I_ Surveillance & Analysis Division
337 5 Region V
UNITED STATES 230 South Dearborn St.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Chicago, Illinois 60604 June - December, 1£
/_ 001R77100
v
\
AMBIENT MONITORING
NEAR THE LAND DISPOSAL SITE
| FOR TACONITE TAILINGS
I Reserve Mining Company
I Silver Bay, Minnesota
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTERIM REPORT OF SURVEY FOR THE IKS, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S AMBIENT MONITORING NEAR THE LAND
DISPOSAL SITE FOR TACONITE TAILINGS, RESERVE MINING
COMPANY, SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA
U»S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
JUNE - DECEMBER
1977
"-y
-------
DISCLAIMER
I
I
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
_ ment or recommendations for use by EPA.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
An ambient air monitoring survey for amphibole fibers and suspended
particulate was conducted near the Reserve Mining Company taconite
beneficiation process, Silver Bay, Minnesota, during the period
June 17, 1977 - June 23, 1978. The objectives of the study were to
establish background levels of amphibole fibers and particulate,
monitor the levels of these pollutants as the beneficiation plant is
brought back into production and assess the impact of the construction
of the tailings basin (Milepost 7) on the populated areas. During the
period of the survey, the plant was not in production from June 26, 1977-
December 6, 1977 except for one day, July 31, 1977. This interim report
is concerned only with the period that the plant was shut down. The back-
ground levels of particulate as measured at the six sampling stations
were low in comparison to the air quality standards. It appears that the
construction activity at the tailings basin has little impact on the
populated areas. Levels of amphibole fibers, as determined by X-ray
diffraction .analysis and electron microscopy for selected samples, were
also relatively low. Conclusions are as follows:
1. Suspended Particulates
a. Background levels of suspended particulate are very low in
comparison to the air quality standards.
b. As measured at Sites 1 and 2, the background level of parti-
culate in Silver Bay is 16 ug/m3. Near the tailings basin,
Milepost 7, the background level is 10 ug/m-\
c. Construction at Milepost 7 had minimal impact on the levels of
particulate during the period of the background study.
2. Amphibole Fibers
a. Background levels of amphibole fibers are low, at or near the
detection limit of the X-ray diffraction analytical technique.
b. As measured at Sites 1 and 2 and considering the error of + 50%
inherent in electron microscropy, the background level of amphibole
fibers in Silver Bay is 7,5000 fibers/m^. Near the tailings basin,
Milepost 7, the background level is estimated at 3,000 fibers/m3.
Second maximum 72 hour average background levels of fibers are
estimated as 60,000 fibers/m3 in Silver Bay and 15,000 fibers/m3
near the tailings basin.
c. Present techniques in X-ray diffraction analysis are not sufficiently
sensitive to be used as a surrogate for electron microscope analysis
of amphibole fibers when the Reserve Mining Company beneficiation
plant is not operating. However, the presence of low mass concentra-
tion as measured by X-ray diffraction does indicate that the levels
of fibers are correspondingly low.
-------
1
i
1
1
1
^H
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
1 . INTRODUCTION
2. OBJECTIVES
3. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
a. Federal and State of Minnesota Ambient Air Quality
b. Minnesota Air Pollution Control Regulations
4 . BACKGROUND
a. Participating Agencies
b . Previous Survey
c . Period of Current Survey
d. Sampling Network
(1) Sampling Methods
(2) Sampling Frequencies
(3) Analytical Technique
(4) Quality Assurance
(5) Data Analysis
5. DISCUSSION
a. Ambient Monitoring
(1) Sampling Network
(2) Quality Assurance
b. Laboratory Analysis
(1) X-Ray Diffraction
(a) Sample Preparation
(b) External Standard
(2) Electron Microscope
(a) Sample Preparation
(b) Sample Analysis
c. Data Analysis
(1) Statistical Methods
(a) Statistical Analysis System (SAS)
(b) Additional Analyses
(2) Wind Data
PAGE
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
7
7
7
7
9
10
10
11
11
11
13
13
15
15
15
17
19
-------
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
PAGE
6 . FINDINGS 19
a. Ambient Monitoring 19
I
I
I
I
I
(1) Suspended Particulate 19
(2) Amphibole Fibers 21
b. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
I
I
24
c. Wind Data 25
CONCLUSIONS 25
RECOMMENDATIONS 27
APPENDIX A. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Suspended 28
Particulate Data Analysis Procedure
B. Operation and Service of the Network 36
C. Production Rates 42
ID. Total Suspended Particulate Data Sheets 45
E. X-Ray Diffraction Analysis, Amphibole Mass 47
Concentration (ug/m^)
IF. Electron Microscope Analysis, Amphibole Fibers 55
(fibers/m3)
G. Problem Samples 58
H. Wind Frequency Distribution, Reserve Office 60
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. 1. Air Monitoring Network 5
2. Typical X-Ray Diffraction Pattern of Filtered
Solids 12
3. Preparation of Electron Microscope Grids 14
4. Wind Rose, Reserve Mining Company 26
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
PAGE
TABLE No. 1. Randomized Fiber Samples 6
2. Performance Audits 9
3. Statistical Analysis System Functions 15
4. Statistical Symbols 16
5. Suspended Particulate Summary Statistics, ug/m^ 19
6. Projected Annual Statistics, ug/m-* 20
7. Precision of Noncontinuous Sampling 20
8. Amphibole Mass Summary Statistics, ug/m^ 22
9. Amphibole Fiber Summary Statistics, fibers/m 22
10. Projected Annual Statistics, Amphibole Fibers 23
11. Correlation Between the Amphibole Mass and Fibers Data 24
12. Summary of ANOVA 24
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTERIM REPORT OF SURVEY FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S AMBIENT MONITORING NEAR THE LAND DISPOSAL SITE FOR
TACONITE TAILINGS, RESERVE MINING COMPANY, SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA
1. INTRODUCTION
During the summer of 1976, ambient air monitoring for amphibole
fibers was completed by the University of Minnesota, Duluth
under contract with the Surveillance and Analysis Division,
Region V, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At that
time, this study was the latest of a series of studies completed
by the EPA, the State of Minnesota or Reserve Mining Company
beginning in the early 1970s. The 1976 study was undertaken to
assess levels of fibers in Silver Bay, Minnesota during the period
of the annual shutdown of the Reserve Mining Company's beneficia-
tion plant. This occurs during the month of July. In the spring
of 1977, it was once again determined to gather background levels
of fibers during the shutdown. However, regulatory agency re-
sources were to be used to complete the monitoring. As a result,
a network was established on June 17, 1977. The ambient air
monitoring included suspended particulate in addition to the
amphibole fibers. The Air Surveillance Branch, Region V, had
responsibility for installation and service of the network.
Laboratory analysis for suspended particulate was completed by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Analysis of amphibole
fibers was completed by the Lake Superior Basin Studies Center,
University of Minnesota, Duluth under contract with the Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, EPA, Duluth, Minnesota. This interim
report is concerned with the period of the extended shutdown
of the beneficiation plant from July to December, 1977.
2. OBJECTIVES
a. Establish background levels of amphibole fibers and suspended
particulate in Silver Bay, Minnesota during the shutdown of the
beneficiation plant.
b. Monitor levels of amphibole fibers and suspended particulate
as the beneficiation plant is brought into full production.
c. Monitor levels of fibers and suspended particulate near the
boundary of Milepost 7 and assess the impact of the construction
work on the populated areas.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2-
3. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
No air quality standard for amphibole fibers has been promulgated;
however, the Eighth Circuit Court in its decision of March 14, 1975,
mandated that the fiber count be reduced to the level ordinarily
found in the ambient air of a control city such as St. Paul (7000
fibers/cubic meter). Existing standards for suspended particulate
are defined below.
a. Federal and State of Minnesota Ambient Air Quality
(1) Primary Standards - annual geometric mean of 75 ug/m^ not
to be exceeded.
- 260 ug/m^ maximum 24-hour average con-
centration not to be exceeded more than one day per year.
(2) Secondary Standard - 150 ug/m-' maximum 24-hour average
concentration not to be exceeded more than one day per
year.
b. Minnesota Air Pollution Control Regulations
(1) APC-6 - Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Air
Borne: All reasonable measures must be used to prevent
particulate from becoming air-borne.
4. BACKGROUND
A meeting was held on June 2, 1977, at the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency to finalize plans for starting an ambient monitoring network
near Silver Bay, Minnesota.1 Earlier, the Minnesota Supreme Court
directed Reserve Mining Company to construct a land disposal site for
taconite tailings at Milepost 7. As a result, plans for monitoring
near the land disposal site first formulated in October 1976 could be
incorporated into the network for monitoring near Silver Bay.2 The
network which resulted represents a modification of that originally
intended for monitoring the land disposal site. The important objec-
tive of sampling in the populated areas was met. However, boundary
line sampling at the disposal site was not possible because of the
lack of available power.
1. Region V, U.S. EPA, Surveillance and Analysis Division Memorandum
dated June 8, 1977, subject: Ambient Air Monitoring Milepost 7,
Reserve Mining Company.
2. Protocol for Ambient Monitoring Near the Land Disposal Site for
Taconite Tailings, Reserve Mining Company, Region V, U.S. EPA,
Surveillance and Analysis Division, October 8, 1976.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 3 -
a. Participating Agencies
The agencies represented at the meeting were as follows:
(1) Region V, Surveillance and Analysis Division.
(2) Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
(3) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Certain areas of responsiblity were accepted by each agency to
ensure gathering quality assured air monitoring data. These
are detailed below:
(4) Region V, Surveillance and Analysis Division (S&AD).
(a) Overall responsiblity for the air monitoring study.
(b) Specific responsiblity for gathering the air samples
including site selection, installation, service and
maintenance of the network.
(c) Report preparation.
(5) Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota (ERL).
Specific responsibility for laboratory analysis of the
amphibole fiber samples.
(6) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
(a) Specific responsiblity for supplying and analyzing the
filters used to gather the suspended particulate data.
(b) Assist in site selection and installation of the network.
b. Previous Survey
The one previous survey designed specifically to gather back-
ground data on amphibole fibers in the Silver Bay area was that
completed by the University of Minnesota, Duluth during 1976.^ This
study was completed under contract with Region V, Surveillance and
Analysis Division. The study was designed to include air sampling
during the time the beneficiation plant was shutdown. At one of the
sites located in Silver Bay (The William Kelly High School), the
average amphibole fiber concentration was estimated at 311,000 fibers/in-*
including the contribution from the plant. During the shutdown period,
the average concentration measured at the same site was estimated to be
40,700 amphibole fibers/m3.
