GUIDELINE SERIES
OAQPS NO. 3.0-001
May 10, 1973
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 110 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
450R73116
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
NEDS Area Source Reports. MDAD. 4/3/73. Memo.
Air Quality Baseline and Emission Inventory for Transportation
Control Measures. SASD. 4/3/73. Memo.
Effective Date of State Implementation Plan for Achieving National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. SASD. 4/3/73. Memo.
Consideration of "Reactive" Hydrocarbons in Transportation Control
Plans. SASD. 4/6/73. Memo.
Lead Time and Steps Necessary to Implement an Inspection/Maintenance
and/or Retrofit Program. SASD. 4/11/73. Memo.
International Pollution Impact. SASD. 4/11/73.
NEDS Terminal Users Manual (Draft). MDAD. 4/73. Manual.
Questions and Answers Concerning the Implementation of Section 110
of the Clean Air Act. CPDD. 5/10/73. OAQPS 3.0-001.
Disapproval of SIPS for Failure to Sumbit Transportation Control
Strategies. OGC. 5/14/73. Memo.
Calculation of Rollback by "De Nevers" Model. SASD. 6/73.
Manual.
Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Complex
Source Regulations. 6/73. CPDD. Guidelines.
Plan Revisions and Supplements - Procedures for Approval/
Disapproval. CPDD. 6/1/73. OAQPS 1.2-005A.
Addition to Guidelines Series OAQPS No. 1.2-004, "EPA Source
Promulgation - Recordkeeping and Reporting - Public Availability
of Data," March 14, 1973. CPDD. 6/22/73. Memo.
Inspection Manual for the Enforcement of National Emission Standards
for Asbestos. ESED. 7/73. Manual.
Regulations for Indirect Source Review. CPDD. 7/10/73. Memo.
Additional Programs Which are now Available (Re: NEDS & SAROAD).
MDAD. 7/11/73. Memo.
NASN Decentralization (Desirability of Continued Site Operation).
MDAD. 7/23/73. Memo.
-------
Requirement for Public Comment on Application for Construction
or Modification of New Sources. CPDD. 7/30/73. Memo.
Guidelines for Evaluating State and Local Air Pollution Control
Agencies (Draft). CPDD. 8/73. OAQPS No. 1.2-005.
Report on Potential Problems in Priority II and III Regions with
Respect to NAAQS. MDAD. 8/14/73. Guidelines.
Guidelines for Evaluation of Suspect Air Quality Data. MDAD. 8/9/73.
OAQPS No. 1.2-006. (Superseded by OAQPS 1.2-013, Procedures for
Screening, Validating and Reporting Air Quality Data (Draft).)
Air Quality Monitoring Interim Guidance. MDAD. 8/73. OAQPS No.
1.2-007.
-------
I
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina H7711
NEDS Area Source Reports '
April 3, 1973
NADU
NECS/SAROAD Contacts, Region I-X
Two coplt-s of the NEDS area source reports (computer printouts)
for each state? arc fcdng trailed undor separate cover. These reports
wen? prepared In response to the request made at the recent STAPPA
raeetlno for tn-^ States to !«: given an opportunity to review the aroa
source emissions calculations. As with the NEDS point source reports
previously distributed, one copy of t!*s arva source report for each
state should b* r-talntd for use within the Regional Of flea end the
oth.-Ar cc-py sent to the appropriate st*t? ?cc»ncy for review. A lotter
similar to the enclosed sample itttmorendum should cccompany th«: area
source reports- sent to state agencies. Please note that t:io state.
agenda should bt requested to complete tholr rtv1rv> of tho nn-'a
source- report" »^nd return them to your office hy i ay 21, 1?73, If
possible. Plr.'&st forward tho Stct': rtisr-onses directly to us. This
tin:ta!..lr will faclHtato orderly processing by the National Air Data
Brar.cii (NASB) of any chenycs on additions to the data 1n the reports
that an; rsccrrmsndod t»y tl^e states.
Janes P. Hnrrfr:jrle
Chief
Notional A'i. "ata 0ranch
2 Enclosures
NADB:JRHammerle:jam:rm 647:MU,x491:4-3-73
-------
Enclosure 1
SAMPLE HEroRAHMJM TO STATE APENCIES
bear f>1r:
A copy of the National Emissions Data System (f-JECS) area scurco
report is enclosed. As with the NEDS point source report previously
i!io.1lr:c'. the area source report should b« reviewed and returned t<~
the ff.'cn'onal Office with consents ana' roccmr.sntiat1or.s for correction
of or additions to Ui« data shown 1n the pree source report. To
facilitate processing by EPA, the report should be returned to this
office by Vay 21 . 1"73, If possible. If the agency wishes to rccnrrrrard
chances or additions to the data shewn 1n the report, additional infor-
mation nay be noted on the pages of the report Itself or enclosed in
separate correspondence. In cither cas*;, the methods used and Informa-
tion sourcas contacted to obtain data different from or not shown 1n
the- NKIS area source report should be specified.
In general the data shewn 1n the area source reports has Iwn
develop--^ uslrg tlir jifethods discussed In Chanter 5 cf APTD-113i"i,
"Guide for CoiTipillr.g a Ccmprenertsivo Emission Inventory." Data sources
use-i largely consist of literature ref-reiict'S and source data avail-
able frrt?. State Injkmcr'tatloii Plan (SIP) tiivfssiott iiivontorks. I'.Vn
possible. Iccal regulations affecting area scurcss, r,uc!i as prf.;n'i»iticr:
of oi-tn burning and sulfur in fuel limitations, that weir 1r fcrco
durlno or before 1:)7C iiave boen taken 1ntc account to tiu? oxtc.rt tnat
the data 1n the area source reports should be cons Is It nt wltii tiv:>
emission Inventory oate shcvm 1n trie SIP.
An area source data listing is srsown for each county or county
oqulvAl'-r.t, with t-/o counties listed on each corr>utor oaci«. Cede nuirbcrs
identifying counties refer to t!: vlth l;r,; >.•/stlmatod »?m1ss1nii3 sl;0i-n on the first f'/o 11 •••:••?
of each county listing , which wen? obtained from the SIP Inventory,
vvhtr-re given. Procedures used to arrive at the estimated emissions
may differ for a variety of reasons. Including use of different
emission factors. Inclusion of different source* categories to rrako
up the county emission, estimates, and somti-'iiat different rsit^ecs
that n-ay have boon us.-d to detormint area source quantitK^ by county.
-------
Your agency siiouli! concentrate on noting apparent ('l^
bctwwn the NECS data and state ttatr. for tlV arrf> source c printout, and sunnly1n, 1f
ppsslhv,', for th.: coses whc-r^ the NF.US printout shows little or
no
Once again your cooperation and roc crane ndat Ions will be
m dated.
-------
Enclosure 2
EXPIRATION OF THE NEDS APEA SOURCE' PPIUTOUT ,
The* following p.olnts v<111 clarify thr use of the area so'ura*
reports :
1. A Ustir-g of nrva source data 1s shown for rach county
or cour.ty equivalent. Cato fcr two counties are shown on each
ct-nputpr page. Tiv? d.nt.a are listed 1n the ssme order that the data
fit Ids appear on t!u: flEi.:S area oourcn ceding forn. To proporly
rcatf the area source printout- rr.ad loft to right across trie page
lino by Unc. Do not road tho columns from top to bottom.
2. Calculated area source emissions for each county ars shown
at the bottom of the right-hand column. Emissirn estimates, where
available from th* State- Implnrcntation Plan (SIP), ore shown in
the first tvo lipts of each county listino. The1 calculated crr.issions
will not nacusserlly agree with the SIP omission estimates for one
or moro of tho frllc\v1r.g reasons:
a. rifffcn^rit emission factors nay havs f-een used for
at ion cf tht SIP's than ware used for calculation of (-missions via
NEIJS conr:ut';r orogram. Th»: fiCCS emission f«cCor file ccntdrs
emission factors that wire developed subsequent to the lar»t publication
of AP-^i?; "'Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.
b. Scurce catt-.gorlt-s includo.d In ti)>:- SIP fn-lssirn sstinatcs
may not hnvft t-^fn Inclutlr-d 1n the calculated t;niisr.ions because no
ercisslr-n factors for ccrtaiii sc-urci; c.*;t«:prrits (i.o., rfirt roatb
traveled, forest fires, coal refuse ' jrnirin) arv presently incluciccl
1n thn NELS errJsslon factor file.
c. f-Vithods used for dtvclopment of the- SIP em1ss'1on Inventory
may differ soinijwhat frrrn ncthoc's usc-d by NAH8 for preparation rf arc.?
source 1:770 U.S. C.nsus of Hcusing) frr c»r(?t!. Also, area source Cfitf-oorlcs net Include:'.! 1n t!v.-; SIP
emission Icv^i'tory roy have- b -on ecidod tc the area source report
using rethrds outlinotl 1r=.
3. The data in the arfea source repcrt has bpcn prcpsr^d
the methods discussed in Chapter D cf APTO-llS1], ';Gu1de for Corn-plling
a CiMnprehenslvo Emission Inventory. " Since in rost cases on -site
collection cf ares source data v^as not possible . liti^rcturo
rofer-inces, source data wh*rc» avallntle from SIP s, and date collected
by previous BOA contractors fcr SIP Inventories have been nest
-------
2
heavily relli.ci upon for preparation of th* MEi-S art-a sourc" reports.
Wiieiv possible, localrr.'(julet1en'& tiftVct1ii<> ir.'n sources, r.urh r.>
prt.nlbHIon of open burntno and sulfur IP furl limitations., that.
v.":-r>'1r. fore/, during "or btforo'Ti/o (and wnHtnJ^n Int.'* oct/nint
for preparation of the SIP emission'Inventory)'" have bum considered
for preparation cf the area source reports.
1 i '
4, No data 1s shown for sow? area source categorlrs. A blank
data field Indicates that no adequate Int'crmotlcn for c^termlnation
of arf?a sourc*? quantities 1s known by NACty, 51;ato agsrdes that
may have data pertaining to blank tjata caicqc-rir-s should lf> rnc|Uf:stt:ri
to m?,kc such data availuble to EPA, For tiio states of Iowa and
North Carolina arr.a source data for cf-rcmcrdal -Institutional and
Industrial area source fuel consumption 1s presently not Available.
Tlilr data will be addctd to the HE IS-area source Inventory fol lowing
cc'rcpl<:t1nn cf current source Invertcry contract v.'ork In thcs
-------
?ELCGSA.'HIC MESSAGE
N/Mt f)l A MUCY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAND USE PLANNING BRANCH ..
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION
rpi ci ur.uct
ACTION:
INFO.
PAU. IWPACi'D
4-3-73
ROUTINE
FOR INrORMATION CAU
NAM£
Ronald A. Venezia
PHONG NUMCCR
(919) 688-8270
'lrtUY CIAf.',lf!i'A';»M
UNCLASSIFIED
tYPf OF A'.ESS'.Of
("J SINGLE
Cl BOOIC
Qj WOIIIPIE-AC'OP.ESS
THIS SI'/tCk' I:HR C'.S/: Ol- COMMI,',\'IC.-1'I'1OS
MtSSAGE TO 6F TRANSMITTfl.) fl'it doaUt ./.-/«..•,.•/,/.;// c.i/'il.il A it
TO:
AIR AND WATER PROGRAM DIRECTORS (SEE ATTACHED ADDRESS LIST)
REGIONS I-X '
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY BASELINE AND EMISSION INVENTORY FOR TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL MEASURES
A QUESTION HAS ARISEN REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF "MORE RECENT
AIR QUALITY DATA MAY BE USED..." AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 51.14 (G) OF
THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES FEDERAL REGISTER. JANUARY 12
1973, (38 F.R. 1464.)
IN GENERAL, THE BASELINE AIR QUALITY FOR MODELING OR ROLLBACK HAS
BEEN THAT SHOWN IN SIPS SUBMITTED JANUARY 30, 1972. WHERE VALID
• T Ti ~* ^
MEASUREMENTS (INSTRUMENT"LOCATION. OPERATION AND CALIBRATION ARE PROPER)
ARE OBTAINED SUBSEQUENTLY THAT ARE HIGHER THAN THIS, THE BASELINE AIR
• *
^
QUALITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE THE HIGHER VALUE.
IF THIS VALUE IS NOT USED, THERE MUST BE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION OF WHY IT
IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE. THE FACT THAT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WERE LESS
FAVORABLE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FOR EXAMPLE, AN ACCEPTABLE(JUSTIFICATION
WOULD CITE ONE'TIME EVENTS OR UNIQUE SITUATIONS SUCH AS flRES, PARADES,
-* :
OR HEAVY TRAFFIC FROM A DETOUR NEAR THE MEASUREMENT STATION
DURING THE MORE RECENT HIGHER.MEASUREMENTS. .
TAGS HO.
VII1" T1''-' l"'r: f!'"l"l l'i!':' ~\- r,'~ "il'i" ''" •.'!"'''' 1.'M!M'7' 'Ti
11 '•- ' '•• • ' • •-{--(->< -i..i, ..'. Ul i ! il. i . .1. if i .11-i r v.'l !.lj I ;-.., I
Mill! V I'C.S
MCURITT ClASSIIlCAI.ON
SEVir., i; ,:•,. .'. I lf.-,7
CSA rmx (
-------
NA Mil Ol
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY /
LAND USE PLANK1 ING BRANCH
ACcoumifio
WUUINU
AOION:
INIO:
DAU
ROUTINE
FOR lUfORMATION CAlt
NAWf
ROIJALD A. VENEZIA.
PMONt NUMBER
(919) 688-8270
UNCLASSIFIED
mi or
[j
SINGlf
POOR
[X] MULTIPLE. ADDRESS
mis
e. I:OK U\K o>- CO.M.\WNKATIO\ UNIT
A'fSSAGC TO BE TRANSMITTCO (Hit ttaMt i;>.i>inj «»l lett.nt
TO:
CONCENTRATIONS ALSO CAN PRECLUDE ITS USE. FOR INSTANCE, IF THE OX.IDANT
PEAK VALUE OCCURS ;:AT MIDNIGHT, ITS VALIDITY FOR A ROLLBACK BASELINE WOULD
BE QUESTIONABLE. IN GENERAL, WHILE IT IS NOT INTENDED TO "PENALIZE" THE
STATES, THE HIGHEST POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED MUST. BE USED
UNLESS THE USE OF LOWER VALUES CAN BE DEFENDED.BY THE ABOVE OR OTHER
CRITERIA.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE MORE RECENT AIR QUALITV MEASUREMENTS SHOW A
LOWER CONCENTRATION OF THE POLLUTANTS IN QUESTION, THE HIGHER VALUE,
AS SHOWN IN THE SIP MUST BE USED UNLESS THE CHANGE CAN BE CORRELATED
WITH A NEW EMISSIONS INVENTORY. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THAT A LARGE UN-
CONTROLLED SOURCE, STATIONARY OR MOBILE, WAS CONTROLLED AND IS REFLECTED
IN PROPORTIONALLY LOWER POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS.' ' *
• A RELATED QUESTION HAS ARISEN WHERE TWO OR MORE URBAN AREAS ARE IN
' • •-
ONE AQCR BUT ARE IN SEPARATE STATES. SINCE THE SIP REPRESENTS THE
STRATEGY FOR THE STATE TO ACHIEVE THE STANDARDS, THE BASELINE AIR QUALITY
VALUES MUST BE- THOSE ESTABLISHED FOR EACH STATE. A PROBLEM HAY ARISE
WHERE THE URBAN A^EAS ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE STATE LINE BUT-HAVE
WIDELY DIFFERING AIR QUALITY VALUES. REGIONAL OFFICES SHOULDfl^^
APP!US.r STATE Pir.^r.SF.r'ITATIYES OF
'' • '
ur
JES. REGIONAL OFFICES SHOULD
THE n;:c:F.s?m:7;;~"T7~r^7uH
_pjViR 'iH'l^L1'^'-1-1''''" J1^^J'!!/'L 1 "
JfAt'io.1. ' J Kyi:/.'.
GSA ttu.K (41 OK) \GI-3V30i
iv«; o' --j.-ij- i
-------
ME^W AGCNCY
WIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IND USE PLANNING BRANCH .. ./
COUNTING ClAiSlli' A1IOH
ructoiNCt
ROUTINE
ACTIONi
INfOi
DAIC IVI PARED
4-3-73
/ KDi! INrO.IMAllON CAll
ME
DNALD A. VENEZIA
PMOMO fJUMlif*
(919) 688-8270
sfci'siiv ci/.ssiriCATiON
UNCLASSIFIED
IVPl Of MllSAGD
fj SINGIE
fj BOOK
[X] MUITIPILADDRESS
IIIIS SI'ACK I-'OK l.'iC O/ CO.M.MlW/C/moN t/A/V
MESSAGE TO BE TRANSMUTED ft'" «/»»*/r ip.tcinj and all ,..>-i:.,l lttitn>
YO:
ARE TRULY REPRESENTATIVE. GENERALLY, THE SUMMER 1971 co AND ox DATA
WILL BE THE HOST ACCURATE. THESE AND OTHER AIR QUALITY DATA, SUCH AS
REQUESTED BY OD/OAQPS MEMO "AIR QUALITY DATA" DATED MARCH 16, 1973, ARE
BEING COMPILED UNDER THE STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL OF AEROKETRIC DATA
»
(SAROAD). DR. JAMES R. HAMMERLE, CHIEF, NATIONAL AIR DATA BRANCH, SHOULD
» * '
BE CONTACTED FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. HIS NUMBER IS: FTS (919)
688-8491,
STATES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PRESENT CHANGES IN AIR QUALITY BASE-
LINES AND HEW EMISSION INVENTORIES TO THE PUBLIC AT HEARINGS WHERE THE
NEW VALUES WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INFLUENCE- THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
MEASURES OR ATTAINMENT DATE OF THE STANDARDS, I.E., A JUSTIFIED EXTEN-
SION UP TO TWO YEARS, BEYOND MAY 31, 1975. FURTHER, THE STATE SHOULD
SHOW THAT THERE IS CORRELATION'WITH A REVISED EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND
THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS SUPPORTING DATA SUMMARY, SIMILAR TO THAT
PRESENTED IN APPENDIX M TO FEDERAL REGISTER, JANUARY 12, 1973, (38 F.R.
1464.) THE .QUESTION OF'WHETHER A PLAN REVISION IS REQUIRED WILL DEPEND
r
ON WHETHER THE ABOV.E REQUIRES A REVISION TO THE ACHIEVEMENT DATE OF THE
STANDARDS OR TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES. ' /
r^Oi!"! 0 A. V':;;'•/!'(A, f..\''
. PAGE HO
si.'.:::•*!.'j m: .'.i i*
W.VIJIU AUGOll IVA7
GSA ffM» (.41 CIH) 101-33.306
L i-
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
-------
pLi:o;:i:.!ii,';i. PKOTECIUJM AGENCY / '
i •'.O'Jl'li'-'O (!'•• m./icn
/
i'. . • . .1 :•.!
iU'Ui Ijir.
AC now.
IIJiO
1 All IM.r /,',', f'
1-3-73
•1 r.:: ii it'1' r. i| :
iJHCLASSJ!
(Of! IK.'O.'V.UJIO'I CAU
RONALD A. VLTJQIA-
. .
I v;,'/v ,v/M> /-. /(-•;.• .' ".'
ri!c;ui t-ii" 7.;
(919) G8C-0270
•ft]*,
(.UM.\\l.:\l('.-ITHt.\ I!SIT
//^SAC.: 10
AIR AND 1-/ATLI: PHiJ^RAM DIIIFCTORS (SLK ATTACHLf) AnD,';cSS LIST)
REGJOI.'S I-X
'SUBJECT: EFFfCTLVE DATE OF S'
i
r
STATE nSPLEMENTATIOK PLAN FOR ACHIEVING
NATIONAL' AM3IEMT AIR QUALITY STAn'DArJDS
QUESTIONS HAVE AR1SFK REGARDING THE PROCEDU^ REQUIRED TO SATISFY
"THE REQUir.EMEiTfS OF EPA Ai.'D THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ORDER
UMBERS 72-1522, ETC., OF JANUARY 31, 1973, IN NRDC V. EPA, WHERE THERE
O JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS FOR EPA TO GRANT AN EXTENSION (UP TO TWO YEARS)
a;p, ATTA!,r:;;r;:T OF THE PRIMARY STANDARDS.
THE BASIC PLAN SUfcMITf-D SHOULD SHOW THE STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVEMENT
OF THE-PRIMARY STAf-.'DAIUJS BY MAY 31, 1975. WHERE THESE MEASURES ARE VERY
JRINGEfIT WITH A SEVERE PUBLIC IMPACT, ALTERNATES WHICH ARE MORE REASCi!-
«';LE AND ALLCi; FOR IMPLEMENTATION LEAD TIMES, SUCH AS'PROCUREMENT OF BUSLS,
:
CtC., ALSO SHOULD BE PRESENTED. THE REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
TENDED TIME (UP TO TWO YEARS) TO ACHIEVE THE STANDARDS CY THE*ALTERNATE
SHOULD IX A PART-OF THE PLAN. THE ALTERNATE PLAN COULD BE WRITTEN IN
_j:/i A.MV-:NER-AS TO HE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION BY THE
IISTRATOR.. THE DASIC PLAN AND THE ALTERNATE' COULD DE PRESENTED
35LTHEP. AT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO PRECLUDE A SECOND SET OF HCAKINGS CM Tl-JP
/• !': :.:.'Av:- ',:.-, !-;:O;!!-;;T
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
r**jECT: Consideration of "Reactive" Hydrocarbons in Trans- DATE: April 6» 1973
w portation Control Plans
FROM: SASD/LUPB
TO:
Air and Water Program Directors
Regions I-X
Refer: OD/OAQPS Memo "Criteria for Review of Transportation Control
Measures," dated January 30, 1973.
At the meeting in Chicago, Illinois, March 20, 1973, of the
regional transportation control and land use representatives, it was
requested that the "guidance" provided in the referenced memo be
expanded with respect to subject.
The suggestions regarding using "reactive" and "highly reactive"
hydrocarbons as the basis for compiling the emission inventory and
strategies for reducing oxidant levels to the standards are still
considered valid, i.e., "These are acceptable if there is a measure
of credibility and definition to these approaches and if they are
adequately explained in the plan." It is recognized that complying
with this requirement poses several problems and there is some con-
troversy regarding the definition of the reactivities of particular
organic hydrocarbon solvents, "roblems have arisen with the suggestions
and definitions in Appendix B to the Federal Register of August 14,
1971, (36 FR 15486) since the solvent control would require substitutes
beyond those reasonably available. A revision is underway, however,
this notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) will not be published in
time for reference or guidance of current transportation control
measures. Consequently, it.is suggested that where appropriate, as
discussed below, Los Angeles County Rule 66 type regulations, similar
to the enclosure, be employed for control of "reactive" hydrocarbons. >.
The review of SIPs submitted to date indicates that only Los
Angeles County itemized their hydrocarbon inventory in detail. The *
other AQCRs listed xmly total hydrocarbons. Consequently, ar approv-
able plan based on "reactive" or non methane hydrocarbons, must
contain sufficient data to justify the validity of the Inventory and ;
the basis for any assigned reactivities of the various hydrocarbons.
Where this is accomplished, full credit for the strategies can be
given and Rule 66 type regulations accepted in lieu of Appendix B.
Otherwise, the hydrocarbon inventory should be based on total hydro-
carbons. In the event EPA must propose/promulgate control measures,
the Rule 66 type regulations should be considered -- similar to the
enclosure. -
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-7?)
-------
There are only five hydrocarbons that are truly of zero or low
photochemical reactivity. They are: methane, ethane, propane,
acetylene, and benzene. The occupational exposure hazard and
explosive nature of benzene preclude Its being considered as a lower
reactive solvent substitute. Thus, even following Rule 66 type
regulations does not preclude emissions of hydrocarbons that in the
presence of sunlight and nitrogen oxide will produce oxidants.
However, it may be possible to successfully use this type control where
the topography, meteorology and demography are more favorable than the
California Southcoast basin. Here, the oxidant values are apparently
going down in the Los Angeles CBD but rising in Riverside which is
generally downwind about 70 miles away. It is also noted that high
oxidant readings in the Southeast Dessert Region are thought to be a
result of spill-over from the Los Angeles basin. Thus the employment
of Rule 66 type regulations should be considered on an individual basis
for each AQCR.
Ronald A. Venezia
Chief
Land Use Planning Branch
-------
Paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7 would replace the
present paragraph 4.6 in Appendix B of 40 CFR 51.
4.6 Organic solvents. Except as required 1n paragraph 4.7
the emission of photochemical!,/ reactive solvent Into the
atmosphere can be limited to 40 pounds 1n any one day
or 8 pounds 1n any one hour from any process equipment unless
such discharge has been reduced by at least 85 percent. Emissions
of organic solvents into the atmosphere during the first 12 hours
after removal from the equipment are Included in determining
allowable emissions.
Except as required in paragraph 4.7, the emission 'of phpto-
chemically non-reactive .materials can be limited to 3,000 pounds
in any one day and 450 pounds in any one hour from processing
equipment unless such discharge has been reduced by at least
85 percent. Emissions of organic solvents into the atmosphere
for the first 12 hours after removal from the equipment
are included in determining allowable emissions.
The provisions stated above are not applicable to:
(a) The manufacture of organic solvents, or the
transport or storage of organic solvents or materials
containing organic solvents.
. • « f>'
(b) The spraying or other employment of insecticides,
. pesticides, or herbicides.
(c) The employment, application, evaporation, or
drying' of saturated halogenated hydrocarbons or
perch! oroethylene.
-------
Organic solvents are organic diluents and thinners which are
I
liquids at standard conditions and which are used as dlssolvers,
f I
viscosity reducers, or cleaning agents. Controls are not necessary
for materials which exhibit a boiling point higher than 220°F at
0.5 millimeter mercury absolute pressure or have an equivalent
i ,
vapor pressure unless they are exposed to temperatures exceeding
220°F.
Photochemically reactive organic solvents Include any
material with an aggregate of more than 20 percent of its
total volume composed of the chemical compounds classified
below or which exceed any one of the following individual
«
percentage composition limitations, referred to the total
volume of solvent:
(a) Combination ot hydrocarbons, al^oium, ulueiiyues,
esters, ethers, or ketones having an oleflnic or
cyclo-olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 percent
(b) Combination of aromatic compounds with eight
or more carbon atoms to the molecule except
ethylbenzene: 8 percent ' •'....
(c) Combination of ethylbenzene, ketones .having
i • • .
branched hydrocarbon structures, tHchloroethylene,* "
and toluene: 20 percent.
-------
4.7 Baking and curing of organic compounds. The emission of
organic compounds can be limited to 15 pounds 1n any one day and
to 3 pounds .in any one hour from equipment in v/hich the; organic
compounds come into contact with flame or are baked, heat-cured,
or heat-polymerized in the presence of oxygen unless the discharge
has been reduced by at least 85 percent by adsorption or incineration
systems or equivalent devices.
Baking and curing operations may be exempted from control if
the gases do not come in contact with flame and
(a) the volatile content of which consists of water
and not more than 20 percent by volume of organic
solvent which is not photoqhemically reactive, or
(b) the organic solvent content of which does not
exceed 20 percent by volume and which is not photo-
chemical ly reactive and more than 5? percent by
volume of such volatile material is evaporated
before entering a chamber heated above ambient
application .temperature, or
(c) the organic solvent content of which does
not exceed 5 percent and the volatile component
is not photochemically reactive.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
SUBJECT: Lead Time and Steps Necessary to Implement an . DATE:April 11, 1973
Inspection/Maintenance and/or Retrofit Program
i! LUP3 ,
T°: Regional Transportation Control
and Land Use Representatives
Guidance on the subject was requested at the meeting on
SIP's held 1n Chicago on March 20, 1973. These programs are
inherent in tha rc-quirements of the proposed Transportation
Guidelines, Foc'gral Register (33 FR 1464) dated January 12, 1973
App9ndix N Sections 3"(c) arid 4(c). Representatives of MSPCP
v/ere requested to outline the anticipated steps and approximate
limes to implement tisose control strategies. The Emissions
Control end Testing Division responded by the attached memo
"Clarification of Stops Necesstiry to Implement a Retrofit or
Inspection/Maintenance Program", dated March 23, 1973. At
approximately the SOTC time there v/ere changes being made to the
final rule making draft of tha above "Guidelines", particularly
Appendix M. Tha attached msmo from MSPCP "Rationale for Changes
In Appendix N re Inspection/Maintenance", flarch 26, 1973, discusses
some of the changes. Subsequently there have been revisions to
the loaded and Idle tests' reduction effectiveness percentages
shown 1n paragraphs 3(2)(i) and 3(2)(ii) of Appendix N.
Because of the changes and the fact that the above ECTD memo
addressed the question more from a standpoint of "certification"
procedures, whfch are necessarily somewhat formal and lengthy,
meaningful firm suggestions applicable to a specific State's problem
have not been forthcoming. Further, recent data from the National
Academy of Sciences and testimony at hearings regarding extension
of the 1975-76 motor .vehicle standards casts sane doubt on the
advisability (at least in the near-term) of some of the more "popular"
retrofit devices and approaches as stated In MAS letter of Feb. H, 1973,
also attached.
C
t. Form 13JO-6 (Rov. 6-72)
-------
The" minimum time frame estimated by ECTD of 33 morjths would
be applicable for the most.compllc.Ttcd retrofit devlcesj where
tha state has had no previous Involvement. The time cap be
shortened fry less. formal evaluation approaches and any previous
state expedience. Approval of state plans can be made on the*
basis of th'j'ir own tests or those of private laboratories.
Problems arise where EPA must promulgate a plan that contemplates
retrofit. It is not considered that the retrofit devices must be
"certified" by EPA, at least If the Los Angeles plan approach
1s used, thus, the minimum time could be reduced to 24 to 30
months for retrofit implementation.
The ECTD estimated minimum frame time of 24 to 30 months
for inspection programs is based on no prior state Involvement
and contemplates a loaded emission tests. The most important
milestone is the legal authority to conduct the mandatory
inspections. A review of the Arizona plan indicates they received
their legal authority in Hay 1972, expect to have 4 loaded inspection
lanes operational in January 1974 and the capacity to handle BOX
of the stai2S motor vehicles by July 1975. It should be noted
that this state's plan was preceded by considerable ground work
and two years tasting with a mobile van.
In general, the emissions inspection hardware, both for idle
and loaded, appear to pose no further problem. However, the facilities
for a loaded test and the legal authority and administrative
Implementation can cause extensive del a.,*. It is considered
that an idle test through franchiscd garages/service stations
could be operational by May 1975, 1f legal authority 1s obtained
this year.
It Is expected the final rule making version of the above
Transportation Control Guidelines will be available in the near
future and will 'be expedited to the Regional Transportation Control
Representative.
It should be noted that the capability of each state to Implement
emissions Inspection and/or retrofit programs is dependent on its unique
situation and status of legal authority, pilot programs, experience
on curren£ requirements, etc. Thus, the Regions should^assess these
factors, which in seme Instances may justify extension requests, in the
review of plans. The appraisal of the local capability becomes even
more Important when EPA proposed/ promulgated plans are be1«vj considered.
Ronald A. Venefia
Chief
Land Use Planning Branch
.
Enclosures (3)
-------
« 1
, Research Triangle'Park, North Carolina 2"/711
International Pollution Induct ^-pril 11, T,73
Ronald /•..
Afr and Water Prcirw.; Directors
regions II, V, Vf, and IX
States in your reyicn nay !;.i encountering, or havo the
potential'for cnccn'iiti'rin'j, pro:--ltr.!S v.'ivh poli;it.Antn r-'nr?rateci
In noi«..hlu>nn:i countries. The? LcnvrJ Use; l'lf;.-,ninn f:r.-;nc:; ivould
lific to cU'CiriOiit existing cr potential problons in stv^s in
your region. This rtocunontation shculd inclisJ'i irifcjv!nt1on
st;ch GS avalIc6Is air r;iMl1ty data, emission Inventory c'ata,
doicn'plic';) of It:Jcstrlol citos in the* ncir;'i''0rir/j cfsi-ntr/
which affect air quality, the extent cf air quality i-./ict if
known, r.rxi any ot!r_r portlnant facts bearing on the pro;.)Ion.
Infc?nnat1on shcL'U bo for./pru'o'J to this office for
coor::
Initiated by Ui.r:i' to provide ?. soluticn. If additional
infornatlon is required, please contact me. .
Ronald A. Vonazia
Chief
Land Uso Planning Dranch
LUPB:RCCLARK:sag:iBu 962:x291:
-------
MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Complex Source Regulations
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Control Programs Development Division
Standards Implementation Branch
June 1973
-------
COMPLEX SOURCE REGULATIONS
On April 18, 1973, the EPA proposed amendments to 40 CFR 51 designed
primarily to expand the scope of review prior to construction or modifica-
tion of buildings, facilities, and installations for both direct and indirect
air pollutant source emissions. The EPA received over 70 sets of comments
on the proposed regulations. These comments were received from a wide
spectrum of interest groups; official agencies (Federal, State, and local),
environmental groups, trade associations, contractors, and private citizens.
The EPA promulgated the regulations, with appropriate modifications on
June 18, 1973. The schedule of events is attached (Table 1).
The EPA must now proceed to work with the States in the development
of approvable plans that are to be submitted by August 15, 1973. The
milestones involved between now and August 15 are given in Figure 1.
The State should be urged to submit at least six (6) copies of the
plan to the appropriate RegionaT Office on or before August 15. Figure 2
Illustrates the review and processing procedures to be employed in the
*
approval/disapproval and proposal/promulgation process. In view of the
short scheduled imposed by the Court order, it is urgent that this
procedure be followed.
A draft of available guidelines was prepared and distributed by SIB
to assist the Regional Offices in working with State agencies in this matter.
The guidelines are available as of this date and are attached. Additional
work is underway to provide improved analytical procedures and guidance in
implementing these maintenance (complex source) provisions. As guidelines
are developed, they will be distributed by the Regional Office as expeditiously
as possible.
-------
Guidelines for Implementing EPA Requlrments for Maintenance of Standards
This document Is Intended to assist the Regional Offices 1n providing
guidance to States for developing Implementation plan revisions to comply with
the recently promulgated (6/15/73) regulations involving maintenance of the
national standards. As indicated in the promulgated regulations, States must
submit these plan revisions by August 15, 1973. The new requirements 40 CFR
Part 51 are discussed in order below.
1. § 51.11(a)(4) Legal authority
Based upon a poll of state attorney general's offices by the Regional
Counsels, it si estimated that a majority of states will not have adequate legal
authority to prevent construction of indirect sources of emissions if they
would result in a violation of an ambient air quality standard. States
are advised to consider, in addition to statutes pertaining to environmental
rotection, other laws which may provide the necessary legal authority. Such
laws include land use controls and authority f«.r local zoning. In the plan
submission, States are advised to cite their authority and include copies of
applicable statutes.
2. I 51.12 Control strategy: General paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h)
f *
Guidelines for compliance with the provisions for maintenance of standards
under this section are under preparation and will be available at a later date. The
major submittal required by these paragraphs is not due for 2 years.
3. 5 51.18 Review of new sources and modifications paragraphs (a)(b)(c)
Several techniques are attached which are designed to enable the reviewing
agency to determine which facilities are to be reviewed and to perform the analysis
of carbon monoxide impact from a particular facility. States are not precluded
from requiring the developer of a facility to perform his own analysis of impact
^n air quality from his facility. To lessen the agency's workload, such a
procedure is encouraged. In those cases where the burden an analysis is placed on
the developer, the State should provide an approved technique of impact analysis to be
-------
used by the developers.
Technique for determination of the necessary level of analysis (Tab A)
This scheme is in the form of a decision tree which enables one to determine
the level of analysis needed for a particular facility. Required information to
make decisions in this scheme include current air quality, both on the site and in
vicinity of the facility, and pertinent meteorological data. Presented as an
appendix to thi's scheme is a technique for estimating air quality concentrations
downwind and in outlying areas from a "downtown" air quality measurement site.
Technique for estimation of the carbon monoxide air quality impact from an
indirect source (Tab B)
^
This technique, developed by .the Source-Receptor Analysis Branch, incorporates
the graphical relationship between emission density, area size and carbon monoxide
concentrations which appeared in Appendix 0 to the Federal Register regulations
of 6/15/73.
§f
51.18, paragraph (d)
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that the new facility is not
inconsistent with any applicable control strategy, even though the new- facility
may not result in a violation of an ambient air quality standard. As an example,
suppose a facility is to be built in an area for which a transportation control
strategy exists. An analysis of the facility indicates that the air quality impact
will not result in a violation of an ambient air quality standard. If, however,
the facility will cause a significant disruption in traffic patterns which were
assumed in the transportation control strategy, then the facility would essentially
change that control strategy. Either the facility as designed would have to be
disapproved, or the control strategy would have to be revised to reflect the
resulting traffic pattern.
An apparent shortcoming of the review process is the level of accuracy of the
techniques used to predict the air quality impact of an indirect source of
-------
3
emissions. If an analysis Indicated that a particular facility would not result
In a violation of an ambient air quality standard, yet a violation occured after
the facility 1s put Into use, there 1s obviously no method under the new source
review system for correcting the problem. In such an Instance the proper
mechanism for addressing the problem would be to revise the control strategy to
curtail mobile sources, either at the particular facility or in general in an
area. This choice of control would depend on whether the violation of the
standard were directly attributable to one particular facility or to a group of
facilities.
5. I 51.18 paragraph (e)
This paragraph requires that the agency responsible for meeting the requirements
of I 51.18 be identified and that if a non-air pollution control agency is given
that responsibility, that agency must consult with the congnizant air pollution
control agency. The plan should Include a discussion of how this will be done,
including the weight given to comments from the air pollution control agency.
6. §51.18 paragraph (f)
An illustration of a technique for determining the sizes of types of facilities
which should be ?•• ,. :. to review is given in Tab C. Item 1 of the proposed
Appendix 0 which appeared in the Federal Register of April 18, 1973, suggested
sizes of shopping centers and sports stadiums, which should generally not be
exempted from review. Their sizes were chosen because they might cause a violation
of ambient air quality standards regardless of their location. These were shopping
centers with gross leasable area greater than 800,000 square feet and sports
stadiums with seating capacity greater than 25,000. The deviation of these numbers
was dependent in part upon a technique which incorporated assumptions which were
subsequently found to be questionable. Consequently, States are advised to ignore
those proposed sizes and rely on techniques provided in this guideline for choosing
sizes which will be subject to review.
-------
7. § 51.18 paragraph (g)
Administrative procedures can be depicted 1n a flow diagram which Indicates
time Intervals between steps. Such a flow diagram 1s presented in Tab D.
There were a number of comments on the proposed regulations Indicating that
EPA should require the States to act on an application to construct within
a certain period of time. While EPA has no authority to do this, it does seem
reasonable that the review procedures include such a provision.
The plan should also provide a detailed list of the information which the
developer must supply to the reviewing agency. This can be submitted in a
sample application form. Item 2 of Appendix 0 of Part 51 lists some of the
information which should be supplied by the developer in order that an
»
evaluation of the air quality impact of a facility can be determined.
