EPA-600/2-75-004
March 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Contributions of Urban Roadway
Usage to Water Pollution
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into five
series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface
in related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed
to develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation
from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the
control and treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental
quality standards.
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
-------
600/2-75-004
April 1975
CONTRIBUTIONS OF URBAN ROADWAY USAGE
TO
WATER POLLUTION
By
Donald G. Shaheen
Contract No. 68-01-0197
Program Element No. 1BB034
ROAP - 21 - ASY
TASK - 005
Project Officer
Francis J. Condon
Municipal Pollution Control Division
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20U60
-------
ABSTRACT
Street surface contaminants are deposited on roadways from many
sources within an urban area. Industrial operations, land use activ-
ities, fallout of air pollutants, roadway usage and other activities
contribute to the loading of particulates on urban roadways. These
materials are then carried into receiving waters by storm runoff
where they constitute a substantial portion of the overall water
pollution problems of cities. Metropolitan Washington, B.C., with its
low background of industrial emissions, was the area chosen for study
of contributions of motor vehicle usage to urban roadway loading factors.
Specific roadway study sites within this area were selected so as to
provide minimal interference from nontraffic-related land use activities
and thus isolate, as much as possible, the traffic-related depositions.
Motor vehicular traffic is directly or indirectly responsible for
deposition of substantial quantities of materials on roadways in urban
areas. Significant levels of toxic heavy metals and asbestos and slowly
biodegradable petroleum products and rubber are deposited directly from
motor vehicles along with large quantities of particulate materials
contributed indirectly by traffic. The particulates contributed in-
directly by traffic are largely inorganic, but have associated with them
solids and nutrients which represent a serious source of water pollutants
in all metropolitan areas.
lit
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 11
III INTRODUCTION 19
IV TWELVE-MONTH FIELD STUDY - EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 25
V DEPOSITION OF ROADWAY MATERIALS IN URBAN AREAS 49
VI SPECIAL STUDIES 69
VII STREAM BOTTOM AND STORMWATER RUNOFF SAMPLING 91
VIII REFERENCES 117
IX APPENDICES
A SAMPLE INFORMATION A-1
B ANALYSES OF ROADWAY SAMPLES A-ll
C POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS A-61
D STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND PLOTS OF SAMPLE DATA A-15
E SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR THE COLLECTION OF STREET
SURFACE CONTAMINANTS A-147
F ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR ROADWAY SAMPLES A-149
G LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA A-167
H LITERATURE REVIEW OH URBAN RUNOFF A-193
I PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND ANALYSIS A-213
J BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT A-225
i-v
-------
FIGURES
NO. PAGE
1 PER AXLE DRY WEIGHT LOADING VS. ROADWAY BARRIER HEIGHT 7
2 URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION FROM ROADWAYS - PROJECT SCHEDULING
DIAGRAM 24
3 ROADWAY SAMPLING SITES AND SURROUNDING AREAS 30
4 VACUUM CLEANER USED FOR ROADWAY SAMPLING 37
5 FISHER AND PORTER COMPANY MODEL 31PC-1.000 JUNIOR
COUNTER PNEUMATIC TUBE COUNTING DEVICE 44
6 BELFORT INSTRUMENT COMPANY RAIN GAUGE 45
7 PER AXLE DRY WEIGHT LOADING VS. ROADWAY BARRIER HEIGHT 64
8 EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC SPEED UPON DEPOSITION OF ROADWAY
MATERIALS 66
9 TOTAL DUST AND DIRT DRY WEIGHT ACCUMULATION 82
10 AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS - ROADWAY DUST AND
DIRT SAMPLES 83
11 HEAVY METALS ACROSS RUNOFF CHANNEL UNDER I 495 (Bridge
No. 15131) 92
12 NORTHWEST BRANCH OF ANACOSTIA RIVER AT I 495 - STREAM
BOTTOM SAMPLING AREA 93
13 HEAVY METALS IN STREAM BOTTOM SAMPLES - NORTHWEST BRANCH
OF ANACOSTIA RIVER AT I 495 95
14 I 495 DRAINAGE AREAS FOR STORM EVENT MONITORING 98
15 STORM EVENT OF 31 JULY 1973 100
16 STORM EVENT OF 21 AUGUST 1973 103
17 STORM EVENT OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1973 105
18 STORM EVENT OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1973 108
19 STORM EVENT OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1973 111
20 STORM EVENT OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1974 114
-------
TABLES
NO.. PAGE
1 DEPOSITION RATES AND COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC-RELATED
ROADWAY DEPOSITS CWASHINGTON, B.C. METROPOLITAN AREA) 2
2 SIGNIFICANCE OF RUNOFF FROM TRAFFIC-RELATED ROADWAY
DEPOSITS TO URBAN WATER POLLUTION (COMPARISON WITH
SECONDARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT) 5
3 SUMMARY OF SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADING OF NONTRAFFIC-
RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS 6
4 SUMMARY OF SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADING RATES OF
TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS 8
5 COMPARISON OF ROADWAY LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED
MATERIALS FROM SAMPLES WITH ONE-DAY AND THREE-DAY
DEPOSITION/ACCUMULATION PERIODS 9
6 DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANTS BETWEEN DUST AND DIRT AND
FLUSH SAMPLE FRACTIONS 10
7 WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA ROADWAY SAMPLING SITES 27
8 DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR ROADWAY SAMPLING SITES 28
9 SEASONAL SAMPLES COLLECTED AT ROADWAY SITES 35
10 EVALUATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE - RECOVERIES OF ROADWAY
DUST AND DIRT SIMULANT BY VACUUMING 39
11 EVALUATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE - RECOVERIES OF ROADWAY
DUST AND DIRT BY VACUUMING FROM ROUGH TEXTURED ASPHALT 40
12 EVALUATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE - RECOVERY OF ROADWAY
DUST AND DIRT AND SIMULANT FRACTIONS BY VACUUMING 41
13 DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANTS BETWEEN DUST AND DIRT AND
FLUSH SAMPLE FRACTIONS 42
14 DEPOSITION RATES OF ROADWAY MATERIALS 51
15 SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF NONTRAFFIC-RELATED
POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS 53
16 SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED
POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS 54
17 LAND USE EFFECTS ON DEPOSITION OF ROADWAY MATERIALS 62
vl
-------
TABLES
NO. PAGE
18 DEPOSITION OF TOTAL DUST AND DIRT PARAMETERS 67
19 AVERAGE BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL TRAFFIC AT ROADWAY SITES 68
20 CALCULATED COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC-RELATED ROADWAY
DEPOSITIONS (WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA) 70
21 ANALYSIS OF "PURE" MATERIALS - PART I AND PART II 71
22 SEMIQUANTITATIVE EMISSION SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES OF
ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT SAMPLES (WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA) 75
23 ENERGY DISPERSIVE X-RAY AND X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSES
OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT 76
24 COMPARISON OF LOADINGS FROM ROADWAY SAMPLES WITH ONE-
DAY AND.MULTIPLE-DAY ACCUMULATION PERIODS 78
25 AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS IN ROADWAY DUST
AND DIRT AS A FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE 84
26 TOTAL POLLUTANT ASSOCIATED WITH EACH DUST AND DIRT
SIZE RANGE 85
27 FRACTIONAL AMOUNTS OF TOTAL POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED
WITH LITTER 87
28 REDISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS DEPOSITED ON ROADWAY -
BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT 88
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The studies described in this report were performed for the Treatment
and Transport Branch, Municipal Technology Division of EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-0197. The work was performed under the direction
of the Principal Investigator Mr. Donald G. Shaheen, Research Manager,
Biospherics, Inc. Biospherics' field and laboratory personnel con-
tributing to this program were as follows:
G. Alvarez
D. Updegrove
V. Brooks
H. Beazley
A. Tarnay
B. Forster
A. Connor
J. Schrot
C. Trent
M. Federline
A Project Review Panel was established to review and advise during
conduct of the program. Panel members are listed below:
Francis J. Condon
Mr. Richard Sullivan
Assistant Executive
Director
Mr. James D. Sartor
Deputy General Manager
Mr. Frank R. Thompson
Resident Maintenance
Engineer
Dr. Donald Phelps
Chief, Environmental
Studies Branch
Dr. Thomas D. English
Municipal Technology Branch
Technology Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
American Public Works Association
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
Woodward Envicon, Inc,
699 Battery Street
San Francisco, California
94111
State of Maryland
State Highway Administration
1776 Quince Orchard Road
Gathersburg, Maryland 20760
National Marine Water Quality
Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 277
West Kingston, Rhode Island 02892
National Environmental Research Center
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27111
viii
-------
Biospherics Incorporated wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance
and cooperation of Dr. Franklin Agardy, Mr. Robert Pitt and Mr. Carl
Foget of the URS Research Company in supplying technical assistance
and information during earlier stages of our program. In addition,
assistance of the following personnel from various Federal and local
Governments is gratefully acknowledged:
Mr. Ray Trout
Mr. John Hartley
Mr. Gary Wendt
Mr. Robert Ambush
Mr. Charles Brunot
Mr. James Morgan
Mr. Abdul Sleemi
Miss Elnora Markle
Mr. Stephen Flood
Mr. John Payne
Mr. Thomas Rick
Montgomery County, Maryland
Washington, D. C.
