7fi*^^
U.-S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
TRIANGLE HETROPOLITAN AREA AIR POLLUTANT EHISSION INVENTORY
(Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill)
"'0.
<'
~10
~Q)_1))5
Prepared by
;'
Alan J. Hoffman
and
Gabriel Marciante
t~ ..
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
.. u
Environmental Health Service
National Air Poll~tion Control Administration
<...
Division of Air ,Quality and Emission Data
Durham, North Carolina
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGHENTS
~ ,.
< "
..-;.'
Sincere gratitude is extended by th2 National Air Pollution Control
Administration to the many companies and individuals who contributed to
this study.
Especial thanks are due to E. Wade Copeland, Assistant director of
the Durham County Air Pollution Control Agency and H.E. Knight, Chief
Air Quality Division, Department of Air and Hater Resources of North
Carolina, who contributed invaluable assistance in the gathering of
data for this report.
.'
':
j" ,
~ ,
-------
PREFACE
This report, which presents the results of an emission inventory for
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area, is another in a series of surveys
outlining the sources and emissions of air pollutants for major metro-
politan areas in the United States of America.
1nese surveys, conducted
by the National Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions and Control Branch
of the National Air Pollution Control Administration, provide estimates
of the present magnitude, exten.t and sources of air pollutant emissions
and the status of their control in the study areas.
The pollutants
which the reports consider include sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon
monoxicie, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides.
These poliutants are
delineated with respect to source type, season of the year, and geo-
graphical distribution within the study area.
The general procedure
for the surveys is based upon the "rapid survey technique" for estimating
11 ... 1
air po utant ennSSl.ons.
The reports are used to provide thE' basis of the engineering evalu-
ation in the designation of Air Quality Control Regions. The reports
':.
are also included in a national emission inventory and will provide a
basis for future air resource management.
': ..
. <
-------
-----1 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Emissions by
Emissions by
Contribution of Point and Area Sources.
Jurisdiction.
Page
1
3
8
15
17
17
. 17
20
22
22
25
25
29
29
32
32
32
34
34
36
36
37
41
41
49
60
68
69
70
Introduction
~ '.
Surmnary.
Description of Study Area.
Grid Coordinate System
Emissions by Category.
Stationary Fuel Combustion
Industrial
Residential.
Comnlercial-Institutional
Transportation.
Motor Vehicles
Aircraft
Railroads.
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Industrial Processes.
::
Evaporative Losses.
Automobiles.
Gasoline Storage and Handling.
Consumption of Solvents.
Grid.
Emission Densities.
The Diffusion Model.
References.
,
,
Appendix A .
Appendix B .
. .
-------
Table
1
~ ,
,
C<-
lA
'< 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lOA
lOB
10C
11
12
13
14
15
16
< 17
18
19
20
:::
~ -
<
<..:
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Triangle
Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . .
Sumnary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Study Area.
. . . . .
Percentage of Contribution of Each Source Category to
Total Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Area and Population Characteristics for the Study Area.
. . . .
. . . . .
Selected Manufacturing Establishments in Study Area.
. . . . . .
Stationary Fuels Consumption per Year
. . . . .
. . . . . .
Average d1emical Analysis of Fuels Consumed in Study Area
Air Pollutant Emissions from the Combustion of Fuels
in Stationary Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
Vehicle Miles of Road Travel for Road Vehicles in Study Area. . .
Sumnary of Air Pollutant Emissions from Transportation Sources. .
Air Traffic Activity at the Orange County Air Fields.
Air Traffic Activity at the Durham County Air Fields. . . .
Air Traffic Activity at the Wake County Air Fields.
Solid Waste Disposal in the lTiangle Study Area.
Air Pollutant Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Air Pollutant Emissions from the Most Significant Industrial
Processes ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hydrocarbon Emissions frrnn Evaporative Loss Sources.
Sumnary of Air Pollutant Emissions in \-Jake County . . . . . . . .
Sumna ry of Air Pollutant Emissions in Durham County . . . . . . .
Sumnary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Orange County . . . . . . .
Sumnary of Air Pollutant Emissions from Point Sources
Sumnary of Air Pollutant Emissions from All Sources.
Sumnary of E~mission Densities. . . . .
. . . . . .
.......
Page
5
6
7
11
13
18
19
21
23
24
26
27
28
30
31
33
35
38
39
40
42
46
-------
Figure
1
~- ~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
:..
::
.
" "
~
LIST OF FIGURES
. Page
Hap of the Triangle Study Area and Surrounding Cities. . . . .. 9
Detai led Hap of the Triangle Study Area.' . . . . . . . .. 10
Population Density for the Triangle Study Area. . . . . . . . . 12
Grid Coordinate System for Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Point Source Locations for Study Area. ./. . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Sulfur Oxide Emission Density from All Sources. . . . . . 52
Particulate Emission Density from All Sources. . . . . . . 53
Carbon Monoxide Emission Density from All Sources. . . .. 54
Hydrocarbon Emission Density from All Sources. . . . . . . . .. 55
Nitrogen Oxide Emission Density from All Sources. . . . . . .. 56
Particulate Concentration - Annual Average. . . . . . . . . . . 62
Particualte Concentration - Summer Average. . . . . . . . 63
Particulate Concentration - Winter Average. . . . . . . . . . . 64
65
66
67
Sulfur Dioxide Concentration - Annual Average. . . . . . . . . .
Sulfur Dioxide Concentration - Summer Average. . . . . . . . . .
-------
INTRODUCTION
~"
This report is a summary of a Raldgh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North
- '
Carolina air pollutant emission inventory conducted in July 1970.
emission inventory was based upon calendar year 1969; the data and
This
emission estimates presented are representative of 1969 and should
be considered as indicating the conditions as existed during that year.
The study area and its extent, ~n1ich was chosen on the basis of
the size and distribution of its population and its air pollution
sources, consists of three counties. This area covers approximately
1,600 square miles and had a 1969 population estimation of 414,400.2
A grid coordinate system was used to show the geogrdphical distri-
bution of emissions within counties. The study ,area was subdivided into
67 grid zones ranging in size from 25 square kilometers in the heavily
populated and industrialized areas to 100 square kilometers in the
rural areas.
All sources of emissions were classified into five categories,
transportation, stationary fuel combustion, solid waste disposal,
,
industrial processes, and evaporative losses.
Each of these source
categories was divided into two subgroups, point sources and area
sources.
Facilities which emit large significant quantities of air
pollutants were considered individually as point sources. The many
remaining pollutant contributors such as motor vehicles, residential
and commercial fuel users, small industries, and on-site refuse
burning equipment were considered collectively as area sources.
For
this report, 122 individual sources were classified as point sources.
Emissions were estimated by using various indicators such as
,
. "
fuel consumption, refuse burning rates, vehicle miles, production
data, and control efficiencies and emission factors relating these
indicators to emission rates.3,4,5 The factors represent average
.
emission rates for a particular source category.
Due to the fac t
-------
~'"
that individual sources have inherent differences that cannot always be
taken into consideration, discrepancies between the actual and estimated
emissions are more likely in individual sources than in the total emissions
for a source category.
As in all emission surveys, the data presented are estimates and
should not be interpreted as absolute values.
The estimates are in
some cases partial totals due to the lack of emission factors and
production 'or consumption data.
Despite these limitations though,
the emissions contained in this report are of sufficient accuracy and
validity in defining the extent and distribution of the air pollution
emissions in the study area.
o
.
. .
.
'"
-------
SUMMARY
(\~ .,.'
The annual emissions as estimated by the Triangle Metropolitan
Area Air Pollutant Emission Inventory are:
10,000
43,450
155,200
24,700
12,400
Sulfur Oxides
Particulates
Carbon Monoxides
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
The following is a brief description of the air pollutant emissions
as presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Sulfur Oximes:
"
:::
Particulates:
Carbon Monoxide:
,
, ,
.
The largest portion of the sulfur oxides emitted
came from industrial stationary fuel use which
accounted for 44 percent of the total sulfur oxides.
The combustion of fossil fuels by other stationary
sources accounted for an additional 47 percent of
the sulfur oxides emitted.
The remaining 8 percent
was distributed under motor vehicles, and refuse
disposal.
The majority of the particulate emissions (71 percent)
came from process losses (68 percent of all particu-
late emissions came from one factory alone). An
additional 22 percent of the particulate losses
came from stationary fuel combustion.
In most metropolitan areas the largest source of
carbon monoxide emissions is from automobiles
and other motor vehicles.
This was also true
in the Triangle Area as motor vehic'les contributed
86 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted
annually. Other transportation sources including
railroad and aircraft operations contributed 6 percent.
-------
"~
r:"
Hydrocarbons:
'-
--
Nitrogen Oxides:
G
The inefficient burning of solid wastes provides
another 4 percent of the total carbon monoxide
emissions.
Exhaust gases from motor vehicles was the primary
source of hydrocarbon ~issions accounting for
over 41 percent of the total.
Evaporative losses
from motor vehicles which includes losses from
the gas tank, carburetor, and engine crankcase
,
accounted for 24 percent of the total hydrocarbon
emissions. Other smaller evaporative loss sources
including gasoline storage and handling, industrial
solvent usage, dry cleaning plants, and miscellaneous
solvent usage collectively accounted for 16 percent
of total emissions.
Other sources included the
open burning of solid waste, railroad and aircraft
operations, and stationary fuel combustion, which
accounted for 5, 9, and 4 pel cent, respectively,
of total emissions.
The combustion of fuels for Lransportation contributed
62 percent of the total nitrogen oxide emissions
while stationary fuel combustion contributed an added
32 percent.
The remaining 6 percent of the nitrogen
oxides came mainly from the disposal of refuse by
. incineration and open burning~
- ~
.
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUT~JT EMISSIONS IN STUDY AREA, 1969
(tons/year)
':".. '
Sulfur Partic - Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
.~ Source Ca tegory Oxides u1ates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Transportation
Motor vehicles 555 925 134,000 10,130 6,730
Other 75 300 10,400 2,310 940
Subtotal 630 1,225 144,400 12,440 7,670
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry 4,465 2,620 155 70 2,570
Residential 2,315 670 1,645 410 835
~~i"c1t)1 end
Insti tu tional 2,430 6,500 2,545 510 675
Subtotal 9,210 9,790 4,345 990 4,080
~.
,. Refuse Disposal
-
Incineration 125 630 2,770 50 190
Open Burning 40 635 3,380 1,195 440
Subtotal 165 1,265 °6,150 1,245 630
In.dustria1 Processes 31,170 340 45 25
Evaporative Losses 9,990
a 10,000 43,450
GRAND TOTAL 155,200 24,700 12,400
a = totals rounded.
.
<
Co
-------
TABLE lA
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN: S,TUDY AREA, 1969
(1000 kg/year)
,~
()
<"
Sulfur Partie - Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides ulates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Transportation
Motor Vehicles 503 839 121,600 9,190 6,100
Other 68 272 9,400 2,100 850
Subtotal 571 1,110 131,000 11,290 6,950
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industrial 4,050 2,380 140 63 2,330
Residential 2,100 600 1,500 370 760
Cotmnercial and
:. Institutional 2,200 5,900 2,310 462 610
Subtotal 8,350 8,880 3,950 895 3,700
. -
Refuse Disposal
Incineration 114 574 2,514 45 172
Open Burning 36 576 3,066 1,085 400
Subtotal 150 1,150 5,580 1,130' 572
Industrial Processes 28,280 308 40 23
Evaporative Losses 9,060
GRAND TOTAL 9,070 39,420 140;800 22,415 11,250
- .
-
(;
-------
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION OF EACH SOURCE CATEGORY TO
TOTAL EHISSIONS IN THE TRIANGLE STUDY AREA
..,
c,' Sulfur Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides ulates Honoxide carbons Oxides
Transportation
Motor Vehicles 5.6 2.1 86.3 41.0 54.3
Other .7 ~7 6.7 9.3 7.6
Subtotal 6.3 2.8 93.0 50.3 61.9
Stationary Fuel
Com.buBtion
Industry 44.6 6.0 .1 .3 20.7
Residential 23.1 L5 1.'1 1.7 6.7
Conunercial and
Institutional 24.3 15.0 1.6 2.1 5.4
: Subtotal 92.0 22.5 2.8 4.1 32.8
: Refuse Disposal
Incineration 1.2 1.4 1.8 .2 1.5
Open Burning .4 1.S 2.2 4.8 3.5
Process Losses 0 71.7 .2 .2 .2
Evaporative Losses 40.4
GRAND TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100
a
, .
-------
THE STUDY AREA
I
. -~."- . - ; I \
i I
i:
~'
~
The study area, presented in figures 1 and 2, for the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Air Pollutant Emission Inventory consists of three counties
in central North Carolina: Wake, Orange, and Durham counties, known as
the Industrial or Research Triangle Area of North Carolina.