3. D.E. Olson, Report on Air Monitoring at Silver Bay During Shutdown -
Summer of 1976, Dept. of Physics, University of Minnesota, Duluth,
EPA Contract #68-01-4193, April 1977.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 4 -
c. Period of Current Survey
As originally designed, the survey was planned for a period
of 90 days to include the shutdown of the beneficiation plant
during July. Following the resumption of the operation of the
plant on July 31, 1977, an iron workers strike caused its immedi-
ate shutdown on August 1, 1977. Since this presented the opportu-
nity to gather additional background data, the survey was continued
through the period of the strike and for an additional six months
following resumption of production. The survey began June 17, 1977
and ended June 23, 1978.
d . Sampling Network
The air monitoring network is described in Figure 1. Coverage
was provided for Silver Bay (Stations 1 and 2), Beaver Bay (Station
3) and in the area of the tailings basin at Milepost 7. Sampling
was to be conducted for suspended particulate and amphibole fibers
at each location. In addition, wind data were collected at two
locations .
(1) Sampling Methods
(a)Suspended particulate - reference method high volume
samplers as described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix B.
(b) Amphibole fibers - membrane samplers of the type used
historically for sampling amphibole fibers at a nominal
flow of four cubic feet per minute (CFM) through a
membrane filter with a pore size of 0.45 micron (um)
and 102 millimeters in diameter.^
(2) Sampling Frequencies
At the recommendation of the Duluth Laboratory, a composite
sample of amphibole fibers was collected over three days.
This would provide sufficient mass of material for analysis
by X-ray diffraction. As a result, the sampling frequency
for gathering suspended particulate data was every third day
rather than the six day cycle specified as minimum in 40 CFR 51
4. J.S. Drury, et al, Review of the Environmental Effects of Asbestos (Draft),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 1977, Contract No. W-7405-eng-26.
-------
I
- 5 -
jj
JO
RESERVE MINING
COMPANY
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 6 -
(3) Analytical Technique
The analysis for particulate was in accordance with the
reference method and completed by MPCA. All membrane
samples were analyzed by the Lake Superior Basin Studies
Center under contract with the Duluth Laboratory using
X-ray diffraction techniques developed at the laboratory.
A random selection of the membrane samples (5 per station
per quarter) was analyzed for fibers using electron micro-
scopic techniques. The randomized fiber sample schedule
is described in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
RANDOMIZED FIBER SAMPLES
CALENDER SCHEDULE
June 17, June 26
July 14
Aug. 19, Aug. 29
SAMPLE
1,
5
1 ,
9,
1,
9
1
3,
1,
9
6,
9,
3
NOS.
4
10
4
9
10
5
9
5
Sept,
25
10, Sept.
Oct. 1, Oct. 25
November 28
December 1
Jan. 9, Jan. 30
Feb. 2, Feb. 14
March 25
April 18, April 25
May 15, May 27
June 8
(4) Quality Assurance
Quality control of the fiber data was under the general
supervision of the Duluth Laboratory. However, additional
procedures were also agreed upon and utilized throughout the
study.
(a) Calibration - the high volume samplers were calibrated
initially by the Central District Office, S&AD, prior to
shipment to the site (one of the samplers was calibrated
by the Western District Office). Three spare motors were
also calibrated for immediate use in the field in the
event of breakdown. Subsequent calibrations are reported
in the Discussion section of the report. No standard tech-
nique was available for calibrating the membrane samplers.
It was agreed that a technique using a hot wire anemometer
employed by MPCA would be used for this calibration. The
membrane samplers were calibrated by MPCA prior to shipment
to the site. Subsequent calibrations required at selected
stations because of equipment failures were completed
by MPCA.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(b) Filter processing - glass fiber filters for sampling
particulate were processed in accordance with existing
MPCA procedures as described in Appendix A. In addi-
tion to analysis, MPCA is responsible for storage of
the filters. Filters were maintained on site in envelopes
for periodic shipment to MPCA. Membrane filters were
secured in plastic petri dishes for shipment to the
Duluth Laboratory. A numbering procedure was established
and chain of custody was exercised.
(c) Operation of the network - checklists pertaining to the
operation and daily service of the stations were developed
by S&AD. Copies of these procedures are in Appendix B.
(5) Data Analysis
Data analysis was to be completed by S&AD for comparison with
the appropriate air quality standard. To relate the X-ray
diffraction analysis of the fiber samples with the electron
microsopic analysis, correlation coefficients were to be developed
for each station as well as the overall data set.
5. DISCUSSION
a. Ambient Monitoring
The operation and maintenance of the network was completed by the
Air Surveillance Branch, S&AD during the initial phase of the study,
June 17 - August 19, 1977. Subsequent to this, the service of the net-
work was contracted with the Lake Superior Basin Studies Center,
University of Minnesota, Duluth. The responsiblity for maintenance of
the network remained with S&AD. Training for the student operators
was provided by S&AD personnel.
(1) Sampling Network
The final design of the ambient network resulted from site
evaluations completed with the assistance of personnel from
MPCA and the Western District Office, S&AD. The sites in
Silver Bay were selected because they meet siting guidelines, 5
are representative of the populated area and, historically,
are locations used in previous monitoring completed in Silver
5. Guidance for Air Quality Monitoring Network Design and Instrument
Siting, OAQPS 1.2-012, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, RTP,
September 1975.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bay. The site in Beaver Bay was chosen as meeting siting
guidelines and being representative of the limited population
in the area. The outlying sites were selected primarily because
of the availability of power and proximity to the land disposal
sites at Milepost 7. The sampling locations are described
below and on Figure 1.
(a) Station 1 - Campton Elementary School, Silver Bay.
Station equipment - High Volume sampler
Membrane sampler
Station height - roof height of 24 feet
Obstructions - none
(b) Station 2 - William Kelly High School, Silver Bay.
Station equipment - High Volume sampler
Membrane sampler
Station height - roof height of 36 feet
Obstructions - none
(c) Station 3 - Holiday Gas Station, Beaver Bay.
Station Equipment - High Volume sampler
Membrane sampler
Station height - roof height of 14.5 feet
Obstructions - trees in rear of building 50 feet
away, possible re-entrained road dust, construction
at adjacent building during Fall 1977.
(d) Station 4 - Highway 3, location of Reserve Mining Company's
High Volume sampler (Site #11).
Station equipment - High Volume sampler
Membrane sampler
Station height - platform 4.5 feet above ground,
total height of filter - 8 feet.
Obstructions - none
(e) Station 5 - Dr. Rodney Nelson's property off of Highway 5.
Station equipment - High Volume sampler
Membrane sampler
Wind set mounted on a 40 foot towe
Station height - platform 4.5 feet above ground, total
height of filter - 8 feet
Obstructions - possible interference from trees, excep
no obstructions for wind measurements.
(f) Station 6 - Mr. W.J. Nosek, Jr.'s property off of Highway 4,
location of Reserve Mining Company's High Volume sampler (Site #8)
Station equipment - High Volume sampler
Membrane sampler
Station height - platform 4.5 feet above ground, total
height of filter - 8 feet.
Obstructions - interference from nearby trees
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 9 -
A wind set was also installed at the Reserve Mining Company
office complex. The transmitter was mounted on a 40 foot
tower. A weather shelter was also installed to house the
following equipment:
Hygrothermograph
Minimum/maximum thermometers
(2) Quality Assurance
Numerous audits were performed during the study to ensure
proper operation of the network and equipment. Periodic
calibration of the high volume samplers were completed co-
incident with the change of motor brushes. These calibrations
were completed as part of the maintenance responsibility by
the S&AD. A significant role was that carried out by MPCA.
In addition to calibrating the membrane samplers, periodic
audits were performed on the network operation and sampler
flow rates (both membrane and Hi-Vol samplers). Audits of the
network operation were also carried out by personnel of the
Air Surveillance Branch, S&AD. During the performance of routine
maintenance on the Hi-Vols, calibration following motor brush
changes, audits of the operation were also completed by S&AD,
District Office personnel. The audits and calibrations completed
during the background study are described in Table 2 below:
TABLE 2
TYPE OF AUDIT
Hi-Vols, membrane
samplers , network
operation.
Hi-Vol calibration,
network operation
Network operation
Hi-Vo1s, membrane
samplers, network
Hi-Vol calibration,
network operation
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
MPCA
PROBLEMS
MAJOR* MINOR
None
S&AD
S&AD
MPCA
S&AD
8/29-30/77 None
10/5-6/77
10/7/77
11/8/77
None
None
None
Loose wing
nuts on filter
holder.
Transducer hose
splitting.
None
None
Loose wing
nuts. Transducer
hose cracking.
None
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 10 -
TABLE 2 (cont.)
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
RESPONSIBLE PROBLEMS
TYPE OF AUDIT AGENCY DATE MAJOR* MINOR
Hi-Vols, membrane MPCA 12/12/77 Tearing None
samplers, network filters
operation.
Wind set, Dr. S&AD 12/2/77 Malfunctioning None
Nelson's property recorder
* Major problems are those which could result in invalid data.
The most serious problem which resulted in the loss of data
involved the wind recorder at Site #5, Dr. Nelson's property.
The recorder malfunctioned in August and was only discovered
in early December during an analysis of the wind charts for
that period. The malfunction resulted in a loss of a portion
of the trace and was not readily discernable. As a result,
the data were lost for the period August 30 through
December 21, 1977. Another significant problem which could
have affected the fiber data was tearing filters. This
problem occurred in early winter and was resolved through
proper handling techniques.
b. Laboratory Analysis
The laboratory analysis for amphibole fibers was completed by
the Lake Superior Basin Studies Center under contract with and the
general supervision of ERL. All samples were analyzed using X-ray
diffraction techniques while a random sample of the membrane filters
were analyzed using electron microscopy. Brief descriptions of the
methods follows:
(1) X-Ray Diffraction
Methods for the semi-quantification of mass concentration of
of amphibole fibers have previously been reported. Following
collection on a micrometer Millipore membrane filter, a section
of the filter is mounted on a glass slide which is placed in a
Phillips APD 3500 automated powder diffractometer for analysis.
