IKited States Region V December, 1977 - June, 1978
Environmental Protection 230 South Dearborn Street
Agency Chicago, Illinois 60604
Surveillance & Analysis Division
oEPA Ambient Monitoring Final
Near The Land
Disposal Site For
Taconite Tailings
Reserve Mining
Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
-------
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
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DECEMBER, 1977 - JUNE, 1978
-------
Acknowledgement
Extensive laboratory analysis provided the basis of this report. Under
the supervision of the Environmental Research Laboratory, Dulut'n, the
Lake Superior Basin Studies Center, University of Minnesota, Duluth is
to be commended for the detailed analysis of the samples collect during
this study.
-------
ABSTRACT
Subsequent to completing a six months background study during the shutdown
of the Reserve Mining Company benefication plant for taconite tailing an
additional six months study was completed to measure the impact of plant
production on the ambient air quality in the Silver Bay, Minnesota area.
The impact resulting from the continuing construction of the land disposal
site, Milepost 7, was also measured. A six station ambient network was
kept in operation during the period December, 1977 - June, 1978, with
stations located in Silver Bay and Beaver Bay as well as near Milepost 7.
Sampling was completed for suspended particulate and amphibole fibers.
Extensive laboratory analysis provides the basis for this report. In
addition to X-ray diffraction analysis of all fiber samples, a random
selection of samples were analyzed for anphibole fiber and chrysotile
asbestos fiber using electron microscopy. In addition, particle size
distributions were completed for the amphibole fibers. Subsequent data
analysis lead to the following conclusions.
1. Suspended Particulate
As measured at Sites 1 and 2, the average production level of
particulate in Silver Bay is 33 ug/m. Near the tailings
basin, Mile post 7, the average production level is 18 ug/m .
2. Amphibole Fibers
a. As measured at Sites 1 and 2, the production levels of amphi-
bole fibers is 12,400 iibers/ni . Near the tailings basin, the
produc tion level is estimated at 3200 - 4400 fibers/m3. Second
maximum 72 hour average production levels of fibers are estimated
as 317,000 fibers/m3 in Silver Bay and 48,000 fibers/m3 near the
tailings basin.
b. As measured at Site 3, the production level of fibers in
Beaver Bay is 5,800 fibers/m3. Second maximum 72 hour average
production level of fibers is estimated at 91,000 fibers/m3.
c. Markedly higher correlations between the X-ray diffraction
analysis (mass) and the electron microscope analysis of fibers
were found. During production, the mass analysis can be used
as a surrogate for the electron microscope analysis.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. OBJECTIVES 1
3. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 1
a. Federal and State of Minnesota Ambient
air quality 2
b. Minnesota Air Pollution Control Regulations 2
4. BACKGROUND 2
a. Background Sampling Results 2
(1) Suspended Particulate 2
(2) Amphibole Fibers 4
5. DISCUSSION 7
a. Ambient Monitoring 7
b. Laboratory Analysis 7
6. FINDINGS 7
a. Ambient Monitoring 7
(1) Suspended Particulate 7
(2) Amphibole Fibers 10
b. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 13
c. Wind Data 15
d. Laboratory Analysis 15
(1) Chrysotile Fibers 15
(2) Amphibole Fiber Size Distribution 19
(3) Laboratory Quality Assurance 19
-------
7. CONCLUSIONS 20
APPENDIX A. Electron Microscope Analysis, 21
Amphibole Fibers (Fibers/m )
Corrected Background Data Sheets
B. Production Rates 25
C. Total Suspended Particulate 28
o
Data Sheets, ug/m
D. X-ray Diffraction Analysis, 33
Amphibole Mass Concentration (ug/nH)
E. Electron Microscope Analysis, 51
Amphibole Fibers (Fibers/m )
F. Problem Samples 54
G. Wind Frequency Distributions 57
H. Example Amphibole Fiber 61
Size Distribution, Microns
I. Electon Microscope Analysis, 74
Chrysotile Fibers (Fibers/nP)
J. Final Fiber Count Data 78
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures No. 1. Air Monitoring Network 3
2. Wind Rose, Station '/5, 16
Production Period
3. Wind Rose, Reserve Mining 17
Company, Production Period
4. Wind Rose, Reserve Mining 18
Company June 1977-June 1978
-------
PAGE
TABLE *No. 1. Suspended Particulate Summary 4
Statistics, ug/m^
2. Projected Annual Statistics, ug/m^ 4
3. Precision of Moncontinuous Sampling 4
4. Amphi bole Mass Summary Statistics, ug/nr^ 5
5. Amphibole Fiber Summary Statistics, 5
Fibers, m-'
6. Projected Annual Statistics, 5
Amphibole Fibers
7. Correlation Between the Amphibole 6
Mass and Fiber Data
8. Summary of ANOVA 6
9. Suspended Particulate Summary 9
Statistics, ug/m^
10. Projected Annual Statistics, ug/m-' 9
11. Precision of Noncontinuous Sampling 10
12. Amphibole Mass Summary 11
Statistics, ug/m^
13. Amphibole Fiber Summary 11
Statistics Fibers/m^
14. Projected Annual Statistics, 12
Amphibole Fibers
15. Correlation Between the Aaphibola 13
Mass and Fiber Data
16. Summary of ANOVA 13
17. Anphibole Fiber Size Distribution 19
(Micrometers)
*Tables 1 through 8 summarized background data
-------
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
In an interim report on ambient monitoring near the land disposal site
(Milepost 7) published in 1978, the first half results of a one year
survey were described1. This covered the period from June - December,
1977 during which the taconite beneficiation plant located in Silver Bay,
Minnesota was not in production. Beginning in December, 1977, the plant
was brought back into production. Following the collection of six months
background data an additional six months data were collected to measure
the impact of amphibole fibers on the local community resulting from
the plant. In addition, the extended period of monitoring provided the
opportunity to continue the assessment of the impact of the construction
of the land disposal site on the air quality. The principal agencies
involved in the study, the sampling network and the laboratory and data
analyses techniques are described in the background report . This report
is primarily concerned with the period of production at the beneficiation
plant from December, 1977 to June, 1978.
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.
3. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
No air quality standard for amphibole fibers has been promulgated.
Existing standards for suspended particulate are defined on page 2.
1. Ambient Monitoring Near the Land Disposal Site for Taconite
Tailings, Reserve Mining Company, Silver Bay, Minnesota, Region V,
Surveillance & Analysis Division, June - December 1977.
-------
2
a. Federal and State of Minnesota Ambient Air Quality
(1) Primary Standards - annual geometric mean of 75 ug/rrf not
to be exceeded.
-260 ug/m3 maximum 24-hour average
concentration not be exceeded more than one day per year.
(2) Secondary Standard - 150 ug/m3 maximum 24-hour average con-
centration not to be exeeded more than one day per year.
b. Minnesota Air Pollution Control Regulation
(1) APC-6-Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Air
Borne: All reasonable measures must be used to prevent
particulate from becoming airborne.
4. BACKGROUND
A detailed description of the sampling network, the laboratory analyses
for amphibole mass using X-ray diffraction techniques and the amphibole
fiber count using electron microscopy and the statistical routines for
analyzing the data are included in the interim report2 . For the purpose
of clarity, an area map showing the sampling network relative to Mile-
post 7 and the beneficiation plant is described in Figure 1. Follow-
ing publication of the interim report, minor errors were detected in the
laboratory analysis of the fiber count. Corrected data sheets for the
background phase of the study are enclosed as Appendix A. The results
of subsequent statistical analyses are discussed below.
a. Background Sampling Results
The data presented in the interim report (fiber data corrected for
minor errors) are tabulated below to allow comparison with the produc-
tion level results discussed under FINDINGS on page 7.
(1) Suoended Particulate
2. See Footnote 1, page 1,
-------
RESERVE MINING
COMPANY
0 ,, A x, , BAPTISM
B 'iA Y ; STATIPA*
SCALE OF STATim MILES
1975
BASIC DATA 1962*
Poiyconjc PTOI«CIIOR
Portia Am»nc«r. Di'um
of 1927
r^-7-
x-
Pro««c!ion R»(«r»
*«
-------
TABLE 1
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE SUMMARY STATISTICS, ug/m3
JUNE 26, 1977 - DECEMBER 6, 1977
NON- PRODUCTION DAYS
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
ffOBS .
45
50
51
48
49
50
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
14
18
20
10
9
10
MINIMUM
2
1
1
2
1
1
MAXIMUM
57
43
70
33
47
35
SECOND
MAXIMUM
41
37
49
30
38
31
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
2.11
1.84
1.95
1.90
2.29
2.18
TABLE 2
PROJECTED ANNUAL STATISTICS, ug/in3
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
TABLE 3
PRECISION OF NONCONTINUOUS SAMPLING
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
//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
LCL
11
15
16
8
8
8
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
14
18
20
10
9
10
UCL
17
21
24
12
12
12
(2) Amphibole Fibers
-------
TABLE 4
AMPHIBOLE MASS SUMMARY STATISTICS, ug/ai3
TOTAL
LOCATION
I
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
LOCATION
1
2
3
TOTAL
#OBS
BELOW
STANDARD
DETECTION GEOMETRIC GEOMETRIC
#OBS
56
54
54
59
59
58
340
LIMIT MEAN
18 0.667
15 0.674
9 0.880
55 0.299
53 0.309
54 0.299
204 0.463
TABLE 5
DEVIATION
2.20
1.95
2.00
1.22
1.28
1.08
1.98
AMPHIBOLE FIBER SUMMARY STATISTICS, fibers/
ifOBS.