The approximate 1969 population for the study area was 414,400
which covered 1,561 square miles. Table 3, which gives population
by county, and Figure 3, which sh~7s population density, indicate that
much of the population is in the urbanized portions of the three'
counties, the city of Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill.
The Triangle Study Area is located in a zone of transition between
the coastal plain and the Appalachian Mountains called the Piedmont.
The land is rolling, we~l drained, with an average elevation of around
400 feet, ranging from 200 to 550 feet.
It is about 150 miles from
the western mountains and the sea to the east.
The mountains form a
~
~
partial barrier to cold air masses moving eastward from the interior
, 6
of the nation, resulting in low,rinter temperatures of 31. During
much of the summer humid tropical air is present, bringing average
highs of 890. The average precipitation of 43 inches is well distri-
buted, as is the number of sunny days, throughout the year, and the
area is far enough a,~y from the sea to avoid the bad weather effects
of coastal storms.
Excessive accumulations of snow are rare, while
winds are predominantly south-westerly at 7.5 mph, changing to north-
easterly and less speedy in late summer.
The Triangle Study Area is a great producer of tobacco and tobacco
products with grains, co~ton mills, corn, and truck crops also having
prominance. Flour mills, fertilizer plants, iron works, woodworking
plants, and printing establishments are also notffirorthy.
Raleigh is, of course, the State capitol of North Carolina, and
.
G
the area is enhanced with government institutions and famous univer-
sities, research hospitals and the Research Triangle Park, a center
-
-------
"
d
{;~
Richmondb
-
,A~
/
~ _01. T--
TENNESSEE ~.,.,.
I'" t/ - NORTH CAROLINA
--/
/ Charlotte
. [~ - -.."""""'- - -J( .. Fayetteville
--- ; / "---"
. '" SOUTH CAROLINA "
l . ,
"
"
VIRGINIA
-_'11lI::IOI-
. c;.W8 .... -
Dur~
~aleigh
t
I., .
0: ~ ~
~=~~l~";,d~;:,~;~>:.c~~,--=j miles
-
. ,
- .., ..' -. -
a
Figure 1. Map of t~e Raleigh-Durham study area and surroundings cities.
-------
,,'
'"
I'~._.-' -.-.-.-. -..-.-.-.-..
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ORANGE COUNTY I
, I
, I
! I
, I
! I
(1 Chapel Hill 0 i
\ I
.~.~'-'-' ~'-'-.T.-.~.
-.-.""" .
I
t
I '
,
,
.-.
',,- -' --' ..........
.' ..... .
( '.....
~ '.....
< ;" '.....
. .J" " .....
'.....
I '.....
'",
I
I
DURHAM COUNTY"-''''"
I
D'Ourham
\
'-.
. ,
.....
.. .
..~
I
I
I
I
I
I WAKE COUNTY
/
I /
I /
/
! /
'''''''''''' /
'''''''' /
". /
......
", /
'.....'
LJ Raleigh
\
\
\
"
,,"
".
.,,'
"
".
".
- '
o 5 10 15 20 ,25
EEE£' :r:d ! . .,..A ,~.
. '-~. -~-"",-,-_"_'~h~;-;:---,~r~" " miles
t .D~....-'""'->.~.... ....-.J....._~
Figure 2. Detailed map of the Raleigh-Durham study area.
-------
TABLE 3
AREA AND POPUL~TION CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE TRIANGLE
STUDY AREA
".
: ..:1' (Sq. Ni.) Population Average Population
Political Jurisdiction Land Area 1960 1969 Density per mile
Wake County 864 169,082 225,600 260
Raleigh 93,931 117,700
Durham County 299 111,995 131,400 440
Durham City 78,302 93,900
Orange County 398 42,970 57,400 1'44
Chapel Hill 25,030 38,600
.:
..:
(~ ..
.,
.J
11
'. ~ .' .
'~.' . ';. :-1. ~'- :"'-.' r-, n. , . .,
-------
.'
"0
650'°0 6700
-------
~.
.'
L .
'-'
TABLE 4
SELECTED MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE TRIANGLE AREA, 1969
Type of Establishment Durham County Orange County Wake County Total
Electronics 3 7 10
Stone, concrete, glass 4 1 4 9
Food and Tobacco 4 6 10
Lumber and Wood 1 3 9 13
Metal Products 3 3
Chemicals 6 3 9
Textiles 3 '3 6
....
VJ
Paper Goods 1 2 3
TOTALS
21
5
37
63 i
-------
7
of industrial and governmental research.
Table 4 ShavlS selected manufacturing establishments in the Study
8
Area by county for 1968.
-
~
~
-------
- -- -- '
j j 1
,! I
GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM
. ".;
!.'
A grid coordinate system, based on the Universal Transverse Mercator
Projection (UTM) was used in the Triangle Study Area to indicate the
geographical distribution of emissions. A map showing the grid coordinate
system is presented in Figure 4.
The UTI1 System was chosen due to its advantages over other standard
grid systems such as the Latitude-Longitude and State Plane Coordinate
systems.
'I11e major advantages of this system are that (1) it is con-
tinuous across the country and is not hindered by political subdivisions,
(2) the' grids are of uniform size throughout the country, (3) it has
world-wide lise, and (4) the grids are square in shape--a necessary
feature for use in meteorological dispersion models.
The Universal Transverse Mercator Projection is based upon the
metric system. Each north-south and east-w~st grid line, as illustrated
in Figure 4, is identified by a coordinate number expressed in meters.
Each point source and grid is identified by the horizontal and vertical
coordinates of their geographical center to the nearest 100 meters.
As shown in Figure 4, the study area was divided into 67 grids
of 2 different sizes, 25 and 100 square kilometers. Grid zones of
different sizes are used to limit the number of grid zones and yet
allow a satisfactory definition of the geographical gradation of emissions.
'I11e majority of the emissions is usually concentrated in the populated
and industrialized portion of a study area. Smaller grids are placed
over these ar~as in order to reflect abrupt changes in emission within
short distances.
TIle use of grid zones smaller than 25 square kilometers is not
warranted because of the inherent inaccuracies' in the data. Since
only a small percentage of the total emissions occur in rural areas,
large grid zones are normally used to show the distribution of emissions
in these lightly populated portions of the study area.
-------
'-
6~9'JOO
1 2 3 4 5
-. -.-.-. -.-.-.- .-,.-,-. -.-.-
I 4010°00
6 I 7 B 9 10 I
I I I
I I I
. i
11 I 710000
I u 13 14 . 15 : 16
17
I I I
.
I ORANGE COUrny I .~
i \, .:--. -.... ~.
I ~ ....
111 ..' '.... 730000
19 20 21 122 25 F6
, 29';' f"'" 30 31 32 3990°00
. . I. "'.
. .. DOur~am .~
,: .....
, ....
23 24 27 1'8 I ....
; I .
/' ,
J:< 34 35 36 37 38 . '- 75
, 39 40
COUNTY; - .f 41 42
. -. -~:rHiII.~.. DURHAM .
;:. '-. "
~ -
I ,
-.
.-.-. ,.-.- \
43 H 4S 46 d1 50 51 52
I \
. "
I tJ '9 "
I '.. Rfleigh "
"
53 S4 55 56 57 58 "
I .
.".'-' "
. I .
"
WAKE COUNTY .
I .
/
.
59 I 60 6\ 62 63 .' 3950000
. /
, .
.
, /
'.... .
'.... /
' 64 65 66 67 /
..
i '.... .
'..... /
r-- . .... I
'~~ . .....
393()ooo
670°°0
690000
0°00
3970°00
-
o 5. 10 15 20 25
c~':~:.i..'«;'.~~':':': p'';. J . "»'~:':.i~ miles
Figure 4.
Grid coordinate system for the Triangle study area.
-------
- - ,
,:
!
EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
~
For the purposes of compiling the basic data and emission estimates,
the air pollutant sources were classified into the following five
categories~
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
Stationary fuel combustion
Transportation
Solid waste disposal
Industrial processes
Evaporative losses
Each of these categories is considered individually in this section
where d~ta sources are given and methods of calculation discussed.
STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION
The stationary fuel combustion category is concerned with any fixed
source whic'1 burns fuels for either space heating or process heating.
The four primary sources in this category are industrial facilities,
steam electric plants, residential housing and commercial and institu-
tional establishments.
There were no municipal steam-electric generating plants in the
study area. Most electricity used in the Triangle Study Area is pro-
duced outside of it. One industry in Durham County and an institutional
complex in Orange County, though, did operate steam-electric generating
plants for their own process uses.
Table 5 presents a summary of the fuels consumed in the study area,
and Table 6 provides an average chemical analysis of these fuels.
Data on the ~mounts :of fuels used were obtained from local fuel
suppliers and distributers,.which were compared to totals provided
by the acknowledged agencies.9
Industrial
METHODOLOGY: Since in a rapid survey of industrial sources it is
impossible to contact every plant, other techniques must be used to
-------
-. '--
I I:
I I
TABLE 5
STATIONARY FUELS CONSUMPTION PER YEAR, 1969
".
1,'
Fuel Durham Orange Wake Total
Coal (Tons)
Domestic 36,200 3,900 32,800 72,900
Industrial 84,700 120 180 85,OnO
Commercial and 28,700 26,100 4l. , 200 99,000
Institutional
Subtotal 149,600 30,120 77,180 256,900
Residual Oil (M Gal.)
Industrial 350 140 21,400 21,890
Commercial and
Institutional 290 10 2,000 2,300
Subtotal 640 150 23,400 24,190
Distillate ,Oil (M Gal. )
Domestic 22,300 9,000 35,000 66,300
Industrial 1,300 550 2,200 4,050
Commercial and'
Institutional 300 .100 450 850
Subtotal 23,900 9,650' 37,650 71,200
Natural Gas 3
(MM Ft. )
Domestic 1,000 400 1,500 2,900
Industrial 3,300 1,300 2,600 .7 , 200
Commercial and 560 230 800 1,590
Institutional
Subtotal 4,860 1,930 3,900 11,690 . -
-------
- - .
! ;! .
TABLE 6
AVERAGE CHEHICAL ANALYSIS OF FUELS CONSUMED IN THE
TRIANGLE STUDY AREA, 1969
. n
I.' h
'70 by Weight % by Weight
Type Fuel Type Source Ash Content Su 1 fur Con ten t
Coal Industrial 6.2 1
Domestic-Commercial 6.2 1
Residual Fuel Oil Industrial N 1.7
Domestic-Commercial N 1.6
Distillate Fue 1 Oil Industrial N .21
Domestic-Commercial N .2
N = Negligible
.;
-------
determine the contribution of industrial fuel combustion sources.
In
order to do this, the total quantities of the various fuels used are
determined and the amounts used by the largest industries are found.
The remaining sources are considered collectively as area sources,
and their fuel use is based on the difference between the total and
r:'
the amount consumed by the largest sources.
The total quantities of residual and distillate fuel oil co'nsumed
by industries were estimated using figures supplied by the Carolina
Oil Fuel Institute for 1969 and through the use of totals provided
by the acknowledged agencies.
Natural gas numbers were obtained from
each of the local suppliers who provided a breakdown by user category.
Total coal consumption by industrial sources was based solely on
questionnaire data or personal contacts made by the local agencies.
The quantities of all fuels used by individual industries was
found by the local and federal agencies and then subtracted from the
totals'to determine area source fuel use.
It should be noted that fuel combustion by industries includes
both fuel used for space heating and a nearly constant year-round
consumption for process heating.
Inquiries by local and federal
officials provided, for each separate point source, a separation
between process and space heating fuel usage.
RESULTS: Coal, distillate oil, residual oil, and natural gas
were all used by industrial sources in the Study Area.
of these fuels is summarized in Table 5.
Table 7 shows the relative contribution of each fuel to the total
The consumption
emissions from stationary fuel combustion.
Industrial sources account
for 47 percent of total sulfer oxid~ emis&ons from stationary fuel
combustion, 27 percent of particulates, 4 percent carbon monoxide,
8 percent of hydrocarbons, and 63 percent of nitrogen oxides.
-
Residential
METHODOLOGY: Natural gas, distillate fuel oil, and coal were
the primary fuels used for residential home heating., There were
homes heated by other fuels, but they represent a smaIl percentage
-------
TABLE 7
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FRO~ THE COMBUSTION OF FUELS
IN STATIONARY SOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA, 1969
(Tons/Ye,-lr )
(., Fuel User Su 1 fur Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Ca tegory Oxides u1ates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Coal
Industrial 1,610 2,260 130 50 850
Residential 1,200 390 1,580 320 250
Commercial and 2,546
Institutional 2,140 6,450 510 410
Subtotc:.1 4,930 9,100 4,250 880 1,510 .