Washington, D. C.
State of Maryland
Washington, D. C.
Washington, D. C.
Washington, D. C.
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C.
Washington, D. C.
Special laboratory services were made available to Biospherics courtesy
of Mr. John Moran of EPA's National Environmental Research Center in
North Carolina. Laboratory and field equipment from EPA's Water Quality
Research Laboratory in Edison, New Jersey were loaned courtesy of
Mr. Richard Field, Chief, Office of Storm and Combined Sewer Section.
Biospherics Incorporated would also like to express appreciation for the
generous guidance and advice of the EPA Project Officer, Mr. Francis J.
Condon.
IX
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
CONTRIBUTIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO WATER POLLUTION IN URBAN AREAS
Traffic dependent rates of deposition of street surface contaminants
have been determined as part of this study and are given in Table 1
along with the percentage composition of materials being deposited
through traffic-related mechanisms. In general these percentages will
not strictly be representative of materials found on streets through-
out all urban areas because many roadways receive substantial deposi-
tion of differing composition from land use activities other than
transportation. Some of the more hazardous constituents of street
contaminants originate directly from the motor vehicle. Most of the
bulk of deposited roadway materials are representative of the local
geology and a lesser amount originates with the street surface material
itself. However, all materials being deposited at rates given in Table 1
are attributable to traffic and would not be present were it not for the
passage of motor vehicles. Contributions from nontraffic-related sources
were eliminated, to the extent possible, in the determination of these
rates.
Dependency of the composition of traffic-related street surface contami-
nants upon local geology will give rise to some geographic variations in
the deposition rates listed in Table 1 which were developed from samples
taken in the Washington, B.C. Metropolitan area. However, it is believed
that most of the rates will be rather uniformly applicable. Greatest
variations will be found in rates of deposition of volatile solids, BOD,
COD, phosphorus, nitrogen, chloride and the magnetic fraction. Addi-
tionally, other pollutants not listed here may appear to be traffic-
related in certain metropolitan areas of the country, depending upon
their presence in area soils.
In addition to the traffic-related materials, other street surface con-
taminants are deposited on urban roadways through mechanisms unrelated
to motor vehicular traffic. Litter, defined as particles larger than
3.35 mm, pollutants associated with litter, fecal coliform and fecal
streptococcus organisms, polychlorinated biphenyls and small amounts of
cadmium also appear along roadway surfaces. No dependency upon traffic
could be shown for these pollutants. Further, no cyanide or
hexavalent chromium were found in any of the roadway deposits tested.
SOURCES OF TRAFFIC-RELATED STREET SURFACE CONTAMINANTS
Street surface contaminants are deposited on roadways via mechanisms
which may be related, or unrelated, to traffic. Loadings of the related
depositions will be proportional to total traffic and may arise directly
(tire rubber, motor oil) or indirectly (abraded materials from roadway
surfaces) from the motor vehicle. The bulk of traffic-related materials
-------
TABLE 1. DEPOSITION RATES AND COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC-RELATED ROADWAY DEPOSITS
(WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA)
(a)
Deposition
Rates
(Units — Unless Otherwise Stated)
Parameter
Dry Weight
Volume
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Grease
Total Phosphate-P
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Kjeldahl-N
Chloride
Petroleum
n-Paraffins
Asbestos
Rubber
Lead
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Magnetic Fraction
Ibs/ axle-mile
2.38 x 10~?
— A
6.33 x 10
(quarts /axle-mile)
1.21 x 10-4
5.43 x 10~6
1.28 x 10
1.52 x 10
1.44 x 10 I
1.89 x W~
2.26 x 10
3.72 x 10 '
2.20 x 10
8.52 x 10 ;
5.99 x 10
3.86 x 10
(fibers /axle-mile)
1.24 x 10-5
2.79 x 10
1.85 x 10 '
2.84 x 10 '
4.40 x 10
3.50 x 10
1.26 x 10
g/axle-km
6.71 x 10'1
4.33 (1/axle-km)
O
3.41 x 10
1.53 x 10 ^
3.61 x 10
4.29 x 10
4.06 x 10
5.33 x 10 ,
6.37 x 10 ,
= LL
1.05 x 10 7
_ /[
6.20 x 10
2.40 x 10
1.69 x 10 ^
2.40 x 10
( f ib er s / axle-km)
3.50 x 10-3
7.87 x 10
5.22 x 10
8.01 x 10
1.24 x 10
9.87 x 10
3.55 x 10
Composition
(% by Weight Unless
Otherwise Stated)
_
-
5.1
0.23
5.4
0.64
0.061
0.0079
0.00095
0.016
0.092
0.36
0.25
3.6 x 10
(fibers /gram)
0.52
1.2
0.008
0.012
0.019
0.15
5.3
(a) Numerous other pollutants were found in urban roadway samples; however, those listed in the table
were the only ones related to motor vehicular traffic.
-------
deposited on roadways do not originate directly from the motor vehicle.
Much of the traffic-related street surface contaminants are repre-
sentative of local geology and, to a lesser extent, products abraded
from the roadway surfaces and are largely inorganic. Carbonates con-
stitute a major portion of the volatile solids found in samples from
the Washington, B.C. Metropolitan area. The analysis of "pure" mate-
rials shown in Table 21 was performed to aid in establishing the origin
of pollutants found in roadway deposits. Most of the traffic-related
BOD, COD, magnetic fraction, chloride, nitrogen, volatile solids and
phosphorus arise from sources other than the motor vehicle itself.
Phosphorus and chloride are most likely derived from area soils and
roadway surface abrasion. The winter during which this study was con-
ducted was extremely mild and very little salt was applied to area
roadways indicating that the chloride levels found are not from deicing
compounds. The low levels of traffic-related nitrogen found were con-
tributed by soils and plant materials carried onto the roadway by motor
vehicles.
Less than 5% by weight of the traffic-related deposits originate directly
from motor vehicles; however, these pollutants are among the most impor-
tant by virtue of their potential toxicity.
• Much of the grease and all of the petroleum and n-paraffins
result from spills or leaks of motor vehicle lubricants,
antifreeze and hydraulic' fluids.
• Traffic-related lead is deposited principally through the
use of leaded fuels; however, some results from the wear
of tires in which lead oxide is used as filler material.
• Zinc is also used as a filler in tires and at high con-
centrations in motor oil as a stabilizing additive.
• Copper, nickel and chromium are wear metals from metal
plating, bearings, bushings, and other moving parts with-
in the engine. Considerable copper is deposited as a
result of wear of brake linings which have copper added
to increase mechanical strength and promote more rapid
dissipation of heat.
• As reported in recent studies of motor vehicle operations,
asbestos arises from wear of clutch and brake linings (1)
and tire wear is the source of traffic-related rubber
found in roadway deposits (2).
SIGNIFICANCE OF RUNOFF OF TRAFFIC-RELATED DEPOSITIONS TO URBAN WATER
POLLUTION
It was concluded in the Literature Review on Urban Runoff prepared for
this study, see Appendix H, that urban stormwater runoff is frequently
-------
a significant portion of the total pollution entering area receiving
waters on a yearly basis, and is always significant on a shock-load
basis as is encountered during periods of runoff. The data in Table 2
have been calculated and compiled to demonstrate the significance of
that portion of total urban stormwater runoff pollution from traffic-
related sources. This has been done by determining the per capita
amounts of pollutants which would enter receiving waters each day from
traffic-related depositions and from final effluent of a good secondary
sewage treatment plant, assuming uniform flow rates. On a population
adjusted basis, runoff of traffic-related roadway deposits represent
about 75% of the total suspended solids from traffic and sewage treat-
ment plant final effluent and 15% of the total COD. With the exception
of heavy metals and asbestos, the other contributions of traffic to
urban water are not as significant when uniform flow is assumed.
Traffic-related heavy metals constitute the most serious contaminant
from this source when compared with sewage. For example, close to 100%
of the lead entering urban receiving water is from traffic-related
sources. The situation becomes much more serious when considered on a
shock-load basis which occurs during runoff events. Hypothetically, if
a three-day accumulation of traffic-related roadway materials were
flushed into receiving waters during the course of a two-hour runoff
event, the rates of traffic-related runoff given in Table 2 would be
uniformly increased by a factor of 36 (three days • 24 hrs./day - two-
hr. runoff). Impact ratios given in Table 2 demonstrate the increased
contributions of traffic-related roadway depositions, relative to final
effluent, during a runoff event. Traffic-related deposits by themselves
would then constitute a significant source of pollution on a shock load
basis for each parameter listed; thus, the importance of traffic contri-
butions to urban water pollution is established. Potentially the most
serious emission quantitated by this study is the traffic-related
asbestos deposited on roadways and discharged as an air pollutant.
Asbestos emissions from motor vehicles probably constitute a major
source of total population exposure in many urban areas (3).
