UNIT 2

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SCREENING AND SCOPING

To confirm whether a project needs an Environmental Impact Assessment developers can ask for
a formal 'screening opinion' from the council. A screening opinion sets out the council's decision
and gives reasons for it, and is normally issued within three weeks of the request.

We are required to keep screening requests and opinions for two years on the Screening Register.

View the screening registers

If a planning application is subsequently made for the development the screening opinion will be
moved to the planning register.

It is preferable for screening to be carried out prior to submission of a planning application.

However, where a planning application is made for a type of development that requires screening
but where no screening opinion has previously been issued, screening will be carried out at that
point.

EIA SCOPING

A developer intending to carry out EIA may formally ask us what should be covered in the
Environment Statement. This is not essential, however it is recommended as failure to include
required information in the EIA can lead to delays in processing the planning application.

We will then consult with the statutory (legal) bodies and then provide a Scoping Opinion giving
this information.

Scoping Opinions will normally be issued within 5 weeks of the request being received.

We are required to keep requests for scoping opinions and the related opinions on the Scoping
Register for two years.

1
INTRODUCTION

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a planning tool now generally accepted as an integral
component of sound decision-making. The Environmental Clearance [EC] process for majority
of projects will comprise of a maximum of four stages – Screening, Scoping, Public Consultation
& Appraisal. EC for developmental projects has been made mandatory by the Ministry of
Environment & Forest through its Notification issued on 27.01.1994 under the provisions of
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This was revised based on review of existing environmental
clearance (EC) process and the demands from various stakeholders. Accordingly, MoEF issued
revised Notification on EC process on 15.09.2006. This Notification has brought out structural
changes in the clearance mechanism by decentralizing certain developmental activities based on
its impact potential to the State Government and the Union Territory Administration. As a part
of the standardization of the procedures for Environmental Clearance and in improving the
quality of EIA documents as per the 2006 notification, MOEF identified the importance of the
sector specific approach for EC. Accordingly preparations of Sector specific documents for EC
are planned by identifying 36 sectors as given in the 2006 notification. The sector specific
documentation designed to consist of the following:

I] Sector Specific Terms of Reference (TOR) II] Sector Specific Guidance Manuals for
preparation of EIA report.

The purpose of TOR is to enable the project proponent for planning and designing EIA. TOR is
expected to provide a format and structure. The purpose of the Sector Specific Guidance manual
is to enable the project proponent to have all detailed information to address all issues and
implement field data collection and identify impacts and mitigation measures and EMP.

Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad has been assigned by MOEF in June 2008, the
task of preparation of TOR and manuals for 10 sectors / developmental activities. These 10
sectors are categorized into two groups with a peer committee for each group consisting of
Experts in various fields. In addition, a core committee is formed [Annexure ] to oversee and
review the reports endorsed and approved by peer committees. The details of experts involved
in preparation of the TOR and manuals are given .The sectors falling under Group I and II are as
follows: Project activities: Group I

2
• Highways

• Ports & Harbours

• Airports

• Arial Passenger Ropeways

• Building & Construction Projects and Townships and Area Development Projects

Project Activities: Group II

• Nuclear Fuel Processing and Power Generation.

• Mining & Minerals

• Asbestos Based Products

• Coal Washaries

• Mineral Beneficiation

The TORs address sector specific issues relating to environmental impact assessment studies.
While maintaining a common format for EIA Report preparation for all sectors, provision has
been made to address issues unique or specific to each sector wherever applicable. The common
format or generic structure essentially comprises of 11 sections which ultimately become 11
chapters in the Manual.

i Objectives, ii General Information, I Introduction, II Project Description, III

Analysis of Alternatives, IV Description of Environment [Land Air, Water, Noise], V
Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, VI Environmental Monitoring
Program, VII Additional Studies, VIII Project Benefits, IX Environmental
Management Plan, X Summary and Conclusions, and XI Disclosure of consultants.