8. I 51.18 paragraph (h)
The State should provide a discussion of how it will provide public noti-
fication of the availability of both the application for approval to construct
and the analysis of the application, including proposed approval or disapproval.
The State might include a copy of a sample notice. The notice might take the
form of a legal notice together with a display advertisement. To help defray
the cost of such advertisement, the States might consider charging a permit
a permit application fee, or billing the applicant directly for advertisement
if these practices are within the legal constraints of the agency.
General
1. As with all plan revisions the State must follow the procedures pertaining
to public notice, public hearing and plan submission as indicated in 40 CFR Part
51, section 51.4, 51.5 and 51.6.
2. If the implementation of the new requirements will significantly increase the
funding and manpower requirements of an angency, States are advised to revise
information which they submitted pursuant to § 51.20 (Resources). If agencies
other than the air pollution control agency are given responsibility for the
-------
5
the review process, the resources which those agencies will allocate for this
purpose should also be submitted.
3. The States may want to Include 1n their regulations provisions for condi-
tional permission for construction of Indirect sources. Suggested conditions
which can be imposed on the developer Include:
- ambient air quality sampling in the vicinity of the proposed site prior
to beginning construction,
- estimation of the existing air quality in the vicinity of the proposed
site, prior to construction,
- provision for adequate public transportation to offset an increase in
mobile source activity which would'result in a violation of a standard.
4. For areas where ambient air quality standards are presently being exceeded,
but the air quality concentrations projected for the area will be below the
standard at the time the facility is put Into operation, then the facility
should be permitted, 1f it does not result in a violation of standards. Air
quality projections found in state implementation plans can be used for this
deteruination.
-------
TAB A - Example Screening Techniques for Review of Indirect Sources
One possible approach to Implementing the Indirect source review procedures is
to establish a screening technique which can be used to determine the depth of analysis
a source should receive. The major parameters 1n developing such a technique would be
the existing air quality at or near the proposed location of the source and the relative ,
size of the proposed source. An example of such a technique is illustrated in general
terms in Figure 1. The terms and parameters used in Figure 1 are discussed below:
1. Measured or estimated air quality at proposed site. States may wish to
require a developer to conduct air quality monitoring in order to accurately define
existing air quality. Alternatively, Appjendix I presents a technique for estimating
air quality at agiven site using air quality data from another location in the city.
2. hdicator of induced on-site air quality.
For a shopping center or sports complex, this parameter would likely be the
size of a parking area. However, the same size parking lot at different types of
indirect sources may likely result in different predictors of on-site air quality
/
due to the different operating chara'cteristies of cars (e.g., relatively uniform
traffic flow during the day at a shopping center versus short-term peaks at a
•
sports complex). Using average conditions of assumptions involving the operation
of vehicles within parking lots, the size of a shopping center parking lot can be roucj"
-elated to on-site air quality (see Tab C). For example, the assumptions in Tab C indicate
that a shopping center parking lot of approximately 40 acres would correspond to
on-site air quality that 1s about 60 percent of the 1-hour standard for CO.
3. Full analysis.
This analysis involves the evaluation of on-site air quality using the techni-
ques of Tab B and as well as an evaluation of the impact of on-site emissions on
air quality "hot spots" in the vicinity of the source. This latter analysis can be
performed using the area source modeling technique described on page 39 of Turner's
workbook.
-------
Where the off-site emissions may be significant (e.g., congestion on highways
leading to the source), the imapct should be analyzed using the line source calcu-
on page 40 of Turner's workbook or the HI WAY program.
4. On-s1te analysis
The on-s1te analysis can be relatively simple in cases where existing air
quality is very low (i.e., background and nearby source effects are negligible).
In such cases, the graphical techniques in Tab B can be used for evaluation. Where
background values are important, the full 8-step procedure in Tab B should be
followed.
Appendix II describes computer model'ing techniques which are, or will be,
available to Regional Offices to assist States in evaluating the impact of new
sources.
Appendix III presents a brief abstract of each of the modeling references
listed in the May 15, 1973, Federal Register.
-------
t
£
o or
<
z
Q
ill
U u.
r;
60
40
§ *«
§ fif »°
FU L-L.
NONE
NONE
MCASOR&D
S5TIMATED
SITE
AT
NAAQS)
FIGURF ........ 1
DETAIL OF ANALYSIS
A FUNCTIOI>4 OF SOURC6
AND EXISTING AIR
-------
APPENDIX I
Meteorological basis of "Nearby Point of High Concentration" Rule
This rule 1s Intended for the case where measured or calculated
^
air quality dataat tne S1te °f tne Proposed development are not
available. In that case, if them's an adequate emission inventory
and meteorological information and a computer capacity, the best
approach is probably to make a diffusion model estimate of the air
quality at the site, and a^ second estimate of air quality in the
site and its surroundings after the complex source is in operation.
Comparing these, the impact of this source can be determined. However
In most situations this will not be a practical alternative, because
i
the agency making the evaluation will not have those capabilities, nor
will it have the time to make this kind of evaluation for each site if
it had the capabilities.
Therefore the objective of this rule is to obtain a simplified
substitute for that procedure, which will give substantially the same
results that such a thorough study'would. Since this procedure is not
to be used to reject any project, but only to decide what level of
further study is needed, it should be somewhat conservative, i.e. err
on the side of predicting higher rather than lower concentrations.
Because the reviewing agency probably does not have a map wrch
pollutant isopleths of concentration under the worst conditions, but
probably does not have point values from its downtown measuring stations,
the question we are asking is "If the concentraiton at the city center
Is A, how much is the concentration B km away?"
-------
The procedure used 1s to convert the air flow over the city center
Into an equivalent line source, which can then be used 1n the well-known
line source solution (Turner p. 40). This Indicates how the air with the
highest measured concentration (normally the city center) dilutes as 1t
flows at low wind speed toward an outlying location where the complex
source will presumbably be located. For a line source (normally a highway)
the source strength (q) 1s normally specified 1n gm/sec m. The flux of a
pollutant across a line perpendicular to the wind at any point 1s:
q - flux - £*u * dh (1)
where u 1s the wind speed, "X the concentration,and h. the height above
the ground. If q 1s substituted for the source strength 1n Turner's
line source equation 5.18, we have
To simplify this, assume that the wind speed 1s Independent of height,
which brings It out of the Integral sign, 'and allows 1t to cancel the wind
speed In the denominator. . Next, refer to the's'ketch below, which shows
the probable height-concentration plot for a typical city-center pollutant.
The pollutant concentration should be practically uniform for the first
few tens of meters above ground level, and then decrease rapidly. To simply
the Integration, this rial pattern Is replaced with the rectangular pattern shown.
UI«
-------
The rectangular pattern allows us to replace the Integral with
\oround tlmejhj. We can also say that H In equation 2 Is l/2h, because
H must represent the average emission height. Making these substitutions,
-------
TABLE 1
Computed Values According to Eq(3)
Downwind Distance Km
fli (m)
hr/o-_ for h = 10
1 * h = 20
h = 30
l/2(h/2flr )2 for h = 10
z h = 20
h = 30
exp[-l/2(7r-)2] for h = 10
* h = 20
h = 30
0.1
37
3.
5
19
40
8.1
1
3
82
.26
.66
0.283
0.025
0.36
0.5
18
0.55
1.11
1.67
0.038
0.154
0.35
0.962
0.857
0.704
1.0
32
0.313
0.625
0.94
0.012
0.049
0.110
0.988
0.952
0.895
3.0
65
0.154
0.307
0.462
0.003
0.012
0.026
0.997
0.998
0,974
5.0
88
0.113
0.227
0.342
0.0016
0.0065
0.014
0.998
0.993
0.986
x/xgf = 0.797 (-
1/2 (
for h = 10
h «-20
h = 30
0.72
0.10
0
0.422
0.759
0.938
0.246
0.595
0.671
0.122
0.242
0.340
0.089
0.179
0.269
-------
APPENDIX II
UNAMAP
The Users Network for Applied Modeling of A1r Pollution (UNAMAP)
1s a system of diffusion models which can be accessed on Interactive
terminals (time-share option) at the EPA regional offices as well as
the Research Triangle Park offices. Three models are presently available
on this system:
1. APRAC. This 1s a short-term diffusion model that calculates
the automotive contribution to carbon monoxide concentrations. The model
was developed by Stanford Research Institute (SRI). A users manual is
available on the model (120 pages).
2. HIWAY. This is a line-source model which calculates
pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of a roadway. This model is
self-documenting in that all the necessary instructions appear on the
terminal telling the user what to do next.
3. COM (Climatological Dispersion Model). This is a multiple-
source urban diffusion model. It is a refinement of AQDM, and is on-
line. A users manual will be released 1n the near future.
Models available for placing on UNAMAP in the near future:
1. Several point source models described in the "Workbook
of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates" have been programmed. With a state-
ment of requirement and a modest amount of reprogramming, they can be
placed on UNAMAP in the near future.
2. A 24-hour point source model is available but needs to be
documented and reprogrammed before being placed on UNAMAP.
3. The Real-Time Air Quality Modeling (RAM) is a realtime
area-point source model v.tiich is yet to be documented. It is a candidate
for UNAMAP in 4-8 months.
•
4. The GEOMET multiple source, short-long term model is due for
final completion by July 1, 1973. This model will be compatible v-n'th
the Implementation Planning Program and, therefore, will provide a
source-contribution output and enable other features of the IPP model
to be operated. It is capable of being placed on UNAMAP late in 1P73.
5. A photochemical model is being prepared for UNAMAP. An
availability date for UNAMAP is tenuous.
Efforts are underway to incorporate the UNAMAP system into INFONET,
an interactive computer system contracted for by GSA. This system would
enable the models to be used by any user having access to appropriate
ADP terminal equipment.
-------
Appendix III - Abstracts of References Presented 1n June 15, 1973, Federal Register
1) Turner, D. B.; "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," PHS No.
999-AP-26 (1969). Useful for estimating concentrations from point sources
(e.g., Incinerators) which may be part of the complex. Also, provides
method for estimating area source concentrations.
(2) US EPA; "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," OAP No. AP-42
(Feb. 1972). Useful for determining emissions from mobile and stationary
sources,given operating characteristics of the sources.
(3) Briggs, G.A.; "Plume Rise"; TID-25075 (1969), Clearinghouse for Federal
Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Va. 22151. Useful to
compute the effective plume height of point source effluents. This is
needed to estimate ground level concentrations from point sources.
'4) Mancuso, R. L.; and Ludwig, F. L.; "Users Manual for the APRAC-1A Urban
Diffusion Model Computer Program," "Stanford Research Institute Report"
prepared for EPA under contract. CPA 3-68 (1-69) (Sept. 1972). Available
at Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Spring-
field, Va. 22151. Model which presents-methods for computing CO concentrations.
Can be adapted to estimate CO concentrations "In urban street canyons.
(5) Zimmerman, J. R., and Thompson, R. S.; "User's Guide for HIWAY," paper
under preparation, Met. Lab., EPA, RTP, N. C. Self-documenting model which
can be used to compute CO concentrations in the vicinity of at-grade highways.
(6) USGRA: "Proceedings of Symposium on Multi-Source Urban Diffusion Models,"
OAP Publication No. AP-86 (1970). General reference presenting various approaches
to estimating pollutant concentrations. Discusses how to model various types
of sources and the information needed for various models.
-------
(7) A1r Quality Implementation Planning Program, Volume I, Operators Manual,
PB 198-299 (1970). Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical
Information, Springfield, Va. 22151. Multi-source urban diffusion model
suitable for predicting long-term (monthly, annual) average concentrations.
Also estimates costs associated with various strategies of emission controls.
(8) Hanna, S. R.; "Simple Methods of Calculating Dispersion from Urban Area
Sources," paper presented at Conference on Air Pollution Meteorology, Raleigh,
N. C. (April 1971). Available at Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, Springfield, Va. 22151. Method which may be used to
compute concentrations resulting from area sources.
9
(9) ASME: "Recommended Guide for the Prediction of Dispersion of Airborne
Effluents," United Engineering Center, 345 E. 47th Street, New York, New
York 10017 (1968). General treatment discussing the impact of several
meteorological phenomena on pollutant Jispersion and methods of calculating
peak crncentraticr resulting from these phenomena.
(10) Slade, D. H. (editor): "Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USAEC (1968).
A general reference presenting meteorological and diffusion theory fundamen-
tals which can be used to estimate pollutant-dispersion. Availab . as TID-
24190 from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information,
National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfie'Ic, VA
22151.
-------
TAB B - Technique for Predicting On-S1te A1r Quality at Complex Sources
This recommended technique requires that one estimate what the maximum impact of
d proposed cpmplex may be over a 1-hour and 8-hour period at a sensitive receptor under un-
favorable meteorological conditions. Meteorological assumptions used in the analysis are
Class D atmospheric stability with a steady wind speed of 1 m/sec from a direction placing
the receptor in such a position to sustain the maximum impact of CO emissions. The recommen-
ded technique requires that the impact of four different types of emissions be assessed
on 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations. These concentrations result from:
(1) General background concentrations from sources in the environs of the pro-
posed complex;
(2) concentrations from large point source emissions of CO which would occur
within the proposed complex;
(3) concentrations from sources which are immediately adjacent to the sensitive
receptor, and
(4) concentrations resulting from sources within the complex which are not
immediately adjacent to the sensitive receptor.
An 8 step procedure used to estimate the maximum impact of a proposed complex on 1-hour
and 8-hour CO concentrations. Some of the salient features of this procedure are discussed
in more detail in accompanying enclosure 2. In this procedure, it is assumed that the maxi-
mum impact of the complex will be exhibited at a roadside receptor within or'immediately
adjacent to the complex.
Step 1: Compute Peak Background Concentrations
(a) Require developers of major complexes to monitor CO concentrations at the site
of the proposed complex in a sufficient manner to obtain a statistically valid sample.
(b) If it is considered impractical to require the developer of a given complex
to monitor CO concentrations, utilize previous observations at the most appropriate loca-
tion to estimate 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations. (See Appendix 1 of Tab A)
(c) If neither (a) nor (b) is possible, it would be necessary for the appropriate
control agency to obtain enough CO measurements to form a statistically valid sample from
which to compute peak background concentrations of CO;'
Step 2; Convert Peak Background Concentrations to an Equivalent Emission
Intensity within the Proposed Complex
Use Figure 1, plotting isoconcentration lines on a graph of source intensity vs.
the complexes' dimension directly upwind from the receptor, and move to the right until
reaching the isoconcentration lines corresponding to those obtained in Step 1 for 1-hour
and 8-hour concentrations. Note the corresponding emission intensities on the abscissa,
Q.. These represent the uniform emission intensities within the complex which would
result in the predicted background concentrations at the receptor under the assumed
meteorological conditions. Figure 1 was derived using a technique similar to one used
by Hanna.2
-------
Step 3; Estimate Maximum Ground Level Concentration of CO from
Any Large Stationary Point Source of CO Which Would be A Part of
the Complex
Since large stationary point sources of CO are relatively
unimportant compared to automotive sources, this step and Step 4 could
be skipped frequently. The concentration of CO at the chosen receptor
resulting from a point source which would be part of the proposed complex
should be estimated using Figure 3-5D in the Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates (PHS Publication 999-AP-26)3.The concentration at
the receptor wouldT be obtained from the £" value resulting from use of
this figure by dividing this value by a "u" of 1 m/sec and multiplying
the peak average emission rate considered likely for the point source
over 8-hour and 1-hour periods.
r
Step 4: Convert Concentration Estimated from Point Sources to
Equivalent Emission Intensity within the Proposed Complex
This is done using a procedure identical with that described
in Step 2. The result is an equivalent emission intensity Q_.
Step 5: Estimate the Concentration at the Chosen Receptor Resulting
From Sources in the Immediate Vicinity of the Receptor
I Mrt PV«n».i II I I II* I I . B^K»BK IB II • MB IB..I IM«imi -I I m —- J • m^^^^mml I I •• ~«_^—A_«M^«P^B^B«. ^
Since it is assumed that the maximum impact of the proposed
complex occurs beside roads or traffic lanes which will be located within
or a jc._ent to the proposed complex, a line source model (HTW/W^ ^s
been used to derive Figure 2 which relates concentration to -atfic flow
whtn the wind blows at various angles to the roadway. Enter Frjure 2
on tht abscissa corresponding to the. estimated peak traffic load for
8-hour and 1-hour periods and read the resulting concentration on the
ordinate corresponding to the wind angle giving the highest cc icenfation.
A more detailed description of how to use Figure 2 is given in the
examples in Enclosure 1.
Step 6; Convert Concentrations Estimated from Nearby Source^ .0
Equivalent Emission Intensity within the Proposed Complex
This is done using a procedure identical with that described
In Step 2. The result is an equivalent emission intensity Qn.
Step 7: Determine the Emission Intensity within the Proposed Complex
Corresponding with the 8-Hour and 1-HourNAAQS
Using Figure 1, follow the appropriate isoconcentrat.on line
(9 ppm for 8-hour NAAQS, and 35 ppm for 1-hour NAAQS) until the ordinate
corresponding to the proposed complexes' longest dimension is reached.
Note the corresponding emission density,
-------
t
Step 8: Determine Allowable Emission Intensity within the Complex
and Compare this with the Estimated Emission Intensity
The allowable emission Intensity 1s determined by subtracting
the emission Intensities obtained 1n Steps 2, 4 and 6 from the Intensity
obtained in Step 8.
'ALLOW = ^std - Qb ' QP - ^
CALLOW 1s tfien cornPared w1tn tne emission Intensity estimated for the
complex a priori. Suggestions how to make such estimates have already
been supplied to Mr. John Fink for shopping centers and sports complexes
in letters dated March 29 and April 3. Suggestions on how to estimate
the Intensities for other complex sources will be supplied in Enclosure 2.
If the proposed complexes' estimated emission intensities exceed
CALLOW or some sPecifiecl fraction thereof, provision must be made for
a detailed Environmental Impact Statement in which various design alter-
natives and site locations should be considered.
Edwin L. Meyer,
Engineer
Mo-.,t:i Application Section
Source Receptor Analysis Branch
Enclosures
(1) Examples of the Evaluation Technique
(2) Salient Features of the Proposed Technique
-------
References
1. Larsen, R.I., "A Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality
Measurements to A1r Quality Standards" OAP Publication No. AP-89,
(Nov. 71).
2. Hanna, S.R., "A Simple Method of Calculating Dispersion from Urban
Area Sources" JAPCA 21 pp. T14-777, (1971).
3. Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Diffusion Estimates", USPHS
Publication No. AP-26, (1971).
4. Zimmerman, J.R. and Thompson, R.S., "Users Guide for HIWAY", paper
under preparation, Met. Lab., EPA, RTP, N.C.
-------
4 5678
Tr-<*£ F 'C,
-------
-- <3c/«*^/o^k
-------
Enclosure 1
Examples Illustrating the Proposed Technique for Evaluating the
Direct Impact of Complex Sources on Air Quality
Example 1. Problem: A housing complex containing 500 living units
is proposed for an area whose peak background concentrations have
been observed to be 11 ppm over a 1-hr, period and 3 ppm over an
8-hour period. It is cassumed that the peak concentrations will occur
at a roadside within the proposed complex located as shown. Traffic
on this road is estimated at 300 vph for 1-hr, and 100 vph for 8-hrs.
The dimensions of the complex are also pictured below. There are
no significant point sources of CO contemplated within the complex.
Required; What -is the estimated emission density for the complex
above which a detailed EIS and perhaps some re-design may be required?
"*
/ t/M
Solution:
l-hr
(2) Using Fig. 1, for 1-hr., .
Qb = 1.49 x 10-4 gm/sec-m2
3 ppm; upwind dimension B 2 km
for 8-hr
-5 2
» 4.05 x 10 gm/sec-m
(3)-(4) Since there are no large point sources of CO planned
within the complex, Q = 0
-------
(5) Using the 10° wind angle 1n Fig. 2,
For 1-hr.
Cj - 6.0 ppm
For 8-:hr.
Cfi,= 1.9 ppm
(6) From Fig. 1,
For 1-hr., Qn = 8.4 x 10~5 gm/sec-m2
For 8-hr. ,'Qn = 2.6x 10"5 gm/sec-m2
(7) For 1-hn, Qstd = 4.0 x 10~4 gm/sec-m2
For 8-hr.,Qstd = 1.1 x 10~4 gm/sec-m2
(8) For 1-hr.
Qallow = 4<0 x 10"4 " K49 x 10"4 - ° • 8 ' -• 10~5
1-hr. Qallow = 1.67 x 10"4 gm/sec-m2
For 8-hr _. - >5 c
Qallow = i 1 x 10 "•- 4.05 x 10 - 0 - 2.6 x 10"5
8-hr. Qillow =4.35 x 10"5 gm/sec:m2
Hence, if the estimatpd oeak 1-hr. emj.s.sion dens-ity for the
complex exceeds 1.67 x 10~4 nm/sec-m2 or the estimated peak 8~hr.
emission density exceeds 4.35 x 10-5 gm/sec-m , a detailed
environmental impact study should be required for the complex
and redesign or relocation may be necessary.
Example 2
Problem: A shopping center is proposed in an area in which 6
ppm and 2 ppm peak 1-hr, and 8-hr, concentrations have been observed.
There are no large noint sources of CO contemplated within the center.
Maximum impact is assumed to occur at residences across the street
from the main entrance to the proposed center. Maximum traffic at
the center's major entrance (road 1) is 300 vph over 1-hr, and 100 vph
-------
Enclosure 2
Features of the Proposed Technique to Estimate the Impact of
Complex Sources on Air Quality
There are a number of assumptions which are made or Implied
by the proposed technique for estimating the impact of a complex source
on air quality. Most of these assumptions are conservative ones, and
the end result is a technique which gives a conservative estimate of
the complexe's immediate impact. These assumptions and the rationale
behind them are listed below. Assumptions which are believed to be
conservative are so indicated.
Meteorological assumptions: Class D atmospheric stability,
steady wind of Im/sec and unlimited mixing depth. As a re-
sult of the types of surfaces likely to be encountered in
areas where complexes would be developed, and the mechanical
turbulence generated by vehicles as well as the heat of their
discharges, Class D stability was regarded as the most stable
atmospheric conditions likely to persist during periods when
the impact of traffic generated by the complex was likely to
be greatest. A steady wind of Im/sec is a conservative
assumption, since speeds this low are unlikely to persist
from a single direction (and the direction maximizing the
impact of the complex, at that) for 8, or even 1, hours.
Assumptions about mixing depth are probably only important
for estimating background concentrations. Since the technique
either utilizes observations directly to estimate background
concentralk.is or estimates background concentrations using
a ;,.,. tistical model based.on observations, the effect of
11.r^ted mixing depth is felt to be inherently accounted ;or.
The assumption, inherent in the technique, that the maximum
(C^g gg) background concentration, point source center!ine
concentration and maximum contribution from immediately
adjacent roadways all occur at the same receptor point is an
extremely conservative one. It is justified on the basis
that one is concerned with estimating the maximum impact of
the source and whether this impact could pose any danger to
NAAQS. Since there are undoubtedly a number of uncertainties
in estimating,a priori, emissions resulting from a complex
source, this assumption provides a factor of safety.
Step 1 assumes that there are no significant existing point
sources of CO, such as a large, inefficient incinerator, in
the immediate vicinity of the receptor. If this assumption
could not be made, heavier reliance on direct observation
of background concentrations and corresponding meteorological
conditions would be needed.
-------
The model upon which Figure 1 (used 1n Steps 2, 4, 6 and 7) 1s based
Innores "edge effects." A more complete analysis could not
necessarily do this. The procedure used in the recommended
technique is justified on the basis that the most severe
impact of the complex will most likely occur at a section
where the edge effects are of minor importance.
The rationale behind Steps 2, 4, 6 and 7 is that CO con-
centrations at the chosen receptor site resulting from
background sources, proposed point sources within the complex
and sources in the immediate vicinity of the receptor
diminish the emission density which would be allowable from
the proposed complex.
Use of Fig. 3-5D in the Workbook requires one to first
estimate the effective pTume height for the point source.
This requires knowledge of certain operating parameters for
the source which may not be available. Under the meteorological
assumptions assumed with the recommended technique, an
assumption that the effective plume height is twice the physical
stack height would seem reasonable. Such an assumption depends
on the relatively large plume rise resulting with low wind
speeds being compensated for by the low temperature of effluents
likely to result.from stationary sources of CO.
In constructing Figure 2, needea in Sr 5, it was necessary
to use emission factors to relate traffic count to CO emissions.
OAP Publication No. ^P-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Fac.i.ors," (Feb. '72) was used for this purpose. A
number of assumptions were made to derive the emission factors:
(•a; H/5 mix of vehicles—seemed reasonable in view
of the fact that these guidelines are to be applied
to proposed rather than existing complexes;
»• »
(b) urban travel conditions
(c) average vehicle speed 5 mph—it was assumed that the
maximum impact would either occur at an exit to the
complex where traffic was moving very slowly, or at
a traffic signal within or adjacent to a complex.
In constructing Fig. 2 by using the HIV/AY model, a road
length of 200m was assumed in order to be conservative. This
means that a vehicle as far as 200m from the receptor could
contribute slightly to the CO concentration estimated at the
receptor—particularly when the wind angle with the road centerline
-------
Is a small one. While vehicles distant from the receptor
make a disproportionately small contribution to the receptor
(.i.e. concentrations resulting from a zero degree wind angle
with a road 100 m long would be much greater than 1/2 those
from a road 200 m long) this assumption may be unduly con-
servative. If experience proves this to be the case, Fiaure
2 could be easily based o.n a shorter road segment and redrawn.
Requiring one to use the ordinate in Figure 1 corresponding
to the complexe's longest dimension in Step 7 is not entirely
consistent with Steps 2, 4 and 6 where the ordinate used depends
on the-.orientation of the source and receptor with respect to
the critical wind direction. Step 7 is conservative and also
simplifies the process of evaluation.
Step 8 assumes that an emission intensity has been estimated
a priori for the complex source being evaluated. In order to
be complete, guidelines should suggest ways in which this could
be done. It would seem desirable to require the developer to
provide the States or Regional Offices with a few key design
parameters which could then be used by the States or Regions to
derive estimates for maximum emission intensity likely to occur
over 1-hour and 8-hour periods. Table 1 includes several complex
sources, key parameters which should be supplied by developers
and assumptions wh'ich would have to be made by State and/or
Regional personnel in estimating envr.ion intensities.
-------
TABLE 1. ESTIMATING EMISSION DENSITIES
Source
Shopping Centers
Sports Complexes
Housing Develop-
ments
Key Parameters
1.
2.
1.
2.
Gross Leaseable Floor Space
Required Parkino Lot Size
Seating Capacity
Parking lot size and
capaci ty
1. Size of area
2. Number of living units
Assumptions Needed to Derive
Estimated Emission Intensity
1. Vehicle Speed*
2. Year of Auto "Mix"*
3. Area occupied by single vehicle
4. Fraction of total area which may be
occupied by vehicles
5. Maximum number of vehicles running
simultaneously for 1-hr, and 8-hr.
periods
* This information is needed to compute
emission factors for a single vehicle
as specified in GAP publication No. AP-42
•
1. Vehicle speed and mix
2. Area occupied by a single vehicle
3. -Fraction of total area occupied by
vehicles
4. Maximum number of vehicles running
simultaneously for 8-hr, and 1-hr.
periods.
1. Number of vehicles per family
2. Vehicle speed and mix
3. Maximum number of vehicles running
simultaneously for 1-hour and
' 8-tiour periods
-------
TAB C - Technique for estimating size- of facilities subject to review
For estimating the size of a parking lot for a particular facility, above
which will result in a local violation of the carbon monoxide standard, assumptions
must be made concerning the behavior of motor vehicles in that parking lot under
estimated worst conditions. One refernce on parking lot design* gives dimensions
of parking spaces. A parking unit is defined as two parking stalls plus an aisle.
For parking stalls at 90° to the aisle, the maximum dimensions for the unit is 65
feet by 10 feet, for a two-way aisle. This amounts to a space requirement of 650
ft2/2 stalls = 325 ft2/stall.
Automobile behavior in a parking lot can be assumed, although if such behavior
is known, the more valid information should be used. Assuming for a worst-case
example that vehicles travel an average of five miles per hour in the lot (which
includes the time they are idling) and the travel is of an urban (stop-and-go)
ther than a rural (more or less steady <-->2ed) type, Compilation of Air Pollution
Factors** yields an emission factor of 60 g CO/vehide-mile for a 1975 distribution
of automobile agean(j an (extrapolated), speed adjustment factor of 3.0. Therefore,
the emission rate, Q, is:
n = fSOgCO } /5 miles) u Q\ _ 900 g CO
w ~ vvehicle mile/V, hour / t-3
-------
(r-
"or particular areas, compensation should be made for existing air quality.
(1) Parking lots for shopping centers, commercial and Industrial developments.
amusement parks, and recreational areas
Activity 1n terms of trips generated 1n these facilities will probably be
spread out over an 8-12 hour period, with a peak-to-off-peak hour ratio of
perhaps 2 to 4. Two worst condition analyses will be necessary—one for the
worst peak hour and one for the worst 8-hour period, to determine which standard
(the one-hour standard of 35 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) will be
the limiting standard for the maximum parking area.
(a) Worst peak hour
An estimate must be made of *the number of vehicles running in the
parking lot at any one time during the worst peak hour. For purposes of
illustration, assume that the parking lot contains one vehicle per each
stall (full lot) and that of these , 10 p* -cent are operating at any
one time. The emission density, E. is then calculated as follows:
P -fo3 9 r-0 v) /I hr. VI stalM vehicles/IP.8 ft2 \ ,n ln»
Ll-hr "(vehicle-hr/ U600 secy\325 ftz/(.l stall ./(.TfnZ/ vU u;
* 8.31 x 10"4 g CO/se'c-m2
If we assume a constant wind speed of 1 m/sec and constant wind direction
•
with class "D" atmospheric stability, the graphical relationship given in
*• •
Figure 1 of Appendix 0 of 40 CFR Part 51 can be used to determine the
maximum parking area. To achieve a downwind edge concentration of less
than 35 ppm, the area must be no longer than approximately 520 meters on
a side, which corresponds to a square area of approximately 67 acres.
(b) Worst 8-hour
For illustrative purposes, assume that for 8 hours, there are only
three-fourths the number of vehicles as parking stalls and that only 4
percent of these vehicles are operating at any one tiine over the 8 hour
period. The 8-hour emission density, E, is calculated as follows:
-------
/900 g CO \ /I hr \ /Lstall \ /0.75 vehiclel /1 0.8 ft2) ,
\yehi cle-Kr/UeOO sec./l325 Ft*/(. 1 stall /(T"inZ / (u-
F
L8-hr
- 2.49 x 10~4 g CO/sec-m2
From Figure 1 1n Appendix 0, to achieve a downwind edge concentration of
less than 9 ppm (8-hour standard), the lot area must be no longer than
approximately 400 meters on a side, which corresponds to a square area
of approximately 40 acres.
Therefore, under the assumptions made above, CO standard would be
the 8-hour standard, since the above calculations yielded a smaller area
for the 8-hour condition than for the one-hour condition.
*
2. Parking lots for sports stadiums, and centers which cater to affairs
in which patrons leave at one time.
Maximum mobile source activity from those facilities will probably occur
over a short time period, perhaps an hour or less. Assume, for example, that
the parking lot is full and that 15 percent of the vehicles are running at any
one time. The one-hour emission density, E, is then calculated as fcl.ows:
•
F -/900 g CO \/l hr ]/l stall ]/l vehicle) /1 0.8 ft.2) , ,,* '
L ~(yehicle-hrA3600 sec/(325 ft2 A 1 stall J[ in2 ') ^'™>
= 1.25 x 10"3 g CO/sec-m2 *
*- •
From Figure 1 in Appendix 0, to achieve a downwind edge concentration f
less than 35 ppm (1-hour standard), the parking area must be no longer than
approximately 260 meters on a side, which corresponds to a square area of
approximately 17 acres.
-------
Figure 1
COMPLEX SOURCE TIME SCHEDULE
1973
1. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - DECISION
NRDC v. EPA
2. EPA MET WITH NRDC
PETITION THE COURT - ESTABLISHED
A TIME SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS
3. DISAPPROVAL OF SIP
4. PROPOSED REGULATIONS FEDERAL REGISTER
5. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED-REGULATIONS
6. COMPLEX SOURCE REGULATIONS
»
7. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
8. APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL NOTICES AND PLAN PROPOSALS
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROMULGATION
10. REGIONAL FINDINGS TO CPDD
11. COMPLETION OF FEDERAL REGISTER PROMULGATION
PACKAGE
12. FINAL PROMULGATION
JANUARY 31
MID FEBRUARY
MARCH 8
APRIL 18
MAY 18
JUNE 18
AUGUST 15
OCTOBER 15
NOVEMBER 15-20
NOVEMBER 27
DECEMBER 10
DECEMBER 15
-------
CM
0>
Dates:
:L
1(6 copies)
PROCESSING PROCEDURE.
COMPLEX SOURCE
STAT. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
8-15-73
8-20-73
9-5-73
9-25-73
REGIONAL
OFFICE
(1 copy)
-Air and Water Division
-Regional Councel
-Surveillance and
Analysis Division
PLAN PROMULGATION ACTIONS
CPDD
(3 copies)
-Official File
-Federal Register
-Public ffairs
COMMENTS TO
REGIONAL
OFFICE
CPDD
FEDERAL
REGISTER
A/D
PACKAGE
V
/
CPDD
ASSEMBLE
FINAL
FEDERAL
REGISTER
PACKAGE
10-10-73
OAWP
PROCESSING
EDERAL
REGISTER
10-15-73
RESPONSIBILITIES
i. REGION:L OFFICES - COMPREHENSIVF .AN REVIEW, PREPARATION OF, FEDERAL REGISTER APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL ACTIONS
2. OEGC - GENERAL OVERVIEW C 51.11 (LEGAL AU.HORITY) AND 51.18 (PROCEDURES). PROVIDE REVIEW AND COMMENT TO REGION
OFFICES.
3. CPDD - GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PLAN SUBMITTALS, PROVIDE COMMENTS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO REGIONAL OFFICES. WILL
JNSOLIDATE TO REGIONAL OFFICES FEDERAL REGISTER APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL PACKAGE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR
JBLICATION. WILL PREPARE
^
O
-------
PUN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Dates
June 18
June 25
July 1
August 1-5 August 5
August 15
C
FEDERAL REGISTER
PROMULGATION
9
REGIONAL OFFICE
GUIDANCE TO
STATES
?
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICES
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
X
FINAL
PLAN
PREPARATION
X.
/
SUBMIT!;..
TO
EPA
PROPOSED SIP
FINALIZED j
-------
\\
TAB D
Applicant submits application
for approval to construct
ppn cation
complete
Agency advertises
immediate availability
of application and
later availability of
analysis - comments
solicited
NQ ^Agency returns
application with reasons
Agency performs
analysis on air
quality impact
10 days
Agency notifies EPA
and other air pollution
control agencies in
region
Agency makes
tentative decision
on approval
Agency makes
analysis and
proposed deci-
sion available
30 days
^Agency grants
permit to
[construct
5 d
/ approv al
V.
Agency considers
comments - revises
analysis and/or
decision
ays
\
f
decision
on
application
disapproval N
rr ^
conditional \
approval
Agency informs
applicant of
decision and
states reasons
Agency grants
conditional
permit
-------
.."• ;.'• v-V.v>::/>:/::'TiTLE 40 -. PROTECTION: OF ENVIRONMENT . " •' -•-• : '..'/.;:: '• . :
;..-. .-. ... •'.:•',•»•••••• it.-. .-Chapter-1 -.Environmental.Protection Agency •'•••• '•••' ••-.•••. ••••-.:.'•
' i ' "" ' * j ...
/:;-•>:./-./• ".'.-.-••. -Subchapter C - Air Programs :-...• ...
.-. .-Part 51— Preparation, Adopt-ion,• and Submittal of Implementation Plans
Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
On August 14, 1971 (36 FR 15486),*the Administrator of the Environmental
-. Protection Agency promulgated as 42 CFR Part 420 regulations for the prepara-
tion, adoption, and submittal of State Implementation Plans under section 110
of the Clean Air Act, as amended. These regulations were republished
November 25, 1971 (36 FR 22369), as 40 CFR Part 51.
On April 18,'1973 (38~FR 9599), the Administrator proposed amendments
to those regulations-designed primarily to expand the scope of review
prior to construction or modification of b ;. ings, facilities, and instal-
lations so as to require consideration of the air quality impact not only
.of'.pollutants , :ttr>d directly from stationary sources (consideration of
.which was already required by ZQ CFR 51) but also of pollution arisiriy
from mobile source activity associated with such buildings, facilities,
and installations. The proposed amendments were, and still are, considered
.a necessary addition to the Federal-State system for implementing, and more
particularly, for maintaining, the national ambient air quality standards.
In the preamble to the proposed amendments, the Administrator called
attention to the importance of analyzing the general growth of population,
industrial activity, and mobile sources in relation to regional air
quality. The Administrator did not propose to require such analysis,
but urged that States con's i dor the use of such procedures, A number of
comments were received urging that such analysis be required on the ground
-------
that preconstruction review of Individual sources could not adequately deal
with generalized growth and its- impact on regional air quality. It
Is the Administrator's judgment that such procedures, in addition to
review of new or modified sources, are necessary to ensure maintenance of
the national standards, particularly because source-by-source analysis
is not an adequate means of evaluating, on a regional scale, the air
quality impact of growth and development. Consequently, the regulation
•\promulgated below includes the following additional requirements:
__\t
1. Within nine months, States must identify those areas (counties,
"""" - - ' *v
urbanized areas, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, etc.) which, due
to current air quality and/or projected growth rate, "may have the potential
.for exceeding any national standard within the next ten-year period.
\ . .
2. Based on this information submitted by States, the Administrator
wiii (juuiisu a i i:>c ui poteuiidi problem drCc'- "wiiicli wiil ut analyzed in
• more detail by the States; interested persons will, have an opportunity to
comment on the published list. . ; . •
3. Within 24 months of the date of promulgation of these regulations, -
States must submit an analysis of the impact on air quality of projected
"> • ' • •
growth in each potential problem area designated by the Administrator.
Where necessary! plans must also be submitted describing the measures that
^
will be taken to ensure maintenance of the national standards during the
ensuing ten-year period. .
The required analysis will have to deal with all the significant
air quality implications of growth and development, including not only
the increased air pollution arising directly from new commercial, industrial,
-------
- .3
•and residential development but also that arising from increases in demand
•
for electricity and heat, motor vehicle traffic, and pr&duction of solid
waste. /-.-'..••.••-..'. • . ' .