10
9
10
10
10
10
59
#OBS
BELOW
DETECTION GEOMETRIC
LIMIT MEAN
0 4031
0 4978
0 11092
0 2032
1 1638
0 1171
1 3063
TABLE 6
PROJECTED ANNUAL STATISTICS,
AMPHIBOLE
MAXIMUM
4.38
5.26
0.495
2.70
MASS (ug/m3)
SECOND
MAXIMUM
3.37
4.10
0.463
2.11
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
4.09
2.10
1.58
3.30
2.48
2.35
3.36
MINIMUM
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.24
0.15
m3
MINIMUM
200
1700
5000
200
200
200
200
MAXIMUM
3.44
2.39
2.45
0.84
0.94
0.39
3.44
MAXIMUM
21000
14500
26000
11000
4300
3600
26000
AMPHIBOLE FIBERS
AMPHIBOLE FIBERS/in3
.MAXIMUM
79,801
36,103
20,219
70,000
SECOND
MAXIMUM
53,352
30,622
14,160
45,236
-------
TABLE 7
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMPHIBOLE MASS AND FIBER DATA
LOCATION #OBS #OBS < DETECTION LIMIT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
0.365
0.291
0.6*8
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
9
9
10
10
9
2
2
1
10
8
9
TOTAL
57
32
0.609**
*For these sices, no attempt was made to establish the relationship
between the mass and fiber data because most of the mass data are
below detectable limits (value unknown).
**Includes data for Sites 4,5 and 6.
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF ANOVA
DATA TYPE STATIONS RESULTS OF TEST
Mass All Reject null hypothesis (Ho) that station
means are equals
1,2,3 Cannot reject Ho, stations are not signi-
ficantly different.
4,5,6 Cannot reject Ho, stations are not signi-
ficantly different
1,2,3 vs. Reject Ho, station sets are significantly
4,5,6 different.
Fiber All Reject Ho, stations are significantly
different.
1,2,3 Cannot reject Ho, stations are not signi-
ficantly diffferent.
4,5,6 Cannot reject Ho, stations are not signi-
ficantly different.
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.
-------
5. DISCUSSION
a. Ambient Monitoring
The operation and maintenance of the network continued during the
production phase of the study as before with the operation completed
under contract with the Lake Superior Basin Studies Center, University
of Minnesota, Duluth. The responsibility for maintenance of the net-
work remained with Region V, Surveillance & Analysis Division. Quality
assurance audits and calibration of the sampling equipment remained a
joint responsibility of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the
Surveillance and Analysis Division. The audits and calibrations com-
pleted during the production phase of the study indicated no major
operational problems which would affect the validity of the data.
b. Laboratory Analysis
In addition to the extensive laboratory analyses for amphibole
fibers by mass and count, additional analyses were completed for
particle size, non-amphibole fiber concentrations and quality control.
All work was completed by the Lake Superior Basin Studies Center,
Unitersity of Minnesota, Duluth under the supervision of the Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
6. FINDINGS
The production rates for the beneficiation plant are described in
Appendix B. As compared to the base year of 1970 (considered full
production), the plant averaged 90.74% of production from January
through June, 1978. Additionally, construction at Milepost 7 and
at the plant continued through this period. The following activities
are indicative of the level of construction. The information is
extracted from the Reserve Mining Company Construction Progress Report
No. 14, July, 1978.
MILE POST 7 DISPOSAL SYSTEM - DAM AREA WORK
Engineering
Klohn Leonoff has 5 engineers and 10 inspectors on site to
supervise construction. Engineering work on site included the
continuing monitoring of the instrumentation under Dam 1 test fill,
the installation of additional instrumentation at Starter Dam 1
and continuous inspection and testing of materials for dam and dike
construction.
Construction
Bay Constructors had a force of 190 people on this phase of the
construction work on a two shift basis. The use of two shifts is dic-
tated by the need to complete the two main starter dams before freeze
up. The following were in progress at the end of July:
-------
Construction and maintenance of access and
haul roads.
Construction of the railroad spur from
Reserve's mainline to Starter Dam no. 1.
Construction of No. 1 Starter Dam.
Construction of No. 2-3-4 Starter Dam.
Construction of No. 1A Dike.
Construction of No. IB Dike.
Clearing of dam abutments.
Test pitting, clearing and stripping of
borrow areas for sand, gravel and till.
. Seeding of shoulders and back slopes of
completed roadways.
The tables describing the levels of pollution sampled during the produc-
tion phase of the survey and as tabulated below relate directly with
the tables used to describe the background levels beginning on page
4. Because of the similarity in describing the production levels
of pollution as compared to the background levels, liberal use is
made of the text from the interim report to present the findings.
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
December 6, 1977 to June 23, 1978, when the beneficiation
plant was operating. The detailed list of all TSP data may
be found in Appendix C. Table 9 below is a summary of the
number of observations, geometric means, minimum, maximum
and second maximum 24-hour averages and standard geometric
deviations for these sites and time periods.
-------
TABLE 9
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE SUMMARY STATISTICS, ug/m3
DECEMBER, 1977 - JUNE 23, 1978
PRODUCTION DAYS
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
#OBS.
57
57
58
54
54
50
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
27
39
40
19
21
15
MINIMUM
4
10
13
5
5
2
MAXIMUM
131
186
215
74
94
74
SECOND
MAXIMUM
123
179
138
67
85
68
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
,50
,04
,99
,84
2.11
2.12
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 in the interim report,
annual statistics can be estimated from shorter term data.
These maximum and second maximum values are described in
Table 10 below.
TABLE 10
PROJECTED ANNUAL STATISTICS, ug/m3
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
MEAN
27
39
40
19
21
15
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
,50
,04
,99
,84
11
2.12
MAXIMUM
287
245
236
92
144
104
SECOND
MAXIMUM
207
190
184
74
110
80
Other statistics are useful to establish the precision of
the mean value when the data are not collected daily. Upper
and lower control limits about the mean at the 95% confidence
level are described in Table 11.
-------
LOCATION
10
TABLE 11
PRECISION OF NONCONTINUOUS SAMPLING
£OBS.
57
57
58
54
54
50
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
2.50
2.04
1.99
1.84
2.11
2.12
t.025
2.003
2.003
2.002
2.006
2.006
2.011
CONCENTRATION ug/m
GEOMETRIC
LCL MEAN UCL
22 27 34
33 39 46
34 40 47
16 19 22
17 21 25
12 15 18
Prior to the start of the survey, construction of the
tailings basin at Milepost 7 had started. Initial
construction includes dams to be located in the
southern portion of the disposal site (see Figure 1,
page 3 ). Once completed the 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 both phases 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 a random number generator.
The X-ray diffraction mass data are described in Appendix D.
The amphibole fiber count data for those samples analyzed
using electron microscopy are described in Appendix E.
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 F. If the
problem associated with the sample was of sufficient magnitude
to invalidate the sample, no data are reported in Appendices
D and E.
-------
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
11
Summary statistics of the X-ray diffraction data are described
in Table 12 below. During this period, the levels of the
amphibole mass data were relatively high as compared to the
background study. However, a significant amount of data from
Sites 4, 5 and 6 continue to be below the detection limit of the
X-ray diffraction analytical method. In this event, the data
are assigned the value of the detection limit.
TABLE 12
AMPHIBOLE MASS SUMMARY STATISTICS, ug/in3
#OBS.
66
68
63
69
64
63
BELOW
DETECTION
LIMIT
6
8
11
31
29
47
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
1.611
1.699
1.247
0.482
0.630
0.453
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
2.63
2.82
2.59
2.03
2 .52
1.71
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
<0.25
<0.24
<0.24
<0.19
<0.21
<0.24
12.05
10.17
5.64
2.58
4.98
2.71
393
132
O.i
2.80
<0.19
12.05
In the interim report, it was suggested that the data sampled at
Station 3 (Beaver Bay) supported the concept of a local source
influencing the data set. This is not reflected in the production
data. Apparently, the influence of the beneficiation plant masks
any local sources which might be present. However, this is not
supported by comparable statistics for the amphibole fiber count
data described in Table 13.
TABLE 13
AMPHIBOLE FIBER SUMMARY STATISTICS, fibers/m3
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
#OBS.
11
10
11
11
11
10
f/OBS.
BELOW
DETECTION
LIMIT
0
0
0
0
0
1
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
12547
12160
5746
3833
4412
2750
STANDARD
GEOMETRIC
DEVIATION
4.08
4.93
3.47
2.91
2.92
4.11
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
2600
1500
600
500
1000
200
110,000
210,000
37,000
17,000
46,000
22,000
TOTAL
64
5869
3.96
200
210,000
-------
12
It is noted that the mean value of fibers at Site 3 is
considerably lower than that found during the background
study, and that there is considerably more variability in
the data. Since most of the sampling was conducted during
the winter season, local sources of fibers would be inhibited.
Production levels of amphibole fibers for Silver Bay, consider-
ing Sites 1 and 2, are approximately 12,000 fibers/m3 . The
annual statistics estimated from these sets of data, maximum
and second maximum values are described in Table 14. 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
summarized in total to estimate the maximum 72 hour produc-
tion level. The data at Site 3 in Beaver Bay are treated
individually. To estimate the maximum 72 hour production
level adjacent to the disposal site, the data for Station
4, 5 and 6 are summarized together.
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
TABLE 14
PROJECTED ANNUAL STATISTICS, AMPHIBOLE FIBERS
AMPHIBOLE MASS (ug/m3) AMPHIBOLE FIBERS/m3
MAXIMUM
21.88
14.53
3.58
12.59
SECOND
MAXIMUM
15.26
10.31
2.73
8.69
MAXIMUM
535,803
141,840
73,310
204,198
SECOND
MAXIMUM
316,660
90,679
48,191
124,440
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 should be noted that a significant number of the mass
data at Sites 4 and 6 are near or below the detectable
limit. The relationship between the data sets are
depicted in Table 15.
-------
13
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
TABLE 15
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMPHIBOLE MASS AND FIBER DATA
//DBS #OBS. DETECTION LIMIT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
11
10
11
11
10
10
63
1
1
1
4
2
6
15
0.831
0.659
0.654
0.711
0.779
0.798
0.727
Significantly higher correclation between the mass and fiber data was found
at all stations and in total. A correlation coefficient of 0.7 or higher
indicates that the X-ray diffraction analysis can be used as a surrogate
method to estimate the fiber concentration. A similar procedure is
recommended for the use of surrogate methods to estimate 24 hour particu-
late concentrations in performing episode monitoring^ .
b. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
A one way analysis of variance was completed to determine the
significance of differences between sampling stations and between
sets of sampling stations. The results of the ANOVA are listed in
Table 16. All results were tested at the 5% significance level.
DATA TYPE
Mass
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF ANOVA
STATIONS
All
1,2,3
4,5,6
RESULTS OF TEST
Reject null hypothesis (Ho) that station
means are equal.
