AN EMISSION INVENTORY
FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY [BIRMINGHAM), ALABAMA
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Environmental Health Service
-------
Office of Air Programs Publication No. APTD-0893
-------
AN EMISSION INVENTORY FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM), ALABAMA
Prepared By
Marius J. Gedgaudas
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
'Abatement Program
December, 1968
-------
.'. AN EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ' ' .
; JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM), ALABAMA ' ' :
This emission inventory is based on a report prepared by the Jefferson
County Air Pollution Control Program with assistance from the Public Health
Service, and published in June, 1967. A copy of this report is attached.
The industrial questionnaires and the area source tabulations were provided
by Mr. Charles-B. Robison, .Engineer, Jefferson County Department of Health,
who also supplied land use data and helped to locate the point sources.
Although the Birmingham Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area includes
Jefferson, Shelby and Walker Counties, the original report dealt with Jefferson
County alone. However, this county has approximately 90 percent of the total
population and dwelling units, and 93 percent of the manufacturing employees
in the Birmingham SMSA. Since 93 percent of the particulate and 91 percent
of the sulfur oxide emissions, in Jefferson County were attributed to point
sources, the absence of any large sources in the other two counties, combined
with their rural characteristics, indicates that virtually all of the emissions
in the SMSA are contributed by Jefferson County. Consequently, no attempt was
made to expand the original report and estimate the emissions from Shelby and
Walker Counties. . . ' -
All of the area emissions were originally calculated on a township or
neighborhood basis, which simplified the apportionment into the grid zones.
Land use maps were employed whenever a township occupied .more than one grid.
Motor vehicle emissions were distributed by rating each grid for number and
type of roads and traffic density. The content of this report is as follows:
1. A map of Jefferson County showing the selected grid zones.'
2. . A map locating the point sources with an accompanying table listing
the emissions at each source.
3. The emission data by grid in the required format.
4. The average day'emission density maps for each pollutant. ;'
5. The intermediate calculations for each grid.
-------
=3720
_j370
371C'r
V
3700
1
^n Ua.
500
520
530:
I 540"
490.
3G20
N
\
!~/:"x/c
i r'.
\
''f*\'sfr_
r-'~ ' tv/
x x'r^
/v,^r
i
--/ ; '
" /
/
'
-
Z
550
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA!
(BIRMINGHAM)
3G30
r
i:
-------
3700
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
(BIRMINGHAM)
Point source locations.
-------
JEFFERSON COUNTY INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
Company Name
1, Lehigh Portland
2. Lone Star
3. ACIPCO
4. Alpha Portlan.d
5. Universal Atlas
6. H. K. Porter (Connors Steel)
7. Farmers' dinners
S: U. S. Gypsum
9. So. Clcc. Steel
10. V. C. Chemical
11. Rock Wool Mfg.
12. J aiiics B. Clow
13. Southern Amiesite
14. Stockham
15. Woodward Iron
16. Ala. By- Products
17. F. S. Royster G
Multiple Sources
18. U. S. Steel
a. Fairficld
b. Ens ley
c. Wenonah
Total
19. U. S. Pipe
a. City Furnaces
b. No. Birro. Complex
c. Bess. Pipe Pit.
Total
Emissions - tons/year
Grid Coordinates
520-3716
519-3714
516-3712
509.5-3702
542-3711
518-3710
517-3706
519-3712
/""^
517-3711
. 53.9-3711
542-3712.5
522-3716
519.5-3709.5
520-3711
503-3699
520.5-3715.5
504-3689
507-3705.5
509-3708
507-3698
519-3707
518-3713
502.5-3697
Part.
25,759
25,312
1,973
15,013
26,825
936
170
384
390
129
1,402
200
191
16,050
689
1,050
14,011
37,751
7,563
59,325
503
6,285
804
7,592
S02
152
142
19
34
285
8
5
4
563
4
46
150
2,725
14,018
' 1,5-10
1,708
17,266
154
7,408
15
CO
12
12
3
18
4
1,000
38
.
129
129
18
44
7,577 I 62
-------
JEFFERSON COUNTY INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES (con't.)
Company Name ,,
20. E. I. DuPont
a.' Explosives
b. Org. Chem.
Total
21. Vulcan Material
a. Woodward
b. Edgewater Road
c. Fairficld
d. Ens ley
e. Parkwood
Total
Grand Totals
Emissions - tons /year
Grid Coordinates
511.5-3721
520.5-3709
504- 36 89
506-3709
508-3706
510-3708
503-3691
Part.
203
203
644
700
949
985
215
3,493
187,086'
S02
204
602
806
1
.1
0
2
0
4
29,790
co
15
2
17"
....
1,295
-------
TOTAL EMISSIONS FOR THE BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA SMSA
Tons/year
Part.
SO-
CO
N02
HC
Fuel Combustion - Stationary Sources
Residential Fuel
Conriercial Fuel
Industrial Fuel
Totals ' !
Industrial Process Emissions
Point Sources . ;
Area Sources
Totals ;
Solid Waste Disposal ' ' j-
Municipal Incineration '
Burning Dumps '.
On-site Burning - Industrial "
On-site Burning - Commercial
Qn-site Burning - Residential
Totals
Transportation
Gasoline Motor Vehicles ,
Diesel Motor Vehicles . ,'
Aircraft
Totals
Grand Totals
1,261
1,796
7,130
10,187
179,987
9,433
189,420
156
664
145
13
55
1,031
881
2,958
258
4,077
1,047
605
7,263
8,915
j
22,785
22,785
25
17
3
4
49
721
1,068
1 . 7S9
204, 7 IS j 33..53P.
1,357
961
191
2,509
1,000
1,000
9
136
127
249 '
521
233,195
1,602
13,898
248,695
252,725
801
210
6,922
7,933
1,615
, 1,616
27
8 '
2
6
43
9,055
5,930
956
15,941
25,533
583
1,420*
411
2,414
3,698
2,159
.5,857-
"' N ''. '
26 .
- 3,949 ':-
761
72 .'
134
4,942 .'
42,311 :
5,636
2,791 -
50,758
65,951
* Includes solvent evaporation - dry clcnninp
-------
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS,
ttjns/km*- day
[ } < 0.01
ES^ViJ 0.01 - 0.099
US/s\ o.io - i.o .
> 1.0
37CO
3630^
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
(BIRMINGHAM)
Particuiate emissions.
3680
-------
SULFUR- OXIDE EMISSIONS,
ton«/km*- day
L I <0.01
E323 0.01 - 0.099
EZ/ZSo.io - i.o
>1.0
37GO
520
530
540
\
\
£?" . ii
y 1
£3^2 - ipii
.>'
.-
^^c* - '
tm ' f>& \
. - / <. s .
-.'
t
550
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
(BIRMINGHAM)
Sulfur oxide emissions.
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
tons/km^ -day
540'
' -^lii
.V/V, .' />./
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA;
(BIRMINGHAM)
Carbon monoxide emissions. :
3G80
-------
CO.(Bn^}^GHAM)tflLA.-.P^r,CUL/ir£. ^i/^/W
-
. . ...
TPArtSfaR-
i f)Tltfi
. . (A
64
64
^^
.. 3Z .
64
6^
\*f '
^
64
3^>
.... <#
^'
J2
5?
v 'A
6#
/'Tw'
/^5 7
/x7
/oll
-' 1
4-n*
!H
'i^
TCTAI-S
(A
i>4
64
J^
... .^
/fc/
jo t7
. . J£/
65"
Ii8
32
... .ctf
13*
.. .31
,'/
£6
/J'/
5 - / ' <
Jt)/-7c,'
&IW
, i. C- 7
/ t' / /
(.
C-' *-^
/, 7 J2
1^1
/o'v
rSi
!of!
in
r/o
ill
£4-
&
31
31
31
64
4C1 7
1
7,751
15 &
31
>,»*
/|£.5 /?//'?d/?4/: r
/?»'£.
TtMlOA-J
..':... us
JlS
. ,115
.ot&
: ...ct*
A°,c
. l.Ck
.115
.S40
.C£6
._ .^6
.070
.ett
.l&O
.436
n to
ri.it
,1 / /-
Y. t-5
. I.It
4-6
..&*
I4.it
.(,££>
-.at-
. 1 7.5"
.m
llt.tc
3.tt
4 1 oT
S.il
. «-.
r.rl
i «?/
7- '6
3.IC
4.41
..lli
.114
,aS
, <£-6
. .Odd
. ut£
4k.<>0 .
lh Lb
J.^3
.104
.4M .
. Cf>fr
3. of
5tc. 86
^^*
-
AY£.
~c>Js/t
.CCti-6
.0*547
..Ol.C'o .
.ocns
.C&54
.Cu(t6
_ .cocct _
. con c
. .^35- .
. 6t'W
.0114
3, Ml
3. Cf4
.itLC
..Oil* .
. IH2C
. cio-15
. wt-
. ccc-L-c-
tlCco
. cti 7-r
.do!
S.'C'l'r
,/3/J
/.fci/V
.&#
./^r
3Ai'V
.../^£
.me
...OiU
,0loci
...Otef
.Q&i'OC-
. i/o'c'x-c";
~~,&Rr.e~
.j.i-il .
.b*%
,/;=//
.t-JiZ
. ;_.ccjj> .
.60X6
.c-yoS ..
J
- . - ~
.-
-
i
i
i
..... . . |
i
- I
.....
> .
. "_ - -
; !
... - f
!
-- i
* t 1
/
-------
jr->
36
30
30
00
15
JS
46"
IS
/o"
ho
73
73
kC
AS*
',£
15.