'•••.-
4. The above considerations must be reanalyzed at five-year intervals.
Individual source review generally is more practicable and meaningful
• *
with respect to the localized impact of a single source. Furthermore,
for pollutants such as hydrocarbons and nitric.oxide, which affect air
quality through complex atmospheric reactions resulting in the formation
of photochemical oxidants and nitrogen dioxide, analytical tools that can
be used with confidence to'predict the air quality impact of a single source
are not now available. ' •
As a result of the corrjnents receiveJ, s number of additional changes
have been made to the proposed wndments. The changes, described below,
qiicui i. .'ic • cip i emeu -ac i uii \Jiu\\ piuvi^iOn:> miidl otatcS \n i i i nave Co Suuuuc
by August ib, lhT/3, in response to that portion of these regulations which
prescribes new and modified source review procedure",
1. Where the State de:.-'-.Mnates a governmental agency ;>ther t :n
air pollution control agency to carry, out the new source re-^'ew procedures,
that agency is required to consult with th-e State air pollution contiol agency
prior to rendering its decision. This requirement will assure proper
coordination regarding air pollution matters and appropriate use of existing
technical expertise. • • :
t i
2. State plans must describe the basis for determining whirh facilities
will be subject to the- new sourer review ^; i.cc'ilur'es,
3. State plans must describe the administrative procedures to be
used in implementing the new source review requirements.
-------
4
4. In States where the specified 30-c.v period for subnrjttal of
public comment conflicts with existing legal requirements for acting
on requests for permission to ronstruct or modify, the State may submit
for approval a comment period which 1s consistent with the existing
requirements.
5. The agency responsible for new source review must notify all
State and local air pollution control agencies with jurisdiction
'within an air quality control region v/henever it receives a request
for permission to construct or modify a facility within the region.
This requirement ic intended to ensure that such agencies have
adequate opportunity-to comment on a proposed source which is to
be located in another jurisdiction but may affect air quality
.in their own jurisdiction. • •. '
u. IHU iuyyti t'lOii^ picv'lO'uSijr "ul^i uucU " in nppcnu i X O.nicn ic^pcCt tO
sizes of facilities to be covered bj new source review procedures have been
replaced by a description of a more objective technique which States can
use in making this determination.
Several comments were received which questioned whether EPA has
legal authority to promulgate requirements for review of the indirect
impact of new or modified sources, i.e., the impact arising .from associated
mobile source activity. Essentially, the argument was made that EPA's
authority in this regard is limited to requiring an assessment of the air
quality impact of pollutants emitted directly from stationary sources.
EPA believes that this argument is inconsistent with the provisions
-------
5
of section 110(a)(2)(B), which requires that'Implementation plans Include
•'...such other measures .as may be necessary to Insure attainment and
maintenance of such primary and.secondary standard, Including, but
• • ' • ' '' ' » '
. not limited to, land-use and transportation controls." In the
Administrator's judgment, review of the Indirect Impact of new. or
modified sources Is just as necessary to ensure maintenance of the
national standards as 1s review of the direct Impact.
A number of comments were received suggesting that the
Administrator specify or otherwise limit the responsibility for the
new source review/approval procedure to certain types of governmental
*
agencies (e.g., only the State or only an air pollution control agency).
The changes discussed above are designed in oart, to ensure proper
coordination of, and Input from, all appropriate agencies. It is the
Administrator's judgment that the requirement .for consultation with
cognizant i>\t pollution control agencies is adequate to ensiT^
appropriate consideration of air quality in those cases where "o l.tate
or local decision-making agency is not itself an air pollution cm!. :s
agency.
A number of air poifir. .on control agencies suggested that
the public cogent requirements would impose an unnecessary burden,
since it will involve the public in what they characterized as largely
a technical judgment. Other groups requested that public participation
be expanded to include opportunity for a public hearing, not just the
opportunity to_submit written consents. In the Administrator's judgment,
the proposed requirement for public comment represented a reasonable
-------
6
b.alance between these conflicting positions and was consistent with
the emphasis in the Act on public participation In developing and
carrying out the Implementation plans. Accordingly, 1t 1s not being
modified.
There Were a number of suggestions as to the factors, other than the
• *
Impact of mobile source activity, that should be examined during the new
source review process, including:
1. The "displaced" stationary source emissions resulting from the
operation of a new facility (e.g., the load a facility places
on existing power plants and incinerators).
2. The construction phase of a facility.
3. Whether the facility itself may, in effect, create a new
receptor point where air quality standards m-'st be attained and
maintained (e.g., . Duiiding consX". ucteo over a freeway or in an
area impacted by an existing ste :K. plume).
4. Whether . .a^i;it. < shpuld be allowed to "use up" the entire
*
air resource in a given area.
The Administrator believes that 'it is neither necessary nor practicable
to specify in detail the possible considerations which States must examine
1n reviewing new facilities. ;n general, States should consider air
pollution aspects of a new facility which are not adequately covered by
other provisions in the implementation plan. For example, existing
nuisance and fugitive regulations may be adequate to deal with the construction
— i
phase of a facility. "Displaced" stationary source emissions are much more
significant as a by-product of general growth and development, and should be
assessed in that context, rather than in relation to any individual source.
-------
7
Finally, it would seem prudent for a State to avoid a situation whore a
source would "use up" the entire air resource in an area; however, the
•
.Administrator cannot require that States allocate their air resources in
*' ,
* *''
any given manner. . . . .
One comment suggested that the Administrator require that States
adopt procedures to implement the authority required under 40 CFR 51.11(c)
(4) to prevent operation of a new or existing source which intereferes wit
\attainment or maintenance-of a national standard. Under 40 CFR 51.11(a)(2
States already are required to have legal'authority to enforce their imple-
mentation plans, including'authority to seek injunctive relief. Further-
V . « ''
more, where an implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain
and maintain a national standard, it unt be revised. Accordingly, it is
\
EPA's position that it is not necessary .to require States to adopt additi:
procedL'.-'-s for preventing the operation ot sources. -
it is emphasized thnt these regulations arc not inter ie'1. ^nd should
not be'r?nstrued; to mean that the only choice? ^rn to M:ate and local
agencies are to approve •:*• disapprove construction or modific. <,i.. ••, Wher=
t
a facility can be designed and/.or located so as to be compatible with ir.ir:
nance of national standards'or provtcfod vn'th services, e.g., mass transit:
> \
•» • i
that will make it compatible, States and local agencies, as well as facil:
t '
avners-and operators, should explore such possibilities.
EPA, through its Regional Offices, will provide assistance to '+,e
*
States in: '
1. Determining types ?nd sizes of sources which should be subject
to the new source review procedures;
-------
8
2. Developing the technical procedures to be used 1n analzylng the
air quality Impact of Individual sources;
3. Identifying areas which may exceed a national standard within the
next ten years; and I
A. Analyzing the impact of general growth and development 1n such
problem areas. .
These amendments are being promulgated pursuant to an order of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the
case~of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., e't al. v. EPA, case No.
.72-1522, and seven related cases, which order was entered January 31, 1973,
»
and modified February 12, 1973. States will be required to submit their
plan revisions to comply with these new requirements involving new source
•review procedures no later than August 15, 1973. After such submission, the
Environmental Protection Agency will have two"mbnths to review and approve
or disapprove the revisions and an additional two months to propose and pro-
mulgate regulations to replace any disapproved State procedures. As discussed
above, the identification of potential problem areas must be submitted within
12 months and the detailed analysis and plan dealing with these problem areas
are due within 24 months of the date of promulgation of these regulations.
These amendments to Part 51 of Chapter I, Title 40, are effective
upon publication.
Authority: Sections 110 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 1857c-5, 1857g(a)). •
Dated
Administrator
-------
9
•»
Part 51 of Chapter I, Title 40-of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
1. In 1 51.1, paragraphs (f) and (g) are revised to read as
fol1ows:
I 51.1 Definitions.
*
* * * * * '
(f) "Owner or operator" means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls,
or supervises a facility, building, structure, or installation which
directly or indirectly results or may result in emissions of any
air pollutant for v/hjch a national standard is in effect.
.
*****
(g) "Local agency" means any local governp- it agency, other than the State
agency, which is charged with the responsibility for carrying out a portion
of a plan.
V"
* v * * *
2. In 151.5, paragraph (a)(3)is added as follows:
S51.5 Submit ion of plans; preliminary review of plans.
(a) * * *
* ss
(3) For conipl-lance with the requirements of ss51.ll (a)(4) and f.18, no
*' *
later than August 15, 1973.
3. In I 51.11, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows:
I 51.11 Legal authority.
(a) * * *
(4) Prevent construction, modification, or operation of a facility,
building, structure, or" installation, or cornbinatioi thereof, which '
directly or indirectly results or may result in emissions of any air"
pollutant at any location which will prevent the attainment or mainte-
nance of a national standard.
-------
10
4. In i 51.12, paragraphs (e), (f.), (g) ancT(h) are added as follows:
§ 51.12 Control strategy: General
• _ \
* . * * * *
(e) The plan shall Identify those areas (counties, urbanized areas, Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, etc.) which, due to current air quality and/or
projected growth rate, may have the potential for exceeding any national standard
within the subsequent ten-year period.
•
(1) For each such area Identified, the plan shall generally describe
ttie Intended method and timing for producing the analysis and plan
required by paragraph (g).
»
(2) The area Identification and description of method and timing
required by this paragraph shall be submitted no later than nine
months following the effective date .of this paragraph.
(3) At five-year intervals, the area 1der ification shall be
Ssr''
reassessed to determine if additional areas should be subject to the
requirements of paragraph- (g).
(f) Based on the information submitted by the States pursuant to paragraph (e)
of this section, the Administrator will publish, within 12 months of
the effective date of this paragraph, a list of the areas v/h1ch sha'il be
subject to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section.
(g) For each area identified by the Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (f) of'this section, the State shall submit, no later than
24 months following the effective date of this paragraph, the following:
(1) An analysis of the impact on air quality of projected grov/th
and development over the ten-year period from the date of submlttal.
-------
<.
T
11
(2) A plan to prevent any national standards from being exceeded
over the ten-year period from the date of plan submlttal. Such
plan shall Include; as necessary, control strategy revisions and/or
other measures to ensure that projected growth and development will be
compatible with maintenance of the national standards throughout such
ten-year period. Such plan shall be subject to the provisions of
I 51.6 of this part.
(h) Plans submitted pursuant to paragraph (g) shal.l be reanalyzed and re-
vised where necessary at five-year Intervals.
5. Section 51.18-is revised to read as follows:
I 51.18 Review of new sources and modifications.
(a) Each plan shall set forth legally enforceable procedures which shall be
adequate to enable the State or a local agency to determine whether the con-
struction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or installation,
•»r*
or combi.ict -^ thereof, will result In violations of applicable portions of the
control strategy or will Interfere with r,ttainmont or maintenance of a national
standard either directly because of emissions from it, or indirectly, because
of emissions resulting from mobile source activities associated wii.i it.
(b) Such procedures shall include means by..which the State or local agency
reponslble for final decision-making on an application for approval to construct
or modify wHprevent such construction or modification if it will result in a
violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or will Interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of a national standard.
(c) Such procedures shall-"provide for the submission, by the owner or operator
of the building, facility, structure, or installation to be constructed or modi-
fled, of such information "on:
(1) the nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or emitted
-------
12
1
by associated mobile sources; .
(2) the location, design, construction, and operation of such facility,
building, structure, or installation as may be necessary to permit the
State or local agency to make the determination referred to in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(d) Such procedures shall provide that approval of any construction or modifi-
cation shall not affect the responsibility of the owner or operator to comply
with applicable portions of the control strategy.
(e) Each plan shall identify the State or local agency which will be
responsible for meeting the requirements of this section in each area of the
State. Where such responsibility rests with an agenc: other than an air
pollution control agency, such agency shall consult with the appropriate State
or local air pollution control agency in carrying out the provisions of this
section.
**r~'
(f) Such procedures shall identify types and sizes o1 facilities, buildings,
• structures or installations which will be subject to review pursuant to this
section1. The plan shall discuss "the basis for determining which facilities
shall be subject to review.
•
(g) The plan shall include the adminisl-.ratjye procedures, which will be•••..• .
followed in making the determination specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(h) (1) Such procedures shall provide that prior to approving or disapproving
the construction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or
t
installation pursuant to this section, the State or local agency will
provide opportunity for public comment on the information submitted by
the owner or operator and on the agency's analysis of the effect of such
construction or modification on ambient air quality, including the agency's
proposed approval or disapproval.
-------
JI3
(2) For purposes of subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, opportunity for
public corrrcent shall Include, as a minimum:
(1) availability for public Inspection 1n at least one location
In the region affected of the Information submitted by the owner
or operator and of the State or local agency's analysis of the
effect on air quality.
(11) a 30-day period for submittal of public comment, and
(111) a notice by prominent advertisement 1n the region affected of
the location of the source information and analysis specified IP
subdivision (1) of this subparagraph.
(3) Where the 30-day comment period required ,n subdivision (2)(ii)
of this paragraph would conflict with existing requirements for acting
on requests for penr.isvion to construct or modify, the State may
submit for approval a conrjnent per-, ,d which is consistent with such
V"
existinq requirements.
(4) . copy of the notice required by subparagraph (2) of this
parr.gr'! !i "hall also be sent to the Administrator through the appropriate
Regional Office, and to all other State and local air pollution control
»
agencie- having jurisdiction in the region in which r.r~h new or modified
«* *
Installation will be located. The notice also shall be sent to any
other agency in ins region having responsibility for implementing the
procedures -required under this section.
(1) Suggestions for developing procedures to meet the requirements of
this section are set forth in Appendix 0.
-------
14
In this part, Appendix 0 1s added as follows:
Appendix 0
The following guidelines are Intended to assist 1n the development of
regulations and procedures to comply with the requirements of section 51.18.
1. With respect to facilities which would significantly affect air quality
because of emissions arising from associated mobile source activity, review
procedures should cover any facility which can reasonably be expected to
cause or induce sufficient mobile source activity so that the resulting
emissions might be expected to Interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of a national standard. The likelihood that there will be such interference
V
will vary with local"conditions, such as current air quality, meteorology,
topography, and growth rates. For this reason, it is not practicable to
establish definitive nationally applicable criteria as to the types or sizes
of sucii facilities which should be reviewed. There are, however, certain
types of facilities which generally should be considered for review. Experience
•
and estimating techniques have indicated that the air quality impact of cert:=ir.
types and sizes of facilities is potentially significant regardless of their
location. They include major highways and airports, large region?! shopping
centers, major municipal sports complexes or stadiums, major parking facilities,
and large amusement and recreational facilities. The above examples are not
meant to be exhaustive. Local conditions must be considered in determining
•
which types of facilities will be subject to new source review.
New source review procedures must also consider the impact of a new
or modified source in political jurisdictions other than the one in which
it is located. Construction or modification of that source must be pre-
vented if the impact in another political jurisdiction is great enough to
-------
15
Interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard, whether
or not there 1s significant Impact In the political jurisdiction of the
facility.
2. Frequently, a substantial amount of Information will be needed to make
the determinations required by I 51.18. In addition to general information on
the nature, design, and size of a facility, data on its expected mode of
operation also will be needed in order to estimate the types and amounts of
air pollutant emissions likely to be associated with it. The operational
data needed to make such estimates may include time periods of operation,
anticipated numbers of employees and/or patrons, expected transportation
routes, modes, and habits of employees and/or patrons, and so on.
Data on present eir quality, topography, and meteorology and on
emissions from other sources in titr; affected area may also be necessary.
V"*'
In those cases where an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been or
will be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act or similar State
or local laws, the EIS may well'be an excellent source of information to aid
In making the determinations required by § 51.18. Accordingly, agencies
t
responsible for new source reviews are encouraged to make such use of EIS
wherever possible in order to avoid needless duplication of information
gathering and analysis.
-------
attainment or maintenance of a national stanjldrd, v/hether or not there 1s
significant Impact In the political jurisdiction of the facility.
2. Frequently, a substantial amount of Information will be needed to make
the determinations required by I 51.18. In/addition to general Information on
the nature, design, and size of a facility,!data on its expected mode of
operation also will be needed 1n order to estimate the types and amounts of
air pollutant emissions likely to be associated with 1t. The operational
* M
data needed to make such estimates may include tirr.e periods of operation,
anticipated nunr.bers of employees and/or patrons, expected transportation
routes, modes, and"habits of employees anp/or patrons, and so on.
/
Data on present al'r quality, topography, and meteorology may also be
necessary, as well as total emissions ip the affected region if a sophisticatec
air quality simulation model is used.
In those cases where an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been or
will be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act or similar State
./
or local laws, the EIS may we>l be an excellent source of Information to aid
' / s
1n making the daterminations required by s 51.18. Accordingly, agencies
responsible for new source reviews are encouraged to make such use of EIS
wherever possible 1n order to avojd needless duplication of Information
gathering and analysis.
-------
17
.3. Wherever possible, modeling techniques for approximating the effects
•
of facilities with associated mobile source activity on air quality should
be used. A simplified relationship between emission density (pollutant mass/
time/area), size of an area (such as a parking lot) and maximum downwind
concentration of carbon monoxide 1s given 1n Figure 1. This relationship was
derived using a technique similar to one used by Hanna. The relationships
depicted in Figur-2 1 are based on assumptions of flat terrain, average atmos-
pheric stability (Class D) with a steady wind speed of 1 meter/second, constant
wind direction, even distribution of emissions at ground level over the area, ar:
insignificant edge effects. Various assumptions are needed to calculate precise'
,^-
»
the emission density from a facility., Including vehicle speeds within the aree, :
distribution of automobile ages (which will determine which vehicle emission
factor to use), the avarage area occupied by a vehicle, the fraction of the
total area which may be occupied by vehicles, and the maximum nuir.ber of vehicles
Cunning simultaneously for one-hour ancTeight-hour periods (to determine if
either carbon monoxide ambient air quality standard will be exceeded).
•
Prior to employing the emission density-air quality relationships in Figure
1, other factors tray first have to be considered in determining whether airiient
air quality standards will be exceeded. These factors include measured or esti-
#- •
mated existing air quality, the impact of any point sources planned on or near f
facility and the impact of any traffic routes on or near the facility passing v.-i:
in close proximity of critical receptors. Also, consideration should be given t:
any factors which differ substantially from the assumptions made in the Figure 1
relationship, such as topography, meteorology, aerodynamic effects, and spatial
Hanna, S.R., "A Simple Method of Calculating Dispersion from Urban Area
Sources", Journal., of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 21, pp. 714-
777 (1971):
-------
18
•
distribution of motor vehicles, height of emission, and any facility configu-
ration which would constrain the dispersion of pollutants (such as a parking
• .1
deck).
•
In addition to providing an estimate of the Impact of Individual area
sources, relationships similar to those depicted in Figure 1 can be of value
1n determining which types and sizes of facilities should be subject to review.
A technique incorporating the Figure 1 relationship exists and will be
available to the States and through the Regional Offices. Several additional
techniques to evaluate the impact of indirect sources of
carbon ironoxide are currently under study and will be made available
*
when developed.
^
The following publications are among those describing other available tech-
niques for estimating air quality impact of direct and indirect sources of
emissions:
v-
(1) Turner, D. B.; "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," PHS
No. 999-AP-26 (1969).
(2) US EPA; "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'" OAP No.
AP-42 (Feb. 1972).
(3) BHggs, G. A.; "Plume Rise"; TID-25075 (1969), Clearinghouse for
*• "
Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Va. 22151.
(4) Mancuso, R. L., and Ludwlg, F.L.; "Users Manual for the APRAC-1A
Urban Diffusion Model Computer Program," "Stanford Research Institute
Report" prepared for EPA under contract. CPA 3-68 (1-69) (Sept. 1972).
Available at Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Va. 22151.
(5) Zimmerman, J.R-.; and Thompson, R. S.; "User's Guide for HIV/AY," paper
under preparation, Met. Lab., EPA, RTP, N. C.
-------
19
(6) USGRA: '"Proceedings of Symposium on Multl-Source Urban Diffusion
Models," OAP Publication No. AP-86 (1970).
(7) A1r Quality Implementation Planning Program, Volume I, Operator^
Manual, PB 198-299 (1970). Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, Springfield, Va. 22151.
(8) Hanna, S. R.; "Simple Methods of Calculating Dispersion from Urban
Area Sources," paper presented at Conference on-Air Pollution Meteorology,
Raleigh, N. C. (Apr. 1971). Available at Clearinghouse for Federal
Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Va. 22151.
(9) ASME: "RecotrrcendecF Guide for the Prediction of Dispersion of Airborr;
•
V
Effluents," United-Engineering Center, 345 E. 47th Street, New York, New
York 10017 (1968).
(10) Slade, D. H. (editor): "Mctc-nrology and Atomic Energy 1968,"
USAEC (1968).
-------
- nBiamonsrnps ot emission density, area source size, and carbon monoxide concentrations
4,
10
K
ra
o
00
LU
CtL
O LU
ii i «^
Q 2
LU i—•
O £
Q. Ci
=3 O
?I Q.
O LU
C£ O
U. LU
CC
LU
00
l«4
o
10'
-1
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
EMISSION DENSITY (gm/sec-nT)
10
-2
10
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, *
'X •.
i OAQPS, CPDD, SID . '' Dam June 22, 1973
Addition to Guidelines Series OAQPS No. 1.2-004, EPA Source Promulga-
i 0 I_R£COrd keeping and Reporting - Public. Availability of Data, Ma r civ 14,
To: Sc.e Below ! . '
»
A computer program has been developed by the National A1r Data Branch
(HADB), Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MDAD), to provide the
Regional Offices with assistance 1n implementing the Federal regulation
promulgation for recordkeeping and reporting and public availability of
emission dot a. This program v/as v;ritten in an effort to supply the infor-
mation discussed on' pnges 7 and 8 of the above mentioned Guidelines docu-
ment. This information may also be used in determining those sources to
be contacted for recorcHteeping and reporting -'requirements. An example of
the printout is enclosed showing the information that can be obtained for
e-ucii source by this p
The computed emissions are .the actual emissions referred to in the
Guidelines document as of the year of record. Since emission factors
are often used to estimate emissions, NEDS has the computed emissions
broken down as to the type of process of source category (Source Classi-
fication Cc;'.js). In scrr.a Co.ses, tv:o different source types nay be vented
throtioh th" some stack (point), as in the enclosed printout. Unfortunately,
i;r.CS is r,c;i: ;:ct up to p rev id 2 this sa~e breakdown for "allcv.ed emissions",
I.e., the c-nri ss ions all owed under the aoproved control strategy. Thus,
the allowed emissions when available ?*•& expressed on a- per stack basis,
even though the allowed emissions rcus .. cs determined on- source category
basis. It should be noted that the allowed emissions and the applicable
regulations under the approved control strategy have not generally been
entered •;,-.:•,.. iJiC iiiiCS system as yet and will have to be entered by hand
1n the interim.
The printout may be obtained by writing to Jacob Sunders, NADB,
Mutual Building, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or by
calling 91>CC3~£2D5. This information cannot be accessed through the
computer terminals at the regional offices at this time. The North
Carolina facility is in the process of changing computers. This che.nga
should bs cr:r;>lcted by Doceir.ber 3973. Access through the. Regional Office
co-Tauter 1-c-^inals v/ill be made avail j-ble at that tiir.2 if the deir-s."d for
information v/arrants it. It is important to specify the areas to u-:
considered in any requests for data. These may be requested by EPA
region; State; State-county; State-county-j^lant; S^a'jte-countyj-plant-po^nt;
or AQCR.
G. Edmisten, Chief
Standards 'Implementation Branch
Control Programs
Devcloprr.snt D i vi s i on
-------
Addressees:
Regional Administrators, Regions I - X . ...,,
Director, Division of Air and Water Programs! Regions' I - X (3)"
Principal Air Contacts, Regions I - X (3)
R. Wilson (5)
B. Steigerwald
J. Schucneman
R. Neligan
J. Padgett
R. Baum
0. Gpoclwin
J. Hanrjv.erle
J. Bosch
J. Sur,i::crs
SIB Personnel
-------
Date: June 05, 1973
NATIONAL EMISSION DATA SYSTEM
ALLOWED VERSUS COMPUTED EMISSIONS
State (41): Rhode Island
AQCR (120):' Metropolitan Providence (Mass - R.I.)
Plant Name and Address: Cranston Print. 1381 Cranston St, Cranston
Point Number: 01
SCC Name
SCC^: Extcorrb Boiler
SCC2: Extcoirb Boiler
Part
Allowed Emissions:
.Computed Enri -,sions:
'•SCC,:
SCC2:
Total:
Regulations:
Point Number: 02
SCC Name
SCC,: Extcomb Boiler
SCC2: ' Extccmb Boiler
A11 ewed Emissions:
Computed Emissions:
. SCC-:
SCC1 :
Total
Peculations:
Part-
Industrial
Industrial
Residual 011
, Natural Gas
SOx
Industrial ^ Residual
Industrial * / Natural Gas
SOx
6
=1
7
91
91
NOx
7
;1
8
109
<1 . »
*
109
19
11
30
NOx
25
10-100MMBTU/HR
10-100MMBTU/HR
:' HC
10-100MMBTU/HR
10-100MMBTU/HR
HC
2
2
CO
CO
Year of Record
69
69
Year of. Re'cofd
69
» 69
-------
INSPECTION MANUAL FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR ASBESTOS
by
TIMOTHY R. OSAG
GILBERT H. WOOD
GEORGE B. CRANE
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
ENGINEERING SERVICES BRANCH
DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT SECTION
JULY 1973
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES 1v
LIST OF TABLES v
1. INTRODUCTION 1'1
1.1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ^
1.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT REGULATE ASBESTOS EMISSIONS 1'2
1.3 ASBESTOS EMISSION STANDARDS 1-4
1.3.1 Intent of Standards 1-4
1.3.2 Asbestos Sources Covered I'4
1.3.2.1 Asbestos Mills 1-4
1.3.2.2 Roadways !"6
1.3.2.3 Manufacturing 1'6
1.3.2.4 Demolition 1-7
1.3.2.5 Spraying I'8
2. ASBESTOS MILLS 2"1
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 EMISSION POINTS • 2-3
2.3 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 2~4
2.3.1 General Procedure 2"4
2.3.2 Inspection Procedure for Baghouses 2*7
2.3.3 Inspection Procedure for Wet Scrubbers 2'17
2.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 2'20
3. ROADWAYS 3-1
3.1 DISCUSSION 3-1
3.2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 3-2
1
-------
Page
4. MANUFACTURING 4'1
4.1 ASBESTOS TEXTILES 4'1
4.1.1 Process Description 4-1
4-3
4.1.2 Emission Points
4.1.3 Inspection Procedures 4~4
4.2 CEMENT PRODUCTS 4'4
4.2.1 Process Description 4"4
4.2.2 Emission Points 4"5
4.2.3 Inspection Procedures 4~7
4.3 FIREPROOFING AND INSULATING MATERIAL 4"7
4.3.1 Process Description 4~'
4.3.2 Emission Points 4~8
4.3.3 Inspection Procedures 4"9
4.4 FRICTION PRODUCTS 4"9
4.4.1 Process Description 4"^
4.4.2 Emission Points 4"14
4.4.3 Inspection Procedures 4"^
4.5 PAPER, MILLBOARD, FELT 4-18
4.5.1 Process Description 4"^8
4.5.2 Emission Points 4"20
4.5.3 Inspection Procedures 4~2^
4.6 FLOOR TILE 4'21
4.6.1 Process Description 4"2^
4.6.2 Emission Points 4'23
4.6.3 Inspection Procedures 4"24
-------
Page
4.7 PAINTS, COATINGS, CAULKS, ADHESIVES, AND SEALANTS 4-24
4.7.1 Process Description 4-24
4.7.2 Emission Points 4-24
4.7.3 Inspection Procedures 4-25
4.8 PLASTICS AND RUBBER MATERIALS 4-25
4.8.1 Process Description 4-25
4.8.2 Emission Points 4-26
4.8.3 Inspection Procedures 4-27
4.9 CHLORINE 4-27
4.9.1 Process Description 4-27
4.9.2 Emission Points 4-27
4.9.3 Inspection Procedures 4-29
4.10 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 4-30
5. DEMOLITION 5-1
6. SPRAYING 6-1
7. INSPECTION RECORDS 7-1
7.1 REPUKTb 7-1
7.2 CHECKLISTS AND OUTLINES 7-1
7.3 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 7-7
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
7-1 Inspection Checklist 7-3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Regulatory Responsibilities of Government Agencies for
Controlling Asbestos Emissions 1-3
2-1 Asbestos Milling 2-2
2-2 Unit Type Fabric Collectors, Unsupported Tubular 2-8
Elements
2-3 Screen or Envelope Type Collector 2-9
2-4 Pulse-Jet Cleaning Type Collector 2-10
4-1 Asbestos Textiles 4-2
4-2 Manufacture of Asbestos-Cement Pipe 4-6
4-3 Friction Products: Dry-Mixed Brake Linings 4-10
4-4 Friction Products: Roll-Formed Clutch Facings and
Brake Linings 4-11
4-5 Friction Products: Endless Woven Clutch Facings 4-12
4-6 Friction Products: Woven Brake Linings 4-13
4-7 Asbestos Paper 4-19
4-8 Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile 4-22
4-9 Diaphragm Cell, Hooker Type "S-3A" 4-28
1v
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT.
This document has been issued to accompany promulgation of
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
It is intended to function as an inspection manual for use in
enforcing national emission standards for asbestos. Regional, State
and other air pollution officials should find it useful for this
purpose.
The Federal regulations for asbestos are given and the interface
of EPA with other regulatory agencies 1s explained. The fabric
filter or baghouse, is the device commonly used between asbestos
source and atmosphere, and general procedures for inspecting a bag-
house are presented. It is not possible to cover all details of the
many kinds of baghouses; therefore the inspector should become
familiar with the installations within his jurisdiction and with any
unique features of these units.
Visible emissions to atmosphere from buildings are conceivable.
Therefore, this manual discusses many sources of asbestos emissions
from asbestos mills and manufacturing establishments. Process flow
diagrams indicate points of asbestos emissions, and control techniques
applicable to each source are mentioned. This information will help
the Inspector to trace visible emissions back to their source.
1-1
-------
In all cases, Inspectors will need to demonstrate the presence of
asbestos In an air emission, or 1n a construction material. The require-
ments for satlsfvina this need are outlined.
1.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT REGULATE ASBESTOS EMISSIONS.
This manual was written for the use of Inspectors from the
Environmental Protection Agency or for other air pollution enforce-
ment personnel. However, other Government agencies have jurisdiction
and interests in asbestos air emissions. Figure 1-1 illustrates
those Federal agencies having responsibilities for controlling
asbestos emissions. As the figure shows, these responsibilities are:
a. EPA - regulate and control emissions
to atmosphere.
b. Occupational Safety regulate and control working
and Health environment, Indoors and out.
Administration
c. Bureau of Mines - regulate and control environments
in and around mining properties.
Further information on OSHA and Bureau of Mines may be obtained from:
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
U. S. Department of Labor
1726 M Street N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20210
1-2
-------
I
u>
BUREAU OF
MINES
1__§J
ASBESTOS MINES,
TAILINGS,
MINE ROADS
OSHA •'?
,M / It • I I' >g^^
•"-^s^Hil T-^:"
f^Ka M1^^'^
JTflt^i fiJ'^
WORKING ENVIRONMENTS
INVOLVING ASBESTOS
BAG
FILTER
S
U'
Li
STACK
Figure 1-1. Regulatory responsibilities of Government agencies for controlling asbestos emissions.
-------
Office of the Deputy Director
Health and Safety
U. S. Bureau of,Mines
18th and C Streets N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
1.3 ASBESTOS EMISSION STANDARDS.
1.3.1 Intent of Standards
On April 6, 1973, the Administrator promulgated National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, including asbestos.
The standards are intended to call attention to significant sources
of asbestos air emissions and to control all of them so that an
ample margin of safety for protection of public health will result.
The standards avoid prohibition of essential uses of asbestos and
give due account to operations already under control by other
agencies.
1.3.2 Sources Covered
1.3.2.1 Asbestos mills
The promulgated standards prohibit visible emissions to
the outside air from any asbestos mill. Outside storage of asbestos
1-4
-------
materials 1s not considered a part of an asbestos mill. As an
alternative to meeting a no-v1s1ble-em1ss1on requirement, an owner or
operator may elect to use the following specified methods to
clean air streams containing partlculate asbestos material before the
air streams are vented to the atmosphere. If this alternative 1s
elected, the following requirements must be met:
(A) Fabric filter collection devices must be used, except as
noted in paragraphs (B) and (C). Such devices must be operated at
a pressure drop of no more than 4 inches water, as measured across
the filter fabric. The air flow permeability, as determined by
ASTM Method D737-69, must not exceed 30 cubic feet per minute per
2 2
square foot (cfm/ft ) for v/oven fabrics or 35 cfm/ft for felted
2 2
fabrics, except that 40 cfm/ft for woven or 45 cfm/ft for
felted fabrics is allowable for filtering air from asbestos ore.
driers. Felted fabric must have a weight of at least 14 ounces
per square yard of material and be at least 1/16 Inch thick
throughout. Synthetic fabrics must not contain fill yarn other
than that which is spun.
(B) Where the use of a fabric filter would create a fire or
explosion hazard, the Administrator may authorize the use of wet
collectors designed to operate with a unit contacting energy of at
least 40 inches water.
(C) The Administrator may authorize the use of filtering devices
other than the specified fabric filters and wet collectors provided
the owner or operator demonstrates to the Administrator's
1-5
-------
satisfaction that the filtering of participate asbestos 1s
equivalent to that achieved through the use of the specified
equipment.
(D) All air-cleaning equipment authorized by this section must be
properly installed, used, operated, and maintained. Bypass devices
may be used only during upset or emergency conditions and then only
for so long as it takes to shut down the operation generating
the particulate asbestos material.
1.3.2.2 Roaiiways
Surfacing roadways with asbestos tailing is prohibited except
for temporary roadways on areas of asbestos ore deposits. The
deposition of asbestos tailings on roadways covered with snow or ice
is considered surfacing.
1.3.2.3 Manufacturer
Any visible emission to the atmosphere from a building or
structure in which any of the following operations are conducted -
or directly from the operation Itself 1f 1t 1s conducted outside of a
building or structure - is prohibited.
Affected Manufacturing Operations
(A) The manufacture of asbestos-containing cloth, cord, wicks,
tubing, tape, twine, rope, thread, yarn, roving, lap, or other
textile materials.
(B) The manufacture of cement products.
(C) The manufacture of fireproofing and Insulating materials.
1-6
-------
(D) The manufacture of friction products.
(E) The manufacture of paper, millboard, and felt.
(F) The manufacture of floor tile.
(G) The manufacture of paints, coatings, caulks, adliesives,
and sealants.
(M) The manufacture of plastics and rubber materials.
(I) The manufacture of chlorine.
As an alternative to the no-visible-emissions regulation, the owner
or operator of a manufacturing operation may elect to use a
specified gas cleaning technique (Section 1.3.2.1) to remove asbestos
particulate from air streams before they are emitted to the atmosphere.
1.3.2.4 Demolition
Operations involving the demolition of any institutional,
commercial, or industrial building (including apartment buildings
having more than four dwelling units), structure, facility, or
installation which contains a boiler, pipe, or structural merber that
is insulated or fireproofed with friable asbestos material must
comply with the following control procedures.
(A) Friable asbestos materials used as insulation or fireproofing
for any boiler, pipe, or structural member must be wetted
and removed before the commencement of any demolition operation.
1-7
-------
Asbestos debris must be wetted sufficiently to remain wet
during all stages of demolition and related handling.
(B) Any pipe or structural member that is covered with
friable asbestos insulating or fireproofing material must be
lowered to the ground.
(C) No friable asbestos debris may be dropped or thrown
from any building, structure, facility, or installation to
the ground or from any floor to a floor below. Uhen the
demolition operation involves buildings, structures, facilities,
or Installations 50 feet or greater in height, asbestos debris
must be transported to the ground by dust-tight chutes or
containers.
Any demolition operation is exempt from the previously listed
requirements if the building, structure, facility, or installation
is declared by the proper state or local authority to be structurally
unsound and in danger of imminent collapse. Under this circumstance,
the only requirement is the .adequate wetting of asbestos debris prior
to demolition.
1.3.2.5 Spraying
Visible emissions to the atmosphere from the spray application,
to equipment or machinery ,of Insulating or fireproofing material
containing more than 1 percent asbestos on a dry weight basis (see
Section 6) are prohibited. As an alternative to the
no-v1s1ble-em1ssion regulation, an owner or operator
1-8
-------
may elect to clean emissions from air streams by using the methods
discussed in Section 1.3.2.1 before such air streams are vented to
the outside air. Spray-on materials used to insulate or fireproof
buildings, structures, pipes, or conduits must contain less than 1
percent asbestos (dry weight basis).
1-9
-------
2. ASBESTOS MILLS
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION.
Asbestos ore is transported from the mine to the mill complex
where it is treated 1n a series of .primary and secondary crushers
which produce material with a maximum diameter of 1 5/16 inches for the
wet-ore stockpile. Ore from this stockpile serves as feed for the
milling operation illustrated 1n Figure 2-1.
The wet ore is dried, treated in a fine crushing circuit to
reduce the size tc approximately 1/4 inch diameter, and introduced to a
rock circuit. The rock circuit is composed of a series of crushing and
screening operations and has the primary function of separating the
asbestos fibers from the co-existing rock. A1r suction hoods
(aspirators) are used to entrain the asbestos fibers in an air stream
and separate them from the waste rock. The circuit performs the
secondary function of grading the fibers according to length.
Air streams convey the asbestos fibers from the rock circuit
to a fiber-cleaning circuit. Cyclone collectors are used to remove the
entrained fibers. Exhaust air from the cyclones is sent to a fabric
filter before being vented tt> the atmosphere. The fiber cleaning
circuits perform additional fiber opening, classify and separate
opened fibers from unopened fibers and waste material, and permit
additional fiber grading.
The final portion of the milling operation is the cleaning and
bagging circuit. In this circuit, fibers receive additional cleaning
and arc separated into several standard grades before being packaged for
shipping. A more detailed description of the milling operation 1s
2-1
-------
ORIEOnOGK
STORAGI:
L-H&U
TV
rJDRY .5
•ovi-nsi?r.o.is
O-»' • •
1
LEC.LNO
> FinERIZER f_'J7.1 SCRUMS
ICOHCCKUSIICR
'•">.
u.ij (o)r.TACTMILL A ASI'MH'I!
oH t/->CYCI.ON£ AIR CONVl Yl D
' >< COLLECTOR FIBLK
(IPBAGGIilG MACHINE
, ONE OF DUPLICATE . ,
ROCK ClilCUITS-^hCHF. OF DUPLICATED FIBER CLEANING AND BAGGING-
aMun FAB.EXHAUST
d"
BAG-TYPE DUST FILTER
TO
'WAREHOUSE
CSLOCATION OF POTENTIAL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING DUST EMISSIONS
Figure 2-1. Asbestos milling.
2-2
-------
available 1n the AP-117 control techniques document for asbestos
emissions. Inspectors should note Figures 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-8
and should read this document to become familiar with the processes
they must inspect.
2.2 EMISSION POINTS.
A list of exhaust points for mill ventilation and process air
streams must be obtained on an individual plant basis. This
information can be obtained by contacting the mill owner or operator
prior to the actual inspection. Major sources of emissions within
the mill and applicable control techniques are as follows:
1. Emission Source — open conveyor belts transporting ore or
partially processed ore.