Fuel Oil
Industrial 2,850 290 30 30 950
Residential 1,110 250 60 90 380
Conunercia 1 and
Institutional 295 40 N N 120
Subtotal 4,255 580 90 120 1,450
Gas
Industrial N 65 N N 770
Residential N N N N N
Conunercial and N 35 N N 210
Institutional N 35 N N 150
Subtotal N 135 N N 1,130
GRAND TOTAL 9,200 9,810 4,340 1,000 4,090
N= Negligible
. - a= Totals have been rounded
. -
v
,
-------
of the total. Data on the amount of natural gas used for domestic
heating was supplied by the local utility companies and compared
~vith the rapid survey technique of estimating the fuel used for
h . 10
home eat~ng. Distillate Oil and coal consumption data were
estimated based on data supplied by local agencies and on the
. .
(.'
rapid survey technique.
RESULTS:
Emissions resulting from residential fu~l combustion
are relatively low for all pollutants.
However, since coal is
usually not burned efficiently in homes, carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons are high in relation to other residential fuel emissions
The contribution to total emissions from stationary fuel combustion
by domestic heating was less than, 7% for particulates, 25% for
sulfur oxides, 37% for carbon monoxides, 41% for hydrocarbons; and
15% for n~trogen oxides.
Commercial-Institutional
METHO DJLOG Y:
Commercial and Institutional establ~shment~ in the
Study Area used distillate and residual oil, natural gas, and coal.
Data on the total amounts of these fuels used in the area as well
as. the consumption at individual establishments were obtained by
power companies, fuel associations; and the federal and local agencies.
RESULTS:
The use of coal at commercial and institutional
establishments was (except for nitrogen oxides) was by for the most
significant source of emissions from the commercial institution
category.
TRANSPORTATION
Three types of transportation sources of pollution are considered
in this survey, motor vehicles, aircraft, and railroads. }fotor veh~cles,
which are by far the most significant source of pollutants in the
.
transporation category, are further subdivided according to type of
fuel, gasoline or diesel.
-------
TABLE 8
VEIITCLE MILES OF TRAVEL FOR ROAD VEHICLES IN TRIANGLE
STUDY AREA PER DAY, 1969
t.'
_"::::.
Diesel
Jurisdiction Gasoline Vehicle Miles Vehicle Miles Total
Durham 1,934,000 46,000 1,980,000
Orange 685,000 16,000 702,000
Wake 3,710,000 87,000 3,797,000
TOTAL 6,330,000 149,000 6,479,000
<)
".
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION SOURCES, 1969
(Tons/Year)
/? . Sulfur Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides ulates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Motor. Vehicles
Gasoline 425 565 133,800 9,700 6,000
Diesel 130 360 200 440 720
Subtotal 555 925 . 134,000 10,140 6, 720
Aircraft
Jet N 40 70 85 40
Piston N 50 10,240 1,960 475
Turbo. prop N N N N N
Subtotal N 90 10,240 2,045 515
Q
Railroads 75 200 115 225 420
Vessels 0 0 0 0 0
GRAND TOTAL 6::30 1,215 144,400 12,440 7,660
a= Totals rounded
.
.;;
-------
Motor V~hic1es
About 6.5 m~11ion miles per day wer(~ travelled by motor vehicles
in 1969 in the Triangle Study Area. Table 8 shows the miles trav~lled
C,'
for gasoline and. diesel vehicles £or each county in
the Triangle Area approximately 186 mi11~on gallons
11 million gallons of diesel fuel were c'msumed for
for 1969.11,12
the study. In
of gasoline and
highway purposes
Vehicle-miles per county were calculated from gasoline consumption
and number of registered
drivers using factors supplied by the North
Carolina State Highway Department.
The vehicle miles were them
apportioned by grid using maps of vehicle milage on the primary roads
in the counties supplied by the North Carolina State Highway Department.
The contribution to the total vehicle pollution by diesel powered
vehic~es was determined by assuming that approximately 2.3% of the
total vehicle miles travelled were by diesel powered vehicles. This
13
way checked by estimating the diesel fuel consumption in each county.
Emissions from motor vehicles are a function of the speed at
which the vehicle travels.
Average speeds of 10-20 mph were assumed
for downtown areas, 20-30 mph for residential areas and 30-45 mph
for the rural areas to calculate vehicle emissions.
From all transportation sources, motor vehicles accounted for
88% of the sulfur oxides 76% of the particulate, 92 percent of the
carbon monoxide, 81% of the hydrocarbons, and 87 percent of the nitrogen
oxides.
Gasoline p~yered motor vehicles contributed a greater percent
of all pollutants than diesel powered motor vehicles.
transportation sources are summarized in Table 9.
Emissions from
Aircraft
Table 9 shows the air traffic activity at the largest airports
in the Study Area. An estimate of the number of flights by engine
type was supplied by the traffic controller at each ai.rpor.t or the
Civil Aeronartics Board and summarized in Table 10 a-c.
The air pollutant emissions from aircraft include all phases
of operation (taxi, take off, climb out, landings) that take place
-------
TABLE lOA
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY AT TIm ORANGE COUNTY AIR FIELDS
1969 (100 F1ights/Year)a
'-
r!
Type Aircraft
Williams
2 Engine Piston
1 Engine Piston
24
652
a = A flight is defined as a combination of a landing and a take-off.
.,
-------
TABLE lOB
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY AT THE DURHAM COUNTY AIR FIELDS
1969 (100 Flights/Year)
,,'
'.-'
Type Aircraft
Wilkins
2 Engine Piston
1 Engine Piston
2
44
,
-
. "
27
, '
-------
TABLE 10C
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY AT THE WAKE COUNTY AIR FIELDS
1969 (100 Flights/Year)
I,'
Type Aircraft Raleigh-Durham Raleigh Municipal Wake Zebulon
Jet 1 Engine 2
Jet 2 Engine 21
Fan Jet 2 Engine 93
Fan Jet 3 Engine 10
Fan Jet 4 Engine 2
Turboprop 2 Engine 25
1\lrboprop 4 Engine 5
Piston 1 Engine 327 120 72 54
Piston 2 Engine 266 130 1
Piston 4 Engine 22
Q
Stevenson Luther
Piston 1 Engine 36 55
Piston 2 Engine 1
-------
below and arbitrarily chosen altitude of 3,500 feet. Emissions at
,
cruise altitude (above 3,500 feet) ,vere not considered in this inventory.
From all transportation sources, aircraft accounted for 7 percent
of the particulates, 7 percent of the carbon monoxide, 16 percent
of the hydrocarbons, and 6 percent of the nitrogen oxides.
u
.'
Railroads
Railroad operations (mainly locomotive) consume about 5.5 million
gallons of diesel fuel per year within the Triangle Study Area.
quantity is about 50 percent less than the amount of diesel fuel
This
consumed by motor vehicles.
The majority of this fuel is consumed
during switching operations. Diesel fuel consumption data were
supplied by the State of North Carolina.14
. Railroad operations contribute about 11 percent of the sulfur
oxides and 16 percent of the particulates from all transportation
sources. They account for less than 5 percent of the emissions for
any other pollutant.
q
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Approximately 654,500 tons of refuse was generated during 1969
.within the Study Area. Table 11 presents a solid waste balance for
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Study Area, showing the various methods
of disposal and the quantities disposed of by each method.
All three counties had open burning dumps, none had municipal
incinerators.
Durham county had laws limiting on-site open burning
and this, of course, was taken into account in the solid waste
balance for Durham.
For the entire Study Area 20 percent of the refuse was disposed
of by on-site incinerators, 69 percent by lnndfills or non-burning
dumps, 2 percent by open burning dumps and 9 percent by backyard
burning. Refuse data were supplied by the municipal or county agencies
responsible for sanitation and;~private carters. Table 12 sh~vs
the air pollutant emis~ons from solid waste burning in the Study Area.
-------
"
':0
TABLE 11
. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE TRIANGLE STUDY AREA, 1969
(Tons/Year)
Total Refuse Incineration Landfills or Open Burning
County Generated On-Site Non-Burning Dumps Dump On-Site
Durham 221,600 27,400 190,300 1,500 2,400
Orange 57,300 16,100 27,800 2,600 10,800
Wake 375,600 82,500 228,100 13 , 500 51,500
w TOTALS 654,500 126,000 446,200 17,600 64,700
-------
TABLE 12
AIR POLLUTAtIT ~lISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, 1969
(Tons/Year)
"
(,' Sulfur partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides u1ates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Incineration
On-site 125 630 2,770 50 190
Open Burning
On-site 32 520 2,750 970 355
Dump. 7 120 630 n5 80
Subtotal 39 .640, 3,38,0 1,195 435
GRAND TOTAL 164 1,270 6,150 1,245 625
o
-------
.._---......
, I
, ,
Incineration
. 'j
,!
In the Study Area there 'Vlere no municipal incinerators. The
amount of refuse disposed of by on site incineration was assumed to
15
be approximately 20 percent of the generated refuse in each county.
In 811 counties the tons of refuse burned by on-site incinerators
Ii
was treated as an area source and apportioned onto grids by population.
No incinerators were classified as point sources.
111e incineration of refuse contributed 76 percent of the total.
sulfur oxide emissions from solid waste disposal, 50 percent of th,e
particulates 45 percent of the carbon monoxide, 30 percent of the
nitrogen oxides and 4 percent of the hydrocarbons.
Open Burning
TIle two major categories of open burning are open burning dumps
and on-site open burning.
There were 10 open burning municipal dumps
in the Study Area; all were classified as point sources.
The open
burning of approximately 65,000 tons of waste at the site of the
solid waste gene'.tation '-las treated as area source emissions and
apP?rtioned onto grids by population.
The open burning of refuse contributed 24 percent of total
sulfur oxide emissions from solid waste disposal, 50 percent of the
particulates, 55 percent of the carbon monoxide, 70 percent of the
nitrogen oxides, and 96 percent of the hydrocarbons. .
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
The Study Area has relatively few heavy industrial complexes.
From an air pollution standpoint, one electronics plant, three
concrete batching plants, an asphalt batching plant, three feed
mills, eight \-loodworking milbt where wood was sawed~ and or burnt,
One quarry, a paper mill, iron foundr~ two chemical plants, and
a textile plant were the most significant process sources. Table 13
presents B suwrulry of the emissions.
-------
TABLE 13
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES IN THE TRIANGLE STUDY AREA, 1969 (Tons/Year)
Type of Industry
Sulfur
Oxides
Partic-
ulates
Carbon
Monoxide
Hydro-
carbons
Nitrogen
Oxides
I)
Ashphalt 0 45 0 0 0
Cement Batching 0 9 0 0 0
Chemicals 0 0 0 0 1
Electronics 0 9 0 0 0
Feed 0 1,020 0 0 0
Iron Foundry 0 25 0 0 0
Quarrying 0 9 0 0 0
Texti les 0 29,900 0 0 0
Woodworking 0 100 335 40 20
a 31,120 335 40
Total 0 21
a Totals Rounded
c
-------
The largest source of particulates by far (96%)
I "
. I
~vas a
textile
mill which had no emissions control devices followed by feed mills
at 3 percent of the particulate emissions.
Ii
Wood burning at wood working operations w'ere the major source
of carbon rq~ eraissions as vlell as hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides.
The remaining process sources account for a negligible percentage
of industrial pollutants.
EVAPOR~TIVE LOSSES
Three source categories were considered for evaporative losses
16
automobiles; gasoline storage and handling, and the consumption
of solvents..
The hydrocarbons ~nissions from all sources by
evaporative losses are shown in Table 14.
Automobiles
Automobile evaporative losses include gas tank and carburetor
evaporation and engine crankcase blowby. Since 1963, most new
automobiles were equipped with positive crankcase ventilation (PCV)
val"\1!es that reduced hydrocarbon emissions from the crankcase by about
90 percen t.
Since 1968 the closed crankcase vetilation system required
on new cars has reduced emissions by an additional amount.
Since there exists a lag time in the automobile replacement rate,
it was assumed that a.percentage of the automobiles were not equipped
with PCV values or closed crankcase ventilation.
TI1e hydrocarbon emiSsions from automobiles were calculated from
the number of gallons of gasoline used in each county and apportioned
onto grid by vehicle milage using the same methods as for motor
vehicles discussed earlier.
Fvaporative losses from automobiles
"
accounted for 59 percent of the total hydrocarbon emissions from
evaporative losses in the Study Area.
