ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES
Air Pollution
The November-December 1962
AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
in the Eastern United States
U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
THE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1962
AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
by
D.A. Lynn, B. J. Steigerwald, and J. H. Ludwig
Laboratory of Engineering and Physical Sciences
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Division of Air Pollution
Cincinnati, Ohio
September 1964
-------
The ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES of reports was estab-
lished to report the results of scientific and engineering studies of
man's environment: The community, whether urban, suburban, or
rural, where he lives, works, and plays; the air, water, and earth
he uses and reuses; and the wastes he produces and must dispose
of in ^ way that preserves these natural resources. This SERIES of
reports provides for professional users a central source of informa-
tion on the intramural research activities of Divisions and Centers
within the Public Health Service, and on their cooperative activities
with State and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial
organizations. The general subject area of each report is indicated
by the two letters that appear in the publication number; the indica-
tors are
AP Air Pollution
AH Arctic Health
EE Environmental Engineering
FP Eood Protection
OH Occupational Health
RH Radiological Health
WP Water Supply
and Pollution Control
Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with reports in
the SERIES to facilitate information retrieval. Space is provided on
the cards for the user's accession number and key words.
Reports in the SERIES will be distributed to requesters, as
supplies permit. Requests should be directed to the Division iden-
tified on the title page or to the Publications Office, Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-7
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ... 1
Meteorology .... . . . 1
Air Quality . .... 8
Particulate Pollutants ... 8
Gaseous Pollutants. . . ... 10
Reaction to the Alert Forecast . . . 19
Conclusions . 21
Acknowledgments . ... 22
References 23
Appendix ... 25
Table Al Particulate Levels at NASN Stations in the Alert
Area
Exhibit 1 Public Health Service Questionnaire
Exhibit 2 U.S. Weather Bureau Questionnaire
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the subject "episode" with respect to meteor-
ology, air quality, and public reaction. Particulate and gaseous air qual-
ity data are reported and discussed. Meteorology and public reaction are
discussedwith reference to the Public Health Service program of Air Pol-
lution Potential Forecasts. Epidemiological aspects are not considered.
-------
THE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1962
AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
Introduction
Early in November 1962 a large continental polar anticyclonic high-
pressure system began to form in northern Canada, almost 4000 miles
northwest of the eastern United States. A second high-pressure system
existed over the western Atlantic. By late November the Canadian high-
pressure systemmerged with the Atlantic high-pressure cell and became
stationary, producing stagnant air over most of New England, New York,
and Pennsylvania. Before this system moved out over the Atlantic, it
spread westward to Wisconsin and Iowa and south to Tennes see and Arkan-
sas to become the largest and most persistent air stagnation observed
since systematic studies began in 1955 to relate air pollution buildup to
large-scale stagnating anticyclones. Air quality deteriorated rapidly in
urban areas containing significant air pollution sources, and reaction to
the situation by the public, the news media, and official air pollution and
public health agencies was intense and prolonged. This report documents
this air pollution "episode" with respect to meteorology, air quality, and
public interest, and uses the occasion to review the Public Health Ser-
vice Weather Bureau program of Air Pollution Potential Forecasts.
Epidemiological aspects of the episode are not considered, although this
report does provide air quality data that may be useful in retrospective
studies of this type.
METEOROLOGY
The Air Pollution Potential Forecasts (APPF) were initiated in 1957
on an experimental basis for the portion of the United States east of the
Rocky Mountains. Since initial operations proved the method to be feasible
and worthwhile, an operational program on a regular basis was initiated
in August 1960. The service was extended to the entire contiguous United
States on October 1, 19-63.
From a meteorological viewpoint, air pollution potential may be
broadly defined as a sequence of specialized weather conditions conducive
to accumulation of pollutants in the atmosphere. Although considerable
judgment is necessary, experience ' has indicated that the following
meteorological conditions are indicative of such situations.
1. Surface wind speeds not more than 8 mph (usually represented
by 24-hour average wind speeds less than 5 mph).
2. Winds at no level below 500 millibars (approximately 18, 000 ft)
greater than 25 knots.
-------
2 1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
3. The existence of subsidence, i. e. , "sinking" in the air mass
below the 600-millibar level (approximately 14, 000 ft).
4. No precipitation
5. An area involved that is larger than a. 4-degree latitude square
(about a 275-mile square).
6. Condition expected to persist at least 36 hours, i. c. , not a nor-
mal case of diurnal nighttime pollution buildup and daytime ven-
tilation.
Intensification of air pollution under such conditions can be signifi-
cant. The APPF program attempts to provide advance warning so that
the preventive and protective measures that are available can be utilized
as early as possible.
The Office of Meteorological Research of the U. S. Weather Bureau
maintains a complete weather station at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary En-
gineering Center in Cincinnati; this station is operated inconjunction with
the programs in Cincinnati of the Division of Air Pollution, U.S. Public
Health Service. A team of Weather Bureau meteorologists daily inter-
prets synoptic weather maps in relation to the above criteria. When they
recognize an existing air pollution potential situation, these meteorologists
issue an Air Pollution Potential forecast at 12:17 p.m. (EST) over the
Weather BureauService C teletype circuit to about 240 first-order weather
stations. The station operators in turn notify air pollution and public
health agencies, and others who have requested such service from their
local Weather Bureau station.
During the period August I960 through September 1963, the Air Pol-
lution Potential program for the eastern United States issued advisories
for 39 stagnation situations, a few of which were subsequently retracted
when stagnation did not last the requisite 36 hours. Figures 1 and 2 in-
dicate the geographical distribution of those stagnation situations that were
verified and the total time of stagnation conditions (excluding the Novem-
ber-December 1962 episode. The usual duration of an alert is 2 to 3
days; a fewalerts last as longas 5 days. Stagnation situations in the east-
ern United States concentrate in a long arc from Alabama to eastern Penn-
sylvania, roughly following the Appalachian highlands, -with the greatest
number and duration in the western Carolinas and northern Georgia. The
concent ration of stagnations in this area with buildupof naturally occurring
aerosols presumably resulted in the generic name for the Smoky Moun-
tains long before weather research and air pollution were considered.
It has been determined that most stagnation incidents occur when local
weather patterns are dominated by a slow-moving or stagnating anticyclone.
