluwer acquires for $268 million in July.

ENABLON

Figure 1. Six EH&S software deals in the first half of 2016 total $750 million to $1 billion.



CAD$100 to $200 million. Ten years ago, Medgate, the marketleader in health and safety solutions, sold in a managementbuyout for $7 million.8

The ImplicationsSustainability Gets a Good RepThese deals signal that the investment community believes inthe importance of environmental and corporate sustainabilityissues, and investors see significant growth opportunity.Green is good for business.

Analysts Are Paying AttentionForrester, Gartner, and Verdantix are the leading software analyst firms for the EH&S market. Today, the analysts paymore attention to this niche market than ever before. Thisniche market is worth billions of dollars and the transactionsare an order of magnitude greater than historical transac-tions. This year’s deals are in the $100s of millions, where not long ago, the largest transactions were $10 million to$25 million each.

More Access, More Options Even with consolidation, the market offers a variety of com-mercial EH&S applications, making software evaluation andselection difficult. Many EH&S software offerings appear tomeet the same set of needs, but they do not. Vendors needto clearly identify their target customers, differentiate their

offerings, and clarify their market messaging.

The good news is, a variety of offerings with different pricepoints and industry focus allow more organizations to use thesoftware. They can move from spreadsheets and home-grownor one-off solutions to commercial software platforms, thussharing the risk with software vendors.

The ability to choose from different installation options—cloud, software as a service (SaaS), and on-premises—also enables more organizations to use the software. Cloud andSaaS solutions break down the financial barriers to entry associated with traditional enterprise EH&S applications andalso allow sharing the risk with vendors. The ability to implementthe software as it comes configured “out of the box” helpsorganizations to quickly get up and running. These standardimplementations shrink the staffing, time, and cost versus traditional implementation methods.

Who Will Lead the Market by 2010?Market Leader TraitsMarket leadership is about more than the size of the deals. In the past, EH&S software market leaders often resulted fromvision and innovation, not from mergers, acquisitions, or newinvestors. I challenge the EH&S software market to produce a new breed of vendors that possess vision, adaptability, innovation, a customer-centric viewpoint, knowledge base,

Figure 2. Market leaders must have these six traits.

• Vision• Adaptability• Innovation• Customer-centric• Knowledge base• Intellectual capital

Building New Market Leaders



and intellectual capital (see Figure 2).

EH&S software analysts often speak about the vendor’s vision,and the ability to execute. Forming and executing this visionrequire the right people, processes and technology. It requiresquestioning the status quo:

• Vendors that can quickly integrate and absorb the organi-zational change that comes with mergers and acquisitionsand refinancing will be more successful than vendors thatignore cultural gaps and fail to take action;

• Vendors that look outward toward market and customerneeds—and innovate to meet these needs—will becomethe new leaders;

• Vendors must have a team with knowledge of EH&S andsustainability, IT, and business issues in the sectors theyserve. Vendors that lack knowledge in some of these disciplines, and cannot apply it in practical situations, willfall short; and

• Vendors will need high-quality intellectual capital. Hiringthe “best and brightest” is not enough—they must invest inimproving and developing employees’ skills to carry outthe organization’s vision and strategy.

2010 PredictionsBy 2020, I predict the top three EH&S software vendors willsurface from the following list:

1. Enablon, who started with sustainability, captured newglobal markets over the past 7-8 years, and built a robust,integrated EH&S platform. As a separate organizationwithin Wolters Kluwer, Enablon can grow even more.Today’s market leader, Enablon focuses on information

technology innovation, agility and a great user experience.

2. Medgate, who changed from a small H&S software vendorto an (e)H&S powerhouse through organic growth overthe last ten years. While a number of their capabilitiesoverlap with broader EH&S software platforms, Medgatemay be in the top three by 2020.9

3. Intelex, a mid-market, integrated EH&S provider thathas gained market share over the past 3-5 years, who,with its cash infusion and vision, could continue agrowth spurt and become a market leader.

4. Enviance, who has offered a robust platform with an environmental focus, has augmented its capabilities inhealth and safety and sustainability. The company’s newmanagement and the Actio acquisition will provide further opportunities to gain market share.

5. SAP, with the ubiquity and global reach of its enterprisedatabase software, has offered EH&S solutions for decades.The company recently placed emphasis on improving its EH&S offerings to allow them to penetrate more customer accounts.