Terms of Reference (TOR) for all the sectors prepared by the experts were presented to the
members of the Core and Peer committees. The peer and core committee members and invitees
from MOEF have reviewed these documents. This Report presents the Terms of Reference for
eight sectors viz; Ports and harbors, airports, highways, building construction, townships and

3
area development, mining of minerals, mineral beneficiation, coal washeries and asbestos.
Terms of Reference (TOR) For Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Ports and Harbors

OBJECTIVE

Terms of Reference (TOR) for preparation of Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) for Ports
and Harbour projects as per the EIA notification, 2006 has been devised to improve the quality
of the reports and facilitate the decision making transparent and easy. TOR will help the project
proponents and consultants to prepare report with relevant project specific data, which are
informative, compact and easy to comprehend. TOR for Ports and Harbor projects is expected to
cover all environmental related features.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Development of port facilities can make a significant contribution to the economic development
and the growth of maritime transport. At the same time it may also create adverse impacts on the
surrounding environment. Port development may create a wide range of impacts on the
environment through activities like construction work, dredging (research),reclamation, land
fills, discharges from ships and cargo operations, and other port related activities.. Port
development and operation should, therefore, be planned with careful consideration of their
environmental impacts. The preparation of EIA report and implementation of EMP is essential
for effectively managing these adverse effects.

As a primary requirement of EIA process, the proponent should collect primary baseline data in
the project area as well as in the area falling 5 km from the proposed project boundary and
secondary data should be collected within 15 kms aerial distance from the project boundary, as
specifically mentioned at column of Form I of EIA Notification 2006. The study areas mentioned
in this document shall be considered for guidance purpose but the exact study area for different
environmental attributes (water, air, noise, soil, etc) is to be submitted considering the proposed
activities and location, along with proper reasoning, for review and approval by the expert
appraisal committee.

4
BASE LINE MONITORING, PREDICTION ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

1.1 Land Environment

1.1.1 Land

Availability of land for earmarking for the port without causing a due hardship to local habitat
and their socio cultural and economic aspects is very important. Data on the land availability is
to be ascertained from local authorities, revenue records etc. Justification for the proposed
quantum of the area is to be given.

1.1.2 Topography (place)

Baseline data to be given on description of existing situation of the land at the proposed project
area including description of terrain hill slopes coastal and inland topography, coastal features
(lowland, beaches, littoral( beach)areas, shoal areas), terrain features, slope and elevation. Study
of land use pattern, habitation, cropping pattern, forest cover, environmentally sensitive places
etc, by employing remote sensing techniques (if available) and also through secondary data
sources.

1.1.3 Geology

Baseline data to be provided on rock types, regional tectonic setting (reported fractures/faulting,
folding, warping), and history of any volcanic activity, seismicity and associated hazards, mainly
in the coastal area. Information on quarry yields, strengths of rock, distance of quarries from
habitat, restrictions for quarrying, environmental controls, statutory permissions etc., should be
provided.

1.1.4 Soil

Soil data including type, classification, characteristics, soil properties etc., are important from
engineering considerations for design of structures, loading capacities of cargo stockpiles, green
belt development etc. Changes in parameters of soil also may affect plantation and vegetative
growth, which in turn may endanger the health of local habitat. Baseline data of the soil, results
of investigations carried out to be provided for the project area.

5
1.1.5 Meteorological Data

Meteorological data covering the following should be incorporated in the EIA report. The data
for at least a 10 year period should be presented from the nearest meteorological station, except
for the history of cyclones and tidal surges for which 100 year data is required.

• Wind speed and direction

• Rainfall

• Relative humidity

• Temperature

• Barometric pressures

• History of cyclones

1.2 Water Environment

1.2.1 Ground water

Baseline data of ground water including data of pH, dissolved solids, suspended solids, BOD,
DO, coli-form bacteria, oil, heavy metals (depending upon the type of cargo) is to be collected at
least for one season. Usage purpose of the ground water, if any, is to be indicated.

1.2.2 Surface Water

Baseline data on location of surface water like lagoons, lakes, tidal inlets, streams, rivers, their
details, present quality and their utility, if any, is to be provided. Details of water bodies in the
project area shall be described specifically. Water quality is to be monitored for one season.