These cells of high pressure are characterized by small horizontal pres-
sure gradients and by light surface winds in the central portion of the
system. In the northern hemisphere the motion around the high-pressure
system is clockwise and divergent in the surface layers of air. To effect
a balance in the anticyclonic system as a whole, divergence in the lower
layers results in subsidence, or sinking, of air from aloft. As the air
subsides, a general warming and drying effect results, which is generally
responsiole for the clear, fine weather normally associated with anti-
cyclones. From an air pollution standpoint, however, subsidence results
-------
Meteorology
in stabilization of the atmosphere and the formation of low-level inver-
sions, which limit the vertical mixing of pollutants at the earth's surface.
The low surface wind speeds associated with weak pressure gradients
further hinder effective horizontal transport and dispersion of pollutants.
Figure I. Isolines of total number of alerts called during period from August I960 through
September 1963.
When an anticyclone is slow-moving or quasi-stationary, poor dispersion
conditions persist over a given area and result in buildup of pollutant con-
centrations if sources of pollution exist. The eastern portion of the coun-
try is normally subject to variable weather conditions as low and high
pressure systems move through, but occasionally an anticyclone will stag-
nate and reduce ventilation over a large area. Such a slow-moving anti-
cyclone developed in late 1962 and brought about the stagnation period that
is the subject of this report.
-------
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
The stagnation forecast for the November-December 1962 periodwas
exceptional in at least three aspects. Its duration was the longest in the
3-year history of the Air Pollution Potential Forecast program; it covered
by far the largest area under one stagnating system; and the area covered
for the longest period of time included some of the most densely populated
areas of the country, areas not usually subject to frequent or long stag-
nations.
Figure 2. Isolines of total alert days during periods from August I960 through October
1962 and January 1963 through September 1963 (excludes November-December
alert period).
The initial forecast was called on November 27, 1962, for an area
from New England, through New York and Pennsylvania, into northern
West Virginia. The forecast area expanded west and south to eventually
include 22 states from Maine to Arkansas. Dissipation commenced along
the western boundary so that the stagnant air mass covered Illinois and
other areas to the west for only 2 or 3 days, while stagnant conditions
persisted overportions of New England, New York, and Pennsylvania for
-------
Meteorology
as long as 7 1/Z days. Figure 3 indicates the duration of the stagnation
in various sections of the country. The total area affected by this stag-
nation is inhabited by some 87 million people, 60 million of -whom were
in the area for 6 days or more. Table 1 lists 23 major cities, their
populations, and the number of days they were encompassed by the alert.
Figure 3. Isolines of number of days in alert - November 27 through December 5, 1962.
In Figure 4 the days of stagnation shown in Figure 2 have been in-
creased by inclusion of the days of the November-December 1962 fore-
cast. Comparison of the two figures shows that for areas in New York,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania the days of stagnation during the November-De-
cember period exceeded the total days of stagnation during the remainder
of the 3 years of the program; for areas to the northwest and in New Eng-
land essentially all of the total stagnation time occurred during this period.
-------
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
Ina study of stagnationanticyclones during the period 1936-56, Korshover4
found that while the high-frequency areas near northern Georgia had un-
dergone four to six stagnations of 7 days or longer, the areas most af-
fected during November-December 1962 had undergone only two or three
such long stagnations during the 21-year period. Thus an episode of this
magnitude can be expected in these areas about once every 10 years.
Table 1. PRINCIPAL CITIES AFFECTED BY STAGNATION
City or area 1960
New York Metropolitan Area
Chicago Metropolitan Area
Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
Detroit Metropolitan Area
Boston Metropolitan Area
Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area
St. Louis Metropolitan Area
Washington Metropolitan Area
Cleveland Metropolitan Area
Baltimore Metropolitan Area
Newark, N. J. Metropolitan Area
Buffalo, N. Y. Metropolitan Area
Milwaukee Metropolitan Area
Paterson, N. J. Metropolitan Area
Cincinnati, Ohio Metropolitan Area
Kansas City, Mo. Metropolitan Area
Indianapolis Metropolitan Area
Albany, N. Y. Metropolitan Area
Memphis, Tenn.
Louisville, Ky.
Hartford, Conn.
Nashville, Tenn.
Little Rock, Ark.
Charleston, W.Va.
10,
6,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
Dates
Population affected
602,
172,
301,
743,
567,
392,
046,
968,
787,
707,
683,
302,
185,
184,
068,
034,
690,
652,
498,
391,
177,
171,
108,
86,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
11/29-12/5
11/29-12/2
11/29-12/4
11/28-12/4
11/27-12/5
11/27-12/5
11/30-12/4
11/29-12/4
11/28-12/4
11/29-12/4
11/29-12/5
11/27-12/5
11/29-12/2
11/29-12/5
11/28-12/4
11/30-12/2
11/28-12/4
11/27-12/5
11/30-12/4
11/29-12/4
11/29-12/5
11/29-12/4
11/30-12/2
11/27-12/4
Number of
days affected
5
3
5
6
7
7
3
5
6
5
5
7
3
5
6
1
6
7
3
5
5
5
2
7
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
An unusual and perhaps fortunate feature of this stagnation situation
was a partial breaking of the stagnation over the Washington-New York
area on December 2 and 3. On these dates a minor low-pressure system
had moved briefly northward from the Cape Hatteras, North Carolina
area and then receded, temporarily affording this small area along the
coast with higher winds, which dissipated the stagnant air and the pollu-
tants accumulated during 5 or 6 days of stagnation.
-------
Meteorology
"T-
Figure 4. Isolines of total alert days from August I960 through September 1963 [includes
November-December alert period).
-------
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
AIR QUALITY
Particulate Pollutants
During the Z-week period extending a few days before and after the
Air Pollution Potential Forecast, 49 stations of the National Air Sampling
Network (NASN) in the alerted area obtained 67 regularly scheduled par-
ticulate samples. Sampling and analytical techniques are described in an
NASN summary publication. An additional 59 samples -were secured
from 18 NASN stations, primarily special samples taken in the New York-
New England area and at nonroutine sites in Cincinnati, Ohio. These 126
samples were classified as being obtained on the first, second, third,
etc. , day before the start of the period, during the period, or after the
stagnation period in the local area. ' The NASN samples were analyzed
for total particulates and organic (benzene-soluble) particulates and com-
pared with "normal" concentrations from each site. The normal used
was the median concentration in previous September-November quarters,
usually over the period 1957-61. Stations for which such background
data were not available have not been included in the study, nor are they
included in the totals of samples enumerated above. NASN data on par-
ticulate concentrations are presented in Table Al of the Appendix. The
mean ratios (episode/normal) are presented graphically in Figure 5.