Reject Ho, stations are significantly
different.
Reject Ho, stations are significantly
different.
3. Guidance for Selecting Episode Monitoring Methods, OAQPS No. 1.2-114,
Office of of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. August, 1978 (Draft).
-------
14
TABLE 16 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF ANOVA
DATA TYPE STATIONS RESULTS OF TEST
Mass 1,2,3 vs. Reject Ho, station sets are signif-
4,5,6 icantly different.
Fiber All Reject Ho, stations are significantly
different. <
1,2,3 Cannot reject Ho, stations are not signif-
icantly different.
4,5,6 Cannot reject Ho, stations are not signif-
icantly.
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. Significant differences in this analysis of variance of the
production data are seen in comparison to the background or non-produc-
tion data described in Table 8 on page 6. In the background data,
the levels of amphibole fibers were not statistically different in the
towns of Silver Bay and Beaver Bay, nor did differences exist between
the three rural sampling Stations, 4,5 and 6. However, as shown above,
the mass data levels sampled in Silver Bay (Stations 1 and 2) are signif-
icantly higher than that sampled in Beaver Bay (Station 3) during produc-
tion at the beneficiation plant. In the rural areas, at Station 5, that
closest to the land disposal site, levels of amphibole fibers sampled
during the production phase were significantly higher than at Stations
4 and 6. This relationship does not exist for the fiber count.
Based on the test for the fiber count data, the levels in Silver
Bay and Beaver Bay are not significantly different. A review of
the geometric means would indicated that this should not be the
case. The average level sampled in Beaver Bay is much lower than
that in Silver Bay. However, all three sites showed a similarity
in the degree of variation. In this analysis of variance, the
variation must be similar resulting in data sets that are not
statistically different at the 95% confidence level. This is
indicative of the strong influence of the beneficiation plant on
the ambient air in both communities. It would also indicate that
care must be exercised in the use of mass data as a surrogate for
fiber data since the ANOVA does not agree.
-------
15
c. Wind Data
Wind sets were operated at two locations, Station 5 and at
the Reserve Mining Company office. A complete year of record was
obtained near the Reserve office. However, equipment problems at
Station 5 resulted in the loss of four months of data during the
background study. A complete record of the winds which occured
during the production phase of the study was analyzed. The average
one hour values of wind direction and speed collected during the
production phase are described in Figure 2 and 3 as wind roses.
A wind rose depicting the entire year of data collection near the
Reserve office is described in Figure 4. The frequency distribu-
tions are also tabulated in Appendix G. Following completion of
the study the wind set near the reserve office was left in place
and maintained by MPCA. This operation was terminated in August,
1979.
d. Laboratory Analysis
As mentioned briefly in the DISCUSSION, additional laboratory analyses
were carried out under the auspices of the Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth. These include analyses for chrysotile fibers
for all samples analyzed by electron microscopy, amphibole fiber
size distribution for each sample and a summary of amphibole fiber
size distribution for all samples grouped by station for both the
background as well as the production phase of the study. In addition,
emphasis was placed on quality assurance of the analyses4.
(1) Chrysotile Fibers
Analyses for chrysotile fibers were completed for all samples analyzed
using electron microscopy techniques. The results of these analyses
are described in Appendix I. It should be noted that the membrane
filters used for sample collection have trace amounts of chrysotile
which are added to the sample upon low temperature ashing of the filter.
However, it is apparent that chrysotile fibers are present in low concen-
trations in the air of the Silver Bay area. In contrast to the amphibole
fibers, there does not appear to be significant differences in average
concentrations at the six sampling locations11.
4. Cook, P.M, Final Fiber Data Report: Milepost 7 Air Monitoring of
1977-1978, ERL-Duluth Memorandum dated June 25, 1979.
-------
16
* 5
u
Oi
«• o
as
- §
- 3
M W
< A
Figure 2: Wind Rose, Station #5, Production Period
-------
17
•I JC
>
<
w S3
^- SS
Figure 3: Wind Rose, Reserve Mining Company, Production Period
-------
18
m
Qi
w
j
H
C/5
u>
col
1—I
I
Fig
igure 4: Wind Rose, Reserve Mining Company June 1977 - June 197i
-------
20
Amphibole and chrysotile fiber concentration are also provided in
Appendix J wita 95% confidence intervals calculated for a Poisson
distribution. The size of the 95% confidence interval is a measure
of the precision of the analysis and is dependent on the number of
fibers present for analysis.
A final data set described in Appendix J is the Quality Control
Samples used to establish operator skill in electron microscopy.
All analyses are within the + 50% error inherent in electron
nicroscopy.
7. CONCLUSIONS
a. Suspended Particulate
(1) Although measureably higher than particulate levels found
during the background phase, production levels of suspended
particulate are low in comparison to the primary air quality
standard.
(2) As measured at Sites 1 and 2, the production levels of par-
ticulate in Silver Bay is 33 ug/m3. Near the tailings
basin, Milepost 7, the production level is 18 ug/m3.
(3) Construction at Milepost 7 continued to have minimal impact
on the levels of particulate during the production period
of the study.
b. Aciphlbole Fibers
(1) Production at the beneficiation plant results in significantly
higher levels of amphibole fibers as compared to background
levels.
(2) As measured at Sites 1 and 2, the production levels of amphibole
fibers in Silver Bay is 12,400 fibers /n . N'ear the tailings
basin, Milepost 7, the production level is estimated at 3200-4400
fibers/m , dependent on the proximity to the tailings basin.
Second maximum 72 hour average production levels of fibers are
estimated as 317,000 fibers/ra3 in Silver Bay and 48,000 fibers/ra3
near the tailings basin.
(3) As measured at Site 3, the production level of fibers in Beaver
Bay is 5800 fibers/m3. Second maximum 72 hour average production
levels of fibers are estimated as 91,000 fibers/m3. A comparison
of background vs. production levels indicates that any impact
of the beneficiation plant on Beaver Bay was masked by local
sources present during the background study.
(4) Correlations between the X-ray diffraction analysis (mass) and
the electron microscope analysis of anphibole fibers are markedly
higher when the beneficiation plant is operating. During produc-
tion, the mass analysis can be used as a surrogate for the electron
microscope analysis. However, a strict interpretation of plant
production on the ambient air would require electron microscope
analysis for fiber count.
-------
19
(2) Amphibole Fiber Size Distribution
Interested parties concerned with the detailed description of the amphi-
bole fiber size can obtain additional information through ERL-Duluth.
An example of the fiber distribution during the production phase is
enclosed as Appendix H. A summary of the aniphibole fiber size distribu-
tions is described in Table 17.
TABLE 17
AMPHIBOLE FIBER SIZE DISTRIBUTION (Micrometers)
STATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
PERIOD
Production
Background
Production
Background
Production
Background
Production
Background
Production
Background
Production
Background
NUMBER
MEASURED
323
274
515
236
159
493
215
141
88
115
67
77
MEAN
LENGTH
2.42
1.65
2.00
1.25
2.61
1.45
RANGE
MEAN
WIDTH
,24
.64
,76
,45
2.03
1.21
0.3-20.0
0.3-16.7
0.3-11.4
0.3-7.2
0.3-14.3
0.1-13.0
0.3-11.3
0.3-13.0
0.3-9.5
0.3-9.4
0.4-11.1
0.2-3.4
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.15
RANGE
0.02-6.0
0.05-4.2
0.05-1.8
0.03-2.2
0.05-2.7
0.03-1.8
0.02-2.4
0.02-2.0
0.05-1.9
0.02-1.5
0.05-2.0
0.05-0.8
The summary table shows a clear pattern of smaller fibers at locations in
the rural area of the study (Stations 4, 5 and 6). Smaller fiber size
distributions are also apparent at each site during the background phase
of the survey as compared to the production phase. The average fiber
size sampled at each location is in the range generally considered to
be respirable5-
(3) Laboratory Quality Assurance
Blank sample fiber concentrations were calculated for each air sample
based on the number of fibers found for the blank sample and the volume
of air filtered for the air sample. The blank fiber concentrations for
both the amphibole and chrysotile fiber analyses are described in Appendix
J. As mentioned earlier, chrysotile fiber contamination resulted from
trace amounts contained in the membrane filters. Amphibole fiber concen-
trations were either non-detectable or just at the level of detection.
The finding of more than one amphibole fiber in the two most contaminated
samples was complicated by the fact that most of these fibers occurred
in a few clusters, not randomly distributed over the area of the sample
examined. As a result, the actual amphibole fiber blank concentration
may be somewhat less than indicated. Overall, the blank analyses in-
dicates satisfactory prevention of amphibole fiber contamination of
the air samples during analysis.
5. Health Effects Considerations for Establishing a Standard for
Inhalable Particulate, U.S. EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., July 1978.
-------
21
APPENDIX A
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS, AMPHIBOLE FIBERS (fibers/m3)
CORRECTED BACKGROUND DATA SHEETS
-------
22
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
CORRECTED DATA
Date
6/26-6/29
1977
7/14-7/17
8/19-8/22
8/28-8/31
Sample
0118
0119
0120
0121
0122
0123
0155
0156
0157
0158
0159
0160
0228
0229
0230
0231
0232
0233
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
3,800
14,000
4,400
3,100
2,200
7,800
5,300
14,000
2,700
3,700
1,900
21,000
26,000
11,000
800
3,600
1,800
1,700
6,300
800
1,800
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
<0.29
<0.32
<0.30
-------
23
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
CORRECTED DATA
Date
9/9-9/12
9/24-9/27
9/30-10/3
10/24-10/27
11/26-11/29
Sample
0270
0271-1
0271-2
0272
0273
0274
0275-1
0275-2
0300
0301-1
0301-2
0302
0303
0304
0305
0312
0313
0314
0315
0316
0317
0360
0361-1
0361-2
0362
0363
0364
0365
0426
0427
0428-1
0428-2
0429
0430
0431
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
Amphibole Fibers
Concentration
(f ibers/m3)
5,000
12,000
3,900
9,500
7,700
1,600
1,200
1,000
900
3,400
3,200
11,000
1,900
1,700
800
12,000
11,000
14,000
1,400
4,300
1,900
8,500
13,000
16,000
10,000
3,500
3,000
2,300
200
1,900
4,600
5,400
200
1,200
200
Amphibole Mass
Concentration
XRD (ug/m3)
0.46
<0.28
<0.28
1.11
<0.31
<0.36
<0.28
<0.28
<0.30
0.71
0.71
0.58
<0.30
<0.32
<0.24
1.43
0.95
2.45
<0.27
<0.30
<0.27
0.59
1.44
1.44
0.72
<0.28
<0.30
<0.30
0.55
0.66
0.63
0.63
<0.26
0.27
<0.28
-------
24
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
CORRECTED DATA
Date
11/29-12/2
Sample
0432-1
0432-2
0433
0434
0435
0436
0437
Location
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Amphibole Fibers
Concentration
(f ibers/m3)
3,800
2,500
6,900
12.000
800
<200
700
Amphibole Mass
Concentration
XRD (ug/ir.3)
<0.27
<0.27
0.51
<0.24
<0.25
<0.26
<0.27
-------
25
APPENDIX B
PRODUCTION RATES
-------
RESERVE
26
RESERVE MINING COMPANY
SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA 55614
October 4, 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:
Your September 29th letter requests Reserve's
production rates from January 1, 1978 through
June 23, 1978. The attached memorandum provides
that information.