34
-------
TABLE 14
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS ..FROM EVAPOJ.~TIVE LOSS SOURCES IN THE
TRIANGLE STUDY ARR~, 1969 (Tons/Year)
Ii
Type of Source
Hydrocarbons
Gasoline storage and handling
Industrial Solvents
Dry Cleaning
Automobiles
1,:)50
1,690
410
5,940
TOTAL
9,990
-------
-- -~-.-
Gasoline Storaga .!lnd Handling
. '
, I'
I
There are four major points (excluding evaporation from the motor
vehicle) of hydrocarbon emissions in the storage and handling of
gasoline.
They are:
I)
l.
2.
3.
Breathing and filling losses from storage tanks
Filling losses from loading tank conveyances
Filling losses from loading underground storage
tanks at service stations.
4.
Spillage and filling losses in filling automobile
gas tanks at service stations.
Approximately 196 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel
were stored in the study area in 1969. The evaporative losses from
this storage and the subsequent handling accounted for 19 percent
of the total evaporative losses.
Consumption of Solvents
This category included the consumption of solvents at dry cleaning
plants and industrial solvent usage. Organic solvents emitted from
these 'operations were determir.ated by assuming an emission rate of
17
2 pounds/capita/year for any cleaning plants; the industrial
emissions were found through surveys of individual point sources
conducted by the local and federal agencies. The consumption of
solvents by these two categories accounted for 21 percent of the
hydrocarbon emissions from evaporative losses.
-
-------
El'fISSIONS BY JURISDICTION
The previous section presented the air polluta~t emissions by
source category.
In order to show the contribution of each county to
"
the pollution in the entire study area, their emissions are summarized
in Tables 15 through 17.
f)
As can be expected, the most heavily populated and industrialized
counties contribute the most total air pollutants regardless of the
category.
Wake County has 54 percent of the population of the Study Area.
It has 55 percent of the sulfur oxides, emissions for the study area,
primarily due to fuel combustion; .82 percent of the particulates,
85 percent of which comes from industry and; 54 percent of the carbon
monoxides, 83 percent of ~.,hich comes from motor vehicles with other
transportation emissions and inefficient burning from refuse disposal
also significant contributors.
. .
Fifty-seven percent of all hydrocarbon
emissions are from Wake County the major sources are transportation
and industrial process losses.
Wake County contributes 55 percent
of the total Study Area nitrogen oxides emissions of which transportation
and fuel combustion are significant contributors.
Durham County, with 32 percent of the population of the Study
Area contributes 35 percent of the sulfur oxide emissions for the Study
Area and 12 percent of the particulate matter primarily due to fuel
combustion; 28 percent of the carbon monoxide, mainly from transportation
sources; 26 percent of the hydrocarbons, mainly from transportation and
process losses; and 30 percent of the nitrogen oxides, predominantly
. .
from transportation and fuel combustion. Orange County has 14 percent
of.the population and contribute~ 10 percent of the total area sulfur
oxides and 5 percent of the particulates, mainly from fuel combustion;
17 percent of the Study Area carbon monoxides, primarily from transporta-
. .
tion sources; 16 percent of the hydrocarbons, process and transportation
. sources are significant; and 15 percent of the nitrogen oxides, mainly
from transportation and fuel combustion.
-------
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN WAKE COUNTY, 1969
(Tons/Year)
"
I!
Source Category
Sulfur
Oxides
Partic-
ulates
. Carbon
Honoxide
Hydro-
. carbons
Nitrogen
Oxides
TRANSPORTATION
Road Vehicles 310 520 71,120 5,450 3,800
Other 60 230' 7,400 1,660 690
Subtotal 370 750 78,520 7,110 4,490
STATIONARY FUEL
COMB USTION
Industry 2,730 290 25 25 1,130
Residential 1,080 330 750 195 420
Conun€:rcia 1 and 1,300 2,980 1,110 220 330
Institutional
Subtotal 5,110 3,600 1,885 450 1,880
REFUSE DISPOSAL
Incineration 80 410 1,815 30 125
Open Burning 30 500 2,645 935 340
Subtotal 110 910 4,460 965 465
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 0 30,620 . 80 20 15
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES 5,615
GRAND TOTAL a 5,590 35,880 84,950 14,160 6,850.
~ a= iotals rounded
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLU1~NT EMISSIONS IN DURHAM COUNTY, 1969
(Tons/Year)
II
Sulfur Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Category Oxides ulates Monoxides carbons . Oxides
TRANSPORTATION
Road Vehicles 145 245 41,210 3,010 1,790 .
Other 10 25 210 70 60
Subtotal 155 270 41,420 3,080 1,850
STATIONARY FUEL
COMBUSTION
Industry 1,170 2,310 130 45 1,270
Residential 1,000 280 800 190 320
Commercial and
Institutional 630 1,860 780 155 130
Subtotal 3,340 4,450 1,710 390 1,770
REFUSE DISPOSAL
- ."""
Incineration 27 . 140" 600 10 40
Open Burning 1 ! 30 165 60 20
Subtotal 29 170 765 70 60
IN.DUSTRIAL PROCESSES 0 515 85 5 0
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES 3,050
GRAND TOTAL a 3,525 5,405 43,980 6,595 3,680
a= totals rounded
"
-------
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT ID'ITSSIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY, 1969
(Tons/Year)
Ii
Source Category
Sulfur
Oxides
Partic-
ulates
Carbon
Monoxide
Hydro- .
carbons
Nitrogen
Oxides
TRANSPORTATION
Road Vehicles 95 160 21,640 1,670 1,150
Other 10 40 2,810 580 185
Subtotal 105 200 24,450 2,255 1,335
STATIONARY FUEL
COH~USTION
Industry 30 20 1 0 165
Residential 230 60 90 30 90
Cormnercial and
Insti tutiona1 500 1,660 655 130 160
Subtotal 760. 1,740 746 160 415
REFUSE DISPOSAL
Incineration 15 80 355 6 25
Open Burning 5 107 570 201 75
Subtotal 20 187 925 207 100
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 0 30. 175 15 10
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES 1,330
GRAND TOTAL 885 2,160 26,300 3,965 1,86Q
"
-------
~1ISSIONS BY GRID
For the purpose of defining the geographical. variation of air'
pollutant emissions in the study area, the resulting emissions were
apportioned on the grid coordinate system.
The emissions were
Ii
divided into two source groups--point and area sources.
One hundred
twenty~two point sources are identified individually with respect
to location and emissions.
Each of the point sources emitted a
significant amount of pounds per average annual day of any pollutant
in relation to most sources of pollution in the study.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF POINT AND AREA SOURCES
Figure 5 shoi-ls the location of all point sources in the area.
Collectively, the 122 point sources account for 92 percent of the
particulates, 22 percent of the hydrocarbons, 10 percent of the
carbon monoxide, 60 percent of the sulfur oxides, and 29 percent
of the nitrogen oxides.
The percentage contribution to carbon monoxide emissions is low
because motor vehicles,which are area sources, contribute 86 percent
of the total carbon monoxide emissions.
Stationary fuel combustion,
and on-site open burning, two mor~ area sources, are also significant
contributors .to carbon monoxide emissions.
Similarly, the contri-
bution by point sources to total hydrocarbon emissions is low since
two groups of area sources, motor vehicles and evaporative losses
are the major sources. Table 18 presents the emissions of point sources.
.Each source is identified by source category, grid number, and
horizontal and vertical coordinates.
"
Plant Identification Key
1= commercial source
2= industrial
3= institutional
5= dump
7= airport
-------
('
'"
.TABLE 18 S~T,'ARY o.F A!~ PCLlUTA,\T E':I S~; 1:).\5 FRO:.: p(;r~T S(.;URCES IN THE TRIANGLE STUDY AREA, 1969
T:)\:S IDA Y
sex PA:U C:J HC NOX
ID GP HC .. VC S .' f', S . v A S ~\. A S ,~ A S 't! A
2 13 6710 39950 0.0 ~" ~.o 0.03 0.:)4 a.J4 r:.o ..: n.~:; 6.~c c e :~4 0.04 o. \)l.. 0.02 0.03 :;.02
\wi .'.;
2 13 67'J4 39955 0.0 o.e 0.0 0.02 o.n 0.,,2 0.'::0 'J'" t.:.I,.;L; u.GO o.vG o.oe 0.00 O.OG 0.00
.v"
2 13 6701 39935 0.0 'J .:) C).a O.JO a . J\,) .,., ~; . '.):~ ::". OC c.o:: .~ .1C) C.OJ o.c~ 0.80 c.cc: 'J-8Q
v. .J...'
2 13 (,725 3992') i.i.a c.o q.o 0.01 D.,Jl 0.'.11 0.<+7 '0-"-7 0.47 0.Q4 0.04 O. 8't 0.00 0.00 D.QO
5 1::1 67UO 3995G u.(\ 0.0 0.0 0.:.:4. (). ';4 :;. 'v4 :.'.26 0.26 0,26 C).,9 0.09 O. :';'i ;),03 C.C3 ,). U3
7 16 70C5 39923 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0:.:, 0.(;0 e.se 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.02 ':1.02
3 21 6872 39860 (.;.0 0 ~ I~ J.J (). co (. ., .; . ......' :~ . ~; ~ ,,~, u.c:) 8. '.10 0.00 0.00 Q.c;c 0.02 (~. a 1
Je......; .............
1 22 ct:80 39c55 0.0 a.D 0.0 o.co J. :':'J :J 8 'J"'": n. :1~j 0.:;0 O.'JC O. -"'0 8.00 O. r)o 0.()~1 c.co 0.00
1 22 6887 39846 0.0 0.0 G.O o.a8 8.00 :..:. '.:..~ """, ~.u~ U.OO (;.00 0.00 ~ . Ou ().~o C.utJ u. 'JC
..) .1..:-
1 22 6BO 39860 0.0 0.0 c.o C.vo 0.00 v. ~\~ r. .1').:' 0.00 Q.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.81
2 22 6875 39855 1.1 1~1 1.1 3.5'9 3.59 3.;'9 0,.08 C.08 C.08 0.02 1,;.02 0.Q2 O.ov O.bO C.60
""
N ? 2~ 68"11- 39'363 0.0 0.0 c.c o.C)~ 0.08 ::) . ~)'J ""' 1'\,. o. c:c O,S8 c.oe 0.00 0.0) 0.00 o. C2' (;. 00
~.' . .J .)
2 22 6877 39860 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.12 0012 0012 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.83 0.83 U.53
2 2? 6872 39~63 0.7 C.9 0.8 0.56 0.71 0.63 C.05 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.37 ',).47 0.42
2 22 6895 39863 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.16 1015 1016 0.80 o. O'J ::".ot,; u. 'J'~) :) .U'J o.'-I-J ().oo o.cc 0.00
2 22 6eS8 39PS') 0.0 0.) G.v o.~o o."c :"'. :;'.) r'I ,)., :J.J~ ~.(;:: r' ...,..... ., c''.' 'J.:;O 0.00 C.J1 c.oo
.}. i'; \oJ..... v ..; . ""'..,
2 72 6890 39P.58 0.:: 0.8 C.O 0.8a 0.00 (;. :;0 o..j ') ~;. ou O.OC C.~O c.ca 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 22 6868 39('60 0.2 2.1 1.0 0.65 6.69 3.25 0.27 2.79 1035 0.05 0.55 0.27 0.04 0.44 0.2 r
3 22 6994 39~63 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.11 2.48 1.13 0.04 1.03 C.47 0.-J8 0.20 0.09 G. ~)Q 0.16 :j. 07
3 22 687'4. 39P. 61 0.0 '0.2 0.1 0.19 1.26 0.65 0.07 :).4:- 0.23 ().o 1 C.09 0.01.. 0.01 C.C"" 0.04
3 22 6eeS 39,0,75 0.(\ 0.0 0.0 0.00 r;. C2 C.c...1 J. ~.; ,; 'J.~' 3 (;.01 o. :}J 0.00 0.00 0.0J 0.00 8.0U
3 22 6894 39g5P c.e 0.1 :.).1 G. j..)~ 0.02 :;..~l ':1. o~. ::. ')S 0.00 Oenc 'J. 00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.0'+
3 7.2 (,g75 39"50 O.~ 0" l.' . .... 8 tI t; ,.~ :, ~. .. ' . u. " .- /\ 'I' t.;. u:. J. '''.'0 0.00 O.UJ ~) . c a a.c~J {). ~-J
. - ............. .... ~-
3 22 6lH!0 39"65 0.0 0.0 0.0 (;.~8 . '\"' ~. ~ ':! (: . {; .~ () . ::J (j ~" ~: () 0.00 8.CtJ 0.00 00:)8 Q'JO G. .:J(J
""......v
2 24 6890 39834 ,,.. :J . '! "".:... ::'.1;0 \) . i.;:J -" J. '.'. ':',' . ,"'0 r-. ',.... (;. (yQ O.0C ~.l.i'J b.CO C. (-1 :0.01
-------
('
'"
TABLE 18 (CONTINUED)
ID CR. HC VC S W A S W A S W A S W A S W A
2 24 6895 39g35 0.0 O.~ C.v ::. 'JO ;). ~'J 0.J0 ') . at.: o.ce u.a: J.OO 0.00 o.u:] O.OJ 0.0::1 ).00
3. 24 6682 39835 0.0 0.1 o.e 0.00 C.05 0...;2 0.02 0.13 O.J7 0.00 a.02 0.01 0.00 0.(;2 0.. ,,1
2 2'; 69.,)2 3ge7A 0.0 o. (,) IJ.C 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.1) ') O.~() c.oo a.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.::'0 c.oo
2 25 6912.. 39Q59 i)O 0 0.0 Q.v 0.J2 u.l,;" (:....;2 a.e:; J. C;..; :1.0;' 0.CQ c.t)(J ).00 C.O:J 0.00 8.0:;
5 25 6920 39870 0.0 '." (1 0.0 0.03 0.03 'J.:';3 Q.l? CJ.17 0.17 O.~6 0.06 0.;)6 0.02 0.02 0.02
2 27 6912 39838 0.0 a.e ~ .'..; o.co ~.Ov ~j fI J':;: 'J. .-~L; c.;";',,,! (J.0l) 0 r-."" 0.00 O.JO u.ac O.OJ ~.G~
"""
2 27 69,)5 39Q40 0.0 0.0 Ci.e 0.00 'J. 0:) v. oJ':; G ,i.;') 0.00 J.oa 1.97 1.97 1.97 0.03 0.03 0.03
2 27 6914 39634 0.0 0.0 a.e 0.0.). 0.00 O.J::1 C.Ov. 0.00 0.00 o.~a 0.00 O.:JO 0.84 0.04 0.04
2 27 6669 39Q50 0.0 0.') 0.(; 0.00 v.~u :..i..JO O.D\) a,v\.) 0.:)0 0.:.;0 :J.OO 0.\)0 0.80 0.00 0.:)0
2 27 691(' 3q~40 C.O (\ ~ \i.\.; 0.:)6 (~ . '';6 ,:;. ) t, 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.:;0 o.ce C.OO
.i "J
2 31 726U 39850 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.::'0 0.u~ 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.00 ~). 00.