The curves in Figure 5 cannot be considered a precise quantitative
description of the alert over an "average" station, since the mean for
each day represents several (3-13) cities of diverse size and character.
Figure 5 does illustrate, however, that during the alert the daily average
particulate concentrations rose to 2 to 3 times normal, and that organic
(benzene-soluble) particulates -were especially affected, rising to as high
as 6 times normal. For 40 of 51 (78%) samples obtained during the alert
the episode/normal ratio was higher for benzene-soluble organics than
for total particulates; comparable values were 21 of 43 (49%) before the
alert and 8 of 28 (29%) after the alert. Also of note is the peaked nature
of the curves in Figure 5. The decrease in pollutant levels on the 6th day
of the alert is due to the previously mentioned temporary cleaning effect
on December 2-3, when the eastern coastal states were in the 6th day of
the local alert. The peak in the benzene-soluble curve on the first day of
the forecast appears to be a local phenomenon. It represents data from
East Chicago, Indiana, and Cincinnati, Ohio, and an extremely high ratio
from one location in New England. With this one station excluded, the
average ratio for the first day is 1.79, as indicated by the dashed curve.
Figure 6 depicts a similar analysis of data from stations in an ellip-
tical area from New York to Boston. By exclusion of the western areas,
where the stagnation was less severe, the curves give a clearer picture
of the stagnation over a homogeneous area. In this area, weight of par-
ticulate rose to 3 to 4 times normal and of benzene-soluble organics to
7 times normal. The general decrease in pollution on December 2-3 is
* Air pollution stagnation periods are usually called (begun) and ended at noon. Particu-
late sampling was begun and ended at random times, and the date given is the date that
sampling began. Thus a sample designated at the beginning or end of Ihe stagnation per-
iod may not lie entirely within the stagnation period as called by the USWB.
-------
Air Quality
i ,
I I I I
IENZENE-SOLUBLE ORGANIC PARTICULAR
J L
7A 3A 4 After Epiio
SB 48 IB IB I Before 2 3 4 5 6 7 fl
TIME, deyt
Figure 5. Ratio of pollutant levels during episode to normal pollutant levels.
Figure 6. Ratio of pollutant levels during episode to normal pollutant levels
in the Boston - New York area.
evident. These curves probably provide a good representation of the
buildup of pollutants during a stagnation, since many stations obtained
special daily samples during the alert. The low points immediately after
the alert ended presumably are due to replacement of the large mass of
stagnant air with an influx of unpolluted (fresh) air.
-------
10
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
Gaseous Pollutants
During the alert, Continuous Air Monitoring Program (CAMP) sta-
tions were operating in the stagnation area in Washington, Philadelphia,
Cincinnati, and Chicago. Other continuous gas sampling equipment was
operating in New York at the Christodoro House sampling station. The
solid curves in Figures 7 through 11 are plots of hourly mean concentra-
tions. The solid curve in Figure 1Z represents the E-hour mean data
from New York Christodoro Station. The dotted lines in Figures 7 through
11 are 12-hour "rolling averages, " i.e., each point plotted represents
the mean of 12 hours, approximately 6 hours on each side of the point.
This type of plot is intended to sort out the short-term fluctuations and,
to some extent, the diurnal variations. For curves where rapid changes
in concentration are minor -we have omitted this plot. To provide back-
ground comparison, the "average day" is plotted for one day under some
of the pollutant curves. This curve represents hourly concentrations
averaged over the month for November or December 1962, or both, as
available. Inaddition, Figures 7 through 12 include plots of daily average
temperatures (includingnormal temperature) and percent of possible sun-
shine.
Data were obtained from Washington, D. C. (Figure 7)untilthe station
was dismantled on December 4 for temporary relocation at the National
Figure 7. Data from CAMP station at Washington, D.C.
-------
Gaseous Pollutants 11
Conference on Air Pollution. In Washington the levels for carbon mon-
oxide and total hydrocarbons are relatively constant prior to the stagna-
tion, with twice-daily rush hour peaks and slightly lower levels over the
weekends, as is expected where automobiles are the major source of
these pollutants. About 24 hours after the alert began, on Friday, Novem-
ber 30, levels for carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon rose in parallel
to about 5 times normal, dropped on Saturday afternoon, then rose again
Sunday morning and returned to normal under the improved ventilation
conditions on December 2-3. Whether the levels again rose on the 4th,
as the ventilation decreased, is undetermined. SC>2 concentrations in
Washington began building to 1-1/2 times normal somewhat before the
alert was called, decreased to nearly normal on December 2, and began
to rise again on December 3, soon enough for the peak to be observed be-
fore the stationwas dismantled. Interpretation of total oxidant data in the
presence of SC>2 is open to serious question, since SC>2 tends to interfere
with the oxidation measurement.* The rare instances of measurable ox-
idant in Washington prior to the stagnation (each small peak represents
one or two 5-minute values of 0. 01 ppm) are contrasted with the peak to
0. 02 ppm on December 1. Since SO2 at this time was only <± little below
normal levels, it is presumed that oxidant concentration rose significantly
to be able to overcome the interference. The discontinuous "hanging end"
of the peak was due to a temporary instrument failure, and the next data
obtained a few hours later were back to zero.
Figure 8 presents data from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The "bi-
modal" peaks are evident; the December 2 cleansing reduced the SCX to
normal and the NO, and NO to zero for a few hours at a somewhat earlier
time. Note also the persistence of SO^ diurnal variations into the "rolling
average" plots, not seen in Washington. Overall, the SO2 levels during
the alert were 3 to 4 times normal; the NO levels ranged from 4 to 8 times
normal, and NO£ concentrations were routinely twice normal; the hydro-
carbon curve indicates that on 2 days the evening peaks rose to 3 to 4
times normal.