1.3 Marine Environment

1.3.1 Coastal Hydrology/geomorphology

6
Coastal hydrology requires collection of oceanographic data during the study period, covering
the following parameters:

• Tides

• Waves (wind waves and swells)

• Storm surges

• Currents

• Salinity

• Sea water temperature

• Suspended load, and

• Seabed bathymetry

Baseline oceanographic data should extend at least to depths more than 10m of proposed
deepening of the harbor approach and basin as per master plan proposed. A study on likely
changes in the sediment transport and littoral drift due to the construction of port particularly the
breakwater should to be taken up.

Details of mangroves, marshes and other coastal vegetation, sand dunes, coastal stability, seismic
characteristics, history of any endangered species, coastal erosion, and shoreline changes should
be furnished.

1.3.2 Bed sediment contamination

Baseline data on bottom sediments and the associated bottom biota and other physical habitat, at
the proposed project area and the neighborhood areas has to be collected and analyzed.

1.3.3 Sea/Harbor Water Quality

Baseline data shall be collected on chemical parameters in the open sea and in the proposed port
area for understanding hydro chemical characteristics in the marine environment (such as sea
water temp, BOD, DO, pH, TSS, salinity, heavy metals depending upon the cargo, etc.)

7
1.4 Biological Environment

1.4.1 Marine/Coastal Ecology

Baseline data of aquatic flora and fauna at the project area, including the coastal area is to be
ascertained by proper surveys including mangroves and marshes and other coastal vegetation,
sand dunes. Data on coastal stability, seismic characteristics, history of any endangered species,
coastal erosion, shoreline changes, if any, is also necessary.

1.4.2 Flora and Fauna in the neighborhood

Details on secondary data on the existing flora and fauna in the study area as well as 15km from
its boundary, carried out by an university/institution under the relevant discipline (such as BSI,
ZSI, WII, etc) shall be included in the list of flora and fauna along with classification as per
Schedule given in the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for fauna) and in the Red Book Data
(flora) and a statement clearly specifying whether the study area forms a part of an ecologically
sensitive area or migratory corridor of any endangered fauna.

1.5 Air Environment Base line data of ambient air

parameters namely RSPM, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, heavy metals
and other harmful air pollutants depending upon the type of the cargo should be monitored.

This data should be collected in an area extending at least 5 km from the project boundary by
observation at a number of locations. Specific importance should be attached to areas in close
proximity of project say up to 1 km. One season data should be monitored other than monsoon as
per the CPCB Norms. One station should be in the up-wind/ non-impact/ non-polluting area as a
control station.

1.6 Noise

Baseline data on noise pollution at the project area and the neighbourhood up to 1 km or nearest
residential areas is to be monitored as per the CPCB norms.

1.7 Existing Solid Waste Disposal facilities

8
Details of authorized municipal solid waste facilities, biomedical treatment facilities and
hazardous waste disposal facilities in the area should be inventorized, in case if it is proposed to
utilize the same

1.8 Socio-economic and Occupational Health Environments

Baseline data at the project area shall include the demography, particularly on human
settlements, health status of the communities, existing infrastructure facilities in the proposed
area and area of impact due to the proposed activity. Present employment and livelihood of these
populations, awareness of the population about the proposed activity shall also be included.

1.9 Public Utilities

Base line data of existing public utility infrastructure shall be ascertained and reported to assess
the impacts of the project on these public utilities in order to incorporate desired methods in the
EMP and monitor the same during the construction as well as operational phases of the port.

2.0 Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This Chapter should describe the likely impact of the project on each of the environmental
parameters, methods adopted for assessing the impact such as model studies, empirical methods,
reference to existing similar situations, reference to previous studies, details of mitigation
methods proposed to reduce adverse effects of the project, best environmental practices and
conservation of natural resources. The identification of specific impacts followed with mitigation
measures should be done for different stages i.e., location of the port, construction including
dredging, ship traffic including discharges from vessels and cargo operations.

MATRICES IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

There are many methods by which we can assess the impact of a developmental project on our
site and it’s various components. The simplest of these methods are checklists, which I’ve
written about before.

Checklists were too primitive to be used for large-scale projects. A step higher from the
checklists is the matrices form of impact assessment in EIA.
9
Are matrices better than checklists?

Checklists tend to be long. It also requires a lot of work in describing an impact or writing it out
in words. In matrices, this ambiguity and extra work is removed by introducing a quantitative
aspect in the assessment of an impact.