If you should have any questions or need additional
data, just let me know.
Sine
Edward Schmid
Assistant to the President
ES/p
Enclosure
-------
27
BESEBVE MINING COMPANY
MEMORANDUM
TO.
FROM.
SUBJECT.
Edward Schmid
DATE-
October 4, 1978
Industrial Engineering
Production Level Comparison (1970 vs. 1978; through June 23)
Following is the information per your request of October 3, 1978, utilizing
Reserve's full productive capacity (as demonstrated in the year of 1970)
as base for comparison with 1978 (through June 23) production level.
Date
1970
1978 1/1-6/23
Total Tons
Pellets (Dry)
10,434,758
4,547,229
No. Operating
Days
362.33
174
Avg. Tons/ Per Cent
Op. Day Production
28,799
26,133
100.00 (Base)
90.74
-------
28
APPENDIX C
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE DATA SHEETS ug/m3
-------
29
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
DECEMBER 12, 1977 - JUNE 23, 1978
DATE
Dec. 9
" 12
" 15
" 18
" 21
" 24
" 27
" 30
Jan. 2
" 5
" 8
" 11
" 14
" 17
11 20
" 23
" 26
" 29
_!
4
45
24
16
10
15
21
6
11
7
6
12
4
43
25
-
5
11
_2
8
49
29
22
16
30
17
20
19
10
10
20
13
45
28
37
12
17
STATION
_3
11
43
20
14
11
22
34
-
19
21
14
21
37
17
41
40
15
13
4
2
37
16
14
6
12
6
-
9
9
-
11
10
14
15
30
6
6
5
2
-
19
17
7
10
8
-
7
5
6
14
28
8
13
32
10
5
6
3
38
21
12
8
14
9
-
11
-
9
11
3
14
9
31
8
2
-------
30
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
DECEMBER 12, 1977 - JUNE 23, 1978
STATION
DATE
Feb. 1
" 4
" 7
" 10
" 13
" 16
" 19
" 22
" 25
" 28
Mar. 3
" 6
" 9
" 12
" 15
" 18
" 21
" 24
" 27
" 30
_!
15
24
5
12
11
23
68
57
7
14
10
68
26
24
23
30
28
26
96
99
2
40
27
18
39
27
51
88
67
13
34
17
72
36
38
30
32
35
61
132
179
3
27
27
14
24
16
33
58
53
15
18
16
30
35
34
18
42
. 33
33
44
133
4
20
20
8
9
18
26
19
5
14
7
21
20
17
14
19
24
25
29
51
5
18
21
-
34
-
28
54
37
19
-
6
12
18
15
11
14
25
35
30
37
6
7
41
-
7
-
10
24
-
6
-
7
17
23
29
14
16
16
10
-
41
-------
31
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
DECEMBER 12, 1977 - JUNE 23, 1978
STATION
DATE
Apr. 2
5
" 8
" 11
11 14
" 17
" 20
" 23
" 26
" 29
May 2
5
8
" 11
" 14
" 17
" 20
" 23
" 26
" 29
I
28
19
22
19
16
22
64
21
131
28
123
50
20
48
6
5
32
84
60
20
2
47
35
37
40
43
30
178
26
186
78
75
41
22
56
14
79
31
152
66
22
3
27
78
27
29
43
138
45
215
93
102
61
74
81
60
29
94
30
106
94
53
4
12
32
31
8
-
28
-
22
25
38
22
67
31
23
15
46
17
74
54
21
5
68
38
27
8
7
10
48
20
47
-
17
23
20
25
11
60
18
94
85
18
6
11
8
9
9
7
8
36
-
59
11
20
11
-
27
9
25
18
68
52
23
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
DECEMBER 12, 1977 - JUNE 23, 1978
STATION
DATE
Jun. 1
M
n
tt
n
it
n
n
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
_!
42
56
23
87
32
114
85
96
2
35
47
20
99
48
69
-
49
3_
46
84
39
126
34
65
85
79
4
12
31
12
25
26
24
28
30
5
14
30
14
77
41
25
57
43
6
16
20
13
74
14
21
34
26
-------
33
APPENDIX D
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS, AMPHIBOLE
MASS CONCENTRATION (ug/m3)
-------
34
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
12/11/77
12/11/77
12/11/77
12/11/77
12/11/77
12/11/77
12/14/77
12/14/77
12/14/77
12/14/77
12/14/77
12/14/77
12/17/77
12/17/77
12/17/77
12/17/77
12/17/77
12/17/77
12/20/77
12/20/77
12/20/77
12/20/77
12/20/77
Filter
#
0456
0457
0458
0459
0460
0461
0462
0463
0464
0465
0466
0467
0468
0469
0470
0471
0472
0473
0474
0475
0476
0477
0478
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
Flow
(cfm)
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.7
5.2
3.7
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.5
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.2
3.4
Time
(hours)
72.4
71.9
69.5
69.7
—
71.2
73.0
73.9
76.0
75.5
75.5
75.4
70.6
69.7
67. 7
68.2
68.2
68.2
74.4
74.8
76.4
76.4
43.4
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
.81
<.25
<.27
<.25
—
<.31
.68
.81
<.26
<.27
<.29
<.31
<.30
<.29
<.31
<.31
<.33
<-34
.67
.99
.76
<.25
— _
-------
35
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
12/20/77
12/23/77
12/23/77
12/23/77
12/23/77
12/23/77
12/23/77
12/26/77
12/26/77
12/26/77
12/26/77
12/26/77
12/26/77
12/29/77
12/29/77
12/29/77
12/29/77
12/29/77
12/29/77
1/1/78
1/1/78
1/1/78
1/1/78
1/1/78
1/1/78
Filter
#
0479
0480
0481
0482
0483
0484
0485
0486
0487
0488
0489
0490
0491
0492
0493
0494
0495
0496
0497
0498
0499
0500
0501
0502
0503
Sampling
Site #
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)
3.5
-
4.3
4.1
4.2
3.8
-
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.5
4.9
3.7
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.3
3.7
3.6
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
3.9
3.5
Time
(hours)
76.5
-
72.3
70.5
70.5
77.6
70.6
71.6
72.2
74.9
74.3
73.8
72.9
70.2
69.8
67.4
68.0
68.6
69.1
96.7
97.1
99.5
98.8
98.2
97,6
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
<.31
-
1.84
1.13
<.28
<.28
-
1.22
1.16
1.17
<.24
<.23
<.30
.95
1.20
.99
<.28
<.32
<.33
.70
.29
.29
<.19
<.21
<.24
-------
36
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
1/5/78
1/5/78
1/5/78
1/5/78
1/5/78
1/5/78
1/7/78
1/7/78
1/7/78
1/7/78
1/7/78
1/7/78
1/10/78
1/10/78
1/10/78
1/10/78
1/10/78
1/10/78
1/13/78
1/13/78
1/13/78
1/13/78
1/13/78
1/13/78
Filter
#.