Total oxidant data showed only scattered 5-minute values above zero
prior to the stagnation, but indicated a sustained value of nearly 0.01 ppm
for 18 hours on December 1 and 2. Because the oxidants measured are
largely photochemical reaction products, the persistence of this level
through the night is unexpected. Occurrence of the peak at a. time when
other pollutants were being rapidly dispersed by increased ventilation is
even more inexplicable, although some weight may be given to the lower-
ing of SO2 interference, -which permitted the analyzer to record minimal
amounts of oxidant.
Pollutant levels at Cincinnati, Ohio (Figure 9) increased slowly but
uniformly to twice normal over the entire alert period and decreased
rather rapidly immediately afterward. Noteworthy features were sharp
peaks in the NOX curves and the pronounced diurnal variations in the SO2
curve. The morning peaks on November 30 appear to indicate a classical
photochemical smog incident with decreasing NO and hydrocarbon levels,
* A precise evaluation of true oxidant levels is impossible when SO2 is present. CAMP
stations have recently been equipped with CrO3 absorbers, which should eliminate this
interference in total oxidant measurements.
-------
12
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
TEMPERATURE
TOTAL OXIDANT
I..
U 5
HYDROCARBON
"I
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
0.60
z- 0,50
g
< 0.40
o 0,30
o
O 0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
NITROGEN OXIDE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Sun Mi
Figure 8. Data from CAMP station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
-------
Gaseous Pollutants
13
TEMPERATURE
, A , A ,
TOTAL OXIOANT
_J L_
1A
HYDROCARBON
0.20
0.10
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
0.20
0.10
NITROGEN OXIDI
HRLY MEAN
12-HR RUN'G. AVG.
SULFUR DIOXIDE
11/25 11/26
Sun Mon
11/30 IZ/I
Figure 9. Data from CAMP station at Cincinnati, Ohio.
increasing NC>2 concentration, and oxidant buildup, shown in more detail
in Figure 10. Two-hour sulfate analyses were obtained from AISI tape
samples in an attempt to explain the rapid drop in SC>2 concentration dur-
ing the photochemical incident. Because the wind data show no great
change in total ventilation, it was postulated that the SC^ may have been
oxidized rapidly to sulfate. Table Z lists sulfate concentrations during the
period. There is not enough increase in 804 to account for the decrease
in SO2.
The data from Chicago (Figure 11) indicate some increase above us-
ual levels, generally to about twice normal for most contaminants. Di-
urnal patterns in Chicago are much more distinct than in the other loca-
tions, and these were not modified greatly by the stagnation conditions.
-------
14
196Z AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
Figure I 0. Photochemical smog incident - Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
Gaseous Pollutants
15
rROGEN DIOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Figure 11. Data from CAMP station at Chicago, Illinois.
Table 2. SULFATE CONCENTRATION IN CINCINNATI DURING
PHOTOCHEMICAL INCIDENT NOVEMBER 30, 1962
Time
. Concentration at CAMP
Station, (ig/m^
6 a., m. 8 a. m.
8 a. m. 10 a., m.
10 a. m. 12 Noon
12 Noon 2 p. m.
2 p. m. 4 p. m.
4 p. m. 6 p. m.
6 p. m. 8 p. m.
22
31
28
33
13
13
9
-------
16
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
This period could not be considered of major consequence in Chicago.
Higher pollutant concentrations were observed at other times during the
1962-63 winter season.
Figure 12 shows the SO2 concentration at Christodoro House in New
York City, where the sampler is located at an elevation of 189 feet. The
twin peaks bracketing the December 2-3 cleansing are pronounced. Un-
fortunately, background data for New York are not available.
Figure 12, Data from New York City.
Figures 13 and 14 are "three-dimensional" representations of CAMP
data during the episode, and are an attempt to illustrate pictorially the
progress of the air pollution episode. These are essentially smoothed
hourly mean plots set "behind" one another to facilitate visual elimination
of diurnal fluctuations. We present the Cincinnati data because they best
depict the nature of the onset, progress, and ending of the episode. SO2
data for the first 2 days (Figure 13) show small morning and evening peaks
due to fumigation. On November 28-30 the peaks become stronger and
more drawn out as the decreased ventilation permits pollutants to accu-
mulate. On Saturday and Sunday, December 1 and 2, the peaks appear
later in the day and never decrease to the low values of the previous after-
noon. The Monday peak shows still further increase in magnitude and du-
ration, then on December 4 the morning peak declines steeply as the stag-
nation breaks, and the air for the subsequent 2 days is relatively very
clean.
The total hydrocarbon data for Cincinnati are plotted in a similar way
in Figure 14; we established the divisionat 3 p. m. rather than at midnight
-------
Gaseous Pollutants
17
Figure 13. SO2 levels recorded at Cincinnati CAIvlP station.
HYDROCARBON
Figure 14. Hydrocarbon levels recorded at Cincinnati CAMP station.
-------
18 1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
to better illustrate the effect of the nighttime inversion. The front bar
illustrates a 3-ppm "baseline" with small rush-hour accumulations. As
the air mass begins to stagnate, the rush-hour peaks increase and pollu-
tants are dispersed to a lesser extent, until December 1, when the con-
centration remains nearly constant at more than 3 times the levels re-
corded before the stagnation, through December 4. The hydrocarbon
concentration returns to a uniform 3 ppm for several subsequent days.
Data for other pollutants and other cities are a good deal more vari-
able and hence more difficult to visualize; in general, however, they all
show normal diurnal peaks that increase inmagnitude and duration during
the episode. Only occasionally do these peaks grow sufficiently to blend
into each other and yield a continuous daily high. This contrasts with the
erroneous impression of a continuous buildup of pollutants gained from
24-hour average particulate data, as in Figures 5 and 6.
To gain further insight into the relative air quality during the alert,
we scanned summaries of maximum 5-minute and hourly concentrations
during 1962. Maximum hourlyand maximum 5-minute NO concentrations
for the year for CAMP stations at Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cincinnati
(Washington analyzer inoperative) occurred during the episode, as did NO2
maxima for Philadelphia an'd Cincinnati. Hydrocarbon hourly maxima for
the year occurred during the episode in all three cities reporting (Chicago
inoperative), but the 5-minute maximum occurred during the episode only
in "Washington. The hydrocarbon peak during the episode was exceeded
only once in Philadelphia; in Cincinnati, however, the hydrocarbon levels
during the episode were well down the list of peaks for the year. Peak
levels of SO^ during the episode generally were not among the highest for
the year. The SO^ maxima for the year occurred in October (Philadel-
phia), November (Cincinnati and Washington), and late December (Chica-
go). It appears that the decrease of space heating during the fair stagna-
tion weather may preclude extreme SO? accumulations. CO data were
available from Washington only; the maxima for the year were set during
the episode.