15
7J
to
c-c
73
14
60
15
4S-
to
45'
4-5 .
JO
.Jl
3C
.Jo
IS
60
ei
15
43
ti
,40
sc
J 6V
50
15, '^3
itl
. il-t-
&i
Jit
-tic-
4$
<£
Io
./$
'I!
Jo
/HE.
.0411
. Cci.1
.C4/I
M\\
.Mi
.ot-tt
.3.V/6
te.tttl
.4*11
.0*11
.6411
.ill!
.fc^O
5.
.obil
/?)£.
.DCObil
.occtil
. CCcil t
c-oi&L
.i'UrllL
. (- (>"! /j i.
.nan
L \l\\L-
. C-C-C4 1 1
,6-CCv/l
.U ii
-------
co. (BIRMINGHAM),/ILA. -.CO.
Ct-H o.
A'L*
/
^
,3
5
c
7
//
JL
2/t
7-3
.24
.Uv.
/a
It
n
/J
/6
3
/a
its
5*0
IS
'LI
15
./'£
//Z
to
/
6
^
/i
676
/Z
. J
n
oC
Jt
o
n
ib
A3
J
n
42
J3
Jt.
/c
1
/7
f
/J
1C-
2.4
n
4
/V
13
is
n
r/rnc.-J
i |0 j
/ 7O /
/= 'b'7
of 76'
TO
?^7
0 '£ /
7£xt
4^7?
. /, ?o 7
5-,'7'1'
^/Vi
7&v3
4^-3
Z.C/1
S^ii
^>'.'^'
1.451
]?3l
Mf..
Jb.1l:
..16.11
It, II
ii.ll
UQ
tf.tc
H.51
/c.6i
S.-U
ic.11
til*
il. tf
'A.5.L5
Ib.U-
^'fl
Ik. H
. .l'«.ll
I L.I I
ML. 40
AM.
..10-11
I GIL
.... 053i
.//C?
.C-T3L
./t/7
.Z/iO
A/C7
x.t«_
./t/6
. i LU
.t^'c-
. iC'il
..iCiL.
-------
v$V/vVv^..../M/..-, PARTi CUM re 3. .- . TWS/OtW
4-
5
fc
7
6
'/
/c
11
r
?->
'
.- . -
..,,-,, ,-0;..,
*
-
-i'&T
. . .3 5" 7-3
. Oii-f
:^4
~
~
^~'
-
t.HLL-
.cut
7/.-V/67
4. HOC
41.WO
-
^£2T
_
-
*
-
.c-c-il
. cell
.mi
./cU .
-
rCTAL
-----
1
.44 SO
-
3L.L-WI.
^'^rO
t. \.ilbf
4. Chit
i.iicc
41. M34
Ml
I11o
6-65 CM
-.- - ' '
. . . - -
...... -
- - -
- -
... _ .
""gjf"
.-...-
^
- -
"""*"'"
«f
. £54 /
.ccti
. cue .
. C]t-*>
, CCcI
.LIU;
.tin
.LCI*
'.Cttl
.cat
..cij i
'. ~ocw
. CCLl
.OU3
. C'C&l
:
.o/Bl
s_
t- -
. . ._
:
1 - '
1 / *" /"* --
-
:ii:
"j '/ 7.)
*
1
2 ?-;
- j ^
''>-*-
//c
"i-7
'
W
.
.CASH
.eld
../?//
./v/7
.Hit
.SVte
.4146
31 i
n
.1631
,-lM1
. i'Hl .
ARul
TCT/lLS
.C'tf'l
JO '] 4
11-11
6451
.5L4C
.54 tl
.Tin
. lit 4
4114
.SIM
ri'in
,3347
.full
4.1$ Si
/. 14}, I
4.11 IS
.Q&l
./'///
. /-t/41
115.0011
3.i
4-iJ
^i
n. i
3. 05 U
.6610
.. --5.547
-------
'.WM OM - 6U..FUR
.-.-..
-
flf\£/i
TCJ-slLS
. 45 V6
. . O&H-
. Od'iL
. .044-5 '
.04-16
.HIS
.iOlf
.05-? 6
.HID
. 0446
. C&4-&
. /4,34
.6 MS
.. to'/4
. /667
GMMD
TOTALS
. . 06it,
. .OMi:
....c6-?fr
.0445
.C44-£:
: .ILL*;
...... 52T43
. .£Mb
1 1 ) n
11 /w^
.0446
r, / A c.
.. Ll'r'ti,
.14-14-
.£>44£
.C&4
,ld><7
-i t
SL
. We 6
.11 1C-
-1011
.
.0441-
s.m-z,
7- 7
.11/4
.6*4:-
/-
-------
- CO
iPJD \
I
i
o .
4
-5
7
-j
v.'
10
II
;
55
A-' 4
#5
/5
/fc
- . . .
r(Jf.L UJd
-
-
""
.MM
""
-
.,7U
/6^
.cct&
. CJ'74
/A'£)i..j(V;/:-.;i'
-
J,''
- ...
.-
-
*~
--
$'
-
-
' '
r-i
n
ZivjL
JLCf.
,
lib
lit
ltd
Hi
tf-l
.LlL
.11:1
tf
it
ti
Ikt
tt\>
tit.
tttt
11
TCTflL
.0307 .
.CCkb
.4-1 £4
. 3 /5V
1.14CC
JL.1&CO .
i.nco
.37,17
.0111
QCbh
.0115
.UW
.cc/J
. G01C
. 6 1 }$
. Co 43
.0012.
.0
0311
0141
.00 4-1
. (5/64,
.^76 ..
..-, i
. i i'fi
I.' C V
//
^ 7
'66
s.mi
5.1311
f-TJLl
s. mi
tl.2>l3l
5.1 in
10-C'iDC
11. -5 15 'I
.<> n
jr.fi 6-i -5
5. 7-/;.7
5. ran
23. tin
.5.
s.rni
J1.44CI
1*1.1*11
.i ni
5.11H
n.oti'4
5. It 11
It. Hlb
M.tilt'L
TC'/Hi
j&.lMb
1 7,0773
n.un
s.TH'i
SWLl
//..5>,y
y.ttti
tf.oM
te.iui
13.14 &j
I
11.4
S.TKI
f.litf
s.iw
o.i tn
tt-.it Cl
ll. 31 B
.JI.14&
-------
/Z/,-7
,1/C.
1
L
5
4
,-r
7
/
£
ii
,-
T*
\ i .
- 1
-.j
i
' ->'/'
:.L^
i }
.-v"f
./"
' "
''i
y C*
/ v/
3r
"* 6" *
..o--/'
Zlc,
Mb
~J z,
.-''/
I1,.
/./ill. .
^.'-6>
w5
u
is-
Sa
it?
/.i
.w"
^
-
'
,«fli,c
-
-
-
.
-
2 .'Ji> r* t
/ C "'' v'f
/'.'i'-M
-
? >"'?'
" ~/.3:-''r
P f '-'
'/.5i)C-
-
. . -
S.i&
c / c 5"
.'^i'.V
,f'it^
-
-
-
- .
^,
C:cf44
_.
_
_-
W»rC
MV^r,-?/.i
P\ {.I.-; >i
__,
'
.- .
^
.^
-
-
-
_ -
-
..
-
-, » " - J /
VO. \>-.3 .* b
i?*ns
4.-/CC
.i/4'6
-\ ;' ' /, .£.
'-^ . . /- L^ i
_
Tl.SH'f
- _
. -. .
/.3t- c/C-t-o
l.Ucc
'rl.lt Li
4. Cb-l4
1.3 1 bt
1.74 CO
A7 . V-; t 6
4'.//G'C
-
-
-
_
U.ILU
Lyff>
-
.;--,,,
m««
/Ofjr^4
^c.cj.-.v: .0 >.j
.
.-
-
_
-
-
^
_
-
_
'
-
. c C-.-17 .
'aZ7,
. C c c' i"
-
-
- ...
. i£-iL
-
-
./'iV'fc..
-
-
-
-
- . .
_
. .. -
- - - '
-
.d».//..
TCTAi
i -/",.' v.r^^
__
-
~
-
7t'"'6
-
_
.-..
'
-
.. _, -
V / . ^> V C ^
"ll.lf.f.1'
l.i 1 CC
.(-j-'l^c
$.-tt:ii
74. 11 1 -f
-
- ...
/4-/.IeiVc
Ll-^f-0
41. lite
4. 6"{ / L.
.l.r'ns
>.14tC
1. 1-*C C-
4. Hoc
-
-
_
tt.TULb
,.Ll4LC
. -
, :
««.««.
.,
41
- r
-
-
-'
- -
C-'VM I
Cii. ft.fi.
_
.
^,
. C> 0 C-
^
.0^60
x-
/ / ? /'
.cite
.
* \-C C L'
_
' / -l'/r
.CitC
.LUC
. 6-0,.^
-
'.
..'tjt
,/(,4-C
.CiiC
.iiu- .
H.iJtC
.if CO
O7 "* ^
-.
-'
. ^'/f
.Ijbt-
.a^
.Ct-£C
j4.3t.t-d
-
/^°- /
_
_
-;;:j;^;
-
-
.CVZ.if./li'-^
£-e-> --^
. ,iW.c"-Y^
"
/ 1 J 1 ; jf '»' ^ ')/.
.Cfi->r.6-!ff
t t--:j'-'f- ' ''-i,:
' i''*',f ,l^.(
.-:; :T."-r. (.--
/ .- .