ConclusionsThese are exciting times for the EH&S and sustainability software market, with mergers and acquisitions and marketconsolidation. Current and potential software customers havemore options than ever, and must know what differentiatesone vendor and software platform from another. The EH&Ssoftware industry restructuring affords the opportunity fornew leaders to emerge—if vendors have vision and the abilityto execute. This can be a win-win scenario for vendors andtheir customers. em

Jill Barson Gilbert, QEP is a thought leader on environment, health, and safety (EH&S) and sustainability software. Her perspectivereflects more than 30 years of EH&S, information management, and business experience. As President, CEO, and founder of LexiconSystems, LLC, she advises senior management in industrial and software companies, venture capital, and consulting firms. She is aBoard Member of the IPEP Foundation and past Vice President and Director of A&WMA. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. See http://wolterskluwer.com/company/newsroom/news/2016/05/wolters-kluwer-makes-binding-offer-to-purchase-enablon-to-further-strengthen-its-portfolio-

of-legal-and-compliance-software-solutions.html.2. See https://www.enviance.com/press-room/enviance-grows-market-leadership-adds-capabilities-through-actio-acquisition.3. See https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/42125/Refresh/ebj-article-2015.pdf?t=1469563508214.4. See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genstar-capital-announces-acquisition-of-ihs-operational-excellence—risk-management-business-300277863.html.5. See http://www.verdantix.com/blog/genstar-capital-acquires-the-operational-excellence-and-risk-management-software-content-and-services-assets-from-ihs.6. See http://www.intelex.com/about/press-room/intelex-acquires-ecocion-environmental-solutions.7. See https://cr360.com/en-gb/news/ul-acquires-cr360.8. See http://www.medgate.com/news/bmo-georgian-partners-100-million-plus-deal-help-medgate-consolidate-market.9. See http://www.verdantix.com/blog/medgate-strengthens-its-push-for-a-top-three-market-position-with-strategic-investment-from-norwest-venture-partners-

georgian-partners-and-bmo-financial-group.

In Memoriam


A&WMA members lost a good friend and colleague July 4 whenRoger Westman succumbed to respiratory failure. Manager of theAllegheny County, Pennsylvania Air Quality Program from 1994 to2008, Roger became a Fellow member of A&WMA in 1998, and in2004 he received the S. Smith Griswold Award, A&WMA’s highesthonor for government agency employees.

Born in Connecticut, he earned a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering at Northeastern University. As a co-op student at MobilOil Corporation, he developed a deep respect for the natural worldand determined to pursue a career in environmental protection.

The federal government then sponsored graduate-level university air pollution control courses to develop leaders to address growingenvironmental concerns. The University of Kentucky offered the onlyprogram in chemical engineering, so it was there Roger obtained his Ph.D., specializing in air and water pollution control.

The Allegheny County program in Pittsburgh offered him an excitingair pollution challenge, a long history of regulatory accomplishments,and the cultural diversity of a large city. Unlike today, at the time Rogerbecame Allegheny County’s episode officer in 1974 frequent air pollution episodes required the county to develop and enforce plansto curtail operation of pollution sources.

Beginning in 1977, he led Allegheny County’s efforts to meet newU.S. Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment areas. Sevencounties in the Pittsburgh area exceeded the 1-hr ozone standard,and parts of Allegheny County were nonattainment for carbonmonoxide and total suspended particulate matter.

Promoted to manage the Air Quality Program in 1994, Roger ledthe 1994–1995 revision of county air pollution regulations to meetTitles III, IV, and V of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

The county encompasses a complex-terrain river valley housing NorthAmerica’s largest coke plant and other major sources. Roger’s teamdeveloped a 1995 PM-10 attainment plan for the area. He managedthis project, like others, in a close, cooperative, and effective relationshipwith industry, consultants, environmental groups, and local citizens,through numerous active advisory committees. The PM-10 project wonAllegheny County an award from the National Association of Counties.

Challenges remained, particularly as national standards tightened forozone and fine particles. Roger and his team negotiated agreementsfor additional pollution controls. As Roger retired in 2008, air qualityhad improved significantly, and the county continued to oversee U.S.Steel’s 2007 agreement to repair and reduce emissions from cokeoven batteries and other reductions needed to meet standards forfine particles.

Throughout his career, Roger led national, regional, and local efforts.His office was full of awards and recognitions for his hard work andleadership. For example, he spearheaded efforts in the late 1990s todevelop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Emissions Inven-tory Program (EIIP) and served on EIIP’s Steering Committee, over-seeing a nationwide multi-million-dollar program to produce quality,cost-effective, and reliable emission inventories. He served on thePennsylvania Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee and theSouthwestern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Group. In 2001, he was awarded the Catalyst Award for Excellence from theCarnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh.