With only four CAMP stations in the alert area, it is difficult to gain
an overall view of the effect of the stagnation on gaseous pollutants. The
only CO analyzer functioning routinely during part of the alert was in
Washington; CO levels there rose to 3 to 4 times normal. SO2 data were
fairly complete for the four CAMP cities and for New York: the SO^ levels
were 1 to 1-1/2 times normal in Cincinnati, Chicago, and Washington;
4 times normal in Philadelphia; and similarly very high in New York.
Stagnation in Washington, Philadelphia, and New York was much more
extended than in Cincinnati or Chicago, and since Washington is not an
industrial city, the general pattern of SO-^ increase seems logical. NOX
analyzers, operating in three cities, indicated daily peaks generally 3 to
8 times normal during the stagnation. Hydrocarbon data from Washington,
Philadelphia, and Cincinnati indicate peaks 3 to 6 times normal; only Cin-
cinnati data show prolonged buildup or great fluctuations. During the epi-
sode ozone appeared in measurable amounts only in Cincinnati, with low
SO2 levels and 100 percent sunshine. The only ozone peaks of more than
10-minute duration occurred during the episode, and the frequency of 5-
minute periods with measurable ozone increased. Total oxidant -was
measured in Washington, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati; oxidant concen-
-------
Reaction to the Alert Forecast
19
trations were higher than normal during the episode, but the occurrence
of overnight peaks and the unknowns involved in SO2 interference preculde
conclusive evaluations.
"Dosage" values during the episode were calculated for some of the
CAMP cities. Dosage is defined as the area (in ppm-hours) under the
concentration curve when the concentration exceeds a specified level. It
is probably a better measure of respiratory insult than simple concentra-
tion, since it takes into account the duration of exposure to high concen-
trations of pollutants.
Dosage calculations are summarized in Table 3. The normal (N)
used for comparison is the November-December 1962 period, excluding
the episode (E). Generally the 5 to 8 percent of the month represented by
the episode period accounted for from 1/5 to over 1/2 of the dose received
during the period, as shown in columns 6 and 7. The average daily dose
varied from 1-1/2 to 6 times normal during the episode. Generally this
is the result of increased duration of peak concentrations (a lengthening
of the normal diurnal peaks) rather than striking increases in concentra-
tion (columns 2 and 3). Complete dose data are not yet available for all
CAMP cities but are now part of routine CAMP data processing and will
be presented in future CAMP annual reports.
DfBcnplKin
Chicauo SOz
Dosage* fur Concentrations! > 0. 5 ppm
Phila. SOZ
Dosages for Concentrations > 0. 3 ppm
W,.h. S02
Chicago NO
Normal
E pi a ode
Normal
Episnde
Episode
Episode
NO. or
cUrr,np
(Col. 1)
146
10
59
15
4
11
hrmin
(2)
0 21
1 36
0'19
1 50
0-26
5 3B
A.=rasc
&
ppm
(!)
0. 62
0. 66
0. -14
0. 36
0. 35
0. 34
<""""
ppm-hr
(4)
0. 22
1. 05
0. 14
0. 67
0. 15
1. 94
ppm-hr
(5)
0. 56
1. 14
1.46
2.00
0. 12
6. 41
T.mc
(6)
94. 5
5. 5
91. 8
8.2
8. Z
5. 5
i-. ,,)
Dosage
(7)
75. 6
24. 4
44. 9
55. 1
35.2
20. 2
REACTION TO THE ALERT FORECAST
The length and scope of this stagnation episode provided an excellent
opportunity to test public and official reaction to the incident and to sur-
vey the use made of the air pollution potential forecast service. We ob-
tained informationon these points by means of two polls. The Division of
Air Pollution, Public Health Service, distributed one questionnaire to
state and local public health and air pollution agencies in the large area
covered by the forecast. The U.S. Weather Bureau sent a memorandum
questionnaire to local weather stations participating in the forecast pro-
gram.
We received about 70 replies to the PHS survey (Exhibit 1, Appen-
dix) including 12 from state agencies. In general, knowledge of the epi-
sode and vigor of action followed a predictable pattern and varied directly
-------
20
1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
with (1) length of time in the stagnation area, (2) severity of air pollution
problems during normal weather conditions, and (3) size of local or state
air pollution control program. Agencies in the western, southern, and
northern New England portions of the stagnation area had little knowledge
of theforecast, did not notice a particularly unusual air pollution situation,
and hence undertook no special action. In the Atlantic seaboard states
and into the midwest, many official agencies noted and used the forecast.
Air quality deteriorated rapidly, and news media coverage and public
reaction were vigorous, particularly in the large cities. Table 4 sum-
marizes response to the PHS questionnaire.
Table 4. SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO PHS QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Aware of fore-
cast
2. Obvi s poor
air q ahty>
i. New c^erape''
t. Any firial
actio taken'1
a. Any ecial air
anal e& taken''
6. Are recasts of
vahi
0
Number
a
8
8
8
8
8
2
12
12
12
0
0
25
3
replies
9
6
8
9
9
7
5
55
33
12
0
33
43
replies
18
18
18
18
18
18
72
50
50
33
0
67
7
36
34
34
36
36
33
8
75
59
74
28
11
64
Total
71 65
66 49
68 53
71 23
71 10
66 58
The finding that only 58 percent of those polled placed value on the
forecasts reflects primarily the large number of agencies that were not
aware of theforecast rather than lack of interest in the forecast program.
Nearly all the agencies that were notified of the stagnation situation placed
a strong value on continuation of the forecasting program.
Nearly one-third of the agencies that were aware of the forecast took
some action as a direct result of the forecast. The most common official
actionwas to place the air pollution agency in a posture of readiness; di-
rect actions included extra inspection patrols, increased air sampling
activities, preparation of news releases for publication in local papers
and for use in answering complaints, and placement of calls to selected
large air pollution sources requesting cooperation. The news releases
generally informed the public of the existing or potential situation, pro-
vided some meteorological background, and requested citizens to curtail
burning of leaves and trash for a few days. Only one agency issued spe-
cific health warnings in their release; this agency warned against un-
necessary exertion by those with chronic respiratory or cardiac condi-
tions.