. ^ v'l _r T .*- '.~ ±
c'.','lt.;.i;.c
-
-
;^^.'//5t
.Cl.-^r.'j't(-b
.iLjIf.CUL
.{.SiCr.t'jit
c^^.f-i.ii
int*i.n.!.L
r.L;;:r?.!i~~j-
Cllli.L&O
c/Co-f r/cc
-
Cj t< +.t-'UL
Lt£;s£c
CU f--r i '-ft
23./6U...
1
-
-----
; .
A'j^V s-1
. p _
' i
"i ."
i j .. .
!%!
^S
j j
i * "*
i -,
i
i ~
I ^-;5l
1
t ? '' ~~i j.
4 1 Tr
r :-~.r-
1^6
. ( (. >i
i ,-.-.".
) f- / " % 7
i i / -
. .-..7 c r
^^
-
./£'->" j
.a-T^ '
./' I
* 3'f '
.C:iO
. I45L
i ' '^y
.c-£Z7
.C.'/ i
-.
""'ff
. -
; * if.
~.
...V-
' -' j
..'6/3
/6/5
/ 6/J
/!/ i
* lr w - .
j /.£ -7
' Av "'
\^ /-*» t,
,/£/'.-'
.,/t/^
.cit't
/?/££/?
./kl3
.Otic
OUt,
. ..C-tCl;.
.
. L >- C-'
.ctc-i
.(fit
Ji/'r-
.tftt
.ibcb
.(tCh
''-: ;JL
'. llTc
...II /J
c-. /c-7v
GMKD
J.4674
.53*7
TS.SJ.ti
.& 2F
/oC-.4$,c"f
Mitt
. Am
.uu
.tta
.CUc
-------
7
6
v
iC
li
H
/7
/-ti
A 7
-SO, EM:$.Si(.M - 'TONS/DM
'c '' 'r-
i ?-.-*'
.'V;-,*
. ex 1
.cCLl
-!-*">/
,7 /ofc ..
.till
I.LtCI
.6H
-------
/?i/L-/?/7S£ V*tJ7t/* DAi - CO
'GPJD
h
n
ll
Z/
lit
Iti
/f
ti*.
.tijl
tit-
UJ
tf
ll
li
TQTM
,\IC. \
1
I
2
V
5
L
7
bf
/c-
II
.a
ffJf.L 6'jV
-
.._s-«*~->-
c.-?
'. Ci-40
*~
-
_
PI
. *
. 1 r.lk
. iT>" \' o
. 1 5 ; 3'
. iT*T*TC
C /.-:'-''
l.VGO
1.7400
.O-fbl
tf-f
JO/4-
0131
.Ji&L
t OA/I//I . f
f-lji-L
.coto
..mo
.cue
. 0400
. /o 60
7. >c
cc.lt f
(..?/ 3 /
it.l 7C
.CL-e.l-t.ttt-
T
t tfl
I'll
1.343
16665
4.M6
4.
S-lilLI
it. Lilt
it. Tilt
/->'. 7 -114
rl.ll'
.
j-JS't
I4.1H4
I9.W?
/4.7'M
14. Vfl'r
j.ittt-
tf.Clii
4 131 1.
5.1110
i'l.tLt-4
4.9-it ''
ll£ti>6
53056
/;. Jt
MMiQ
p W i
u.nn
15. Mil
GRAND
-TOTALS
I. 15; fc
y-ttw
io.W$4
?f ^-if
/Co . - . c (
14 A
h'Mf-c-
ni-S'-j?
10. mi
433,'i-
-------
POINT SOUfCES
.
Grid
Number
"
Coordinates
Horizontal
2 2 a* 522.5 .
22n
26a
520.5
503
Vertical \
370?. 5
370&
3699
" 502.5 !' 3697
1 I
50-1
26b
26 c*
26ci
i -. i
507
502.5
SOS
,_. , .,,;
29 ' 504
i
L
A w- >
l\k \^f\
(kn»2)
.25
ti
it
. it
3689 j
I
3698
3692.5
3691.
.
3689 ' -
i
ii
ii
ii
100 -
: 1
i
....
Emissions (Tons/Day)
S0x
Summer
.11
1.65
.41
.04
'
4.68
-
-
-
1
Winter
.19
1.65
.41
.05.
4.68
-
-
=
. ^
Average
.14
P articulate
Summer
4.11
)
1.65
.41
.04
4.68
43.98
2.20
1 . 76
° 20. 12
2 . 74
Winter
4.11
-
43.98
2.21
1 . 76 '
i
20.72
2.74
.59 } .59
i
-
2.33 2. 38
! !
j
i
1
i
i
t
i
! ' i
Average
4.11
-
43.98
2.20
1.76
20.72
2.74
.59
2.SS -
CO '
Sufivner
-
.01
2.74
-
-
-
-
-
Winter
-
.01
2.74
-
-
1
|
Average:
.
.01
2.7.1
-
-
-
.
.
>. _
'
I
:
* Area total treated as ooint source
-------
POINT SOURCES
Grid
Number
- - - , i
16
1
M
20h
i
> 11
"
i
1 i
20c*
I
20i!
21 a*
21a
21h*
!
!
21h
ii
1 1
i
21c*
21cl*
Coordinates
Horizontal
542
542
507
50!)
506 .
503
50.2.5
500.5
512.5
510
517 .5
517
519.5
519
512.5
517.5
Vertical
3711
3712.5
3707.5
3708
3709
3706
3702.5
3702
3707.5
3708
3707.5
3706
3709.5
3707
3702.5
3702.5
L
Area
(km2)
100
1 1
25
ti
!l
II
! 1
II
1,
II
!l
It
II
1!
II
II
Emissions (Tons/Day)
S0x
Summer
i
.62
-
35.83
4.22
.
-
.11
.07
-
-
-
. 34
.05
.05
i -
Winter
1.08
-»
43.27
4.22
-
-
.19
.13
-
.01
-
-
-
.58
.09
.09
Average
.78
38.41
4.22
Participate
i
Summer
73.05
.35
35 . 56
103.44
I 1.92
j
I
3 . 60
1
.14
.09
-
2.74
41.13
1 .37
.01 j 2.70
!} rr *-!
l.ji
-
-
.42
1
.07
.07
.47
.55
! 1.15
i
2.74
2.74
V.'inter
74 . 37
^35
40^90
103.44
1.92
3.60
2.74
41.15
1 . 37
2.70
i
1.37
.47
.55
1.S1
2.74 '
2.74
Average
73.50
.35
37.37
103.44
1.92
5.60
; 2.74
' 41.13
1.37 '
I 2.70
' 1.37
.47
.55
1.37
2.74
2.74
CO
Summer
.04
-
.34
-
"
-
,01
-
-
-
.04
-
- Winter
.07
.37
-
-
-
.01
Averacc-
.05
. 35
-
-
-
-
.OJ .
!
- i -
-
-
-
-
.07
-
.
_
-
-
~~ 1
1
.05
i
i
. <
Area total treated as point source
-------
POINT SOURCES
Grid
Number
7
13d
i
ii
1
u
n
ii
n
n
Coordinates
Horizontal
53.1.5
519
516
518
519
517
519
520-
518
14a i 520 .
t i '
II
II
Mb*
Me*
14d*
»_
522 \
\
520.5 ]
527.5 '
522.5
527.5 '
Vertical
3721
3714
3712
3710
3712
3711
3711
3711
3713
3716
3716
5715.5
3717.5
3712.5
Area
(km*)
100
25
25
ii
"
u
ii
ii
u
ti
Emissions (Tons/Day)
S0x
Summer
.45
.31
.04
.02
.01
.01
1.23
.10
20.04
.33-
11 1 .01
u
ii
n
3712.5 j "
7.2]
.13
.10
.11
Winter
.'77
.54
.07
.03
.02
.02
1.23
.19
21.31
.58
Average
.56
.46
.06 *
.03
.02
.01
.1.23
.14
20.38
.51
i
.02 .01
7.96
.25
.17
.19
7.37
Particulate .
i
Summer
.45 .
Gi) . 29
5. 41
2.56 i
1.05
!. .07
-
.08
16,58
70.27
.". . 84
t.72
.16 j 4.11
Winter
.77
69.41
5.41
2.56
1.05
t
1.07
-
.08
18.29
71.17
3.84
2.22
4.11
.13' .43 .69
! !
.14
1(
4.32
4.56
i
Average
.56
69.31
5.41
2.56
1.05
1.07
-
.08
17.18'
70.44
3.8,
2.02
4.11
..52
4 ..40
CO
Summer
.03
.03
-
- -
-
'
-
. .01
.08
.03
.01
.07
.OS
.01
-
Winter
.06
.04 '
i
-
-
_
.02
.15
.04
.01
Average
.04 i
i
.04
-
_
-
. ' .0] .
: .10
i
< .04
' i
: .01
1
.14 i : .0'.)
I
.10
.02
-
.09
.01 t
-
i
* Area lota).-treated as point source
-------
AREA SOURCES
Grid
Number
21d
22:'.
22b
22c
22d
23
24
| 25
2,',,.
26b
26c
26d
27
28
29
-
Coordinates
Horizontal
517.5
522.5
527.5
522. 5 __
527.5
535
485
495
502.5
507.5
502.5
507.5
515
495.
505
Vertical
3702.5
3707.5
3707.5
_ 3702.5
570-2.5
3705
3695
3695
' 3697.5 "
1
3697.5
3692.5
3692.5
3695
3635
3685
Area
25
u
Emissions (Tons/Day)
S0x
Summer
.14
.18
.10
I .13
M . .