0504
0505
0506
0507
0508
0509
0510
0511
0512
0513
0514
0515
0516
0517
0518
0519
0520
0521
0522
0523
0524
0525
0526
0527
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
Flow
(cfm)
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.7
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.4
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.3
5.4
3.9
-
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.4
Time
(hours)
45.1
45.4
33.7
45.3
40.0
46.6
74.5
73.6
71.8
71.8
71.8
71. 7
68.4
69.8
71.6
71.6
71.8
71.9
97.5
72.9
73.6
73.0
72.2
71.6
Arnphibole Cone
ug/m3
<.24
<.40
-
<.43
<.54
<.47
.65
<.25
<.26
<.25
<.29
<.34
<.28
<.26
<.25
<.27
-
<.29
-
.26
.65
.26
<.27
<,34
-------
37
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
1/17/78
1/17/78
1/17/78
1/17/78
1/17/78
1/17/78
1/19/78
1/19/78
1/19/78
1/19/78
1/19/78
1/19/78
1/22/78
1/22/78
1/22/78
1/22/78
1/22/78
1/22/78
1/25/78
1/25/78
1/25/78
1/25/78
1, 25/78
Filter
#
0528
0529
0530
0531
0532
0533
0534
0535
0536
0537
0538
0539
0540
0541
0542
0543
0544
0545
0546
0547
0548
0549
0550
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
Flow
(cfm)
4.2
4.2
2.6
4.2
3.8
3.4
4.8
4.4
4.2
4.4
3:8
3.8
4.4
3.6
4.6
4.4
4.3
3.8
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.4
5.3
Time
(hours)
47.0
72.3
71.5
72.3
72.5
73.5
72.6
71.8
70.3
70.1
7C.2
69.9
70.9
71.6
72.0
73.2
73.3
73.6
72.1
72.0
71.8
71.8
71.8
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
.62
.40
—
<.26
.44
<.33
.70
.26
.55
.27
<.31
.31
.26
<.32
<.25
<.25
<.26
<.29
<.25
<.24
<.24
<.26
<.21
-------
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
1/25/78
1/28/78
1/28/78
1/28/78
1/28/78
1/28/78
1/28/78
1/31/78
1/21/78
1/31/78
1/31/78
1/31/78
1/31/78
2/3/78
2/3/78
2/3/78
2/3/78
2/3/78
2/3/78
2/6/78
2/6/78
2/6/78
2/6/78
Filter
#
0551
0552
- 0553
0554
0555
0556
0557
0558
0559
0560
0561
0562
0563
0564
0565
0566
0567
0568
0569
0570
0571
0572
0573
Sampling
Site #
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
Flow
(cfm)
4.2
4.7
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.0
4.6
4.6
3.6
4. 6
3.5
3.7
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.4
3.9
3.4
4.5
4.2
4.6
4.3
Time
(hours)
71.8
73.3
72.8
71.1
71.1
71.0
70.9
70.1
72.3
72.3
72.3
72.4
72.4
72.1
72.1
73.2
72.3
71.6
71.0
71.8
71.7
70.3
71.6
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
<.27
1.07
0,34
0.48
<0.24
—
<0.29
2.28
1.60
.47
.49
1.13
.76
1.13
.81
<.26
<.26
<-29
<.34
<.25
<-27
1.01
.80
-------
39
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
2/6/78
2/6/78
2/9/78
2/9/78
2/9/78
2/9/78
2/9/78
2/9/78
2/12/78
2/12/78
2/12/78
2/12/78
2/12/78
2/12/78
2/15/78
2/15/78
2/15/78
2/15/78
2/15/78
2/15/78
2/18/78
2/18/78
2/18/78
2/18/79
Filter
#
0574
0575
• 0576
0577
0578
0579
0580
0581
0582
0583
0584
0585
0586
0587
0588
0589
0590
0591
0592
0593
0594
0595
0596
0597
Sampling
Site #
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
Flow
(cfm)
4.0
3.2
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.6
2.6
4.2
4.3
4.2
3.4
3.8
3.8
4.3
4.1
3.6
4.2
3.4
3.3
3.0
3,7
3.7
4.1
Time
(hours)
71
71
71
71
48
67
67
71
73
72
66
70
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
73
72
65
71
.6
.7
.8
.9
. 2
.8
.7
.9
.0
.5
.1
. 5
.2
.8
.0
.6
.5
.9
.9
.8
.0
.5
.9
.1
Araphibole Cone
ug/m3
<.28
<.36
1.68
1.80
<.40
<.29
<.34
<.43
1.86
1.57
1.91
<.34
<.30
.30
2.54
2.36
.63
<.27
<.33
<.34
2.24
.91
<.34
.70
-------
40
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
2/18/78
2/18/78
2/21/78
2/21/78
2/21/78
2/21/78
2/21/78
2/21/78
2/24/78
2/24/78
2/24/78
2/24/78
2/24/78
2/24/78
2/27/78
2/27/78
2/27/78
2/27/78
2/27/78
2/27/78
3/2/78
3/2/78
3/2/78
Filter
#
0598
0599
0600
0601
0602
0603
0604
0605
0606
0607
0608
0609
0610
0611
0612
0613
0614
0615
0616
0617
0618
G619
0620
Sampling
Site #
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
Flow
(cfm)
3.4
3.2
3.0
1.8
3.5
4.5
3.8
3.2
4.4
4.5
5.5
4.3
4.0
3.4
4.7
4.4
4.6
4.4
4.1
3.8
4.3
4.6
4.4
Time
(hours)
71.1
71.2
70.5
71.0
46.5
72.7
72. 2
71.5
72.2
72.3
56.1
72.7
72.4
72.3
71.7
71.7
58.9
71.2
71.5
71.6
74.0
73.4
64.6
Amphibole Cone
ug/ra3
<.34
<.36
2.31
3.83
<.50
<.25
<.30
<.36
.90
1.76
.40
<.26
<.28
<.33
1.94
2. 59
.90
<.26
<.28
<-30
1.80
1.21
1.29
-------
41
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
3/2/78
3/2/78
3/2/78
3/5/78
3/5/78
3/5/78
3/5/78
3/5/78
3/5/78
3/8/7S
3/8/78
3/8/78
3/8/78
3/8/78
3/8/78
3/11/78
3/11/78
3/11/78
3/11/78
3/11/79
3/11/78
3/14/78
3/14/78
Filter
0621
0622
0623
0624
0625
0626
0627
0628
0629
0630
0631
0632
0633
0634
0635
0636
0637
0638
0639
0640
0641
0642
0643
Sampling
Site ?r
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
Flow
(cftn)
4.2
3.9
3.1
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.0
3.5
5.6
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.5
3.6
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.6
3.8
4.2
4.1
Time
(hours)
71.2
71.9
72.7
72.2
71.3
53.9
71.7
71.6
70. 5
70.9
71.4
15.2
73.6
72.9
72.0
74.8
74.2
—
71.3
72.2
73.1
69.8
70.0
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
<.27
<.29
<.36
3.21
3.58
1.62
.85
<.33
.52
1.26
1.14
—
<.28
<.32
<.32
.41
.94
—
<.29
<.31
<.29
3,06
3.12
-------
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
3/14/78
3/14/78
3/14/78
3/14/78
3/17/78
3/17/78
3/17/78
3/17/78
3/17/78
3/17/78
3/20/78
3/20/78
3/20/78
3/20/78
3/20/78
3/20/78
3/23/78
3/23/78
3/23/78
3/23/78
3/23/78
3/23/78
3/26/78
3/26/78
Filter
#
0644
0645
' 0646
0647
0648
0649
0650
0651
0652
0653
0654
0655
0656
0657
0658
0659
0660
0661
0662
0663
0664
0665
0666
0667
Sampling
Site #
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
Flow
(cfm)
4.2
4.2
3.5
3.3
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.2
3.7
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.5
3.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.1
3.4
3.3
4.0
4.1
Time
(hours)
70.9
70.6
70.4
70.1
71.1
71.6
73.9
73.3
72.7
72.2
72.8
72.8
73.4
73.3
73.1
73.0
72.3
71.8
69.8
69.8
70.5
71.1
72.6
72.4
Amphibole Cone
ug/ra3
.41
.41
.66
.88
3.44
3.42
1.03
<.27
<.30
<.27
1.47
2.19
.95
.27
.32
<.35
1.65
2.56
1.00
.85
1 .87
<.35
3.65
3.30
-------
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
3/26/78
3/26/78
3/26/78
3/26/78
3/29/78
3/29/78
3/29/78
3/29/78
3/29/78
3/29/78
4/1/78
4/1/78
4/1/78
4/1/78
4/1/78
4/1/78
4/4/78
4/4/78
4/4/78
4/4/78
4/4/78
4/4/78
4/7/78
Filter
#
0668
0669
0670
0671
0672
0673
0674
0675
0676
0677
0678
0679
0680
0681
0682
0683
0684
0685
0686
0687
0688
0689
0690
Sampling
Site #
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
Flow
(cfra)
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
3.7
3.5
4.5
4.3
4.7
4.3
3.6
3.2
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.2
3.5
3.2
4.2
Time
(hours)
71.9
71.9
72.1
51.5
70.3
70.9
74.3
73.5
72.6
71.8
72.8
72.3
67.2
68.1
68.9
71.6
71.2
71.7
73.5
73.5
73.6
73.8
71.8
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
2.35
1.28
1.45
1.54
4.22
5.24
1.89
<.25
<.30
.65
.62
3.94
.90
.42
2.96
.71
3.52
4.53
1.89
. 79
1.74
<-35
1.89
-------
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
4/7/78
4/7/78
4/7/78
4/7/78
4/7/78
4/10/78
4/10/78
4/10/78
4/10/78
4/10/78
4/10/78
4/13/78
4/13/78
4/13/78
4/13/78
4/13/78
4/13/78
4/16/78
4/16/78
4/16/78
4/16/78
4/16/78
4/16/78
4/19/78
4/19/78
Filter
0691
0692
0693
0694
0695
0696
0697
0698
0699
0700
0701
0702
0703
0704
0705
0706
0707
0708
0709
0710
0711
0712
0713
0714
0715
Sampling
Site #
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
Flow
(cfm)
4.1
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.3
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.1
3.5
3.1
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.5
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
3.7
3.0
4.4
4.3
Time
(hours)
71.8
65.4
72.3
71.4
70.5
71.5
71.5
70.7
70.7
71.1
71.4
74.1
73.6
70.5
71.2
72.3
73.0
70.8
70.8
71.8
71.6
71.1
70.9
71.3
63.4
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
3.05
5.10
1.34
1.65
<.35
2.71
3.50
1.57
<.28
.98
<.37
.92
2.09
1.79
<.28
.81
<.36
<.28
1.92
3.38
1.19
.31
<.38
5.46
5.59
-------
45
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
4/19
4/19
4/19
4/19
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/25
4/25
4/25
4/25
4/25
4/25
4/28
4/28
4/28
4/28
4/28
4/28
5/1
5/1
5/1
Filter
#.