VARIABLES AFFECTING DEPOSITION OF STREET SURFACE CONTAMINANTS
The principal program objectives of investigations of traffic-related
water pollution necessitated certain sacrifices in the study of other
factors contributing to the total urban runoff situation. For example,
little can be said concerning contributions from other land use activ-
ities except that shopping centers and roadways near heavy construction
activities receive deposits considerably in excess of amounts which
would be predicted on the basis of traffic intensity alone. The road-
way deposits at the one shopping center studied averaged about 12 times
higher (8.10 kg per axle-kilometer) than would have been predicted on
the basis of traffic volume alone. Likewise, a roadway across the street
from a construction site received nearly 14 times (9.2 kg per axle-kilo-
meter) the expected amount of deposited materials. However, it was
possible to draw a number of important conclusions relative to variations
in deposition rates of traffic-related materials since most of the road-
way sites studied received deposits principally from this source.
-------
TABLE 2. SIGNIFICANCE OF RUNOFF FROM TRAFFIC-RELATED ROADWAY DEPOSITS TO
URBAN WATER POLLUTION
(COMPARISON WITH SECONDARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT)
Parameter
Sewage Composition
Final
Raw Effluent
(a)
Average Per Capita Mass Flow Rates
Traffic-Related Traffic^/
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Final Effluent
(g/cap-day)
(b)
Depositions (c)_
(g/cap-day)
Impact Ratio
(Traffic/Effluent)
104
0.41
6.7
0.13
0.22
1015
47
9.8
45
18
Suspended Solids 235 24 9.08 26.3
BOD 140 14 5.30 0.06
COD 200 20 7.57 1.41
Kjeldahl-N 30 3 1.14 0.004
Phosphate-P 10 7 2.64 0.016
Lead - 0.03 0.011 0.31
Zinc - 0.08 0.030 0.039
Copper - 0.03 0.011 0.003
Nickel - 0.01 0.004 0.005
Chromium - 0.01 0.004 0.002
(a) Estimates of raw sewage and final effluent concentrations are for separate domestic sewage and
have been derived from Fair and Geyer (4), EPA's manual on phosphorus removal (5) and a recent
publication on elemental analysis of wastewater sludges (6).
(b) Average per capita flow rates of pollutants in final effluent have been calculated assuming a
per capita flow of 100 gallons of sewage per day.
(c) Average per capita depositions of traffic-related pollutants available in urban stormwater run-
off have been calculated assuming a per capita driving distance of 24.3 axle-miles per day and
deposition rates of traffic-related pollutants given in Table 1. The per capita driving distance
was derived from 1968 figures of 66 x 10° axle-miles per day from a population of 2,714,000 in
the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area (7). For example:
5.43 x 10 6 Ibs. BOD . 24.3 axle-mi.
axle-mi.
cap.-day
= 0.060 grams/capita-day
(d) Runoff, during a two-hour storm event, of traffic-related materials deposited on roadways over a
three-day period has been compared with sewage final effluent discharged to receiving waters dur-
ing this same two-hour storm.
-------
One important observation was the effect of curb height upon the amount
of material collected from the roadway. Figure 1 shows average per
axle dry weight loadings for litter (particles larger than 3.35 mm) and
dust and dirt, (particles smaller than 3.35 mm) collected at the roadway
sites as a function of height of the curb or roadway barrier along which
the samples were collected. As might be expected, accumulation of the
larger litter particles was not markedly affected. Inspection of this
figure reveals that per axle dust and dirt loadings increased with curb
height up to about 15 to 20 inches. These data indicate that consider-
able quantities of the smaller sized dust and dirt particles become air-
borne and are carried over curbs to settle on areas adjacent to the road-
ways. This effect of barrier height upon the dry weight of sample col-
lected represents a significant finding in terms of the consequences of
street and highway construction.
Some marked seasonal variations were noted in the magnitude of certain
components of street surface materials as shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Depositions of litter and dust and dirt were fairly uniform throughout
the year while fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci were found to be
much higher during summer and fall seasons. Volatile solids, BOD and
COD depositions were generally higher in summer and fall. This is
probably related to the greater amounts of plant materials which occur
during these seasons. Grease deposits were uniform as would be predicted
if the majority of this substance were a direct result of motor vehicle
usage. Lead, zinc and rubber were found to be considerably higher dur-
ing warm seasons while the other heavy metals were deposited at relatively
uniform rates throughout the year. This is probably attributable to a
greater rate of tire wear at the higher ambient temperatures.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADING OF NONTRAFFIC-
RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS1
Average 24 .hr«.,A.ccumulation
Pollutant (Units)
Litter (kg/km)
Fecal Coliforms ,
(million org./km)
Fecal Streptococci
(million org./km)
Winter
14.3
17.5
Spring
24.5
2.9
Summer
24.8
545.3
Fall
14.9
60.9
(a) Data given are average seasonal loadings calculated from samples with
one-day accumulation period* taken at sites which were sampled through-
out the year.
-------
oo
I
6
X
n)
CO
,0
oo
•a
•H
0)
IS
J-i
P
D Litter - Low Speed Lanes
• Litter - High Speed Lanes
ODust & Dirt - Low Speed Lanes
•Dust & Dirt - High Speed Lanes •
Dust & Dirt
Litter
_L
_L
10 20 30 40
Roadway Barrier Height (inches)
50
Figure 1. Per axle dry weight loading vs. roadway barrier
(a) Average per axle amounts of litter and total dust and dirt dry
weight collected at each of the sites receiving principally
traffic-related deposits have been plotted versus height of the
curb or other roadway barrier against which samples were collected.
-------
No apparent effect on depositions of street surface contaminants was
discernible due to speed, traffic mix or composition of the roadway
paving material. This is not to say that such effects do not exist,
but rather that their influences were too subtle to be detected. The
random nature of the deposition of street surface contaminants made it
difficult to detect subtle influences. Deposition rates of litter and
dust and dirt dry weight were found to have a relative standard deviation
of about 25%.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADING RATES OF TRAFFIC-
RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS (a)
Average Seasonal Loading Rates (g/axle-km)
Pollutant Winter Spring Summer Fall
Dust and Dirt (x 10~^) 2.68 1.95 2.91 2.82
Volatile Solids (x 10~,) 0.14 0.11 0.18 0.25
BOD (x lOp 7.7 7.3 6.8 19.2
COD (x 10';:) 224 176 283 440
Grease (x 10,) 29 24 33 41
Lead (x 10~p 4.4 4.1 11.0 8.5
Zinc (x 10 ,) 1.0 0.9 2.9 2.1
Rubber (x 10~J) 2.9 1.2 6.2 4.1
ACCUMULATION OF MATERIALS DEPOSITED ON ROADWAYS
Deposition of materials onto roadways occurs at a constant rate under a
given set of conditions. That is, traffic-related pollutants are
deposited at the fixed rates given in Table 1 and it appears that non-
traffic-related pollutants such as litter are deposited at a rate linear
with time. Although deposition is uniform, it has been found that the
materials do not accumulate on roadways at a linear rate. This was
determined by study of samples collected over deposition/accumulation
periods of from one to four days. Data thus acquired revealed that
accumulated loads had begun to level off substantially after several
days. Average ratios of loadings found after a three-day accumulation
period divided by those found after a one-day accumulation period are
given for selected pollutants in Table 5. The observed ratios would
be approximately three if accumulation rates were linear. These values
are all significantly lower than three which substantiates this decrease
in rate of accumulation of roadway materials.
(a) Data given are average seasonal loading rates calculated from samples
taken at sites which were sampled throughout the year. Loading rates
are to be multiplied by the power of ten shewn in parenfhenes beside
each pollutant. For example, a tabulated BOD 7.7 equals 7.7 x 10~3
g/axle-km.
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF ROADWAY LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED
MATERIALS FROM SAMPLES WITH ONE-DAY
AND THREE-DAY DEPOSITION/ACCUMULATION PERIODS
Parameter Average Curb Loading Ratios
(3-Day Loading/1-Day Loading)
Dust and Dirt 1.43
Chloride 1.34
Grease 1.42
Kjeldahl-N 0.91
Lead 1.21
PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS ON EFFICIENCY OF ADVANCED STREET CLEANING METHODS
A sampling procedure was developed for th.e collection of materials deposit-
ed on roadways which utilized a manual vacuuming followed by separate
collection of a water flush of the street surface. Evaluations of the
sampling method showed that essentially quantitative recoveries of
particulate materials could be attained by careful vacuuming of the road-
ways. However, separate analyses of the particulate and flush fractions
of roadway samples showed that some pollutants, particularly water
soluble components present at low concentrations, were, not collected at
high efficiencies by the vacuuming operation alone. The data in Table 6
presents average levels recovered wi-th the flush fraction for each
pollutant. This has strong implications as to the practical limitations
on the street cleaning efficiency which can be realized by advanced equip-
ment employing sweeping and/or vacuuming of lightly loaded roadways. Thus,
Thus, while it may be possible for such equipment to collect well over 90%
of roadway particulates, only about 65% of the BOD will be removed from
streets holding from one to three days of accumulated deposits.
INFLUENCE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF ON URBAN RECEIVING WATERS
Runoff from urban roadways induces shock effects upon receiving waters
as the accumulated nutrients, toxic and oxygen demanding substances are
abruptly introduced during storm events. Such events will occur several
times over the course of a year and permanent changes in the downstream
biota may result even though the chemical composition of the receiving
water reverts to normal shortly after cessation of runoff. Chemical
examinations of stream bottom samples taken from upstream and downstream
of roadway runoff outfalls demonstrated that a permanent, dry weather
(a) Ratios given are overall averages of curb loadings observed after a
three-day accumulation period divided by loadings found after a one-
day accumulation period. Ratios would be equal to three if accumula-
tion of roadway materials was linear. Note that the balance of the
unaccounted for materials is still available for runoff pollution as
they have been merely translocated to areas adjacent to the roadway.