Control Technique — enclose conveyor and transfer points
and exhaust to baghouse, or wet the transported material.
2. Emission Source — primary and secondary crushers.
Control Technique -- enclose and exhaust crusher inlet
and outlet to baghouse.
3. Emission Source -- vibrating and shaking screens.
Control Technique — enclose screens and exhaust to baghouse.
4. Emission Source — cyclone exhaust.
Control Technique -- treat exhaust in baghouse.
5. Emission Source — ore-drier exhaust.
Control Technique — treat exhaust in baghouse.
2-3
-------
6. Emission Source -- mills and fiberlzers.
Control Technique -- enclose Inlets and outlets of mills
and fiberlzers and exhaust to baghouse.
7. Emission Source — fiber grading circuits.
Control Technique -- enclose Inlet and outlet ends of graders
and exhaust to baghouse.
8. Emission Source -- bagging machines.
Control Technique -- Install dust capture hoods and exhaust
to baghouse.
9. Emission Source -- disposal of mill tailings.
Control Technique ~ enclose conveyors carrying mill
tailings and exhaust to baghouse or wet tailings before transporting.
2.3 INSPECTION PROCEDURES.
2.3.1 General Procedure
A visible emission, as defined by the standard, is any emission
which 1s visually detectable without the aid of instruments and which
contains particulate asbestos material.
If the no-visible-emission option is chosen, the first step in
the inspection of an asbestos mill should be the visual examination of
all exhaust points (stacks, vents, etc.) for mill ventilation and process
air streams. The inspector should be a qualified smoke reader who has
successfully completed the EPA course on visible emission evaluation
or an equivalent course. The visual examination should be conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Method 9 of the Appendix.
2-4
-------
The visual detection of an emission must be followed by
confirmation that asbestos material 1s present 1n the visible
gas stream. Further guidance on collection and Identification of
asbestos samples will be provided by DSSE.
Exhaust streams from ore driers are unique, because water vapor
in these streams can be sufficient to cause a visible plume. The
inspector must read the opacity of the exhaust stream at the point
where the steam plume disappears. A visible emission at this point
would be considered a violation of the no-visible-emission requirement.
If the alternative to the no-visible-emission requirement is
chosen and a baghouse is in use, either the design and operating
specifications must match those presented in Section 1.3.2.1(A), or
the owner or operator of the mill must demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the efficiency of the unit is equivalent to that of
the specified control system. Design information, such as fabric
specifications and operating pressure, can be obtained from the
plant owner or operator. The presence of visible emissions 1n
the baghouse exhaust gases 1s evidence of a probable malfunction.
None of the acceptable baghouses that have been observed have
exhibited visible emissions when in proper operating condition.
Visible emissions from baghouses are possible during the start-up
period, but should be eliminated as a filter cake forms on the
clean cloth.
2-5
-------
Inspection procedures for fabric filters and high-energy wet
scrubbers are presented in the following sections. These procedures
are also applicable to systems used to control emissions from the
affected manufacturing operations or during the spray application of
2-6
-------
asbestos-containing Insulation or f1reproofing onto equipment or
machinery and therefore will not be duplicated 1n Sections 4 or 6.
Unique situations that would alter the Inspection scheme will be
discussed whenever pertinent.
2.3.2 Inspection Procedure for Baghouses
Discussion
Fabric filters are produced by several different manufacturers
and can have basic design differences. In general, they can be
classified hy (1) type of filter element (supported or unsupported), (2)
the Intended use (continuous or intermittent), and (3) the method of
removing collected dust from the filter fabric (mechanical shaking,
mechanical rapping, pulse-jet, etc). Examples of three common baghouse
designs are presented in Figures 2-2 through 2-4. A brief description of
each system is presented in this section. A more complete discussion can
be obtained from the control techniques document for particulate air
pollutants.
The fabric filter shown 1n Figure 2-2 is an unsupported tubular
uni-bag type. Bags are supported at their tops by a bag and shaker
support and are attached at their bottoms to a collar sealed Into the
cell plate. The cell plate 1s the perforated metal plate that
separates the classified section from the clean air chamber and channels
dust-laden air into the filter elements.
Dust-laden air enters a classifier section in which the larger
particles are removed by settling. The air then flows upward through the
bag entrances, passes through the bag fabric and 1s exhausted to the
i
atmosphere. Dust particles accumulate on the Inside of the bags and must
2-7
-------
CLEAN AIK EXHAUST
FILTFi!
DUST- V-"
l)F.I:!_Am
STHLAi.l"
v-
1
\
i
>
1
f \
.».
\
1
(
\
/ \
/
/
\
DAG SUPPORT
-)
CLASSIFIEF? SECTION
•x
NNCELL PLATE
Figure 2-2. Unit type fabric rollRctrrs
unsupported tubular clc-mcntb. "'
2-8
-------
TOP VIEW OF ONE ROW OF ELEMENTS
--rr DUS I-LADOi AIR
CLLAN AIR
w' "-^^'IlrLlIIJ
BAP sui'Poirr
r Y------•!=•—•-=^^--.-, --•--•• ••-- ••
SIDE VII-W
AIR
I!' I I ^^
OUST
COLLRCT!0;i
HOPPER
DUST-LAD™ AIR
r ULTER CLEMENTS
Figure 2-3. Scicrjn or otwclopi; tyf-u collcctot.
2-9
-------
H*"
u. r
i.
11
CYCLF.
)T
i!i >
V
VENTUKI /" /. ,\ ^
\, X t / ll'l .v\
— T
f
;
; i
:• -.'
r___\
1\~ ""
\
\
\
-/, ,-,L
/(
-V
vj
1
I
1
/
\ . v
i
1
1
\ ^— AM
!
.'."....
\
/
T
V
>
- • -. . .
;..- • '
1) 1 .".
\
V.
\;^(
P\
\
I V
i
..'
„. •. _ ..T..".'
t.y
• ... .. ft
\
5
-r- CLEAN AIR
r ^
.BAG SUPPORT
•- FILTER
'--. .ELLfiicflTS
'
i — i
J '
^— • DUST-LADfti AIR 1 .
DUST
COLLECTiG.N1
HOPPFR
l-"ir)tirc 2-4. Pulc-.v-jot ck-nniiKj typo collector.
2-10
-------
be removed by periodic cleaning, usually with a mechanical shaker. The
frequency and length of the cleaning cycle depends upon the specific
operation.
When the filtration process 1s reversed, with the gas flowing from
the outside to the inside of the filter element, it 1s necessary to
support the filter media against the developed pressure. Supported
filter elements are either of the envelope (Figure 2-3) or the tubular
(Figure 2-4) type. In the case of a screen or envelope type of collector,
dust-laden air entering the filter encounters a baffle plate that causes
the stream to diffuse over the entire chamber. This diffusion assures
uniform loading throughout the system and permits the heavier dust
particles to settle out. The air then passes through the filter media
to the Inside of the bag and out the open end of the bag to the clean
air chamber. Dust particles are deposited on the outside surface of
the bags and must be removed by periodic cleaning. Cleaning is usually
accomplished by mechanical shaking or rapping.
A schematic diagram of a fabric filter that utilizes a pulse-jet
cleaning mechanism is presented in Figure 2-4. This system uses tubular-
type, supported filter elements. The collector consists primarily of a
series of cylindrical filter elements enclosed in a dust-tight housing.
Dusty air is admitted to the housing and clean air withdrawn from inside
the filter elements. Periodic cleaning is required to remove dust particles
which accumulate on the outside of the bags. Cleaning is accomplished by
Introducing a jet of high-pressure air Into a venturi mounted above each
bag. The reverse flow of air created by the jet pulse is sufficient to
loosen accumulated dust and clean the the filter media. Cleaning 1s
continuous, with a complete cycle every 2 to 5 minutes.
2-11
-------
The existence of several types of fabric filters complicates
the procedure of evaluating specific systems. The inspection scheme
provided in this manual, although somewhat general in nature, Is
adequate to allow a full evaluation of most fabric filters. It 1s
suggested, however, that the inspector make an effort to obtain and
review the operating instructions for the specific unit being examined
whenever possible. Although many vendors do not include a separate
inspection manual with their operating instruction package, the
information provided might suggest some alteration in the listed
procedure.
Procedure
1. Identify the type of fabric filter being used: manufacturer,
model, type of bags, cleaning mechanism, capacity, and source
of gas stream being treated.
2. Compare the fabric specifications of the bags being used
with the referenced specifications. A1r flow permeability
(ASTM Method D 737-69) should not exceed 30 cfm/ft2 for woven
or 35 cfm/ft for felted fabrics. Permeability is defined
as the air flow in cubic feet per minute passing through a
square foot of clean new cloth with a pressure differential of
0.50 Inch water. An exception to this requirement will
be allowed for fabric filters treating air from asbestos ore
driers. In this case, an air flow permeability of 40 cfm/ft2
for woven or 45 cfm/ft2 for felted fabrics 1s acceptable. Felted
fabrics must weigh at least 14 ounces per square yard and be at
2-12
-------
least 1/16 Inch thick. Synthetic fabrics must not contain fill
yarn other than that which 1s spun. The Inspector should de-
termine 1f the user has Installed bags differing from those speci-
fied 1n the original fabric filter design and the reason for anycnantie,
3. Observe pressure drop across fabric filter. The most common
differential pressure instrument used is a simple "U"-tube mano-
meter filled with water or anti-freeze solution and connected across
the filter media. Other devices that indicate differential
pressure include well-type manometers, bourdon-type gauges, and
diaphragm-actuated gauges. Pressure drop should be no more than
4 inches water . A reading several inches 1n excess of
this value is a sign that a system malfunction (blinding, etc.)
exists. A low pressure-drop reading would indicate a bag rupture
or leak.
4. Search for bypass lines or ductwork. Determine the justification
for them. Determine if any alternate atmospheric protection is
available if these bypasses are used.
5. Inspect fabric filter for leaks. The approach will depend upon
the collector design. In the case of filters using unsupported
bags, the inspector can actually enter the collector and evaluate
the condition of the bags. Filter elements should be examined for
tears, ruptures, leaks, and signs of heavy wear. The Inspection
should be scheduled to concur with a period when the unit has
been removed from service for cleaning. When examining a system
2-13
-------
designed for continuous service, the inspection must be on a
conipartment-by-compartment basis.
Uust deposits on the clean air side of the bags or the cell
plate are signs of collector malfunctions. Leaking bags will
frequently have a streak of dust leading from the leak towards
the clean air exit. Leaks in the cell plate are usually
indicated by a small mound of accumulated dust surrounding the
leak. The floor of the clean air chamber should be kept clean
so that any dust deposits observed during an inspection can be
attributed to a collector malfunction. Regular cleaning of the
baghouse coll plate is not common at most operations, however,
it is felt that the practice could be introduced without requiring
an unreasonable amount of effort.
Special attention should be given to the Inspection of the bags
around the area where they are attached to the cell plate (collar),
since this is a point of high wear. All bags should be firmly
attached to the cell plate or to the collar attached to the cell
plate. If a bag leak or rupture is located, the bag should be
tied off below the leak or the cell plate entrance capped as a-
temporary measure until the bag can be replaced.
When evaluating fabric filters equipped with supported filter
elements (gas flow from outside of filter element to inside),
visual examination of the interior of the collector 1s restricted
because of the presence of dust-laden air. Most fabric filters
using supported elements employ continuous cleaning techniques
2-14 '
-------
(pulse-jet, reverse jet) and are therefore not normally removed
from service for cleaning (Figure 2-4). The units will have to
be inspected when the systems are in operation. The major
emphasis should be placed on the1 baghouse manometer reading
and the cleanliness of the collector exhaust stream. At pulse-jet-
cleaned units, the inspector should gain access to the upper
plenum chamber (clean air exit) and observe the exhaust stream
during a cleaning cycle (complete cycle every 2 to 5 minutes).
The presence of a leak in any specific bag is indicated by the
discharge of a puff of dust from the venturi immediately
foil owing the cleaning step.
The presence of dust in the clean air plenum chamber is an
Indication of a bag leak or tear. The chamber should be kept
free of dust deposits so that any dust accumulation can be
attributed to a collector malfunction. Regular cleaning of
the clean air plenum chamber is not a common practice at most
operations, but could be initiated without too much difficulty.
Should a bag leak be discovered, the venturi can be capped as a
temporary measure until the unit can be removed from service
and the bag replaced.
6. Observe bag spacing. Sufficient clearance should be provided
so that one bag does not rub another. This decreases the
effective filter surface and increases bag wear.
7. Inspect ductwork and collector housing for leakage, wear, corrosion,
2-15
-------
and general state of repair. The general location of leaks
can be determined by the air noise. Leaks In the housing or
ductwork should he scaled either by welding or the ur.e of
epoxy cither on a temporary or permanent basis as conditions
permit.
8. Inspect dust hoppers for accumulation of dust. In most cases,
the hopper should not be allov/ed to become more than half full
in order to avoid re-entrainment of the collected material.
9. Observe the emptying of dust hoppers, rote the type of waste
containers being used and the presence or absence of visible
emissions. Obtain information regarding ultimate fate of
asbestos waste.
10. Review operating procedures and maintenance schedules. Frequent
inspection and maintenance is essential to the effective operation
of the collector. External maintenance inspection of the filter
housing and system should usually be performed daily, while the
filter elements should typically be inspected once a week. Mote
length and frequency of cleaning cycle. This will vary depending
upon the specific applications.
11. Determine what preventive maintenance procedures are used to
avoid fabric failures and what procedures are used to replace
bags or correct malfunctions.
12. Gas itreams from baghouses servicing asbestos ore dryers may show
visible plumes of steam. The water content results both from the
a-is
-------
hydrogen in the ore-dryer fuel and from the moisture 1n the
asbestos being dried. The inspector should read the opacity at
the point whore the steam plume disappears. Any opacity here
is evidence of a leak or system malfunction.
The inspector must remember that the baghouse temperature must
be held above the dewpoint of the ore dryer exit gas. This
dewpoint will depend upon the fuel being used and the moisture
in the asbestos to be dried; more exactly, it will depend upon
the weight (or nol) fraction of water vapor in the gas stream.
For a specific mill, the dewpoint will fall within a limited
temperature range. The inspector should therefore observe the
condition of the insulation on the baghouse (gas temperature is
maintained above dev/point by preventing gas heat loss) and check
the gas temperature history. A fall below the dev/point would
mean trouble for the baghouse operator, by caking, blinding
and increased pressure drop, through the bags.
2.3.3 Inspection Procedure for Viet Scrubbers
Discussion
High-energy wet scrubbers could find application in controlling
asbestos dust. Specifically, scrubbers might be used in situations
in which the use of fabric filters would create a fire or explosion
hazard. Low energy (6 to 8 inches water) scrubbers have been used
as a control for asbestos emissions at Johns-Hanville's Hanville,
Dew Jersey plant; Raybestos - Manhattan's Manheim, Pennsylvania pUnt;
2-17
-------
Union Carbide's King City, California mill; and several Canadian
mills. No high-energy scrubbers, however, are known to be 1n use
as a control technique for asbestos in any of the mills or
manufacturing operations covered by the standard. All existing
scrubbing systems are expected to be replaced by fabric filters.
Procedure
1. Identify the type of wet scrubber being used: manufacturer,
model, typo, .unit contacting energy, capacity, and source of gas
stream being treated.
2. Compare design specifications with referenced specifications. The
collector must be designed to operate with a unit contacting energy
equivalent to 40 inches water pressure drop. Contacting energy is
that portion of useful energy expended in producing contact of the
particulate matter with the scrubbing liquid. Unit contacting energy
1s equal to the energy per unit weight of gas required to Introduce
the gas stream into the contact chamber, plus, the energy per unit
weight of gas required to Introduce scrubbing liquid Into the
contact chamber, plus the mechanical (shaft) energy per unit
weight of gas applied to effect contact between the scrubbing
liquid and the gas stream. In the case of a venturi scrubber, the
most conmon type of high-energy scrubber, the contribution of the
liquid stream is small and most of the energy for contacting 1s
derived from the gas stream. The contacting energy 1s therefore
essentially equivalent to the gas stream pressure drop.
3. Note the design specifications for gas-stream volumetric flow
2-18
-------
rate, gas-5tream pressure drop, liquid-stream volumetric flow
rate, and liquid-stream Inlet pressure. Observe the pressure
drops and flow rates 1f the necessary Instruments have been
Installed.
4. Search for bypass lines or ductwork. Determine the justification
for them. Determine if alternate atmospheric protection is available
in case of tneir use.
5. Inspect ductwork and exterior of scrubber for leaks, wear,
corrosion, and general state of repair.
6. Review operating procedures and maintenance schedules. Frequent
inspection and maintenance is essential to the effective operation
of the scrubber. Obtain Information regarding ultimate fate of
collected asbestos.
7. Determine what procedures are used In cases of scrubber mal-
function.
2-19
-------
2.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.
1. Control Techniques for Asbestos Air Pollutants. U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication Number AP-117. February 1973.
2. Hutcheson, J. R. M. Environmental Control 1n the Asbestos Industry
of Quebec. 73rd Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, Quebec City, 25 p. 1971. p. 9, 23.
3. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U. S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, D. C.
Publication Number AP-51. January 1969. p. 102-126.
4. Types of Fabric Filters. Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc.
Stamford, Connecticut. Publication Number F-5. August 1972. 8 p.
5. Semrau, K. T. Dust Scrubber Design - A Critique on the State of
the Art. Journal of the A1r Pollution Control Association.
13:587-594, December 1963.
2-20
-------
3. ROADWAYS
3.1 DISCUSSION.
The inspector should be familiar with sources of asbestos tailings
in his jurisdiction. These sources include asbestos mines and
mills, which have been and are a source of rock wastes. The
large available quantities of such rock wastes have furnished
incentive to use tliem to surface roao's. It is economical to
process asbestos rock to a residual asbestos content of about
3 percent. The inspector should maintain enough surveillance over
mines and mills to be aware of the ultimate fate of such asbestos-
containincj solids wastes.
The Inspector can maintain some surveillance over roads by
visual examination of pieces of rock. Asbestos in such rock will
probably have a color varying from white, through greenish or
yellowish white to brownish. It will have a silky, metallic, dull
and opaque luster. Fibres may be coarse or fine and probably are
parallel with the walls. Sometimes they are felted. It 1s also
interesting to note that a suspension of chrysotile in water
has a pH of over 10. This.1s alkaline to litmus and to phenolphthalein.
Although this property is not unique, it 1s one added test to use
for identification.
If the presence of asbestos 1s suspected, the inspector may take
samples of rock or of apparently fibrous road materials and submit them
for microscopic examination.
3-1
-------
3.2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.
1. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second Edition,
Vol. 2., pg. 738, Intersciencc Publishers, N. Y.
3-2
-------
4. MANUFACTURING
4.1 ASBESTOS TEXTILES.
4.1.1 Process Description
The majority of the asbestos fibers received by a textile plant
are of the milled variety. These fibers have frequently been com-
pressed during packaging and therefore require will owing (fiber
opening) before being sent to the carding operation.
Either in a preliminary mixing operation or during carding, small
amounts of a carrier fiber (rayon or cotton) are blended with the
asbestos fibers to improve the spinning characteristics of the
asbestos. The asbestos content of the mixture will range frrm 80
percent to almost 100 percent depending upon the requirements of the
end-product.
Carding is the preliminary step in the manufacture of textiles.
The asbestos fibers undergo a final opening and cleaning process by
the carding machine, which combs the fibers into a parallel arrange-
ment thereby forming a coherent mat of material. This mat is
separated into untwisted strands and wound onto spindles to form the
roving from which asbestos yarn 1s produced.
Roving is converted into yarn by a conventional spinning operation.
The yarn may then undergo a twisting, weaving, or braiding operation
depending on the desired end-product. Figure 4-1 provides a schematic
diagram of an asbestos textile plant. Additional information 1s
available in the control techniques document for asbestos emissions.
4-1
-------
BAGGCI) SYNTHETIC
OR CELLULOSE FIBER
_L
FIBF.R
OPENER
PURE ASITSTOS -
LAPS AKl) FELTS
rY-
CJ LAPC
CY.'ISTIM
1-TW.t
FIBER
OPENER
r'
a, -
^ __r^
ROVING
CARD
SYNTHETIC LAP
: :i
KOVIilG
LAP CARD
LAP CARD
"..1
ASBESTOS
-v— SYHTIILTIC
SPINIilHG
FKAHE
OPTIONAL
SPUN YARN -..-- —
I SINGLE-PLY
j YARN
•*-, LAPS AND FtLTS
I
I
I
I
I
TWISTED YAKN -.-.:
"!_!!'
<
REY/I!
V,:EU
UULTI-
YAR
iDER
, LIGHT-GdHtt I cprrnrtii:
RUKFORCING \VIRE- ^ ^LL"LI(
PLY
N
;]
/
OPTION;
1
BRAIDER l;j
IMPREGNATING
J.
BRAIDED TUDir.'C, I'.RAIDED
ROPE, BRAIUED CU!!l»
*COfilBir!ATION
SPINNING
AN'J
TWISTING
StALS
PACKINGS
n LOCATION or POTT;:!IAL ASLJESTOS-CONTAIMNG DUST L;,;issioi;s.
WOVEN TUBING,
CLOTH, TAPES
Figure 4-1. Asbestos textiles.
4-2
-------
4.1.2 Emission Points
A complete list of all exhaust points (stacks, vents, etc.) for
plant ventilation and process air streams is necessary for the inspect-
ion of any manufacturing operation. This information must be obtained
from the plant owner or operator. Major sources of emissions within
a textile plant and appropriate control techniques are as follows:
1. Emission Source — opening and emptying of bags of asbestos
into fiber openers and carding machines.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods on bag
opening stations and carding machines with exhaust to baghouse.
2. Emission Source -- carding operation.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods with exhaust
to baghouse.
3. Emission Source -- spinning and twisting machines.
Control Technique -- enclose spindles with exhaust to
baghouse or convert to wet process.
4. Emission Source -- looms and braiding machines.
Control Technique — Install dust capture hoods with exhaust
to baghouse.
5. Emission Source -- open carts of asbestos fiber, roving,
or yarn.
Control Technique — cover carts.
4-3
-------
6. Emission Source -- disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique -- place empty bag in enclosed container
immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
4.1.3 Inspection Procedures
Ventilation and process air from the fiber opening (willowing)
and carding machines could have loadings similar to the process gas
streams of asbestos mills. Most of the other gas streams are expected
to have lov/er fiber concentrations. The inspection procedures described for
asbestos mills in Section 2.3 will apply to the manufacturing of textiles.
4.2 CEMENT PRODUCTS.
4.2.1 Process Description
Asbestos-cement products contain from 15 to 30 percent (by weight)
asbestos, usually of the chrysotile variety. The largest sector of
this industry is involved in the production of asbestos-cement pipe.
Other products include siding shingles and flat or corrugated sheets.
Siding shingles and other sheet products may be produced by
either a dry or wet process. In the dry process, a uniform thickness
of the dry mixture (asbestos fibers, Portland cement, and silica) is
distributed onto a conveyor belt, sprayed with water, and compressed
by rolls to the desired thickness. This asbestos-cement sheet 1s then
cut to size and sent to the curing operation.
The wet process produces dense sheets of asbestos-cement material
by introducing a slurry into a mol^ chamber and compressing the mixture
to remove excess water. A setting and hardening period of 24 to 48
hours precedes the curing operation.
4-4
-------
The manufacture of asbestos-cement pipe 1s Illustrated 1n
Figure 4-2 with the Individual manufacturing steps numbered and
listed on the bottom portion of the figure. Asbestos fibers are
normally received in pressure packed bags and therefore require fiber
conditioning (opening) before being ser.t to the production-line
storage bins. A more detailed discussion of the manufacturing
operation is available in asbestos control techniques document.
4.2.2 Emission Points
Major potential emission sources within the plant and suitable
control techniques are presented in the following list.
1. Emission Source -- slitting and emptying of bags of
asbestos into hopper of fiber opener.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hood over bag
opening and emptying station with exhaust to baghouse.
2. Emission Source -- dry mixing of asbestos, cement, and
silica.
Control Technique -- Install dust capture hood over mixing
operation and exhaust to baghouse.
3. Emission Source — finishing operations (machining, drilling,
cutting, grinding).
Control Technique — install hoods over all finishing operations
and exhaust to baghouse.
4-5
-------
en
13
14 15 16(a)
1. PRODUCTION LINE BiHS
(A) ASBESTOS
(B) CEMENT
(C) SILICA
2. ELECTRONIC;SCALES
3. DRY MIXER
4. CONVEYING TROUGH
5. SET MIX VAT
6. SCREEN CYLINDER HOLD
7. VACUUM BOX
8. FELT DEPOSITS STOCK ON MANDREL
9. r^CREL ;V.i7H P!?£)
16;b)
15(0
16(d)
10. ELECTROLYTIC LOOSENER
11. SLOW-DOWN COHVEYOR
12. STENCILLING STATION
13. Air! CURE ROOM
14. AUTOCLAVES
15. FINISHING OPERATIONS
16. TESTi'iG EQJ!F::Z?,T
(A) FLEXURE TESTING MACHINE
(B) INSPECTION
(C) HYC3CSTATIC TESTER •
=:D) CKLSH TESTER (LABORATORY)
17. VATERIALS MANDLiNG EQUIPMENT
c LGCAT;:;; OF POTENTIAL AS3ESTOS:COMA;:;;;;G CL
Figure 4-2. Manufacture of as&estos-cement pipe.
-------
4. Emission Source -- loading of scrap and rejects Into
scrap grinder.
Control Technique — Install dust capture hood over loading
area and exhaust to baghouse.
5. Emission Source -- disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique — place empty bag in an enclosed
container immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
4.2.3 Inspection Procedures
The inspection procedures discussed for asbestos mills should
be appropriate. Heavy concentrations of asbestos fibers might be
present in process and ventilation streams from fiber opening,
mixing, and finishing operations.
4.3 FIREPROOFING AND INSULATING MATERIAL.
4.3.1. Process Description
Molded insulation and spray-applied mixtures used to fireproof
steel-reinforced buildings are the principal asbestos-containing
insulating and fireproofing materials. The preliminary step 1n the
manufacture of molded insulation 1s the mixing of diatomaceous silica,
lime, and asbestos with water. This mixture is pumped to a holding
(gel) tank where the silica reacts with the calcium hydroxide to
form hydrated calcium silicate which crystallizes around the asbestos
fibers. The calcium silicate - asbestos slurry is then discharged to
a molding press where the charge 1s dewatered and pressed into the
desired forms (pipe shells, blocks, etc.). After being removed from
4-7
-------
the molds, the pieces are heat cured in a serins of autoclaves and
drying tunnels and sent to a finishing operation (sizing, leg
trimming, drilling, etc.) before being packaged for shipping.
Spray-applied fireproofing mixtures are a combination of
asbestos and an inorganic dry bonding agent. The mixing operation
is usually a batch process.
4.3.2 Emission Points
Major emission points in the manufacturing operations together
with effective control measures are listed below.
1. Emission Source -- opening and emptying of bags of asbestos
into fiber openers or mixers.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods on bag
opening stations and mixing operations with exhaust sent to a
baghouse.
2. Emission Source —. finishing operations (sizing, leg
trimming, drilling, planing, etc.).
Control Technique — Install hoods over all finishing
operations and exhaust to baghouses.
3. Emission Source -- packaging of pipe insulation or
fireproofing mixture.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods over
packaging areas and vent to baghouse.
4-8
-------
4. Emission Source -- disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique — place bag in enclosed container
and deposit in landfill.
4.3.3 Inspection Procedures
Willowinq and mixing operations can produce high fiber concen-
trations. The inspection procedures suggested for asbestos mills are
applicable.
4.4 FRICTION PRODUCTS.
4.4.1 Process Description
Brake linings and clutch facings are the major asbestos-contain-
ing friction products. Methods of fabrication include molding (wet
or dry), two-roll forming, and Impregnating woven asbestos fabric
with friction material. Molding and two-roll forming involve the
preforming of the product under pressure 1n molds or between rolls.
The preformed sheets are then cut Into product sized segments, formed
into the proper shape, and heat cured. Woven friction products are
constructed of resin Impregnated asbestos fabric that has been cut
to length, formed into the desired shape* and heat cured.
Detailed descriptions of the various manufacturing operations
are provided in the control techniques document for asbestos
emissions. Figures 4-3 through 4-6 Illustrate these processes.
4-9
-------
ASMSTOG AND
FRICTION COMPOUND
u
f.'.IXER
n
MOLD
J-
PREHEAT
PREFORMING
PRESS
STRIPS CUT
TO LENGTH
J
MOLD
REMOVED
ROUGH
GRINDING
[Jem •; •-.:,
V
sir
ilh" S
STEAM-HEATED
BENDING
CLAMPING IN
LUNETTES
3
a
_ DRILLING,
tJCOUNTERaORING
PACKAGING
D LOCATION OF POTENTIAL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING DUST EMISSIONS
• *
Figure 4-3. Friction products: dry-mixed
brake linings.
RAOWS
GRINOIIiG
4-10
-------
START: ROLL FORKED CLUTCH FACINGS
ASDESTOS, SOLVF.NT, AND
FRICTION COMPOUND
PRL:SS
/. •
FINISJIIHG
OPERATIONS
PACKAGING I SEE|:1G- 2-9
START: ROLL FORMLD BRAKE LINtNGS
ASBESTOS,
SOLVENT,
AND
FRICTION
COMPOUND
ti
RACKING
J » f.
iii
111
m~l
>|-M-
in
•* "••%
"•
DRY
(•••.;:
""
BAKING
OVEK
FORCED-
AIR DRYING
CHAI:'il5LR
/\
.,./»„.,«
BACKING
i
A
CHOPPER
TWO TiOLi
MILL
D LOCATION OF POTENTIAL ASBESTOS-COKTAINING DUST EMISSIONS
Figure 4-4. Friction products: roll-formed clutch
facings and brake linings.
4-11
--"f^W
ARCFfiRMEU
-------
WIRE-REINFORCED
CLOTH ROLL
STEAM-HEATED
ROLL
SLITTING TO
TAPF.S
n
FRICTIO;: CC,V,POUiND
BATH
WATER-COOLED
ROLL
WINDING
©
ffi:
METAL
PLATES
"STA'CKl'iJG
PRECL'KIKG
f'HESS
HOT
PfJESSIHG
FINISHING OPERATIONS
r~
V"
SANDING
.
CCOLI::G
r
j
BRANDING
EDGE
GRIh'DIIJG
INSPECTION
DRH.LIIia.
COUIITr.1! CCUIiiG
.1
.V
DUSTING
Altfte--
>S? -S !
P:/|:
•I'/:'
PACKAGING
LOCATION OF POTENTIAL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING DUST EMISSIONS
Figure 4-5. Friction products: endless woven
clutch facings.
4-12
-------
wir
CL
L
o
IE-REIIIF
WOVEN T
ROL
AKPING
UMETTES
&&
n
,1 id
nprrn I u, ...J
APE DRYInG 1—
OVEN
*
IMPHEI
B/l
N ROUCI^
t, 1 1
/J X 1 1-
*~~^,£]Y DRYING
UM OVEN
MATING
ITH
ROTARY PRESS
1 CUTTER OENSIFICR
Gf— ' *— 1
.
f-z- -i
V
BAKING OVEN
FINISHING OPERATIONS
SEE FIG. 2-9
D
PACKAGING
P1 LOCATION OF POTENTIAL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING DUST EMISSIONS
Figure 4-6. Friction products: woven brake linings.
4-13
-------
4.4.2 Emission Points
Dry-Mixed Brake Linings
1. Emission Source -- opening and emptying of hags of asbestos.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods over bag
opening area and storage bins. '
2. Emission Source — transfer of asbestos from storage bins to
weighing scales.
Control Technique — install dust capture hood over weighing
scales c
-------
7. Emission Source — cutting of molded strips to length.
Control Technique — install dust capture hood and exhaust
to biuihoust.'.
8. Emission Source -- finishing operations (grinding, drilling,
counterboring).
Control Technioue -- install dust capture hoods and exhaust
to baghouse.
9. Er.isr.ion Source -- disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique — place empty bags in enclosed container
immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
Roll-Formed JA.ra^:p_Ujn nns_
1. Emission Source — opening and emptying of bags of asbestos.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over bag •
opening area and storage bins and exhaust to baghouse.
2. Emission Source — transfer of asbestos from storage bins
to v;eighing scales.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods over weighing
scales and exhaust to baghouse.
3. Emission Source — discharging of asbestos from weighing
scales to mixer.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over mixer
and exhaust to barihouse.
4-15
-------
4. Emission Source — hammer mill.
Control Techninue -- enclose discharge aren and
exhaust to banhousn.
5. Emission Source -- finishing operations (sanding, edge
grindinn, drilling, counter-boring, dustinq).
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over
finishing operations and exhaust to baghouse.
6. Emission Source -- disposal of ercptv asbestos bans.
control Technique -- place empty bags in enclosed container
immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
1. Emifisioti Source -- opening and emptying of bans of asbestos.
Control Technique -- instil dust capture hoods over bag
opening area and '..tornqe bins and exhaust to baghouse.
2. Emission Source- -- transfer of asbestos from storage bins to
weighing scales.
Control Technique -- install dust canture hoods over
weighing scales and exhaust to baghouse.
3. Emission Source -- discharging of asbestos from weighing
scales to mixer.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods over mixer
and exhaust to baghouse.
4-16
-------
4. Emission Source -- finishing operations (sanding, edge
grinding, drilling, counter-boring, dustlnq).
Control Technique -- Install dust caoture hoods over
finishing operations and exhaust to bacjhouse.
5. Emission Source -- disposal of empty asbestos bans.
Control Technique — place empty bags in enclosed container
immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
1. limission Source — cutting of saturated tane.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods and exhaust
to batihouse.
2. Emission Source -- rough grinding of taoe.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hood and exhaust
to baghousc.
3. Emission Source — finishing operations (sanding, edge
grinding, drilling, counter-boring, dusting).
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over all
finishing operations and exhaust to baghouse.
Endless I/oven Cli ;tch Facings
1. Emission Source — slitting of asbestos cloth into tapes.
Control Technique —-install dust capture hood and exhaust
to baghouse.
4-17
-------
2. Emission Source -- finishing operations (sanding, edge
grinding, drilling, counter-boring, dusting).
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods over all
finishing operations and exhaust to baghouse.
4.4.3 Inspection Procedures
The inspection procedures presented in Section
*• 3 can be used. High concentrations of asbestos could be present
in ventilation air from the dry-mixing and finishing (drilling,
grindinc], etc.) operations. Visible emissions might also be detected
from various other process steps (wet-mixing, impregnating bath, etc.)
because of the use of volatile organic solvents. Asbestos emissions
from these sources are expected to be small.
4.5 PAPER, MILLBOARD, FELT.
4.5.1 Process Description
Asbestos paper and felt are manufactured on machines of the
Fourdrinier and cylinder types similar to those used to produce
cellulose paper. The cylinder machine is the more widely employed.
Figure 4-7 illustrates the operation of a Fourdrinier paper
machine. Short-fiber asbestos is combined with a binder and water
«
in a pulp beater to form a mixture containing between 6 and 12
percent fibers. This slurry is fed to a machine chest where it is
diluted to 2 to 4 percent solids. A thin uniform layer of the mixture
is deposited by gravity onto an endless, moving wire screen to form
the paper which is then transferred to a moving felt. Vacuum boxes,
roll presses, and a series of steam heated drum rollers are used to
4-18
-------
CALENDER
ROLLS
DRYERS
(HEATED ROLLS)
HIGH-SPEED
FINISHED ASBESTOS SLITTER
PAPER ROLL r-\ TAKE-UP REEL
Rrv/it;n
--
TAKE-UP
REEL
O
Q
O LOCATION OF POTCNTIAL ASnESTOS-CONTAIIIlHG DUST EMISSIONS
Figure 4-7. Asbestos paper.
4-19
-------
dry the paper. This is followed by calendering to produce a smooth
surface and cutting to size.
The operation of a cylinder paper machine includes a mixing
step similar to that described for a Fourdrinier type machine. The
slurry from the machine chest is pumped to one of several vats, each
containing a rotating cylinder screen. Asbestos fibers are collected
on the rotating cylinders and transferred to an endless belt conveyor
to form the paper. The subsequent drying, calendering, and sizing
operations an the same as those described for the Fourdrinier machine.
Millboard is produced from short fiber asbestos. The asbestos
fibers, water, and a binder are mixed in a pulp beater, subjected to
a screening operation, and pumped to the millboard machine. The
asbestos slurry is fed to a large box containing a rotating cylinder
screen. Fibers are deposited on the rotating cylinder, partially
drained of water, and transferred to a conveyor belt to form the
millboard sheet. This sheet is then pressed, molded, and cut to the
size of commercial millboard. All remaining water is removed by a
series of pressing and drying operations.
4.5.2 Emission Points
1. Emission Source — opening and emptying of bags of asbestos
into mixer.
Control Technique — enclose bag opening and emptying
station and exhaust to baghouse, or convert to a wet process
using pulpable bags.
4-20
-------
2. Emission Source — slitting and edge-trimming of paper.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods and exhaust
to baghouse.
3. Emission Source — disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique — place empty bags in an enclosed
container immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
4.5.3 Inspection Procedures
The inspection procedure developed for asbestos mills should be
appropriate. The major emission source will be the opening and
emptying of bags of asbestos.
4.6 FLOOR TILE.
4.6.1 Process Description
Vinyl-asbestos floor tile is produced from a mixture of asbestos
fibers, ground limestone, and a resin binder. The various components
are combined in a high shear mixer as indicated in Figure 4-8 to
form the base material. After the base material passes through a
two-roll mill, the relatively thick sheet is cut and joined to a
similar piece that has been previously formed and is in the process
of being calendered (smoothed and reduced in thickness between two
revolving cylinders). A series of calendering cperations produces
a tile sheet of the desired thickness and surface finish.
Before the compound can cool and harden, a blanking press die
cuts the tiles to final size. Waste material is recycled to the
mixing operation. A more detailed discussion of the Manufacture
4-21
-------
ASBESTOS AfU OTHER
RA'.V KATF.I.-'ALS
COOLING CHAMBER
OO
CALENOCH ROLLS
f TILES
\
\
\
I J
PACKAGING
COOLING CtiA.V.bER
IJLOCATION OF POTENTIAL. ASRHSTOS-COIIT AIMING DUST EMISSIONS
Figure 4-8. Vinvl-asbestos floor tile.
4-22
-------
of vinyl-asbestos floor tile can bo obtained from tho control
techniques document for asbestos emissions.
4.G.2 Emission Points
Potential sources of asbestos emissions are:
1. Emission Source -- opening and emptying of bags of asbestos.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over bag
opening and emptying stations and exhaust to baghouse.
2. Enission Source -- transfer of asbestos from storage bins
to weighing scales.
Control Technique — install dust capture hood over weighing
scales and exhaust to baghouse.
3. Emission Source -- discharging of asbestos from weighing
scale to mixer.
Control Technique -- enclose discharge area or install dust
capture hood over mixer inlet.
4. Emission Source -- mixing process.
Control Technique -- close mixer inlet.