Roger represented Allegheny County at the Association of Local AirPollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) and its successor National Asso-ciation of Clean Air Agencies. He held offices as Director and Treasurerof ALAPCO. He served terms as Treasurer and Chair of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, an organization often state and local air agencies in the eastern United States.

Roger was an A&WMA member from 1974 to 2008, served as Director, Secretary, Vice-Chair and Chair of the Western Pennsylvania(now Allegheny Mountains) Section of A&WMA, as well as manyyears as Teller Chair of the international Association. In 1990, he was General Conference Chair of A&WMA’s Annual Conference in Pittsburgh.

Beyond the workday and in retirement, Roger continued to be aman of dedication and action. Roger and his husband were devotedmembers of Calvary Episcopal Church. His love of architecture ledhim to work on the book, Guide to the Art and Architecture of CalvaryEpiscopal Church. Volunteering with In Service to Seniors, he helpedserve elders in need of a helping hand and friend. Roger was aboard member of the Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition, the RenaissanceCity Choirs, and Green Burial Pittsburgh, and was President of theAllegheny County Retirees Association. He was a longtime memberof the Sierra Club and the Appalachian Mountain Club. (In hisyounger years, Roger enjoyed hiking and camping, rock climbing,and ice dancing.) At home, Roger had rooftop solar panels installed,collected rainwater for his rain garden, and was an ardent recycler.Roger’s life of caring for nature continued in death with a natural,green burial at Penn Forest Natural Burial Park in Verona, PA.

Roger is survived by his husband William Stevens, his sister ShirleyKing, two nieces, a nephew, and grandnieces and grandnephews. em

— Respectfully submitted by Jayme Graham, Air Quality ProgramManager, Allegheny County Health Department, and Susan S.G.Wierman, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Regional Air ManagementAssociation

Roger C.Westman (1945–2016)

Canadian Report


A joint declaration among Ontario, Quebec, and Mexico atthe Climate Summit of the Americas in Guadalajara, Mexicocould help pave the way for Mexico to join the cap-and-trademarket for greenhouse gases that currently consists of Quebecand California and, imminently, Ontario. The 2016 ClimateSummit of the Americas is a meeting of sub-national govern-ments from North and South America. Ontario played hostto the first meeting in 2015.

The joint declaration, released August 31, 2016, is light onspecifics, committing the three parties merely to sharing information on best practices and to promoting the expansionof the carbon market in North America.

Keith Brooks, Programs Director, Environmental Defense, toldEcoLog News that there may be more to the joint declarationthan high-sounding rhetoric, given Mexico’s stated plans.

Mexico has a pilot project scheduled for later in 2016 and

this joint declaration may help the country decide how bestto shape its market, says Brooks.

As a general rule, the bigger the market, the better the market,says Brooks. A bigger market means broader coverage by acarbon price and allows market participants to find emissionreductions at the lowest cost. This is all predicated on the development of strong verification standards, strict rules forthe allocation of allowances and sound offset protocols, saysBrooks—all issues that will be on the table under this jointdeclaration.

According to Brooks, Mexico is eyeing 2018 as its entry dateinto the cap-and-trade program.

To read the joint declaration, go to https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2016/08/joint-declaration-between-the-ministry-of-environment-and-natural-resources-of-the-united-mexican-st.html. —by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

Mexico to Study Cap and Trade with Quebec, Ontario

As part of its review of the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) substance list, Environment and ClimateChange Canada (ECCC) is proposing changes to the report-ing requirements for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

ECCC is proposing to change the current incidental manu-facture and release/transfer mass threshold for Part 2 PAHs to

a release/transfer mass threshold. ECCC says all sources ofPAH releases and transfers will have to be reported.

ECCC is also proposing to remove the 5 kilogram thresholdfor reporting of individual PAHs in Part 2. Once the 50 kilogramthreshold (which would remain unchanged) is met, all knownquantities of individual PAHs listed would be required to be reported.

Feds Propose Changes to Reporting Requirements for PAHs

Expectations of a bold climate change plan that were raisedfollowing the release of British Columbia’s Climate LeadershipTeam: Recommendations to Government in November 2015were dashed with the publication of the province’s new ClimateLeadership Plan on August 19, 2016 (see https://climate.gov.bc.ca/pcontent/uploads/sites/13/2016/06/4030_CLP_Booklet_web.pdf).

The Climate Leadership Team was given a tough assignment:recommend updates to British Columbia’s climate plan thatwould meet the target of 80 percent greenhouse gas reductionbelow 2007 levels by 2050, while supporting economic growthand the development of an LNG (liquefied natural gas) industryin the province. The 32 recommendations in the 2015 ClimateLeadership Team: Recommendations to Government (see

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/ files/2015/11/CLTrecommendations-to-government_Final.pdf) ranged fromthe pedestrian (e.g., support for public transit) to the bold(e.g., an annual $10 per ton increase in the carbon tax).