Approximately 75 stations replied to the U.S. Weather Bureau ques-
tionnaire (Exhibit 2, Appendix). The character of the replies followed
closely the geographical patterns discussed earlier for the PHS survey
of the state and local air pollution agencies. Generally, only in the New
England states, Pennsylvania, and New York were Weather Bureau sta-
tions involved in the air pollution situation. Normally they worked with
the local or state air pollution or public health agency and received only
GPO 8148364
-------
Conclusions 21
a few air pollution complaints directly from the public. Nearly all sta-
tions in large cities or in the capitals of states with air pollution pro-
grams understand the forecast program clearly and relayalerts that affect
their state. About 15 of the 75 stations that replied have received standing
requests to relay the forecasts, sometimes to as many as four separate
parties. Stations located in small towns or in areas not commonly con-
cerned with air pollution have not used the forecasts, do not seem to un-
derstand their purpose, and generally ignore them. Exceptions usually
involve requests by large industries for notification of the forecasts.
CONCLUSIONS
A primary purpose for studying the November-December 1962 episode
was to review the PHS -Weather Bureau Air Pollution Potential Forecast
Program. Replies to the questionnaires and analysis of available air
quality data indicate that the Program criteria do effectively forecast
periods of increased pollution, especially when the forecast continues for
Z or 3 days. It is also apparent that the forecasts are accepted by local
and state air pollution agencies and have become an important and integral
part of many control programs in areas concerned with air pollution. A
few suggestions have been made for improvement of the Program, prin-
cipally relating to communications and public announcements. These have
been discussed in detail with those responsible for the Forecast Program
and have been adopted where appropriate.
Analysis of air quality data during this particular stagnation also
shows the need for augmenting the central forecast group in Cincinnati
with field meteorologists in key areas. Forecasting out of Cincinnati the
exact location of the edge of minor weather systems is difficult. Such a
minor low-pressure system did, however, provide dramatic relief to a
number of major cities along the east coast on the 5th or 6th day of the
stagnation. Detailed knowledge of its existence, arrival, and effect would
have greatly assisted local agencies in developing programs during the
stagnation period. An Air Pollution Potential Forecast meteorologist has
been established in New York for about the past year. Others are planned
for three additional key areas in 1965 or 1966.
Some acute air pollution episodes have been associated with greatly
increased mortality and morbidity. Recently published information indi-
cates that periods of high air pollution not immediately identifiable as
acute situations also may be associated with increased mortality. The
November-December episode was unusually extensive, affected many large
population centers, and resulted in severe air pollution exposures for
most contaminants. The size and duration of this episode period would
seem to make it ideally suited for a comprehensive epidemiological study;
this report should provide the basis for the design of such a study. A
limited review of morbidity and mortality statistics for the November-
December 1962 period has been made for New York City. A significant
increase was noted in occurrence of respiratory complaints in all of the
city's homes for the aged. No significant increase in death rate was ap-
parent during the episode period.
-------
22 1962 AIR POLLUTION EPISODE
Aside from the documentation of the November-December episode,
this study also points out interesting patterns of pollution buildup during
extensive and severe stagnation periods and provides generally some in-
dication of maximum dosage or exposure levels probable for a large seg-
ment of the population. Since these episodes may be important in under-
standing and determining the magnitude of air pollution effects, theyshould
be studied routinely and at some depth. The Public Health Service has
recently initiated a program to collect special samples of suspended
particulate matter during all Air Pollution Potential Forecast periods.
These samples will be taken by local cooperatives as an extension of the
National Air Sampling Network. This program should be augmented with
detailed analysis of gaseous contaminant data and special studies of changes
in particulate characteristics during major episodes.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Laurence Niemeyer, Chief of
the Air Pollution Potential Forecast Program, and also the cooperation
of state and local air pollution agencies, stations of the U.S. Weather
Bureau, and stations of the National Air Sampling Network and the Con-
tinuous Air Monitoring Program.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Miller, M.E., and Niemeyer, L. E. : "Air Pollution Potential Fore-
casts A Year's Experience," U.S. Weather Bureau Research
2. Niemeyer, L. E. : "Forecasting Air Pollution Potential, "Monthly
Weather Review 88:88-96 (Mzrch I960).
3. Boettger, C.M. : "Air Pollution Potential East of the Rocky Moun-
tains: Fall 1959, "Bull. Amer. Met. Society 42:9 (September
1961), p. 615-620.
4. Korshover, J. . "Synoptic Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones, "
SEC Technical Report A60-7, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineer-
ing Center (Cincinnati: I960).
5. Air Pollution Measurements of the National Air Sampling Network,
Public Health Service Publication No. 978, U. S. Government
Printing Office (Washington: 1962).
6. Jutze, G. A. and Tabor, E.G. : "The Continuous Air Monitoring Pro-
gram," J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 13:6, June 1963.
7. Greenburg, L. et al. , "Report of an Air Pollution Incident in New
York City, November 1963. " Public Health Reports 78:1061-64.
8. Greenburg, L. et al. , "Intermittent Air Pollution Episode in New
York City, 1962." Public Health Reports 78:1061-64. (Decem-
ber 1963).
23
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Table AI. PARTICULATE LEVELS AT NASN STATIONS IN ALERT AREA
Station
Hartford, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
New Haven, Conn.
New Haven, Conn.
Stamford, Conn.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Portland, Maine
Portland, Maine
Arcadia. Nat'l. Pk. , Me.
Boston, Mass.
Lynn, Mass.
Lynn, Mas s .
Lynn, Mass.
Lynn, Mass.
Somerville, Mass.
Sornerville, Mass.
Somerville, Mass.
Worcester, Mass.
Brockton, Mass.
Brockton, Mass.
Brockton, Mass.
Brockton, Mass.
Fall River, Mass.
Fall River, Mass.
Fall River, Mass.
Quincy, Mass.
Quincy, Mass.
Quincy, Mass.
Quincy, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Cambridge, Mass.
New Bedford, Mass.