100
"
n
25-
M
M
II
100
II
II
;
.04
.04
.04
.04
.15
'
.21
.16
.14
.10
.04
Winter
.32-.
.17
.23
.11
.04
.04
.04
.04
. 33
.75
.53
.19
. 37
.04
.09 j .08
Average
.20
.17
.14
.12
Participate
Stmr.er Winter
. 30 . 50
.38 | .36
1
.23 . j .42
j
. 29 . 26
.04 . 1!. .CS
: , , ' ,
.04 !'.:; .03
.04 .><> . JS
.04
. 21
.39
. 3J .49
!
.4(1 .78
.28 .52 | .84
.15
.19
.04 .
.2? .58
.5;; j .64
.10 .08
.OS .li- .16
i _ '
i
Average
.36
.36
.28
.27
.09
.09
.09
.09
.56 .
.48 '
.49
.32
.43
.09
.17
CO
Summer
- 17.42
23.18
11.64
. Winter
15. 1C
Average
16.22
19.75 j 21.46
10.12 i 10.S5
i
17.41 14. S3 16.12
1
5.79
4.93
. 5.79 4.93
5.79
4.93
5.36
5 . 56
51 i
. ~,-\f
5.79 4.95 j S..~..»
17. 44 ' .15.29 j-. lo.?.1
' i
23.22 i 20.48
21 .73
17.40 15.30 ! 16. '27
' I
17.38
11.65
5.79
11.58
14.86
10.30
4.95
9. So
16. ;U "
10.9]
5 . 36
10.72
-------
AREA SOURCES
Grid
Number
i
2
3
A
-t
Coordinates
Horizontal
Vertical
505 L 3735
515 3735
525
3733
535 ', 3735
5 495 !- 3725
6
7
8
i
I
9
10
ii
i
1 2
13a
J3b
13c
. 13d
505
515
525
,. r ,
s-jj
'185
195
505
5J2.5
517.5
512.5 .
517.5
3725
''3725
3725
^-3725
3715 '
- y5715
^^
3715
5717. S
371 7. S
3712.5
3712.5
Area
(km2).
100
Emissions (Tons/Day)
SO
iUx
, Summer
: -09
" i -°9
II
11
II
II
II
II
! .09
: .04
i .04
: .12
.11
.09
" .11'
II
II
II
25
ii
ii
ii
.04; .
. -CM
.14
.04.
: -05^
.11
:2s
Winter
.08'.
.08
.08
.04
.04
.81
.28
.08
.45
.04
.04
.27
.04
.25
.51
1.47
Average
.08
.08
.08
.04
. 04
.36
.16
.OK
Parti cul ate CO
Sunnier
. 19
.19
.19
.13
.10
.26
.45
.19
V.' inter
.16
^ f
. J. O
.16
.OS
.0?.
.97
.64
.16
.22 .41 .81
.04
.04
.18
.04
.12
. 24
.68
.10
.10
.30
.10
.10
. 3(3
.58
.03
.03
C A
, w/-r
Average
.1-8
.18
.18
.
.09
.09
Summer
11.58
11:58
11.58
5.79
5.79
.49 ! -11.66
.50
.13
.54
.09
11.63
1 ! .59
1 1 . 66
5.79
.09 5.79
i
.37
.03 .09
.34
.18
.70 .44
1.S7
1.02
17.59
5.79
5.80
11.63
29.16
. Winter
9.36
9.86
9.86 .
4.93
4.93
10.78
10.13
i).SV :
10.40
Average
10.72
10.72
10.72
5 . 36
5 . 56
.1 1 . 09
IC.S4
. y
-'-'--- i
4.93 | 5.36
4.93
15.02
5 .36
16.17
i
4.93 5.36
.
5.23
5.47
!
:
10.44 10.95
!
. 26.33
27.52
-------
AREA SOURCES
Grid-
Number
14a
-j 14b
14c
1-ici
Coordinates
Horizontal
522.5
527.5
V-
522.5^
527.5"
15 535
t
16
17
545
475
!
18 485
19
20. -i
'':}<'*
1
20c
20d
21 a
21h
. 21c
495 "'.
502.5
507.5
502.5
507.5
512.5
517.5
512.5
Vertical
3717.5
3717.5
. » '
3712.5
37 12. -5
3715
3715
3705
3705
3705
3707.5
3707.5
3702.5
3702.5
5707.5
5707.5
3702.5
Ares
(kn.2) , '
.25
it
.11 !
! 1 |
100 ;
11 '
11
1!
It
25
ii
ii
ii
ii
ti
it
- . i
Emissions (Tons/Day)
S0x
Summer
.25
.23
.23
.18
.15
.15
.04
.04
.09
.06
.23
.20
.18
.27
.24
.24
'/.'inter
.25.
.28
. 34
.25
.17
.40
.04
Average
.24
.24
.26
.20
.15
.23
Parti cul ate
Summer
.81
.55
1.31
.39
.56
. .5j
i
.04 j .10
.04 .04
.08
.30
.34
.53
.26
1.10
.80
4.06
.OS
.14
.26
.30
.20
.55
.43
1.55
.10
-.19
.28
.49
.41
.39
.76
.51
.59
V: inter
.79
.57
1.27
.44
. 53
Average
.80
.54
1.26
.40
.55
.81 | .63
.
.08
.08
.16
.57
.09
CO
Summer
23.20
28.99
70.14
23.19
17.38
. -17.42
5.79
i
.09 5.79
.18 -
.38
.(,0 j .53
.83
.48
i . 66
1.1S
13.95
.54
.42
1.05
.73
5.16
11.58
5.85
28.99
23.22
23.23
29.11
29.04
23.51
Winter
19.80
24.86
59.93
19.88
14.83
15.21
4.95
4.93
9.86
5.31
24.87
20.22
19.92
25.33
25.51
26.47
Average
21 .49
26.86
64.99
21.52
16.10
16.26
5.36
- T /
b . 06
10.72
5.53
26 .9]
21 .65
21.55
27 . 30
27.15
23. S5
1
-------
DEFINING THE PROBLEM OF AIR POLLUTION
: - IN
' METROPOLITAN BIRMItfGKAM, AIA3AMA
Charles B, Robison, Engineer
J. Carroll Chambers,' Health Officer
Joseph W, Bates, Inspector
Jeffcroor. County Air Pcllution Control Program
nsUant, Aiabam
. June, 1967
-------
" --.-- PREFACE ' -.'-..; ' ; -
Air pollution, like most other problems, must be studied in
order to define its nature and extent, to establish the basic
knowledge of the problem which is a prerequisite to its solution.
Once this knowledge, has been' ae-juired, it is then time to take
appropriate action toward solving-the problem. .. . ' .
For the past ten years the Jefferson County air pollution
problem has been studied extensively. These studies have provided
this basic knowledge and have clearly established these facts:
(1) Thst there is a sigviiicicant sir pollution problem in Jefferson
County. (2) ^ha; industrial activities are & major contributor to
tins problem, KIICJ (3) that this problem cau and should be brought
under control, Although ther-a nay be some gaps in our kr.ov.'iedge
of .this air pollution problesi- there is sufficient evidence to
warrant a concerted effort to bring the major portions of the
problem under control. Most of the major sources or air pollution
in Jefferson County and car. be controlled through application of
existing techniques and equipment. " ' "
Air pollution is a probltm of many dimensions. There is ample
evidence th?:t it adversely affects the economy, materials, vegetation
and anivnalo, and that it poses z. direct threat to the public health
and welfare. Each of these reasons, avid especially the last one,
should ba motive enough to vxutro! air pollution to the best of our '
ability, ' .
-------
A visit to Birmingham at almost any 'time of the year certainly
provides ample evidence of a significant air pollution problem.
The heavy pall of smoke; dust; and particulate material that usually
hangs over the city clearly establishes the magnitude of the problem.
In my opinion, this report provides a clear definition of the
air pollution problem in Jefferson County including its nature,
extent., characteristics, and major sources. Additional studies
could add very littla to this basic definition gnd they should not
be considered an appropriate step at this time.
'The proper solution to the Jefferson County sir pollution problem
ie appropriate action to control it arid the time for action is r.ov.
Go.ne B. Welsh
Regional ?rograni Director
Air Pollution
U. S. Public Health Service
-------
. ' . ABSTRACT
This paper presents in five sections, the air pollution problem
as it exists today in Metropolitan Birmingham, Alabama (Jefferson
County). . .
An attempt has been made to bring together the results and recon
mendations of previous and current studies of air pollution in
Jefferson County. These include air quality measurements, climato-
logical studies, an emission inventory, and the results of a public
opinion survey. Possible methods of' air pollution control are else?
discussed.
-------
. PREVIOUS STUDIES . '
'' -: -.- : IN : :'.;.:':.
' .-. TilE GREATER BIRMINGHAM AREA ' '
Jefferson County's atmosphere has been studied extensively during
the past ten years. The results of these studies have provided identical
conclusions; namely, that Jefferson County has an air pollution problem,
that it should- be''controlled, and that industrial activities are probably
the major source of this pollution.
During the 1956 steel strike, a special sir. sampling study was
conducted during July and August for the purpose of investigating the
effect of this industry on suspended particulate levels. Sampling
was done both during and after the strike at three locations in the
Birmingham arer.. The sampling sites were located in central Birmingham,
Bessemer, and at the Western Health Center. The average levels of
suspended particulr.tes increased significantly when the steel industry
resumed activity. In addition to the increase in the average levels,
j
the variability of s-ospended particulate levels increased greatly with
maximum values after the strike bei:ig almost three times as great as
the corresponding maximum values during the strike.