Checklist tends to get confusing when you assess multiple levels of impacts descriptively. This is
resolved in matrices, to an extent, with the help of customized matrices. I’ll explain one such
matrix below. Matrices are also versatile, as they can be used for small and large-scale projects
alike.

Explaining the matrix

Simple matrix

This is simply a list of environmental aspects listed along the vertical axis, against which we
determine whether an activity would have an adverse effect, no effect or beneficial effect. A
simple “x” or “tick” is given under the appropriate column.

Sometimes, the activities are listed along the horizontal axis with the environmental aspects in
the vertical axis, and the same “x” is given to those pairs that have an interaction between
themselves.

10
Simple Matrix EPORT THIS AD

Leopold matrix

Leopold matrix is a qualitative measurement of environmental/social impacts of a development

project. This matrix consists of a list of 100 project activities on the horizontal axis, and about 88
environmental/social aspects on the vertical axis. The environmental aspects listed on the vertical
axis are those that are likely to be affected by any of the project activities.

This was designed by Leopold in 1971. Leopold matrix is among the two major forms of
matrices used in EIAs.

11
The cells of the matrix are divided by a diagonal line.

The top division is used to describe the magnitude of the impact that activity will have on
the environmental aspect, and the bottom division is used to describe the significance of
that impact.

Both, the magnitude and the significance, are rated on a scale of 1 to 10. This is subjective to the
surveyor and is based on the baseline data collected. If a cell has no division, it means that the
activity has no impact on the environmental aspect.

12
Leopold Matrix

Disadvantages of Leopold matrix

The one big disadvantage of the Leopold matrix is that it does not explicitly describe spatial
and temporal effects of the environmental activity. It merely gives us the magnitude and
significance of the interaction.

Second, it tends to be too simplified when you require a comprehensive analysis of the
impacts on the project area. A numerical value of the magnitude and impact is not sufficient for a
contractor to understand the impact their activities are having and why they should overcome it.

Third, they cannot explain linkages between two environmental aspects. In other words, it does
not describe secondary and tertiary impacts. It is extremely likely that more than one activity
will have multiple levels of impacts on the environmental aspects of the project area. How will
you glean this information?

13
Component Interaction Matrix

Environment Canada proposed a different form of matrix in 1974 called the Component
Interaction Matrix to detect indirect impacts systematically and understand them easily. This
overcame a big drawback of the Leopold matrix.

Here, instead of taking activities on the horizontal axis and environmental components on the
vertical axis, both axes listed environmental components. So, if two components were seen to be
linked by secondary or tertiary interactions, they would be marked by 1, 2, etc. And if they are
not impacted by multiple levels of interactions, they would be marked zero. An example is given
below:

Component Interaction matrix- 0-no linkage; 1-primary linkage; 2-secondary linkage.

Others forms of matrices

Once the elegance of matrices were recognized around the world, EIAs began to use them
increasingly in their impact assessments. Consequently, modifications were made and more and
more forms of matrices were developed. Some of them are Modified Graded matrix

1. Impact Summary matrix

14
 2. Loran matrix

Application of matrices

Matrices can be applied in medium to large scale projects where the number of developmental
activities are many (up to 100). This will obviously result in effects on many environmental
aspects. All of these cannot be covered easily in checklists.

It is perfectly acceptable to customize the matrix according to the project at hand. You are not
required by law to have 100 activities and 88 impacts on each of the axes, if the project does not
encompass so many components. Matrices are flexible, which is why they have been accepted
and used the world over.

Networks in Environmental Impact Assessment

The third common method of assessing impacts in EIA is called the Network method (checklists
and matrices are the other two). This was first given by Sorenson in 1971, primarily to explain
linkages between different environmental aspects. It is solely used to illustrate and understand
primary, secondary and tertiary impacts of a developmental activity.

How is it done?

Networks are usually in the form of flow charts or radiation diagrams, as illustrated below.

Network showing effects of vehicular movement during the developmental activity.

15
 Ne
twork as a flow chart.

A developmental activity is identified after which, all potential primary impacts are written
down. From these primary impacts, secondary and tertiary impacts are identified and connected
onto the network.