New Bedford, Mass.
New Bedford, Mass.
New Bedford, Mass.
New Bedford, Mass.
Coos County, N. H. c
Burlington, Vt.
Orange County, Vt. c
Orange County, Vt.
Wilmington, Del.
Wilmington, Del.
Elizabeth, N. J.
Newark, N. J.
Newark, N. J.
Newark, N. J.
Newark, N. J.
New York, N. Y.
New York, N. Y.
Binghamton, N. Y.
Utica, N. Y.
Utica, N. Y.
Albany, N. Y.
Albany, N. Y.
Rochester, N. Y.
Rochester, N. Y.
Date
12/1
12/2
12/3
12/4
12/5
12/6
12/7
11/26
12/4
11/26
12/7
11/26
12/5
12/6
12/4
11/25
11/30
12/1
12/4
11/30
12/1
12/6
12/6
1,1/30
12/1
12/4
12/5
11/26
11/29
12/6
11/30
12/1
12/4
12/8
11/29
12/1
12/2
12/3
12/4
12/5
12/7
11/24
11/29
11/30
12/1
12/4
12/4
12/6
11/25
12/6
11/27
12/7
12/6
11/24
11/27
11/30
12/4
12/1
12/5
12/5
11/25
12/6
11/30
12/5
11/25
12/7
Day of
alert
3
4
5
6
7
1A
2A
3B
6
3B
3A
IB
2A
3A
1A
2B
4
5
8
4
5
3A
4A
4
5
8
1A
IB
3
3A
4
5
8
4A
3
5
6
7
1A
2A
4A
5B
1
2
3
6
1A
3A
2B
3A
2B
3A
2A
5B
2B
2
6
3
1A
1A
2B
2A
4
1A
2B
3A
Total suspended particulate,
ug/rn3
1962
427
218
211
209
119
28
67
90
122
49
102
92
96
24
162
147
228
206
152
276
337
62
86
127
190
157
117
69
121
20
155
220
176
102
86
350
176
79
140
70
68
70
197
130
193
149
24
54
27
20
196
131
85
100
124
274
318
354
148
96
264
43
292
45
63
66
Normal
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
72
72
100
127
82
82
23
117
72
72
72
72
67
67
67
79
64
64
64
64
76
76
76
82
82
82
82
70
70
70
70
70
70
87
51
51
51
51
51
16
40
40
40
127
127
151
90
90
90
90
157
157
73
97
97
64
64
115
115
Benzene- soluble organics,
Hg/m3
1962
67.6
45. 1
34.4
23.0
10.3
3.3
5. 1
12. 1
17. 2
10. 6
7.5
10.8
8. 0
0.4
19.6
3.7
43.4
49.0
31.9
49.5
68.0
9.6
6.3
26.4
36.2
27.9
4.7
12. 5
24. 1
1.7
33.7
40.6
29.9
7. 1
15.5
64.0
26.4
47.4
16.2
5.1
3. 5
8.4
40. 1
20. 1
50.6
24. 1
1. 1
4.0
1. 1
1. 1
11.2
8.7
7.3
9.5
34.9
42.8
10.7
13.9
16.7
3.4
37.7
5.9
5.4
4.4
Normal
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.8
10. 3
7. 1
7. 1
2. 1
10. 3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
6.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
6.7
6.7
6.7
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
4.4
4.4
4.4
4. 4
4.4
0.9
2.4
1.7
1.7
9. 1
9. 1
14.4
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
13.0
13. 0
5.8
5.8
5.8
2.7
2.7
7. 0
7.0
-------
Table AI. (Continued)
Station
Troy, N. Y.
Elmira, N. Y.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Reading, Pa.
Washington, B.C.
Baltimore, Md.
Baltimore, Md.
Charleston, W. Va.
Charleston, W. Va.
Charleston, W. Va.
Charleston, W. Va.
Nashville, Tenn.
Memphis, Tenn.
Peoria, Illinois
Peoria, Illinois
E. Chicago, Ind.
Evansville, Ind.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Detroit, Mich.
Lansing, Mich.
Youngstown, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
Springfield, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio'1'
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio'2'
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Racine, Wis.
Racine, Wis.
St. Louis, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Shannon County, Mo.a
Shannon County, Mo.
Little Rock, Ark.
Little Rock, Ark.
Date
12/7
12/6
11/27
12/4
11/27
12/5
12/5
12/7
11/26
12/4
11/23
11/28
12/2
12/3
12/2
12/6
11/29
12/6
11/29
12/6
11/27
11/30
12/4
12/4
11/28
12/4
12/6
12/4
12/7
11/24
11/27
11/28
11/29
11/30
12/1
12/4
12/5
11/24
11/27
11/28
11/29
11/30
12/1
12/4
12/5
11/23
11/29
12/6
11/25
12/6
11/25
12/4
11/26
12/4
12/2
12/6
Day of
alert
3A
2A
2B
6
1
1A
1A
3A
3B
6
4B
2
6
7
4
3A
IB
4A
1
3A
IB
3
7
7
IB
7
2A
7
3A
4B
IB
1
2
3
4
7
1A
4B
IB
1
2
3
4
7
1A
5B
2
2A
4B
4A
5B
5
4B
2A
3
4A
Total suspen
P
1962
26
25
130
255
211
432
332
60
90
197
93
396
413
527
245
66
239
80
309
74
151
235
270
350
141
602
45
274
61
62
97
185
198
286
286
479
298
62
92
185
169
222
229
353
259
58
201
42
147
82
135
173
45
57
116
58
ded particulate,
g/m5
Normal
83
81
193
193
133
133
170
104
105
105
180
ISO
180
180
135
101
151
151
180
117
160
160
160
127
76
161
180
107
127
129d
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
102d
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
114
114
114
180
180
180
180
30
30
76
76
Benzene-soluble organics,
ug/m5
1962
1. 5
2.8
7.3
29.7
66.4
17.6
6.2
6.9
15.4
3.9
16.9
26.0
28.0
44. 2
4.0
23. 8
3. 0
19.2
5.0
37.3
12.7
59.5
3.8
19.0
3. 1
4.8
8.8
14.4
13.8
22.2
24.6
49.4
18.5
4. 0
5.8
13.8
10.6
17.4
7. 2
36.6
13. 1
3.9
3.7
20.7
4.5
17.5
14.2
1.4
2.4
24. 1
5.4
Normal
5. 6
6. 0
13. 5
13.5
8. 1
8. 1
12.2
10. 9
11.1
11. 1
8.8
8.8
8.8
8. 8
12.8
8. 1
13. 3
13.3
9.0
8. 1
10. 0
6.0
13.3
11.3
8.8
8. 1
10. ld
10. 1
10. 1
10. 1
10. 1
10. 1
10. 1
10. 1
7.6d
7. 6
7. 6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7. 6
7.6
8.3
8.3
8.3
11. 3
11.3
13.3
13.3
1.5
1. 5
7.4
7.4
aB - before alert period began.