An amphibole (110) diffraction peak and a (310) peak unique to
6. Cook, P.M. et al, Semi-Quantitative Determination of Asbestiform
Amphibole Mineral Concentrations in Western Lake Superior Water Samples,
Advances in X-Ray Analysis, Ed., 18:557-567, 1975.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-li-
the amphibole mineral cummingtonite-grunerite (c-g)
are observed in samples containing amphibole fibers
as shown in Figure 2. The amphibole (110) and c-g
(310) peak intensities are determined by step scanning
with copper K^ radiation in 0.02° increments over the
26 ranges 9.9 - 11.1 and 28.8 - 29.6 degrees, respectively.
The integrated peak count is calculated by summing the net
counts above background for each increment.
(a) Sample Preparation
Samples were prepared for X-ray diffraction analysis by
mounting the membrane filter on a 17 x 26 millimeter
(mm) piece of glass cut from a microscope slide. A
light coating of clear lacquer sprayed on the glass provided
a smooth, effective adhesive for the filter piece which was
then trimmed with a razor blade to the edge of the glass.
A light coating of lacquer was sprayed on the filter sample
surface prior to mounting on the glass piece to prevent any
of the particles from being rubbed off. The layer of lacquer
causes a small loss of X-ray intensity due to scattering of
the X-rays. Once placed in the diffractometer sample changer,
the filter sample was held flush with the top surface of the
sample holder by sealing the reverse side of the sample into
the holder with a few drops of wax.
(b) External Standard
The mass of amphibole in a sample is calculated from an
external standard curve (Figure 2 insert) which is deter-
mined by X-ray diffraction of prepared samples of taconite
tailings. The fine tailings contain approximately 80%
amphibole, mostly c-g with some actinolite. The remaining
20% is quartz with traces of other minerals. The amphibole
fibers in the standard are essentially the same as those
present in air samples from Silver Bay but tend to have a
smaller diameter distribution. Standard samples were
prepared by filtration of known amounts of amphibole mixture
on 960 mm2 areas of millipore filters. Each filter was
coated with lacquer and mounted for X-ray diffraction
analysis in the same way as the air sample filters.
(2) Electron Microscope
Fiber counts are made by identifying individual fibers among
the many particles present in the sample. Since the number of
fibers which are actually counted is a small fraction of the
calculated fiber concentration, the sample must be prepared
for electron microscope examination in a way that preserves
the original particulate concentration and distribution.
The direct transfer of filtered particles from the surface of
the filter to a carbon film replica on an electron microscope
grid, without the rearrangement of the particles, allows the
viewing of microcosms which are representative of the total
sample .
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 12 -
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 13 -
(a) Sample Preparation
The relatively large mass loadings and the millipore filters
required for sample collection and X-ray diffraction analysis
(72-hour sample period) do not lend to electron microscope
analysis. The heavy particulate loading on the filters
required a sample dilution step prior to electron microscope
grid preparation. Also, efficient direct transfer of particles
to electron microscope grids requires that the sample be
placed on the flat surface of a Nuclepore membrane filter. In
this event, procedures required low temperature ashing of a
piece of the original membrane filter, resuspension of the ash
in 0.1 urn filtered distilled water with five minutes of low
energy sonification and filtration on a 47 mm, 0.1 urn Nuclepore
filter. The preparation of electron microscope grids was per-
formed in a filtered air environment as follows (see Figure 3).
Nuclepore filters or filter sections were carbon coated to
create an approximately 500A thick carbon film with particles
inbedded in it. Small sections of the filter were cut and
placed carbon side down on Formvar film coated electron micro-
scope grids. The grids were placed on a piece of coarse metal
screen on top of several layers of filter paper in a petri
dish. A small drop of chloroform was placed on each filter
section and the layers of filter paper were saturated with
chloroform. The petri dish was covered and chloroform vapors
allowed to slowly dissolve away all of the filter and Formvar
film. This step takes from 4 to 24-hours. The grid which
results is covered with a carbon film in which the sample
particles are imbedded. The technique minimizes the loss
of particles during the transfer of the sample from filter
to grid and leaves a replica of the filter (0.1 urn holes)
which can be used to check on folds or breaks in the carbon
film. Blank samples were prepared from unused Millipore
filters in the same manner as air samples.
(b) Sample Analysis
Randomly chosen grid openings were systematically scanned at
a magnification of 10,000 X or greater on a JEOL 100C or
Phillips 201 transmission electron microscope. Grid openings
with broken carbon films or other disruptions of the sample
are rejected. Each particle which has a length to width ratio
j> 3 is studied by selected area electron diffraction (SAED) to
determine its mineralogical identity. Amphibole and chrysotile
filbers produce characteristic SAED patterns when oriented
properly in the electron beam.7 Fiber size, orientation or
interferring particles cause many SAED patterns which are
ambiguous. All fibers which cannot be determined to be chrysotile,
amphibole or non-amphibole by SAED are classified as ambiguous.
7. Cook, P.M., et al, X-Ray Diffraction and Electron Beam Analysis of
Asbestiform Minerals in Lake Superior Waters, The Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Annals No. 75CH1004-1, 1976.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 14 -
TRANSFER OF AIR SAMPLES TO
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE GRIDS
Air Sample
Low Temperature
Ashing
Ash +
0.1 jum Filtered
Distilled H20
filter piece
7
O.Sjum or 1.2jum
Millipore Filter
.carbon
.filter
Sonification (bath)
Filter
_ Carbon
Coat
formvar
O.l/jm or 0.2,/jm
Nuclepore Filter
carbon
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE
Figure 3: Preparation of Electron Microscope Grids
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 15 -
This includes fibers which are clumped with other particles.
The result of this procedure is to underestimate the actual
fiber concentrations present in the sample. At least 10
grid squares for each sample were examined. This resulted in
a range of 0 - 127 amphibole fibers observed for shutdown
period air samples. The amphibole fiber concentration is cal-
culated from the formula:
2
# amphibole fibers/m^ (cubic meter) = # amph. fibers X filter area (urn )
2 3
area examined (um ) X air volume sampled (m >
c. Data Analysis
(1) Statistical Methods
(a) Statistical Analysis System (SAS)
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS), Version 76, was
used to analyze the data for certain of the statistics
reported. SAS is an integrated system for data
management and statistical analysis which is operational
on the USEPA Computing Center, Washington, D.C. Access
is available from the Region V office through terminals.
The functions utilized in the data analysis are listed in
in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM FUNCTIONS
DATA FUNCTION
Particulate 1. Creation of data set
a. DATA (p. 10)*
b. INPUT (p. 11)
c. LOG (p. 283)
d. CARDS (p. 18)
2. Selection of data from data set
a. IF-THEN (p. 35)
b. DELETE (p. 45)
3. Data listing
a. PRINT (p. 204)
b. SORT (p. 233)
4. Descriptive Statistics
a. MEANS (p. 180)
b. Regression, correlation,
analysis of variance and
covariance - ANOVA (p. 57)
5. T Test (p. 275)
Amphibole fibers 1. All of the above
2. CORR. (p. 92)
* refers to page number of manual referred to in footnote 8, below
8. Barr, A.J., Goodnight, J.H., A Users Guide to SAS 76, SAS Institute,
Inc, Raleigh, N.C., 1976.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 16 -
Prior to the computer analysis, the data were keypunched to
cards from data sheets. The data were subsequently listed
and verified for any keypunching or transcription errors.
Statistical formulae used by SAS are referenced specifically
in the Users Manual. Examples of the techniques used are
described below. The symbols used in the various formulae
are described in Table 4.
TABLE 4
STATISTICAL SYMBOLS
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
n Total samples collected
N Total possible samples
Xi Concentration of each sample
In Natural logrithm function
(log to base e)
EXP Exponential function (inverse
of the In function)
Zi Total summation of the
appropriate values
X Arithmetic mean*
Xg Geometric mean
S Arithmetic standard deviation
Sg Geometric standard deviation
* Arithmetic mean is always equal to or greater than the geometric mean.
Although not used in the data analysis, formulae for the arithmetic
mean and standard deviation are displayed for comparison purposes.
_!_ Arithmetic Mean
x.I I X1
2 Geometric Mean
_ n
Xg= EXP {I E In Xi}
^ i
3 Arithmetic Standard Deviation
S =
1
Xi2 - i ( E Xi )
r, - TT ' i r\ * i
4 Geometric Standard Deviation
Sg - EXP ( n (ln xi)2 .i(J
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 17 -
_5 Correlation
Let n = number of values
Xi, Yi = pairs of values
r = sample correlation coefficient
then r = n I Xi Yi - (Z Xi) (I Yi)
[(n I Xi2 - (z Xi)2) (n i Yi2 - (I
(b) Additional Analyses
Other statistical routines are used to estimate annual
statistics and levels of confidence.
9
i Arithmetic Mean to Geometric Mean
Xg - X
EXP (0.5 (In Sgr)
_2 Maximum and Second High Predicted 24 Hour Concentrations
For a geometric mean Xg, and geometric standard deviation,
Sg, based on a log normal distribution of concentrations
throughout the year, the maximum and second high concentra-
tion predicted for the year are estimated as follows.9
C 2 94*
max (Maximum) - Xg Sg
±L
2nd (second high) = Xg Sg
Example: Xg = 70 ug/m
Sg = 1.50
C 3 2 94 3
max * 70 ug/m (1.50) ' = 231 ug/m
C2nd = 70 ug/m3 (1.50) 2>63 = 203 ug/m3
9. Larsen, R, A Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality
Measurements to Air Quality Standards, Office of Air Programs,
USEPA, November, 1971.
^Statistic for 24 hour samples, for 3 day samples use 2,58 and
2.22 respectively.
-------
I
I
I
I
- 18 -
Precision of Noncontinuous Sampling
The following formulas are from Hunt (1972) and
provide the difference between the geometric mean
and the upper and lower 95% confidence limits as
a fraction of the geometric mean.10
Lower limit fraction (m,)
In Ss
I , in s§ / £ \ 2 \
m, - 1 - EXP I- t.025 \ \1 - N / /
i * n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Upper limit fraction = n^ ^
In Sg n. 2 .
m2 = EXP (t.025 uh [l - N| / - 1
where t.025 = "t" statistic for (n - 1) degrees of
freedom at the 95% confidence level
then: lower confidence limit (LCL) = Xg - m^ Xg
upper confidence limit (UCL) = Xg + n^ Xg
Example: Xg = 14
Sg = 2.11
n = 45
N = 365
t.025 = 2.016
mi = 1 - EXPF 2.016 .747 II - 45 \ 2 ~| = 0.190
J. 1 Mil III -II III! - I ..II-I.M | I
L . .k
m2 = EXP P 2.016 .747 /I - 45 \ ^ ~~J - 1 = 0.234
"- ,,^*f » 365' -1
then LCL - 11
UCL = 17
Therefore, because sampling occurred only once every three
days, the true annual mean is between 11 ug/m3 and 17 ug/m3
at the 95% confidence level.
