CALPUFF PT-Source Modeling - MARAMA

June 24–29, 2012Minerals ResortVernon, NJ*with overnight stay

Purposes of this Modeling Study(a joint effort involving VT APCD, MD DEP, and NESCAUM)1. Further the application of CALPUFF as a modeling tool forregional impact assessments through testing of model on largedomain inclusive of most major point sources of SO2 and NOx.(with emphasis on large EGU sulfur emissions impacts)2. Develop a modeling platform for use in preliminary evaluation ofindividual “BART Eligible” sources in the northeastern U.S. : recontributions to regional haze for the MANE-VU RPO.3. Create a modeling platform that might be used to prioritizestrategy modeling runs to be done later using CMAQ / REMSAD.

CALPUFF MODEL SETUPCALPUFF_v5.711_030625 BETA versionDOMAIN compatible with standard RPO Projection.(This BETA version dated June 25, 2003 was found to be necessary if input of hourly variableCEMS emission rates , contained in a PTEMARB.dat file, are being used. )Params.dat file was edited to accommodate a large number of sources,a large number of ozone and surface met stations and a large numberof precipitation stations.parameter(mxpuff=2000000) MAX PUFFS on Gridparameter(mxnx=250,mxny=250,mxnz=12) METEOROLOGY XYZ Grid max#parameter(mxnxg=250,mxnyg=250) COMPUTATIONAL XY Grid max#parameter(mxrec=10000) MAX Discrete Receptorsparameter(mxss=980,mxus=99,mxps=1500) MAX Surf/Rawind/Precip Stationsparameter(mxpt1=3500,mxpt2=3500) MAX Pt(const) Pt(variable) Srcsparameter(mxarea=10000) MAX Area Srcsparameter(mxoz=600) MAX Ozone Monitors

Vermont CALPUFF Modeling StudyREGIONAL DOMAIN70 x 64 grid at 36 km allows inclusion of source regions affecting allClass I areas in the northeast portion of DOMAINSW corner of grid: 33.5 North Latitude & 98.2 West LongitudeGrid projection is Lambert Conformal.Domain is consistent with RPO projection specifications.MEASURED METEOROLOGY UTILIZED FOR REGIONAL DOMAIN2002 has been processed utilizing NWS data setsmeteorological inputs consist of700 surface stations : 30 radiosonde stations : 1100 precipitation sitesUpper Air Radiosonde Data – When possible, existing soundings withmissing data were filled to allow their useSurface Weather Data - The Integrated Surface Hourly Observations(ISHO) Dataset from NCDC was utilized. No Canadian Data Available.Precipitation Data - Data from the NCDC CD: US Hourly PrecipitationData (TD3240 format), was utilized.(A laborious process because of the number of stations involved.)

CALMET MET DOMAIN (Blue) / CALPUFF COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN (Green)LCP x:y(-108:1404)Domain was agreed upon by participants in Dec 2003LCP x:y(2520:1404)LCP x:y(-108:-720)(0,0) point forLambert ConformalProjection40 Deg N : -97 Deg WLCP x:y(2520:-720)

Emission Inputs for First Phase CALPUFF runs completedin September 2004DOMAIN-WIDE SOURCESAnnual 2002 Emissions in TONSSource Type SOx NOx PM2.5*U.S. EGUs (778 with CEMS Data) 7,460,961 2,833,981 n/aCanadian NPRI Inventory 52 Stacks 859,688 147,945 15,513U.S. NEI-1999 2109 Stacks 2,423,689 467,824 18,753U.S. NEI-1999 3453 20km GridAreas 1,288,298 1,143,541 318,548TOTALS included in Current Runs 12,032,636 4,593,291 352,814*Hourly variable emissions were used in evaluations to date. CEMS data does not includeStack Temperature. Default was set at 422 K. Some combined points in database do nothave Stack Velocity. Default set at 14.67 m/sec based on average of points with data.1999 NEI point source Information used for Phase I testing only: will be replaced with2002 NEI data when availableNEI Point Source Data file was read source by source: If Annual SO2 for a source was greater than 100.0 Tons forany source in DOMAIN, source was modeled as a PT. If Annual SO2 for a source was greater than 10.0 Tons forany source within 100 Km of any of 51 Northeastern IMPROVE or FRM PM2.5 monitoring sites, source wasmodeled as a PT.

Red Circles represent EGUs with year 2002 CEMS hourly SO2 & NOx datathat was used to create individual point source inputs for CALPUFF runs.Green Circles represent Canadian Point Sources for which 2002 SO2, NOx& PM2.5 emissions data was modeled as individual point sources.