Advantages

Networks help us follow the chain of events of a developmental projects, and its associated
impacts. It can assess multiple impacts at the same time, helping us identify links that can
easily be overlooked in the checklist or matrices forms of impact assessment. It can be

16
aesthetically pleasing and easy to follow if done in a proper way. Often, networks are called
“impact trees”.

Disadvantages

However, networks do have considerable disadvantages. Unlike matrices, networks give no

information at all about the magnitude and the significance of impacts. Further, no matter
how hard you try, the networks can get very long and messy. This is especially the case if the
project being assessed is a large scale project. In order to identify all levels of impacts,
considerable knowledge of the environmental conditions of the project area is required.
This puts impetus on the extent of detail in the baseline study. It is only preferred over other
methods when multiple levels of impacts are expected at every stage of the development.

So, which to choose? Checklist, matrix or network?

Each form of impact assessment has advantages and disadvantages. Each form provides unique
information that can be very beneficial in understand component interactions as well as activity
component interactions. Some considerations for the selection of impact assessment method are-

 The scale of the project- Generally, small scale projects go for checklists as it is
comprehensive for that purpose. Medium scale projects can use either matrices or
networks, depending on the potential impacts of the project activities. Large scale
projects are better off using matrices.

 Extent of detail required- Checklists tend to be more descriptive, whereas networks are
quite simple in appearance. Matrices have the ability to be both descriptive and simple,
depending on the type of matrix used.

 Time available for the project- Sometimes, the EIA team is hard-pressed for time and
cannot spend too much time figuring out all the implications of the activities. They try to
go for the most significant impacts and the description of these impacts.

 Budget involved- This will, again, determine the amount of detail that can be generated
from the baseline study. Budget has an indirect influence on the method of analysis used.
17
However–there is no hard and fast rule saying only one method of impact analysis need to
be used. From what you have read in the last three blogs on impact assessment, you will
appreciate that a mixture of matrices and networks will give you both, magnitude and
significance of impacts, as well as the secondary and tertiary levels of impact. The team, if it
considers it a good idea, can certainly go for both forms of impact assessment in order to get the
most accurate information about the project area.

CHECKLIST METHODOLOGIES

Introduction

Checklist methodologies range from listings of environmental factors in highly structured

approaches involving importance weightings for factors and application of scaling techniques for
the impacts of each alternative on each factor.

Checklists in genet all re strong in impact identification and are capable of bringing them to the
attention and awareness of their audiences. Impact identification is the most fundamental
function of an EIA and in this respect, all types of checklists, namely simple, descriptive, scaling
and weighting checklists do equally well.

Checklists are of four broad categories and represent one of the basic methodologies listed in
EIA. They are: (a) Simple Checklists: that are a list of parameters without guidelines provided
and how to interpret and measure an environmental parameter. (b) Descriptive Checklists: that
includes an identification of environmental parameter~ and guidelines on how parameter data are
to be measured. (c) Scaling Checklists: those are similar to descriptive checklist with the addition
of information basis to subjective scaling or parameter values. (d) Scaling Check Lists: are
capable of quanti fying impacts.

"Simple checklists" represent lists of environmental factors. which should be addressed:

however. no information is provided on specific data needs. methods for measurement. or impact
prediction and assessment. "Descriptive checklists" refer to methodologies that include lists of
environmental factors along with information on measurement and impact prediction and
assessment.

18
Scaling and weighting inherent in the latter types of checklists facilitates decision- making. Such
checklists. apart form being strong in impact identification. also incorporate the functions of
impact measurement and to a certain degree of interpretation and evaluation, and it is those
aspects that make them more amenable to decision- making analysis.

But the impact of scaling and weighting is. Nevertheless, subjective and this poses the danger
that society holds all diverse impacts to be equally important.

Scaling and weighting checklists, while capable of quantifying impacts reasonably well, even
though using subjective estimates. make no provision for assessing dynamic probabilistic trends
or for mitigation, enhancement and monitoring programmes. Identification of higher order
effects, impacts and interactions are outside their scope. But simple and descriptive checklists
offer no more than this. They merely identify the possible potential impacts without any sort of
rating as to their relative magnitudes.