0716
0717
0718
0719
0720
0721
0722
0723
0724
0725
0726
0727
0728
0729
0730
0731
0732
0733
0734
0735
0736
0737
0738
0739
0740
Sampling
Site #
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
Flow
(cfm)
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
Li
4
.4
.1
.5
.0
.4
.1
.2
.0
.4
.9
.9
.9
.2
.0
.3
.9
.0
.0
.2
.1
.5
.0
.4
.3
. 5
Time
(hours)
73
50
72
72
73
73
70
71
71
72
70
71
71
71
71
51
69
70
73
72
71
70
75
72
71
.9
, 2
.8
.3
.9
.2
. 5
.2
.8
.5
.9
.2
.4
,5
. 5
.0
.0
.3
.1
.2
.6
.9
.1
. 4
.6
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
2
2
2
1
3
1
<
<
7
6
2
1
2
1
6
3
3
1
2
<
6
4
3
.38
.58
.56
.50
.50
.82
.17
.00
.33
.39
.82
.32
.18
.14
.42
.65
.57
.92
.85
.79
.44
.38
.67
.85
.16
-------
46
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
5/1
5/1
5/1
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/7
5/7
5/7
5/7
5/7
5/7
5/10
5/10
5/10
5/10
5/10
5/10
5/13
5/13
5/13
5/13
Filter
#,
0741
0742
0743
0744
0745
0746
0747
0748
0749
0750
0751
0752
0753
0754
0755
0756
0757
0758
0759
0760
0761
0762
0763
0764
0765
Sampling
Site #
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
Flow
(cftn)
3.8
3.3
2.6
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.2
3.4
2.9
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.4
2.6
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.2
2.7
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.1
Time
(hours)
72.3
72.9
73.9
69.7
72.0
70.6
70.4
70.3
68.9
75.7
75.3
72.8
72.9
74.0
74.1
68.1
69.0
74.2
73.1
71.6
70.8
72.9
72.2
69.3
70.4
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
1.48
.85
1.49
.71
2.07
3.31
1.79
1.88
<.41
2.84
3.70
3.50
.98
.49
.42
1.69
5.46
2.20
.70
1.25
<.43
1.09
5.65
2.87
1.27
-------
47
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
5/13
5/13
5/16
5/16
5/16
5/16
5/16
5/16
5/19
5/19
5/19
5/19
5/19
5/19
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
Filter
#,
0766
0767
0768
0759
0770
0771
0772
0773
0774
0775
0776
0777
0778
0779
0780
0781
0782
0783
0784
0785
0786
0787
0788
0789
0790
Sampling
Site #
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
Flow
(cfrn)
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
. 5
.6
.0
.9
.0
.9
.2
.5
.1
.2
.4
.4
.4
.6
.9
.8
.0
.9
.2
.3
.8
.7
.9
.8
.1
Time
(hours)
71
71
69
70
73
72
71
70
73
73
73
73
73
73
71
71
70
70
45
70
74
73
69
70
71
.0
.6
.6
.1
.4
.5
.3
.7
,6
.6
.5
.6
.7
. 7
.1
.1
.3
.3
.9
.9
.3
.7
.9
.6
.4
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
2
<
1
3
4
1
2
<
3
2
2
1
2
4
2
1
4
7
10
4
1
4
.79
.44
.61
.88
.03
.30
.32
.46
.24
.77
.90
.88
.14
.64
.35
.38
.61
. 27
.17
.50
.20
.17
.49
.67
.98
-------
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
5/25
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/31
5/31
5/31
5/31
5/31
5/31
6/3
6/3
6/3
6/3
6/3
6/3
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
Filter
#
0791
0792
0793
0794
0795
0796
0797
0798
0799
0800
0801
0802
0803
0804
0805
0806
0807
0808
0809
0810
0811
0812
0813
0814
Sampling
Site #
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
Flow
(cfm)
2.1
4.2
4.1
4.3
4.1
3.3
2.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
3.2
2.1
4.1
3.8
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.0
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.1
Time
(hours )
72.8
69.3
69.4
70.9
70.6
70.5
69.4
86.1
80.3
82.4
81.8
81.3
79.2
59.9
65.6
62.9
63.5
64.1
51.6
69.9
70.0
70.6
70.5
70.5
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
1.07
1.68
3.57
3.08
.99
.70
<.59
3.50
2.23
2.04
.58
.31
<.49
7.64
3.27
2.85
.68
.55
<.53
1.65
.75
2.96
<.28
<.37
-------
49
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
6/6
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/15
6/18
6/18
6/18
6/18
6/18
Filter
#
0815
0816
0817
0818
0819
0820
0821
0822
0823
0824
0825
0826
0827
0828
0829
0830
0831
0832
0833
0834
0835
0836
0837
0838
Sampling
Site #
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
Flow
(cfm)
2.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.2
1.7
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.9
3.1
1.7
3.9
3.8-
3.9
3.9
2.8
-
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.9
2.7
Time
(hours)
70.0
74.0
74.5
76.7
76.1
62.1
75.0
70.6
70.2
68.0
68.5
69.1
69.1
71.7
71.7
71.8
71.8
71.9
-
71.0
71.5
74.0
73.0
72.5
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
<.56
1.18
1.66
1.57
.38
1.03
<.64
3.41
3.96
3.27
1.99
2.29
1.72
5.69
3.59
3.64
.29
.61
-
3.09
4.00
2.40
<.29
1.04
-------
50
X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
Date
6/18
6/21
6/21
6/21
6/21
6/23
Filter
ji
If
*
0839
0840
0841
0842
0843
Sampling
Site #
6
1
2
3
4
5
Flow
(cfra)
-
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.9
2.5
Time
(hours )
-
48.6
48.8
48.8
48.9
48.9
Amphibole Cone
ug/m3
-
12.05
5.42
5.64
.64
4.00
-------
51
APPENDIX E
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS, AMPHIBOLE FIBERS (FIBERS/m3)
-------
52
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
Amphibole Fibers Amphibole Mass
Concentration Concentration
Date Sample Location (fibers/m3) XRD (ug/m3)
4/16-4/20
4/25-4/28
5/13-5/16
5/25-5/28
6/15-6/18
0708
0709
0710
0711
0712
0713
0726
0727
0728
0729
0730
0731
0762
0763
0764
0765
0766
0767
0786
0787
0788
0789
0790
0791
0828
0829
0830
0831
0832
0833
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
2,600
1,500
37,000
2,100
3,900
1,000
110,000
210,000
24,000
10,000
7,500
15,000
5,900
24,000
8,200
17,000
3,200
4,100
43,000
89,000
25,000
10,000
46,000
22,000
56,000
37,000
7,600
4,000
4,600
<0.28
1.92
3.38
1.19
0.31
<0.38
7.82
6.32
2.18
1.14
2.42
1.65
1.09
5.65
2.87
1.27
2.79
<0.44
7.20
10.17
4.49
1.67
4.98
1.07
5.69
3.59
3,64
0.29
0.61
— -
-------
53
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
Date
Sample
Location
Amphibole Fibers
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
Amphibole Mass
Concentration
XRD (ug/m3)
6/17-6-ZQ
' 1977
1/7-1/10
1978
1/28-1/31
1/31-2/3
2/12-2/15
3/23-3/26
Q1Q1
0103
0105
0102
0100
0104
0510
0511
0512
0513
0514
0515
0552
0553
0554
0555
0556
0557
0558
0559
0560
0561
0562
0563
0582
0583
0584
0585
0586
0587
0660
0661
0662
0663
0664
0665
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
65,000
2,800
3,800
12,000
3,600
13,000
4,800
1,900
1,500
2,500
3,700
4,800
3,000
600
500
1,200
<200
9,400
4,000
2,700
4,600
2,700
2,600
2,900
8,500
3,400
1,400
1,000
600
2,700
5,800
5,000
10,000
6,400
4,400
2.76
_ _ _ —
2.29
<0.27
0.28
0.56
0.65
<0.25
<0.26
<0.25
<0.29
<0.34
1.07
0.34
0.48
<0.24
----
<0.29
2.28
1.60
0.47
0.49
1.13
0.76
1.86
1.57
1.91
<0.34
<0.30
<0.30
1.65
2.56
1.00
0.85
1.87
<0.35
-------
54
APPENDIX F
PROBLEM SAMPLES
-------
PROBLEM SAMPLES
DATE
12/11/77
12/20/77
12/23/77
12/23/77
1/5/78
1/10/78
1/13/78
1/13/78
1/17/78
1/17/78
1/19/78
1/19/78
1/28/78
1/28/78
2/18/78
2/18/78
FILTER #
0460
0478
0480
0485
0506
0520
0522
0526
0528
0530
0534
0536
0556
0559
0594
0595
PROBLEM
Filter split near edges
during sampling period
Power out, electrical
connection
Filter split near edges
during sampling period
No flow reading
Equipment unplugged,
started 1/6/78
Crack in filters, filters
frozen to sampler
Filter lost due to wind
Filter ripped, frozen to
sampler
Filter ripped, replaced on
1/17, sampling period one
day short
Sudden drop in flow
Filter ripped during
sampling period
Low flow on last day of
sampling period
Filter ripped during
sampling period
Filter cracked on third
day
Filter cracked during
sampling period
Filter cracked during
sampling period
-------
56
DATE FILTER # PROBLEM
2/18/78 0596 Filter cracked during
sampling period
2/21/78 0601 Filter ripped during
sampling period
3/5/78 0629 Old sampler replaced
by new sampler
3/8/78 0632 Elasped time indicator
stuck
4/10/78 0696 Filter broke and got
wet during removal
4/16/78 0708 Filter ripped during
removal
5/22/78 0784 Unplugged and restarted on
5/25
6/18/78 No filter
-------
57
APPENDIX G
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
-------
to
a
u
u
D.
03
o
2:
58
2
o
X
(X
•*•
IT;
oooooooooooooooooooooooccoooeooccooecotfi
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOtTOO-^OO
OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOtMOOCNO •
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
a.
> »-•
c
z
o o
-4 Z
o <
u
a c
u
>< cc
U Qu
2 W
c
t-4 fc,
I- O
X
a.
s
r-» aoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO«~«CJ»*-«'«>CN
CN
I
r>*o
OO
ooo
OOO
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooocrio*<7»
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO-^OJO
•^ COOOOCOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOCCCO
o o
o
00
w-4
I
-3
o
«-iOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-r-»OOOOOOOOOOOU1'Tr»>
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
u
T tin -Q
''i ^j £~5
r- • s_
•r-l t>« CL
in
=3=
H a
C 2
(X DJ
a a:
a;
.4:2
< o
H CJ
2 O
u
X U.
"s: c
o
a >-
M O
> 2
z; w
ta ^.
o
U.1
a;
U-
X
a.
o
•r—
-!->
ra
| ................................. ...^-1 .P
03 OCOOOO»-
«««
I
i ................................... • ^i^4v-l(NCNCNfNfM{N<>4rH(NrMI
-------
59
»,/}«-• o.>«oo)»«-«'>ocM!/1>j>cN'3<./l>e--TD r ~i o
'ir).-c rv
c o o c c c »— ^-< 01 — < .-i
— » fs .N~1OO
coc. oocooccco ococooccocoocc-occ^-ao r-cc
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO^-»X>'-• u.
c
>-* &_:
f- c
H U
c r
a
-X
<• ^
t- o
*- ~^
u.
a >*
-< u
oo o ooo-noooooooo
» OOCOCOOCOCCOCOOOOOOCCCCOOCCCCP- —
— ccooccococ-oc-ocoocoooooccooccocc
o c c o
33
)
ooooooooooo
oooooocoooooooooooooo o oc
•r- -4; IT.
o c
^ »*i oo a.