10. Hunt, W.F., Jr., The Precision Associated with the Sampling
Frequency of Lognormally Distributed Air Pollution Measurements,
Journal of Air Pollution Control Association, 22, 687-691, 1972.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 19 -
(2) Wind Data
Wind direction and speed were recorded at two locations, near
the Reserve Mining Company Office and at Station 5. Subsequent
data reduction was completed by Air Surveillance Branch personnel.
Hourly average values of wind direction and speed were determined
from the trace recordings for subsequent averaging to 24 hour
values. A wind rose based on the one hour values was developed
from the data collected at the Reserve office.
6. FINDINGS
Although not of concern to this interim report on background levels of
pollution, the production rates for the beneficiation plant are described
in Appendix C. Of interest to this report are the specific days when
the plant was shut down. In the final report, the relationship of
particulate and fiber levels during production and non-production
periods will be fully explored.
a. Ambient Monitoring
(1) Suspended Particulate
Total suspended particulate (TSP) were monitored every third
day at each of the six sites, using the Federal reference method.
TSP data were analyzed for each site for the period June 26, 1977
to December 5, 1977, when the beneficiation plant was shut down.
The detailed list of all TSP data may be found in Appendix D.
Table 5 below is a summary of the number of observations, geomet-
ric means, minimum, maximum and second maximum 24-hour averages
and standard geometric deviations for these sites and time periods
TABLE 5
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE SUMMARY STATISTICS, ug/m3
JUNE 26, 1977 - DECEMBER 6, 1977
NON-PRODUCTION DAYS
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC SECOND GEOMETRIC
LOCATION #OBS. MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
45
50
51
48
49
50
14
18
20
10
9
10
2
1
1
2
1
1
57
43
70
33
47
35
41
37
49
30
38
31
2.11
1.84
1.95
1.90
2.29
2.18
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
- 20 -
The second maximum values are useful for comparison to
the 24-hour standard of 260 ug/m3 (primary) and 150 ug/m3
(secondary) not to be exceeded more than once per year.
However, the comparison should be made from data collected
over a full year. As discussed earlier, annual statistics
can be estimated from shorter term data. These maximum
and second maximum values are described in Table 6 below
(see Footnote 9, page 17).
TABLE 6
PROJECTED ANNUAL STATISTICS, ug/m3
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
14
18
20
10
9
10
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
2.11
1.84
1.95
1.90
2.29
2.18
MAXIMUM
124
107
144
66
108
93
SECOND
MAXIMUM
98
89
117
54
83
76
Other statistics are useful to establish the precision of
the mean value when the data are not collected daily (see
Footnote 10, page 18). Upper and lower control limits about
the mean at the 95% confidence level are described in
Table 7.
TABLE 7
PRECISION OF NONCONTINUOUS SAMPLING
CONCENTRATION ug/m3
GEOMETRIC
LCL MEAN UCL
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
#OBS .
45
50
51
48
49
50
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
2.11
1.84
1.95
1.90
2.29
2.18
t.025
2.016
2.011
2.009
2.013
2.012
2.011
11
15
16
14
18
20
10
9
10
17
21
24
12
12
12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 21 -
Prior to the start of the survey, construction of the
tailings basin at Milepost 7 had started. Initial
construction includes two dams to be located in the
southern portion of the disposal site (see Figure 1,
page 5). Once completed the two dams will form a basin
two by three miles in size. The work involves consider-
able clearing of vegetation and earth moving. A review
of the average particulate sampled at Sites 4, 5 and 6
indicates that the construction has had minimal impact
during this phase of the study.
(2) Amphibole Fibers
Amphibole fibers were monitored at each of six sites.
Continuously, a composite sample was collected over a
period of three days. Two analyses were completed, all
samples were analyzed using X-ray diffraction techniques
and a selected number of samples (five per site per quarter)
were analyzed using electron microscopy. To preclude any
bias affecting the levels of mineral fibers sampled and
selected for analysis on the electron microscope, a random
schedule was developed using the random number generator
available on SAS. The X-ray diffraction mass data are described
in Appendix E. The amphibole fiber count data for those samples
analyzed using electron microscopy are described in Appendix
F. During the survey, problems were noted, some of which could
affect the samples collected. These problems were generally
associated with potential interferences or with the service
of the network and are described in Appendix G. If the
problem associated with the sample was of sufficient magnitude
to invalidate the sample, no data are reported in Appendices
E and F.
Summary statistics of the X-ray diffraction data are described
in Table 8 below. During this period, the levels of the
amphibole mass data were relatively low, particularly at the
more rural sampling stations, sites 4, 5 and 6. The bulk of
the data from these sites are below the detection limit of the
X-ray diffraction analytical method. In this event, the data
are assigned the value of the detection limit.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOTAL
LOCATION
TOTAL
- 22 -
TABLE 8
AMPHIBOLE MASS SUMMARY STATISTICS, ug/m3
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
#OBS.
56
54
54
59
59
58
#OBS.
BELOW
DETECTION
LIMIT
18
15
9
55
53
54
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.667
0.674
0.880
0.299
0.309
0.299
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
2.20
1.95
2.00
1.22
1.28
1.08
MINIMUM
< 0.26
< 0.26
< 0.24
< 0.24
< 0.15
< 0.24
MAXIMUM
3.44
2.39
2.45
0.84
0.94
0.39
340
204
0.463
1.98
< 0.15
3.44
It is of interest to note the low number of observations
at Site 3 (Beaver Bay) that were below the detection limit
of the X-ray diffraction analysis. This might well suggest
the presence of an amphibole source near the sampling station.
Note that the average and maximum values compare favorably
with Sites 1 and 2. During the course of the survey, several
parties to the study expressed the opinion that the Beaver
Bay location was subject to fugitive dust from the construction
nearby and from tailings used in previous years for snow and
ice control on the nearby road surfaces (see site description
on page 7). The X-ray diffraction data tends to confirm that
a bias may exist. Comparable statistics for the amphibole
fiber count data are described in Table 9.
TABLE 9
AMPHIBOLE FIBER SUMMARY STATISTICS, fibers/m3
#OBS.
BELOW
DETECTION
#OBS. LIMIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
9
9
10
10
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
4332
5457
10100
2059
1572
1055
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
4.21
2.11
1.45
3.53
2.54
2.32
MINIMUM
200
2000
5000
200
<200
200
MAXIMUM
21000
14500
14000
14000
4000
3000
57
3017
3.42
200
21000
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 23 -
Again it is noted that the highest mean value of fibers
is at Site 3. It is also of interest that the standard
deviation is relatively low indicating lesser variability
in the data. This would tend to confirm the presence of
a local amphibole source. The average background levels
of amphibole fibers for Silver Bay, considering Sites 1 and
2, are approximately 5000 fibers/m3. Considering the inher-
ent analytical error in electron microscopy of about 50%,
the background level for Silver Bay is 7500 fibers/m3.
The annual statistics estimated from these sets of data,
maximum and second maximum values are described in Table 10.
The data for certain of the stations are grouped together to
estimate maximum and second maximum 72 hour average fiber
levels. For Silver Bay, the data for Sites 1 and 2 are summa-
rized in total to estimate the second maximum 72 hour back-
ground level not to be exceeded more than once per year. The
data at Site 3 in Beaver Bay are treated individually. To
estimate the second maximum 72 hour background level adjacent
to the disposal site which should not be exceeded more than
once per year, the data for Stations 4, 5 and 6 are summarized
together.
TABLE 10
PROJECTED ANNUAL STATISTICS, AMPHIBOLE FIBERS
AMPHIBOLE FIBERS/m3
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
AMPHIBOLE MASS (ug/m3)
SECOND
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
4.38
5.26
.495
2.70
3.37
4.10
.463
2.11
MAXIMUM
91010
26,300
21917
72,000
SECOND
MAXIMUM
60422
23,000
15110
46,300
Correlation coefficients were calculated for each site and
in total relating the X-ray diffraction mass analysis and
the fiber count for each of the randomly selected samples.
It is important to emphasize that the levels of fibers are
relatively low during the background period. As a result,
most of the mass data, particularly at Sites 4, 5 and 6 are
near or below the detectable limit. The relationship between
the data sets are depicted in Table 11.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 24 -
TABLE 11
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMPHIBOLE MASS AND FIBER DATA
LOCATION #OBS. #OBS.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 25 -
TABLE 12 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF ANOVA
DATA TYPE STATIONS RESULTS OF TEST
Fiber 1>2,3 vs. Reject Ho, station sets are significantly
4,5,6 different.
In the analysis of variance, the means of the data for each station
are evaluated for differences as compared to other stations or sets
of stations. The test is made against the hypothesis that the means
are equal. In this evaluation, one can be 95% confident of the test
results.
c. Wind Data.
In this interim report, no attempt was made to relate levels of
pollution with emission sources because no specific source of
amphibole fibers or particulate was in operation during this period.
The average one hour values of wind direction and speed collected
at the Reserve office were summarized and are described in Figure 3
as a wind rose. The frequency distribution is also tabulated in
Appendix H. During this period prevailing wind directions were from
the northwest.
7. CONCLUSIONS
a. Suspended Particulate
(1) Background levels of suspended particulate are very low in
comparison to the air quality standards.
(2) As measured at Sites 1 and 2, the background level of particu-
late in Silver Bay is 16 ug/m^. Near the tailings basin,
Milepost 7, the background level is 10 ug/m^.
(3) Construction at Milepost 7 had minimal impact on the levels
of particulate during the period of the background study.
b. Amphibole Fibers.
(1) Background levels of amphibole fibers are low, at or near
the detection limit of the X-ray diffraction analytical
technique .
(2) As measured at Sites 1 and 2 and considering the error of + 50%
inherent in electron microscopy, the background level of amphibole
fibers in Silver Bay is 7,500 fibers/m^. Near the tailings basin,
Milepost 7, the background level is estimated at 3,000 fibers/m-*.
Second maximum 72 hour average background levels of fibers are
estimated as 60,000 fibers/m^ in Silver Bay and 15,000 fibers/m3
near the tailings basin.