5. Emission Source -- loading of asbestos-containing chips
into hoppers in preparation for mottling.
Control Technique — install dust capture hood over hoppers
and exhaust to baghouse.
4-23
-------
6. Emission Source -- deposition of mottling chips on the
tile sheet ar, it emerges from the two-roll mill.
Control Technique -- Install dust capture hood and exhaust
to baghouse.
7. Emission Source -- grinding of scrap in preparation for
recycle.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over
grinder inlet and outlet and exhaust to baghouse.
8. Lmi:.sion Source -- disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique — place empty bags in an enclosed
container immediately after emptying and deposit 1n landfill.
4.6.3 Inspection Procedures
Asbestos emissions are limited primarily to the introduction
of asbestos into the process and to the mixing step. The inspection
procedures outlined in Section 2.3 will be applicable.
4.7 PAINTS, COATINGS, CAULKS, ADHESIVES, AMD SEALANTS.
4.7.1 Process Description
Most asbestos-containing paints, coatings, caulks, adheslves,
and sealants are either asphalt or oil-based mixtures produced by
batch mixing operations. A high percentage of short-fiber asbestos
may be used.
4.7.2 Emission Points
Emissions are possible from the bag opening operations and
4-24
-------
from the introduction of asbestos Into the process.
1. emission Source -- opening and emptying of bags of
asbestos into storage bins or receiving hoppers.
Control Technique -- install dust hoods over bag opening
and emptying stations and exhaust to baghouse.
2. Emission Source — transfer of asbestos from storage bins to
weighing scales.
Control Technique -- enclose discharge area and exhaust to
baghouse.
3. Emission Source — discharging of asbestos from the
v/eighing scales to the mixer.
Control Technique -- enclose discharge area or install dust
capture hood over mixer.
4. Emission source — disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique -- place bags in an enclosed container
immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
4.7.3 Inspection Procedures
The inspection procedures provided in Section 2.3 are appropriate.
4.8 PLASTICS AND RUBBER MATERIALS.
4.8.1 Process Description
Asbestos-reinforced or-filled plastics and rubber materials
may be produced by both batch and continuous operations and may
make extensive use of both short and long fibers. Process
4-25
-------
descriptions must be obtained on an Individual basis from the plant
owner or operator.
4.0.2 emission Points
1. Emission Source — opening and emptying of bags of asbestos
into storage bins or receiving hoppers.
Control Technique -- install dust capture hoods over bag
opening and emptying stations and exhaust to baghouse.
2. Emission Source -- transfer of asbestos from storage bins
to weighing scales.
Control Technique— enclose discharge area and exhaust to
baghouse.
3. Emission Source -- discharge of asbestos from the weighing
scales to the mixer.
Control Technique -- enclose discharge area or Install
dust capture hood over mixer.
4. Emission Source -- grinding of sheets of asbestos-
reinforced plastic to form molding compound.
Control Technique -- enclose inlet and outlet of grinder
and exhaust to baghouse.
5. Emission Source — disposal of empty asbestos bags.
Control Technique -- place bags in an enclosed container
Immediately after emptying and deposit 1n landfill.
4-26
-------
4.0.3 Inspection Procedures
Potential emission sources are the bag opening and tho mixing
operations. .No alteration in the inspection procedures listed in
Section 2.3 should be required.
4.9 CHLORINE.
4.9.1 Process Description-.
Most chlorine is produced by the electrolysis of aqueous
solutions of alkali-metal chlorides. All cell designs for this
electrolytic process are variations of either the diaphragm cell
(Figure 4-9) or of a cell which uses mercury metal as an inter-
mediate cathode. In the diaphragm cell, an asbestos diaphragm
separates the anode from the cathode. The diaphragm is applied by
inmersing the cathode into a bath of asbestos slurried in cell
liquor and then applying a vacuum to the cathode. Asbestos is
deposited on the steel-screen fingers of the cathode.
4.9.2 Emission Points
1. Emission Source --.opening and emptying of bags of asbestos.
Control Technique — install dust capture hoods over bag
opening and emptying stations with exhaust to baghouse, or convert
to wet process using pulpable bags.
2. Emission Source — disposal of empty bags of asbestos.
Control Technique -- place empty bags in enclosed container
immediately after emptying and deposit in landfill.
4-27
-------
ro
CO
.
Figure 4-9. Diaghragm Cell, Hooker T>pe "S-3A".2
-------
4.9.3 Inspection Procedures
Visible emissions of asbestos can occur during the bag
opening and emptying operation. The Inspection procedures developed
for asbestos mills should be suitable.
4-29
-------
4.10 REFERENCES TOR SECTION 4.
1. Control Techniques for Asbestos A1r Pollutants. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Publication Number AP-T17. February 1973.
2. Shreve, R. M. Chemical Process Industries, ilev/ York, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1957. p. 234.
4-30
-------
5. DEMOLITION
A rewrite of the Demolition Section is being prepared by D5SE
and will be distributed no later tlian at the July 19 NESHAPS seminar
in Dallas, Texas.
5-1
-------
6. SPRAYING
The only spray applied insulation or fireproofing now being
produced that is known to contain more than 1 percent asbestos is
MK 111 produced by the Zonolite Construction Products Division of the
W. R. Grace Company.. MK 111 contains from 10 to 12 percent asbestos.
The Fireproofing Products Division of Carboine Co. of St. Louis
manufacturers Pyrocrete I and Pyrocrete II. These are cement-pi aster-
asbestos mixtures used for structural steel fireproofing. They are
not spray applied.
The asbestos limitation of 1 percent by weight for dry spray
material applied to buildings, structures, pipes, or conduits suggests
that the inspector may often want to check supplies allegedly contain-
ing less than 1 percent asbestos. Quantitative analysis for asbestos
in a mixture is an extremely difficult procedure. Available methods
are based on electron microscopy used by highly trained specialists.
Determining asbestos content with these methods costs approximately
$300, and the results are accurate within plus or minus 50 percent.
The few available 0. S. locations that have the required facilities
and expertise include the following:
Battelle Columbus
Attention: Mr. William Henry
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
California State Department of Health
Attention: Dr. Peter K. Mueller
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, California 94704
McCrone Associates, Inc.
493 East 31st Street
Chicago, Illinois 60616
6-1
-------
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
City University of New York
Attention: Ur. Irving J. Selikoff
Environmental Sciences Laboratory
5th Avenue and 100th Street
New York, New York 10029
Johns llanville Research and Engineering Center
Attention: Dr. Sydney Spiel
Denver, Colorado
Obviously, speedy analysis, although highly desirable, will
not normally be possible. However, the submission of samples at
least serves as a deterrent to a contractor who would misrepresent,
since action could be taken against him later if the analysis showed
more than 1 percent asbestos.
In cases involving the spray application of asbestos containing
insulating or fireproofing material containing more than 1 percent
asbestos to equipment or machinery, the inspection procedures listed
in Section 2.3 would be appropriate.
6-2
-------
7. INSPECTION RECORDS
7.1 REPORTS.
Each stationary source of asbestos emissions must report the
following information to the Environmental Protection Agency:
A. Name and address of owner or operator
B. Location of source
C. A description of the source and its operations with identifi-
cation of all points of asbestos emissions
D. A description of control equipment for each emission point
E. The average weight per month of asbestos processed for the 12
months preceding the report date
These reports will provide most of the background data for on-site
inspection of each source. The initial inspection should verify in-
formation in the reports.
7.2 CHECKLISTS AilD OUTLINES.
Before any inspection, the inspector should review the source
file to familiarize himself with the operations, potential emissions,
and control strategy of the source. Each source file should
contain verified process and equipment descriptions, accurate flow-
charts showing emission points, current construction notices,
compliance waiver requests, and other information the office finds
necessary. If there is no flowsheet i:i the file, the inspector
should sketch one noting emission points, control equipment at each
point, and factors affecting the emission rate at each point.
From the flowsheet and descriptions in the file,
7-1
-------
a checklist or outline of the Inspection can be made. It may be
unnecessary to prepare an outline or checklist for sorro; sources. A
list of major Items to observe or discuss and a sketch showing <>mir,s1on
points will probably suffice for small, relatively simple processes.
The primary function of a checklist or outline is to prevent the
inspector from overlooking any emission point during the inspection.
Table 7-1 presents an outline which may be used as a guide. It will
probably be necessary to modify the outline for each source, such as,
omit the wet collector section or add instrument readings. On any
checklist, outline or inspection log, the source being inspected
should be completely identified. Code numbers should be included to
allow easy reference to the HAREMS computerized data handling system.
Comments on weather conditions or process operations affecting the
inspection should be made. Any equipment failures cr replacements
affecting emission rates and any use of control equipment bypasses
should be listed.
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-1. INSPECTION CHECKLIST
Inspector
Date
Company Name
Address
HAPEMS Source Number
Source Description (e.g., Asbestos cement pipe plant)
Persons Interviewed
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Ductwork Leaks
Piping Leaks
Collector Housing Leaks
Apparent Condition of Equipment
Disposal of Collected Material
Accumulated Dust or Fiber
Visible Emissions Ref. Til 9
(Average Opacity)
Locations of Visible Emissions
(HAPEMS point numbers)
Samples Taken at Locations
of Visible Emissions
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-1. (CONTINUED)
HAPEMS Source No.
Date
CONTROL DEVICES
I. Baghouse
HAPEMS Point Number
Gas Stream Description (e.g., exhaust from bagging machine
hood)
Baghouse Manufacturer
Model
Fabric Description (type, permeability, etc.)
Length and Frequency of Cleaning Cycle
Baghouse Interior
Bag Condition: Torn
Leaking
Ruptured
Heavily V/orn
Other
Dust on Floor
Baghouse Hopper
Unloading Frequency
Dust Generated by Unloading
Final Dust Disposal
Operating Variables
7-4
-------
TADLE 7-1. (CONTINUED)
II.
HAPEflS Source No.
Date
Specification
Observed
Comment
Temperature
Pressure Drop
Gas Flowrate
If any recordings instruments are used, examine the charts
to discover abnormal situations.
Comments
(Bag replacements, equipment failures, equipment changes,
additional instrumentation, etc.)
Wet Collectors
HAPEMS Point Number
Gas Stream Description
Type of Collector (e.g., venturi scrubber)
Collector Manufacturer
Model
Operating Variable
Pressure Drop
Gas Flowrate
Liquid Flowrate
Liquid Inlet Pressure
Unit Contacting Energy
Specification
Observed
Comment
7-5
-------
TABLE M. (CONTINUED)
IMIPEMS Source No.
Date
If recording instruments are used, examine the charts to
discover abnormal situations
Comments and recommendations
7-6
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OAWP, OAQPS, CPDO, SIB Dalc: Juiy 10> 1973
Regulations for Indirect Source Review
Below
As you rocr.'n, SIB distributed to the Regional Offices on June 15
a draft of guide! "ine material intended to assist you in working with
State agencies on complex source imp'! eir.cn tat ion plans. In addition,
we discussed eh.-- complex so;.: HI.: issue c-. the Regional Office staff
meet iiiy in Civicaqu on June 20. At that meeting, we promised additional
guidr.noe material for plan development . In this regard, we are
enclosing:
1. A draft cc-mulr-' source regulation which EPA could promulgate
i-j corroc.T .jWidoo! • ; •• -SIl-'s in this area.
2. lx;;i;;;-':t; Mi^ '.. , nco ti or: procedures for determining the minimum
size of source cfir:;-;;;.'r io:. subject to new source review regulations.
This inforir.ati':n may be used in providing guidance to the States in
developing tivrir -indirect source regulations. It should be noted, however,
that ussumpt-ioris concern iivj the operating characteristics of motor ;ehic:les
within parking lots, are rather arbitrary at this point. The example calcu-
lation ; 11 u:. lT.vt e tne type of analysis that could be presented to suppcrt
the coriplex source TIZC ranges of concern.
I am also e. .. ir. . ing copies of the time schedule for development,
proposal and proj^-ljntinu of plans in accordance with the court stipulated
dates. As far as :J'A is ccr.cernoc!, the dates of October 15 for approval/
disapproval and j\ c;.- ;;:-;-r 15 for final promulgation must be met. The
CPDD/SIB would apj'ix'ciate recievir/i any comment you would have on the
enclosed regulation by July 23, 1973. We would make the desired changes
and send copies of the revised regulations back to the Regional Offices
to assist you in the preparation of plans where the states have failed
to respond. As wa^ discussed in Chicago, the Regional Office will prepare
the draft of the F:-_ivr_pj_ Re-rjster package for proposal and promulgation.
You need not spend" the ef'rorc to prepare the error-free copy but. you must
include all desirable substantive information for the briefing document
and preamble. SIP './ill ass;., v/ie one Federal Register package and forward
to Headquarters for processing. Please note that comments on the proposed
plans would be se;;t to the respective Regional Office similar to the
transportation plan procedure. Since SIB will be functioning in e
coordinating/supporting role, it is urgent that we be kept appraised of
the status of plan development so we can prepare accordingly. Please
advise us if our principal contact in the Regional Office for this matter
is other than that individual designated as principal air contact.
-------
2
It is further recognized that many, if not most, states lack adequate
legal authority and will not be able to correct this deficiency tn time to
submit an approvablo plan. This situation might tend to discourage many
states from proceeding with plan development activities. I would suggest
that you encourage the states to develop the kind of plan necessary to
address the conditions and needs of their area. If the basic plan is
acceptable and approvable to the LPA, we will fill in any deficient areas
of the Stplicable to stationary sources to be
cn:i^-i -.ttjit '.."iih the riuw p.. •.'•!•.. --.ornent' requirements of 40 CFR 51. We
will make this change r.lon;; v/'-ii1 the complex source schedule. If you
have any comments as to oth^r ciosirable changes, please let us know.
hie would appreciate any coinments you may have on the enclosed material
If you have any ideas or procedures that would be of benefit to the other
Regional Officc-s, please forward them to S\B immediately.
(i
\\ l«i.< /J.
Norhfan G. Ecrmsten, Chief
Standard', Implementation Branch
Control Programs
Development Division
Enclosures
Addressees:
Director, Division of A.ir and l-iater Programs, Regions I - X (3)
Principe! Mr Contacts, Regions I - X (3)
J. Schueneman
I. Auerbach
W. Frick
E. Reich
-------
Basis for Determination of Facilities
Subject to New Source Review
I. Direct sources of emissions
All stationary sources of emissions, with the exception of the
exemptions listed are subject to review. The cutoff sizes for fuel
burning equipment were chosen because the maximum amounts of emissions
from these exempted sources are considered insignificant. These cutoffs
depend on the type of fuel burned:
(1) Equipment hhich has a heat input of not more than 250 million
B.t.u. per hour and which burn gaseous fuel containing not more
than 0.5 grains H«S per 100 standard cubic feet would emit negligible
particulate matter and loss than _two tons of sulfur dioxide per year.
(2) Equipment which has a heat input of not more than 1 million B.t.u.
per hour and v>hich burns distillate oil would emit negligible
particulate matter and approximately two tons of sulfur dioxide per
year.
(3) Equipment which has a heat input of not more than 350,000 B.t.u.
per hour and which burns any other fuel would emit between five to
seven tons of sulfur dioxide per year.
II. Indirect sources of emissions
The criterion which was used in the selection of sizes of facilities
was that a facility would be subject to review if its associated motor
<*•
vehicle activity resulted in local CO concentrations in excess of 10 percent
of the national ambient air quality standard.
-------
(1) Facilities with parking facilities
For estimating the size of a parking lot for a particular
facility, above which win result 1n local carbon monoxide concen-
trations which exceed 10 percent of the carbon monoxide standard,
assumptions must be made concerning the behavior of motor vehicles
In that parking lot under estimated worst conditions. One reference
on parking lot design* gives dimensions of parking spaces. A
parking unit is defined as two parking stalls plus an aisle. For
parking stalls at 90° to the aisle, the maximum dimensions for the unit
1s 65 feet by 10 feet, for a two-way aisle. This amounts to a space
7 2
requirement of 650 ft /2 stalls = 325 ft /stall. This arrangement permits
a capacity of 135 cars per acre. -
Assumptions were made concerning automobile behavior in a parking
lot. Assuming for a worst-case example that vehicles travel an average
of five miles per hour in the lot (which Includes the time they are
Idling) and the travel is of an urban (stop-and-go) rather than a rural
(more or less steady speed) type, Compilation of Air Pollution Factors**
yields an emission factor of 60 g CO/vehicle-mlle for a 1975 distribution
of automobile age and use, and an (extrapolated) speed adjustment factor
of 3.0. Therefore, the emission rate, Q, is:
] (3
\ * *
miles! „ Ox . 900 g CO
vehicle milel I hour I v ' vehicle hours
Assumptions concerning the behavior of motor vehicles in a parking
lot depend upon the type of facility and the intensity of use over a time
*Park1ng in the City Center, prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, New Haven,
Connecticut, under commission from the Automobile Manufacturers Asso., May 1965.
^^Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Revised), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N. C.,
February 1972, Publication No. AP-42.
-------
period. Assuming a constant wind speed of 1 m/sec, and constant
wind direction with class "D" atmospheric stability, the graphical
relationship given 1n Figure 1 of Appendix 0 of 40 CFR Part 51 can be
used to determine the maximum parking area for a given downwind concen-
tration and a given emission density. Interpolation between curves was
necessary to determine the relationships for the conditions of 10 per-
cent of the CO ambient air quality standards (i.e., 0.9 p.p.m. and 3.5
p.p.m.).
The following calculations yield a size of two general categories
of complex sources above which should be subject to review; facilities
whose associated motor vehicle activity is spread out over the period
of a day and facilities whose associated motor vehicle activity occurs
over a short period. The size for both ca^g^ries is 5 acres.
(a) Parking lots for facilities whose associated motor vehicle
activii, 1?= spread out ovei the period of a day.
These facilities will Include shopping centers, airports,
commercial and industrial developments, amusement parks, and
recreational areas. Activity in terras of trips generated by
these factlfties will probably occur over an 8-12 hour period witn
a peak-to-off-peak hour ratio of perhaps 2 to 4. Two worst condition
, analyses will be necessary—one for the worst peak hour and one for
, the worst 8-hour period.
(1} Worst peak hour period
Assume that the parking lot contains one vehicle per stall
(full lot) and that of these, 2.2 percent are operating at any one
time. The emission density, E, Is then calculated as follows:
F - faQO 9 CO yi hour Vl stall Vl vehicleVlO.8 ft.2 ) (0.022)
cl-hr " \yehicle hourA3600 sec.A325 ft.2/V stall /\TH?- /
-42
- 1.8 x JO * g CO/sec-nr
-------
From Figure 1 1n Appendix 0, to achieve a downwind edge con-
centration of less than 10 percent of the one hour CO standard
(10% of 35 p.p.m. • 3.5 p.p.m.), the area must be no longer
than approximately 140 meters on a side, which corresponds
to a square area of approximately 5 acres (675 stalls)..
(11) Worst 8-hour period
Assume that for 8 hours, the parking lot contains only
three-fourths the number of vehicles as parking stalls and
that only 0.7 percent of these vehicles are operating at
any one time over the 8-hour period. The 8-hour emission
density, E, is calculated as follows: *
F -/900 9 CO N/l hour Vl stalV5.75 vehicles'N/lO.S ft2 I fn
L8-hr Ven1cle houy\3600 sec/\325 ft2\l stall /VTm2/ lu<
» 4.4 x 10"5 g CO/sec-m2
From Figure 1 in Appendix 0, to achieve a downwind edge concen-
tration of less than 10 percent of the 8-hour CO standard (10%
of 9.0 p.p.m. = 0.9 p.p.m.), the lot area must be no longer
than approximately 140 meters on a side, corresponding to a square
area of approximately 5 acres (675 stalls).
(b) Facilities whose associated motor vehicle activity occurs
over a short period, perhaps an hour or less.
These facilities include sports stadiums and centers which
cater to affairs from which patrons leave at one time. Assume
that the lot Is full (1 vehicle/parking stall) and that an average
of 2.2 percent of the vehicles are running during the one-hour
period. Although the number of cars running at any one time may be
much higher than 2.2%, It Is anticipated that a 5 acre lot could
-------
El-hr
empty In much less than an hour, thus, reducing the average
number of cars running during the hour to 2.2%. The one-hour
emission density, E, 1s then calculated as follows:
_/900 g CO A/1 hour Vl stalA/ vehicleVlO.8 ft.2) ,n n??,
'^vehicle hour/\3600 sec./\325 ft2/V stall /\^ / ^u>u"'
= 1.8 x 10"4 g CO/sec-m2
From Figure 1 in Appendix 0, to achieve a downwind edge con-
centration of less than 10 percent of the 1-hour standard
(10% of 35 p. p.m. = 3.5 p. p.m.), the parking area must be no
longer than approximately 40 meters, which corresponds to a
square area of approximately 5 acres.
* <
(2) Highways
To estimate the sizes of highways abov which will result in local
CO concentrations which exceed 10 percent of the carbon monoxide
standard, the 1' ->e source model HIWAY* was used to develop Figure 1
(enclosed) which depicts CO concentration as related to traffic on the
roadway. The following assumptions were made in the development of
Figure 1:
- 1 lane roadway of 400 m 1n length .
- Receptor located as indicated in the diagram in Figure 1, at
2 m above ground,
- Angle between the direction of the wind and the roadway 20 degrees,
- Mobile sources emitting CO at 0 m above ground,
- Flat terrain,
- Class "D" atmospheric stability,
- Wind speed of 1 m/sec,
- Vehicle speed of 30 mph,
- 1975 automobile age and use distribution operating under urban
conditions.
*Z1mmerman, J.R., and Thompson, R. S., "User's Guide for HIWAY", paper under
preparation ,Met. Lab., EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
-------
Although the assumption of a 1 lane roadway was used, this was
done solely for calculation purposes. The HIWAY model has an option
for entering the total line source density rather than the traffic
1n each lane—this option was chosen with the value set at 0.0031
grams/second-meter for the one lane. This value corresponds to 100
vehicles per hour for the 1975 vehicle age and use distribution operating
at 5 mph under urban driving conditions. To obtain the concentrations
corresponding to the 30 mph condition, the concentrations were multiplied
by a factor of 0.33.
For a 1-hour CO concentration of 3.5 p.p.m. (10% of 35 p.p.m.),
Figure 1 yields a maximum roadway volume of approximately 700
veh1cles/hr. For an 8-hour CO concentration of 0.9 p.p.m. (10% of
9 p.p.m.). Figure 1 yields a maximum roadwe>; volume of approximately
180 veh1cles/hr (i.e., 1440 vehicles over 8 hours).
These volumes will be periodically revised to reflect changing
vehicle emission factors resulting from changes 1n vehicle age and use
distributions which will occur after 1975.
-------
s a 7 a » i >O
s e 7 e e io»
1C , vehicles /hr
-------
(b) Regulation for review of new or modified Indirect sources
(1) Definitions:
(1) "Indirect source " means a facility, building, structure,
or Installation, or combination thereof, which causes emissions
to be generated through associated mobile source activity.
(11) "Modification" means any change to an Indirect source which
Increases the vehicle capacity of such facility.
(2) The requirements of this paragraph are applicable to the following
Indirect sources 1n the State of , the construction or modifi-
cation of which is commenced after the effective date of this paragraph:
(1) Any new facility with an associated parking area with a
capacity of 700 or more cars.
(11) Any modified facility which:
(a_) Increases parking capacity from less than 700 cars to
700 or more cars, or
(b) Increases existing parking capacity which Is 1n
excess of 700 cars by more than 25 percent, or more than 700
cars, whichever is less.
(111) Airports served by regularly scheduled airlines.
(1v) Roads with a maximum expected traffic volume within ten
years of completion of:
(a) 1440 vehicles 1n eight hours, or
(b_) 700 vehicles 1n one hour.
(3) No owner or operator of an Indirect source subject to this para-
graph shall commence construction or modification of such source after
the effective date of this paragraph without first obtaining approval from
the Administrator of the location and design of such source.
-------
(1) Application for approval to construct or modify shall be
made on forms furnished by the Administrator, or by other means
prescribed by the Administrator* and shall Include the following
Information:
(aj The name and address of the owner and/or operator.
(bj The location of the facility.
(c_) The total motor vehicle capacity before and after the
construction or modification of the facility.
(dj The normal hours of operation of the facility and
the enterprises and activities which 1t serves.
(ej The number of people using or engaging 1n any .
enterprises or activities which the facility will serve.
(f) The maximum number of motor vehicles expected to use
the facility on an one-hour and eight-hour basis.
(3.) A projection of the geographic areas in the community
from which people and motor vehicles will be drawn to the
facility. Such projections snail Include data concerning
the availability of public transit from such areas.
(hj Maximum measured or estimated ambient air quality data
for carbon monoxide for one and eight-hour periods.
(j_) An estimate of maximum emissions of carbon monoxide
resulting from mobile source activity on the premises,
calculated for one and eight-hour periods.
(j_) An estimate of the maximum one and eight-hour concentrations
of carbon monoxide occurring on the premises as a result of the
emissions calculated pursuant to subdivision (i)(i_) of this
subparagraph.
-------
(11) A separate application 1s required for each Indirect source.
(111) Each application shall be signed by the owner or operator,
which signature shall constitute an agreement that the applicant will
assume responsibility for the construction, modification or
operation of the source 1n accordance with applicable rules and
regulations, and the design submitted 1n the application.
(1v) Any additional Information, plans, specifications, evidence
or documentation that the Administrator may require shall be
furnished upon request,
(4) No approval to construct or modify will be granted unless the
Applicant shows to the satisfaction of the Administrator that:
(1) The source will be operated without causing a violation of
the control strategy which 1s part of the applicable plan, and
(11) The emissions resulting from the mobile source activity
associated with the facility will not prevent or Interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standard for carbon monoxide.
(5) Within 30 days after receipt of an application, the Administrator
will notify the public by prominent advertisement 1n the region
affected, of the opportunity for public comment on the Information
submitted by the owner or operator.
(1) Such Information, Including the Administrator's analysis of
the effect of the facility on air quality and the Administrator's
proposed approval or disapproval, will be available 1n at least
one location 1n the region affected.
-------
(11) Public comments submitted within 30 days of the date
such Information 1s made available will be considered by the
Administrator 1n making his final decision on the application,
(111) The Administrator will take final action on an application
within 30 days after the close of the public comment period. The
Administrator will notify the applicant 1n writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the application, and will set
forth his reasons for conditional approval or denial.
(6) The Administrator may Impose any reasonable conditions on an
approval, Including conditions requiring the source owner or operator
to conduct ambient air quality monitoring 1n the vicinity of the site
of the source for a reasonable period prior to commencement of con-
struction or modification, and/or for any specified period after the
facility has commenced operation.
(7) Approval to construct or modify shall not relieve any owner or
operator of the responsibility to comply with the control strategy
and all local, State, and Federal regulations which are part of the
applicable plan.
-------
Figure 1
COMPLEX SOURCE TIME SCHEDULE
1973
1. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - DECISION
NRDC v. EPA
2. EPA MET WITH NRDC
PETITION THE COURT - ESTABLISHED
A TIME SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS
3. DISAPPROVAL OF SIP
4. PROPOSED REGULATIONS FEDERAL REGISTER
5. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS
6. COMPLEX SOURCE REGULATIONS
7. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
8. APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL NOTICES AND PLAN PROPOSALS
.. _ . , •*.... ....
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROMULGATION
•0. REGIONAL FINDINGS TO CPDD
11. COMPLETION OF FEDERAL REGISTER PROMULGATION
PACKAGE
12. FINAL PROMULGATION
JANUARY 31
MID FEBRUARY
MARCH 8
APRIL 18
MAY 18
JUNE 18
AUGUST 15
OCTOBER 15
NOVEMBER 15-20
NOVEMBER 27
DECEMBER 10
DECEMBER 15
-------
I
en
Dates:
STATE
(6 copies)
V
PROCESSING PROCEDURE .
COMPLEX SOURCE
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
8-15-73
8-20-73
9-5-73
9-25-73
10-10-73
•Air and Water Division
Regional Councel
-Surveillance and
Analysis Division
PLAN PROMULGATION ACTIONS
CPDD
(3 copies)
-Official File
-Federal Register
upublic Affairs
COMMENTS TO
%GIONAL
OFFICE
CPDD
FEDERAL
REGISTER
A/D
PACKAGE
CPDD
"^ASSEMBLE
FINAL
FEDERAL
REGISTER
PACKAGE
OAWP
PROCESSINI
EDERAL
REGISTER
10-15-73
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. REGIONAL OFflCES - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW, PREPARATION OF. FEDERAL REGISTER APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL ACTIONS
2. OEGC - GENERAL OVERVIEW OF 51.11 (LEGAL AUTHORITY) AND 51.18 (PROCEDURES). PROVIDE REVIEW AND COMMENT TO REGION
OFFICES.
3. CPDD - GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PLAN SUBMITTALS, PROVIDE COMMENTS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO REGIONAL OFFICES. WILL
CONSOLIDATE TO REGIONAL OFFICES FEDERAL REGISTER APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL PACKAGE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR AND
PUBLICATION. WILL PREPARE PROMULGATIONS WHERE STATES HAVE NOT ACTED.
-------
PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
3
cn
Dates
June 18
June 25
July 1
August 1-5 August 5
August 15
FEDERAL REGISTER
PROMULGATION
^
REGIONAL OFFICJ
GUIDANCE TO
STATES
5
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICES
— 3
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
5
FINAL
PLAN
PREPARATION
— *
SUBMITS
TO
EPA
PROPOSED SIP
FINALIZED
-------
Example Application of MI WAY Model
Unclosed is a sample run of EPA's interactive line source diffusion
model "HIWAY". A brief description of tin's program is given first, followed
by the actual run. In this example, a roadway of 1 ki 1 ometor was chosen,
with a receptor located half-way down the roadway, 15 meters from the side
of the road on the downwind side and 2 meters above ground. The emission
density ("line source strength vector") of .00308 grams/second-mcter corresponds
to a traffic volume of 100 vehicles/hour travelling at 5 miles per hour in
urban traffic conditions. Assumed is a 1975 vehicle age and use distribution,
class "D" atmospheric stability, a wind speed of 1 meter/second. The angle
between the direction of. the wind and the roadway is 20 degrees. »The resulting
concentration of 1.529 p.p.in. carbon monoxide can be multiplied by the
following factors to obtain the correct concentration corresponding to other
vehicle speeds:
Vehicle Speed (mph) Factor
10 0.70
15 0.50
20 0.40
30 0.33
50 0.30
For the 30 rnph condition, the resulting concentration is .505 p.p.m. To
obtain a plot of CO concentration in p.p.m. vs. traffic in vehicles per hour,
use two endpoints of (.505 p.p.m., 100 vehicles/hr), and (5.05 p.p.m., 1000
vehicles/hr).
-------
EPA/RTCC/RTP NC Time Sharing System
TSL- Time Sharing Library System is now released.
READY
hi way
DO YOU WANT A DESCRIPTION OF THE EPA "HI'WAY" MODEL
BEFORE APPLYING IT?(YES OR NO)
yes
,TIIE EPA
VICINITY
THE
SUPERPOSITION
SECTIONS.
, THE COORDINATE
"111 WAY" MODEL
OF A ROADWAY
COMPUTES INERT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
ON A SHORT TERM BASIS (HOURLY AVERAGES) US I
TSUI
GAUSSIAN PLUME FORMULATION.
APPLIES. THE
IF MORE
MODEL CAN BE
THAN
USED
ONE ROADWAY IS PRESENT
FOR AT GRADE AND CUT
;YSTEM is ARRANGED SUCH THAT THE X-AXIS INCREASES FP.C
WEST TO EAST 1-/H I LE
RELATED TO HI GHWAY
USER UNITS TO
THE Y-AXIS INCREASES
MEASUREMENTS ARE IND
FROM SOUTH
CATED BY A
KlLOMETERS
UNITS
KILOMETERS
METERS
FEET
MILES
UNITS APPLY
THE MOST FREQUENTLY USED
SCALE FACTC,<
1.0
0.001
0.000305
1,61
EXCEPT WHEN OTHER UNITS
TO NORTH.THE UN
SCALE FACTOR OF
FACTORS ARE:
ARE SPECIFICALLY
SCALE FACTOR
REQUESTED.
,THE EMISSION DATA IS DEPENDENT ON VEHICLE SPEED,TYPES AND NUMBER OF
VEHICLES,AND EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES.THE PROGRAM WILL GENERATE A','
EMISSION RATE BASED ON AN ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE ROADWAY SPEED AND
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.ALTERNATIVELY, THE USER CAN ELECT TO SPECIFY HIS
OWN EMISSION RATES IN GRAMS PER SECOND-METER.THE LATTER APPROACH IS
HIGHLY PREFERABLE SINCE THE INTERNALLY GENERATED RATE
BASED UPC.1;
A SPECIFIC AUTOMOBILE MIX WHICH DOES MOT APPLY
INPUTS ARE ENTERED FOR EACH LANE STARTING WITH
.COORDINATES OF THE ROAD CORRESPOND TO THOSE OF
EDGE. WIND DIRECTION IS DERIVED BY
DUE NORTH.(E.G.,WIND FROM NORTH IS
,THE PROGRAM CONTAINS THE OPTION TO
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND/OR TYPES OF
,YOU MUST SEPARATE MULTIPLE INPUTS W
ACCURATELY I;.' MOST C,
THE DOWNWIND LANE.
A LINE ON THE POV.'N'V.' 11
MEASURING CLOCKWISE(EAST) FROM
0 DEGREES;EASTERLY WIND IS 90.)
EVALUATE ANY NUMBER OF
ROADS.
TH COMMAS.
FOR MOST APPLICATIONS, THE
SOURCES ARE ASSUMED TO BE
HEIGHTS OF
THE SAME.
THE RECEPTOR AND
ENTER SCALE FACTOR.
HITr.R I.INF.(ROAP) ENPPOINTS. (ORDERED PA I RS : X 1, Yl, X2, Y2 )
-------
0, 0, Q, 0
ENTER EMISSION III-: I GUT. (METERS)
•> -
0
ENTER WIND DIRECTION (DEG). NORTH IS ZERO.
?
250
ENTER WIND SPEED (METERS/SEC).
?
1
ENTER MIXING HEIGHT (METERS).
?
3000
ENTER PASQUILL-TURNER STABILITY CLASS (1-5).
?
li
ENTER THE NUMBER OF LANES.
?
1
DO ,'OU WISH TO ENTER YOUR OWN EMISSION RATES? (YES OR NO)
yos
ENTER LINE SOURCE STRENGTH VECTOR.(A VALUE FOR EACH LAME)
?
.00308
IS THIS A CUT SECTION? (YES OR NO)
no
ENTER HI WAY WIDTH (METERS).
?
5
ENTER WIDTH OF CENTER STRIP (METERS).
?
0
ENTER NUMBER OF RECEPTOR LOCATIONS DESI RED.(MAX I HUM OF 25)
?
1
IKJ5l»017A TERMINAL ERROR, REENTER INPUT
1
ENTER RECEPTOR COORDINATE SETS.(XSY IN SCALE FACTOR UNITS;Z IN METERS)
?
.5,.015,2
ENDPOINTS OF THE LINE SOURCE
0.0 , 0.0 AND 1.000, 0.0
EMISSION HEIGHT IS 0.0 METERS
EMISSION RATE (GRAMS/S ECOND*MF.TER) OF 1 LANE(S)
0.003
WIDTH OF AT-GRADE HIGHWAY IS 5.000 METERS
WIDTH OF CEIITER STRIP IS 0.0 METERS
WIND DIRECTION IS 250. DEGREES
WIND SPFF.D IS 1.0 METERS/SEC
STABILITY CLASS IS U
HEIGHT OF 1.1 CITING LID IS 3000.0 METERS
THE SCALE FACTOR IS l.OOOOKM.
-------
R
EPTOR LOCATION
X Y
HEIGHT CONCENTRATION
Z (M) UGM/CU METER PPM
0.5000
0.0150
2.0000
1757. kl7
1.529
YOU HAVE THC OPTION TO RUN THE MODEL FOR A NEW RECEPTOR LOCATION
(LOO, OR TO CHANGE THE ROADWAY TYPE, OR TO END THE PROGRAM.
ENTER LOG, OR TYPE, OR END.
end
READY
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
: Additional Programs which are now Available DATE: July 11, 1973
•
Gerald Nehls, Chief
Data Management Section
CO: NEDS/SAROAD Contacts
We have some programs which are now operational 1n a batch
mode. Since we shall be devoting most of. our efforts to conversion
over the next 5-8 months, we shall not be able to add these to the
ISO system. However, we would like to make them available to you
so that you can run them on your RJE terminal 1f you so desire.
Upon request we can send card decks and operating Instructions
for the following programs.
Program #1: SAROAD hourly listing.
Lists all data with a sampling Interval of 12 hours or
less. Also creates running averages.
Program #2: NEDS emission summary
Summarizes emissions data by various categories for county,
state, AQCR, and nation.
Program #3: NEDS condensed point source listing
Lists selected point source Information for various para-
meters sorted in various orders. A.sample request sheet is
enclosed.
Program #4: NEDS Stationary Source Fuel Summary
Presents a summary of fuel use by various categories for
the nation, a state, county, or air quality control region.
Program #5: NEDS Source Counts
Counts the number of plants, plant-points, and plant-
polnt-SCC's by state.
Program #6: Allowed vs Computed Emissions
Lists for a plant by point and SCC the computed emissions
EPA ferm 1320-6 (fev. 6.72)
-------
vs allowed emissions. A memo defining the availability of
this program should have been sent to the regional offices
by the Standards Implementation Branch.
We are enclosing sample outputs.
If you want any or all of these programs and their documenta-
tion, please contact either Carolyn Chamblee or me.
There are two other programs which we are now developing and
hope to make available to you by the end of August.
1. Em1ss1ons/A1r Quality report
A report by AQCR containing the following Information:
AQCR population
Land area of AQCR
Priority of pollutants 1n AQCR
Point and area source emission totals by pollutant
For a year or multiple of years and by pollutant
the number of stations* maximum value, and maxi-
mum yearly average for the stations meeting criteria.
2. Standards exception reporting system
A report defining the number of observations and the
number of times the standards have been exceeded by sampling
site.
Enclosure
-------
-t ) Li- .ir s| A | J
AiitNLY
J^ -*•* Y
C<"^4
u*
wO'JUMUt
.....; i... .. .. . .. ...; _ _.. 4210111 .
' ! . . : " .
l-;-*6.j£ rUTt 1 1ST I*i-
. ! j : . j_
12' : : .1 ? 3 ' 4
1 1. ;•'• j.l .V .* .*
? S.:^; |.7 _'.7 1.4 .7
3 *••«'-:>• ft.-* . •*••> 3.r 2.«?
. ._ . .4 .. . 1 .i* ! : J.}* ! .6 .S .6
s I ir j | i." ' »4 .3 .S
», 4JJ4J if.!! ' 3.* 2.8 V?.7
7 ii4J •-;!.;» • ;i .7- "- ,d
* 1«^S lull .7 ** .3
«* . 4ibi .$.5 ; i.l . 2.9.. ,2.2.