Non-CEMS U.S. Emissions in Domain extracted from 1999NEI for Phase ITons of Emissions : NEI 1999 Pts > 100 SO2modeled as PointsState #Pts SO2 NOxPM2.5Tons of Emissions : NEI 1999 Pts < 100 SO2 as20km Grid SquaresState #Grids SO2 NOxPM2.5AL 52 36167 7977 370AR 20 47992 14068 287CT 8 3897 16 1359DC 4 1304 77 19DE 32 46417 1100 941GA 59 71804 66532 2460IA 62 85560 12683 1455IL 182 168529 38179 1068IN 158 90555 33175 713KY 66 46435 19377 748MA 42 51909 9787 28MD 44 96535 5635 1206ME 55 42240 0 252MI 87 68247 35298 241MN 59 24420 19269 61MO 64 125074 18663 16MS 12 38102 15048 6NC 126 65105 16587 1610ND 9 16757 1464 0NH 10 3181 57 36NJ 19 62939 240 5NY 96 142398 16441 119OH 155 247082 14629 210OK 50 32946 14522 196PA 199 183398 4240 9SC 76 48955 18477 43SD 3 647 273 0TN 85 104164 42421 1098VA 134 133164 13495 3899VT 3 639 8 0WI 62 65750 17347 6WV 76 271366 10723 278RI 0 0 0 0TX 0 0 0 0DOMAIN 2109 2423689 467824 18752AL 98 41065 48257 16035AR 77 49209 43888 15702CT 29 421 650 307DC 1 2 17 29DE 13 4281 3593 433GA 71 49017 86547 43106IA 23 86627 26465 6363IL 0 0 0 0IN 173 106649 89608 54997KY 225 50974 63545 14509MA 62 4012 5263 2291MD 19 377 858 356ME 67 864 1664 699MI 230 75148 113074 13602MN 218 30857 66970 18366MO 220 128114 40074 11030MS 75 40904 53591 8177NC 254 73951 67546 14740ND 6 16974 1784 1260NH 33 874 1455 555NJ 55 923 5246 1797NY 147 16771 7467 3545OH 181 194179 74841 20580OK 174 36007 69813 7617PA 219 13152 14317 6414SC 118 54269 47025 8217SD 3 647 691 147TN 161 110302 104601 32377VA 176 60131 54741 8893VT 33 88 192 146WI 141 0 4098 0WV 133 41474 42624 5937RI 10 0 121 88TX 8 20 2902 217DOMAIN 3453 1288298 1143541 318548

1999 NEI pt sources aggregated as 20km“Area” source squaresYr 1999 SO2 Tons in20km “Area”SourceNOTE: 1999 NEI AREA SOURCES were NOT included in Modeling

Monitoring Sites at which CALPUFF EVALUATION is being performed20 IMPROVE sites with every 3 rd day 24-hr SO4 / NO3SITE LAT LON X Domain(km) Y Domain(km)HT (m)ACAD1 44.3771 -68.2612 2351.337 1562.515 HT meters (model terrain) = 24.000ADPI1 42.0911 -77.2098 1721.239 1127.713 HT meters (model terrain) = 495.400BRIG1 39.4650 -74.4492 2013.281 898.458 HT meters (model terrain) = 10.100BRMA1 44.1074 -70.7293 2172.876 1475.422 HT meters (model terrain) = 166.000CABA1 43.8325 -70.0643 2232.536 1461.539 HT meters (model terrain) = 8.500CACO1 41.9758 -70.0247 2295.753 1265.698 HT meters (model terrain) = 1.100COHI1 42.4009 -76.6535 1758.220 1171.176 HT meters (model terrain) = 387.700DOSO1 39.1069 -79.4262 1606.407 766.581 HT meters (model terrain) = 849.800GRGU1 44.3082 -71.2177 2129.293 1485.828 HT meters (model terrain) = 570.800JARI1 37.6266 -79.5124 1630.454 604.494 HT meters (model terrain) = 406.200LYBR1 43.1481 -73.1267 2016.655 1320.611 HT meters (model terrain) = 562.200MKGO1 41.4269 -80.1445 1498.563 1007.167 HT meters (model terrain) = 362.800MOMO1 41.8214 -73.2973 2041.224 1175.053 HT meters (model terrain) = 276.300MOOS1 45.1259 -67.2661 2399.529 1666.287 HT meters (model terrain) = 74.900OLTO1 44.9335 -68.6457 2303.333 1611.920 HT meters (model terrain) = 70.800PMRF1 44.5286 -72.8687 1996.599 1473.871 HT meters (model terrain) = 315.500PRIS1 46.6963 -68.0335 2287.614 1813.292 HT meters (model terrain) = 194.500QURE1 42.2988 -72.3350 2103.643 1246.853 HT meters (model terrain) = 157.800SHEN1 38.5228 -78.4347 1702.901 720.144 HT meters (model terrain) = 411.200WASH1 38.8761 -77.0343 1812.820 783.760 HT meters (model terrain) = 48.600Note: the IMPROVE sites are Rural, except for the WASH1 site.This Modeling will not model local urban sources well enough to be able to expect goodresults at urban PM2.5 sites.