-------
sphere of influence exists near the roadway/receiving water interface.
The length of stream permanently influenced by the roadway was defined
by maxima in concentrations of certain pollutants in bottom samples.
However, it was not always possible to detect the stream area influenced
in urban areas. The effects of roadway runoff on bottom samples were
masked in some urban streams by the introduction of pollutants from
other, principally industrial, sources.
TABLE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANTS BETWEEN DUST AND DIRT
AND FLUSH SAMPLE FRACTIONS
Average % of Total
Parameters Pollutant Found in Flush % Standard Deviation
Dry Weight 7 8
Volatile Solids 20 13
BOD 36 22
COD 16 12
Grease 19 15
Petroleum 19 13
n-Paraffins 19 14
Total PO.-P 15 15
PO.-P 43 42
NO -N 69 24
NO^-N 97 7
Total Kjeldahl-N 33 23
Chloride 43 33
Asbestos 13 31
Fecal Coliforms 76 40
Fecal Strep 44 39
Lead 4 2
Chromium 17 15
Copper 5 4
Nickel 5 2
Zinc 2 1
Sampling and analysis of stormwater runoff from roadways showed the
first flush effect with levels of pollutants generally decreasing during
the later courses of the runoff events to a lower, but still significant,
level. Sudden increases in rainfall intensity during a storm event
resulted in a second peak in runoff concentrations. Zinc compounds
deposited on roadways were found to be more soluble than those of lead
as evidenced by the higher dissolved zinc concentrations found in the
runoff samples. It is believed that this higher solubility causes zinc
to be removed from roadways by stormwater runoff at a faster rate than
the lead compounds.
10
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
One of the objectives of this study has been to develop practical
recommendations to reduce or eliminate contributions of motor vehicular
traffic to urban roadway runoff pollution. These recommendations will
require expenditures of considerable sums of money and resources.
However, this effort is essential if water quality in urban areas is
to be maintained or upgraded.
The recommendations may be categorized as falling into the areas of
urban roadway design standards and practice, advanced public works
practices, motor vehicle design and future studies required to advance
the state of the knowledge in this area or to more fully develop road-
way runoff pollution control and abatement techniques. As background
against which recommendations are viewed, the deposition of roadway
materials and subsequent transport to urban rivers and streams are
reviewed briefly. Roadways act as effective collectors of particulate
materials deposited directly by motor vehicles, by fallout of air pollu-
tants, wear and abrasion of roadway surfaces, intentional and accidental
littering, by various land use activities and, most importantly, by
collection of particulate materials which are representative of the local
geology. These depositions are then carried off during runoff events
into urban receiving waters. Just as roadways are efficient collectors
of materials, they are also extremely effective in transporting them by
virtue of their high runoff coefficients. However, even without reduc-
tion of the amounts of materials deposited on urban roadways, it is
possible to effect considerable improvements in the water quality situa-
tion by altering the kinetics of transport so that peak runoff rates are
delayed or flattened out over a longer period of time in order to reduce
shock loads on the receiving waters. The ensuing recommendations will
deal with control techniques operating at several points in the overall
roadway water pollution deposition and transport mechanisms.
ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Roadway Site Selection
Although there is only a modicum of flexibility allowed in the selection
of roadway sites in urban areas, these should be chosen in such a manner
as to minimize the roadway areas drained directly into the receiving body
of water.
Curbing and Roadway Dividers
Curbs and roadway dividers act as efficient barriers against which
almost all of the deposited roadway materials collect. This study has
11
-------
shown that amounts of dust and dirt which collect against a roadway
barrier increased substantially with the height of the barrier.
Advantage may be taken of this phenomenon in instances where the road-
way is adjacent to an unpaved area which is relatively flat or sloping
away from the street surface. For example, the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway site which was studied under this contract has a curb height of
only four inches along the low-speed lane. This roadway does not require
routine street sweeping as passing traffic blows most of the deposited
dust and dirt over the low curb onto the gravel and grass areas along
the roadway. During runoff events, this dust and dirt is then carried
to receiving waters at a much lower rate and efficiency as compared to
materials on the roadway.
Conversely, it could be advantageious to utilize the increased particu-
late collection efficiency of higher barriers in conjunction with the
use of some form of roadway surface cleaning or runoff purification
system, particularly at roadway areas draining directly into the receiv-
ing waters.
Porous Pavement
The use of porous pavement for roadway construction has been under
development for a number of years. This has the effect of slowing the
rate of runoff. Development of these types of pavements appears prom-
ising as a tool in combatting this form of water pollution. Studies of
porous pavement should be continued to include determination of its
applicability in areas having clay or other impervious type soils and
colder climates.
PUBLIC WORKS PRACTICES
Street Cleaning Operations
Current street cleaning practices have estimated efficiencies which
range from about 35 to 65% for dust and dirt removal based upon in situ
street cleaning tests. Thus, it appears practical to reduce urban road-
way runoff effects by intensifying present street cleaning operations.
Management of urban street cleaning operations will be extremely impor-
tant if maximum benefits are to be obtained and should begin with the
proper training and instruction of equipment operators. With completion
of the present study, sufficient data are now available to allow for the
prediction of roadway materials accumulation rates taking into account
both land use factors and daily traffic flows. An urban street sweeping
plan should be devised which takes into consideration such factors as
buildup rates and local precipitation patterns as well as special
activities areas, i.e. construction sites and hauling operations, which
may exist in the urban area. Maintenance of street surfaces will be
required to ensure high sweeper collection efficiencies and to prevent
localized buildup of particulate pollutants on roadways. Off-street
12
-------
and/or alternate side of the street parking regulations will be neces-
sary to allow free access for street sweepers.
Most street cleaning equipment in use today has lower collection effi-
ciencies for the smaller, more highly polluted dust and dirt particles.
In addition, collection efficiency tends to fall off somewhat as the
street loadings decrease. Since roadways will be swept more frequently
and thus swept at lower dust and dirt loadings under an intensified
street cleaning program, the evaluation of more efficient, advanced
street cleaning equipment is recommended. Specifically, the evaluation
of the more efficient vacuum street cleaners is recommended. These hold
the promise of having less drop off in efficiency at lower dust and dirt
loadings and particulate sizes.
Estimates of the benefits to urban area water quality resulting from an
intensified street cleaning program and/or the use of advanced street
cleaning equipment should be obtained from pilot studies prior to initia-
tion of widespread use. It is recommended that evaluation of an intensi-
fied street cleaning program be implemented with the assistance of Federal
funds, in a metropolitan area. Whether or not the street cleaning program
utilizes advanced street cleaning equipment, these sweepers should be
evaluated to determine the overall efficiency and their efficiencies as
a function of dust and dirt loadings and particle size. Much of this
latter type of evaluation must, of necessity, be carried out under con-
trolled conditions on test areas of urban streets using naturally occur-
ring and "synthetic" dust and dirt.
Special Curb/Gutter Design
Previous studies have shown that over 95% of the solids which accumulate
on urban roadways are found within 40 inches of the curb (8). It may
be feasible, through the use of special recessed gutters near the curb,
to further concentrate all or most of this particulate material. This
would allow for faster and more efficient removal of dust and dirt
whether by vacuum street cleaning or street flushing techniques. It is
recommended that gutter configuration be designed for this purpose and
evaluated. Regular removal of deposited dust and dirt will be required
as this system will transport roadway materials into receiving waters at
even faster rates and with greater efficiency than conventional streets
during periods of stormwater runoff.
Detention and storage of stormwater runoff, perhaps in series with ultra
high.rate filtration facilities offers considerable promise in the handl-
ing of urban runoff pollution. It is recommended that pilot demonstra-
tions of these concepts be evaluated and the results analyzed in order
to predict the benefits of incorporating these methods into an urban
runoff pollution control plan.
-------
Swirl Separator/Concentrator Devices
Another new concept for the handling of urban stormwater runoff is based
upon use of swirl forces for solids separation. At present, there are
two devices under test which utilize these forces to separate solids
into concentrated side stream flows. The concentrated flow is then
routed to a treatment plant and the overflow stormwater discharged to
receiving waters. It is recommended that development and testing of
the Swirl Concentrator and Helical Flow Regulator/Concentrator be
accelerated. Evaluations of their treatment efficiencies in terms of a
broad spectrum of pollution parameters, including solids, should be
conducted.
MOTOR VEHICLE USAGE
Elimination of Specific Toxic Materials
As has been stated previously, the bulk of the traffic-related materials
deposited on roadways do not originate from the automobile itself and,
therefore, are not subject to control through changes in motor vehicle
design. However, design changes to control emissions or eliminate the
use of specific toxic elements disseminated by motor vehicles, especially
where those toxicants are consumable items such as gasoline, brake and
clutch linings and tires may be a practical means for reducing the most
important toxic hazards associated with roadway materials.