-------
UJ
t/1
UJ
c;
- 26 -
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 27 -
(3) Present techniques in X-ray diffraction analysis are not
sufficiently sensitive to be used as a surrogate for
electron microscope analyis of amphibole fibers when the
Reserve Mining Company beneficiation plant is not operating
However, the presence of low mass concentrations as measured
by X-ray diffraction does indicate that the levels of fibers
are correspondingly low.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 28 -
High Volume Data Analysis Procedure
1. General
The high volume data analysis procedure details the steps involved in
data handling from ordering the filters to final editing of data. Particulate
concentration determinations are described in the Attachment.
2. Equipment
Clean filters
Laboratory Data Sheet for clean, weighed filters
Stamped envelope
Form DA#5, Filter Distribution Log
Form DA#1, Hi-Vol Filter Log Sheet
Form DA#6, High Volume Motor Calibration Curve
Form DA#7, High Volume Sample Coding Sheet
Form DA#3, Coding Log Sheet
Form DA#4, Laboratory Sample and Accounting Record
3. Procedure
» a. Filters are ordered by Air Monitoring Unit.
b. Clean, boxed filters are taken to the lab by Data Analysis Unit
I (usually semi-annually).
c. Each month, the lab processes clean filters required for the next
| month's operation as follows:
(1) The clean filters are removed from the box and the identifying
number, which is stamped on both sides of the filter, is typed
using a teletype into the computer.
(2) The filter is weighed on the electronic balance to get the
I tare weight.
I
I
-------
I
I
(3) The filter number and the corresponding tare weight along with
temperature and relative humidity are stored by the computer.
Standard weights are used to check the balance before weighing
and 10% of the filters are reweighed for quality control.
(4) When the entire box of filters has been weighed, all filters
and two copies of the data sheet containing each filter's
| identifying number, tare, weight and the lab humidity, temperature
and quality control data are placed in the box. The laboratory
also retains a copy of the filter tare weight data.
d. The Data Analysis Unit retrieves the clean, weighed filters from the
laboratory and provides the Quality Assurance Unit with one copy of
the data sheet.
e. Data Analysis prepares sample envelopes (without clasps) by stamping
a 9" x 12" manila envelope with a rubber stamp. The stamp has spaces
for recording tare weight, loaded weight, filter number, date and
site of run, start and end time of run and start and end flow.
f. Data Analysis removes each individual filter from the box, package
it in a sample envelope, and records the filter number and tare
weight in the spaces provided on the sample envelope.
g. Clean filters are provided to the operators as follows:
(1) Metropolitan sampling - site operators secure filters from
i Data Analysis Section as they are needed.
(2) Outstate sampling - enough clean filters to sustain the next
month's sampling are mailed or dispatched with MPCA air monitoring
personnel monthly.
I
I
-------
I
I
(3) Local agencies - currently purchase and use their own filters.
I (4) Form DA#5 is completed as the filters are dispatched. As the
log sheet is completed it is sequentially assigned a page number
in the upper right corner and the sheet is filed in the log book.
Form DA#5 identifies where the filters are dispatched.
h. High volume sample is run, starting and ending flow, sampling site
and data, and starting and ending time are recorded on the sample
envelope; the folded filter and transducer chart if used are placed
in the sample envelope.
i. Samples are returned to the MPCA as follows:
a) Outstate monitors - samples are mailed back to the Data Analysis
Unit on a sample-by-sample basis.
b) Metropolitan area samples are returned to the Data Analysis Unit
as they are run.
j. As samples are returned from the field, date of run, site of run,
and filter number are recorded on the Hi-Vol Filter Log Sheet (Form
DA#1, 1-15-76). Sample exposure time (minutes) is calculated from
the starting and ending times on the sample envelope. Filters are
visually inspected for holes, flows out of range or other conditions
which invalidate the sample. Filters are also checked to be sure
_ that the ID number of the filter matches that recorded on the sample
" envelope. Form DA#1 is reviewed to be sure that a sample from the
site and date has not previously been received. Inconsistencies
from these checks are recorded on Form DA#1; 1-15-76. If the filter
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
- 31 -
validity is questioned and if the filter is not invalidated for
physical reasons an attempt is made to correct data believed to
be in error (e.g., to determine on what date a filter actually
ran in the case of a duplicate site and date).
If the filter was physically damaged an error code is assigned to
the sample and recorded on the log sheet (Form DA#1; 1-15-76). If
I physical damage appears to be consistent from a particulate site,
the site and nature of the problem are reported to the Air Monitoring
Unit.
The error codes include:
- 1 no analysis
I - 2 PGA
- 3 laboratory
- 4 operator
- 5 vandalism
- 6 natural (rain, wind)
- 7 equipment failure
- 8 generated by computer, quality assurance
The laboratory may assign codes - 2 or - 3; operators may assign any
code except -3 or -8; -8 is a quality assurance code and can only
be assigned by the computer.
^ If the sample appears to be valid but is excessively loaded, the
Engineering and Enforcement Sections are notified.
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. .
Along with logging in the filters, site number, date of run, tare
weight and calculated exposure time in minutes are recorded on
Hi-Vol DATA Form DA#7 ; 3-16-76. True flow rate is determined by
_
averaging the starting flow and ending flow logged on the sample
envelope. This average number is then located on the appropriate
high volume motor calibration curve (DA#6; 1-16-76).
Each page of data form DA#7 is sequentially assigned a sheet number
I (starting value is taken from the last coding sheet log form DA#3 ;
1-15-76). This sheet number is also logged on the high volume filter
| log sheet (DA#1; 1-15-76).
_ k. On Tuesday and Friday mornings all data sheets (DA Form #7; 3-16-76)
which are ready to be sent to the laboratory are logged (by date)
I on the coding sheet log (DA#3; 1-15-76). The sheet number of each
coding sheet used and the date the coding sheets and corresponding
| filters will be taken to the laboratory are logged in the appropriate
columns of the coding sheet log and a description of "high volume
samples" is entered in the description column.
Data sheet page numbers and total number of filters are logged on a
laboratory sign-in sheet (DA#4; 1-15-76). This form is filled out
I
in duplicate and the laboratory must sign for the samples; the
laboratory keeps one copy and the other is returned to MPCA.
-------
I
I
1. On Tuesday and Friday afternoons all coding sheets logged to the
laboratory along with corresponding filters are taken to the
laboratory.
The laboratory acknowledges the receipt of the filters and coding
forms by signing the laboratory sign-in sheet (DA#4; 1-15-75).
m. The laboratory weighs the loaded filters on the electronic balance;
standard weights and 10% audit samples are also weighed. The laboratory
provides two computer printouts of the results.
n. Data Analysis retreives all data sheets completed by the laboratory
I and logs the data returned in the "Date From Lab" column of the
coding sheet log (DA#3) for that coding sheet page number. One of
the two copies is sent to Quality Assurance. In addition all data
sheets which have been in the lab more than 3 weeks are reported
to Quality Assurance.
I o. Local agencies send MPCA completed coding sheets.
p. Data sheets are manually edited to remove irregularities in coding
and reporting of data. Invalidated data points are checked and
B assigned an appropriate error code.
q. All coding sheets which have been completed and edited are logged
out to keypunch in the "DATE TO" column of the coding sheet log for
_ that coding sheet page number (DA#3) and are taken to keypunch on
Tuesday and Friday afternoons .
I
I
I
I
-------
I
- 34 -
r. All data sheets (DA#7) are keypunched on given stripped cards.
| s. All keypunched cards and the corresponding data sheets (DA#7) are
retreived from keypunch, returned to the MPCA, and the date
returned is logged on the keypunch "DATE FROM" column for that
coding sheet page number on the coding sheet log (DA#3; 1-15-76).
t. Form DA#1 is checked to indicated that the filter has been returned
to MPCA and Form DA#1 is then filed by site and date.
u. Keypunched cards are edited via the PDP8/E computer. Edit checks
are made for illegal characters on the card, date within specified
range, number of parameters must be equal to 7, time between 1320
and 1560 minutes (22 and 26 hours), flow between 32 and 72 cfm,
tare weight between 3 and 5 grams, total weight between the tare weight
and 5 grams, and calculated high volume results betwen 5 and 300
ug/m^. The card and calculated results are printed out on the line
I printer, errors are flagged with the work "check". Calculated
_ results in excess of 150 ug/m3 are single starred, and those in
excess of 260 ug/nP are doubled starred. A detailed list of all
I cards in error and appropriate error messages are printed out on
the console teletype.
I v. Keypunch errors are corrected as found. Coding of values in error
_ is verified, and if possible, corrected. A listing of results for
each local agency is dispatched to that agency for error checking
and result verification. An attempt is made to correct every error,
if possible, or if not possible to assign an appropriate error code.
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
- 35 -
Particulate Matter
1. TARE WEIGHT
Determine the tare weights of the clean, numbered 8" x 10" glass fiber
I
filters. This is to be done only after the relative humidity in the
laboratory has been under 50% for at least 24-hours.
2. GROSS WEIGHT
a. Allow a dessication period of 24-hours during which the R.H. is below
50% after the exposed filters are brought into the lab before final
weighing.
b. Inspect filters for holes, missing pieces of filter, loading extending
beyond margins and over the filter edge, and record as an invalid
sample any filter with one or more of the above defects.
c. Weigh to the nearest .1 mg and record.
3. QUALITY CONTROL
I
a. Precision
(1) At least 10% of each box of 100 clean numbered, tare weighted
filters are independently reweighed.
(2) At least 5% of each batch of filters which are weighed for
total weight are independently reweighed.
b. Accuracy
(1) Weights which have been calibrated with Class S weights are
used to check and adjust the balance prior to and after each
batch weighing.
(2) In addition, a polonium source is used to retard the effects of
static charge on the filters.
I
Attachment
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
OPERATION AND SERVICE OF THE NETWORK
-------
- 36 -
OPERATION AND SERVICE OF THE NETWORK
I
I
I
1. MEMBRANE SAMPLERS - 72 hour samples.
a. General - During each visit to a site -
(1) Check time indicator and record data.
(2) Zero the magnehelic gage (right hand bottom).
(3) Push left hand button to obtain reading and record the
"flow" obtained.
b. Changing Filters - every 72 hours
I (1) Zero the magnehelic gage.
(2) Push "READ" button and record the "flow".
(3) Pull monitor and time indicator plug.
_ (4) Read time indicator and record.
