National environmental-permitting law rarely bans emissions outright — it gates them behind a modeled compliance test. A regulator (or the applicant's own Environmental Impact Assessment) runs an atmospheric dispersion model and compares the predicted ground-level concentration at the property boundary against a statutory ambient limit. This simulator uses the standard Gaussian plume equation, in its general form (valid at any height z, not just the ground):
C(x,y,z) = Q / (2π u σy σz) · exp(-y² / 2σy²) · [exp(-(z-H)² / 2σz²) + exp(-(z+H)² / 2σz²)]
The second bracket term is the mirror-image source used to model total reflection of the plume off the ground (no deposition/absorption). Setting z = 0 reduces the bracket to 2·exp(-H² / 2σz²) — the ground-level special case regulators actually check, and what the plan-view and decay-chart panels use. The profile panel below sweeps z directly so you can see the full vertical Gaussian shape the ground-level number is sampled from.
- Emission rate / stack height / wind speed — the physical inputs a facility's permit application must disclose.
- Property boundary D — the nearest point the public can legally be exposed, drawn as a circle around the facility and evaluated directly downwind (y = 0) where concentration peaks.
- Stability class — how turbulent the atmosphere is; unstable air (A) disperses the plume fast, stable air (F) lets it stay narrow and travel further before spreading.
- Permit verdict — Approved when boundary concentration is below the legal limit, Conditional with extra monitoring when it is within 50% over, and Denied — full EIS required beyond that, mirroring how real permitting authorities use a modeled-compliance test as the gate.
- Plan view — drag to pan, scroll/pinch to zoom, click to drop a probe and read the concentration at any point on the map, not just the boundary.
The σy/σz growth-rate coefficients here are a simplified, pedagogical Pasquill–Gifford-style parameterization — real regulatory submissions use validated tools such as AERMOD, but the underlying physics and the legal decision logic are the same.