Considerable quantities of traffic-related lead have been identified in
street surface deposits by this current research. Lead has also been
shown in intrude on the human environment by vehicular emissions of its
compounds as air pollutants. Sufficient technology presently exists for
elimination of lead antiknock additives in motor vehicle fuels and a
program to greatly reduce lead emissions has already been instituted.
It is recommended that this nationwide program be accelerated and
expanded to include elimination of other organometallic gasoline addi-
tives such as those based on boron and phosphorus.
Zinc is the second most prevalent traffic-dependent heavy metal found in
roadway materials. It is deposited at a rate about one-eighth that of
lead. Although zinc is generally considered to be much less toxic than
lead, it occurs on roadways in a very soluble form and is, therefore,
difficult to remove from runoff and readily transported by the receiving
waters. Considerable quantities of zinc oxide and other inorganics are
frequently used as fillers in tires. It is recommended that a product
be developed and tested which substitutes such relatively innocuous
compounds as silicon dioxide, ferric oxide, alumina, calcium oxide,
magnesia, titania, etc. for the potentially hazardous zinc, lead,
antimony and asbestos fillers currently in use. Organozinc com-
pounds also appear at substantial levels in lubricating oils for motor
vehicles. Although such zinc compounds are generally much more toxic
than inorganiz zinc, they do not constitute an additional hazard since
14
-------
they have a very short half-life upon exposure to the elements. Since
considerable quantities of traffic-deposited oils are found on road-
ways, it is recommended that attempts be made to reduce or eliminate
the use of zinc in automobile lubricants.
Vehicle Design Changes for Containment of Nonexhaust Vehicular Emissions
The recent introduction of positive crankcase ventilation devices on
newer automobiles has no doubt served to reduce the deposition of grease
on urban roadways. Petroleum products are being deposited by motor
vehicles through leaks of grease, lubrication oil, brake fluid and
transmission fluid. These materials then act as a recurrent low-level
"oil spill" as they enter receiving waters during runoff events. Leaks
generally occur at discrete locations from the vehicle and it should be
possible to install collection pans so as to trap most of this material.
It is recommended that such equipment be designed and tested to deter-
mine the practicality of this approach as well as the amounts of petro-
leum products which are actually retained.
A rather large magnetic fraction has been found in area roadway samples,
as much as 7% by weight in some cases. It is believed that most of this
material is contributed by local soils. However, some of fraction is
derived from corrosion of motor vehicle bodies, exhaust systems and
from scoring of cast iron brake drums. While the magnetic corrosion
products are not toxic in themselves, they carry along some of the trace
heavy metals with which iron is alloyed, i.e. chromium, nickel, cadmium,
etc. Development of mechanical trapping devices for these substances
should be considered if it is demonstrated that low levels of these
associated metals are having significant effects upon water quality or
aquatic life in urban areas.
Motor vehicle clutch and braking systems are a third area in which it
should be possible to develop mechanical containment systems. Brake
linings are fabricated with considerable quantities of copper in order
to dissipate heat and provide extra mechanical strength. This copper is
then deposited on roadway surfaces during normal wear of the brake lin-
ings. The public health aspects of asbestos, the major component of
brake and clutch linings, as a water and air pollutant, have been the
subject of nationwide interest. A recent study (9) has shown that over
99.7% of the materials abraded from clutch and brake linings is con-
verted to nonasbestos products. Of the remaining 0.2 to 0.3%, 82%
is deposited on roadway surfaces, 14% is retained in the housing, and
the remaining 4% becomes airborne. The hazardous potential of these
asbestos emissions should be determined, both as a source of water and
air pollution. A brake shroud was used in this study for trapping
brake emissions so that a mass balance and emission distribution pattern
could be obtained. The shroud effectively captured brake emissions and
could serve as a prototype for a practical brake and clutch emission
control device. It is recommended that asbestos containment systems for
brake and clutch systems be developed and tested.
15
-------
Litter
In any investigation of urban roadways, one cannot help but be impressed
with the amounts of unsightly litter which appears in the vicinity of
streets and highways. Although it has already been determined that such
litter is of minimal importance as a water pollutant, the resultant
lowering of the esthetic quality of an area by litter from motor vehicles
is significant. Adequate litter collection and disposal systems are not
available to motor vehicle operators and thus contribute to the frequency
of unlawful littering. It is recommended that increased efforts be made
to enlist public support for anti-litter campaigns as an integral part
of an overall program by the Federal Government to improve environmental
quality. Public service messages by the news media and particularly by
the automobile manufacturers should be encouraged. Adequate anti-litter
legislation exists at the state and local government levels; however,
these laws should be more rigorously enforced.
ADDITIONAL STUDIES
Impact of Roadway Runoff
The impact upon receiving waters of some components of urban roadway
runoff are apparent or can be predicted based upon present knowledge.
For example, the hazards associated with solids, oxygen demanding sub-
stances, nutrients, and other pollutants are largely understood.
However, actual effects which may be associated with some other runoff
constituents are not defined. In order to achieve practical control
measures for all aspects of roadway runoff pollution, the effects of
the runoff upon receiving waters must be more precisely determined. It
is recommended that a study be initiated in the near future which will
determine the effects of roadways upon receiving waters. This study
should include a determination of physical, chemical and biological
alternations induced by the highway both during runoff events and on
a long-term basis.
Reuse of Stormwater Runoff
It appears probable that runoff storage systems will become an important
part of stormwater management. The potential for use of this water
source in urban areas should be determined.
Sampling Procedures for Street Surface Contaminants
One of the significant achievements of this study has been the develop-
ment and evaluation of a quantitative technique for collection of street
surface contaminants for subsequent determination of loadings. It is
recommended that the technique be subjected to review so as to propose
it as a "standard method" for collection of roadway samples.
-------
Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Asbestos Exposures
It is recommended that studies be initiated in the near future which
quantify the contributions of motor vehicles to asbestos exposures in
urban areas. This study should examine for asbestos in public drinking
water as well as studying the air pollution hazards.
Development and Standardization of Analytical Methodology for Roadway
Deposits and Runoff
Examination of analytical data from various studies of urban runoff has
indicated that the results obtained are not always comparable. Part of
this difficulty may be a result of the diversity of analytical methods
in use which may not give similar results. Standardized methods (1,2)
most frequently used for estimation of pollution parameters are intended
for measurements on surface waters, industrial and sanitary wastewaters
and have not been adequately tested for analyses of particulates or
stormwater runoff. Certain modifications to these methods had to be made
in order to analyze particulate roadway deposits. Many of the methods
need to be further evaluated and improved. As a specific example, the
digestion procedure used in the estimation of heavy metals in roadway
deposits should be tested to ensure that quantitative recoveries are
achieved. Standardization of analytical methods for roadway runoff and
particulate street surface contaminants is recommended.
It is believed that one of the contributing factors to the high COD/BOD
ratios observed in this and other studies of roadway runoff is the
inability of the classical BOD method to deal with these types of samples.
Particle size reduction and/or stirring during the incubation period may
overcome some of the difficulties encountered. A laboratory study of this
problem is recommended so as to identify the causes and improve the method,
Methods for the determination of rubber and asbestos, developed specifi-
cally for this study, need to be further improved, refined and tested if
other studies of these pollutants are to be carried out. The asbestos
method, in particular, needs to be upgraded so as to obtain results
comparable with those found in other environmental samples. Further
development of methods for asbestos in runoff and roadway deposits should
be based upon electron microscopic techniques.
17
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Until rather recently, most treatises on the subject of urban runoff
began with qualitative statements stressing that this was an important
source of pollution and that runoff waters from urban areas, rather than
being relatively pure, were, in many instances, comparable to raw sewage.
Numerous studies have now been completed and others are in process which
have served to characterize and quantify the water pollution problems
associated with runoff from urbanized areas. After a rather slow start,
reports and summaries issuing from these studies within the past several
years and the attendant publicity have served to disseminate this infor-
mation to concerned parties in an effective manner. Once the nature and
significance of runoff from urban areas were realized, a logical sequence
of investigations was initiated to study, measure and develop control
measures for various factors contributing to the total problem. Quite
naturally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been the most
active Government Agency in promoting and endorsing research in this
critical area. More recently, other Agencies have become aware of the
problem and are now funding programs dealing with aspects of the problem
related to their particular needs and interests. Thus, the significant
contributions of urban stormwater runoff to water pollution are now quite
widely appreciated and studies of particular facets of the problem are
continuing,
City and suburban streets and highways act as effective collectors of
dust and dirt from many activities within an urban area. The accumu-
lated materials deposited on urban roadways are then swept in an effi-
cient manner to area receiving waters during periods of runoff. Thus,
the interface of urban roadways, having high collection efficiencies
and runoff coefficients, with storm sewers constitutes an effective
and rapid transport system for carrying materials deposited on roadways
into receiving waters during runoff events.
A review of the pertinent literature was conducted (see Appendix H), in
partial fulfillment of the contract requirements. In order to summarize
prior knowledge of the urban runoff problem and the magnitude of con-
tributions of urban roadways, the following conclusions drawn from the
literature survey are given:
1. The pollutional load imposed on receiving waters by
urban runoff is significant on a shock load basis, and
in many cases, on a yearly or steady flow basis.
2. The contribution of streets and roadways to urban run-
off pollution is significant.
19
-------
3. Based upon statistical analysis of the limited amounts
ol data available prior to this program, the contribu-
tions to streets and roadways by motor vehicular traffic
is of major importance.