»7 c,u" cr c
I
ac
OO--CCOOCOOCOCCCOOCCCOOCCCCC —
£•— cr -CQ «*". r~ tr. o^ cr r-
o~a. OTC r>— av^'T^rN
r. ocac ^ccv£ - <: C
02 O E-
-------
tlj
IT
CN
60
IS .O
— i r- ;•* x> o o
COCCCCOOC-C-OOCOCGCOOcr^COCCOOOOGa
o ooooo oooooo oooooooooo 3000 :> o o 3
a
^ —I
c
If
c- c.
r-< ^
C «t
•J
X C
aJ
>-• u;
u ^
2 v:
•J
04
I
coeooc-r-oc-
ocoooooc c
o c o c
CO
r~~.
CT)
a>
Z3
-( i.
E- O
H -
U. a-,
c a
3-, JJ
•
t oooo OCN^, -N — ooooorjoooi^r"
^-l OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOODZ
^^
a
X or^^^r^4^j'-vi^*^rxi%ocDj^
T-'OOO^l^,'-r1^.-~.Orr!^lJ->rNO^ y
3ODOOOOOOO— <^4^-iOOO 4-
4-
o
CD
*^—
^
^~
ioxccs^r~r~mO'-'»— OvOf^fvc; gj
3 o o rv rn ^* p^ ^J* ""^ '^ o 'ji ^ ^ o 3> • >
- r^- T r<" \r \jc *£' CN c f * "^7" L/1 /*> ^ <7 'v/^ '"* ^~
c;
> ZT
X
c-
x
a.
C *-<
OCOOCCOOOOOOCOOOOOC'OOOC'-iOOOOOC
w
X
cocococcococoocoooocc-ccooooooooocococ CD
CQ
-------
61
APPENDIX H
EXAMPLE AMPHIBOLE FIBER SIZE DISTRIBUTION, MICRONS
-------
62
STATION 1
SUMMARY AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION
AMPHIBOLE FIBER SIZE LENGTH
PRODUCTION PERIOD
-------
63
coco cococo cococo
is 2: 2: z 2! 2:2:2:
OO 000 000
C£ Q£ C£ C£ C£ (X f^O£
OO OOO OOO
»—I >—< >—«
sisrs:
coin
CO
CD CD
LJ
_J
CD rt ^r CD CM
CO
o
CO
»—«
H-
ir> co co
CO
in
i
co
i i t i i i i
i i i i i i t i i i i
ro ro ro
LUZ:
OZD
CD
ro
ro
CVJ
ro
•a
»—
o
ui
«j
-------
CO
LC\
cb
o
H—H
I
£2
CO
I I T
to
o
a:
o
a.
LU
-------
65
UJ CM
_J ~*
COCO CO CO CO CO COCO IS-
2:2: 2:2:2: 2:2:2: LU
OO OOO OOO Z> -H
Ckio: C^CKTCK: oiQict: o *-•
OO OOO OOO CO
»—I >—4 >—< >—«•—« V—(I—(t-H
O3CD
o
co >-* s:z: z> —•
O 3 OrD 2TLU LU ••
•—« Esruj -ceo C£t_u
H- f-_» »-«r-u_3 2:»~<
O LUO —• —• CO CT> CM CO
V OQ. CO CO
L,S ,-•
r>- cri r- ro
cvi co -c3cuu^r<-cDC'vjinrN-cs>cvjinr-cDOyiinrs-cs) o
CO .....................
-jo
_J2
LoJZD I I r / I I I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I CO
oo in"S> (n«3iocDmoioc3maD{ncD!r>G3tn co uu
CQ OCXlW^r^OCvJUO^OCMU^f^CSiOJlON-CDCMinh- CD LU LU _J
ri uo -cc TrinvjDr--oDc^c5>
-------
66
00
CD
P3
00
T I T
CD
- in
- cr»
- CD
i
- co
!- CD
CO
E-"
h- !N
h CD
O
ct
o
o. LU o: o ui 2:
-------
67
Ul
>J
QiQC QiCt'Ci; CtiCKC* O
OO OOO OOO CQ
>— * »— » >— ( »— « >— 4
22: 2:2:3:
CO
®in CD®® c\i©
o 3 :D:D sruu LU
co o_j ^:x2:
>-< zui n- o
en oo TO c?
;£} UJO *-• is. CD
J OQ_ (7^ ©
CO
vo *sO •-• ro
*-• f»J
ou_ ro ro
CO
Q
_)0
cs> in © in CD ID in CD m o in uro-«^uov£>r-cocis»<2D
UJST »-**-* i— <»-«»-< T- < «— < •»-! •r-i »-< <\j H- _j o _/
or> o LU aa «j
2: >~ co
-------
68
o
SI
LA
2
i-H
§
P^
CQ
H 1
CO
I 1
a
T I f
r l
i i i
CO
"-<*•
- «r>
I CO
o
"~CVI
- m
fc_ •
»JO
t
cs»
a. LU Cii o
-------
69
STATION 1
SUMMARY AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION
AMPHIBOLE FIBER SIZE WIDTH
PRODUCTION PERIOD
-------
70
CO
O
ce:
•i:
CM
i
en
E:
E:
(A
(A
O
M
1-
(A
I-
4 MEDIAN
,5 STD DEU
,9
ajncocococflannj-H
OJ TH ^»
r- U3 in aj ru en -H
****** **_*i
f 1 1 1 I ( 1 1 I I
-nir^iA^f-cocn©
©
©
• «
u -T
n
o
n
©
(A -H
UJ •
D n
nj co
UJUJI
cooooinrinajQ©
^~f T^
C^ ^5 ^D ^5 S^ ^5 ^5 ^^ ^^ ^5
* * *.t * * *_4n*i
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
-.run^intor-wa)©
O>
CO
©
Q
(U
n
©
a!
i
UJ UJ
o
J-
o
CD
O
U
o
(A
UJ
O
CO
CC
(A
UJ
O
M
a
-------
71
o
Cxi
I
O
CQ
CO
ilM
O
• •
OJ
nj
CO
o
o:
o
CL UJ Ct O UI Z I-
-------
**
V)
o
M
f-
LUU
XX
l-l-
o
o
CO
o
o
•
"T
I
CN
^IH
O Q.
03 -H
• *
•H CO
o
•
o
o
a
,-JZ
UJD
o o
or
0 T)
tu
ojruaiajcuruajcuwnnnnmmnnnnf
I I I « J >! 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I »
O
O
I
O
o
ol
CL
|
n
n
cu
UJ
o
UJ
CO
UJ
o
UJ
D
O
05
-------
73
CO
o
2:
i
Cxi
0
I
I
eo
i —
CO
0
U
n
r f t f
") C
j n
iiii
> u
j
i i i i
•) L
<4
E
J
1
riii
) <
T
00
*— •
n
(0
T
r +
n
(U
z
o o
•«• «
o
— . « M
21
~"cu
-------
74
APPENDIX I
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS, CHRYSOTILE FIBERS (fibers/m3)
-------
75
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
Date
6/17-6/20
1977
Production
6/26-6/29
Background
7/14-7/17
8/19-8/22
8/28-8/31
9/9-9/12
Sample
0101
0103
0105
0102
0100
0104
0118
0119
0120
0121
0122
0123
0155
0156
0157
0158
0159
0160
0228
0229
0230
0231
0232 •
0233
0246
0247
0248
0249
0250
0251
0270
0271-1
0271-2
0272
0273
0274
0275-1
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
Chrysotile Fibers
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
4,000
2,800
1,900
<400
1,600
1,000
2,400
900
2,100
1,000
1,100
700
200
700
2,300
2,300
1,000
5,100
5,900
3,400
5,400
3,400
4,300
5,600
5,100
6,600
2,700
6,700
5,300
5,300
7,300
7,500
10,000
5,500
7,700
-------
76
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
Date
Sample
Location
Chrysotile Fibers
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
9/24-9/27
9/30-10/3
10/24-10/27
11/26-11/29
11/29-12/2
0275-2
0300
0301-1
0301-2
0302
0303
0304
0305
0312
0313
0314
0315
0316
0317
0360
0361-1
0361-2
0362
0363
0364
0365
0426 ,
0427
0428-1
0428-2
0429
0430
0431
0432-1
0432-2
0433
0434
0435
0436
0437
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
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
11,000
7,000
4,400
1,700
9,600
9,900
7,300
8,600
11,000
35,000
7,500
4,800
6,200
4,000
12,000
10,000
2,900
5,000
7,100
11,000
6,400
1,300
400
1,400
2,700
500
800
900
3,500
1,200
800
2,800
2,800
<200
1,200
-------
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
Date
1/7-1/10
1978
Production
1/28-1/31
1/31-2/3
2/12-2/15
3/22-3/25
4/16-4/20
Sample
0510
0511
0512
0513
0514
0515
0552
0553
0554
0555
0556
0557
0558
0559
0560
0561
0562
0563
0582
0583
0584
0585
0586
0587
0660
0661
0662
0663
0664
0665
0708
0709
0710
0711
0712
0713
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
?
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
/,
5
6
I
-i
3
/
3
^
o
Chrysotile Fibers
Concentration
(fibers/m3)
5,300
2,700
11 ,000
6,000
1,600
5,200
1,400
1 ,000
3,200
300
26,000
400
600
200
5,700
10,000
2,700
3,000
1,100
1,400
1,500
3,100
200
400
300
1,000
2,900
6,800
1,600
4,^00
3,200
2,200
2,000
1,100
2,000
< 1,000
-------
78
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS
Date
4/25-4/28
5/13-5/16
5/25-5/28
6/15-6/18
Sample
0726
0727
0728
0729
0730
0731
0762
0763
0764
0765
0766
0767
0786
0787
0788
0789
0790
0791
0828
0829
0830
0831
0832
0833
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
Chrysotile Fibers
Concentration
(fibers /m3)
1 ,700
14,000
27,000
3,400
4,300
4,000
900
2,100
1,000
900
1,100
<1,400
7,100
<1,300
3,600
1,100
1,400
2,400
10,000
11,000
<1,100
2,700
<1 ,500
-------
APPENDIX J
FINAL FIBER COUNT DATA
-------
so
Q.
e
10
VI
V
a
o —
U fl
O
O
o « i
VI (J I
>• c e —
oooooo
oooooo
o vi
U l-
4 ° z
OOOO
oooo
- v I- J> J- J- £ "
oooooo
oooooo
o
c^
o
o
oooo
oooo
oooooo
oooooo
oocoo
ooooo
in v •— r^ r-
r~OfN(N
CM m — — — —
O
O
oooo
OOOO
oooooo
OOOOOO
ooooo
OOOOO
"
o
O
oooo
OOOO
oooooo
OOOOOO
ooooo
OOOOO
K"
10
0 *
fc - §
-J —
z o a *-.