In 1957, at the request of local officials, a survey of the air
pollution situation in Birmingham and Jefferson County was made by the
Community ^Air Pollution Program of the Public Health Service.2 This
.survey was limited to the collection and review of existing data,
interviews, and personal observations of the investigators.
The report of this survey indicated that meteorological conditions
in Jones .Valley are often favorable to the accumulation of pollution
emission? that result from the use of fuel, industrial activity, and
u
the incii'.sration of wastes. It vas also deteruiiviec! that there had been
- 1 - .
-------
a rapid decrease in the use of coal for domestic purposes but an increase
' ' . .
in the amount used for steel manufacturing. The following is quoted
from the report: '
"The Birmingham area is a manufacturing center and has -many
'. . sources of industrial emissions. The heavy metals industry,
particularly the steel industry, is undoubtedly the major source
of industrial pollution. Air pollution in Birmingham has a signi-
ficant effect on visibility which can be observed on those days
when the atmosphere is unable to disperse the pollutants effectively.
Difficulty in growing certain plants and damage to foliage were
reported by local iiurserymen who believed that air pollution was
responsible. The damaging effects of atmospheric pollutants on
clothing, surface coatings, and construction materials were not
measured specifically in this study,' but on the basis of present ,
knowledge and of the conditions noted, it is reasonable to assume
that they exist in the Birmingham area."
In 1961, the City of Birmingham and Jefferson County, Alabama,
t
in the interest of gathering more facts about air pollution, conducted
o
a .short-term two-seeson air quality study. This study vas carried out
with tu-a assistance c£ the Public Health Service in tv;o parts of three
weeks each, June 15 - July 4 E.r.d Hoveniber 20 - December 19, 1961.
The results of tha sampling during this study indicated that in
general, concentrations of gaseous pollutants were low. However,
particulate pollutants^ notably dustfall, smoke, and total suspended
particulates, were found -to be very high, particularly during the fall.
However, all pollutant concentrations might have been higher except for
ideal dispersion conditions which existed during the study period.
/
Some of the reconircendations that were made by the agencies conducting
the three previous studies ware:
--.. ,. 1) , _A county-wide program of study, surveillance, prevention,
and control of air pollution should be developed and should
induce: "" """" ~" - - ' ..
(a) An inventory o£ air pollution sources and emissions.
(b) An air pollution meteorological study.
~ 2 -
-------
' (c) Sampling of the ambient air for particulfate and
/ ' " . gaseous pollutants to determine trends and control
. needs. . ".
(d) Laboratory services for sample analyses and investi-
gative activities.
(e) Abatement of the causes of justified public complaints.
. . i. 2) Institution of an effective air pollution control program
i i '
aimed at minimizing emissions of particulate matter into the
atmosphere. ' _ . '
'' ' 3) Establish limits for stack emissions of particulate matter.
';) Conduct an informational program to acquaint citizens
; with the causes, effects, and methods of control of air
pollution.
In 1962, the Alabama Air Pollution end Respiratory Disease Study
was initiated by the Public Health Service. Sampling in the Birmi.nghr.r,
ares was resumed on a limited basis until the fall of 1963 when &
21-station sampling network was set up with seven stations located within
Birmingham proper and 14 stations located in seven principal municipalities
. surrounding Birmingham. Intensive sampling was carried on during this
study from November, 1963, through February, 1965, for atmospheric
particulate matter and gaseous pollutants. The most siguificsiit specific
pollutants' were found to be dustfall, suspended particulate matter,
and nitrogen dioxide;, . . ' '
After'the conclusion of this study, the Jefferson County Health
«
Department began its own Air Pollution Study and continued atmospheric
sampling at ten (10) of the original station locations and nine'(9)
semi-mobile: stations. Since the initiation of the Jefferson County
- 3 -
-------
Air Pollution Program in 1965, .ill of the previ.nti.qly mentioned recom-
4 ,
.tnenciations have been carried out, with the exception of those pertaining
to control. At present, no agency of the State of Alabama, or Jefferson
County, has the legal authority to initiate any emission control program.
The most logical solution to the control problem appears to ba through
state enabling legislation, which would authorize the existence of an
air pollution control agency or agencies and give them sufficient
authority to clean the air. '-':'
-------
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATOLOGY.
In 1962, the Alabama Air Pollution and Respiratory Disease Study
\
was initiated by the U. S. Public Health Service. Sampling in the
Birmingham area was conducted on a limited basis until the fall of
1963 when a 21-station campling network was set up with seven stations
located within Birmingham proper and 14 stations located in seven
principal municipalities surrounding Birmingham. Intensive sampling
was carried on during this study from November, 1963, through February,
1965, for atmospheric particulete matter and the gaseous pollutants,
S02> N02j and aldehydes.
At the conclusion of this study, the Jefferson County Health Depart-
ment began its own Air Pollution Study and continued atmospheric sampling
at ten of the original USPHS stations and several mobile stations.
Samples are still bsitij; collected and analyzed at the tiuie of this
report. In ail, this has resulted in three and one half years of
continuous air monitoring in Jefferson County.
In these three and one half years a total of 6,628 suspended particu-
late samples, 5,191 sulfur dioxide samples, 6,884 nitrogen dioxide
samples, 5,445 aldehyde samples, 433 dustfall samples, 405 sulfation
samples, and over' 2,400 pollen and spore samples have been collected
and analyzed by either the Public Health Service or the Jefferson County
i
.
Health Department personnel. In addition, more than 40,000 two-hour
. soiling samples have baen collected and partially analysed and continuous
monitoring of oxidar.ts, oxides of nitrogen, and numerous other special
samples have been collected. Meteorological data from the weather
bureau was evaluated with regards to air pollution levels and these
results &s well as those from the air sampling are presented in the
-------
.following paragraphs. . /. "' . ".' '" '..'-
Suspended Partlculate '. " ' "' ' .. .''' -.''.'' ' ' '
Results of suspended particulate matter samples are reported in
micrograms of particulars per cubic meter of air (ug/m ) . These are the
accepted units and give an indication of the weight of dirt suspended
in a given quantity of air.
The range of annual averages in the 10 station sampling netv;ork
i . -
'. varied from 72 to 281 ug/tr^ with a combined area wide average of 1ST u.g/m3.
In addition, results show that 20% of the time (equivalent of two months
each year) suspended particulate matter in Jefferson County exceeds 265 ug/m3
which is about ten times tha background or natural levels found in less
polluted areas of Alabama.
In addition, there are specific problem areas in Jefferson County
where levels of suspended pc.rticul
-------
and Bessemer areas also having relatively high levels. Complete annual
averages and peak levels are presented in Table I.
Seasonal variations, of suspended particulate matter were small,
indicating year-round sources of pollution in Jefferson Coxmty.
Dustfall ..'.'
Dust-fall--sample results are reported in the recommended units"'
of tons of dust fall per square mile per month, and give an indication
i '
of the'amount of dirt or particulate matter one can expect to settle
out of the air in a.month's time in s. square mile area.
The annual averages for dustfall range from 9.5 tons/mi^/mo in
Mountain Brook to 87.8 tons/mi^/mo'in North Birmingham. The stations
\
reporting the highest levels of dustfall are the same as those having
the highest levels of suspended particulate matter. However, there are
1101 .33 ms.ny cret ions with ax.tr wnaiy high levels of dustfall as there are
those with excessive suspended particulates, This would indicate that
there is more fine solid matter (in'nalable) than there is heavier parti-
culate in the atmosphere.
Annual averages and peak levels of dustfall are presented in. Table I.
Gaseous Pollutants . ' .
" v
The sulfation rate (commonly known as ?c£?.d candle) is a monthly
measurement of sulfur compounds in the air. The results are presented
r
in milligrams of sulfur trioxida per 100 square centimeters per day.
Table I gives a brief summary of the results of these samples.
Sulfatiou levels are generally rather low in Jefferson County but
they do follow a definite seasonal trerid with winter levels being about
twice as high as any other season. The Fairfield, north, central, and
southsidc Birmingham stations usually report the highest levr.ls of. sulfatiou.
' ' - 7 -
-------
Three gaseous pollutants; sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
' aldehydes, are measured every 24 hours at all 10 stations in 'the sampling .
network. ' . '
Sulfur dioxide levels, consistent with sulfation, are generally
low year round vith the winter season having the highest concentrations.
Ninety percent of all the sulfur dioxide samples were below 1.0 parts
per hundred million.
Nitrogen dioxide was the only gaseous pollutant found in any signi-
ficant quantities with the range of daily levels being 0.7 to 62.7
parts per hundred million. Nitrogen dioxide levels were found to be
highest in areas of industrial activity where dur.tfall and suspended
particulars wars also at the iraxiiv.um.
Daily aldehyde levels ranged from 0 to 6.0 parts per hundred million.
No geographical or source relationship to aldehydes is obvious as in
the case of suspended particulates, dustfall, and nitrogen dioxide.
Detailed results are presented in Table I.
Special Sampling Results
1. Mobile suspended particulate samples
Results from sampling for suspended particulars ai P.in2 locations
(other than the ten fixed stations) was conducted during the fall and
spring seasons. Location of these stations is shown in Figure 1. The
monthly means for these 9 stations ranged from 48 to 180 ug/nP with
highest levels be-, lug in the so'.ithwsst section of the area. The city of
Homewood had four of the 9 samplers located within its limits and with one
exception showed very little variation in suspended particulate levels.