4. The concentrations of pollutants in urban runoff may be
higher than those of sanitary sewage during portions of
the runoff event.
It is not surprising that roadways have a significant effect upon urban
runoff since they constitute a high percentage of the total area in
cities; and, being impervious, roadway surfaces have high runoff coeffi-
cients. Prior to the present program, there have been two in-depth
studies relating to the contributions of runoff from streets and road-
ways to water pollution. The first study (10), conducted for EPA by
the American Public Works Association (APWA), surveyed all factors
contributing to urban runoff and concluded that:
"The most determinable measure of pollution potential of
street litter was deemed to be the BOD of the soluble dust
and dirt fraction. This BOD varied from three to 14 mg/g of
dry material. As stated, the average was 5 mg/g. This
amounted to 0.40 pounds of BOD per day per curb mile.
Compared to the BOD reduction of 80% considered attainable
for secondary treatment of sewage, the BOD of the street
litter was equivalent to 25 persons per day per mile.
National population densities per mile of roadways and
streets indicate that for a city of Chicago's size, 500
persons would live adjacent to each mile.of street. Thus,
with a street litter BOD equivalency of five persons per day
per mile, street litter would have a pollution potential of
1% of the raw sewage pollution loading and 5% of the secondary
treatment effluent described above."
The second significant study (11) was conducted by URS Research Company
into the water pollution effects of street surface contaminants. The
investigators stated that, "It is with reasonable assurance that we con-
clude that street surface contaminants represent a significant nonpoint
source of pollution of receiving waters." These two studies produced
the first quantitative information on the surface loadings of pollutant
per unit area or length of roadway. Variations in loadings with land
use, zoning, traffic intensity and other factors were presented.
Analysis of data reported by APWA in a study of gutter sweepings from
Chicago in 1967 gave the first positive clue that loadings on roadways
were a function of motor vehicle traffic. Statistical analyses of
APWA data revealed strong indications that amounts of pollutants in
dust and dirt samples were directly proportional to traffic intensity,
regardless of zoning, land use, street width and other factors although
the present study has shown that traffic contributions may be masked or
overridden by other land use effects in certain areas.
20
-------
OBJECTIVES
The overall objectives of this investigation were aimed at the isolation,
identification and estimation of specific contributions of motor vehicu-
lar traffic to materials deposited on urban roadways and thus to urban
stormwater runoff pollution. Specifically, the individual objectives
were as follows:
• Perform a comprehensive survey of existing literature to
summarize prior studies of urban runoff and the contribu-
tions of streets and roadways.
• Develop and evaluate techniques and methods for sampling
materials deposited on roadways. The aim here is not only
to ensure that meaningful and representative samples are
acquired for this study, but to develop a satisfactory
sampling protocol for use in future studies of this type.
• Determine the specific contributions of motor vehicular
traffic to materials deposited on roadway surfaces which
eventually become pollutants in stormwater runoff. This
is the principal objective of the study and requires that
contributions from such factors as land use and fallout
of industrial air pollutants be minimized.
• Attempt to define sources and origins of traffic-related
pollutants found in dust and dirt deposited on roadways.
• Continue investigations into the nature of materials
deposited on roadways to include its concentrations of
pollutants, chemical composition, particle size distribu-
tion and composition, physical appearance, etc.
• Monitor a number of runoff events in which rate of rain-
fall, rate of runoff and composition of runoff are
measured.
• Develop recommendations for control and abatement of this
source of urban runoff pollution.
• Develop recommendations for future studies.
Since the principal objectives of the study were to evaluate contribu-
tions of motor vehicles to urban runoff, it was desirable to perform
the actual investigations in an urban area having minimum contribu-
tions from other sources. The Washington, D.C. area, with its popula-
tion of over 2.7 million, has roadways and traffic patterns typical of
all large cities, yet has the lowest industrial profile of any major
metropolitan area in the country. Thus, the area selected probably
represents the most favorable location in which this type of study can
be carried out.
21
-------
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION
The project was organized into a number of separate tasks encompassing
the above-mentioned objectives in an effective manner. These tasks were
as follows:
Task 1. Gather Background Information
The literature survey was accomplished as part of this task. In addi-
tion, numerous technical discussions were held with knowledgeable parties
in order to obtain information relative to other aspects of the study.
Task 2. Develop Sample Collection Techniques
A procedure was developed and a protocol written for sampling materials
deposited on roadways. Procedures for blocking traffic lanes of streets
and highways so as to accomplish sampling were devised and approved by
the appropriate authorities having jurisdiction over the roadways.
Task 3. Select Roadway Sampling Sites
Specific roadway sampling sites were selected from the metropolitan
Washington, D.C. area to encompass a variety of road uses.
Task 4. Establish Laboratory Procedures
Standard methods for analysis of pollutants to be measured under this
program are written for water samples. Modifications were made in
most cases in order to apply them to particulate materials deposited on
roadways. Several new analytical methods had to be developed for non-
routine pollutants.
Task 5. Establish a Project Review Panel
An advisory panel of experts was established to advise and assist the
project. Panel meetings were held to review progress and discuss special
problem areas.
Task 6. Conduct the Twelve-Month Field Study
Roadway samples, traffic and other related data were gathered during the
12-month field study. Stream bottom surveys were conducted along with a
number of special experiments. Laboratory analyses of pollutants were
performed on samples.
Task 7. Process Data
Computer programs were written for statistical analysis of the data. The
data were calculated, tabulated and stored in the computer.
22
-------
Task 8. Prepare Report
Monthly and quarterly progress reports and a final technical report were
prepared. The project scheduling diagram used to monitor progress on
the individual tasks is shown in Figure 2.
23
-------
1. Gather Background Information
I I
2. Develop Sample Collection Techniques
r i
3. Select Roadway Sampling Sites
4. Establish Laboratory Procedures
1 — J Set Up Routine Procedures
I . ~1 Develop Methods
5. Establish a Project Review Panel
CH I
6. Conduct the Twelve-Month Field Study
__
I- • • Sample Collection
I I Laboratory Analysis
7. Process Data _
8. Prepare Reports £ *
Monthly | | I | I | | | || || £ «
Quarterly ! ( I I I ° *
Final | I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Project Month
Scheduled-—*
Completed-^*;
Legend
Figure 2. Urban runoff pollution from roadways project scheduling diagram
-------
SECTION IV
TWELVE-MONTH FIELD STUDY - EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
TWELVE-MONTH FIELD STUDY - OVERVIEW
A 12-month, field study was carried out on Washington, D.C. Metropolitan
area streets and highways in order to determine traffic-related deposition
rates of roadway materials. Secondary objectives of the field study were
to acquire samples for special studies into the nature of roadway dust
and dirt and to develop data which could be examined for the effects of
seasons, speed, land use, traffic mix and roadway materials of construc-
tion. The following descriptive outline is presented to develop the
rationale and give an overview of the 12-month field study:
1. Specific sites of known dimensions were selected on seven
area roadways for sampling of deposited materials. The
area roadways were chosen primarily so as to reflect a
variety of average daily traffic levels and road use
categories. Secondary considerations in roadway selec-
tion were land use, materials of construction and speed
limit.
2. The roadway sites were sampled following a schedule which
allowed for examination of the resultant data for seasonal
effects.
3. Each roadway site sampling period lasted about a week and
generally consisted of collection of an initial sample
followed by collection of samples which were deposited
over daily, weekend and, in a few instances, longer
periods of time. Since the daily and weekend samples
were collected from previously cleaned roadway surfaces,
they represented deposition which had occurred over a
known time interval.
4. Total traffic passing the roadway sampling site was
measured for the time of deposition of each daily and
weekend sample. A breakdown of total traffic into
several vehicle categories was determined by manual
count for each sampling period.
5. Particulate roadway materials were separated on the basis
of particle size into a litter fraction and a dust and
dirt fraction. A water flush, fraction of the roadway area
sampled was collected in most cases so as to pick up those
constituents of roadway dust and dirt which were not
gathered at high efficiencies by the particulate collec-
tion techniques.
25
-------
6. These fractions of each sample were individually analyzed
for the pollution parameters of interest. Pollutant loads
were calculated on a curb-mile basis from the total weight
or volume of the fraction, concentration of the pollutant
and length of the roadway sampling site.
7. Pollutant loads were plotted against total traffic, the
least squares lines calculated and correlation coefficients
determined. Other analyses were performed on the data.
DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY SITE?
A number of factors had to be considered in the selection of area road-
ways and specific roadway sampling sites for the 12-month field study.
As stated previously, seven area roadways were chosen for the field
study based primarily upon the range of average daily traffic levels
and road use categories encompassed. Other factors considered in the
roadway selections were speed limit and roadway surface material.
Satisfactory condition of the street surface and a sufficient length
of curb against which the sample could be deposited and collected were
important factors in selection of the specific sampling sites on the
area roadways chosen. Site lengths of 60 feet were sampled at Kenilworth
Avenue early in the program. Site curb lengths were then increased to
80 feet on I 495 and to 100 feet or longer on all other sites. Some
information relative to land use effects was desired as part of the study.