20 Improve Monitoring Sites (with 100 km radius circles)To be used in Evaluation of 24-hr SO4 CALPUFF ImpactsYr 1999 SO2 Tons in20km “Area”Source

Hourly Variation during 2002 778 CEMS EGUs

Detail of Hourly Variation Jul 18 -> Aug 3 778 CEMS EGUs

Individual CEMS Facility SO2 Emissions Hourly Variation> 25.0Tons/Hr15.0 -> 25.0Tons/Hr12.5 -> 15.0Tons/Hr10.0 -> 12.5Tons/Hr7.5 -> 10.0Tons/Hr5.0 -> 7.5Tons/Hr2.5 -> 5.0Tons/Hr< 2.5Tons/Hr

Single Source CALPUFF MODELING RUNSAll 778 of the EGUs with CEMS data for 2002 have been modeledindividually in order to allow them to be ranked relative to their Sulfate Ionimpacts at the Class I areas in the domain.Because “Phase I” modeling was conducted using meteorology that maystill be adjusted after more detailed evaluation has been completed andusing preliminary assumptions for monthly background ammonia andH2O2, these rankings are not yet considered final and may change.PHASE I ASSUMPTIONS FUTURE CONSIDERATIONSMonthly Ammonia Constant 1.0 ppb Variable 1.0 – 10.0 ppbMonthly H2O2 Constant 1.0 ppb Variable by season 0.7 -> 2.0Nite-time SO2 loss rate Constant 0.2 %/hr Variable by season 0.1 -> 0.3

Time Series AnimationsHourly or running 24-Hourly concentration isoplethsfor Single Source runs allow a more comprehensiveexamination of an individual source’s impact potentialduring the annual period modeled (2002)In particular, these allow a visual comparison ofrelative impact potential between sources of differentoverall EMISSION SIZE at different DISTANCES.

July – September 2002 Running 24-hr Ave SO4Model Run for Single CEMS Src ORIS Code 03935341,727 Ton/Yr EGU893 Km from LYBR

As part of the Single Source aspect of the modelingstudy,The CEMS hourly data allowed us to examinewhether impacts predicted might be different if theCEMS data were not available and an assumedannual (or seasonal) average rate were usedinstead.

D03935341727 Ton/Yr EGU 893 Kmfrom LYBRD03149159506 Ton/Yr EGU 371 Kmfrom LYBR1hr SO4 Modeled Impact @ LYBRPeriod Covered ~ Hr 870 to 1300 in Quarter 3 2002---------- Constant Ave Rate SO2 Emission---------- Variable CEMS SO2 RateUg/m3D03407C6938302 Ton/Yr EGU 1258 Kmfrom LYBRD03406C10103341 Ton/Yr EGU 1465 Kmfrom LYBR

Single Source outputs of concentration anddeposition impact can be easily combined ;To represent impacts from differentcombinations of sources.

Hourly SO4 Ion Concentration Isopleths10 Largest (Annual SO2 Emissions) CEMS Database EGUs

Hourly SO4 Ion Concentration Isopleths70 Largest (Annual SO2 Emissions) CEMS Database EGUs

Hourly SO4 Ion Concentration IsoplethsCompares 10 40 70 Largest CEMS Database EGUs

FULL DOMAIN-WIDE EMISSION CALPUFFMODELING RUNSFor “Evaluation” of Modeling SystemTo Date: Preliminary results from runs with CALMET derivedMET fields have been evaluated at 20 IMPROVE sites formodeled sulfate ion based on combining the impacts fromALL Identified Sources of sulfur and nitrogen compoundemissions described earlier.1) 24-Hr Modeled vs Monitored SO4 Ion2) Monthly Ave Modeled vs Monitored SO4 Ion3) Quarterly (3-month) Modeled vs Monitored SO4 Ion

First Half of July 2002 Running 24-hr Ave SO4Model Run for 778 CEMS EGU Srcs& 198 Canadian Point Srcs

Groupings of Sources were run in CALPUFF for an entire year (2002) ofmeteorology with only secondary particulate forms from the sulfur chemistry(SO4) saved for use in model evaluation against IMPROVE-type measurements.The groupings were run to produce individual .CON file outputs which could bepost-processed using CALSUM to obtain TOTAL impacts from all modeledsources at each of 72 discrete receptors.This approach also allows an initial contribution assessment to be performed.The individual output .CON files produced for each of 4 Qrtrs included:778 Individual files of hourly impact from each of the CEMS data EGUs.32 Individual files of hourly impact due to PT sources in each state within the domain;developed from 1999 NEI point sources > 100 Tns SO2.33 Individual files of hourly impact due to “Area” sources in each state within the domain;developed from 1999 NEI point source file residuals.1 file for Canadian PT sources from 2002 NPRI (National Pollutant Release Inventory) run as52 point sources with surrogate stack data (all but 3 run at 150 meter stack ht,but 3 large smelters were run at 350 meter stack ht)