I'.i 1*JY? j..f» .'.0 1.7 .1.7
.1 | :•: . . ' M
11 i.: ! l.i kv . 7 .«,
13 Si<7 j: .rt 6*) 4.»i
.-.. i? ili j : :.? ! .7 •* 7 »2
.... ' ! 1 ill' :- I- • • ' M
... -17 : iff- j:.3 .2 .1 :; .il-
ls . 1 it4 j ' jfciS <•«? I*7 ,2.:«i;
. .,.19 . i*H. |4fc- LA..7. ...?.?.- !2.«»;
20 S*h ) &49 !-.b 5.H .4.»»
- --- • i| ij ii:-r l : . :: . :
21 l4,V, 1.3 1.1 1<1 .I.1):
2«; ^«ll \ I'.H i.i- .9 '. .!«;
21 ?it ? fc.ri Ui ' i.l: |:l.l!
•2 * ^ «k" * iL« all.' 1 « 2 ! il « 3 ,
25 ' ~2*PT"ir.* 1 «-."""3./" '3.3'
._.._ . 4|:t, . ; : . ;> .-
• 2* *«P ; »:«} j *.2 3.*: .3.0.
-1-...27 . l.M- ;U« . .*>. . •*>. i. ..7
?" 44i?j i?.0 ^-.5 1.? i'l.'l.
29 _. ..b..Ji:.3 . .0 - .9: .'!..;)
30 -..- ;f.7 j -.t, ?.3 .i b.i 4,w
-4 .fji^.i- '' -—
f ^
b
1.0
.5
2.r>
.7
2."-
.•<
1.1
I.1*
.s
4.2
.">
.•4
2.9
3.t
3.3
1.4
.9
1.0
1 € _j
3./>
3.0
1.1
1.!)
. .7
2.3
. . *.
1.5
!.<.
ji
4.2
. . :.
t.
i ."
.9
2.»5
4.9
1.3
J;i
2. 1
1.1
4.W
l.H
Q
• "
3!*.
_*•..*>
b.^
2.4
U3
1.0
. .8
3.4
3.7
2.f
l.J
. .t<
2.3
1.1'
2.3
. U
7
J.I
1.?
3. '
9'.1
2.8
.3.' 2
2.?
->.o
7.B
3^3
1
• 1
.B
tf.3
13.2
11.3
4.7
2.7
1.0
.....9
3.9
S.9
3.4
?.n
...l.b
3.1
:3
4.0
...31
13.2
CO-
INS
H
•*.*
1.3
^.4
12. b
jl.-y
-Jib.
3.3
S.'.i
.. 7.0.
6.4
7
. f
.0.
a. 4
. 1 4 . n
14. h
S.7
4.4
1.0
J.I
3.3
5.5
3.*
2.J
.i?.'«
3.ri
.*
4. a
Ce"'TPATION IN P
T^U"£
„
'2.i.
2.1
?.4
7.ti
14.1
1.1.
4.7
2.?
4.7
4.5
• s
• 3
6.h
14^1.
1 1.0
S.n
3.b
2.1
I.L
2.7
6.7
2.4
2.1
. .2..!l_
S.4
1.3
4.1
31__..3i.
14. »,
14.1
NT<»L
1-1
1."
2.6
?.o
13.7
2. 1
.7lJ.
?.S
s.O
5.4
.6
7.3
.10.9
in. 3
S.9
2.9
«.o
1.5
3.3
7.0
2.4
2.3
. 3.2.
6.1
1.7
4.7
. .-3.1
13.7
MUNU
11
2.0
3.5
1 .4
1*.7
2.0
ill*.
2.8
,».5
6^6
1.0
12. ?
13. A.
6.4
7.0
:>.6
s.5
2. tJ
3.3
*./
2.6
2.8
•** Sril •>.' ,Tf)N ^T
(3134- J002FU1
wfct T
)
*f..:i
•«WA «K:U
AwTS Ppw MILLION
12 1
2.0 2.-,
*.t> 10.1
1.0 1.4
16.0 16. -^
2.0 2.4
J:l-io:3
3.n 2.*
3.1 3.'
5.3 5.S
Jj -a A
. r O. 4
1.1 1.3
11.7 12.6
±d.i!..l*.2
tf.i 10.'^
7.9 7.V
7.4 8.4
11. « 3.1
__2..2 2.!i
3.4 4.S
7 . -H 7 . -»
.3.7 4.0
3.^ 3.(i
-3.0_.3.i»-.J.'3'.
««.5
.
2.1
*.3
31
14.7
b . v 9.3
... . .
2.4 3.0
b.o 6.?
iNhHA
2
2.6
12.3
1.1
6.H
7.8
3.0
lllfc
3.3
3.3
..4.1
6.rt
f, y
** • c
.7
4.3
13.3
9.0
7.2
H.I
6.5
3.6
"4.7
7.7
2.7
2.9
. 5.b
7.3
.. .
4.3
b.l
31 31 31
IB. r 16.^
13.3
-MtO DtC ll-72
3 4 3 f? f a v
J.H 12. -v 12. * 6.U 7.1 7.: 6.6
10.6 7.* 4.1 b.9 6.0 4.« 7.7
l.b l.-i 2. H 1.5 2.1 \.e l.J
•^.b lU.-^ 15. •» v.6 10.^ 10. > H.h
7.8 13.0 21.o rt.9 7.4 l.-j 1.0
3.3 e>.s «.<» 3.9 2.* 2.3 3.0
9.6 16. i| 15. :» 16.3 15. r> lB.r> 14.2
13.6 11.1 13. H...*. 9 7.V 4.* 3.6
3.8 . 7.0 b.? 3.2 2.6 2." 3.»
.5.9 .8.3 ..7. 0_. 7.0. 5.3 4.7 4.e
7.2 13.4 7.7 S.O 3./ 2.1 3. •>
20 4ii i^ IT IP 14 2 n
• ^ J.*l I."* l.i l.r i.J r*'J
.9 .-* .4 .3 .1 .7 .*»
10.5 ?0.3 8.1 4.0 7.S fi.j 6.-*
lb.6 27.7 ^5. « 1»<.4 11.7 7.3 12. »
10. 0 13.7 13.3 7.1 7.2 3.1 s.^
1.6 14.^ 10.3 6.6 5.0 4.7 5.2
^.4 11.4 10.4 6.4 6.1 3.7 4.1
^.5 9.6 10.4 ».5 3.1 3.(. 3.0
..3.6 . 3.b 4.^ . 4.2 4.4 3.c 3.0
b.l 3. -a 4.6 j.«i 4.? 4.s 5.0
7.0 H.I 8.*- 7.0 8.3 6.' 3.1
3.0 3.o 3.7 j.o 3.-» 5.f 3.J
2.3 3.J 4.-. 4.3 2.0 l.S 1.9
.6.6. .9.0 . 6.4 4.7 b.il 3.1 4.1
6.8 7.6 ?.' b.3 3.7 3." 3.f
. „
6.4 7.t 7. ••< 10.3 *>.J 3.k 3.-*
6.7 9.o H.-< 6.2 5.4 4.r 4.5
31.._31. . Jl . .11 . 31 31 31
IS. 6 27.7 25. v H.4 15. b IB. 3 14.2
1C
b.2
7. J
1.2
c. 7
7.M
.V
2. 1
2.2
1 .ft
A • *?
2.7
/ |
'• 1
2.U
2.1
V fl
£ • 0
1.1
2.6
7.1
?.n
«
2..T 2*
il* 24
31 x4
• J C~
2./ <«
4.« i«
4... 24
Iaa JA
• ~ r4
.6 24
«>.v> 24
1 1 . \! 24
7./ 24
S.I 24
3.- 24
2." 24
4.- 24
5.1 24
2.- 24
£.4 24
3.1 24
i.ii 24
3.4 24
4.-.
74
-------
STATE EMISSIONS REPORT
••*•»••••••«•••*»«•*••
TENNESSEE
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM
»•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RUN DATE: JULY lit 1973
EMISSIONS AS OFI APRIL 19. 1973
FUEL COMBUSTION
•«••**••»*»••»*
PARTICULATES
jTONS / YR
1 '
SOX
«••••••*••••••
TONS / YR
NOX
•*••••••••••••
TONS / YR
HC
••••••••••*•••
TONS / YR
CO
••*••••»••••<
TONS / Yft
. ' • • •
TERNAL! COMBUST ION "
RESIDENTIAL FUEL '. •:••••'
: jfOTAi. (RESI6ENT.IAL) :
t!LECi GENERATION (POINT)
•-'. . i ;• i • ' : ! . •* '• '
"I1 \ BITUMINOUS COAL
. ! DISTILLATE OIL ]
I; : NATURAL GAS' '•. ••-•'• ", '::', '"
;'!| TOTAL (ELEC GEN) ^ ? '• !
•'j(t '' 'j .; ' ' ' : i • : '; : '
.;lNt)USTfiAL FUEL; 1 !: ; ij •; : ;
"tj i BITUMINOUS COAL '<} ''* :i
' ; , i POIwT SOURCES .: ;
: i i RESIDUAL OIL ' • '
' ' . : AREA SOURCES
"; ! : i POINT SOURCES !
1 j PISTILLATE OIL
'•'• >• '. AREA SOURCES
1 : : • POINT SOURCES
. ' NATURAL GAS .. :
AREA SOURCES
• POINT SOURCES
; PROCESS SAS
! ! : . AREA SOURCES
: ; i ;': ! POINT S6URCES
'!; POINT SOURCES
; LIQUID PETROL GAS
; POINT SOURCES
1 ! TOTAL (INDUSTRIAL)
.. it !. •! .i .AREAi-SOURCES : ''*.,.,..,.
6374
238
A\ ^
917
.': ! 7953
197521
0
: 39
i 197560
, • ; :
73017
154
• 182
98
: 89
677
358
1
1460
2859
91
tLr, i ^.^_93.0 .. .
23105
1365
13
1 O
18
24502
787570
1
c
7875 S
54546
691
2357
1205
432
23
3087
0
5000
204
22
1919
956
286
1114
367
2723
147327
3
3369
150700
28852
617
535
254
271
6766
4054
18
0
2187
608
7656
6374
71
178
73
6697
2193
0
346
2538
979
31
27
13
13
A 50*
513
3
0
437
203
1550
28683
119
446
73
29322
7309
0
3
7312
2376
2
2
1
1
15
6
0
0
437
1
18
-------
NSTITUTIONAL FUEL
BITUMINOUS COAL
AREA SOURCES
POINT SOURCES
RESIDUAL OIL
AREA SOURCES
:: : : POINT SOURCES i
; DISTILLATE OIL
?! AREA SOURCES
: POINT SOURCES
; NATURAL GAS :'. i
: j! AREA SOURCES :
j POINT SOURCES
• TOTAL .:
!' AftFA ;SOUHCES :, '
i POINT SOURCES '.: ••'
' •:' i ; •• '' ;. . ;
TOTAL;' (FUEL COMBUST I ON >>; fi
! : !
AREA SOURCES
PJJINT SOURCES j
; ,
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS (POINf)
•"•"••'••• i! 1 " 1: -\ •
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
V FOOD/flGRlCULTURAL i
'" PRIMARY: MFTtL •
SECONDARY METALS '
MINERAL. PRODUCTS : j
WOOD PRODUCTS j
EVAPORATION j !
TEXTILE: MANUFACTURING
INPROCESS FUEL :
OTHERXNOT CLASSIFIED!
TOTALi. (INDUSTRIAL) ;
'' i • . : 1
SOLID WAStE,DJSP(iSAL i
••••o«««o*oi*p#»«»»« j-
GOVERNMENT J^OINT)
•
MUNICIPAL INCINfcRAT
TOT^Li (GOVERNMENT)
•;
: PESIDCNTIAL: :
OPEN huRN'lNG .
5752
937
7
3
1 282
2
373
43
7414
; '985
i
i 16297
i 276601
? !! '• tl
• •:
r '•! i •
~t '- \ ! !•
! \:'-.\ ;r
i ' .;| ^'
;: -'-fl •: !''
•; ' '• •
1 •• L'r
6 : i ! i
{:••'•:!. ;
! . ' : •
3 • > •
s ; •• '
•:'i!' '
J : •
- • ' • . .
-; ;
'i i i '
:; ' '
rON;
! 'i
'•' • f- . • .
• • I •
,: TOTAL (RESIDENTIAL) j
'.'.'• i . •:
COMMERCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL
; > t i
^ ON tlTE INCINERATION
1H9Q7
: i oc~ r
276601
: 26187
4473
21861
4516
69894
; 6418
292
15
6272
28
139956
' ' '
1 :
•
145
145
1328
1328
.
i . t - . M
6301
1633
73
IB
4964
19
12
1
13349
1671
39770
854895
39770
854895
52341
C
505
4521
19165
10
0
0
6239
0
82782
865
415
19
7
5126
7
1965
447
7975
877
18353
188084
18353
188084
12084
0
3
18
2552
115
148
0
140
0
15061
188
29
1
0
256
0
157
18
602
48
8850
4759
8850
4759
29877
0
1484
0
14
160
2321
0
452
0
34307
fOCJ
677
61
0
0
17
0
393
46
1087
106
30426
10241
30426
10241
5579
0
63
59330
115
0
146
0
4
0
65237
18
18
83
83
15
15
498
498
20
20
2822
2822
! : , -.
248
248
7055
7055
1 A
-------
AREA SOURCES
TOTAL (COMM-1NST)
AREA SOURCES
POINT SOURCES
INDUSTRIAL
ON SITE INCINERATION
POINT SOURCES
OPEN BURNING
AREA SOURCES
POINT SOURCES
TOTAL. (INDUSTRIAL)
AREA SOURCES
POINT SOURCES
TOTAL (SOLID *ASTE OISP)
AREA SOURCES
POI^T SOURCES i
TRANSPORTATION (AREA)
446
446
12
650
934
10
934
660
2708
818
28
26
4
68
58
0
58
69
169
92
167
167
5
101
350
3
350
103
1015
123
947
947
5
735
1986
18
1986
743
5754
769
2367
2367
18
4380
4964
55
4964
4435
14386
4701
LAND VEHICLES
GftSJDLINE:
nil
LIGHT VEHICLES
HEAVt VEHICLES
OFF HIGHWAY
TOTAL (GASOLINE)
ESEL
HEAVY VEHICLES
OtFF HIGHWAY
RAIL j
TOTAL (DEISELl
6B32
850
356
8039
972
414
1312
2698
4099
510
22.
4832
1944
859
3412
6215
97928
28348
7840
134115
27537
11777
3936
43250
196566
.53561
24632
274760
2754
1178
2624
6556
1000764
211706
134965
1347436
16196
7162
3674
27034
AIRCRAFT
MILITARY;
CIVIL
COMMERCIAL
TOTAL (AIRCRAFT)
120
254
1185
1559
23
50
263
336
58
229
741
1028
280
1124
2844
4248
301
6420
6745
13466
VESSELS
DIESEL FUEL
GASOLINE
TOTAL (VESSELS)
.GAS HANDLING EVAP LOSS
TOTAL! (TRANS»ORTATION>
548
56
604
0
12900
1425
35
1460
0
12843
1644
1243
2887
0
1B12B1
MISCELLA
»•••••*•
•ft
••OT»«'
(AREA)
••••*•••
1096
3906
5002
20097
310662
1534
21399
22934
0
1410870
-------
TOTAL (MISCELLANEOUS)
13270
GRAND TOTAL
AREA SOURCES
POINT SOURCES
TOTAL j
31906
41737*
4*9280
52782
937768
990550
200650
203268
403918
338537
39835
378371
1455682
80179
1535861
". i
a :|Ua I-
-------
Request for Condensed Point Source Listing
The first card Image shown on the accompanying form 1s used to
supply control Information which Is used by the Job throughout one
computer run. Basically* there are six Items of Information con-
tained on this card. The Information 1s:
1) Pollutant. The user must select one pollutant to base the
run on. The computed emissions for this pollutant are
used 1n the value check against the specified minimum.
2) Minimum Value. The user can specify a value to be used In
the comparison to select only records for which the
computed emissions for the specified pollutant are
greater than or equal to the value entered. Zero
Is used if no value 1s entered which causes all
records satisfying other criteria to be selected.
3) Sort Information. A maximum of 20 sort parameters can be
specified by the user. The order the parameters are
entered controls the order of the output. For example,
1f the user wanted to 11st all plants within a state
In alphabetical order by name, the code 01 would be
entered in the two columns under "SORT 01" and 10
would be entered in the two columns under "SORT 02".
The possible sort codes are listed on the form.
4) Confidentiality. This option was allowed for future use
but is not currently implemented. Currently all data
is selected regardless of confidentiality and should
be considered confidential. When the status of con-
fidentiality has been determined, this option will
be revised so that the user will have to specify
confidential data to receive that data in a request.
5) Significant Digits. This option allows the user to specify
the number of significant digits to be printed for
each number. If a value 1s not entered, three is used.
6) Units. If the units field is blank, the emissions are listed
in English units, i.e., short tons. If one is entered
the metric units, megagrams, are used.
Following the control card, the user can enter any number of
selection cards. The selection cards allow the user to specify state,
-------
county* plant number, point number, any or all of the four parts of
the source classification code (SCC), ownership, standard Industrial
classification code (SIC), estimation method, and Air Quality Con-
trol Region (AQCR) to select on. Any one of these fields can be
specified or valid combinations can be specified. For example,
If the user was Interested 1n retrieving Information for all feder-
ally operated plants 1n Tennessee, he would enter 44 1n the first
two columns and an "F" 1n column 21.
Please note that when you are specifying a county retrieval
you must enter both the state and county. Also when requesting a
particular plant number you must enter state, county, and plant.
To request a point you must specify state, county, niant, and point.
-------
1
<7
£•
20'
I
,
1
: 1
i
j
I I
! :
!
30;
1
| '
\ \
\ i
i '
i
' .' 40-
1
| '
i
1
50
~T~
'•
I
'.
.
*i i : * •
1 M '•
i * •
•
•"60
i
•
i
i
1
'76
76'
*[r FAULTS TO NON-CO;.ir;"ENTlAL D'-r' ONLY. IF VQ WANT ALL ,..,«, .. .A "1" IN COLUMN 70.
**N;i,MBER Or SI6NIFi-,«.!:r DIGITS DE3.RED IN VALUt: (OEFA'JU-,- "' L%-:.UMN /2
***:.; ANK. FOR :NGLISH '.',115 (SHORT Vj;r,h "i" FOR ML TRIG UN s •--GAGRA^S) IN COLUMN 74
CI::.OSr:T.r SORT LaQUF.fiCE DESIRED FRr' THE TADLt AT THE fuGHT AND E.'ITEft THE CORRESPOND-
SORT OPTIONS
•:-,',;
M>
*'.?•*•
iri'j .. It., Ur i'fV U1W!' UUUtb . :. 'JKUtK _.jJKtU 1H 1 Ht UUKP WWYc.. ... STATE
'.'.;.-. i 02 COUNTY 12
•'••;:. 03 PLANT NUMBER 13
: • . . i 04 POINT NUMBER 14
05 SCC(SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE) 15
1 : • • • . 06 OWNERSHIP 16
:-..<--.- ^ 07 SIC(STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASS) 17
..;••..', ; : ! , , , -^ 08 ESTIMATION METHOD IS
•!<{'•'•/''/ '•' i / / : // /& / ' 09 AQCR 19
; \/ /' / ' /' ' -xV 4/ A/ / 10 PLANT NAME 20
' } ' ' / ' • / \/ / . '. • /*V ' '«^ / — — — — —
/(• . / /^S / • ' • &tt / ** /
. s S^' ^ '*/'•*$&/< ,' •' «v *i* :• .• ! ; •-;-. ; • : ! •
.. . r. .. , ...,.._. .... ;•!-••
I-'-';. _ _ _ • 1_L. . '— .! —,..-.
i j'; ' ' i i ; i .' , ', j i i
. ,. ,. , ;-r;rr..... . ....
i •:•.,- 1 1 -j . ' ' ' I '.'.'•
1 j:!| '':•'• i : " ./; --': , • i ! ' - :
1 ' ii • ; • • 10 j :20 2?' '
•;[•• !;.;•• ... : .....
i ' , ' , i • • ' • .
:;:i': :'':•- • . -'i ' •
i; I •. i ; ' ; » "-'' • '
ii' hi- : - ; •-! • i ' ' • •
.]; h;: • ••; : .
•1: Mi - i • 1'", ! ' • '
Ni|:,ii: -p1,! i ', - .
: :.' !'i:; : : i i : -. •
PCLLUTA'.T VP/'I
YEAR OF ?EOT?
CONTROL ::un •
CONTROL TFFi: ". :
ASH CO:.:L.if
CITY
UTH COO^r-i.VTLb
OPERATI::i PA7'
CONFIDE;:TiW.rv
t
t
-------
NATIONAL- EMISSION DATA SYSTEM
CONDENSED POINT SOURCE LISTING FOR PARTICIPATE
FOR ALL VALUES > THAN OR * TO 0
EMISSIONS ARE IN SHORT TONS PER YEAR
ooob: T«TNN. VALLEY AUTH. SHAMNEE PIT 42001
18: KENTUCKY ' 246QJ.MC CRACKEN
07?: PADUCAH-CAHO ULL-KY) :
007: CENTRIFUGAL COLLECTOR -.HIGH EFFICIENCY
BY <3) USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC
OWNERSHIPS FEDRL GOVT
YEAH OF RECORD: 1971
EFF '8.5% POINT: 09
4911 SCi ' i-01-005-01
PART SOX N 0 X H C
<1 2 6 <]
THIS DATA MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL
C 0
oocs: TfNN. VALLEY AUTH. SHAWNEE PLT 42001
18» KENTUCKY, 2460:; MC CRACKfcN
OfeJ PADUCAH-CAT96 (ILL-KY)
007: CENTRIFUGAL COLLECTOR - HIGH EFFICIENCY
ESTIMATE BY <3) USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC
EFF « ••
4911 SCC
-'•:.•- K! FEDRL GOVT
Of P.-.COWD: 1971
* POINT: 10
i- -OC5-01
25
THIS DATA MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL
<1
coos: TENN,VC..LEY AUTH. PARADISE PLT 42337 o**£Rs--ip: FEO«L GOVT
IS: KENTUCKY 29hO: MUHLENgEPG YEAS Cr PECORD: 1971
072: PAOUCAH-CATHO (ILL-KY)
010: ELECTftCSTATiC PRECIPlTOR - HIGH EFFICIENCY EFF - 96,?* POINT: 01
ESTIMATE BY <3( -USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC -- 491] SCC - :• i-OOS-01
<1 18 60 1
THIS DATA MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL
0004J TFNN..V*: t_rv AUTH. oa»AoisE PLT 42337
1*: KENTUCKY 2V60:iMUMLEN8EHG
072: PADUCAH-CMHO (ILL-KY) |
010: ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITOR - HIGH EFFICIENCY
ESTIMATE BY <3) USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC »
YEAH OF flECORDJ
GOVT
1971
EFF * 98.0% PO' : 02
4911 SCC = 1-01-OL 01
<1 19 64 1
THIS DATA MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL
TENN.V»LLEV AUTH. oftRfll)isE PLT 42337
13: KENTUCKY 2"*60: MUHLENCERG
072J PADUCAH.CA!»0 (ILL-KY) i
010: ELFCTR05,T*TIC P»£CIPtTpi» - HIGH EFFICIENCY
ESTIMATE BY «3) USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC =
OWNERSHIP: r
OF RECORD:
GOVT
1971
EFF * 98,0% POINT: 03
4911 SCC - 1-P1-005-01
<1 21 69 1
THIS DATA MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL
<1
OWNERSHIP: FEORL GOVT
YEAR OF RECORD: 1970
coon ALLEN STEAM PLANT MEMPHIS
4*.: TENNESSEE ' 3080S SHF.L«r
013: METROPOLITAN MEMPHIS (4HK-MISS-TENN)
010: ELECTROSTATIC PHECIPtTOH - HIGH EFFICIfNCY EFF = 70.0% POINT: 03
ESTIMATE BY «3) USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC * 4911 SCC = 1-01-002-02
14,700 28,700 4.250
71
236
oooi: ALLEN STEAM PLANT MEMPHIS OWNERSHIP: FEDRL GOVT
44J TENMESSEE 3080:;SHELBY YEAR OF RECORDS 1970
015: HETROPOLITsN MEMPHIS.(AlK-MISS-TENN)
OlOi ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPHOrf - HIGH EFFICIENCY EFF « 70.0» POINT! 02
ESTIMATE BY (3) USED EMISSIONS FACTORS SIC • 4911 SCC « 1-01-002-02
12,900 25,200 3,740
62
200
-------
STATIONARY SOURCE FUEL SUMMARY REPORT
STATE FUEL REPORT* TENNESSEE
{ '<- ' i ANTH COAL BITN COAL RES ID OK OIST OIL
. ••: ; TONS TONS 1000 c . -.DOO GALS
AREA SOURCES i ;
PESIDENTIfL ' • : 637, *10 47*600
INDUSTRIAL | : ': • : ! p ? 20*560
COMM-INS^t. r .; : i i^Y. 960 • 170.870
TrtftL 1 i ,; ' ' : • : i»?b.370 9,,ii 239,030
POINT SOUPCE j ' , '
FXT COMB . ! „.,-; I
ELEC l
17.776«lbl 18,;- a 9,443
' f i
I J 73.000
'• ''•}'': ;
• j>! 1 ' • ' '•
- ''-. £'•'.{. ' : ' .
i ;;j I 7 ; • :
- '* ' ; ;
'• i :;j !
., } 118.674*551 27.138 248*473
^ • . f
' i : i '-.' *
••; i.i 'r
; (: •'; 1
i: ! ' - ': ' :: t ' i'
!: . '•• LIGNITE 'BAGASSE SW/COAI LPG
•'• \ i TONS 1 : TONS TONS iOOO GALS
POINT SOURCES : ' - : '.
EXT COMB ''}<'• • •. : ;' • . • :
ELEC GEN ; ! ;
INOUSTWIAL' ;
COMM-INSTLi '
INTERNL cona , ; ' !
ELEC :GEN' ' ' •-•':: ji
INOUS1THIAU!: : : :-:ii [
i 104*000
i ;. .
: '»' j
* • I ! ' l • • • •, '
: f '^: ^ : i :
COMM-INSTt1 'n ': • ;:- k-
ENG-TEST.. I' ; • ;;,.':; •:( ;-: '
GRAND j!rdT4L; •! .-. •' '; j • j-.| . : : . ; ; ' •. 104.000
•: • i .-tic i. i i , ,
' i1 i ••, ' • ' 1 •"- 1 '•' ~ • i
NAT GAS
10E6 CUFT
44*570
75*180
39*300
159*050
17,278
29.124
4*552
SO. 954
*
210.004
DIESEL
1000 GALS
PHOC GAS COKE HOOO
10F.6 CUFT TONS TONS
73*400
160
160 73.400
7.835 *43. 03S
7.835 443.03S
7*995 516*435
GASOLINE JET FUEL
1000 GALS 1000 6ALS
-------
JUL 16, 1973
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM
PAGE: 1
ST
NO
if m •^
01
02
03
ft 4
oc
06
07
OP
09
IS
11
12
13
14
15
17
Xfl
19
70
21
22
23
24
?6
27
?8
29"
30
31
32
35
}&
37
39
?9
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
=52
54
STATE : ' - TOTAL NUMBER
! ' PLANTS
ALABAMA 1 , : 357
ALASKA -| ') ; : :•*• 53
ARIZONA :: : ' ; , 171
ARKANSAS i"! ;' : •{ : i*-' 248
CALIFORNIA; ! T ' ; ' j 1.068
COLOPAOP ! 1 . . ! *-*106
CONNECTICUT • ; • :• : ' 152
nf;LAWARt ! ' *"~~4l
oi ST COLUMBIA" j " ; 44
FLrRIf:* : i ; ; ••;•;' 75
C-P'.1PGIA . : , . ,•;,!. 4?4
I . ; T C. -r
HAWAII j ; 1- t, •! ; t-11.4
IDAHO : '! • ''";.!" 197
ILLINOIS j j : ' : ! :! . 637
INDIANA I . j , :"•.••:','[ 535
KAMS4S : , *^229
KENTUCKY i . . . ' i i 435
LOUIS Ufii ':•:'' . ' . *-*^06
MAINE j '' • , i;f i ^224
MARYLAND ' i| : • ; . .'• •. |; . 221
MASSACHIj^frtS " *^-r j '? ' 659
MICHIGAN ! j j ' ' :.: i !, . 451
MINNESi''T» | • . j.-T '•' ' 506
MISSOUR, : i ' ' ;: ; 268
MONT4N/3 ''. ' '.' i ,; 114
NEPRASi*.'- . : [ . • : •'•'.. i . 120 !
NEVADA : : '" •',•'• ;:• i'^ 4:6
NEW HAMPSHIRE ' ^224
NFW JERSEY: : : ".',.'••' 334 '
NFW MPxiC^i ; : i'^10'2
NORTH DAKOTA ''. ;*^113
OHIO : ••••'•• 1,306
OKLAHOMA ' ; " ' ." i I1"": '•" 153 '•
OREGON .' ' , ; ! :j ;' ::^-344
PFMNS'LVAMA : ' ' ' ' •' 687
PUERTO RICO : i 240
RHODE ISLAND - i ; 96
SOUTH CAROLINA : «^173
SHDTH OAf.CTA . ' • . ; : 't- 76 '
TRNNPSS':? ' 30? '
TFXAS ; , v : : ' :: - : 496
UTAH : ; ! ' 1 ' 48
VFOMONT I ' . "'119
VIRGINIA ; . : • •• 310
WASHINGTON1 ' '. :. ' ':T : \i'(i3$"
WEST VIRGINIA i '• ' • ': ''• ' 162
WISCONSIN ' ' ' ! ";" ~ i 281 :
WYOMING ' ... • . -|'- i ' t-^69 '
GUAM i : ..'.':. : '. 12
TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER
PLANT-POINTS PLANT-POINT-SCC (S
556 723
1C1 102
258 639
313 315
1*988 2,361
253 332
477 516
197 261
108 121
2-r 258
92. i,512
402 430
351 505
2,403 J.040
1,62* " 1,924
' 343 403
1.361 1,794
426 453
382 410
•'•'. 1,559 2»076
1 ' 1,048 " "" 1,168
i,12
-------
DATE: JULY 23. 1973
ALLOWED VERSUS COMPUTED EMISSIONS
J
: PLANT NAM
:.(.-..
. POINT NUMBER: 01
. ;scc NAME
; i scci: INDUSTRIA
. : .] SCC2: INDUSTRIA
..... _..... j .;) ' .
; '.ALLOWED EMISSION
. . ' . .COMPUTED EMISSION
'; : scci*
* _.. J;. •:' . • SCC2r :.:.
i; ' TOTAL:
r ••:
: 'REGULATIONS: ;
ji *: ! !
_^ Lii. ];•• i L .; v!i .1.
j POINT NUMBER t 02
_ 1. » L sec NAME i
STATEJ55): VIRGIN ISLANDS _ _ _
i AQCR(247>: U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
E AND ADDRESS: HESS OIL v i COHP.KINBSHILL ST CROIX
L PROCES PETROLEUM
L PROCES PETROLEUM
PART
S:
S:
! 52'
... 15
i 67
i :.
.. , ....
j i SCCI: INDUSTRIAL PROCES PETROLEUM
..J J: Sqca: INOUSTRUL PROCES PETROLEUM
__ j_ j::ii'';; ' . •'. ,i :. . .: i ....PART
3 | ALLOWED EMISSIONS:
{COMPUTED EMISSION^: i 1
ill •-! • SCCi:; , . j • ;: ; 11
'• ::ji ••( ' SCC2»; ; i ; '• . 3
• ;i; ;; i TOTAL* ;; .
;; ;; »•
-. .. :. i ''[' '<•. \ . . i . :i ; | . : ;l
' I 'i ; | ; ; : : •' •
IPCINT DUMBER! oa ; ".
" '~ \'-".\ scci: INDUSTRIAL PPOCES PETROLEUM
;i j ijj; SCO?: INOUSTHIAJL PPOCES PETROLEUM
. j \ !' : ; i j . 1 . . PART .. .
i ..i ALLO»ED EMISSION
! :;i; COMPUTED El!t|.S$il,0>l
"• "* :i!!^ .j ; scc'iH ;'
:;i: ii \ ' SCC2i -
'•• \ : i : TOTALk :
. ; REGUl ATIONS: ..
s: J
4
... .; 1
6
'
IND. PROCESS HEATER OIL
iNOPr PROCESS. HEATER 6AS.
17 "l82 9
.6 J67 22
23 350 31
- _.
INDRY PROCESS HEATER * OIL
INDRY . PROCESS HEATER 6AS _
SOX NQX MC_ .
*" """ 39 2
1 35 5
5 7* 6
-— -- . - ...
IND»Y " PROCESS HEATER OIL
INDRY PROCESS HEATER GAS
SOX NOX HC
1 15 <1
<1 . . 1* .2
2 29 3
. ... YEAR OF RECORD
71
... .... 71
. _ .CO .
-
..... YEAR OF RECORD
71
. . .. _ 71 ....
: co
YEAR OF RECORD
71
71
'co
- -J
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Kesearcn inangie park, norm Carolina
NASN Decentralization
July 23, 1973
Robert E. Nellgan, Director (/..iml signed by
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (;:,..,..( r Neligan
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors
Regions I-X
The enclosed list Identifies the NASN station In your Region
which should be maintained, at least through calendar year 1975.
It Is the same listing that was distributed during my April visits
to most of your offices and 1t was also Included In the material
that I distributed at the Las Vegas meeting.
I believe that there Is a consensus that the continuation of
the NASN program 1s vital to EPA. I also believe that we Jointly
agreed to continue the operation of these sites and that any termi-
nations would only be-done by mutual agreement. If 1t becomes
necessary to terminate any of these sites, please Inform us In
writing Immediately. In our discussions, I stated that 1f 1n your
opinion that some of these sites should be turned over to the States,
that this would be acceptable. The only criteria that we asked Is
that the States desire the transfer and have sufficient resources
to provide timely valid data.
Data obtained from most of these stations were used 1n prepara-
tion of the "trends" report which summarized national progress In
reducing ambient levels of SOg and TSP. Continued collection of
these data should greatly assist EPA 1n tracking additional progress
1n achieving standards and In relating causative factors (regulations
and emission reductions) to nationwide and regional air Improvements.
Currently, the NASN provides the only data which can be used to
present these long-term historical air quality assessments. Further-
more, the NASN stations In some cases were used In the design of the
control strategy for the State Implementation Plans. Thus, continued
operation of these stations will enable EPA to detect If the SIPs are
effective In reducing the high concentrations. In addition, It will
enable us to verify and assess whether the air quality models used
are effective, predictive tools.
Because of the value of these data, It 1s hoped that a high
priority will be given to maintaining these stations and that commen-
surate priority will be given to assure accurate analysis of the
collected samples.
CONCUMRKNCBS
'1
-------
Region I (13 urban, 4 non-urban) (8
07 0060 001 A01* Conn., Bridgeport
07 0420 001 A01 * Hartford
07 0700 001 A01* New Haven
07 1240 001 A01* Waterbury
20 0960 002 A01 Me., Portland
22 0240 001 A01* Mass., Boston
22 0580 002 A01 Fall River
22 2160 002 A01* Springfield
22 2640 001 A01* Worcester
30 0120 001 A01 N. H. , Concord
41 0120 OO'l A01 R. I., E. Providence
41 0300 001 A01* Providence
47 0140 001 A01 Vt., Burlington
20 0010 001 A03 Me., Acadia National Park
30 0140 001 A03 N. H., Coos County
41 0380 002 A03 R. I., Washington Co.
47 0360 001 A03 Vt., Orange Co.
-------
Together, the ten Regional lists contain a total of 183 urban
stations. At 102 of these stations (Identified by asterisks), the
SO? bubbler samplers should also be maintained. The ten lists contain
a total of 31 separately Identified as nonurban stations. These
stations are of unique Importance and should remain under direct EPA
operation Indefinitely, not only for the continuity of rural or back-
ground trends but also for the singular opportunity to analyze the
samples for background levels, of trace constituents.
Enclosure
cc: A&W Division Directors /
Dave Shearer
Elbert Tabor
MUAD:RENel1gan:lwr-rm 634, NCM Bldg., X447-7-23-73
-------
Region III (28 urban, 3 non-urban) (13 S02/N02)
08 0140 001 A01* Del., Newark
09 0020 001 A01 0. C., Washington
09 0020 003 A01 Washington
21 0120 001 A01* Md., Baltimore
39 0120 001 A01* Penn., Allentown
39 0140 001 A01 Altoona
39 0780 002 A01 Bethlehem
39 3060 002 A01 Erie
39 3880 001 AOT Harrisburg
39 3960 001 A01 .Hazleton
39 4430 001 A01* Johnstown
39 7140 001 A01* Philadelphia
39 7260 001 A01* Pittsburgh
39 7620 001 A01* Reading
39 8040 001 A01* . Scranton
39 9160 001 A01* Warminster
39 9430 001 A01 Wilkes Barre
39 9560 001 A01* York
48 0920 001 A01 Va., Danville
48 1440 001 A01 Hampton
48 1840 001 A01 Lynchburg
48 2120 001 A01 New Port News
48 2140 001 A01* Norfolk
48 2440 001 A01 Portsmouth
48.2660 002 A01* Richmond
48 2700 001 A01 Roanoke
50 0280 001 A01* W. Va., Charleston
50 1760 001 A01 S. Charleston
39 1760 001 A03 Penn., Clarion Co.
48 2890 001 A03 Va., Shenandoah National Park
48 3440 001 A03 Wythe Co.
-------
Region II (20 urban, 1 non-urban) (11
31 0660 002 A01* N. J., Burlington Co. (Marleton)
31 0720 001 A01* . Camden
31 1300 002 A01 Elizabeth
31 1700 001 A01* Glassboro
31 2320 001 A01* Jersey City
31 3480 001 A01* Newark
31 4140 001 A01* Paterson
31 4220 001 A01 Perth Amboy
31 5400 001 A01 Trenton
33 0660 001 A01* N. Y., Buffalo
33 4680 001 A01* New York City
i3 4740 001 A01 Niagara Falls
33 5760 001 A01* Rochester
33 6620 001 A01 Syracuse
33 6880 001 A01 . Utica
40 0380 002 A01* P. R. , Bayamon
40 0560 002 A01 Catano
40 1080 002 A01* Guayanilla
40 1920 002 A01 Ponce1
40 2140 001 A01 San Juan
33 3340 001 A03 N. Y., Jefferson Co.