5 31 7250 39<;,0 a.""! I).D v.a 0.,)1 0.::1 ~.~l .c. 06 :J. 0 (, C.06 O.~2 0.a2 0.:::2 ~.oo O. ;)(j 0.00
2 35 6735 . 39759 u.o 0.0 0.0 0.(;0 0.,)0 0 .J'~) 0.:)0 o.u(,; 0.00 0.01 C.Ol 0.01 c.cc 0.00 0.00
3 35 6762 39760 0.6 7.11 1.2 2.2-.2. 7 .~o 4.45 0.81 2.70 1.62 0.16 0.54 0.32 0.19 0.66 0.3<7
.t> 5 35 6150 39750 0.0 a.e c.o C.oo o. ~:J c.~o 0.0,4 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.:)1 0.00 0.00 ').00
7 35 6745 39780 0.0 :J.O 0.0 :J.03 0.03 0.03 7.66 7.66 7.&6 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.35 0.35 0.35
2 37 6936 39769 0.0 o~o 0.0 0.03 0.03 0.03 c.uc 0.0:.J c.ca 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.05
Z 37 f>90A 397 7 0.0 o.r, a.v 0.00 0..:;0 '\ .,,~ a.oe 8.:JG O.OC 0.00 0,:).;) 0.00 ;) .08 C.05 o.()8
ow, v.~
2 37 6919 39770 0.0 0.0 .0.1,) 0.00 0 .'""1' O.U0 (itCO o.()C 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02
.,,~
2 37 6'81 e 39753 0.0 0.0 'J.0 ~I..JO 'j. 0'; iJ' ,j '..J -, f. \ie 'J...; .,.~ n ,J. :)'J a. Ju C. '..."..; C.Cl - ~).o 1
.., . ";-, ... . ~,,-..I ......, 'Jv
2 37 6833 39741 0.') 0.0 o.c 0.00 0.00 ,:, .:':'0 ;) .o.:~ 0.:jO 0.00 O. .}o 0.00 o.~:J 0.01 c.Ol 0.01
2 37 6836 39769 0.0 O. o. a.G c.uo U.vO u..Jo. ~.:J"; o.vU (;.;::0 0.00 'J.oo 0.00 a.ot> 0.00 o.Co
2 37 6914 39778 .0.0 0.;) ~.o 0.00 c.ca GdO ().DC 0.00 0.00 0.(10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 37 6922 39741 :':.0 0.0 C r. 0.00 0.00 "''''''''' 0.0:1 0.00 0.00 O.()O 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.'JO C.80
.../ ...... Vv
7 37 7000 39720 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18 0.18 0.16 1<;.34 15.34 1,03~ 3.09 3.09 3.09 0.82 0.(12 0.82
2 36 7;::5::> 39722 O.~ c.') 0.0 0.0:) 0.U0 :. .';0 "('(' (;.08 V.O~ Q.no C.OO 0.00 0..00 0.00 .J .CU
" .'.....
2 3f\ 7012 39740. 0.0 O.a 0.0 1).00 (\ """ ~. ~\ J C... 0..0 a.co 0.00 a.ao 0.00 0.::>0 0.:>0 0.00 'J.OC
"". u.....
7 41 7381 39715 0.0 o.a O.'J a.~o :J. ~: C ,.). ,;c' ('.59 0.59 C.:-'9 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02
? 44 6972 39661 '':: .:J O.'J ~J . :) :', . 'J~) 0.:"": f"'" ~. . r;:: 8. '."'1:) ~.JC t'. ~ ~ 0.Ua O.:JO (). .~O o.oa ~1 .";0
.. -, -' ,J
5 4~ 6'1t,',4 3'"'~(-1 0.0 I).:) :.u o. (:1"\ ~) . C \) :.. ." ,.. ,.\ J."J~ c.:,: n.C0 :J. C~ c. C'] :..1.00 c.o:> :. . ~1U
,: 8" -
2 £05 7'J.;O 39f.33 ~.c (~ . ') J." ~j . \.; () " r", ;: . ..... '-, .. .....) -.. ,..' t...8C ':. '0 ~j . :';C J''"I ') . I}:: <.:. (:1 :.'. )..:
-------
c
'c
2 45 7~30. 39632 O.r. 0.('1 0.:'; 0.00 O.U:J 0. ~.~ C.~.:; '::'. O~ a.cc 0.03 0..03 ::>.e3 0.00 c.o') (J.oe
2 4~. 70n 39628 . 0.0. 0.0 o.e.. 0.00 o.J~ .0. ')) r:. elL: r.. (.1C O.G:) 0.00 0.00 O.JO 0.00 0.00 0.0';
3 45 7090 39628 0.7 2.4 1.4 2.31 7.68 4.62 0.75 2,49 1.50 0.15 0.49 O.3U Oal2 0.39 0.24
3 45 7090 39638 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
3 45 7050 39647 0.0 n.o 0.0 O.UO ~.~J 0,vO ~ ,~'J ~.OQ (;.00 O.UO 0.00 O.OJ J-OO 0.02 c.Ol
3 46 7140 3962.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0''; O.J8 t.,..~~ 0.0: o.ao 0.00 0.00 0.00 J.OO c.el 8-0Q
3 46 7115 39618 0.0 0.2 C.O c.oa U .19 0,09 0.:1 0033 0.15 0.00 0.06 o. '-J3 0.00 0.05 u.u2
2 47 7169 3%75 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.::>0 ::>.00 o.n'.; 0.0:'; a.oc 0.08 0.07 0.::>8 0.00 0.:)0 0.0::>
2 47 7112 39610 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.07 J.')C c.ac 0.0~ O.CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oa
2 47 71 72 39664 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.00 0.02 b~(}O c.aQ J.cu 0.00 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.02
..
2 47 7189 39695 O.~ o.e J.U 0.00 O.~C 'C. J''J C).OO J'~C 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 47 7191 39678 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~.O~ 0.0;; D.OO 0.00 0.00 o. 00 o.a:) 0.00 r).00
2 47 7165 39668 :).0 O.C 0.0 0.00 o.J:J j.~J). 0.,"):,) 0.0<.: 0.00 O.CO U.OL' 0.00 o.ou 0.01 0.01
2 47 7190 39685 0.0 0.0 .0.0 82.00 62.00 ol.JO .. .lr, c.O;) .U. J;) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0.3 0.03 0.03
.;._~
Z 4.7 7000 39720 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 C.;jO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 48 7134 396 8 0.0 0.0 C.C 1.40 1.J
2 48 7133 39432 0.0. 0.0 o.u 0.00 0.00 O..jJ C.DC C.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.;;0 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 41'1 7133 39432 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 a.oo 0.00 0.00 O.OC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 48 7122 39629 Lr.O o.u O.u 0.00 O. JU .<':.';0 l) ..)0 ').00 O.CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 48 7132 39615 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.00 O.DO 0.00 I).'):; a.nc Ci.:JO 0.::J3 0.03 0.03 0.00 O.O:J 0.00
2 48 7130 39521 0." C.''; C.O 0.00 C).OO ~.U() (1.0~.J J.OtJ u.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0;)
3 48 7123 39629 0.0 o.e (' ''\ 0.0') IJ. -..:0 C...: () . ~,') 0.1';", ~. .:J'J 0.0':.1 0.00 0.00 08:>J 0.02 0.01
, . ~
3 48 7144 39628 0.0 0.0 U.O O.JO U.C:O .:"'. JC (. .~I\-) ;;.01,; u. Ul' a.oC) 0.00 :t. JO U.OC C.01 0.0~
3 4P 7125 39623 C. 1 1.1 O.b 0.32 2.(.7 1.~7 '.: .1;' 1. 19 ::'.61 0.::3 0.23 0012 :"".:;2 0019 C.>.;'J
:3 lt~ 711.9 ,%25 u.~ 'j..J f":" (J. (..'..' ";.'...0 ..1. .':' ,"'" .n') ::'. '; ',,) . 1...-. ....', C.'"!f) ~. C.~ O.~:) ,).~J 0.01 0.00
-------
-
.- ..--...