(5) Remove "Coolie Hat".
I (6) Remove the three "finger-nuts".
(7) Lift off the "3-point" hold down plate.
I (8) Remove thick teflon washer - DO NOT LOSE IT
_ (9) Using telfon coated tweezers, carefully remove the filter
and place in appropriate petri dish. Do not disturb the
I thin teflon washer under the filter.
(10) Using the tweezers/forceps, obtain a numbered filter (the
number being properly recorded in the record book and record
_ sheets) and carefully place on top of the thin teflon washer,
Now place the thick teflon washer on top of the filter.
I (11) Replace the 3-point hold down plate.
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
- 37 -
(12) Replace the 3-finger/thumb nuts and tighten securely.
(13) Replace "Coolie Hat".
(14) Record the last time indicator data (end of previous sample)
as the "start" of the new sample run of 72-hours.
(15) Plug unit and timer into electric service box.
(16) After about 2-5 minutes push zero button.
(17) Push read button and record observation as start of new
sample run of 72-hours.
(18) Ensure that the petri dish is properly identified and taped
I closed.
(19) Completely fill out record sheet and retain with petri dish.
2. HIGH VOLUME SAMPLERS - 24-hour samples.
I a' Use of Hi-Vol Filter Cartridge
(1) Remove cover from cartridge; each cover is identified by
I site number, there are 12 cartridges - 2 per site.
(2) Lay cartridge flat.
(3) Remove cover.
(4) Remove the 2 thumb nuts.
(5) Lift off the hold-down plate or frame.
m (6) Carefully remove a numbered filter from the large brown
envelope.
(7) Place filter on support screen - align carefully.
I (8) Replace the hold-down plate or frame.
(9) Secure the hold-down plate with the thumb nuts.
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
(10) Replace
(11) Record
record
- 38 -
the cover.
the filter number in the log book and on the
sheet .
b. Replacing Filter Cartridges in the Field
(1) Open Hi-Vol - lift up the roof.
(2) Loosen
(3) Lift up
the 4-wing nuts that hold a cartridge in place.
the filter cartridge containing the exposed filter.
(4) Place the cover (one appropriately marked as to site number)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
on the
( 5 ) Remove
filter.
(6) Put the
(7) Loosen
cartridge .
the cover from the cartridge containing an unexposed
cartridge in position and secure via the 4-wing nuts.
the 2-finger/ thumb nuts on the cartridge, then turn
the Hi-Vol on for only a few seconds to set the filter and
thus avoiding "cracking" of the filter, secure the 2 finger/
thumb nuts during the few seconds of operation.
(8) Secure
of the
the 4-wing nuts. This requires additional securing
2 finger /thumb nuts.
c. Replacing Transducer Chart
( 1 ) Remove
chart ,
has the
transducer chart - push lever to raise pen off the
carefully remove the chart and ensure that the chart
site number on the back.
-------
I
I
I
I
- 39 -
I (2) Insert new chart, use a coin or screw driver by inserting
it in the notch of the center "bolt" head and rotate
| clockwise until the penpoint rests at midnight - lower
_ the pen on to the paper keeping the lever or lift bar off
of or away from the chart. Ensure that the penpoint rests
on "zero" and midnight.
d. Programmer Unit
| Check clock in the programmer unit to ensure it is operating
_ correctly. Then flip down the switch (day) that was just sampled.
Flip up the day switch for the next sampling day which must be 3 days
later or after the last sampling day.
e. Operation
I Close the entire unit. It will automatically turn on at midnight
M (or 0000 hours) and shut off at midnight (2400 hours) on the day on
which sampling is scheduled.
f. Sample Handling
(1) Fill in completely the "particulate record sheet". Do this
at the office and attach the data sheet to the folder.
(2) Carefully disassemble the filter cartridge and remove the
filter placing it in the appropriate type of folder and
fold length-wise.
(3) Insert the folder (and filter) in a large white envelope.
Also include the particulate record sheet and transducer
chart ; but, do not put these in the folder, just in the
envelope. Seal the envelope.
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
(4)
- 40 -
Fill in the appropriate and available information on the
large brown envelope.
3. WEATHER STATION
a. Min
- Max Thermometer - At Reserve Office located in white shelter
(record daily at 12:00 a.m.).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(1)
(2)
Max. - Read and record, then unlock and spin clockwise until
below temperature just recorded. Then set into locked position.
Min. - Read and record, then turn so bulb is almost vertical and
let column of mercury go past the previously recorded maximum
temperature that was read, then set in position with red bulb
slightly below the horizontal.
b. Hygrothermograph - Changing of Chart
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Lift up case (cover) - release the latch on right hand site.
Use the lever to lift pens from chart.
Inside top of drum is a thumb-nut, remove it.
Lift up the drum and wind the clock mechanism.
Release the metal strip that holds the chart against the drum.
Remove the chart and place in folder.
Mark date on margin of new chart.
Place chart on drum - overlapping as required.
Insert the metal clip.
Carefully put the drum back into position. Ensure that the
day and time at point where pens rest on chart is correct.
Replace the thumb nut.
-------
- 41 -
I
I
I
(12) Release the pens.
(13) Put cover/case back into position.
c. Psychrometer - Located with wind system recorder in Reserve Office
(record daily at 12:00 a.m.).
(1) Wet the sock.
(2) Take unit outside and spin for 2-3 minutes or until wet bulb
reading stabilizes.
(3) Read wet and dry bulb temperatures and record.
(4) Subtract the "wet" reading from the "dry" reading.
(5) Using the chart find the "dry" temperature - far left column.
(6) At top of table or chart find the column corresponding to the
"difference" between the "wet" and "dry" bulb temperatures.
(7) Read chart where the "dry" temperature and "difference"
intersect. This is the relative humidity. Record in log.
I d. Barometric Pressure - obtain barometric pressure on arrival at
I
_ (1) Check wind sets for proper trace recording.
(2) Annotate date and time on chart.
I
I
I
I
I
Reserve Office .
e. Wind sets - Reserve Office and Site #5.
-------
APPENDIX C
PRODUCTION RATES
-------
1
1 . ,.J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 42 -
RESERVE MINING COMPANY
= 4'*4 SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA
January 17, 1978
Mr. Gerald F. Regan, Chief
Air Surveillance Branch
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Regan:
55614
In response to Mr. Charles Miller's telephone call
and your January 10, 1978, letter, I am
the information you requested regarding
production.
^^.
Sincerely,/?^
X /S
&6&h^
(_^ ^
Edward Schrnid
Assistant to
ES/p
Enclosure
&ECFW
PA REGION V
attaching
our rate of
= "\
0
' /
--7'^-1 ^&(.^^'
the President
rE
~
ANCH
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 43 -
RESERVE MINING COMPANY
MEMORANDUM
Edward Schmid
Industrial Engineering
DATE January 11, 1978
FROM.
SUBJECT.
Production Level Comparison (1970 vs. 1977)
Following is the information per your request of January 10,
1978, utilizing Reserve's full productive capacity (as demon-
strated in the year of 1970) as base for comparison with 1977
production level.
Total Tons No.Opera- Avg.Tons/ Per Cent
Pellets(Dry) ting Days Op. Day Production
Date
1970 10,434,758
1977 1/2-6/25 4,482,476
362.33 28,799 lOO.OO(Base)
166 27,003 93.76
June 26 thru July 30 (scheduled plant shutdown)0.00
July 31 9,418 1 9,418 32.70
August 1 thru December 5 (no production or 0.00
shipment due to strike)
Dec. 6-15 73,231 10
Dec. 16-23 174,279 8
Dec. 24-25 (Holiday shutdown)
Dec. 26-31 143,640 6
7,323
21,785
23,940
25.43
75.64
0.00
83.13
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dec. 6,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
lU
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
*28,799
- 44 -
SUPPLEMENTAL. INFORMATION
Total
Tons Pellets
1977
2,9^1
6,170
10,529
7,295
12 ,"162
11,836
11,395
10,903
(Power House repairs and plant start-up
12,263
.1U,108
20,998
27,263
25,359
22,87^
27,063
2U,351
(2Uth and 25th Christmas Holiday)
11,225
27,k21
26,193
22,U76
27,8UU
28,U75
tons/operating day = base 100
Per Cent
Production*
10.21
21. U2
36.56
25.33
te.23
Ul.10
39.57
37.86
problems)
U2.58
48.99
72.91
9^.67
88.06
79.^3
93.97
8U.56
38.98
95. 2U
90.95
78. oU
96.68
98.87
-------
APPENDIX D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE DATA SHEETS ug/m3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 45 -
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
June 18, 1977 - December 12, 1978
Date Campton Kelly Holiday Reserve #11 Nelson Reserve #8
June
ii
July
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ti
n
ti
n
Aug.
ii
n
ii
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
Sept.
n
ii
n
ii
it
ii
n
ii
ii
Oct.
