Source dispersion model estimates

Dispersion model estimates of source contributions using source emission and meteorological data for the one year period of PACS sampling ... 

General References Crowl and Louvar, Chemical Process Safety Fundamentals with Applications, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990, pp. 121-155. Hanna and Drivas, Guidelines for Use of Vapor Cloud Dispersion Models, AIChE, New York, 1987. Hanna and Strimaitis, Workbook of Test Cases for Vapor Cloud Source Dispersion Models, AIChE, New York, 1989. Lees, Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Butterworths, London, 1986, pp. 428-463. Seinfeld, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution, Chaps. 12, 13, 14, Wiley, New York, 1986. Turner, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, 1970. 

The next part of the procedure involves risk assessment. This includes a deterrnination of the accident probabiUty and the consequence of the accident and is done for each of the scenarios identified in the previous step. The probabiUty is deterrnined using a number of statistical models generally used to represent failures. The consequence is deterrnined using mostiy fundamentally based models, called source models, to describe how material is ejected from process equipment. These source models are coupled with a suitable dispersion model and/or an explosion model to estimate the area affected and predict the damage. The consequence is thus determined. 

The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD) model (26) was developed to simulate plume dispersion and transport from offshore point sources to receptors on land or water. The model estimates the overwater dispersion by use of wind fluctuation statistics in the horizontal and the vertical measured at the overwater point of release. Lacking these measurements the model can make overwater estimates of dispersion using the temperature difference between water and air. Changes taking place in the dispersion are considered at the shoreline and at any points where elevated terrain is encountered. 

Chapter 5 describes simplified methods of estimating airborne pollutant concentration distributions associated with stationary emission sources. There are sophisticated models available to predict and to assist in evaluating the impact of pollutants on the environment and to sensitive receptors such as populated areas. In this chapter we will explore the basic principles behind dispersion models and then apply a simplified model that has been developed by EPA to analyzing air dispersion problems. There are practice and study problems at the end of this chapter. A screening model for air dispersion impact assessments called SCREEN, developed by USEPA is highlighted in this chapter, and the reader is provided with details on how to download the software and apply it. 

In the calculations that were made to predict ground level concentrations from a VCM reactor blow off, the Pasquill-Gifford-Holland dispersion model was used as a basis for these estimations. Calculations were made for six different stability classes and ground level concentrations, and at various distances from the point source of emission. 

PTPLU is a point-source dispersion Gaussian screening model for estimating maximum surface concentrations for one-liour concentrations. 

Cause-consequence analysis serx es to characterize tlie physical effects resulting from a specific incident and the impact of these physical effects on people, the environment, and property. Some consequence models or equations used to estimate tlie potential for damage or injury are as follows Source Models, Dispersion Models, Fire Explosion Models, and Effect Models. Likelihood estimation (frequency estimation), cliaractcrizcs the probability of occurrence for each potential incident considered in tlie analysis. The major tools used for likelihood estimation are as follows Historical Data, Failure sequence modeling techniques, and Expert Judgment. 

The release mitigation procedure is part of the consequence modeling procedure shown in Figure 4-1. After selection of a release incident, a source model is used to determine either the release rate or the total quantity released. This is coupled to a dispersion model and subsequent models for fires or explosions. Finally, an effect model is used to estimate the impact of the release, which is a measure of the consequence. 

A third way to gain some knowledge about the concentrations of chemicals in the environment involves some type of modeling. Scientists have had, for example, fair success in estimating the concentrations of chemicals in the air in the vicinity of facilities that emit those chemicals. Information on the amount of chemical emitted per unit time can be inserted into various mathematical models that have been designed to represent the physical phenomena governing dispersion of the chemical from its source. Certain properties of the chemical and of the atmosphere it enters, together with data on local weather conditions, are combined in these models to yield desired estimates of chemical concentrations at various distances from the source. These models can be calibrated with actual measurement data for a few chemicals, and then used for others where measurement data are not available. 

In this paper, we have focussed on the weaknesses of our present knowledge about the compositions of particles from sources that are needed as Input for receptor models. However, despite these weaknesses, we feel that the receptor model is probably already capable of more accurate determinations of TSP contributions from various types of sources than the classical methods of source emissions inventories coupled with dispersion models. If the measurements suggested are made, then the receptor models should provide very accurate estimates of those contributions. 

A source model incorporates measured or estimated values for an emission rate factor and the dispersion factor. Whenever either of these enter the receptor model as observables, we call it a hybrid model. The three applications considered here are emission inventory scaling, micro-inventories, and dispersion modeling of specific sources within a source type. 

Dispersion model source impact estimates, following comparison to the CMB results, were significantly improved after emission inventory deficiencies were corrected. Pinal modeling results then provided realistic source impact estimates which could be confidently used for strategy development. 

Comparison of the PACS-CMB source impact estimates to the dispersion model-predicted source impacts ... 

Residual oil impact estimates by modeling provided a severe test of GRID s capacity since the CMB impact estimates were small (less than one-quarter yg/m ) and the physical basis of the model inherently limits it s ability to predict point source plume transport. Since Initial comparisons (Figure 5) showed GRID estimated impacts to be overpredicted at all sites relative to CMB estimates, further improvements to the data base were suggested. Overall, annual model verification results for all sources were relatively poor with the dispersion model predictions consistently underestimating both the CMB-derlved estimates and the measured TSP mass data. 

Occupational and toxicological studies have demonstrated adverse health effects from exposure to toxic contaminants. Emissions data from stationary and mobile sources are used in an atmospheric dispersion model to estimate outdoor concentrations of 148 toxic contaminants for each of the 60,803 census tracts in the contiguous United States for 1990. Approximately 10% of all census tracts had estimated concentrations of one or more carcinogenic HAPs at a greater than l-in-10,000 risk level. Twenty-two pollutants with chronic toxicity benchmark concentrations had modeled concentrations in excess of these benchmarks, and approximately 200 census tracts had a modeled concentration 100 times the benchmark for at least one of these pollutants. This comprehensive assessment of air toxics concentrations across the United States indicates hazardous air pollutants may pose a potential public health problem (Woodruff et al., 1998). 

Once the emission factors and their variability are estimated, dispersion models can be used in order to enable point data to be interpreted in terms of geographical distribution of source contributions, as suggested by the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC). This could serve as a basis for calculating the collective exposure of the population living in the area and for assessing air quality with respect to the limit values. Dispersion models are based on the use of meteorological data, modules to account with physico-chemical processes occurring in the atmosphere and EFs. 

Maximum ground-level barium concentrations (as soluble compounds) associated with uncontrolled atmospheric particulate emissions from chemical dryers and calciners at barium-processing plants have been estimated (using dispersion modeling) to range from 1.3 to 330 mg/m over a 24-hour averaging time at locations along facility boundaries (i.e., away from the source of emission)... 

There is consensus among those who have written about dispersion effects that combined location and dispersion models can provide good estimates of all effects. The major source of controversy is about how to identify the models and, in particular, the dispersion model. 

The model was used to study the advection and dispersion of a trace contaminant load into a low-permeability soil column. An anisotropic case was simulated. The model estimated and showed the spatial distribution of the contaminant plume and visually depicted the concentration values in grayscale. The three-dimensional visualization provided by the model was shown to be very useful for identifying the extent and severity of the soil contamination due to the trace compound load under three different types of input load distribution (point source, line source, and two-point... 

---