3 48 7146 39625 C.O 0.0 0.0 O.UO. 0.1,;0 0.00 ;)~;J ~.Ov v.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,.00 0.01 0.00
-
3 48 7130 39613 0.0 0.0 O.C 0.0') o.oe o.~o C.');) o.oc.: c.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.01 0.00
3 48.7130 396 9 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0..01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.08
3 48 7115 39616 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.CQ 0.00 o.c.;o 0.01 0.28 0.12
3 46 7135 39620 0.0. 0.0 0,.0 0.00 6.03 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02
.3 48 7135 39620 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.02 0.62 0.28 0.04 0.89 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.14 0.06
3 48 7125 39631 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18 1.19 0.1>2 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 O.~o 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 48 7120 39620 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.35 2.28 1.18 0.00 0.05 u.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 49 7156 39645 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.co 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.03
2 49 7163 39631 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.ou 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 50 7278 39632 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
, 50 6978 39630 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 u.01 0.06 0.06 0.06, 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 51 7379 39625 0.0 c.o c:.o 0.00 0.00 O.u~ o.oa 0.00 o.OQ 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 c.co
S 51 7380 39620 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11 O.ll 0.11 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.07 .0.07 0.07
7 51 7311 3'9635 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.03
2 S2 7426 39675 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00', 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.ou 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C). 00
~ 2 52 7425 39675 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.;)0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
V\
2 52 7425 39675 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.07 O.OQ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 52 7425 39681 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.OQ 0.00 a.oo
S 52 7425 39675 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0830 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.0: 0.03
7 53 6875 39579 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 C.57 0.57 O. ~ 7 O.ll 0.11 0011 0.02 0.02 C.02
2 54 6945 39560 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OC 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.01
2 54 6945 39560 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.;)0 0.00 0.0(; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 54 6945 39560 0.0 0.0 O.u 0.01 0.01 o.n 0.09 C.09 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
2 56 7124 39585 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 O.iJO 0.00 0.00 ().oo 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 ,),00
7 56 7120 39567 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.C1 0.01 0.01 2.35 2.35 2.35 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.10
2 60 6995 39410 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a.ee 0.00 0.00
2 60 69~9 39410 0.0 0.0 o.c 0.00 0.00 (I.iJO 0.00 0.0.; u.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04
3 60 6995 394 4 0.0 O.r) 0.0 c.o:> 0.00 ~.sa C,.JC -=',,00 o.GO 0.00 C.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. 61 7171 39473 0.0 0.0 0.... o.uo li...'.j VI"..tC G.no 0.01.1 u.:)o :)..00 0..00 0.00 .0.00 o.eo 0.0')
5 61 7010 39410 0.0 f).O 0.0 C.1Q 0.(;0 (;...:::- :;.t;C c..OC c.co 0.:):' 0.00 J.O,o 0.00 0.00 (hO:)
2 65 6988 39370 0.0 C .'J c.u G.GJ J.co C.i,jJ c.'J;) .0.OC 0.0,0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 1>6 7:)20 3935C <.;.0 ~.a c.~ 0.J2 J. ~2 C ...:.2 ~.12 :j.ll 0012 0.()4 0.04 0.04 0..01 0.01 0.01
-------
-
TABLE 19 Si;J'.'>:,A.RY OF AI'1 PJLLUTA'H E"ISSIOIJS FROM ALL SOURCES IN THE TRIANGLE STUDY AREA, 1969
T0;,S/DAY
Sox PART CC\ HC :~OX
GI:!ID AREA S ~': A S 1.' A S '.o! A S ';' A S ~'l A
1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.O 0.0 0.0 '1 ~ c..:.O 0.0 a.CJ 0.0 0.0 0.0 000
" . 'oJ
2 1.1 0.0 0.0 C.O 0.0 C.O 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
:3 1.7 0.0 0.0 ""' 0.0 0.0 a.e 0.1 0.1, 0.1 0.0 o.u 0.0 0.0 c.o c.o
v.v
4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c.':) 0.3 0.3 0.3 001 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 5.7 0.0 C.o 0.0 0..) c.o ~.c 0.1 0.1 001 c.c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 11.5 0.0 0.0 c.e a. ,0 c.o a.a : a.2 0.2 v.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 38.6 0.0 0.1 c~ . c 0.0 v.l' (..0 ,:).9 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
8 38.6, 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 C.l 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
9 36.6 0.0 001 0.1 0.,0 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.3 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
10 28.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 001 1.5 1.3 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
11 12.3 0.0 J.O ~.~ 0. ,., c.;) U8Q 5.1 4.3 4.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2
12 38.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 13.1 11.1 12.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.1 0.6 0.7
~ 13 38.6 0.1 C.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 15.1 12.9 14.5 1.9 1.1 1.9 0.8 0.1 0.8
'"
14 36.6 0.1 0.4 (i.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 19.3 16.4 16.5 2.6 2.2 2.5 1.1 1.1 1.2
15 32.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 e.l 3.5 3.2 3.4 0.5 0.5 C.6 0.2 0.4 0.3
16 16.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.1 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2
17 6.5 0.0 0.0 c.o c.o 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 o.a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 14.2 0.0 0.0 c.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 38.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 C.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 001 0.0
20 36.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 001 0.1 001 6.0 5.1 5.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6
21 9.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 Cd C.2 001 10.3 8.7 9.9 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.7 0.7
22 ' 9.6 4.0 9.3 6.3 7.~ 1:; 03 1203 24.R 26.2 2::.9 2.9 3.6 3.2 2.7 4.6 3.6
23 9.6 0.0 001 0.1 001 0.1 0.1 6.5 5.5 6.2 0.8 0.7 0.8 003 0.3 0.3
24 9.6 0.1 :).9 0.5 0.1 C.4 0.3 6.5 6.1 6.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.4
-------
'"
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)
GRID AMA SOX PART. CO HC NOx
26 9.6 0.0 0.1 0.1. 0.0 C.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 001 C.O 0.1 0.1
27 9.6 0.2 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.4 16.9 14.9 16.4 3.8 3.7 3.8 0.6 1.2 0.9
28 9.6 0.0 O.? 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 3d 2.1 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
29 38.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1';4 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2
30 38.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 c.a ~.c 0.7 0.7 C.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 001
31 30.8 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0'~1 0.1 7.4 6.3 7.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.4
32 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.c 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.1 001 0.1 0.1 0.1
33 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a.o 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
34 33.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 '0.0 0.1 c.o 100 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
35 36.6 0.8 3.3 1.9 2.7 e.3 5.1 29.7 28.9 29.8 4.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 2.9 2.3
36 .35.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.9 3.5 3.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4
37 38.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 '0.4 0.5 a.4 24.0 22.8 23.7 4.5 4.3 4.5 1.6 1.7 1.7
.- ,3.8 38.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 .O.!! 0.3 0.3 9.2 8.1 8.9 1.8 1.6. 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.9
~ 39 38.6 0.1 C.4 a.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 4.8 4.3 4.7 a.9 0.8 a.9 0.1+ 0.5 0.5
...
40 38.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 c... 1 0.2 ". 4.0 3.6 :,9 o~e 'J~7 0.7 C',,, 0') 0 l~ 0 of",
.1.
41 33.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2'-
42 9.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 c.o 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
43 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.:; c.a c.o 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
44 38.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.9 3.4 3.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4
45 38.6 1.0 3.9 2.3 2.8 8.1+ 5.2 2301 22.0 2301 3.8 3.8 3.9 1.8 2.3 2.0
46 9.6 0.2 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 14.4 13.2 14.1 2.2 2.2 2.? 0.8 1.3 1 .1
47 9.6 0.1 0.7 0.4 82.2 82.3 82.3 12.9 11.0 12.4 2.1 1.9 201 0.7 0.8 0.8
48 9.6 4.8 11.7 7.a 3.6 9.8 6.3 49.6 44.9 48.6 7.0 7.0 7.1 3.1 5.3 4.0
49 9.6 '. 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 18.3 15.9 17.7 2.1 1.9 2.0 0.6 1.0 0.8
50 38.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 6'.9 6.0 6.6 lot 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.5
51 39.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 14.9 J.2.8 1".3 2.5 2.2 2.4 1.1 1.0 101
52 19.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 5.3 ".5 501 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.4, 0.5 0.5
53 19.3 0.0 001 0.;) 0.0 0.0 ~.o 108 1.7 1.8 0.3 0.3 C.3 0.1 a.l 0.1
54 38.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 C.2 7.0 6.0 I,. 7 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.6 O.iO O.iO
55 38.6 0.1 f).4 0.2 0.1 :}.2 Cd 3.9 3." 3.8 0.7 ~.b 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3
-------
-
57 33.9 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,.2 0.3 0.3
58' 9.6 0.0 001 0.0 .:).0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
59 31.6 0.0 0.0 D.O. 0.0 O.C \.J.o 0.7 0.6 0.7 001 (J.l 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
60 38.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 Col C.2 0.1 8.2 7.0 7.8 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7
61 38.6" 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 (,.2 4.6 4.1 4.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5
62 33.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 (J.1 l.~ 1.6 :.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
63 4.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 001 0.0
64 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c.o c.o 1.:3 1.1 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 001 0.1 001
66 2301 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 1.9 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
67 5.0 :J.O 0.1 0.0 0.0 J.O ",.. 0.1 ::1.1 0.1 0.0 :).0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
...,8-1
TOTAL 16.9 49.0 3:J.7 108.4 140.6 122.3 ~37.9 396.6 428.6 71.1 68.4 71.0 32.3 <;2.9 37.3
-------
The emissions of sulfur oxides, particualtes, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides are shO\,m for an average annual
day, average winter day (December, January, February) and average
su~ner day (June, July, August).
The appendix presents the method
of calculating these three averages.
Area sources are sources of emissions that are insignificant
"
by themselves, but as a group may emit a large portion of the areas
total pollution.
Examples of area sources are motor vehicles,
residences, light commercial and industrial establishments and back-
yard burning. The emissions from area sources have been added to
that for point sources to obtain total emissions fronl all sources by
grid, as sho,vn in Table 19.
The emissions from all sources are also
sho\vn for an annual average winter and summer day.
EMISSIONS DENSITIES
In order to provide a visual representation of the emissions of
pollutants by grids, emission density maps have been prepared.
Emis-
sion densities were obtained by summarizing the annual area and point
source emissions for each grid and dividing this total by the land
area of the grid. Figures six to ten show the variation on emission
densities for the respective grids throughout the study area. As
expected the emissions generally follow the pattern and degree of
urbanization.
Emission densities for CO and HC are higher in the
grids with the higher populations and corresponding higher vehicular
activi ty.
Sulfur oxides, particulates, and nitrogen oxide emission densities
are highest in the grids of higher populations and industry, corres-
-
ponding to greater stationary fuel combustion and vehicular activity.
Of special note are the high emission densities in grids 22 and 35
in which are located electric power plants.
-------
! I ~
Table 20 presents the emissions densities of all. grids for the
five pollutants studies in the report for an annual average winter
and summer day.
. .
I,;
, .
~
-------
~.
c
650 )00
670°°0
690°°0
PO IN T SOU RCES
IS! DUMP
~ INSTITUTIONAL
A AIRPORT
G INDUSTRIAL
;i
-'-'-'-' ._-. '-~~I'I ~- <010'"
! i
-_L_- . 710000
i .: \ .Q n . (/ I L --l
I ORANGE o(,lrrn)! , ~ ..-.--.
; 0 f ~. ..... . '.... I 7'100\'°
-- j ~_._--. !&O~~~~?~I~-11':' r '?;-- --.------ -'-l-_;-~_H__:'- 39900JO
U-6.\.1 bt1It..t, .,
--L ~----- !_=I~~g~I:-~_--L~J B" '\~ 75.'"
i ! . I (. 1----;----- .... ----~
: C!iadcl e:~ICif:~ DUidihh11!~L~_'6IY/l ~ . I "
-~ . Q . i QO / G () -. \.
o . - . - . - " - . -- L 1) . --' I A \
. e 0 --o:::o:,CL..! ~0 .
-' (') - of{.I-/..1:;>igh {1 11 : /'
I @ O~,)-'Jt G -
-,.-- -~-- ----r:~ -- ,,/ "
; A 0
. e WAKE COIJIHY '"
10/
/
.~]~ 3950'"'
_._--
,
I
'....
"
o
o
o
~.
r
/
/
o . /
". II
""...... A /
""'.... /
. .....
3930cro
o 5 10 15 20 25
br--...m-.....J I..,~.-r.-+---~",-"--, --"",d
~:h-.f5.:~~~iZ!.:.~~[;",:"~-~~,~",,'1"1 111 iles
Figure 5. Location of point sources in the Triangle study area.
-------
.'
I
,!
, ,
, .
i
. ,
,
--'-j
I
I
,
,
,
670000 690000
~._._IJ=
t-- ! 1---
f
I
SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS,
ton/m i 2-doy
650'00
4010°00
o
[]
fillj]
[ill
m
U
0.01 - 0.05
Ii
0-0.01
0.05 - 0.07
'-
I
I
ORANGE I COUI'Ty~i(l. ~. __710"'~
1- ~;i;Lt;~2:~' ~'I/. - -~~~. ~-73""'-I399000"
.-J~C~~ !i~:li-4'ii.liiik~;';;nI7-- ", '\~" .~..
C ,-,,' e J H; II L" 1" U" H"" 'C~'Uii'~."""""""""":l"""""""""'"""d ,
1-7~ ---- ;:::I:~~J;;j~~~@[~~~:1~;j---
; :~??))??? /' :{\?\\\~(
. ~'l - <, L:::"";:1!jij......... '",',""',',',',',"""""
L . "' . :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. 39 3000
-.-- --.--.- - ............ .' 0
0.07 - O.~
0.1
- 1.0
.
-.
"L
,
,
3950COO
A\
m
i
o 5 10 15 20 ? s
h~B,.;&:~~)::.2~i:;z:~j;,::~,,;.:~).~:~2?~
miles
Figure 6.
Sulfur oxide emission density from all sources in the Triangle study ~rea.
-------
.'
n 650 100
670°°0
('90°00
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS,
ton/m i 2.day
~010000
D
[ill]
[J
Mill
0.01 - 0.05
n
0-0.01
. - .-- . - . - . - . -:
I
I ! I
i ! i
- ' --'.~~-- I ' 710°00 D .
i . r!;!!!!!!!!!!iHi!i!i!!!!!!!!: !!!!;!;~!!!!i!!!!!i!!!!;~]? ,i . ] i',.... 1.0 -9.0 .
i ORMGE[S%~~;';.ttijil- ~\. (' -'. . "'. 730'"
; I it)r:: - ~~'t~:alll :. r '/1 .~~~ ---1 3990000
i I ;)+r=~?:':?i:';;'~'1!7J];- . '- '-
--; '-~-~-'Jf1l1;t'iji!/J,;~il.'hw:;;. I' r . '", . ~ - 7.10'"
. J CI"i"""" .,,0> VII>,.!",ommHll .' .. 'l
.' i /'
"
I
I
---,- ---
,
I
.-.-.