242220181614121086420LYBR Modeled SO4 - 24-Hr ImpactsTime Periods "underpredicted" in PURPLESO4 Ion ~ ug/m311/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/20021/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/2002242220181614121086420Monitored ModeledLYBR Modeled SO4 - 24-Hr ImpactsTime Periods "overpredicted" in BLUESO4 Ion ~ ug/m310/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/20021/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/2002Modeled Monitored

1514131211109876543210Weekly Running Averages for SO4 Ion Modeled vs Monitoredat LYBR IMPROVE SiteSO4 Ion ~ ug/m 31/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Modeled Monitored 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Modeled) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Monitored)

242220181614121086420MKGO Modeled SO4 - 24-Hr ImpactsTime Periods "overpredicted" in BLUE1/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002242220181614121086420MKGO Modeled SO4 - 24-Hr ImpactsTime Periods "underpredicted" in PURPLEModeled Monitored1/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Monitored Modeled

1514131211109876543210Weekly Running Averages for SO4 Ion Modeled vs Monitoredat MKGO IMPROVE SiteSO4 Ion ~ ug/m 31/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Modeled Monitored 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Monitored) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Modeled)

1514131211109876543210Weekly Running Averages for SO4 Ion Modeled vs Monitoredat ADPI IMPROVE SiteSO4 Ion ~ ug/m 31/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Modeled Monitored 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Monitored) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Modeled)

1514131211109876543210Weekly Running Averages for SO4 Ion Modeled vs Monitoredat BRMA IMPROVE SiteSO4 Ion ~ ug/m 31/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Modeled Monitored 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Monitored) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Modeled)

1514131211109876543210Weekly Running Averages for SO4 Ion Modeled vs Monitoredat ACAD IMPROVE SiteSO4 Ion ~ ug/m31/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Modeled Monitored 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Monitored) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Modeled)

1514131211109876543210Weekly Running Averages for SO4 Ion Modeled vs Monitoredat MOOS IMPROVE SiteSO4 Ion ~ ug/m 31/2/20021/8/20021/14/20021/20/20021/26/20022/1/20022/7/20022/13/20022/19/20022/25/20023/3/20023/9/20023/15/20023/21/20023/27/20024/2/20024/8/20024/14/20024/20/20024/26/20025/2/20025/8/20025/14/20025/20/20025/26/20026/1/20026/7/20026/13/20026/19/20026/25/20027/1/20027/7/20027/13/20027/19/20027/25/20027/31/20028/6/20028/12/20028/18/20028/24/20028/30/20029/5/20029/11/20029/17/20029/23/20029/29/200210/5/200210/11/200210/17/200210/23/200210/29/200211/4/200211/10/200211/16/200211/22/200211/28/200212/4/200212/10/200212/16/200212/22/2002Modeled Monitored 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Monitored) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Modeled)

Modeled Modeled vs Monitored vs Ave Monthly Ave SO4 Monthly Ion at 20 IMPROVE-type SO4 Monitoring Ion at Sites 20 IMPROVE3 months July - September IncludedMonitoring Sites 3 Months July September 20021412y = 1.1983x + 0.9742R 2 = 0.683710Monitored SO4 Ion ~ ug/m 3864200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Modeled SO4 Ion ~ ug/m3

1412Modeled vs Monitored Ave Monthly SO4 Ion at 20 IMPROVE-type Monitoring SitesAll 12 months January - December IncludedModeled vs Monitored Ave Monthly SO4 Ion at 20 IMPROVEMonitoring Sites 12 Months January December 2002y = 1.1613x + 0.5448R 2 = 0.613110Monitored SO4 Ion ~ ug/m 3864200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Modeled SO4 Ion ~ ug/m3

Modeled vs Monitored Ave Quarterly SO4 Ion at 20 IMPROVEMonitoring Sites 12 Months January December 2002

NEXT STEPS1. Attempt to improve the components of the source emissions inputsfor sources other than the CEMS EGU sources.2. Continue to evaluate the CALMET produced meteorological fieldsbased on closer examination of the patterns of the CALPUFF resultsin conjunction with the default settings and assumptions used inproducing the fields.3. Evaluate the CALPUFF model using CASTNET data (weekly analyses)as well as the FRM fine particulate matter measurement data (full yearof daily 24-Hr measurements).4. Drive CALPUFF with 2002 meteorology created using MM5 (ERMwork) as well as fields generated using ETA model archived upper airdata (EDAS) at 80 km grid spacing.