ii
n
n
ii
M
n
M
II
M
II
27
30
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
2
5
8
11
14
17
20
23
26
29
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
27
13
26
25
10
17
23
29
20
-
41
18
20
-
-
-
-
9
8
-
20
16
-
10
9
10
-
20
2
10
-
15
6
27
-
8
36
17
25
5
28
57
27
31
15
28
21
13
21
23
36
19
35
37
15
22
-
-
20
-
11
12
-
23
21
13
9
13
14
18
29
1
9
8
23
13
28
11
16
37
31
31
16
29
43
29
32
19
39
21
15
25
28
22
21
33
49
15
27
-
-
-
22
37
8
70
18
17
28
23
10
-
28
23
1
9
6
25
9
34
11
11
37
25
30
19
42
27
27
19
10
21
16
6
14
13
18
11
25
30
8
9
12
8
-
5
8
6
7
22
-
8
7
9
-
11
17
2
6
4
9
7
20
4
5
-
13
13
4
25
22
22
19
12
21
16
8
17
15
-
15
29
38
8
12
11
2
-
-
8
6
7
24
7
-
7
8
-
11
13
1
5
5
11
3
18
5
5
15
10
5
3
22
15
22
19
14
21
19
7
12
14
18
11
22
35
12
11
-
-
15
-
8
8
7
22
24
11
11
-
9
12
17
2
7
3
8
3
18
-
4
14
10
6
3
25
13
22
-------
- 46 -
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICIPATES (Cont'd)
June 18, 1977 - December 12, 1978
Date Campton Kelly Holiday Reserve #11 Nelson Reserve #8
Nov. 3 21 25 35 17 15 15
11 6 9 11 9 7 5 6
9 14 17 16 12 10 13
11 12 7 12 18 - 2 3
15 36 37 44 33 34 31
18 3 11 23 4 - 2
21 15-28 - 17 15
" 24 7 24 14 - 6 7
27 7 13 14 5 47 4
" 30 24 23 27 20 20 21
Dec. 3 9 18 30 8 4 5
" 6 2 8 11 4 2 1
-------
APPENDIX E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS, AMPHIBOLE
MASS CONCENTRATION (ug/m3)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 47 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
6/26/77
6/26/77
6/26/77
6/26/77
6/26/77
6/26/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
7/2/77
7/2/77
7/2/77
7/2/77
7/2/77
7/2/77
7/5/77
7/5/77
7/5/77
7/5/77
7/5/77
7/5/77
7/8/77
7/8/77
7/8/77
7/8/77
7/8/77
7/8/77
7/11/77
7/11/77
7/11/77
7/11/77
7/11/77
7/11/77
7/14/77
7/14/77
7/14/77
7/14/77
7/14/77
7/14/77
Filter
#
0118
0119
0120
0121
0122
0123
0124
0125
0126
0127
0128
0129
0130
0131
0132
0133
0134
0135
0136
0137
0138
0139
0140
0141
0143
0144
0145
0146
0147
0148
0149
0150
0151
0152
0153
0154
0155
0156
0157
0158
0159
0160
Sampling
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
3.9
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.7
4.3
3.8
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
3.8
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.9
Time
(hours)
72.1
72.1
72.2
71.9
72.0
71.8
71.9
71.9
71.9
72.1
72.0
71.9
71.9
72.0
71.8
71.7
71.8
71.8
71.8
72.0
58.0
71.9
72.0
71.8
71.9
71.9
71.9
71.8
71.8
71.8
71.9
71.7
71.8
71.7
71.9
71.8
71.7
71.9
71.9
71.9
71.9
72.1
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3)
1.60
1.45
2.29
<.31
<.32
<.30
1.10
<.32
1.26
<.31
<.30
<.30
.95
<.33
.95
<.29
<.31
<.30
1.07
.65
1.29
<.28
<.30
<.28
<.28
.80
2.13
<.29
<.28
<.31
.66
.75
.66
<.27
<.26
<.27
2.38
1.34
1.49
<.28
<.28
<.29
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 48 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
7/17/77
7/17/77
7/17/77
7/17/77
7/17/77
7/17/77
7/20/77
7/20/77
7/20/77
7/20/77
7/20/77
7/20/77
7/23/77
7/23/77
7/23/77
7/23/77
7/23/77
7/23/77
7/26/77
7/26/77
7/26/77
7/26/77
7/26/77
7/26/77
7/29/77
7/29/77
7/29/77
7/29/77
7/29/77
7/29/77
8/1/77
8/1/77
8/1/77
8/1/77
8/1/77
8/1/77
8/4/77
8/4/77
8/4/77
8/4/77
8/4/77
8/4/77
Filter
#
0162
0163
0164
0165
0166
0167
0168
0169
0170
0171
0172
0173
0174
0175
0176
0177
0178
0179
0180
0181
0182
0183
0184
0185
0186
0187
0188
0189
0190
0191
0192
0193
0194
0195
0196
0197
0198
0199
0200
0201
0202
0203
Sampling
Site#
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.6
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
Time
(hours )
71.9
71.9
71.9
71.8
71.9
71.8
72.2
71.4
71.8
71.8
71.6
71.8
71.8
72.5
72.1
72.1
72.0
71.9
71.2
71.2
71.2
71.2
71.3
71.3
72.2
72.2
72.3
70.4
70.6
72.5
71.5
71.5
71.4
71.2
71.1
71.0
72.9
72.9
72.9
72.8
76.8
72.8
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3
2.62
2.39
1.25
<.28
<.28
<.27
2.07
1.46
1.32
<.27
<.27
<.27
<.28
1.27
<.29
<.28
<.28
3.44
1.43
1.88
<.29
<.29
<.29
<.30
<.33
<.30
<.30
<.32
<.30
.90
.65
1.50
<.30
<.33
<.35
1.15
1.40
1.00
<.28
<.27
<.29
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 49 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
8/7/77
8/7/77
8/7/77
8/7/77
8/7/77
8/7/77
8/10/77
8/10/77
8/10/77
8/10/77
8/10/77
8/10/77
8/13/77
8/13/77
8/13/77
8/13/77
8/13/77
8/13/77
8/16/77
8/16/77
8/16/77
8/16/77
8/16/77
8/16/77
8/19/77
8/19/77
8/19/77
8/19/77
8/19/77
8/19/77
8/22/77
8/22/77
8/22/77
8/22/77
8/22/77
8/22/77
8/25/77
8/25/77
8/25/77
8/25/77
8/25/77
8/25/77
Filter
#
0204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
0212
0213
0214
0215
0216
0217
0218
0219
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
0225
0226
0227
0228
0229
0230
0231
0232
0233
0234
0235
0236
0237
0238
0239
0240
0241
0242
0243
0244
0245
Sampling
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
3.9
3.5
-
3.9
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.6
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.6
4.0
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.9
-
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.6
4.0
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.8
3.5
4.0
3.8
3.6
4.0
Time
(hours)
72.1
71.9
71.8
71.6
68.5
71.8
71.9
72.8
72.0
71.9
71.9
70.4
73.1
72.5
73.3
73.3
73.3
73.3
70.0
69.9
70.0
69.9
70.0
69.9
71.8
23.9
71.9
71.8
71.9
67.8
71.9
71.8
71.8
71.6
71.7
51.9
73.1
73.1
73.1
73.0
73.1
72.9
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3
.72
.97
-
< .29
< .35
< .30
< .31
.64
2.36
< .31
.67
< .31
1.08
1.56
.95
< .28
< .29
< .29
.77
< .32
1.16
.45
< .31
.29
.73
-
1.53
< .32
.49
< .32
.77
1.10
1.85
< .28
< .31
< .39
< .39
.80
1.67
< .29
< .31
< .28
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 50 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
8/28/77
8/28/77
8/28/77
8/28/77
8/28/77
8/28/77
8/31/77
8/31/77
8/31/77
8/31/77
8/31/77
8/31/77
9/3/77
9/3/77
9/3/77
9/3/77
9/3/77
9/3/77
9/6/77
9/6/77
9/6/77
9/6/77
9/6/77
9/6/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/12/77
9/12/77
9/12/77
9/12/77
9/12/77
9/12/77
9/15/77
9/15/77
9/15/77
9/15/77
9/15/77
9/15/77
Filter
#
0246
0247
0248*
0249
0250
0251
0252
0253
0254
0255
0256
0257
0258
0259
0260
0261
0262
0263
0264
0265
0266
0267
0268
0269
0270
0271
0272
0273
0274
0275
0276
0277
0278
0279
0280
0281
0282
0283
0284
0285
0286
0287
Sampling
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
3.9
3.5
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.4
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
Time
(hours)
71.1
71.0
71.3
71.4
71.4
71.5
72.9
72.8
72.6
72.5
72.5
72.5
70.8
71.2
71.2
71.1
71.2
71.6
71.6
71.4
71.4
71.3
71.3
71.4
71.5
65.5
65.5
65.5
71.5
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.2
72.3
72.4
71.9
72.0
72.0
72.1
72.1
72.1
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3)
.59
.66
.57
<.29
<.32
<.30
<.29
.82
1.54
<.29
<.30
<.29
<.30
1.47
<.29
<.32
<.30
<.29
.85
<.29
<.29
<.30
<.29
.46
<.28
1.11
<-31
<.36
<.28
1.90
1.44
.43
<.30
<.32
<.32
.47
2.18
1.19
<.30
.61
.30
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 51 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
9/18/77
9/18/77
9/18/77
9/18/77
9/18/77
9/18/77
9/21/77
9/21/77
9/21/77
9/21/77
9/21/77
9/21/77
9/24/77
9/24/77
9/24/77
9/24/77
9/24/77
9/24/77
9/27/77
9/27/77
9/27/77
9/27/77
9/27/77
9/27/77
9/30/77
9/30/77
9/30/77
9/30/77
9/30/77
9/30/77
10/3/77
10/3/77
10/3/77
10/3/77
10/3/77
10/3/77
10/6/77
10/6/77
10/6/77
10/6/77
10/6/77
10/6/77
Filter
#
0288
0289
0290
0291
0292
0293
0294
0295
0296
0297
0298
0299
0300
0301
0302
0303
0304
0305
0306
0307
0308
0309
0310
0311
0312
0313
0314
0315
0316
0317
0318
0319
0320
0321
0322
0323
0324
0325
0326
0327
0328
0329
Sampling
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
3.8
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.6
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.7
4.1
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.7
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.8
3.9
Time
(hours )
71.6
71.6
71.4
71.4
71.4
71.4
71.7
71.9
72.0
72.0
72.0
58.7
71.8
71.7
71.6
71.7
71.7
84.9
71.9
71.9
71.9
71.9
71.8
71.8
73.0
73.1
73.1
73.0
73.1
73.1
70.9
70.9
71.1
71.0
71.0
70.1
71.4
71.3
46.2
70.4
71.8
71.5
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3)
.75
<.28
.57
<.29
<.31
<.29
<.29
.41
<.28
<.28
<.30
<.34
<.30
.71
.58
<.30
<.32
<.24
.60
.85
1.13
<.29
<.31
<.28
1.43
.95
2.45
<.27
<.30
<.27
2.12
1.14
1.72
<.28
<.31
<.29
.28
.56
<.43
<.27
<.30
.29
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 52 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
10/9/77
10/9/77
10/9/77
10/9/77
10/9/77
10/9/77
10/12/77
10/12/77
10/12/77
10/12/77