The bold recommendations captured the public’s attentionand galvanized debate, but the new Climate Leadership Planshelves the bold and addresses some of the more pedestrian,earning it very little praise from any quarter.

Critics of the new plan, and there are many, focus on two ofthe key recommendations of the Climate Leadership Team:the regular increase in the carbon tax and a legislated interimtarget for 2030 of 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction below2007 levels. Neither recommendation warrants even a cursorymention in the new plan.

Manitoba Sustainable Development Minister Cathy Coxhas asked Manitobans to give their input on a number ofnew five-year stewardship plans proposed by the province’sproducer responsibility organizations.

Industry-led programs handle the collection, recycling, anddisposal of materials designated by regulation. Manitoba currently has 12 such industry-led stewardship programs thatdivert about 120,000 tons of designated materials from landfills,and generate about CAD$42 million in revenue annually,said Cox.

New five-year stewardship plans for 2017–2021 have beenproposed for eight of these programs, including the Packagingand Printed Paper Program, run by Multi-Material StewardshipManitoba Inc.; the Household Hazardous Waste StewardshipProgram, run by the Product Care Association of Canada;End-of-Life Electronics Stewardship Program, run by the Electronic Products Recycling Association; and the Tire Stewardship Program, run by Tire Stewardship Manitoba.

Canadian Report


Canadian Report is compiled with excerpts from EcoLog News and the EcoCompliance.ca newsletter, both published by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a division of STP Publications LP. For more Canadian environmental information, visit www.ecolog.com.

BC Disappoints with Updated Climate PlanBC Disappoints with Updated Climate Plan

Manitoba Seeks Public Input on New Five-Year Stewardship Plans


2016 Calendar of Events

Events sponsored and cosponsored by the Air & Waste Management Association(A&WMA) are highlighted in bold. For more information, call A&WMA Member Services at 1-800-270-3444 or visit the A&WMA Events Website.To add your events to this calendar, send to: Calendar Listings, Air & WasteManagement Association, One Gateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort DuquesneBlvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. Calendar listings are published on a space-available basis and should be received by A&WMA’s editorial offices at leastthree months in advance of publication.

OCTOBER4–6 35th Annual International Conference on ThermalTreatment Technologies & Hazardous Waste Combustors(IT3/HWC)Baton Rouge, LA

5–7 A&WMA Pacific Northwest Section 56th International ConferenceJuneau, AK

19 A&WMA West Coast Section Annual MeetingDiamond Bar, CA

25–26 A&WMA Ontario Section Air and Acoustic Monitoring ConferenceWaterloo, Ontario

26–27 A&WMA Louisiana Section Environmental Focus2016: A Multi-Media ForumBaton Rouge, LA

26–27 A&WMA Florida Section 52nd Annual ConferenceTampa, FL

NOVEMBER2–4 New York State Recycling ConferenceCooperstown, NY

DECEMBER6–7 41st Annual A&WMA Information ExchangeDurham, NC

7–8 Vapor Intrusion, Remediation, and Site ClosureSan Diego, CA

JOURNALListed here are the papers appearing in the October 2016issue of EM’s sister publication, the Journal of the Air &Waste Management Association (JA&WMA).Visit our website for more information.

October 2016 • Volume 66 • Number 10

Technical PapersInvestigation of the effects of using single-wall carbon nan-otubes (SWCNTs) in ozone measurement with passive samplers

A review of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) pollution inindoor air environment

South Philadelphia passive sampler and sensor study

The study on biomass fraction estimate methodology of municipal solid waste incinerator in Korea

The comparison of fossil carbon fraction and greenhouse gasemissions through an analysis of exhaust gases from urbansolid waste incineration facilities

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Development of operating mode distributions for differenttypes of roadways under different congestion levels for vehicleemission assessment using MOVES

Application of life-cycle assessment for hospital solid wastemanagement: A case study

Wetting properties and performance test of modified rigid collector in wet electrostatic precipitators

Investigating the real-world emission characteristics of light-dutygasoline vehicles and their relationship to local socioeconomicconditions in three cities in Los Angeles, California

Keep informed about the latest research and sign up for newcontent e-mail alerts.

To order your print copies of JA&WMA, visit us online.

The Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (JA&WMA) Announces a

New Page Charge Scholarship

JA&WMA is pleased to announce a new page charge scholarship program with funds generously provided bythe China Section of A&WMA.