In general, the levels of suspended particulates found at these 9 mobile
stations was somewhat lower than those found at the majority of the 10
»
fixed stations,
2. Continuous oxidants and oxides of nitrogen
- 0 -
-------
Continuous sampling, with special instrumentation; was begun
. for oxidants and total oxides of nitrogen, in mid-August, 1966. Since
then, the highest levels of oxidants recorded has been about 4 parts per
hundred million, while the background levels appear to be approximately
1.5 parts per hundred million. For total oxides of nitrogen, the peak
'value to date was 17 parts, per hundred million, with a background of
approximately 6 parts per hundred million. The rather
low levels of oxidants indicates an absence of photochemical smog
which is a result of heavy automobile pollution.
3. Metal analysis
Since the beginning of the study a limited number of samples
have been analyzed for their metal content. Metals four.d in the parti-
culate natter of the atmosphere are usually indicative of a nearby source.
Results of these samples indicate a hip.!; metal content; especially iron.
This is as expected, since Birmingham is the metal industry cancer of
the South. Some of the other metals found in relatively high concen-
trations sra manganese, lead, and zinc.
.Climatology and Air Pollution .
The topography of the Birmingham area is irregular, consisting
of ridges with intervening valleys. The city proper is in & valley
between a series of low ridges extending from northeast to went, and
Red Mountain extending from east to southwest which approaches £ height
of 600 feet above valley level.
The main climatic effect of the topography is that during winter
months it produces extreme temperature inversions and rather low minimum
temperatures. Associated with this is a marked reduction in visibility
during early rr.orr.ing and late afternoon due to air borne particulate
\ . .. - 9 ~ .
-------
matter and to some extent fog. .
Visibility restrictions less than six miles and frequently less
than one ruile due lately to air pollution occur throughout the year '
but are most numerous and intense during winter and fall months.
Pollution sources include industrial areas lying from four to eight
miles to the southwest of the city, but, the most heavily concentrated
groups of known industrial sources extend front central to north and
northeast Birmingham.
In general,, the greatest pollution (at all stations for all
measured pollutants) occurs on calm days with little or no wind move-
ment .
On days when there is significant wind movement; the highest levels
of pollution generally occurs at stations downwind from the industrialized
Korth Bii-.T,.\rtghs.m, Tar rant area. This is true for all pollutants except
gaseous aldehydes which show no consistent pattern in relation to
wind directions. '
During 1964, days classified as calm by the weather bureau occurred,
on the average, 16,7% of the time, visibility was reduced below 6 miles
22.0% of the time am1, significant quantities of smoke and/or haze existed
at the airport 15.1% of the time.
Surcrnavy
Results of sampling have shown conclusively that there is a serious
air pollution problem in Jefferson County, especially in Jones Valley
where meteorological conditions quite often favor accumulation' of pol-
lutants. Of major significance is particulate"matter or general aerial
filth. In fact, Birmingham has just recently been rated by the Public
Health Service as one of the dirtiest'cities in the country with regards
- 10 -
-------
9
to participates, including orgn.nic matter and metals in the atmosphere.
Results of our studies show that particulate levels are high year-
round with little seasonal variation indicating a constant source of
pollution. . :
'- 11 -
-------
Table I
ANNUAL POLLUTION LEVELS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY ALABAMA*
Location
Bcsseraer
Fair fie Id
West End
Ko. B'ham
Central B'hon
Souths ide
Woodla'..-n
Tarrcnt
Irondale
Mt. Brook
All Stations
*
Suspended-
Particulate
uR/ra3
Mean 20%3,
176 270
126 205
124 200
281 440
197 300
179 276
139 220
219 362
115 130
72 115
151 . 265
: 1
t "
Dustfall1
Tons/ta^/tno
. Mean 20%
20 25
20 23
21 27
88 124 :,
22 26
. 20 25
24 30
53 70
15 18
10 13
.
29 33
Sulfation2
mp,SO^/100cn2/day
Mean 20%
0.20 0.30
0.-31 0.47
0.14 0.19
0.55 1.00
0.32 0.50
0.33 '0.52
0.07 '0.18
0.13 0.22
0.12 0.13
0.08 0.19
.23 0.33
0
Sulfur Dioxide
pphm
Mean . 207.
0.2 0.4
0.3 0.8
0.2 0.4
0.4 1.3
0.4 1.3
0.3 0.9
0.1 0.3
0.2 0.4
0.2 0.6
0.2 0.4
0.3 0.7
i >
Nitrogen Dioxide*1
pphra'
\
Mean 20%
\
8.3 12.0
7.4 12.0
7.9 12.0
1Q.3 15.0
9.7 13,5
8.6 12.8
8.3 12.0
.7.9 10.5
7.2 10.6
7.1 10.8
3.3 ' 12.1.
Aldehyde^
poha
Mean 207.
1.4 2.2
1.4 2.6
1.3 2.2
1.4' 2.1
1.5 2.2
1,8 2. .7
1.4 2.2
1.3 2.0
1.5' 2.3
I
1.3 2.0
1.4 2.3
!
i 1
1. Jefferson County Air Pollution Program Data
2. U. S. Public Health Service Data Reference 5
3. Indicaiicr, Levels That Occur ?.0% OC The Tiv.-.c Or Slightly More Than 2 Months Per Year
' r:-';-v,ni-.!:.?:'.r.-. ;i!viv::i: or .-src.vni'i;-.^ arr<- u::.-'1 i ''.ron.-'.lii'uC. th.i.s pni.c r for all pollutants.
-------
n .
o
A
D
FIGURE 1. BIRMINGHAM AREA SAMPLING NETWORK
Permanent Health Department Stations
Temporary Health Department Stations
U. S., Public Health Service Stations .
1 . (1963-1965) ' ; .
A
-------
EMISSION INVENTORY ' .''."
In 1965, a year long effort was begun by the Jefferson County
Department of Health to obtain a comprehensive and complete inventory
of the air pollutants'emitted into Jefferson County's atmosphere. One
thing that was learned as a result of this emission inventory was that
*
of all the air pollution in Jefferson County, about 50% comes from
within the city limits of Birmingham with the remaining 50% coming
from the many communities surrounding Birmingham.
In general, this air pollution comes from four main sources.
These sources and tha method used to estimate their individual contri-
bution to the air pollution problem in Jefferson County arc;
(1) Dc-.r.sstic sources; information on fuel, trash, and leaf
burning was obtained via a random survey of 7,200 households in Jefferson
County. The results were then extrapolated to ir.clvula all 188,000
households in the county.
(2) Transportation sources; information was obtained from tax
records which is directly related to fuel consumed irv combustion engines.-
Airplane and dies-si powered vehicles were included in this study as well
-as buses, .trucks, and automobiles.
(3) Commercial sources; information was obtained via "fuel use"
questionnaires which wara sent out to 498 laundries, dry cleaners,
hospitals, rest hordes, hotels, motels, schools, and shopping centers.
Approximately S0% of the questionnaires were returned and it is estimated
that 75% of all "commercial" establishments wara sent questionnaires.
--.-'- ... ,
Therefore, the commercial emissions are based on approximately 68% of all
the coir.;rtVrciaT~ost£blishffient3-in Jefferson County, ..........
(4) Indxsstrial sources; information was obtained via a "fual use"
. - 12 -
-------
and "process" questionnaire. Questionnaires vjere sent out to the 815 .
industrial establishments as listed in the 1964 Industrial Directory
of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce. Of these only 368 were.
returned with usable information. Therefore, the industrial emissions
are based on approximately 46% of the industries in Jefferson County.
Most -o-£- t-he- ;>.wj'6r industries, however ; were included in this 46%.
Em i s s i on s f r tu S t a t iova
Stationary sources include the domestic, commercial and industrial
contributors to air pollution. The emissions from the transportation
industry will be presented separately..
In most communities 'or.e of the biggest sources of air pollution
is the emissions given off from the burning or fuel for heating require-
ments. In f. large industrial area such as Jefferson County., however,
it would sec-,: logical that: the largest amount: of fuel is consumed by
industry' for process heat, making the over-all emissions relatively
constant year round . This assumption is validated by tna seasonal
air pollution levels presentee 'in a separate section which show very
little seaso:':?.! variation in particulate matter.
Figure 2 is a map illustrating quantity ranges of ps.:ci:iculate ''
emissions and showing some of the known major industrial and conunercial
sources of air pollution. Figures 3 and 4 show the emission breakdown
for stationary sources in Jefferson County.
From Table II it can be seen that industrial sources account for
approximately 98% of the pnrticulata emissions, 86% of tha gaseous
emissions and 53% of the hydrocarbon emissions from s^tationarjy' sources.
In addition, the map indicates that emissions are greatest in areas of
conceiitratsd in-Just rial activities. The fairly large percentage of
- 13 -
-------
, commercial hydrocarbon emissions comes mainly from burning dumps and dry
, cleaning establishments . '
The small amount of emissions from domestic sources can be attributed
primarily to the decline over the past 20 years of coal as a source of
'space heating and cooking fuel.
The five largest sources of atte emissions in Jefferson
' County froir. stationary sources are listed below in decreasing order
of importance: < ....