> £ £"4=
Z O 0 V)
O « u i.
UJ -C U —
u s^
jO
< —
< c
Q —
c.
1- S
2 fl
O ^
8 v.
"™ V
cr < c
uj O
U_ 5 23 ^«>
— L. K*
j n *- (^
_j u T- t
< 2 c X
Z — 0 vl
— £ U U
i" § &
\ ~
&
"z.
e
O
«J
u
3
9 L.
Q. JO
£ E
10 3
in c
9
+-
10
Q
-*
O
O
O f
i
o
— 1
— *
o
0 1
0^
«T
^
o
o
S
1
o
o
in* '
5
g
O 1
m
'•O
— CN
— fO
0 0
0 0
o
1 O O 1 O OOOO OOOOOO OOOOO
OO1C OOOOOO OlOCNrOO P*)COCOir\O vO^OCNin^lA CNCNOQ3CO
iTi ^ ^ ^ — K) K^ K\ fN — (N~~*~*T CN fO""^CN CNK^^^T*— T K^^m^r^)
oooo oooooo oooooo o oooo oooooo ooooo
oooo oooooo oooooo oioooo oooooo ooooo
aC"*r\o o *r v* *— o — r^rs(^-fOw-io — av-K1OP-r*<7» O OOo •» m vo — CN KI •» in \o — CN^T^VO — CM (M i^ «
inCNO^ COCfVO^*CNK^ m^^*COOO COC7*O"~CNfO lOP^COOO™" O'~"-fN'*"V
OOOO — — CNCNCNCN in'^mininso CNCN^JOKIK^ *y*rinm r-»r*r*r*»r*
OOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO
ov r. CM -
CN — CN K1 CN
vo r* cs ao x
1 1 1 1 Ov
CN — — CN C7\
vo p» O 00 01
-------
81
o
Q.
E
(0
JC
c:
nj
—
m
V
o
z
m
UJ
to
^—
O
UJ
c
o
c o *-
— L. K"l
v 'c -^
in U u
u O -O
JZ O —
U •*-
^
""
c
o
—
/o .—
o u m
— •+" £
0 C <
.a o ui
— O L.
0. § -a
| " >
U -*
1
*
0
ooo ooooooo
opo ooooooo
in v» o 0^ p** p~ *o — in o
in — f— r» r- eo
§00 ooooooo
oo ooooooo
V
^ ^ O O — ' OOOO
oooooo ooooooo oooooco o ooo
oooooo ooooooo ooooooo oiooo
*O O vO P* o m o O O o ^" ""* m *o in m o o O1 so **"i ^ ® co
co o co co co P~ F"\ CM fv CM *r in in CM CM — CM — — CM •— r* CM 0-*
«— ~~ •— — • «-•
oooooo ooooooo ooooooo ooooo
oooooo ooooooo ooooooo oooop
V V V V V V V
_,
OOO-^^^OO OOOO -~ — ~ "
/^^ /~s r^ r~\ /-^ /" ^ 1^-1 f~\ r-\ ^ > /— i r~\ *-*, *-~i f"i r*^
o. ^
to C
n
a
o
UJ
_J
^
^
-.
6
UJ
1
< Q
Q -
C.
i- e
•z. o
ct <
UJ
CD
iZ
_j
|
*
o
•f-
— Sr-T
— +- e
•*- c v_
O 03 Yl
ui O 1-
>- c o
j= O —
o **•
_
Me
C
O
^.
o « —
— 1- rO
o •»- s
^ C *s.
^ C Wl
J= U U
1 8 -
^» W
1*
»-
^ ~* o
ooo
ooo
CM — «
. . vO
O (N O
— — ' —
—
O— OOOOOOO-^^^OO OOOO ~ — " -
oo oooooooaoooo oooo o o oo
OOOOOOO O "OOOO OO—OOOO "> — O — " "• O — — O O
^~ •• o K"\ ^f ^ CS ^ ^T *~* "* * • *"~ O^ O CM *^ O ^~ O O O • O O O • O O • ^
^— p"
^" fO •" — ^"
^-*^«O OOO ^ OOOO'^ ^.^* ^~»— *o
OOO OOOO OOOOO OO OOOO
§O * * Cf' O O O * * * * O O O O P"~ P" O P*" T ^ * O
o o in ~~ o • o P* K^ in co • o o o • • o * * * in o
•III ... I 1 O • 1 » Illll • • O • l 1 O • O III)-
CMOOO«T>OCSI OOO'OO'O ooooomm O-^OOOCMO OOOOCN
IOOOII 1 OOOIOI OOOOOI 1 P-IOO'OICO 00001
o &\ *o ^~ O O o c*» \n * o in o f~^ ™* c^ co ^ o o i o o ^o i o i *~* ^ f** K^ o
ooooooo oooooo ooooooo ooooooo ooooo
ooooooo oooooo ooooooo ooooooo ooooo
C^ *r c\ o ^ r** 03 o o o ^ *o ^ in o o o y^ o fO (N ON ^o ^r f*^ CN rs co tf~\ ON o Q
K> K, -. rM-^-^-CO^vOO^^CM - < « - K^CSIOCM
OOO OOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOO
I
V
CM
K1
X
o
I
o
o
I
««r
(N
(N
I
-o
(N
I
o
CM
-------
c
o
•*-
O 0 -.
Z 'c -X "
O O m
>* C C
I. O jQ
« u —
0 ~
s, ~
9 —
a.
in
3 c
— o
m —
o ~-
O I— 'O
ocx
.a o in
— U 1.
^: c o
a. 0 .0
1 ° Z
U •*•*
a j&
UJ
LU
Irt
H™
o *
c. c
LU 0
S E «J ~
+- C X
Z O O in
0 ui U L.
— >- C O
o i. o .0
UJ — O —
i $
< —
0 - "*"
a.
i- e
2 o
8 u
'-i O
03 —
— 4-
— Z IO~"
_J O +- E
< .3 c —
^ — 0 l/>
Liu CX C O
e o .a
JT
^
c
o
f-
s
0
O '-
E S
O 3
I/1) C
I
•f-
o
1$ f»
•» ^
0 0
OOOoOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OO
OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OO
in ^ *n in o 10 ^ ^ o o fo *o 10 *o in CN ^ co co *~ CN ^ ^ *o *n ^ CN 10 o ^ 10 m
V V V V
OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OO
OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OO
mOO OOO "O • »O
CNr-iOcvJiO'*"\ con^-^rtNin *— \o K\ r* — •" vinm — ^-m *r'ccof«~icN~~ ^*vo
OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OO
OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OO
K"ir*-OOsOCN o i^ o CN f*"\ ^~ •• •" ro ^* f'j ^o *~ *? ^ *^
— CSI —
*^ ^~» «-» ^^ *-* ^*» ^^
OO OOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOO
o o -^ — o o oo^->-^i oooooo o o o ^ — ^. oooooo — > — •
*ciooino c3r*«ooo »CNvococcin \o *r*ooo ^o ^* * * * * o o
fw c?* m *f ^ in >o ^r m m u^ ~— *o T o O *~"CN
O*"(NK^^lf\ CN'O'try^iO^1* CO O\ O *~ (N K> CNp^'^ir\1O^* O""^^^^ COC^
inirsininiAin inmirvmmu^ i/>iA^nu^m^ ^inmtAin»ri vo^>o>o\oO p*r*-
oooooo oooooo oooooo oooooo oooooo oo
— m \o o
O *"» Kl — (N (N
— X x» \ v. -x
\ — CN CN r\ if
— 1 1 1 II
1 CO — fN {N 43
r-* CN ff\ •••
-------
0
a.
e
a
c
O O irt
i^ U W
>• c o
1- O JO
-CO —
o «-
l_ —
_
c
o
o ~
O L. <\
O c -x
j3 o in
2 c <5
CL O J3
1 u z
c
oooo oooooo oooooo oooooo
OOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO
r-iooo c^ o CN p- — r* obocoo^r ex jo CN — *r v
V V V V V V
oooo oooooo oooooo oooooo
oooo oooooo oooooo oooooo
_— _ _ _ _- _ _______(N
VV VVVVV VVVVVVVV
... o — —•
ooooo
ooooo
O — CN O O
V
ooooo
ooooo
°, "~. "~ ^ *\
VVVVV
^ ^^
c
o
Q.
UJ
_J
^
o
LU
1
< o
i- if
z c
3
8 u
a: <
UJ
c
u.
~
c
o
0 33 ^
— I. JO
— +- s
O ffl vl
J1 O U
>~ C 0)
l_ O ^
•C O —
0
O OOOOmO CTiOCJOCN— OOOOOO OOOOO
£CN,n~ 00S0-;r; ^A^or-rO^ Qg^S^S ^^r~ltr'r
Q.
S
(0
O —
— CO O O — (N
oooo
r~ r- r- r- r-
OOOOO
oooooo
CD
rs
oooooo
eo
rv
i
(N
•X
m
ooooo
-------
Q.
10
10
C
c a -.
— L. C1
— •*- £
+- C X
O 9 yi
^ u L.
>- c to
U O .3
J= y —
U •-
n —
u -i
o=\
A Q 'f
— U '-
^ C 3
0. O J2
I « z
in
£
o
uJ
O Q '"^
— U hi
^ t x
O
(
inthese;
w
u
a.
c
to
•c
1
^
Q
S
+-
.0
i_
I/I
•o
s
in
VI
"o
Q.
O
b
_
>
u
II
c
—
3>
U
C
------- |