Corresponding authors, who are members in good standing with A&WMA, are invited to apply for a scholarshipto cover page charges of new journal papers not yet submitted via the online manuscript submission systemif they meet either of the following criteria:

1. Young Professionals, who meet A&WMA’s criteria for this membership category (i.e., the correspondingauthor should be 35 years of age or younger at the time of submission of the manuscript and can providea valid membership ID), and/or

2. Members from “developing countries”. We will use the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) World EconomicOutlook classification to qualify for this criterion and any corresponding author who is NOT from theIMF’s list of “Advanced Economies” will be eligible to apply for this scholarship (this list is available athttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/groups.htm#ae).

The chair of A&WMA’s Editorial Review Board will consider all applications for the PageCharges Scholarship and make the final decision on accepting/rejecting theapplications based on the above criteria.

Please note approval of page charge scholarship funding does not guaranteethat the manuscript will be accepted for publication. All manuscripts must beformatted as directed in the guidelines, will be assessed via the standard reviewprocess, and will only be accepted if the reviewers deem it worthy of publication.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ISSN 1096-2247

For more information and to download a copy of the application form, please go to http://pubs.awma.org/docs/application_for_China_Section_funds.pdf.

0

Journal of the Air & Waste

Welcomes Special IssuesSpecial issues of the Journal of the Air & Waste Management

provide a unique venue for grouping and publishing select papers from environmental conferences and research projects. They are a valuable resource to libraries and

the most current thinking on important environmental topics.

Visit tandfonline.com/UAWM

In print since 1951, the JA&WMA environmental journal in the world. The JA&WMA is widely recognized as one of the premier publica

Flexibility. The size of the JA&WMA can be scaled to accommodate the size of the conference/project and the number of manuscripts that pass the JA&WMA’s

Guest Editorial. The conference chair, project leader, or whoever else is serving as the Coor dinator is

manuscripts included and their importance to the understanding of the topic. Note: this could

paid by individual authors

Types of special issues or groupings


A&WMA HeadquartersStephanie M. GlyptisExecutive DirectorAir & Waste Management AssociationOne Gateway Center, 3rd Floor420 Fort Duquesne Blvd.Pittsburgh, PA 15222-14351-412-232-3444; 412-232-3450 (fax)[email protected]

AdvertisingMeredith [email protected]

EditorialLisa BucherManaging [email protected]

Editorial Advisory CommitteeJohn D. Kinsman, ChairEdison Electric InstituteTerm Ends: 2019

John D. BachmannVision Air ConsultingTerm Ends: 2017

Robert BaslEHS Technology GroupTerm Ends: 2019

Leiran BitonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2019

Gary Bramble, P.E.AESTerm Ends: 2017

Prakash Doraiswamy, Ph.D.RTI InternationalTerm Ends: 2017

Ali FarnoudRamboll EnvironTerm Ends: 2017

Steven P. Frysinger, Ph.D.James Madison UniversityTerm Ends: 2018

Keith GaydoshAffinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2018

C. Arthur Gray, IIIWhiteWave FoodsTerm Ends: 2019

Mingming LuUniversity of CincinnatiTerm Ends: 2019

Dan L. Mueller, P.E.Environmental Defense FundTerm Ends: 2017

Brian Noel, P.E.Trinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2017

Blair NorrisAshland Inc.Term Ends: 2017

Teresa RaineERMTerm Ends: 2017

Anthony J. Sadar, CCMAllegheny County Health DepartmentTerm Ends: 2018

Golam SarwarU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2019

Anthony J. Schroeder, CCM, CMTrinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2019

Susan S.G. WiermanMid-Atlantic Regional Air Management AssociationTerm Ends: 2018

James J. Winebrake, Ph.D.Rochester Institute of TechnologyTerm Ends: 2018

Layout and Design: Clay Communications, 1.412.704.7897

EM, a publication of the Air & Waste Management Association, is published monthly with editorial and executive offices at OneGateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435, USA. ©2016 Air & Waste Management Asso-ciation (www.awma.org). All rights reserved. Materials may not be reproduced, redistributed, or translated in any form withoutprior written permission of the Editor. A&WMA assumes no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by contributorsto this publication. Views expressed in editorials are those of the author and do not necessarily represent an official position ofthe Association. A&WMA does not endorse any company, product, or service appearing in third-party advertising.

EM Magazine (Online) ISSN 2470-4741 » EM Magazine (Print) ISSN 1088-9981

Staff and Contributors

The Magazine for Environmental Managers

air quality modeling - pubs.awma.org

Documents