Methods that involve scaling and weighting and the consequent aggregation remove decision
making from the hands of decision makers. Further they incorporate into one number various
intrinsically different impacts and this deprives the decision maker of the possibility of tradeoffs.
REPORT THI

EIA MATHEMATICAL MODELS

Mathematical models use mathematical equations to represent the functional relationships between
variables. In general. Sets of equations are combined to simulate the behavior of environmental systems.
The number of variables in a model and the nature of the relationships between them are determined by
the complexity of the environmental system being modeled. Mathematical modeling aims to limit. as
much as possible. the number of variables and thus keep the relationships between variables as simple as
possible without compromising the accuracy of representation of the environmental system.

Many problems arise in the evaluation of environmental impacts due to new projects; for instance:

The determination of the pertinent variables, the choice of methodology to follow, the need to inform the
project proponent and regulatory agencies at every step of the evaluation process, and to present the best
assessments possible for a variety of alternatives, the necessity to provide understandable information to
the public.

19
These problems are emphasized by the presence of many specialists of different disciplines who have to
find a common language to integrate their experfences towards the same aim: the prediction of the
impacts of a new project. Mathematical modelling presents a unified way to meet these requirements.

The study was divided into two parts: abiotic and biotic models. Abiotic models include water quality and
water management modelling. Biotic models take into account the biological aspects which have been
used for impact assess- ments.

The work is based primarily on visits to groups that are active in using modelling (or creating models)
and simulation for impact assessment, and on literature surveys.

All decision making involves an implicit (if not explicit) use of models, since the decision maker
invariably has a causal relationship in mind when he mskes a decision. Mathematical modelling can
therefore be regarded as a formalization of decision-making processes.

As stressed by Forrester (1971) mathematical models make it possible to extend the “mental” models
which are built continuously in a natural way. In a few occurrences, the mathematical model can even
*yield answers which are in contradiction with current “m6htal” models (counter-intuition effect).

Usually environmental management encompasses the following steps:

perception of needs, problem definition and monitoring program, problem analysis and modeling,
simulation to test alternative strategies, evaluation of alternatives, selection by decision makers,
implementation and monitoring program.

In this context, modelling plays an important role in the decision-making process. However, the results
are are uncertain because: the conceptual analysis (summation of “mental” evaluations and physical
concepts) is incomplete, the mathematical relations used are representative of present knowledge,
Disadvantages Advantages .Requires computer Promotes communication between facilities (*)
disciplines

Requires expertise User forced to clarify assumptions ant and a fair amount of causal mechanisms time
Any form of relationship can be Results may be too handled - linear or nonlinear easily believed by
decision makers Helps to identify key variables

FROM BLACK BOX TO WHITE BOX IN EIA MATHEMATICAL MODELS

Mathematical models are based on the fundamental concepts of physical systems. A physical system is
described by a few measurable variables and well-defined boundaries. Modelling the environment

20
requires finding analytical relationships between variables knowing some responses of the system under
various stimuli. This is known as an inverse problem (Karplus 1983) because it can be solved by a variety
of mathematical relations. A simple algebraic mode, known as a black box, can represent the response of
a system for very specific applications. If the model is to be used in a wide spectrum of different
situations, it has to rely as much as possible on principles of physical systems (conservation principles of
mass, energy and momentum). Most of the time (Taft 1965) due to numerous factors (computatiorial
limits, unknown parameters, complexity of the formulation,...), mathematical models are simplified,
taking into account only some of the fundamental equations. So, in air pollution, even in the case of wind
field modelling, the principle of mas$ conser- vation alone is taken into account. In water modelling,
equations of mass and momentum are c&rentfj Used, simplifying assumptions being made either on
spatial “fepresen- tation (e.g., omitting one or two dimensions) or on the transient nature of the system.
With this perspective, it appears that the robustness of a model will depend updn‘the assumptions which
have been made. Figure I, taken from Karplus (1983) presents this situation, It appears, that air pollution
and ecological modelling are still at the boundaries between clean mechanistic models (white box
models) and models with incompletely known factors (black box models).

has to be as simple as possible with some compari- son or sensitivity analysis to establish its credibility.