Source ' Par t icu I at e Em. i . s_si o ng_
Libs . per year
Industrial processes 378,840,000
Indust.rir.1 fuel use ' ' 14,260,000
Conner cial fuel uss 3,592,000
Domestic fuel use 2,522,000
Burning dumps 1,328,000
Industrial activities clearly account for the vast majority of
particul&te err.iosioris in Jefferson County. However, the remaining sources
should not be completely overlooked as they are often large, enough to
cause severs localized nuisance and/or health problems <,
Tr_a.ns^_or t at j.p a Egos g ion. s^ ' ' ........
The estimated emissions from the transportation industry include
those associated with automobiles, dicsel vehicles, and aircraft. The
i
calculations are based on fuel use data and airport flight information.
Figure 5 shows the various types of pollutants emitted and their relative
.percentages. . ' ...... .--.--
_ .In_ comparison _with stationary sources it can be seen that transpor-
tation contributes only slightly to the particulata matter in
Jefferson County's air. Carbon monoxide emissions are primarily from
- 14 - ' .
-------
the transportation' industry and a signigicant portion of the hydrocarbon
emissions also are associated with transportation sources.
In the area of transportation, however, it must be noted that the
federal government has. already passed legislation relating to the
control of motor- vehicle emissions. All new vehicles now have crank-
case blow-by devices which control up to 30% of the total emissions of'
motor vehicles. This factor was not considered when calculating the
estimated emissions. In addition, beginning with 1960 model vehicles,
exhaust control devices will be standard equipment. This equipment will
reduce the emissions from new automobiles approximately 70 percent.
SuivKV>ar_y_
Estimated air pollution emissioi'is in Jefferson County have been
tabulated and summarized in Table II, and Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Frcrr. this da'ca several things becovr.e aviOcnti
(1) Thai: the groates!: source of particulr.te emissions is fvora
stationary sources, and in particular from industrial sourcas.
(2) That the problem of hydrocarbons is associated with both
stationary and transportation sources.
(3) That carbon monoxide is primarily from transportation sources.
(4) That federal law will substantially reduce the amount of air
pollution emitted from motor vehicles in the near future.
(5) That stationary sources, particularly industrial, is the
area in which air pollution control efforts should be directed, and
that transportation source emissions are a. secondary problem,
Legitinvice comparisons of emissions betvjp.cn various communities are
difficult to make due to the inherent incompleteness of any such survey.
Hov£V2V, ;;ox£ comparisons might give more insight into the extant of
-
-------
Jefferson County's air pollution problem. . .-.' .
In Nashville, Tennessee, total particulate emissions (including
transportation) vere estimated at 42,000,000 Ibs. per year which is
only one-tenth of those in Jefferson County. Gaseous emissions,
including hydrocarbons, ware estimated to be 172,348,000 Ibs. par
year while Jefferson County's total gaseous emissions are approximately
753,000,000 Ibs. per year. '.'...
' In Chattanooga, Tennessee," total particulate emissions were
estimated to be 204,612,000 Ibs. per year which is approximately
one-half tha amount found in Jefferson County,
- 16 -
-------
TABLE II
. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, . (1965 DATA)
^^^£0 Hut ant
Source ^^-v^^
i
! Indus c. fuel use
i
i
Cornier, fuel use
!
j P.es i'J'intitil ruc-.l use
j Indus t. Processes
Cm. Incinerator
'.'n. Dur?.os
Indus t. Refuse
Centner. Refuse
Residential Refuse
Gasoline (Auto &
Trucks)
!
Diesel (Auto &
Trucks)
Airplanes
TOTALS
.
Particulate
Tons/Yr
7,130
1,796
1,261
189,420
156
664
143
13
55
881
2,938
'
258
204,713
Carbon
Monoxide
Tons/Yr
1.91
961
1,357
1 , 000
9
N.A:
136
127
249
233,195
1,60?.
13,593
252,725
Hydrocarbon
J
Organic Acids
Tor^/Yr
'
411
L<
1.420
583
5,857
26
3,949
761
72
134
42,311
5,636
2,791
63,951
Sulfur
G:;ides
Tons/Yr
"
7,263
505
1,047
22,785
25
17
3
Nes.
'4
721
1,068
Keg.
33,538
Nitrogen
Oxides
Tons/Yr
6,922
210
801
.
1,616
27
8
2
Neg.
6
9,055
5,930
956
25,533
Aldehydes
Tons/Yr
41
1
'3Nep.
faep,.
N.A.
14
57
33
"'21
14
320
106
54
660
Ammonia
Tons/Yr
N.A.
N.A. '
N.A.
N.A.
4
33
5
N«?2;«
Nefc,
160
N.A.
N.A.
202
1 - Includes 1,200 Tons/Yr from Dry Cleaners
N.A. - Not Available
Nej>. - Negligible. Amount
-------
re 2. ESTIMATED' PA.RTICULATF. EMISSIONS BY
NEIGHBORHOOD ARI-:AS s MOWING MAJOR
'
2NDUSTU7AL ^
SOURCES
,s/^-:^. , '&*&>$&
// /- - o .'-: ' ' " xxxxS'Sco/
^. ..:, °, ; ;-x;3^>CK>fo
.. -j -..; -...: :( >y^:/:::.-f^^']'. "_ . -.- ' ,.' **
J&&^?'2'f?£$-"i5$ . '.' ''.: '
^^t:''^'WSv-rVV "KEY: -: ' -" .
."
TONS PER DAY
0.00 - 0.14
0,15 - 1.3?
1.38 - 10.00
L- Than '10.00
-------
'Carbon Monoxide 2%
Particulates 777.
, and
her Gases
ESTIMATED 7. CONTRIBUTIONS
BY POLLUTANT FROM
STATIONARY SOURCES
Hydrocarbons
Figure 3
ESTIMATED 7, CONTRIBUTION
OF BACK STATIONARY SOURCE
-Domestic 27,
Commercial 47,
Figure t-r
.J
Particulates 17,
KOX, Aldehydes,
and Other Gases
Carbon Monoxide 787t
ESTIMATED 7. CONTRIBUTION
BY POLLUTANT FROM
TRAN S PO RT AT IOM S OU'RC ES
coc\irbons
Fivrure 5
-------
ESTIMATED 7. CONTRIBUTION
OF ALL EMISSIONS
FROM ALL SOURCES
rDomcstic 17,
Commercial 3%
Transportation
557.
Figure 6
ESTIMATED EMISSIONS AS
PERCENT OF TOTAL FROM
ALL SOURCES BY POLLUTAN1
SOX> NOX; Aldehydes, and
Other-Gases
117o Hydrocarbons
Figure 7
Total Estimated Emissions =- 581,324 Term/Year
-------
PUBLIC- OPINION ' - , '
Over 300 complaints regarding air pollution have been received and
investigated by the Jefferson County Health Department since its air
pollution program began in 1965. In addition, during the summer of
1965 approximately 7;200 households were interviewed by Health Department
persoxvne-1in-arr'extensive public opinion survey. Results of these
activities conclusively show that the public is'vitally concerned about
''and annoyed by the air pollution that fexists in Jefferson County,
The household public opinion survey was conducted at random and
instructions were Issued to the interviewers as to how to select
houses randomly. Only adult members of the households were interviewed.
On the average one home in 26 was interviewed in this survey. The i
/'
survey showed that 54% of the people within the City of Birmingham
and an average of 42% of the people outside the city limits were annoyed
or affected adversely in some way by air pollution. The actual percent
of people affected'in the various communities ratiged -from 22% to 877o
(Table III) , Some of the statistical conclusioris which were made as
1?
a result of this survey were: ' .
(1) .That 33% of the people are adversely affected when suspended
particulate levels exceed 150 micrograms per cubic foot of air.
(2) That 33% of the people are adversely affected when dust fall
levels exceed 30 tons per square mile per month.
These are levels of pollution that are quite often greatly exceeded
in Jefferson County and one-third of the people is a significant number.
The relation between public opinion in the communities and the
measured gaseous pollutants were not significant in most of the cases
- 17'-
-------
studied. However, it should be noted that gaseous concentrations
were in most: instances very low.
The number of complaints received regarding air pollution over
the past two years obviously reflects only a small percentage of the
total population,--of Jefferson County. However, since to make a complaint
one has to first place a phone call, and then identify himself, it is
apparent that these complaints most likely represent severe and specific
! .
problems resulting from localized sources of pollution. This theory
is supported by the fact that 2/3 of all complaints received have been
regarding "health effects" or "property dj.mag&"; which is in contrast
to the public opinion survey where most of tha complaints wore classi-
fied as a general r.uisanca.
A look at Table IV also indicates that. 2/3 of the. complaints arc
about particulate matter (dust, smoke, and flyash), and 2/3 of the
sources of this pollution are said to be industrial.
In-the absence of specific regulations and control legislation,
investigation of the complaints ara made to ascertain if the. complaint
is justified, to make a visible inspection of the source, av.d where "'
possible to make appropriate recommendations for voluntary control.
Since the beginning of the program, it lias been possible to
investigate about 757o of tha complaints received. However, the amount
of voluntary ccraplinr.ee in abating these complaints is less than 5% of
all the co-:i;plai.nt.«i;' and in most cases, these were very small air
pollution sources, e.g., lear burning, trash burning, etc. It is not.
felt that the voluntary compliance has reduced the air pollution levels
by any appreciable r:\ncniut.
- 18 - ' '
-------
Table III
EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION ON POPULATION
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
1;
j i CITY
i
f
1
i
; Birmingham
i Bessecaer
Fairfield
1
Tarrant
Center Point
i
Irondale
Mountain Brook
Vestavia
Total %
Household
Affected
54
35 \
66 '
87 j '
36 :
i
23 ''
22
24 i
Percent
General
Nuisance
Response
33
17
GO
74
16
12
' 12
15
of Household
Health
Effects
Response
18
11
3
53
7
9
16
24
Adversely Affected
Material
Damage
Response
19
8 .