-------
Region V (40 urban, 2 non-urban) (24 S02/N02)
14 1220 001 A01 111., Chicago
14 1220 002 A01* Chicago
14 5620 002 A01 N. Chicago
14 5080 001 A01 Peoria
14 6700 001 A01 Rock Island
14 7280 001 A01 Springfield
15 1180 001 A01* In'd., E. Chicago
15 1300 001 A01* Evansville
15 1380 001 A01 Fort Wayne
15 1520 001 A01* Gary
15 1780 001 A01* Hammond
15 2040 001 A01* Indianapolis
15 2980 002 AQ1* New Albany
15 3880 002 A01* South Bend
15 4080 001 A01 Terre Haute
23 1180 001 A01* Mich., Detroit
23 1580 001 A01* Flint
23 1820 001 A01* Grand Rapids
23 2840 001 A01* Lansing
23 4860 001 A01* Saginaw
23 5120 001 AC1 Trenton
24 1040 001 A01 Minn., Duluth
24 2260 001 A01* Minneapolis
24 2320 001 A01 Moorhead
24 3300 001 A01 St. Paul
.36 0060 001 A01* Ohio, Akron
36 1000 001 A01* Canton
36 1220 001 A01* Cincinnati
36 .1220 002 A01* Cincinnati
36 1300 001 A01* Cleveland
36 1460 001 A01* Columbus
36 1660 Ooi A01* Dayton
36 6600 001 A01* Toledo
36 7760 001 A01* Youngstown
-------
Region IV (24 urban, 3 non-urban) (14
01 1480 001 A01 Ala., Gailsden
01 1060 001 A01 Huntsvllle
01 2460 001 A01* Montgomery
10 1960 002 A01 Fla., Jacksonville
10 2700 002 A01* Miami
10 3980 002 A01* St. Petersburg
10 4360 002 A01* Tampa
11 0200 001 A01* Ga., Atlanta
11 1280 001 A01* Columbus
11 4500 001 A01* Savannah
18 0080 002 A01 Ky. , Ashland
18 0320 001 A01 Bowling Green
18 0800 001 A01* Covington
18 2300 001 A01* Lexington
18 2380 002 A01* . Louisville
34 0700 001 A01 N. C., Charlotte
34 1160 001 A01 Durham
34 1740 001 A01* Greensboro
34 4460 002 A01 Wins ton-Sal em
42 1180 001 A01 S. C., Greenville
44 0380 001 A01* Tenn., Chattanooga
44 1740 002 A01 Knoxville
44 2340'001 A01* Memphis
44 2540 001 A01* Nashville
10 1680 001 A03 Fla., Hardee Co.
34 0590 001 A03 N. C. , Cape Hatteras
44 0680 001 A03 Tenn., Cumberland Co.
-------
Region VI (13 urban, 4 non-urban) (9 S02/N0z)
CM 1440 001 A01 Ark, Little Rock
04 2740 001 A01 W. Memphis
19 0280 001 A01 La., Baton Rouge
19 2020 002 A01* New Orleans
19 2740 001 A01 Shreveport
32 0040 001 A01* N. M., Albuquerque
37 2200 001 A01* Okla., Oklahoma City
37 3000 001 A01* Tulsa
45 1310 002 A01* Tex., Dallas
45 1880 00.1 A01* . Fort Worth
45 2560 001 A01* Houston
45 4060 002 A01* Pasadena
45 4570 001 A01* San Antonio
04 1760 001 A03 Ark., Montgomery Co.
37 0480 001 A03 Okla., Cherokee Co.
45 3530 001 A03 Tex., Matagorda Co.
45 5200 001 A03 Tom Green Co.
-------
Region V (Cont'd)
51 0840 002 A01 Wise., Eau Claire
51 1540 001 A01 Kenosha
51 1860 001 A01 Madison
51 2200 001 A01* Milwaukee
51 2880 001 A01 Racine
51 3480 001 A01 Superior
15 2800 001 A03 Ind., Monroe Co.
15 3260 001 A03 Parke Co.
-------
Region VIII (7 urban, 4 non-urban) (3 S02/N02) *
06 0580 001 A01* Colo. Denver
35 0100 001 A01 N. D., Bismark .;
43 1480 001 A01 S. 0., Sioux Falls
46 0680 001 A01 Utah, Ogden
46 0920 001 A01* Salt.Lake City
52 0120 001 A01* Wyo., Casper
52 0140 001 A01 Cheyenne
06 1530 002 -A03 Colo., Mesa Verde National Park
27 0570 001 A03 Mont., Glacier National Park
43 0110 00.1 A03 S. p., Black Hills National Forest
52 0860 001 A03 Wyo., Yellowstone National Park
-------
Region VII (11 urban, 2 non-urban) (5
16 0640 00] A01 Iowa, Cedar Rapids
16 1060 001 A01 Davenport
16 1180 001 A01* Des Moines
17 1800 002 A01 Kan., Kansas City
17 3560 001 A01 Topeka
17 3740 001 A01* Wichita
26 2380 002 A01 Mo., Kansas City
26 4280 001 A01* St. Louis
26 4280 002 A01* St. Louis
28 1560 002 A01 .Neb., Lincoln
28 1880 001 A01* Omaha
26 4480 002 A03 Mo., Shannon Co.
28 2480 001 A03 Neb., Thomas Co.
-------
Region X (6 urban, 3 non-urban)(1 S02/N02)
02 00-10 003 A01 Alas., Anchorage
13 0220 001 A01 Ida., Boise
38 1460 001 A01 Ore., Portland
49 1840 001 A01* Wash., Seattle
49 2040 001 A01 Spokane
49 2140 001 A01 Tacoma
13 0340 001 A03 Ida., Butte Co.
33 0440 001 A03 Ore., Curry Co.
49 0980 002 A03 Wash., King Co.
-------
\
Region IX (21 urban, 5 non-urban) (14
03 0440 001 A01 Ariz., Maricopa Co.
03 0600 002 A01* Phoenix
03 0860 001 A01* Tucson
05 0230 001 A01* Cal . , Anaheim.
05 0740 001 A01* Berkley
05 0900 002 A01 Burbank
05 2940 001 A01* Glendale
05 4100 001 A01* Long Beach
. 05 4180 001 A01* Los Angeles
05 5300 001 A01* Oakland
05 5380 001 A01 Ontario
05 5/60 001 A01* . Pasadena
05 6400 001 A01 Riverside
05 6580 001 A01 Sacramento
05 6680 001 A01* . San Bernardino
05 6800 001 A01* San Diego
05 6980 003 A01 * San Jose
05 7180 001 A01* Santa Ana
05 8260 001 A01 Torrance
12 0120 001 A01 Haw., Honolulu
03 0370 001 A03 Ariz., Grand Canyon National Park
05 3300 001 A03 Cal., Humboldt Co.
29 0560 001 A03 Nev., White Pine Co.
12.0080 001 A03 Haw., Hawaii Co. (Top)
12 0080 001 A03 Hawaii Co. (Bottom)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL'PROTFCTION AGENQJ
1
Rtlily lo
Ann of: OAQI'S, CPDD, SIB - Dale: July 30, 1973
Rcouirc'inent for Public Comment on Application for Construction or
Modification of New Sources \
To: Dicector, Division of Air and Water Programs, Regions I - X
Principal Air Contacts, Regions I - X
The purpose of this memo is to emphasize the necessity for changes
to the Slates' new source review procedures mandated by the changos to
40 CFR 51.18 promulgated on June 18, 1973. In particular, the public
comment provisions (paragraph h) and the discussion of the basis for
determining which facilities should be subject to review (paragraph f)
apply to stationary sources as well as indirect sources. Thus, even
if a State cannot submit a plan for indirect source reviev/ due to
inadequate legal aut.'iority, the State should at least modify the
requirements for stationary source review to be consistent with the
revised requirements of § 51.18.
The provisions for a public comment period must be in regulator}'
form. As with any plan revision, these procedures must be the subject
of a public hearing. While the minimum requirements for public comment
are stipulated by § 51.18(h), the opportunity must be provided for
interested parties to express their desire for more comprehensive
public comment requirements, or for additional time for comment.
Care should be exercised to insure that any time periods presently
specified in a State regulation for review of new construction or modifi-
cation applications are consistent with the required 30 day public comment
period (or the public comment period established 1/y the State—see
I 51.1C(/.0(3)).
We have received several inquiries as to whether the States can
utilize the diffusion modeling programs contained in the User's Network
for Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP) in implementing their
Indirect source review procedures. The enclosed attachment describes
procedures by which States can access the UNAMAP programs.
D. Kent Berry
Standards Implementation Branch
Controi Programs
Development Division
Enclosure
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PNOTECTION.AC.i-NCY
National Env:iniMnc'.nt al Resuvirdi Center
Meteorology Lnborntory
Research Triangle Pork, North Carolina 27711
May 23, 1973
This is to inform you of the formation 'of a Users' Network for
Applied Myd<;l:i:i;; of Air Pollution (UNAMAP). The .purpose of UNAMAP
is to avail current air quality simulation models to both EPA and
non-EPA users via a teleprocessing network. The models involved are
all in the form of computer programs accessable from remote terminals
connected to- a central computer facility by telephone lines.
The Meteorology Labqratory with the support of the EPA Research
Triangle Cor.pni.er Center has availed UNAMAP to the EPA Regional
Offices via a teleprocessing network connected to an'IBM 360/50
mainframe at Research Triangle Park, N. C. The success of this
network n.ir; prompted the Meteorology Laboratory to extend the UNAMAP
to non-El'A users via a commercial teleprocessing network. The
Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) network (TNFONET) has been
selected ;..- the r.:.r.-JTA outlrt for U.VAMAP. CSC has c GSA contract
for teleprocessing services. The cost for this service is based
upon the resources used (i.e., computer time, storage, connect time,
etc.)- Users x^ill pay for their service through a direct agreement
with CSC. EPA will assume the responsibility for storing the models
in a readily accessable mode, updating the models and model inventory,
and providing a message service to the users concerning any UNAMAP
changes.
Several of the models can be. executed "on-line" by a user x
-------
Intraurban diffusion from roadway sources, and local diffusion within
n struct cnnyon. Tlu: nodel requires an extcnr.iva emission or traffic
inventory for the city of interest. Rc:qui roinontn and technical details
are documented in "User's Manual for tlic APKAC-.1 A Ur' an Diffusion
Model Cor.putor Program" which is available from NTIS (accosr.ion number
rB-2J3-OlJ.l).
2) II IK AY is an interactive program which computes the <;hort tern
(hourly) concentration of non-reactive pollutants downwind of roadways.
It is applicable when uniform wind conditions and level terrain exist.
It is best suited Cor at-gradc highways, but also can be applied to
depressed highways (cut sections). !
3) CDM - Thr Cliniatological Dispersion Model (CDM) determines
long term (reason,;! or annual) qua^i-stable pollutant concentrations
at any ground ]•. v.-.O receptor using average craission rates fron
point an-.i arr:.! sources and a joint frequency distribution of wind
direction, vinj speed, and stability for the same period. This model
differs from the Air QuaJity Display Model (AQDM) primarily in the
way in. which concentrations are determined from area sources, the use
of Briggs1 plume rise, and the use of an exponential increase in wind
speed with height dependent upon stability. CUM uses a separate data
set for the area of interest.
4) PTMAX is an interactive program which performs an analysis of
the maximum, short-term concentration fror.i a point source as a function
of stability and wind speed.
5) I'Tnl.:'; is an. interactive program which computes short-term
concent rations downwind from a point source at distances specified
by the- x:.!'.cr.
6) PTMTP is an interactive program which computes, at multiple
receptors, short term concentrations resulting from multiple point
sources.
All the interactive models are documented as the programs are execxited.
The CDM model requires a source listing for a user to understand the
data src forn.its. Manuals for t.hc above- nodols. .--.rc in preparation and
should be available' ny August 1973. (Al'fOVC is now available as
previously mentioned).
The models listed in the previous paragraph are installed on
IN1-ONET and ready for access. Other models will be added as they are
validated. This inventory will eventually include models in the
area of photochemistry, estimating concentrations in areas of complex
terrain, and estimating concentrations under stagnation conditions.
*) NTIS — National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
. Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22151
-------
If you arc interested in accessing UNAMAP via INFOXF.T, contact
Mr. lYlcr l.oux of foC (703-527-6080). For other in format .ion relative
to tlii.- nodoj.s tiu1; :".<.;] ves cont.acl. Mr. I). I? nice Turner or the writer
ot tlic Irttcrlu'.'iil ;ifidrcjss. \ . .x
Sincerely yours,
Ronald E. Ruff, EPA
Ciiicf
Computer Tecliniques Group
-------
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
4 AUG 1973
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
Report on Potential Problems in Priority
II and III Regions with Respect to NAAQS
Robert E. Neligan, Director /%-6<>i&'•'<••*-" f''•'''
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Air and Water Division Directors
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I-X
Through intense efforts made by the Regional Offices,
there is now sufficient data in the National Aerometric
Data Bank to initiate further evaluation of the data
received. OAQPS most certainly appreciates the labors
that have been and are continuing to be made in the
collection and processing of air quality data. Now
that the first phase of data collection has been
completed, we must now proceed into a continuing
program for the evaluation and verification of
certain portions of the data received. This report is
the first of a continuing series that will be issued
periodically.
OAQPS is currently developing an air quality
tracking system to flag significant departures from
expected air quality based on emission projections
and SIP regulations at each of the monitoring sites
stored in the NADB. A flow chart for this system,
which employs statistical techniques, is given in
Figure 1. Unfortunately, this system will not be
operational until late this year. Therefore, 1972
air quality data have been screened for values that
suggest a higher priority classification for an AQCR
than that presently assigned. While this alone may
not be sufficient for reclassification, it affords a
convenient screening technique. The data are presented
in Attachment 1 for CO, TSP, S02, and Ox and lists
those sites within Priority II and III AQCR's which
show 1972 air quality levels to be in excess of the
primary standards. All of these data are from the
NADB files. More details may be obtained by accessing
the data with the usual time-sharing program, if
desired. It is requested that the Regiona.1 Offices
review the data for their particular region selected
by this screening in order to verify that these values
EPA Perm 1320-6 (Re». 6-72)
-------
accurately reflect ambient air quality levels in these
AQCR's. (It should be noted, however, that if a site
within an AQCR is high in reference to its priority
classification, this may well be altered when state
regulations are completely effected in 1975. Thus, a
Priority II or III Region, in excess of the primary
standards in 1972, could be well under that standard
in 1975).
The maximum reported concentration was used in
developing the list of sites that exceeded the primary
standards. Since the short-term air quality standards
are written as concentrations which are to be exceeded
no more than once, many of the sites identified by this
procedure are not technically violating the air quality
standard. However, many of these sites which exceeded
the standard only once, were sampling too infrequently
to state with assurance that a second or third violation
was unlikely. Thus, it was decided to utilize the
maximum value for determining if the data from a site
should be examined. Pollutants for which an annual
standard are applicable (TSP and SO2) were screened
by comparison of annual averages the annual primary
NAAQS, in addition to the screening of the maximum
concentrations.
In screening carbon monoxide, it was found that
19 out of 21 Priority III AQCR's, for which we have
data in 1972, exceed the primary standard. These high values ;
may necessitate the development of additional transportation j
control strategies. To better evaluate this CO problem, |
Attachment 2 (Obtaining Information on CO Monitoring) is j
enclosed. We feel that the collection of the suggested J
information is vital to both the Regional Offices and j
OAQPS in order to better define the CO problem.
In addition to CO, we are suggesting that you
evaluate the other pollutants indicated in Attachment 1.
To provide assistance in this evaluation process,
Attachment 3 (Guidelines for Evaluation of Suspect Air
Quality Data) is enclosed with this report. This attachment
can be used to determine if these data accurately represent
air quality levels in the AQCR or whether appropriate
modifications should be made.
-------
In following the guidelines (Attachments 2 and 3),
the Regional Offices, being more familiar with the
different sites and sampling conditions, may alter or
add to the questions and procedures for validating
data points. Any additional facts associated with this
validation will be appreciated.
Since this data verification process is an essential
component of our overall evaluation of progress towards
achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
a response within 30 days of receipt of this report by
the Regional Offices will be appreciated.
Any questions concerning the air quality data or
evaluation guidelines should be referred to Mr. William F. Hunt
at 919/688-8351.
3 Attachments
cc: Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors
R. Sansom
B. Steigerwald
J. Schueneman
J. Padgett
. E. Tuerk
-------
AQCR PROGRESS
SATISFACTORY
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
AIR QUALITY DATA
PROM STATES, ETC,
EPA REGIONAL
OFFICES
FLAGGIKC,
TECHNIQUE FOR
SIP
PROGRESS
ADDITIONAL
DATA VALIDITY
CHECK
NO
DATA VERIFICATION
PROCEDURES
DATA
REVISION
*
*\
QUERY TO
REGIONAL OFFICE
FLAG
DATA
VALID
AQCR PROGRESS
NOT SATISFACTORY
ALERT CONTROL
PROTHAM PEVELOPI-ENT
DIVISION, OAQPS
ALERT REGIONAL
OFFICES
REEVALUATE SI?
-------
Attachment
The following computer printout lists by pollutant and
measurement method those sites by Priority II and III AQCRs
which are exceeding the primary standards. The printouts
are essentially self explanatory. The footnotes at the
';
\ bottom of the printout indicate the data point in question
1
•;] and the reason why. It should be noted that in some cases
! the highest value exceeded the short-term primary standard,
!
I • while the second highest did not. Technically then, the
*
| AQCR is not in violation of the standards, but since it
is classified as a Priority II or III region, it is in
potential violation.
Finally, when examining the printout related to sus-
pended particulate and sulfur dioxide, it can be seen that
the annual mean (geometric or arithmetic) is not always
calculated. This occurs because one or more quarters are
lacking sufficient data with respect to the SAROAD validity
criteria.
-------
o mm cr.r rriujs. MMIHIV
'it. rt
V.'LI'J
VA'.'JI $
Pf It
OC
l> —
2ND
AT
C-'i« »V".S
i<;/ci.««.
IST
120
? IM.A'13 «1 030JJ07 «0t PPOVIOtMCf
72
7,055
J •*
5*
11
18 18 !«•
•The maximim eight-hour standard has be«n exceeded.
-------
-5TilJJ« V.«a.JSPil*:Vs
1tllUT»
r.->';TS.|l.
.•-r,».V|
til. Ill
rfts^t I'.TIO C. ':T MJJOi,
Vttll'S
v;w- fi». "F
VMIO
!•> — VMUfS
•."•. ur VALUES
K(./CU.«.
HI;HC&T HIGHEST
i-H* VtLUcS 8-HS *VGS
"G/CU.H. KG/CD. K.
1ST 2KU 1ST
*1 N.'»T»I:A',T
NCrf J=?S£Y
t;it. V/.L.
31 <>243UC2 FOl
72
•» rMJ-lTv j
t,i*0
REGION 2
7
19
17 11*
•The MXimum eight-hour standard has been exceeded.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE NATTER 1110191
METHODS GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
AIR
QUALITY
CONTROL
REGION
»••»••«•>•»•
160 GFNF.s?E-FiNG£R IA«?S (N.V.I
N«W Vim 3) 57690Gl A31 ROCHESTER
NEW Y01K 3) S760001 F01 ROCHE STF.K
NEW YORK 33 5760003 F31 ROCHESTER
YEAR
NO. OF
VALIO
— VALUES
72
72
72
NO. OF DAILY
VALUES EXC'O'C
24-HM STOS.
SEC. PR I.
HtC.HFST
2V-IW VALUES
UC/CU.N.
1ST 2ND
RATIOS TO 6EOM.
ANN. STOS «CAN
SEC. PR I. UC/CU.H.
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
30
61
59
I 0
2 0
e o
REGION 2
177 138 1.46 1.17
168 159 1.40 1.12
200 178 1.50 1.20
• • *
M •
90 •
•trie Means exceed the primary annual standard.
••This ftQCft is scheduled to meet the secondary standard by 7/75.
-------
CA'.-t. \ J)i|\ IXI >' 4/1JllI
I: nr\nn?tvsivt wavf.i is»:««) ro'itiMri'r., iriu-av
V"\« V. C> N1'. 'T VU'lfS «J'»»M IT fL M1oH«ST Hll.MISt
v-Hio r xi 111 j NI'I nr i-ii« i-'ii* v.L"^s H-IH AVCS
1*7— VALUC* Sl.VIOA-OS VA'.'JTSi Mr,/CU.M. H:;/CU.<«.
1ST
HIAOA'A F«.)*.'T|e8 IM.Y.I .« ?a|n^|T» J •• HFCION 2
'UAK 3) *7*OJ06 F31 Nl*r,AP» FALLS 72 *>t$4l 0 1* 417 16
The Maximum eight-hour standard has been exceeded.
-------
SUSPENDED PAfcTICULATE MATTER 1110141
METHODI CRAVI METRICt 2*-HOUR Ml-VOL (HE FILTER SAM»LE
AIM VEAP. NO. Of NO. OF DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUES EXC'O'G 2*-H« VALUES RATIOS TO CEO".
CONTROL 19— VALUES 2*-HR STOS. UC/CU.M. ANN. STOS MEAN
OFT. I ON SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. P»I. UC/CU.K.
SOUTHERN TIER WEST IN.Y.I •• PRIORITY 2 •• REGION 2
NEW YORK 33 3320001 rot JAMESTOWN •• 72 54 SO 242 222 1.31 1.10 *3 •
«GeoMtric Mean «xc«ed« 'the primary annual standard.
•k
' ••This AQCR .!• sdlMduled to neat the ••condary standard by 7/75.
-------
vu PUP
$TOS. UC/Ctl.^.
SSC. PRI. 1ST 2ND
A N N 'J A L
RATIOS TO A* I Til.
ANN. STOS 1:AM
SEC. MI. UC/CU.x.
IVAI
VIRGINIA
i»l AC I
"HO'ITY 2
2T 1
REGION 3
8S1« 146
• 24-hour Maxima value exceeds the 24-hour primary standard.
•• .The ptate XHpleMentation Plan indicates that the air quality levels are presently belo« standards.
-------
Alt
CJAlltV
42IOIU
I'. I|JI Cli:;M'r.liVJ-.f »«'!U«IY VAIIM S
V-. OF
f xr r r .•
11—
9QTM I'CIL
VUM*S, W./CU.I*.
XVf.i.H. 1ST ZW
isr
22J
VIHGJMA
IV»|
4) 21V101) FJl
3 »•
ft^GIJN )
2i
20 16'
*1h«
«i9ht-hour standard hat been exceeded.
vvi
-------
r»»«H\ M l«!M»|:u: 4
•rill-Mi ».r;:» i *.p.;KSi ve nru.u--ii c:ni*i Cirui nin-is, mu«iv VAC-ITS
v .•.{.!:> Lxf.iH>|f;0 OF 1-1* I-MK VUUFS 6-if
V — Wll'ltS ST»N')*U|)S VAL'jrS, T./C'l.'". "C/CJ.S.
I-IN fl-Ha M'-./CU.". 1SI ZNO 1ST
;*. VA.I •• »*HWITV 3 •• arcioN i
VUGIHU 5.1 0290304 FJl CHA^IFSTON 73 d.OIS 0 2J 7 IT 16 16*
•The maximum olght-hour standard has been exceeded.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER mci9i
HETHOOl GRAVIMETRIC* 24-HOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
AIR YEAR NO. OF NO. OF AAILV HIGHEST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUES EXC'O'G 24-HR VALUES RATIOS TO «0".
CONTROL 19— VALUES 24-HR STOS. UG/CU.M. ANN. STOS MCA*
•EC.ION SEC. PRI. 1ST 2M> SEC. PRI. US/CU.N.
236 SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA •• PRIOR ITT 3 •• REGION 3
WEST VIRGINIA 3« 046)001 F02 FAYETTE COUNTY •• 72 47 7 2 2«3* 278 1.33 1.0* SO*
" WEST VIRGINIA SO 1180001 F02 MONTGOMERY < 72 43 28 14 3<>0* 380 2.83 2.26 170*
•Each of the«« geometric Means exceeds the prinary animal standard and the naxiouim 24-hour values exceed the primary
•axiania 24-hour standards.
•The State Xnplementation Plan indicated this AQCR «ns below standards for this pollutant.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTER 1110191
METHOD* GRAVIMETRIC. 2*-MOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
AIR YEAR NT. OF NO. 0* OAILV HIGHEST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUES FXC'O'C 2*->« VtLUES RATIOS TQ G?OM.
CONTROL 14— VALUES 24-HR STOS. UC/CU.H. ANN. STOS MEAN
SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PAI. UC/CU.N.
r>04 SOUTHEAST ALABAMA •• PRIORITY 2 •• REGION 4
ALABAMA 01 10S0001 F01 DOTHAN •• 72 56 2 1 2TS* 1ST 1.21 .97 71
•Rte 24-hour maximua v*lu« «xc«ad« tte pri*»ry 24-hour stuxtard.
AQCR is scheduled to BMt the secondary standard by 7/75.
-------
stn>u«
••FTMID: wFST-C*?l'SeVIL«:V«IC
AI» YEAR
COHT01L It"
•F.CI3N .
0*« JAOXS-WLLE-SKUNSWICK («L»-OA)
FLQBIOk 10 19600)2 HOI JACKSONVILLE •• 72
FLORIOA )0 1«6001* HOI JACKSONVILLE •• 72
N1. Of
VALID
VH'JIS
• •
NO. nr
VALU;
SEC.
P««IO<»ITV
20
2"
2
S
a
5
6
OAILV
EXC'O'G
STOS.
PRI.
• •
2
H1GHFST
24-MB VALUES
ur./cu.M.
1ST 2ND
•ECION *
7*
-------
MrT'»fl:>i v.Knt
-------
CVH IN -vis-)* i »••
l-*S IVE I'.fPl'LC C:r.|J» CCM |>:-|:i-J*f M"'|I»LY
AIR
tf'lttlTY
C.'IMT act
-^ N •. nr
VALID
l-m H-HB
PKI'JPI TY } ••
0 64
VM »•« ITTl HlQlfST
1-M? VALI
MC/CU.M.
1ST 2ND
Mir.Hl',1
H-IV .\V",S
Ho/CJ.M.
056 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA (iVt)
C=C«aiA 11 0201:01 \ So.".
AT'.A«IT4
OCOinM
12
32 22*
•The
itandard has been exceeded.
^
-------
*fTMflc« *n»icis?eRSivE
AIR
C.1NTMOL
WIOI11
r«ai«j cn«iTMorj$i HOURLY VARIES
YEA* NT. Qt NO. Cf VALUES "JflfH PCTt MIGHfST HIGHEST
vAin Exr.frmw--. ne I-MR I-HS VALUES B-HP AVCS
11— V«LUt$ SIANOAaCS VALUCSt MG/CU.N. MC/CU.M.
l-H» 6-H» MC/CU.H. JIT 2ND 1ST
072 PA3MCAH-CAUO (ILL-KY)
KENTUCKY ia 3140019 foi PADUCAH
72
*• PRIORITY J •• ' »ECION *
3.179 o 55 u
i«
is iff
*Th« naximm eight-hour standard ha* been exceeded.
-------
AI4 YEAR NO. -IF NL OF OAlLV HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES £XC«0»G 2*-HP VALUES RATIOS TO ABITM.
J9— vii-irs ?«.-H* STOS. UC/CU.M. ANN. STOS »-.t*
_ . $CC. PRI. 1ST 2HO SEC. PRI. UC/CU.H.
077 fv*NSviLLS-OHr»isec«n-M«fio?i'SO>i IINO-KY) •• »?!IOITV 2 •• »ccio?i *
* 72 6<> * 3 529. 459 1.14 .85
* 24-hour maximal value exceed* the 24-hour primary standard.
•• The.State ZmplementatioiL Man .Indicated that this AQCR would achieve the •econdary standard by 4/78.
-------
MOSJXIDfc 4210111
MONO!$(>£«$rv; inr*\*tt> INOIBI CC*MNUO>IS, HOURLY viucs
AIA VFAR ;O. OF NCI. CF V4LMES OO.TH PCTL HIGHcST H
ffJV. 1TY VALID £XCF€DINC OF l-H— VALUES ST4N.1AMDS tf»LUF.$, Hu/CU.H. Mn/CU.H.
RESIUN 1-HR B-HR HG/CiJ.*. 1ST 2NO 1ST
077 EV4NSVILL£-nwCNJ»0»0-HENOtRSON UNO-KYI "PMliMITY 3 •» KECION *
KENTUCKY Id 1140004 F01 OUENSQORQ 72 Si 929 0 9 7 33 18 12*
•Th« •axiami eight-hour standard has boen exceeded.
-------
MF.THCOJ NO.XOISPEPSIVE lNf».\<»EO (NOI«J CC1TINUCU*. HOURLY VALUFS
AIR
3UALITV
CONTROI
«£.-.! ;
07» LOUISVILLE
KENTUCKY
.KENTUCKY
IIND-KV)
19 2383011 C01 LOUISVILLE
. 18 2380013 C01 LOUISVILLE .
YEAR NO. OF NO. l)T VAL'JFS
1" — VAIUIS STANOARUS
l-Mi* 8-HR
• * PRIORITY 3 *•
72 3,529 0 182
72 7,648 1
99TH PCTL HICMFST HICHFST
OF I-l* 1-HR VALUES 8-HS AVCS
VALOrS, MO/CU.M. HO/CO.M.
HC/CU.1. 1ST 2N3 1ST
REGION 4
17 32 25 16*
.5 50".._. «..^. « .
•TIM
•*Th«
eight-hour •tandard has teon «xce«ded.
oM-hour •t«nd«rd has been exceeded.
-------
MCTHilOl
s>n.ru» WHIPS *2Vi
ACIOIt »*-M-HJF fl'Jf»!H.eR
Ate
OlMLITV
COMT911
166 HAS'
NORTH
. . H3HTM
CA«1UNA
C*R?LINA
MJNT
3*
3*
IN.C.i
072000?
336 v.>l
FOl CHATH/M COUNTY ••
F^t ROANIKf: GAPtOS ••
FO? ROX3JH] *•
Vf t'
JO—
72
72
72
K1. '..f
VMIO
V.LIICS
NO. OF
VALU-TS
S£C.
DAILY
CXC'D-
STOS.
*• «">K'».ITV 3 ••
31 1
31 4
c
1
1
I
HIGHEST
24-hR VALUfS
ur./cu.M.
1ST 2NO
PFCION 4
*46* 187
578* 3*2
778* 252
ANNUAL
PATIOS T!) *«ITM.
AHN. STOS MfAf4
SEC. PRI. UG/CU.*.
• 24-hour Mxiaun value exceeds the 24-hour primary itandard.
.•• The State Implementation Plan_indicate
-------
SUSPENDED i>ARTICULATE MATTER 1110191
METHOD I GRAVIMETRIC. 24-HQiJR H1-V3LUME FIITER SAMPLE
ATM YEAR NO. Of NO. OF DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUES EXC'O'C 2*-H» VALUES RATIOS TO CtQN.
CONTROL 19— VALUES 2«-HR STOS. UC/Cll.M. ANN. STOS N'AN
_ REGION SEC. P*I. 1ST 2ND SEC. PRI. UG/CU.N.
170 SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN IN.C.) •• PRIORITY 2 *• REGION *
N3RTM CAROLINA 3« 2720001 F02 NQREHEAO CITY** 72 SO 9 2 2*1* 266 1.26 1.01 74*
_. ... *Knnual 9«o«wtrie Man exceed* the primary annual standard and the »aaci»H» 24-hour value exceeds the
primary 24-hour standard.
. _ ..•_ **This AQCK is scheduled to Met the secondary standard by 7/75.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTER
METHODS GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HQUft HI-VOLUME FRTFR SAMPLE
AIR VCA4 NO. OF NT. IF OMLY MlCwrST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUES FXC'D'C 24-HK VALUES RATIOS TO GEQM.
CONTROL 14— VALUtS Z^-MR STOS. UC/CU.M. ANN. STOS HEAN
SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PR!. UC/CU.M.
1«8 CAMOEN-SU1PTER IS.C.I •• PRIORITY 2 •• REGION 4
SOUTH CAROLINA 42 2129902 F01 SUMTEB •• 72 54 I 1 *7J* 123 .83 .66
•The 24-hour «axii»i» v«lu« exceeds the primary 24-hour ctandard.
X
•*Thi* AQCR is scheduled to rieet the •econdary standard by 7/75.
v\
-------
AIR
QUALITY
CONTRA
RF.GfON
SUSPENDED ^ARTICULATE MATTER 1110191
METHOD! C*AVlMETRICt 2*-HOUR Hl-VOLUME FILTFR SAMPLE
YEAR
*00 COLUM91A IS.C.I
SOUTH CAROLINA 42 0760003 HOI COLUMBIA **
j
N3.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE NATTER 1110191
NETHOOt GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HOUR HI-VC1LUME FILTER SAMPLE
AIR VEAR NO. OF NT. OF DAILY .HIGHEST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUFS CXC'O'C 24-HP VALUES RATIOS TO G:f
C3f|TB-)L 19— VALUES 34-HR STOS. UG/CU.H. ANN. STOS
RFGI3N SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PR!. UG/CU.M.
204 GFOaCETOWl I S.C.I ** PBIORITV 2 *• REGION 4
SOUTH CAROLINA 42 1120002 F31 GEORGETOWN ** 72 73 12 2 )58* 26) 1.41 1.1) 85*
•Annual geometric mean exceeds.the primary annual standard and the 24-hour maximum value
exceeds the primary 24-hour standard.
••This AQCR is scheduled to meet the secondary standard by 7/75.
-------
i,* 10111
METMOU NONOI SPCHSIVE INFPA3CO «NCI ».| COST IVJO JS. HOURLY VALJfS
/
u*
QUALITY
CONTROL
REOIOM
20) MIOOLE TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE «* 25*0021 coi NASHVILLE
V£AR
19--
72
KD. OF Nil. C- VALl'l'S
VALID ExcrroiN';
VAIUES STANOAROS
1-H* S-HR
•« PRIORITY } ••
3,21) 1 88
fl<)TM PCTL
OF \-H*
VALUES f
KG/CU.M.
REGIfl*
IV
HIGHEST
l-M» VALUES
1ST *ZNO
t>* 31
HIGHEST
8-H4 AVCS
HO/CU.H.
1ST
-. 2C». .
•The M'»t«Mi on*-bour and the maxim* eight-hour standard haw teen exceeded.
.£•
-------
$•($• T'U
KATTfl
AIS
0
•ntirv
1 XOTVriST njl.'.'t
not*-*/! is J3«>.- .< ;• *.,i FT. ^AVKJ ••
l*nK«!«, I* J9POCO) T33 $T?UV< COU4TV
n IK
1C—
72
72
f.". nr
ViLl.i
VAtOtS
»« Pi. 1C
30
VALUtS
2
-------
SUSPFNOEO PARTICIPATE MATTC* 1110191
•CTHOOl GRAVIMETRIC. 24-HOUR HI-V3LUMF *UTCR
Alt
OUAIITV
REGION
129 SOUTH CfNTML HICHfCAN
MICHIGAN 23 2140001 AOi LANSING **
YEAR NT. OF in. OF DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES rXC'D'C 24-HR VALUES RATIOS TO tCOM,
VALUES 24-H* STDS. un/CU.M. ANN. STDS MfAN
SfC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PRI. UC/CU.M.
72
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
28 0
REGION
143
122 1.30 1.04
M prlauy wimwl •caadcrd.
^ .
to aMt tb« Meondwry •taadard ty 7/75.
*
*
-------
SUSPENDED PAPTICIIIATE HATTER 1110191
NFTHOOI GRAVIMETRICt 24-HOUR III-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
"'• AIR
QUALITY
CONTROL
RFC ION
126 SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA-LA C ROSSI-
MINNESOTA 24 11M101 F01
MINNESOTA 24 312001* coi
(HINN-WtSC)
FARIBAULT *•
ROCHESTER
YEAR
19—
72
72
NO. PF
VALID
VALUES
NO. OF
VALUES
24-ltR
SEC.
DAILY
EXC-
STOS
P«
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
64 8
59 4
0«G
•
I •
2
2
HIGHEST
24-HP VALUES
UG/CU.M.
1ST 2ND
REGION 5
615* S19
362* 288
A N N U
RATIOS TO
ANN. STOS
SEC. PRI.
A L
CEOM.
WAN
UC/CU^I.
*Tho 24-hour «ixi»« valuas «xe«cd th« prlaary 24-hour standard.
••This AQCR im •dMduled to »*«t th« •econdary standard by 7/75.
\
-------
PMT1CULATE «*TTc» U1M9I
NCTHOOl CHAVIMETftlCt 14-»OU"» H1-VJIUH<- FILTER
131
Al*
OMtUTT
CONTROL
MRRTHUFST Mil
HI NX r SOT A
YEAR
NO. OF
VillO
VALUES
NO. OF
VALU'S
24-HR
SEC.
WFSOTA •• PRIORITY 2
24
J4
24
iw"* F9i
1220010 F01
EAST CRANO FORKS'*
FEPG'JS FALLS
FERGUS FALLS
72
72
72
40
10
7
2
?
OA1LV
f XC'O'C
STOS.
PRI.
»•
1
1
I
HIGHEST
24-im VALUES
UC/Cu.M.
1ST ?NO
REfilON 5
265* 204
26* 1«6
266* 219
ANNUAL
RATIOS TO CC.1N.
AMN. STOS HfiK
SEC. mi. ur./cu.N.
v*l«M* «xc*«d tlM 24-teux primary
•mil* AOCm U MlMdaI«« to MM UM Moo^wy stMtdatd fey 7/75.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULAR MATTER mom
HETHODJ GRAVIMETRIC. 2^-NnuR HI-V.ILUKC ru.Tjp SXMPLE
QUALITY
C1MTPOL
13)
"1
Ml
SOUTHWEST
IWeSITA
MINNESOTA
2* 21O1?! •!)! HAPSHALL**
2* 2T00001 FOX ORTOMVILLE
YEAR
X9—
NO. OF
VALID
VALUES
Mil. OF
VALUES
24-HR
SEC.
•• PRIORITY 3
72
72
32
62
3
1
UAUY
rxc'n
STDS.
PR I
• •
•c
•
2
1
HIGHEST
2*-nP VALUES
UG/CU.M.
I ST / 2ND
RFC I Of! S
50V 33T
501* 1«*
A N
PATIOS
At;N.
SEC.
N U
TO
STOS
PRI.
A L
(-.ton.
UG/CU.H.
•The. 24-hour aaicisami values exceed the 24-hour prinary standard.
•The State Xspleaentation Plan indicated this AQCR was below standards for this pollutant.
-------
4219111
**T»«OD: NQtaiSPERSIVE INfPAlEC I1DI«) COST nuOUS. HOURLY VALUES
»l« VEAR vi. n^ NO. nf VALUFS OOTH prri
«U»LIT» VALID fXCEfOINr. OF I-H4 1-HA VALUES 8-HR AVSS
CCHfAOL 19— VALUES ST»HO*80S VALUES. MG/CU.M. MC/CU.N.
RE 01IX l-HS S-HH HS/CU.f. 1ST 2ND 1ST
IT* CHE4T*ft KfTfcOPOLITM CLEVLLAK3 (OHIO) •• PR!0«!TV 9 •• REGION S
.OHIO U 1JM080 A05 CLFVCLAMO 72 2,2->« o 35 1* 20 1« IT*
*tb* ~— t—*• •ifbt-hoor •kaaducd has b*ra
Co
.o
-------
SUSPtrilllb »»HtlCillAtt MAflLH IllUltl
METHOD« GRAVIMETRIC, 24-MDUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
QUALITY
CONTROL
RFf.ION
Yf.AR NO. OF NO. OF OAILV . HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES FXC'O'G 24-MB VALUFS RATIOS TO CEOS.