A - after alert period ended.
bMedian concentration for each date in previous September-November quarters, usually from
1957 to 1961.
GNon-urban station.
dCincinnati stations (1) and (2) are at the same location (U.S. Weather Bureau's Gest Street
Experimental Facility). The normals used are means of about 40 samples taken during the
quarter September - November 1962.
-------
EXHIBIT 1 : PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
March 11, 1963
During the period November 27 through December 5, 1962, a
combination of weather phenomena generally conducive to
light winds and poor atmospheric diffusion affected a large
section of the eastern and central United States. The
situation was predicted and was reported via teletype to
appropriate U, S. Weather Bureau stations (Service C net-
work) as part of the daily air pollution potential forecasting
service of the Division of Air Pollution, U. S. Public
Health Service, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Since this stagnation was of unusual duration and extent, we
feel it should be studied in an effort to learn the value of our
forecasting program and detect changes needed in present
procedures. Therefore, we are attempting to document the
incident as thoroughly as possible, so that a case history
report can b* prepared. We would plan to include sections
on meteorology and air quality, as well as information on
awareness of and reaction to the forecast notice by news
media, industry, citizens, and State and local officials.
GPO 8148363
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE (Continued)
1. Were you aware that high air pollution potential had been
forecast for this period by the Division of Air Pollution,
U. S. Public Health Service?
2. Did it appear that an unusual air pollution situation ex-
isted in your area during this period? {Any documentation,
such as public inquiries, official reports, complaints,
photographs, etc. would be helpful and appreciated.)
3. What was the extent of coverage by local news media?
(Copies of newspaper articles and information on any
radio or television coverage would be appreciated.)
4. Was any special action taken during this period? (Such
as announcements or orders to discontinue open burning,
changes in or postponement of industrial operations which
pollute the air, etc,)
5. Were any air analyses made during the period? (If so,
results or summaries would be appreciated for inclusion
in the report. )
6. Was the air pollution potential forecast of any value to
your agency ?
7. Have you any recommendations for improving the value of
the forecasting service?
We realize that conscientious evaluation of the situation might
require considerable effort, but the study will result in
increasingly useful forecasting services and better episode
planning procedures of mutual benefit to everyone concerned
with air pollution.
Yours very truly,
B. J. Steigerwald
Assistant to the Chief
Laboratory of Engineering
and Physical Sciences
Division of Air Pollution
-------
EXHIBIT 2: U.S. WEATHER BUREAU QUESTIONNAIRE
"sc°.".'o*^) i s ni.p\iu\n\ i 01
LN1TED STATES l.OVERN'MEM "' umk "' k
Memorandum
TO Selected First Order Stations DATE February 28, 1963
{listed on reverse) In rep|y refer to: R-3.5
.FROM Chief, Forecast and Synoptic Reports Division
SUBJECT: Air Pollut'on Survey
During the period of November 27 to December 5, 1962 an extensive ridge
of high pressure stagnated over the northern part of the Eastern United
States and high air pollution levels were observed in a number of areas.
The Weather Bureau Research Station in Cincinnati has been charged with
the responsibility of evaluating this particular incident and would
appreciate your help.
Specific answers to the following questions are requested, but please do
not limit your comments to these questions only.
1. To what extent were you called upon to relay the Air Pollution Poten-
tial Forecasts ?
2, Were you called upon to advise local authorities with respect to the
persistence of the high pressure cell or local expectancies of air
quality ?
3. Did you receive any public complaint calls regarding air pollution
levels ^
4. Have you noted any increased interest in the air pollution potential
forecasts since this period?
5. Has a scheduled time for these forecasts been beneficial7
6. Were restrictions to visibility a problem to: (a) air traffic at
the airport, and (b) the area in general?
7. How would you evaluate the general air quality during this period?
Excellent, Good, Poor, Occasionally Bad, or Bad
As a knowledgeable observer we are sure you can offer a valuable contri-
bution to the Cincinnati Weather Bureau Research Station's report to the
Public Health Service on this incident and any comments you may wish to
offer will be gratefully received. Please forward all replies within
2 weeks, if possible, to the Central Office, ATTN: R-3, 5.
y^ixv-Kn^-
Edward M. Vernon
GPO 8148362
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: Lynn, D. A. , B. J. Steigerwald,
and J. H. Ludwig. The November-December
1962 air pollution episode in the Eastern United
States. PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-7. 1964.30pp.
ABSTRACT: This report documents the subject
"episode" with respect to meteorology, air
quality, and public reaction. Particulate and
gaseous air quality data are reported and dis-
cussed with reference to the Public Health
Service program of Air Pollution Potential
Forecasts. Epidemiological aspects are not
considered.
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: Lynn, D.A., B. J. Steigerwald,
and J.H. Ludwig. The November-December
1962 air pollution episode in the Eastern United
States. PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-7. 1964. 30 pp.
ABSTRACT: This report documents the subject
"episode" with respect to meteorology, air
quality, and public reaction. Particulate and
gaseous air quality data are reported and dis-
cussed with reference to the Public Health
Service program of Air Pollution Potential
Forecasts. Epidemiological aspects are not
considered.
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: Lynn, D.A., B. J. Steigerwald,
and J.H. Ludwig. The November-December
1962 air pollution episode in the Eastern United
States. PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-7. 1964.30pp.
ABSTRACT: This report documents the subject
"episode" with respect to meteorology, air
quality, and public reaction. Particulate and
gaseous air quality data are reported and dis-
cussed with reference to the Public Health
Service program of Air Pollution Potential
Forecasts. Epidemiological aspects are not
considered
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
------- |