__
9
»
2
''-.'.
Odor
Response
23
20
19
68
. ' 7 '
4
2
". -3 ''.' '
-------
Table IV
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTION COMPLAINTS
Source of Complaint
ndustrial
omestic . ' .
ommercial
ransportaticn
otal
Total
209
- . 33
51
9 ' '
302
Types of Effects
Proparty Dr.ir:?.ga
Health Effect
Odor . ' .
'Visibility
Gen&ral Nuisance
Total .
Total*
120
178
107
28
133
566
Type of Pollutant
Dust
Smoke. _ Particulate
Flyash /*
Gas
X
Odor
Total
Total* ' '
112
127
. 45
13
.99
396
Sincr. more t:!\an one effect or type of pollutant can occur siniultcincously,
tiiiiii:.' totals are naturally larger than the number of complaints received.
-------
. CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION . ' . .
There are many avenues of approach to the problem of air pollution
control. The first and perhaps the most obvious solution is to zone
or segregate industry away and downwind from residential areas. This
approach usually fails due to the rapid expansion of cities and the
refusal-of the winds to always blow in the same direction.
'
In some cases, it is possible to avoid polluting the air by more
efficient combustion or by changing 'fuels or by simple modifications
» " " «
of the processes in use. These solutions are generally more applicable
to domestic and commercial space heating and waste incineration than to
large industrial processes. The control of automobile exhaust is a good
example of control by inodificatioas resulting in more efficient combur.tior
Federal law requires that all naw automobiles (1963 models on) be
modified or have factory installed devices to reduce the amount of
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons that are emitted; These reductions
will average G0% to 80% depending on the vehicle and the conditions .
under which it is being driven. These regulations will 'undoubtably
be tightened in 1970 and will probably include buses and diec-el powered
vehicles', . .
Another widely used technique, especially in the power industry,
is the erection of extremely high stacks (500 feet or higher). These
stacks cF.vry their load of pollutants higher into the atmosphere where
they are more easily dispersed. This method of control is often satisfac-
tory but offers no safeguard against dovmdrafts or prolonged stagnation
periods. Here in Jefferson County with the m.r.ny mountains and valleys
/
l^his method would most likely be unsatisfactory.
-- 19
-------
In addition to the above methods, there .are for most industries
and processes methods and equipment to remove the bulk of the pollutants
from the stack gases before they are discharged into the atmosphere.
These methods or devices are generally placed in four broad categories.
The first method is mechanical; the most common form being the
cyclone collector. In this method the gas is forced into a swift spiral
and the centrifugal force created causes the solid particles to be thrown
out of the gas stream and into a hopper. The cleaned gas then passes
out into the atmosphere. ;
The second group of collectors are generally classified as vat
collectors. In this method the polluted gases are forced info intimate
contact with finely divided liquid (usually water) droplets- This \
wetting causes many of tha solid and gaseous pollutants to be trapped ir.
the vatc-.r where it can later YJC- recovered for disposal or reuse.
The third class of collectors work on a principal similar to that
of-a vacuum cleaner. The dust laden gases are passed through a large
filter bag where the solid matter is trapped in the fabric of the filter.
This type of collector is soaiawhat limited duB to clogging of trie filters
and to the high temperatures of some of the exhaust gases encountered
in industrial processes.
The fourth type of air pollution control equipment is the electro-
static pracipitator. In this collector the dust is given an electric
charge while passing through tubes or between plates which have a
charge opposite t'o that of the particles. These opposite charges
cause the particles ,to be attracted electrically to the walls of the
tube, where, they can then be mechanically removed.
- 20' -
-------
All of the above methods of control are technically feasible.and
are presently being used either by themselves or in combinations by
industry throughout the country. Table V shows some examples of air
pollution sources, types of pollutants emitted, common control methods,
and average amounts of pollutants emitted both before and after control
equipment is installed. These are average figures and do not necessarily
reflect the performance of any individual industry, process, or source.
This table does, however, give some insight into the amount of pollutants
that can be kept from the atmosphere with reasonable amount -of control.
The cost of air pollution control is high, but so is the cost of
/
not controlling this pollution. Just recently it was reported that the
cost of air pollution (not including health effects) in Canada is
$25.00 per person per year?4 This same figure for U. S. citizens has
been estimated in excess of $65,00 per year.
Here in Jefferson County numerous instances have bean reporter'
where roofs have had to be replaced in as little as three years due to
air pollution and houses needing repainting after turning black almost
overnight. These factors along with many others including increased
public and private housekeeping expenses, plant damage, and health
effects, cost our community untold millions of dollars annually. The
cost of cleaning our skies will vary from a few dollars par source to as
high as one million dollars for one stack, but the time has come when
we can no longer afford not to clean our sir. Air pollution is a
liability to every citizen and to our fine community. Air pollution
costs us much more in economic and health loss than it will cost to
r 21 -
-------
Table V
ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM SELECTED SOURCES'
Sp'.;cific Process
or
; Operation
Bias. Furnace
i
\
Open Hearth
f
.
Ceir.ent Kilns
Gray Iron
CuDolas
Asphalt
Batching
Coffee
Roasting
Industrial and
' Cc^r.isrcial
Incinerators
i
Major Pollutant
Emitted
Iron Ore &
Coke Dust
Iron Oxide
Funie
Cement Dust
Iron Oxide
Bust- and Fume '
Sand and
Gravel Dust
Dust, Chaffe
Particulates
Type of Control
Equipment
Wet Scrubber
Electrostatic
and /or Wet
Scrubber
Electrostatic
Filter Bags
Cyclone
Cyclone
Collector
Efficiency
(7.)
90
85-98
85-99
98
85
75 .
Estimated
Emissions
Uncontrolled
200 #/ton
of product __,
9 #/ton
of product
-,
4 #/1000 Ft.
of exhaust
17 #/ton
of material . -
5 #/ton
of nroduct
3 #/1000 Ft?-
of exhaust
23 #/ton
of refuse
(single chamber)
Estimated
Emissions
with Controls
6. #/ton
of product
O.'s #7 ton
of product
0.2 #/1000 Ft"?
0.3 £7ton
of material
0.8 $1 ton
of product
0.7 #71000 Ft?
of exhaust
4 #7 ton
of refuse
(multiple chamber)
Obtained from: "Inventory of Air Contaminant Emissions/1 New York State Air Pollution Control Board, and
"A Compilation of Emission Factors for Combustion Processes, Gasoline Evaporation, and
Selected Industrial Processes," l-.'artin Mayer, Technical Assistance Branch, Division of
Air Pollution, U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
' . , REFERENCES - . -.'.-' ' .;'...
. ' ' '
1. Tabor, E. C.,; "Effects of the 1956 Steel Strike on Air Pollution
' -:-.. Levels in Several Communities". Presented at the Air Pollution.
. Control Association's Annual Meeting; Philadelphia; May, 1958.
2« 1'eagy, D. M., Schueneman, J. J., "Air Pollution in the Birmingham,
Alabama, Area." Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Cincinnati; Ohio, Technical Report A58-8; 1958.
3. Hochhaiser, S., Horstman, S. VI., Tate; G. M., "A Pilot Study
in Birmingham; Alabama." Robert "A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
.. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, Technical Report A62-22, 1962.
4. Brnnsconib, B. V., et ai: "Alabama Respiratory Disease and Ait
Pollution Study", Arch. Environ. Health 12:15-22; 1966.
5. Robison, C. B.; Meadows, F, L., Henderson, J. J.; "Air Pollution
Patterns in the Greater Birmingham Area", Submitted for Publication
to Archives of Environmental Health, 1965,
6. U.S. Departir.cn!: of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, "Air Pollution Measurements of the National Air Sampling
Network, Suspended Particulars, 1957 - 1961.l: Publication Ko. 978;
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962.
7. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, "Air Quality Data from the National Air Sampling NctvcrV,
1964 ~ 1965". Division of Air Pollution; Cincinnati; Ohio, 19&-S.'
8. Committee on Air Pollution Measurements of the Air Pollution
Control Association; "Recor.iaf.nded Standard Method for Contixiv.ing
. Dustfall Survey (A?M 1-a)," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Vol. 5, No..3, November, 1955.
9. U. S. Public Health Service Publication Ko. 1562, "Air PoUucior, -;
A National Sarr-.ple." "D. S . Government Printing Office, Washington D .C.,
1966.
10. Schuenaman, J. J.; Williams, J. D. & Edmisten, M. G., "An Air
Resource Management Plan for the Nashville Metropolitan Area."
Presented at the 58t.h Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control
Association, Toronto, Canada, June; 1965.
11. "Air Quality Management, Emission Inventory; Greater Chattanooga
Area." Air Pollution Control Bureau; City of Chattanooga, Tennessee,
1965.
12. Stalker, W. W., Robison, C. E., "A Method for Using Air Pollution
Measurements and Public Opinion to Establish Ambient Air Quality
Standards." Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association;
March, 1967, "" " " '". ' - - ---.-.....
-------
13. Public Law 89 - 272, "The Clean Air Act as Amended, October 20,
1965. U. S. Senate and House of Representatives.
14. Air/Water Pollution Report, Vol.. 5, No. 8, Page 59. February 20,
1967.
15. Lewis, Howard R., "With Every Breath You Take." Crown. Publishers,
Inc. Chapter 10, pp. 114, 1965. ' . .
------- |