10/12/77
10/12/77
10/15/77
10/15/77
10/15/77
10/15/77
10/15/77
10/15/77
10/18/77
10/18/77
10/18/77
10/18/77
10/18/77
10/18/77
10/21/77
10/21/77
10/21/77
10/21/77
10/21/77
10/21/77
10/24/77
10/24/77
10/24/77
10/24/77
10/24/77
10/24/77
10/27/77
10/27/77
10/27/77
10/27/77
10/27/77
10/27/77
Filter
#
0330
0331
0332
0333
0334
0335
0336
0337
0338
0339
0340
0341
0342
0343
0344
0345
0346
0347
0348
0349
0350
0351
0352
0353
0354
0355
0356
0357
0358
0359
0360
0361
0362
0363
0364
0365
0366
0367
0368
0369
0370
0371
Sampling
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.7
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.5
Time
(hours )
72.0
72.0
71.8
71.8
71.8
72.1
71.5
72.0
71.7
37.4
72.2
71.8
72.1
72.1
72.1
71.6
71.7
71.7
72.9
72.7
72.8
72.7
72.6
72.7
71.3
71.3
71.3
71.2
71.2
71.2
74.2
74.3
74.4
74.3
74.4
74.3
70.5
70.4
70.5
70.5
70.5
70.5
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3)
.41
.41
< .28
< .28
<.31
< .30
2.40
.72
1.70
<.54
< .30
<.31
< .30
<.29
1.38
<.29
<.31
<.30
1.77
1.33
2.27
<.29
<.30
<.29
1.08
1.39
1.35
<.29
<.33
<.33
.59
1.44
.72
<.28
<.30
<.30
3.20
2.23
1.93
.59
.94
<.33
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 53 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
10/30/77
10/30/77
10/30/77
10/30/77
10/30/77
10/30/77
11/2/77
11/2/77
11/2/77
11/2/77
11/2/77
11/2/77
11/5/77
11/5/77
11/5/77
11/5/77
11/5/77
11/5/77
11/8/77
11/8/77
11/8/77
11/8/77
11/8/77
11/8/77
11/11/77
11/11/77
11/11/77
11/11/77
11/11/77
11/11/77
11/14/77
11/14/77
11/14/77
11/14/77
11/14/77
11/14/77
11/17/77
11/17/77
11/17/77
11/17/77
11/17/77
11/17/77
Filter
#
0372
0373
0374
0375
0376
0377
0378
0379
0380
0381
0382
0383
0384
0385
0386
0387
0388
0389
0390
0391
0392
0393
0394
0395
0396
0397
0398
0399
0400
0401
0402
0403
0404
0405
0406
0407
0408
0409
0410
0411
0412
0413
Sampling
Site*
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.6
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.8
3.8
3.8
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.1
4.2
-
4.1
4.1
3.7
Time
(hours )
71.9
72.0
72.0
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.9
72.8
72.8
72.4
72.3
73.0
64.6
70.6
70.7
70.7
70.8
70.1
78.7
72.8
72.9
72.8
72.8
72.8
71.5
71.4
71.3
71.3
71.3
71.2
72.7
72.8
72.8
71.6
71.7
66.7
72.9
72.4
70.9
70.8
128.5
70.8
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3)
1.53
<.29
.87
<.29
.31
<.31
1.47
1.12
.86
<.28
<.23
<.29
<.33
<.28
.43
<.29
<.29
<.31
<.27
<.28
.57
.84
<.30
<.30
<.29
<.27
<.27
<.27
<.29
<.30
.29
.27
.28
<.28
<.28
<.34
<.27
.80
<.28
<.15
<.31
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 54 -
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
11/20/77
11/20/77
11/20/77
11/20/77
11/20/77
11/20/77
11/23/77
11/23/77
11/23/77
11/23/77
11/23/77
11/23/77
11/26/77
11/26/77
11/26/77
11/26/77
11/26/77
11/26/77
11/29/77
11/29/77
11/29/77
11/29/77
11/29/77
11/29/77
12/2/77
12/2/77
12/2/77
12/2/77
12/2/77
12/2/77
12/5/77
12/5/77
12/5/77
12/5/77
12/5/77
12/5/77
12/8/77
12/8/77
12/8/77
12/8/77
12/8/77
12/8/77
Filter
#
0414
0415
0416
0417
0418
0419
0420
0421
0422
0423
0424
0425
0426
0427
0428
0429
0430
0431
0432
0433
0434
0435
0436
0437
0438
0439
0440
0441
0442
0443
0444
0445
0446
0447
0448
0449
0450
0451
0452
0453
0454
0455
Sampling
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow
(cfm)
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
-
3.5
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.0
3.8
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
Time
(hours )
71.1
71.7
67.5
62.5
-
73.7
72.9
72.9
72.9
72.8
72.7
72.7
72.5
71.9
70.1
70.1
70.2
70.3
71.3
71.8
73.6
73.5
73.4
73,3
72.5
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
71.3
71.3
71.3
71.3
71.4
71.4
70.6
70.7
69.4
71.1
70.1
69.6
Amphibole Cone.
(ug/m3)
<.27
<.26
.69
< .29
-
< .32
.52
.91
.62
.25
< .27
< .30
.55
.66
.63
< .26
.27
< .28
< .27
.51
< .24
< .25
< .26
< .27
.41
.75
.80
< .25
< .28
< .29
1.2
< .27
< .27
< .27
< .29
< .32
< .26
< .26
< .27
< .27
< .29
< .31
-------
APPENDIX F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS, AMPHIBOLE FIBERS (fibers/m3)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 55 -
Electron Microscope Analysis
Date Sample
6/267-6/29 0118
0119
0120
0121
0122
0123
/14-7/17 0155
0156
0157
0158
0159
0160
/19-8/22 0228
0229
0230
0231
0232
0233
/28-8/31 0246
0247
0248
0249
0250
0251
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Amphibole Fibers
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
11,000
4,000
14,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
15,000
10,000
14,000
3,000
4,000
2,000
21,000
14,000
800
2,000
2,000
6,000
800
2,000
600
Amphibole Mass
Concentration
XRD (ug/m3)
1.60
1.45
2.29
<0.31
<0.32
<0.30
2.38
1.34
1.49
<0.28
<0.28
<0.29
0.73
1.53
<0.32
0.49
<0.32
0.59
0.66
0.57
O.29
<0.32
<0.30
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 56 -
Electron Microscope Analysis
Date
9/9-9/12
9/24-9/27
9/30-10/3
10/24-10/27
11/26-11/29
Sample
270
271-1
271-2
272
273
274
275-1
275-2
300
301-1
301-2
302
303
304
305
312
313
314
315
316
317
360
361-1
361-2
362
363
364
365
426
427
428-1
428-2
429
430
431
Location
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
5,000
12,000
4,000
10,000
8,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
3,000
11,000
1,000
1,000
800
12,000
11,000
14,000
2,000
4,000
2,000
8,000
13,000
16,000
10,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
200
2,000
5,000
5,000
200
1,000
200
Amphibole Mass
Concentration
XRD (ug/m3)
0.46
<.28
<.28
1.11
<.31
<.36
<.28
<.28
<.30
0.71
0.71
0.58
<.30
<.32
<.24
1.43
0.95
2.45
<.27
<.30
<.27
0.59
1.44
1.44
0.72
<.28
<.30
<.30
0.55
0.66
0.63
0.63
<.26
0.27
<.28
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 57 -
Electron Microscope Analysis
Date
Sample Location
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
Amphibole Mass
Concentration
XRD (ug/m3)
11/29-12/2
432-1
432-2
433
434
435
436
437
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
4,000
3,000
7,000
12,000
800
<200
700
<.27
<.27
.51
<.24
<.25
<.26
<.27
-------
i
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX G
PROBLEM SAMPLES
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DATE
6/29/77
6/29/77
7/5/77
7/5/77
8/7/77
8/16/77
8/19/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
8/28/77
9/3/77
8/31/77
9/6/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/9/77
9/15/77
9/21/77
9/21/77
9/27/77
9/30/77
- 58 -
PROBLEMS SAMPLES
FILTER #
0125
0127
0136
0138
0206
0224
0229
0230
0239
0242
0248
0253
0254
0265
0272
0273
0274
0283
0295
0296
0307
0314
PROBLEM
New sampler, calibrated 7/1/77
Earth moving nearby
Broke filter on removal, recov.
fragment from wind
Sampler unplugged, short period
No flow reading
Construction across road
No flow, sampler shut off
Construction across road
Power outage
Construction across road
Construction across road
Power out
Construction across road
Tarring roof nearby
High winds
High winds
High winds
Tarring roof nearby
Tarring roof nearby
Construction across road
Tarring roof
Construction across road
-------
- 59 -
DATE
10/6/77
10/6/77
10/6/77
10/9/77
10/12/77
10/12/77
10/15/77
10/18/77
10/21/77
10/30/77
11/5/77
11/17/77
FILTER #
0324
0325
0326
0332
0338
0339
0344
0350
0356
0374
0386
0410
PROBLEM
Ripped filter upon removal
Ripped filter upon removal
Construction across road
Construction across road
Construction across road
Power failure
Construction across road
Construction across road
Construction across road
Filter ripped during period
Construction across road
Snowstorm
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX H
I WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, RESERVE OFFICE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JJ
a
aJ
al
a
- 60 -
ao »«
-o >r> *
z
a
u.
oc
Ul
cc c
Uj
>- Ib
o a.
u c
* z.
c z
a: (mi
a a.
X
-^ *^
«« u
E- l_
2 C
u
£ U.
2 C
a
a. ^*
^ U
> 2
2 (u
IJU ^
C3
U.
X
bu
of
_» ............................«<
J
_3
Q. COOCOOOCCCOOOCOCOOCGO»OGGOGOOCOl-OOaDOCC
5: ooooooooooooooooooor«r^ooooooooo'»»o»-»r«*oo
t-> COOGOCOCCOCOOCOCOOCr'iaCOOOCOGGCCsr»O<»lOOOO-*-«-*OOO
O» OOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO
w
I
a.
s:
^** ^3 {^ ^D C3 ^3 ^3 w^ ^3 *^5 ^3 ^3 ^3 ^3 <^ ^3 ^3 *3 ^3 C3 ^3 ^5 ^3 ^^ ^^ i^ ci C- C2 ^3 ^^ C^ ^Nl «jrt ^^ 3 ^2
i^* <^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^~ ^^ ^^ ^*. ^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^. ^|. ^^ ^^ (^ ^^ ^^ ^f j^ ^\ *^" ^^ ^^ ^^ ^ if. jf*^ oc ^** "^ C C*
O^ ^3 C3 C3 ^3 ^3 O4 ^* ^3 ^^ ^^ Ci ^3 ^S CD C7 ^3 ^D G5 ^3 C^ OJ ^* ^O ^^ ^f ^^ OJ ^* ^^ _/
I
c i
>-
t- GCCCCCC-CCCCGCCCCOCCCCOCOOCCCCCCCC CCCi
at '
II t
d
------- |