0.05 - 0,1
0.1
- 1.0
'-
'.......
or... ---
-L WAllE -:-:.;.;.:.:-:.:.:-:.1
:
.tOUNX'c,""'"
. ,t . ,'.'C.'
;.::..:.:...!;.;..:Y::::;:;:; /
..,... ... .
,"."."."."'.'.'.".'.",",'.
:;::;(:::;;:;:;::::;:;:;::
".:--:-
/
/ : :
~
... /
..... /
""".
..... . /
.....
-
- - 393()OXl
/
'I
~
3950000
.~
o 5 10 15 20 25
M- ~- .=",\~~-I-_.L.,,,..>""'<"f~
. . ~.. '~I' 'a.3:F.'OSPj:~~:~:......~~) [.....;;--.~'. ...:;...:......
. :~ ~.m;u"'.lQo.~~ ';2:Y~":'
III iles
Figure 7,
Particulate emission density from ~II sources in the Triangle study area.
53
-------
650'00 670000 CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS,
-- ~ CE~: . -;=: -"~" -:~.J <010'" i ~o~:~::::y
r-r-- i . r::::::::::::::::::V:::' [2]
! I . /~_II 710'"" ~
---- _L,~- ,~~i~'~', . , l U 17~O'~"'O
_j~~lJWfl
A
r.~
I
o 5 10 15 20 75
t~d~.~-~::;:;,;r::::~~:d'-""""n'~'~} .::2:;::;'.)~1 1111'!C"
~ LJ......~~~~ . J_~,~:!,...:Cv.L-...._----,....
1/
~
Figure 8.
."
: '!
I'
i
0.1
- 0.5
0.5
- 1.0
....";.
,
I
I
,
.......--....---.._~~
}}}}J(~~~{i '.
:::::::::::::::::~::;:::::::::
::..rillj;.!.I '.
WAKE tfJur~TY
39::0°011
Carbon monoxide emission
density from all
54
sources in the Triangle study area.
.
3Q9G('C()
....
',:>}1>
397000a
-------
.'
.. 650 100
II f-:-
h-.r
670°00
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS,
ton/m i 2 -doy
690°00
""""""'~I' l
"""""""
""""""'"
"""""""
;j-~ 0
,',',',',',',',',',',',',',.',' m
, -. . - . -{::::;;;::;;;;';::;::2:;.- . - . - WJ
<1010('00
~'1",jtf' C" Ir'ty 1.../ i .... . L.~ll I
. ~_JIII~]jj'~I~11 "30'"
o _0.01
'-'-'
0.01 - 0.05
0.05 - 0,1
0.1
- 0.5
o 5 10 15 20 7.5
hJ8~~~f."~\;J.~-~~~?.;;~~~~t;"7';~\~~{=" :.::-i'~';~
111 iles
Figure 9.
Hydrocarbon emission density from all sources in the Triangle study area.
-------
690COO
1:[~iii:~.i:<.!!iii:I--J 0
- . - . - . - . . - . - . :::;:::;}}:;:)%J [ill
!wr1;h\~i~:~i A010'"' ~
I I """""""""''f'"'' f:::.:'ill 0 07 0 1
! [I..........!....!...!.....,....,.....'.,.'....,.'...'...~,].!.1,!,\.~',;.r. -~ '.:_':,:'..,',;:.':~.~.\:.~.::,",;..,~..~,-. ..Iill..'.,".... '! ? . 1.....t.!!.'.!..~.i......'....t.~f;.'.,: ..~....'.;. I...................'..'.... _"0"
----1- -- ":,:.";,~,,,;,".~:.;,:.c,,,,',1 ,<.:-:-:<.::-:-,J,..,../iU L '. f........,..,.:.:......,..I-:!'Ii:.................. 750noo
f ..- '1~!I~I~I~~I~..~~~~rl 395000.
. - : "-111i';'t;;'j' 3ITIC'>~];':
__J~1.i..il;i~.\~~11. n__. ""'"
650 '00
670°°0
"
Ii
':
,
NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS,
ton/m i 2 -day
0-0.01
0.01 - 0.04
0.04 - 0.07
~
r;~
o 5 \0 15 20 7.5
5;"~'~,~~\~~rS%;::-.t:.J=-:r;,~~0~t~":.?i_::'7;;!.~-=c;::-~:'f;~j
Figure 10.
m;;e~
Nitrogen oxide emission density from all sources in the Triangle study area.
-------
TABLE 20 EM"".ISSI~N DEo,:S IT I ES FROM ALL SOURCES IN THE TRIANGLE STUDY AREA, 1969
TONS/SU 'J.,LE
SOx. PART eo He fl
-------
~
TABLE 20 (CONTINUED)
cnID AREA SOX PART. CO HC NOx
25 9.6 .0.02 0.16 C.CA. 0.04 0.10 0.07 1.76 1.58 1.72 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.08 0.15 0.11
26 9.6 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
27 9.6 0.02 0.13 0..07 0.02 0.07 0.04 1.75 1.55 1.70 0.39 0038 0..39 G.06 0.12 0.09
28 9.6 . 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 u.01 O.Cl 0.32 0.28 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02
29 38.6 ..0.00 0.01 O.CO 0.00 U.OO 0.00 0.C4 0.(;4 0..04 G.Ol 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
:30 39.2 'O.UO 0.0:1 a.co n.oo 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OJ 0.00 0.00
31 30.8 0.00 0.01 :J.CO 0.00 0.0 J O.vO 0.24 :;.20 0.23 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
32 5.7 0.00 O.Ol O.OJ 0.00 O.G~ 0.00 0.17 0.15 0016 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
33 12.3 0.00 o.oa 0.00 0.00 0.0:" :) .:.; [. 0.02 ";.vl ;"'.02 0.00 0.00 0.1..10 () . \J,) J. 1]0 J.O()
34 33.5 O.OJ 0.00 C.UO 0.00 0 "!' 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
'v"
~5 36.6 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.2"3 0.14 0.81 0.79 c.el 0.13 0.1 '<- 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.06
36 35.1 0.00 0.01. GIJ':.' 0.00 O.C 1 0.')1) 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.02 J.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
37 38.6 O.OC 0.01 0.01 O.OJ: 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.59 0.61 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.04 C.05 0.04
~8 38.6 ,0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 Q.u1 0.01 0.24 0..11 0.23 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.0.2 0.02 0.02
39 38.6 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 ',0.01 0.00 :).13 0.11 .J 012 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
~ 40 38.6 c.c:) 0.01 J.oo 0.00 O.Qv 0.:~ () :J .1-') 0.09 0010 C.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
"
41 33.9 0.00 O.Jl .: .O~ 0.00 . O. GO 0.00 o.cs 0.'J5 0.05 ::1.01 0.01 0.01 0.0::1 0.01 0.00
42 9.6 0.00 0.01 C.OO 0.00 0.00 ~ .'J:) 0.06 0.05 0.C6 0.01 C.:)l 8.81 0.01 0.01 0.01
43 9.2 ().oo O.JU c.OJ 0.08 O.ClO 0 .'J 0 0.(;1 0.)1 0.01 0.0:) J.oo 0.00 () ,)J 0.00 0.00
44. 38.6 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 t). 0:1 0.10 8.09 o.lC C.02 0.02 0.0;.( 1).01 0.01 0.01
45 38.6 o.a3 ~.1') J.06 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.60 ;;.57 c. c'J ,) . 1:) ~.1C: Q.... 'J.C'5 0.06 0.05
46 ~.6 0.02 O.lQ 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.01'> 1.49 1.36 1.46 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.11
47 9.6 0~01 0.07 0.04 8.52 8.53 8.52 1.34 1.14 1.Z6 0.22 0.20 0.22 (1. --3 0.09 0.08
48 9.6 0.50 1.22 0.81 0.38 1.01 0.65 5.14 4'.65 5.04 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.32 ;,).54 0.42
49 9.6 0.01 0.10 () .05 ::1.03 0.05 0.04 1..9::1 1.65 1.83 C.21 O.ZO 0.21 0.C7 0010 0.08
50 38.6 0.0" 0.::11 0.01 0.01 0.J1 0.01 0.18 0.16 0.,17 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
51 39.2 . 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.') 1 0.39 0.34 0.37 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03
52 19.6. 0.0'- 0.()1 G.Ol D .('1 0.01 C.Jl ~1 .27 o.n 0.26 0.94 G.C4 0.:)4 J.02 0.C2 0.02
-------
-,
TABLE 20 (CONTINU1ID)
GRID AREA SOx PART, CO HC NOx
S4 38.6 0.00 0.01 c.oo 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.18 0.1;; 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01
S5 38.5 0.00 '0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0(, o.ao 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.::,2 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
S5 38.6 o.oa 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 a.02
57 33.9 O.OC 0 .:'Jl C.Ol 0.03 0.01 :;. (JO 0.07 C.OO ~.v7 0.(:-1 0.G1 O.Jl 0.01 0.01 0.01
58 "'.5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 U.~2 0.02 0.00 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
59 31.5 .0.00 0.00 a.co 0.00 U...);J ~.JO J.02 J.02 0.02 0.:)0 O.OC 0.00 O.~O :;.08 ~.OO
50 38.5 0.00 :).01 O.C:) 0.00 c.QO 0.')0 0.21 0.18 8.20 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02
51 38.5 0.00 0.01 0.01 '0.00 0,01 0.00 0.12 ;) ell Col2 0.02 0.Q2 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
52 33.9 o.be ("', . 0 '.~~ u.UJ (). 00 0.8';; ) . c)() :: .:) 5 (..05 o. ~5 C.Cl 8. 'J 1 :J,Cl 0.0:.1 J.Ol O.Jl
63 4.6 0.00 Q.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0 .'J 1 0.05 Q.05 O.Q5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
64 0.3 0.00 c.~() c.oo 0.00 c:.e:... Q .:) 0 0.00 (J.JU ;).CJ 0.0:) V' '...IG O.UO 0.00 0.00 0.00
65 9.2 O.O~ ':'1.0" :;.~') f).~O C.L:O 0.:; c 0.14 0012 :).13 0.03 0.02 0.02 a.ol 0.01 0.01
66' 23.1 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 C.oo 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.09 O.O~ 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
67 5.0 0.00 o.n, 0.01 0.00 0.01' a .00 0.02 Q.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
I.A
..,
-------
"
~
."
"
,
,
I
! "
,
1RE DIFFUSION MODEL
The emission inventory indicated the locat~.on of point and area
sources and the quantity of pollutants emitted from these sources.
Emission densities were calculated from emission quantities and grid
area. Emissions, topographical, and average meteorological data were
used in a diffusion model to estimate air quality levels.
What are the influences of the pollution sources on the people and
property located in the study area?
How are the emissions affected by
winds, topography, etc.? The diffusion model of this survey helps to
answer these questions of air pollutant travel and concentration.
Air quality levels (pollutant weight per volume of air or parts of
pollutants per million by volume) can be found directly by air moni-
toring or by an estimating technique, based on a mathematical modelling
of the locations and quantity of pollutant emissions and meteorological
conditions in a computer using diffusion equations.
The diffusion model was applied for an average summer day, winter day,
and annual day. It shm,s long-term rather than episodic air quality con-
ditions and thus average emissions and long-term meteorology were considered.
The results of the diffusion model are theoretical in nature and are
not meant to show exact concentrations.
The relative magnitudes and gene-
ra1 shape of the contours, however, should be valid.
Figures 11 to
present the outputs from the co~mputer models.
For particulates the model shows theoretical concentrations.
Back-
ground particulate pollution such as dust and pollen are not included.
These background particulate concentrations are usually around 40-50 ug/m3.
Figure 11-13 shows the particulate isop1eths or constant concentra-
tion lines expressed in ug/m3 for three different averages--summer, winter
and annual. As can be seen there is little difference in the three
averages because a majority of the emissions are from point Fources which
are fairly constant throughout the year.
Sulfur dioxide concentrations (Figures 14-16) do show some variation
by season. This is due to greater use of sulfur bearing fuels (coal and
oil) during the winter heating season.
-------
It is worthy to note that the model did not include twd significant
sources outside the study area. They are both steam-electric power plants,
one of which is located 20 miles north of Durham in Person County and the
other 20 miles south in Chatham County.
These t,,,o sources account for .more
than twice the energy from all sources in the Study Area.
. ,
-------
,L"'-'~~'1~'""-}~-F~~~~~=~~=-~p,...~I=:=:=.L.""='~="""~=~")
il .J
~ ".' . ~
'If -II
<, ';f
ji
;.. .1
{. VIR GIN IA ,~onTHAJl'rOIi -;:
I WARREN . 1i
. ROt~n~DGMc.ftj CASWELL P.ER50~ GMNVILLE ' q
II HALlf'A)t '-J
... -, ~
f
t
t
Jf
I'~
l
I
I
'r
"
H
- l
e~fi:ln.J$go~
AlAr:U~f~
~M.:G£
-r
i!
l(
r:
~ILSO\lJ
RMJOOLP1t
CHATHAtJ
"
~.