19— VALUES 24-MR STOS. UC/CU.M. ANN. STOS HCAN
StC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PRI. UC/CU.M.
ITS MANSFIELO-MARION (0»4IO)
OHIO 36 3840301 F)l MANSFIELD**
72
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
61 21
PECtON S
268* 246 1.40 1.S2
114*
•The annual geometric mean exceeds the primary annual standard and the
exceeds the priaary 24-n>bur standard.
•This AQCR is scheduled to meet the secondary standard by 7/75.
iaum 24-hour value
-------
SUSPCHPCO 'ARTICUlATt HATIFB 1110191
I
METHOD« GKAVIMEMICt 24-HDUH Ml-VOlllMI= F|LTr«
A!* VEAft tCl. OF NO. OF OAltY MlClif$T ANNUAL
OOAIITT VAklO VAIOES tXC'O'G 24-MP VALUCS PATIOS TO
1«— VALUES 24-Mft STOS. UG/CU.M. ANN. STOS MEAH
SEC. P«I. 1ST 2ND SCC. MI. UC/Cll.*.
01* CfNTKAL AWAHSAS •• PftlOMTV 2 •• DCCION «
MKANSAS 04 2920001 fOl SALINE COtMTV** 72 45 40 25* 174 1.40 1.12
th« pciaary
••Ihl* AOOl i* Mtedul«d to M«t tte Meenduy •t*ndar« by 7/75.
Co
-------
QUALITY
CONTROL
VISION
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE HATTER 1110191
METHOD: C»AVlNETRICt 2*-HOO« HI-V3LUME FILTER SANPL?
VCAR NO. OF HO. Of DAILY HIGHEST
VALIO VALUES CXC'O'C 2*-MP VALUES
19— VALUES 2*-M» STOS. UC/CU.««.
SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND
019 MON'IE-EL OQ4AOO (AR4-LAI
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
19 162^301 F3I LAKE PROVIDENCE**
19 2980001 F01 VIDALIA
A N N U A.L
PATIOS TO CtO".
AKN. STOS NCAN
SEC. PR!. UR/CU.M.
72
72
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
SI
S3
3
16
0
1
REGION 6
165 160
329. 255
1.40 1.12 84*
1.96 1.57 11**
•The annual geometric seans exceed the primary annual standard and the
one site exceeds the primary 24-hour standard.
24-hour value at
••This AQCR is scheduled to meet the secondary standard by 7/75.
, v\
(X)
-------
SUSPENDED PART IClllATE MATH* 1110191
RETHODl GRAVIMETRIC t 2*-MOU« MI-VtH.U«E FILTER SAMPLE
A IP
CONTROL
••r.ION
YEAR NO. OF (O. OF DAILY • MIGHCST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES EXC'O'G 34-IIP VALUES RATIOS TO CEOK.
19— VALUES 24-HR STOS. UG/CU.1. ANN. STOS ME**
SEC. PMI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PRI. UC/CU.N.
2* NORTHEAST ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS M 29*0901 FJ1 STUTT6AKT**
•• PR10PITV 3 •• PEC.ION 6
72 12 •••»• ••••• 2M* 252 2.00 1.60 120*
Muwal 9ioa«tric BMH «xc*«4« th« primary annual standard and th«
•xc«*da UM priaaxy 94-hoitf ctandard.
24-hoar valu«
State Z^lMMatatloo Man indicate tkU JkQCR waa b*10w standard* for O»l« pollutant.
GO
-------
SUSPEIOFO PA»TIClllATC MAITFR
HCTIinni GPAVI*CT«IC, 24-HOU« Ml-vniUMF
SAMPLE
AIR
QUALITY
CWTRQt
SFr.ION
VfAR
19—
022 SHREVEPORT-TEXMKANA-TYLER (ARK-LA-GKLA-TEXI
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
19
19
57
2740001
2740001
1420455
AOl SHBSycpORT**
F01 SHaFVEOQ^T
F01 IOA3FL
72
72
72
NO. OF
VALID
VALUC S
NO. flF
VALUES
24-HR
SEC.
• • PRI OS I TV 2
27
50
58
7
13
5
DAILY
EXC'
STOS
o«c
•
PRI.
•*
1
0
0
HIGHEST
24-HO VALUES
UC/CU.M.
1ST 2 NO
REGION 6
284* 257
2U ' 212
218 160
A N
RATIOS
ANN.
SEC.
1.75
1.26
1.28
N U A I
TO CCO*.
STOS MEAN
PRI. UC/Ctl.M.
1.40 105 '
1.02 77 '
1.02 77
•Th* annual geometric mc«n« exceed the primary annual standard and the Maxima* 24-hour value at one
•ite exceed* the primaryx24-hour standard.
••This AQCR is scheduled to oaet the secondary standard by 7/75.
-------
su<»E«nco PAPTICULATE HAW* iiioi«i
NfTMOOl MAVI1CTMC, 2*-MOU* Ht-vm.UMF FILlCD SAMPLE
Alt
OUALITV
XEAt NO. OF NO. nf OAIIV HtCMFST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES EXC'O'C 24-IM VAIUCS RATIOS T3 UFON.
19-- VALUES 2V-HM STDS. UO/Cll. M. ANN. STOS MEAN
SEC. PHI. 1ST 7NO $FC. MI. UG/CU.M.
t94 SOUTHERN LOUISIANA-SOUTHEAST TEXAS
LOUISIANA 1* 2020002 F01 NEK ORLEANS**
••
72
54
2 ••
1
REGION
23«
138 1.33 1.0*
*tfca annual gaeawtric a»an a«caada tha primary annual atandard.
JkOCft la achadulad to.a«at aacoadary ataodarda toy 7/75.
CO
-------
Milieu in* wiom
NOMCISPEASIVE WHA-<£0 1*01*1 COMlNUiMSt iimjaiV VAL'US
Al» VEA« Ktl. OF NC . Cf VAL'JES 90TM PCTU MtCMFSt HIGHEST
XMLITV VAtlS FXC?CTI'IC OF l-HR 1-HR VALUES B-HO AtfCS
19 — VALUES STANTAitDS VALUES, HO/CU.H. MO/CU.M.
1-MH 6-HR HG/CIJ.S. 1ST 2ND 1ST
152 ALdUJUtiUJc-Xll) RIO 3«»NOE U. HEX) •• P-UOMTY 3 •' RECHN 6
NEU MEXICO 32 0049302 HOI ALWJOUERQME 72 <,, 1*1 0 130 16 31 2S
•Th« immt-ff-) «lght-hour standard has be«n exceeded.
Q
-------
'.1*1 «M vc
4210111
IN' i-i I.IHJI M; HIT, ,
v»fi".
Al«
&JALITV
CUNTROi
Rer.nn
It* CENTRAL
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
JT 2200018 '01 OKLAHOMA C! TV
37 2203022 fOl OKLAHOMA CITY •'
VtAH tfl. OF NO. IIH VALIirS
VALID CXCC^OIMC
!•>« VALtlES STANDARDS
l-H* 8-MH
«• PRIORI TV 3 ••
72 4,771 1 8)
72 J.3TI 0 588
win IT u inr.iit si ii ii. iii -.t
OF I-IM i-ta VM'ifi e-n" Avfis
VALUES, MC/CU.M. HC/CIJ.M.
MC/CH.M. 1ST 2ND 1ST _
REGION 6
17 74«* J7 24*
20 29 29 21* . . . . _
*Tte MudjMH eight-hoar standard has
••Tha •axiauai ana-hour standard has
>aan axcaadad.
CJ
-------
CFMTilAL CHLAHOM*
3T
METHJOl
DIOXIDE
AC 101. 2*-
_.. OtMUTr _ ...
C'VJTB'H.
. . *SG!1V
V^A* NT. *f Ml. ;)F OAILV
VUin V»llliS FXC'P'C
19— VALUES 2«.-HR
SFC.
STOS.
ffl.
.MlGMeST
2*-^ VMUES
UC/CU.M.
1ST
2«0
A 1 N 0
RATIOS TO
ANN.
SEC.
STOS
PRI.
* I
Mr.MJ
UC/CU.M.
FOl «
-------
OULtTV
Ol«»ll»£
V»l!0
VALUfS exc»0»C
?j,-i«s STOS.
SrC. «>«M.
2*-»« VALUES
2NP
1ST
ANNUAL
• AT IDS TO AMTH.
ANN. STOS H-AK
src. PRI
OKLAHOMA
-JKIAHPIA
J7 3003X11 F01 TULJA ••
•EC ION 6
72
09
U3
• 24-hour Mxlmun value exceeds tho 24-hour primary standard.
•• The State Implementation Plan indicated this AQCR was below standards for this pollutant.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTER 1110191
METHODt GRAVIMETRIC. Z*-HOU« HI-VOLUKF. FUTF.R SAMPLE
QUALITY
CONTPOl
BFCION
YEAR NO. OF
VALID
19— VALUfS
NO. OF DAILY
VALUES EXC'D'G
24-Mft STOS.
SEC. PRI.
Hir.HEST
2*-HR VALUES
Uf/CU.H.
1ST 2M)
ANNUAL
RATIOS TO CEOM.
ANN. STOS MCAN
SEC. PRI. UC/CU.M.
187
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
97 3260600 F01 WOOOUAKO**
72
*• PRIORITY 3 •»
50 5
REGION 6
329* 212
.96 .76
59
•live 24-hour n*«*-B" valtM^vxeeeds th« primary annual' atandard.
••The State Implementation Plan indicated this AQCR waa below atandarda tor thi» pollutant.
-------
FAMICIILAU MATTf* 1110191
NfTHOO* 6«AViraT«ICt 24-HOUH HI-VOLUME FltTE* SAMPLE
•I*
DUALITY
•SCION
SOUTHw*STE*N OKLAHOMA
MLAH1HA
(KlAH1«A
WLAH01A
*7 0400661
J7 I3f-m.1
97 1)40764
3T 1*<">6O
97 184J740
VFAM
1*~
N3. Of
VALID
VALUfS
NO. OF
VALUES
24-11*
SEC.
*• PRIORITY 3
1 OUNCAH**
1 HOP AIT
1 HOlltS
1 LtUTOI
I KAHCOM
1 SAYRE
72
72
72
72
72
72
^
44
45
71
23
20
3
2
5
5
3
4
DAILY
tXC'O*
STOS.
OKI.
••
C
2
1
4
1
2
1
HIGHEST
24-Ht VALUES
Of./CU, *.
1ST 2ND
RECKW 6
36)* 2*1
44T* 215
40)* 401
3M» 2«"4
317» 317
274* 2P6
A N
RATIOS
AMH.
SFC.
1.56
1.25
N
TO
UAL
CEOM
•
STOS HE AN
PR I
1.
1.
. UT./CU
26
00
.N.
95*
75*
"Bach of th» MixtauM 24-hour valua* «xc**d tb* primary 24-hour standard and UM geoMtric »*an at on* «it«
«w««d« th« primary a«wu*l •taadard.
•«Th« Stat* I»pl«MBtation Han indicated thta AOOt was balow standards for this pollutant.
V
-------
PA«T1CIILATF MATTCR
METHOD! GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HtlUfc Ml-VOUJHC F1IUR SAMI'LF
AIR
QO»tITV
CONTROL
BFOION
211 AMARILLO-LUBBOCK (TSX)
T6XAS 45 J3450P1 AOi LUB80CK**
YEAR N.1. OF NO. OF DAILY HIGHFST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES ExC'O'C 24-MB VALUES RATIOS TO C6DM.
1^__ VALUES 24-HR STOS. UG/CU.M. ANN. STOS MCAN
SEC. "RI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PHI. UG/CU.M.
72
•• PRIORITY 2 *•
29 6
REGION 6
922 • 211
•Tit* maximum 24-hour value exceeds the primary 24-hour standard.
AQCR is scheduled to meet secondary standards by 7/75.
co
-------
PANIICIII AU HAT II H |UUfM
NCTHOnt GRAVINfTRIC. 24-H«WR MI-VillONf Ml TfH SAMMLC
AIR
WIALITV
REGION
«9 KTPOPOLITAN DALLAS-PORT NORTH (TEX)
TEXAS 45 1310002 A01 DALLAS •*
VEAR NT. OF
VALID .
19— VALUES
•• PRIO
72 27
Nn. nr OAILY
VALUES EXC'0»G
24-MP STOS.
SEC. PRI.
•ITV 2 ••
3 2
HIGHEST ANNUAL
24-MH VALUES RATIOS TO GEO*.
UG/CU.1. AMN. STOS HfAN
1ST 2ND S£C. PRI. UG/CU.M.
REGION 6
349* 21ft 1.43 1.14 •»*
• The 90000trie mean exceeds the primary annual standard and the
24-hour value exceeds the primary 24-hour standard.
••- nils AQCR is scheduled to Met secondary standards by 7/75.
-P
-------
JU4LITY
IM.-Ji: 442Jill
•>. OH M. V VftLUlS
n—
MlCiir it '
1-iU VA'. j-S
U'./f'l.*.
1ST *Ni)
Vililt
If./CU.M.
OSS M:T«JftiLITAM O^VU-CITlKCIl .U'JFfS C
2S 18«OJ26 C01 QMAH4
72 J.<.J1
TY V ••
13
Mtr.to* r
200* zoo
•Highest one hour value exceeds the one-hour priaary standard.
-C
-------
in*fiKtnf 4/10111
METHOOI K'INOISPfeRSt Vfc INfuAMfjO I.XOI.M ClW INUOIU. llt^HLT VALUt-S
AID
WIALITY
C'lNTOOL
OIS METRO OMAHA-COWKIL BLOTPS
NEBHAS4A 2d 1830324 C01 OMAHA
VI:Aft US. Of
VALID
i»— VALUE s
NP. "r VALUES
CXCEflUNG
STANDARDS
•• PRIORI TV J «•
72 7,019 0 Sfi
«9TH PCTL
OF 1-HR
VAlUFSf
MC/rU.H.
REGION
12
HIGHEST
1-IM VALUES
HG/CU.M.
1ST 2NO
7
32 31
HIOHEST
8-H» AVCS
HG/CU.M.
1ST
."IS*
•It* Mxlwai eight-hour ctaadud hn b««i wcee«]«
-------
• »' SUSPENDED PABTICULATE MATTE* 1110191
~ HETHOOJ GRAVIMETRIC/24-HOUR HI-VOLUHf FILTER SAMPLE
AtR YEAR NO. OF NO. OF DAILY .MtGHCST ANNUAL
DUALITY VALID VALUES EXC'O'C 24-l|t> VALUES PATIOS TO GSfW.
CONTROL 19— VALUES 24-HR STDS. UC/CU.N. ANN. STOS MEAN
OffilON SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PCI. UC/rtm.
9B6 METROPOLITAN SIOUX CITY IIOKA-NEB-S.O.I •• PRIORITY 3 •* REGION 7
NEBRASKA 28 24PD501 F?i SOUTH StOUX CITY •• 72 32 70 195 190 1.3S 1.06 81
• The annual geometric nean exceed* the primary annual standard.
•* This AQCR is scheduled to Meet secondary standards by 7/75.
'-f
-------
QUALITY
Nl. OF »i1. JF DAILY MIGM'ST ANNUAL
V'.lin VALICS EXC'0>C 2<--IIP VALUES RATIOS TO AMTH.
— VALUtS ?«.-H» STDS. Itr./Cll.H. ANN. STOS H=tN
SSC. PR!. 1ST 2NO SEC. P»I. UC/CU.X.
«<»* "ETPOPOLITiN KANSAS CITY (HAN-HOI
KANSAS IT 2T8-J--M **l OVE^LAMO PARK ••
72
REGION 7
1 3K5* 17
• 24-hour •axlmm value exceeds the 24-hour primary standard.
•• The State Implementation Plan indicated this AQCK was below standards for this pollutant.
-------
METHOD: WN3iSP?»siwt
CA«*v>*
(ici«)
4210111
VALO«S
AIM
Qt'UlTV
09) 10BTMMST •A.fSAS
KANSAS 17 3960003 Fill TftPEKA
A4 K3. Of NC. CF VALUES
1 — VALUES STANTARDS
• • MIPUl TY 3 ••
2 *,«» 1 14
9«JTH'PCTL HlfcHfST HIGHEST
OF 1-H« l-»tf VALUES 8-HP AVCS
VALUES. HC/CU.K. KC/CU.H.
MC/CU.N. 1ST 2KO 1ST
REGION 7
» 52* *0 30«
and tte
aifht-bour
tea been
K. •,-. :. .:
• »
-------
CTlTBOi
•c£|r»i
0«6 NOBTH CJNTRAL KANSAS
KANSAS IT ?l*?V't f*l MC"HMSnN ••
ACtOlt 2*""°*l* •MIKHLf.B
vf/a ••). :" n'l. OF OAUY HiciirSt ANNUAL
vAiin vAi«ir.s f»r'n«r. 2*-nt VALUFS RATIOS TO IOITH.
i«.. VALH-S 2*-HB STOS.
-------
AIR
0'IALITV
^ST-GASiTISUlFAIIC AC 101. *'.-
VEAH N-l. «!•
VALID
wiHfii t«
NO. OF UAlLV t-lt.l-^T ANNUAL
VAtllfS F.XC«0»C 2X-»« VALIICS RATIOS TO APITH.
2*-U ST05. UC/OJ.N. tW. STOS NFAN
SFC. PHI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PR I. UG/CU.M.
•• PS
••
17 116300!
2?
*ll« .13.
• 24-hour »*nla«a valu* exceeds the 24-hour primary standard.
•• The State MpleMnmion Man Indicated this AQCR was below standards for this pollutant.
-------
A!«
CONTROL
RESION
049 SOUTH CENTRAL KANSAS
KANSAS 17 3TW001 F01 WICHITA
INFRAuHO IV
YS/U lf\. OF
V«LIO
19 — VAUJES
4213111
rO.'JT|»:uC'JSi HOMILY VAL'JPS
NO.
VAL'JFS
STAAiOAHCS
-HR 8-M*
99TM Pf.TL
OF I-HO
VALUES.
KC/CU.H.
MK.MFJT HIGHEST
i-s« VALUES S-H« *vcs
HC/CU.M. H3/CU.H.
1ST 2NO 1ST
•* PIU3RITY 3 •« RFCI3N 7
72 7,176 0 16 8
21
20 14*
aaxiwM eight-hour standard has been exceeded.
-------
AIH
OUUITV
ccwmt
RR6IO*
137
HIS $011*1
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE HATTSP 1110141
•tETMOOl GRAVIMETRIC. 24-MOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAHPLE
TEAR NO. OF N3. OF DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUCS EXC'O'C 2*-IIP VALUES RATIOS TO CEO".
19— VALUES 24-HR STOS. UG/CU.N. AUN. STDS MEAN
SEC. »"»t. 1ST ?NO SEC. PRI. UA/CU.H.
MISSOURI
26 9020004 Ml MEXICO**
72
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
53 14
REGION 7
689* 204
LSI 1.26
• Th« annual 9e«netric OMHI exceed* the primary annual standard and the
maximum 24-hour value exceed* the primary 24-hour etandard.
•• IhU AOdt !• e«k*dnled «o «eet secondary standards by 7/7S.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULAU HATTER uioi9i
METHOD: GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HOUR HI-V1LUKE FILTER SAMPLE
All
QUALITY
CONTROL
R«r.ION
138 SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
MISSOURI 26 38SJ30U FBI POPLAR BLUFF **
YEAR «. OF NT. OF DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUES rxC'O'C 24-HR VALUES RATIOS TO CEO*.
14— VALUES 24-HR STOS. UC/CU.M. ANN. STOS MEAN
SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PRI. UG/CU.M.
72
•• PRIORITY 3 ••
*3 15
REGION 7
815 * 673 1.91 1.53
115
• The annual gcomotric nwoan exceeds tho primary annual standard and th«
p.-.v
-------
AI*
O'lM ITr
U5
NFMA5K*
1560.. >2
Suif'tr C'?nxt
««T.on, Mrf*.AirR'fVJlF*«IC *CI«M. f >•
VTA* "P. or
i<»— vALtir*.
n' *i*om
••• tuArttra
NT. P^ OAllY
VALUCS tXC'O'C
?«.-HP tTOS.
S'C. »">!.
T I-IE9I •• PR10«MTV 3 ••
A"l triC"LN •• 72 25
1
HfCHrST A S H U
i 24-HP VALUES » AT IDS TO
IIG/CU.H. ANN. STOS
1ST ?NO SEC. PRI.
OECION 7
1 *28* 224 .69
A L
AFITM.
UO/CU.l,
52 . _ *
• 24-hour M«JMi v*lu« exceed* the 24-hour pxiBary standard.
•• The State Uple«eittation Man indicated thi» *QCR va« below standarda for this pollutant.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTfR 1110191
HCTKOOI GRAVIMETRIC. 24-HQU* MI-VOLUME MLTF.R SAMPLE
l« YEA* NO. OF NO. OF DAILY -HIGHEST ANNUAL '
QUALITY VALID VALUES EXC'O'C 24-HR VALUES RATIOS TO CFO.M.
CONTROL !«.- VALUES 2
-------
SUSPENDED PANICULATE MATTER 1110191
METHOD I WAVIlCmC, 2*-HOU* Hl-VIUiJtS FllTE« SAMPLE
AM
QUALITY
CONT«O
fffll
YEAR NO. OF NO. OF OAILY Hlf.HFST ANNUAL
VALin VALUES EXC>n*C 2*-NR VALUFS RATIOS TP CEOM.
L 19— VALUfS ?*-MR STOS. UG/CU.t. ANN. STOS MTAN
ft SEC. PRI. 1ST ?NO SEC. PCI. UC/CU.M.
t*6 NFMASKA (IFHAINOFRI
NEBRASKA
NFBRASKA
NEBRASKA
28 0*0-»f»01 Ml CASS COUNTY **
28 0700001 FOf OAWSON COtWTY
2* 22*0001 F01 SCOTTS BLUFF
•• PRIORITY 3 •*
72
72
72
26
15
25
5
2
3
0
2
1
PEGIDN 7
?it«* axcood tha primary 24-bour standard.
•• Th« Stat* bpl«M*tatioa Plan indicated this AQCK was below atandard* for
this pollutant.
-------
SUS'ENOFO PARTICIPATE NATTFq 1110191
METHOOt GRAVIMETRIC, ?4-HO>l» Ml-VOtUHE Fit TEA SAMPLE
MB
0«I»UTY
REGION
014 COfASCMB Plans indicated this AQCR
standards for this pollutant.
below
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE HATTEH II10191
AIR
O'JALITV
REftlflN
HfTMOOl GRAVIXETRtCt 24-KJUR MJ-VPLU<«C FILTER SAMPLE
YEAR
19--
09$ CPANO nrs4 ICOLOI
CPLCB400
C^inci-.oo
COLORADO
06 0540T1 fOl DELTA •*
04 04*0001 F01 CAOFltCO COUNTY
r?l r^EN^ono SPRINGS
;J1 GRAND JUNCTION
06 1920001 rot MESA COUNTY
06 1679001 F?I HOWROSE
06 1780001 F01 PITKIN COUNTY
wn. OF
VALID
VALUES
NO. OF (
VALUTS
24-HR
SEC.
>AILV
EXC'O'C
STOS.
PRI.
Htr.licsT
24-»l» VALUES
UG/CU.H.
1ST ?NO
A N N U
RATIOS TO
ANN. STOS
SFC. PRI.
A L
ceo*.
NTAH
MG/CH.M.
** PRIORITY j ••
7?
7?
T?
7?
7?
72
72
REGION 8
46
8?
HI
82
78
69
59
IB
10
3
1*
2
8
3
7
1
1
1
546
320
377
321
161
343
414
532
2H
?S4
192
151
198
164
1.36
.96
1.51
1.3S
1.23
1.01
1.09
.77
1.21
1.08
.98
.81
82 »
to
91 *
• 1 *
74
61
• Tho gooootric moans »t three site* exceed the primry annual standard.
The Maxim* 24-hour value at six aites exceed the primary •axiom*
24-hour standard. x
•• This AOCH is scheduled to meet the secondary standards by 7/75.
-------
SIIS'CNOCO fARTICIHATE NATTER 1110191
AM
QUALITY
RE f. I ON
METHOD* GRAVIMETRIC, 24-HOUR Hl-vniKHE ftlTCO
YEAR
19—
039 SAN LUIS (COLO!
COLORADO 06 0040001 F01 ALAMOSA **
COLORADO 06 0390003 fO\ C0100400 S» -...-,
COLORADO 06 I86«;i0l *01 RIO BLANCO COUNTY
T2
12
72
NO. OF
VALID
VALUES
• • pc 1 01
82
A6
76
NO. OF DAILY
VALUES EXC'O'C
2*-HR STPS.
SEC.
UTV 3 *•
3
15
3
PRI.
1
1
1
• Mir.HCST
24-IW VALUES
UC/CU.
1ST
REGION
624
27«
265
.«t.
2 IS)
8
• 152
* 226
• 201
ANNUAL
RATIOS TO C'OM.
ANN.
SEC.
.96
1.61
.81
STDS "FAI4
PHI
•
1.
•
. UC/CU. N.
77
29
65
sa
97
49
• The geometric neon at on* site exceeds the primary annual standard.
The 24-hour maximal values at each of the sites exceed the primary 24-hour standard.
' _** This AQCX is scheduled to meet secondary standards by 7/75.
O'
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE HATTER 11101*1
METHOD I GRAVIMETRIC, 2*-HOUR HI-VOLUMC FILTER SAMPLE
AIR
QUALITY
CONTROL
REGION
0*P VAMPA (COLOI
_ COLORADO 06 1920002 F01 ROUTT COUNTY •*
YEA* NO. Of NO. f\f DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUCS rXC'O'G 2*-»« VALUES RATIOS TO CEO".
19« VALUFS 24-HR STOS. UGSCU.M. ANN. STOS MEAN
SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND SEC. PRI . UC/CU.M.
•• PRIORITY 3 •• REGION •
72 83 22 $ *2»» 375 1.6$ 1.32 •* * .
• The geooatric mean exceeds the primary annual standard and the
24-hour maximum exceeds the primary maximum 24-hour standard.
_**.The State Implementation -Plans indicated this AQCR is below
'standards for this pollutant.
-------
SUSPENDCO PAPTICUIATE HATTER 1110191
METHOD I GftAVlHETRICf 24-MOUH MI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
AIR
0«JALtTY
CO'lf'lL
RERION
172 NORTH PAK3TA
NORTH DAKOTA
" ' fcORTH DAKOTA
YFAR
14— •
(REMAINDER!
35
35
C100H01 AOl BISMARCK ••
0580001 F01 JAMESTOWN
72
72
NO. OF
VALID
VALUFS
NO. OF
VALUES
24-HR
SEC.
DAILY
EXC'O'G
STOS.
PR I
•
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
30
6
4
I
0
1
. HIGHEST
24-HR VALUES
•JG/CU.H.
1ST 2ND
REGION 8
213 202
377* 149
A N
PATIOS
ANN.
SFC.
1.45
N U
TO
STOS
PRI.
A L
CEOM.
MEAN
UC/CU.M.
1.16 «7 •
• Tho geometric mean at one aite exceeds tho primary annual atandard and
tho naxlnua 24-hour value1 at ono »ito oxcoed* tho primary aaximuia
24-hour standard. v
.•• Thi« AQCR i» *dMduled to *Mt UM secondary standards by 2/75.
-------
AIR
QUALITY
C9NTOOL
REGION
060 HAWAII
HAWAII
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTER 1110191
METMOOl CAAVlMETRICt 2*-HOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
12 0040001 F02 EWA ••
YEAH MO. OF NO. OF DAILY
VALID VALUES F.XC'O'C
19— VALUES 24-HR STOS.
SEC. PR I.
** PRIORITY 2 ••
72 25 1* T
• HIGHEST
24-HR VALUES R
UG/CU.M.
1ST 2ND S
REGION 9
ANNUAL
RATIOS TO CEOM.
ANN. STOS MEAN
SEC. PRI. UC/CU.H.
• The Maximum 24-hour valua exceed* the primary mnxlaua 24-hour atondard.
*• This AQCR has been scheduled to moat the primary standard by 7/75. An
18 months extension has been granted to meot the secondary standard.
-------
MUTHOQt
AIR
ouutTv
V. ;>" NH. OF
v/uo cxc^cj !•«••;
19— VAL'J^S l-MJ STO
Hlf-HFST
l-r« VALUfS
M1/CU.1.
IS' ?NO
5'iTM
feC*NTI
VAI'IE
060
MJW4IJ
0123101 F01 HCNOLUL-I
•• fit III" I TV 3 **
7, ft'IO 1
A50«
<)
120
'Highest one-hour value exceeds the one-hour primary standard.
-------
CABB1N MdWXIOF <.2l011l
METHOD: NONOISPEaSIVE INFRA&.a miH) CO».TI .\1«TJS, HilllBLY VAL'lFS
9'ALITY
CO-nSOL
BSGION
MO HAWAII
HAWAII 12 012JJ01 F01 HONOLULU
YEAS NO. OF
VtLID
19 — VALUES
NO. PF VALUFS
FXCFEOINC
STANDARDS
1-HB B-M'-*
99TH PCTL
OF I -HR
VALUES.
MC/CU.H.
HIGMFST
1-HR VALUES 8-»M AVCS
HT./CU.M. MC/CU.N.
1ST 2.NO 1ST
72
•* PRIORITY
7,757 0
51
RFC, I ON
12
17
27.
•Th«
eifht-boux standard has bean exceoded.
-------
METMOO»
*l«
1*8 «IO»THW£$T N:VAO«
N«V*OA 29
CAKdON MONO XI Ot
HO»J»l.V V«.'J«S
5 101 RFNU
YEA1
19--
72
NO. OF NO. f)F VALUES
VALID EXCtJOlKS
VALUES STANOAPOS
1-HR 3-HR
•• P*IOBI TV 3 ••
2.713 2 163
99 IM PCTL
OF 1-HH
VALUCS,
MC/:U.M.
aeciON
18
IIICHTST
1-M<» VALUES
fG/CU.M.
1ST 2NO
<)
28 25
HICHrST
8-M» r.VCS
HC/CU.H.
1ST
21*
'The
eight-hour standard ha> been exceeded.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE NATTER 1110191
METHOD! C*AVIMEWC, 2*-HOUR HI-VOIUHC FIITCR SAMPLE
AIR
QUALITY
CONTROL
REGION
2*6 GUAM
GUAM 54 0010001 F01 ACANA 01 ST "
YEAR NO. Of NO. OF DAILY • HIGHEST ANNUAL
VALID VALUCS ^XC'D'G 2*-M* VALUES RATIOS TO CSOM.
19— VALUCS 2S-HP. JTDS. UC/CU. M. AMN. STDS MEAN
SEC. PRI. 1ST 2ND ScC. PRI. UG/CO.M.
•• PRIORITY 3 •• REGION 9
72 IS 13 7 700* 656
..The maxiavun 24-hour value exceeds the primary 24-hour atandard.
l*he Implementation Plan indicated thi« AQCR is below atandard* for thia pollutant.
-------
PAKTlCHLAIf HATHR 1110191
NETHODl C*AVI*ETRICt 2*-W»UR MI-VJLU*E FILTER S»N(»L«
QUALITY
CONTROL
SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
ALASKA
ALASKA
ALASKA
02
02
55 JUNFAU *•
01 JUNFAU
02 WRANGELL-PETERSBURC.H
YEAR
19—
72
72
72
NO. OF
VALID
VALUFS
NO. OF
VALUES
24-Mft
•• PRIORITY
7
23
17
3
3
6
DAILY
EXC'O"
STOS.
«•
G'
1
2
1
HIGHFST
24-HR VALUFS
UG/CU.t.
1ST 2ND
REGION 0
306 • 191
642* 346
297* 236
A N
RATIOS
A1N.
SEC.
N U
TO
STDS
PRI.
A L
CEO*.
MEAN
UC/CU.M.
• Th« -«»««-n» 24-hour v»lu« exceed* the primary maximim 24-hour standard.
•* The State Znpleaentatioa Plan indicated thi* AQCR was below atandards
for thia pollutant. .
-------
SUSPENOCO PACTICUtATE NATTC* 1110191
METHOD* CAAVHETMCt 24-HOUB Ht-VOLUMC FILTE« SAMPLE
At*
OUAUTV
COMTHIt
•ECION
04* METROPOLITAN BOISE t IDAHO)
IDAHO
IDAHO
VEAK NO. OF K3. Of 3*1 IT HIGHEST
VALID VALUES FXC'O'G 24-H» VALUES
19— VALUES 24-HR STPS. UC/CU.M.
SEC. PHI. 1ST 2HO
•• PRIORITY 2 •*
1 BOISE •*
H BOISE
1 NAMPA
72
72
72
74
43
87
14
&
28
1
1
11
•AT I OS
AW.
SEC.
TO CEO*.
STOS HfAM
PHI. UC/CU.N.
REGION 0
307*
423*
553*
237
199
437
1.70
1.90
1.36
1.S2
102"
1I4«
HM 90.
o--
-------
AIR
QUALITY
REGION
SUSPENOfO PARTICULATE NAUER 11IOI9I
METHOD* GRAVIMETRIC. l*-MOUR MI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
YEAR NO. OF NO. ne DAILV MICHFSI
VALID VALUES EXC'O'G 2*-tl" VALUES
19-- VALUES 24-HR STOS. UC/CU.M.
SEC. PHI. 1ST ?NO
ANNUAL
RATIOS TO CFOM.
ANN. STOS MEAN
SEC. PRI. UC/CU.H.
191 EAST£«N OREGON
'OREGON
38 1470001 F01 PENDtETON ••
38 17S0001 F03 UMATILLA COUNTy
72
72
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
32
35
REGIOM 0
307*
4C5*
209
109
.'.The 24-hour m»"t
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE HATTER 1110191
METHOOt CftAVIMETRICt 24-HOUR HI-VOLUME FILTER SAMPLE
QUALITY
227 N*)*THfPN WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON 49 A520?0l F01 DOUGLAS COUNTY ••
"•• WASHINGTON — 49 D0000S P01 OKANQGAN COUNTY
WASHINGTON 49 1540005 F31 PENO ORIELLE COUNTY
YEAR
19—
MD. OF
VALID
VALUES
NO. Of DAILY
VALUES CXC'O'G
2«-HR STOS.
SEC. PRI.
•• PRIORITY 2 ••
72
72
72
10
86
as
2 1
4 2
5 2
MIGHcST
24-IIP VALUES
UG/CU.H.
1ST 2ND
REGION 0
292* 208
409* 277
425* 114
ANNUAL
RATIOS TO GEOH.
ANN. STOS KEAN
SEC. PRI. UG/CU.H.
1.01 .81 61
1.05 .84 69
• The maximum 24-hour values exceed the primary 24-hour standard*.
*• This AQCR i» scheduled to Met the secondary «t«ndarda by 7/75.
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE HATTER 1110191
" ' NCTHOOI GRAVlXETRlCi 24-HOUR Hl-VOLUNE MLTF* SAMPLE
AIM YEAR NO. OF NO. OF DAILY HIGHEST ANNUAL
QUALITY VALID VALUES EXC'O'C 24-H« VALUES PATIOS TO GEOM.
CONTROL 19— VALUES 24-HR ST9S. UC/CU.M. AMN. STOS MEAN
«f=G!OX SEC. PR I. 1ST 2ND SEC. PHI. UC/CU.N.
22P OLYIPIC-NORTHMfST WASHINGTON ••PRtO«ITV2 •• REGION 0
WASHINGTON 49 1600001 101 PORT ANGELES " 72 71 4 1 240* 198
• The maxima 24-hour vmlu* exceeds cite priaary •axlw» 24-hour standard*.
•* This. AQCR !• cchodulod to aoet secondary standards by 7/75.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2: OBTAINING INFORMATION ON CO MONITORING
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document 1s to alert the Regional Offices
for the need of obtaining Information on the. CO monitoring 1n their
Regions and to suggest the kinds of Information needed for an effec-
tive evaluation.
BACKGROUND
In 1971, information in the NADB Indicated that 1n the eight
Priority III regions for which CO data were available, all exceeded
national ambient air quality standards. In 1972, 20 out of 21
reporting CO stations in Priority III regions exceeded the national
ambient air quality standards. While both the 1-hour and 8-hour
standards were exceeded, the majority of the reporting stations
exceeded the 8-hour standard. Therefore, the Regional Offices must
also determine which standard the station has been designed to monitor,
"Guidelines for Technical Services of a State A1r Pollution Con-
trol Agency" (APTD 1347) specifies different sampling location guide-
lines depending on whether 1-hour or 8-hour CO averages are to be
found'as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the Regional Offices
must also determine which standard each station should be
monitoring for compliance.
-------
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE STATION:
(1) What kind of building (room) 1s used for a sampling
site? Is the CO Instrument located here for convenience?
(2) Is the Instrument located In a city center, shopping
center, residential or rural area?
(3) What 1s the population density of the area In which the
Instrument 1s located?
/
(4) Is the Instrument location temporary (mobile station)
or permanent?
(5) Is the station air conditioned and heated?
(6) What Is the nature of surrounding structures 1f any,
I.e., are they higher than the sampling building, thus forming
a canyon, or the same size?
(7) What Is the estimate of the traffic count during rush
hours, where the Instrument 1s located within 200 feet of reading?
(8) What 1s the type of roadway; arterial; secondary, freeway,
etc?
(9) Make a rough map of the sampling building and Its sur-
roundings, noting the distances to traffic lanes, nearest neighborir.
buildings, cardinal directions, etc.
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INSTRUMENT:
(1) What is the make and model number of CO Instrument?
(2) What is the age of the Instrument?
(3) What 1s the method of water compensation?
(<} What are the calibration and maintenance schedules?
(5) Is an Instrument technician in daily attendance or does
a non-technical person Inspect daily or less frequently?
-------
(6) Is there anything noteworthy or Interesting about the
operating history of this Instrument?
(7) What 1s the quality of the span and zero gases? is
air or an Inert gas such as N£ used? Are they CO free?
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTAKE AND MANIFOLD:
(1) What 1s the height of Intake, from the ground?
(2) What 1s the distance of the Intake opening from the
building will or other structure?
(3) What is the distance of Intake from the traffic lane?
(4) If the roof top Intake height 1s above the roof, what
1s the distance from the parapet and from the nearest Incinerator
or boiler stack, 1f any?
(5) What 1s the probe and manifold composition?
(6) What is the length of the intake and manifold attached
to the CO instrument? What is the estimated time delay of the
air parcel from the Intake to the CO Instrument?
-------
Table 1. . SAMPLING LOCATION GUIDELINES FOR AREAS OF. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM CO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
Position of air Inlet
Pollutant
category
Pollutant
Station location
Height
from
ground,
ft
Vertical
clearance
above
supporting
structure, ft
Horizontal
clearance
beyond
supporting
structure, ft
Primary CO (1-hr Representing area containing dense, slow- <15
mobile averaging roving traffic, obstructions to air
source tine) flow (tall buildings), and pedestrian
pollutant population, such as a major downtown
traffic intersection (<20 ft from street
curb).
CO (8-hr Representing area of high traffic density <15
averaging in residential area, such as major
tine) throughfare in center city or suburban
area (3
------- |