REPORT THI

TYPES OF EIA MATHEMATICAL MODELS

1. AIR DISPERSION MODELS

Air dispersion modelling is, by far, the main mathematical tool used by consulting firms in the
environmental area. This is understandable because air is, with water, one of the chief dilution and
transport media. This is also due to the fact that several mathematical models are available (mainly from
U.S. EPA), and are easy to use. Many companies or government agencies in Canada have developed their
own models, and information about these models ranges from excellent to very poor. Some calibration
and validation have been done, but the results are not always easy to interpret.

2. SHORT- AND MEDIUM-RANGE MODELS

Air dispersion modelling is largely dominated by the Gaussian model established some twenty years ago
(Pasquill-Gifford equations). This model assumes normal distributions of pollutants along the vertical and
horizontal, perpendicular to the direction of wind. It permits assessments of continuous or instantaneous
release of pollutants, with or without a linear reaction rate or decay.

21
3. BOX MODELS

This kind of model assumes constant concentration in a control volume, and has been used to predict
average concentrations in cities where the heat-island effect is non- negligible (Summers 1967).

A box model has been used in a different context by Energy System Laboratory to simulate release of
radon gas in an open pit mine. This model is built with several adjacent boxes and yields average
concentrations with time. It has been tested and validated by comparison with a wind tunnel model.

This approach has been used by McMahon et a/. (1976) in association with Acres. Assumptions of
uniform concentration are made along the vertical and along a circular arc drawn from the source over an
angle representing the angular variation of the plume trajectory. Concentration is lowered with distance as
the plume disperses within the widening box. Time-step is one day and meteorogical data are averaged
over that time period. Output can be on a monthly, seasonal, or annual basis. The pollutant trajectory is
assumed bounded by the sides of the wedge-shaped box. Wind data are taken at the station nearest to the
receptor considered.

Acres applied this model to follow the chemistry of Son, SO., (wet and dry), NO, and No, for the Nova
Scotia Power Corporation and for Ontario Hydro. Projected sulphate loadings on the Great Lakes in the
year 2000 were also conducted (Reid 1979a). Some validation of this model has been made.

4. EULERIAN MODELS

These models are based upon the conservation equation, using a co-ordinate system fixed in space. First-
order closure models treat turbulence as diffusion term, and are known as gradient transport or K models
(higher-order closure is not yet used in impact assessment studies). The use of gradient transport models
is still rare, but they provide some extra possibilities as compared with Gaussian models. Wind field may
vary with space, diffusion parameters may vary with height, and pollutant kinetics can be as complex as
necessary. This method also presents several disadvantages. Diffusion parameters are not well known,
wind field must be computed or partially observed at the site, and computations are complex and lead to
numerical problems.

5. LONG-RANGE MODELS

Lagrangian Models

These are based on computation of trajectories between sources and receptors. These models are useful to
evaluate different strategies of reduction of long-term and long-range pollution (e.g., acid rain). Eau

22
(Institut national de la recherche scientifique) which is based on the gradient transport model. Turbulent
diffusion is considered uniform along the vertical. It is also a statistical model because it uses time
average rather than meteorological data, except for wind field. This model takes into account four
different forms of sulphur (dry and wet Son, dry and wet Sod). Pollutants undergo chemical reactions and
are submitted to wet and dry deposition as well as vertical diffusion. Wind field is updated every six
hours and the numerical integration is performed with a time-step of three hours. Precipitation is
simulated by way of a Markov chain. The cumulative effects of deposition are computed over a season or
a year.

The MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment) model follows the same concepts. Trajectories are
evaluated every three to six hours. Bookkeeping of deposited pollutant is done on receptors based on a
grid size of 127 km by 127 km.

AES and Monserco have developed codes on the same basis; insufficient information has been obtained
to describe them.

6. GAUSSIAN MODEL

The only model found in this field is MEP model (MEPTRANS code). It follows the same concepts as
described for short- to medium-range modelling (MUST code). It is a segmented Gaussian model
(Gaussian dispersion around a trajectory with four atmospheric layers and mixing depth variations with
seasons. It takes into account Son, SO, wet and dry chemistry and NO,. Wind field is generated by three-
hour surface pressure, and pollutants are tracked for five days. Some validation was made for 1978.

23