1
','"
.t
.'.
GiiEf.tJc}.
.'
"
WAYNE
fIDi'JTGOtJERY
UOOi\£
CUMBERLAND
DUPLIN
11
"
-;f
t
==t=J~
SAMPSON
R~EJGbi - DURHAM RE~ON
. \
o 5 10 ro ~ 40 50 60 10 80 90 100 KItD.'<1ETERS
~7hL,.;;,~~-t. ~~~?C'fr.;. L I-~",,~
o;r~.'i0~:::~~~~<"/~~ ~r"" ;;;'- ':.. --"~'~;'~'."~'~~~~
PARTICULATl COi'.Jcr i. ~P.ATION - ANNUAL AVl~AGt.
POIr JT AND ARlA SOURCES
. 3
IJ..: .n '
-------
RALEIG~I - DURHAM
~,~~'i-~
r-~
~j,
{
~
~~=-~-
i
,:
l
i!
1
r
:'
f';
I
'1"
"
I " ,
! i
I'
j'.
Ii
}\.. ..
RICHOO~
VIRGINIA
,;
"
~ARREN
rv'OR1HAMPTOH ''-
~
{
-\.
HALIFAX!
~
T
-:).0.
i
I
l
~J
:} ~
! r
T
I
"
"
\'
J\.
i: I" "
"
,
,11. nOCI(I~.:sHtUJ
i;
CASWELL
f>E R SON
GRANVILLE
VANCE
'.
r:
I'
,
< '
Ii
rr
I"
'h
'r:
fj
I.w
[1
i'
F
) ,
I'
"
..'1.
6m~ENS~O
ALAt1A.~CE
00 At4$[
il
'I
'.,
4',r
(j v
~I.
.f
/.
\i
.}l~
L
!L
t~
II '
if
H MONTGOMERY
1j' .
1f
I)-
'~i
I,
"
t.
, Jt.
, I ".~
t1
.11 .
WILSON
RANDOLPH
CHATHAM
GREE.~
WAYNE
MOORE
SAMPSON
CUMBERLAND
DUPLIN
HOKE
RA1-EIGH - DURHAM REQON
"
o 5 10 20 00 40 50 60 70 80 ~ 100 KIl.DMETERS
t",""I_-'J,~.\-_.L.---.,..,~ ~"'~ !,.*;. ~
,,: .l~,~~.;.}.~.-!,A.~ ~~--~"'~\""~--1~' ~.~~~
~"'.'.',.' l""..:-,:,,:,~,,'.l t..'--~.'. ,.-.~... ~...t-.~.",,~
PARTIC1 JLATE COI'K Lr,. ~ RAT ION.: (,UMMU' /I, .'liJA".l
, 3
J..I. ':: r'1 .
PO: ~ .' At'JD t"REA ('.Ot ;;'':: I ..
-------
RALL:G~-: - DURHAM
}1~~~
t
r
11
+--{
~
~~
~
: --:
}----?='~ ;
. ,
, ,
;
I I.
: I:
RICHr-~ND
VIRGINIA
NOirTrlAM?TOIJ -
.
~
WARREN
ROC~II'.'1JHAt:d
CAS'C'JELL
PERSON
GRANVILLE
'7 -
HALIFAX
6P.EENSGOOO
ALAt;~AOC[
O~1lmG[
1
/
I
."
.' ,. ..,
r ,
,. I
"'""".'"'
r
J
D:.!1~
WILSON
RA~DOU'M
CHATHAM
GRfE.t4E
WAYNE.
MONTGOMERY
tJOOM:
lEOOJFj
SAMPSON
CUM8£RLAND
DUPLIN
HOI(E
. =
'''RA~EIGH-OURHAM RE~rON
C/ 0 5 10 . ro 50' ~O 50 60 . 70 eo 90 100 KIIJ);'oIIETERS
~.. . -.,..,=-~,~---~A---J.=-",,"-t::='.=-~~~~.~
" """'"-"~--..J..-i-....~-.-..-~. ..:...........:......:C-'::::'=~{-"'" 0:..- ~-,-,--"~~~~~",,,-'~-" "1:.. ' ..'
j -'.'-. ' ,"r-1...::: ,1...:...0"" "'.,,~i. ) ~_...~~ ,~', .r.~~"
PARTICIJLATl COt,('::-;TRA110N - \.'/!~rtR l.,"L~p.L
PO:r'Jl AND ARLA ~OURCL-,
. 3
)J. J ,-,
-------
RAU:IGH - DURHAM
"[=--=?---=v
fI
'if"
]1
'Ir
iI
-lr
~
'!.J
il'
1,
.4
l uqOCt(II~NAM
"if"
.I:.
~
'\j
}f
It
JL
If
JI.
!I
li
If
'f
h
.,
-;/
!j
!~
K
11
0/,':.
t ~TOOM[.Y
jJ
rl
I
t
t
~=~~
!. -<-,..~~~,..~~!._-~-~. L
,~~~r.;;:2~ .:
~~ i ;! .
,! I '
..{.
RICHMOND
VIRGINIA
-
i\:O~lH"J.tPTOI~ '
WARREN
Cl.SWELL
PERSON
GRANVILLE
VANCE
HALIFAX
- '
iSrtIEIHd50000
ALAl:Mft-c£
OOA~&
CUMBERLAND
WILSON
-,
~
.
JOHNSTON ..;
GRfl~
~
"
.,";.
WAYNE
,
,
lEt~01r.- ,
~
. /
1
S~SON
DUPLIN
RANDOLPH
CHATHAM
t.10 OM
v
RA~[IGH-DURHAM REG{ON
u
o [} to ro 50 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 KILC),.I'dETERS
~"'"r.'~~'<,~,~-J.---....,-+-' !-----' ,. ~!----t~3
~.. ',... '..,.-; r' L..:....~~,..~..~~':.....:),~ -'''';.I.j.'--'':.'~)~~-''''''-'''-~'~-'~.J '. ,', "J ..
~....,..: , -;."~~-'" . , ,~:::.. ~~.f~ , ""'--."~;'F ,. ~:_:.._:":',~:1
. . 3
50 CONCENTRATION - ANNUAL AVERAGE: (J.Lg/m )
x
POINT AND AREA SOURCES
-------
RALEIGH - DURHAM
..~~~+~J~~~"'-'~
f .
{
~.~,_.~~=~~--~==(, .
. ~ ~~~~_.
r
!
ill'
! I .
<.,
VIRGINIA
v
WARREN
ROC['(I~HA£j
CASWELL
PERSON
GRANVILLE
HALIFAX
6~iZEWS~
ALAt1At~E
~~G£
WILSON
c..
RANDOL~
CHATHAt;I
c.
A
GREll
WAVN E
~TOOM£RY
~OORE
LEISC
SAMPSON
CUM'SERLAND
DUPLIN
R~f'{D
HOI
-------
RALEIGH.. DURHAM
f'={:=~
r
'I -
I;
u
If
~
; . i :.=..:,~~
I,
.
I
. -_. .~. ~~. I
j ;!
,! I.
-l'
I
'I
II
f.
I-
i;-
I;
"
RANDOLPH
VIRGINIA
j
'\1
'.
WARREN
NOfHHAMPTOt.! -:.
I'
-If
~:
-'r
H
j'
",
J
HALIFAX
(::
:~.
ROC t'tH0G HAM
CA~;WELL
P[RSON
GRANVILLE
~
1
:.
"
"if
"
'f
.,l
l
'If
}(
.f
t
'~
GRft["JSSO~O
ALAl1ANCE
~ANGE
0-
Ii
J
r.
t
~ILSON
CHATHA~
ORE'" t
"-
WAYN E
t __MER'
i .
'~ .. RICHMOND
;
tjOOM
lE~OtR.
SAMPSON
CUMBERLAND
DUPLIN
HOKE
! """,j-
RALEIGH-DURHAM REG~o.t\d
o
o 5 to ro 00 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 KILOMETERS
h-.,+--:!~,..-:--.I-,....,....,..-+---!-~~.I 1''''''---1 ~
L;';:~"l:-;~~~~~.~~~I~'4~~:~~ft...~~~ ..,".'-'
)0 CONCtNlPATION.. Wr'NTER AVERAGf i J.lg/fY13;
x '
POlhJT AND AREA SOURCES
-------
w
"
~
5.
6.
7.
8.
c 9.
"
'"
v
REFERENCES
I I'
. I
! .
1.
Ozolins, G. and R. Smith, Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions, USDHEH, PHS, October 1966.
"
2.
Stuart, Pearson, Executive Director of the Research Triangle
Regional Planning Ccm~ission, private communication on population
of the Study Area.
.J
3.
Duprey, R.L., Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
USDHDi, PHS, 1968.
4.
McGra1", M.J., Air Pollutant Emission Factors, USDHEW, PHS, August 1970,
Hoffman, A.J., 10lillamette Valley Air Pollutant Emission Inventory,
USDHE\-/, PHS, Appendix c.
Local C1imatoligica1 Data, U.S. Department of C~erce, 1969.
NOi"th Carolina Directory of Hanufacturing Firms, North Carolina
Department of Labor, 1968.
Ci ty Directory, Durham Chamber of C~erce 1968.
McColman, J.A., Chief of Engineering Branch, North Carolina State
D,ivision of Air Resources and E. Hade Copeland, Assistant Director
Durham Air Pollution Control Agency, Private communications with
these officia 1 s.
10.
Ozolins, ~. cit., p. 43-45.
11.
Retail Trade Special Repor t, Census of Business, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1963.
12.
Private c~unication 1rith Gerald P. Mathews, P.E. Technical Director
of the Carolina Oil Fuel Institute.
13.
Highway Statistics, 1967, United States Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway'Administration, Bureau of Public Roads.
14.
Allen, Tom, Engineer Air ~fonitoring Branch, Department of Air and
Water Resources of North Carolina.
. '
15.
1968 National Survey of Community Solid Hastes Practices, USDI{EW,
PHS, Bureau of Solid Haste Management and Private communication
with NIAPEC Branch.
16.
Goodman, K., J. Kurtzweg, N. Cernansky, Determination of Air
Pollutant Emissions from Gasoline Powered Notor Vehicles, USDHmol,
PHS, NAPCA, 1970.
17.
McGraw, ~. cit., p. 35.
-------
APPENDIX
METHOD FOR CALCULATING SUMMER, WINTER AND ANNUAL
AVERAGE EMISSIONS FOR FUEL CONSUMPTION IN STATIONARY SOURCES
YEARLY AVERAGE (A)
A = Fuel Consumed x Emission Factor (E. F.-1
Days of Operation
,I.
e.g. A plant consumed 100,000 tons of coal in 1967 while operating
. 365 days. The total degree days for the area was 4. ,800 and
2,800 for the three winter months. The plant was estimated
to use 15 percent of the fuel for space heating and 85 percent
for process heating. From this information, the annual
average emission for carbon monoxide would be the follmying:
A = 100,000 Tons/year x 3 lbs. CO/Ton coal
36.') Days/year x 2,000 lb./Ton
A = 0.41 Ton/Day
WINTER AVERAGE (W)
W = Fuel Consumed x E.F.
Days of Winter Operation
x
Winter Degree Days
Total Degree Days
x
% ruel Used
for space heating
~
+- Fuel Consumed x E.F. !" Fuel used for heating
365 x process
W = 1]0.000 x 2,800 0.15 100,000 O.8~ 3
90 x 4,800 x ~ 365 x 2,000
~
W = 0.49 Ton/Day
SUMMER AVERAGE (8)
s = Fuel Consumed x E.F.
Days of Summer Operation
x
Summer Degree Days
Total Degree Days
x
% Fue: Used
for space heating
...
Fuel Consumed x E.F.
365
S = n. 00,000
L 90
x
% Fuel used for process heating
x
o
4,800
x
0.15
+
100,000
365
x O.8~
3
2,000
s = 0.3.') Ton/Day
-
~
,I.
-------
APPENDIX B
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
\,
'v
Multiply ]x.. To Obtain J
~
"
Feet 0.3048 Meters
Miles 1609 Heters
Square Feet 0.0929 Square meters
Square Miles 2.59 Square kilometers
Pounds 453.6 Grams
Pounds 453.6/104 Tons (metric)
'rons (metric) 1.103 Tons (short)
'.
Tons (short) 907.2 Ki lograms
Tons (short) .9072 Tons (metric)
u To Obtain ]z Divide
F
~
G
..,
0'
------- |