However, sites selected for the study of land use effects would not pro-
vide satisfactory data for the principal objective, determination of
traffic-related deposition rates. Therefore, most of the roadway sampling
sites were selected at areas where surrounding land use effects were at a
minimum and did not override or obscure the amounts of materials deposited
on roadways as a result of motor vehicular traffic. The road use category
and average daily traffic for each of the roadway sampling sites is given
in Table 7. Other descriptive information for the roadway sites is pre-
sented in Table 8. Photographs showing the sampling sites and surrounding
areas are presented in Figure 3.
It was believed that roadway depositions resulting from land use effects
were negligible at all of the roadway sites with the exception of
Loehmann's Plaza Shopping Center and the site at New Jersey Avenue and
E Street, N.W. Contributions from motor vehicles were masked at these
sites by other land use activities. Substances found on the roadway
serving the shopping center contained considerable quantities of material
discarded by pedestrians from package and food wrappings. Samples were
gathered from along the curb of this roadway which contained sweepings
from the pedestrian mall and substantial amounts of humus from planters
within the shopping center. The CAMP (Continuous Air Monitoring Program)
Station site on New Jersey Avenue is situated between a liquor store
and a fire station on one side and a motor inn on the other. The large
nonvehicular contributions to materials deposited on the street surface
were principally due to heavy construction across the street from the
site and roadway surface repair activities just south of the site.
26
-------
TABLE 7. WASHINGTON, B.C. METROPOLITAN AREA ROADWAY SAMPLING SITES
(a)
Roadway Sampling Site
Interstate Route 495,
eastbound lane near
New Hampshire Avenue
exit -
Baltimore-Washington
P arkway, s outhb ound
lane south of the
Route 202 exit -
Interstate Route I 95,
unopened southbound
portion south of
Route 495 -
Kenilworth Avenue, high
speed southbound lane
near Eastern Avenue -
Kenilworth Avenue, low
speed southbound lane
near Eastern Avenue -
New Jersey Avenue at
E Street, N.W., in
front of the CAMP
Station -
North Capitol Street,
N.E., high speed north-
bound lane near Girard
Street -
North Capitol Street,
N.E., low speed north-
bound lane near Girard
Street
Loehmann's Plaza Shop-
ping Center, Rockville,
Maryland
Average Daily Traffic
(axles)
109,000
Road Use Category
73,000
83,000
83,000
5,800
40,000
40,000
2,600
Expressway
Expressway
Expressway
30-45 mph Feeder
30-45 mph Feeder
Residential
Residential
Residential
Parking Lot
Ca) The daily traffic volumes given are for motor vehicles moving
in one direction along the roadway.
27
-------
TABLE 8. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR ROADWAY SAMPLING SITES
Site
I 95
Loehmann's Plaza
85 Percentile
Speed
mph
Speed Limit^
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Zoning Description
and Classification
R-R Rural residential,
single family
Not Available Not Specified C-l Local commercial
NJ
OO
I 495
Beltway
Kenilworth Ave.
Low Speed Lane
Kenilworth Ave.
High Speed Lane
CAMP Station
New Jersey & E, N.W.
North Capitol St.
High and Low
Speed Lanes
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy.
66+
46.0
46.0
27.0
40.0
65 mph
60 mph for
trucks
45
45
25
30
60.0
45
R-60 One family detached
residential zone
R-i-B Single family dwelling
R-l-B Single family dwelling
C-3-B Commercial
R-3 Row houses, single
family dwelling,
residential
R-18 Residential
apartments
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED). DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR ROADWAY SAMPLING SITES
Slope Rate
Curb of of
Roadway Surface Material Condition Curb Material Height Roadway Slope
Portland cement-concrete Excellent None None Not Available
Asphalt surface 2 in. Fair Cement-Concrete 6 in. 1% 0.5%
over 6 in. gravel base
Portland cement-concrete Good Asphalt Surface 2 ft. 9 in. 1.6% 3.40%
Over Cement-
vo Concrete
Cement surface, 8" reinforced Fair Cement-Concrete 7.5 in. Not 0.5%
cement-concrete base Available
Cement surface, 8" reinforced Fair Cement-Concrete 3 ft. 9 in. Not 0.5%
cement-concrete base Available
Asphalt surface over Poor Vitrified Block 4 in. 0.51% 4%
6" concrete base
1 in. sheet asphalt pavement Excellent Cement-Concrete 6 in. 0.11% 1.53%
over 8 in. cement-concrete
Cement-concrete, 6 in. over Fair Cement-Concrete 4 in. 0.5% 0.5%
gravel base
-------
Interstate Route 495, Eastbound Lane
Loehmann's Plaza Shopping Center
Figure 3. Roadway sampling sites and surrounding areas
30
-------
North Capitol Street, N.E. - Low-Speed Lane
North Capitol Street, N.E. - High-Speed Lane
Figure 3 (continued)
31
-------
Kenilworth Avenue, N.E.
Unopened Section of Interstate Route 95
Figure 3 (continued)
32
-------
Baltimore-Washington Parkway
New Jersey Avenue at E Street, N. W.
Figure 3 (continued)
33
-------
The immediate areas adjacent to sites on Interstate Route 95, Inter-
state Route 495 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway were sparsely
populated and received practically no pedestrian traffic. The sites
on Kenilworth Avenue were effectively screened from the surrounding
residential area by a parallel service roadway separated from the main
thoroughfare by a wide grass mall. Finally, the sites along North
Capitol Street, N.E. are in an exceptionally well kept residential area
with very little apparent littering or other interfering contributions
to materials deposited on the street surface.
ROADWAY SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Sampling Period Schedule and Format
A schedule was set up early in the program such that the roadways were
sampled during several seasons of the year in order that seasonal effects
on deposition rates might be studied. Table 9 lists the seasons during
which the sampling periods were conducted at each of the sites. The sched-
ule actually followed for the sampling periods is given in Table A-2 of
Appendix A.
Sampling periods were scheduled to begin on a Monday and end one week
later on the following Monday. Sample collections were planned to be
carried out in the following manner:
1. An initial sample was obtained by cleaning the roadway
surface and quantitative collection of materials ini-
tially found on the site. No measurements of traffic
were taken to correspond with the initial sample; how-
ever, records of precipitation and dates of the most
recent antecedent cleaning of the roadway surfaces were
maintained throughout the 12-month field study.
2. The site was sampled a second time after an accumula-
tion period of approximately 24 hours during which time
a measured volume of traffic passed the roadway site.
As many as four samples having a one-day accumulation
period were taken during the remainder of the week.
Traffic counts were taken with each one-day sample.
3. The final sample of the period was gathered following
the weekend. Ideally then, a sampling period consisted
of an initial sample, four one-day samples and a week-
end sample with traffic data for all samples except the
initial one.
4. Precipitation frequently interrupted the planned pattern
of the sampling periods. Samples were gathered after
rainstorms in a few cases; however, it was felt that
such samples would be atypical; and, therefore, collections
34
-------
after runoff events were abandoned early in the program.
The roadway site was cleaned as soon as convenient after
precipitation had ceased and a new sample accumulation
period begun. Sampling periods were extended in some
instances in order to make up for loss of samples due
to precipitation.
TABLE 9. SEASONAL SAMPLES COLLECTED AT ROADWAY SITES
Seasons of Sampling Periods
Roadway Sampling Site Winter Spring Summer Fall
Interstate Route 95 X
Loehmann's Plaza Shopping Center X X
Capitol Beltway, I 495 X X X X
Kenilworth Ave., Low-Speed Lane X X X X
Kenilworth Ave., High-Speed Lane X X X X
CAMP Station, New Jersey Avenue X X X X
North Capitol Street, Low-Speed Lane X X X X
North Capitol Street, High-Speed Lane X
Baltimore-Washington Parkway X X
Sample Fractions
Samples of materials deposited on roadways were collected using a combina-
tion of sweeping, vacuuming and water flushing techniques. Each sample
consisted of three fractions, a litter, a dust and dirt and a flush
fraction. The particulate materials collected by sweeping and vacuuming
were separated on the basis of particle size into a litter fraction and
a dust and dirt fraction. The litter fraction consisted of that portion
of the particulates retained by a U.S.A. No. 6 sieve, greater than 3.35
mm in diameter. This fraction is largely composed of stones, gravels,
wood fragments and other larger-sized materials as opposed to bottles,
cans, paper products, etc. normally thought of as litter. The dust and
dirt fraction contains those particulates smaller than 3.35 mm in diameter.
The third or water flush fraction contained those components of the dust
and dirt fraction which were not picked up at high efficiencies by the
sweeping and vacuuming techniques. Thus, the flush plus the dust and
dirt constitute a total dust and dirt fraction which is the major source
of water pollutants found in runoff from urban roadways.
A total of 26 sampling periods were carried out at nine sites on seven
roadways in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. A total of 127
roadway samples were acquired in the course of the 12-month field study.
There were 127 litter fractions, 127 dust and dirt fractions and 82 flush
fractions collected. Flush samples were not gathered at Loehmann's Plaza
Shopping Center or from the high-speed lane of Kenilworth Avenue as the
roadway surfaces sloped away from the barriers at these sites. Freezing
35
-------
conditions prevented collection of six flush fractions during the winter
sampling period on the low-speed lane of Kenilworth Avenue. No flush
fraction was collected with one initial sample from the Capital Beltway
and two flushes were not taken with daily samples acquired after a rain-
storm. Table A-l in Appendix A lists the dates for collection of each
sample along with the sample fractions gathered and volume of traffic
passing the site during each sample collection period.
SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR MATERIALS DEPOSITED ON ROADWAYS
Description of the Sampling Procedure
One of the most important phases of the project study was the develop-
ment of quantitative sampling techniques and methods to give representa-
tive and meaningful collections of vehicular waste depositions. A full
three months prior to the 12-month field study was devoted to the develop-
ment and evaluation of the sampling procedure. Additional evaluations
through data analysis and special experiments were carried out during the
field study. This procedure, described in Appendix E, entailed a pre-
liminary brooming of the roadway site, if it was heavily loaded, followed
by three consecutive vacuumings of the area within four feet of the curb
or other barrier against which the roadway depositions collect. A
previous study of the distribution of materials across urban streets
has shown that over 95% of the deposits are found within this distance (8),
After vacuuming, the entire roadway site area was flushed with water
toward the curb. The area adjacent to the curb was then flushed toward
a sand bag dam where the impounded water was transported by suction into
a 55-gallon drum.
Evaluation of the Sampling Procedure
The vacuum cleaner used for collection of roadway particulates, shown in
Figure 4, consisted of a pick-up head attached to a 10-gallon canister
on the top of which was mounted an exhaust motor. Exhaust ports from
the canister leading to the motor were covered by a filter bag to retain
solids picked up during the vacuuming operations. Since the finer
particles found on roadways have previously been shown to be relatively
more heavily laden with pollutants (8), experiments were performed to
determine the retention of smaller-sized particles by the filter bag.
Several hundred grams of material passing a U.S.A. No. 325 mesh sieve,
smaller than 0.045 mm in diameter, were obtained by sieving particulates
vacuumed from a parking area surface. A weighed amount of these fines,
approximately 50 grams, was spread over 35 square feet of asphalt tile
flooring. The floor area was then vacuumed and the collected material
weighed. Recoveries of 99%, 93% and 94% were obtained using a new filter
bag with each experiment. These tests indicate satisfactory retention
of fine particulates by the filter bags as well as quantitative removal
and recovery of vacuumed particles from the canister walls and bags.
••»
Two areas were marked off on a parking lot surface of rough textured
asphalt for use in development and evaluation of the roadway vacuuming
36
-------
Figure 4. Vacuum cleaner used for roadway sampling
techniques. This type paving was selected as it was felt to be more
difficult to sample than other road surfaces which would be encountered.
The base asphalt surfaces were cleaned by repeated vacuuming, flushed
with water and then allowed to dry. The cleaned areas were then vacuumed
several additional times and the collected materials weighed. As a result
of conducting several of these operations, it was concluded that from 10
to 40 grams of roadway material would be gathered from 1,000 square feet
of clean street surface by each vacuuming. Most likely the collected
materials consisted of substances abraded from the surface during vacuum-
ing. Similar tests were carried out on a virgin concrete surface at an
unopened stretch of Interstate Route 95. As before, the concrete test
surface was precleaned by multiple water flushes and vacuumings. From
15 to 50 grams of abraded material were collected with each vacuuming
per 1,000 square feet of concrete roadway surface. Soft bristled brushes
37
-------
were used on the metal vacuum head to prevent contact between the metal
and roadway surfaces. This was Important from another aspect since the
metal vacuum head was fabricated from a high zinc alloy. Thus it was
essential to reduce abrasion to a minimum if accurate zinc deposition
rates were to be obtained.
Recoveries of a specially prepared dust and dirt simulant spread over
the asphalt and concrete paving were satisfactory. The simulant was
prepared from sand and had a particle size distribution similar to that
of dust and dirt found on roadways. Recovery data from the tests with
simulant are given in Table 10.
Similar recovery experiments were conducted on the rough textured asphalt
test surface using roadway dust and dirt collected from a nearby street
located in a commercially zoned area. These data are given in Table 11.
Again, the results obtained showed that essentially all of the materials
deposited on the roadway were collected by the first two or three vacuum-
ing operations.
Further experiments were conducted in order to determine effects of the
vacuum collection operations on particle size distributions of the
deposited roadway materials. Roadway dust and dirt simulant were
subjected to sieve analysis before and after spreading and collection
by vacuuming. U.S.A. Mesh Nos. 6 (3.35 mm), 12 (1.70 mm), 20 (0.85 mm)
40 (0.42 mm), 60 (0.25 mm), 100 (0.15 mm), 200 (0.075 mm) and 325
(0.045 mm) sieves were used for the particle size distribution analyses.
Recoveries of the individual sieve fractions after three vacuuming opera-
tions are shown in Table 12. Recoveries on asphalt surfaces of the
greater than Mesh No. 6 fraction were generally over 100% and indicated
that larger asphalt particles were abraded off of the parking lot surface
during sample collection. Less than quantitative recoveries were noted
for this fraction from concrete surfaces; and, rather than incomplete
collection, it was concluded that losses were due to reduction in
particle sizes caused by mechanical forces during vacuuming. Simulant
recoveries from concrete and asphalt surfaces tended to increase as
particle sizes decreased below U.S.A. Mesh No. 6 (3.35 mm) indicating
that simulant particles were abraded and reduced in size during collection.
Simulant recoveries in the 6-12 mesh fraction ranged from 60%,to 90%, from
95% to 115% in the 40-60 mesh fraction and from 350% to 1,300% in the
fraction passing the Mesh No. 325 sieve. Recoveries observed in a similar
experiment with actual roadway dust and dirt indicate that these particles
are more stable as near quantitative recoveries were obtained for all
particle fractions smaller than 3.35 mm.
The water flush procedure was tested prior to use in the field. It was
found that a roadway area of 1,000 square feet could be thoroughly flushed
with about 25 gallons of water. In most cases, over 50% of the applied
flush was recovered by vacuuming of the impounded water along the curb.
Most of the unrecovered flush water remained behind on the roadway or
was lost by evaporation or seepage through cracks in the street surface.
38
-------
Less than one-half gallon was lost during collection through leakage
past the sand bag impoundment.
TABLE 10. EVALUATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE - RECOVERIES OF ROADWAY
DUST AND DIRT SIMULANT BY VACUUMING(a)
Surface
Asphalt
Simulant
Area Added
912
Asphalt
912
Asphalt
Concrete
629
600
Concrete
600
Concrete
600
Vacuum No.
Simulant Recoveries
(g)
1000.1
1000.2
1000.2
1000.7
1000.0
1000.6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(g)
1052.2
53.8
77.4
39.0
34.1
18.1
1018.0
43.9
33.0
27.2
1010.4
25.6
1014.1
37.8
20.2
20.9
1009.3
22.2
11.3
11.0
1105.2
35.5
14.2
9.3
(%)
105
5
8
4
3
2
102
4
3
3
101
3
101
4
2
2
101
2
1
1
110
4
1
1
(a) Simulant was supplied by the URS Research Company of San Mateo,
California.
39
-------
TABLE 11. EVALUATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE - RECOVERIES OF ROADWAY
DUST AND DIRT BY VACUUMING FROM ROUGH TEXTURED ASPHALT
Dust & Dirt
Area Added Vacuum No. Dust & Dirt Recoveries
(sq. ft.) (g) (g) (%)
629 1000.1 1 943.8 94
2 44.2 4
3 17.5 2
4 15.1 2
5 12.2 1
6 9.2 1
629 1000.7 1 933.3 93
2 46.4 5
3 18.6 2
4 11.1 1
5 9.3 1
6 7.1 1
629 941.3 1 905.7 96
2 37.2 4
3 13.6 1
4 8.7 1
5 7.6 1
6 9.4 1
Distribution of Pollutants Between Flush and Dust and Dirt
One of the goals strived for during development of sampling procedures
for roadway deposits was to have satisfactory recoveries of pollutant in
the particulate fractions. This was desirable since flush fractions could
not be collected in all cases due to configurations of some roadway sites
and because of freezing temperatures during some of the sampling periods.
Elimination of the flush fraction would somewhat simplify the sample
collections and reduce the numbers of laboratory analyses required.
However, it was concluded early in the 12-month field study that the
flush fraction must be collected if quantitative recoveries of some
roadway pollutants were to be obtained.
Based upon observations made and recovery data generated during develop-
ment and evaluation of the roadway sampling procedures, it was concluded
that the procedures could be carried out in a satisfactory manner by the
field crews and that samples representative of roadway depositions would
be obtained during the field study. In order to maintain quality control
checks on sample collection techniques and to study distributions of
specific pollutants in the sample fractions, field study data was subjected
to further analysis. It was evident from evaluations aade prior to the
40
-------
TABLE 12. EVALUATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE - RECOVERY OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT
AND SIMULANT FRACTIONS BY VACUUMING
Surface
Asphalt
Asphalt
Asphalt
(b)
Asphalt
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
(c)
Recoveries of Indicated Sieve Fractions
Ca)
Total
6-12
12-20
20-40
40-60
60-100
100-200
200-325
325
(g) (X) (g) (%) (g) (%) (g) (%) (g) (X) (g)
-------
field study and from analysis of data collected early in the field study
that roadway materials were collected at high efficiencies in the particu-
late sample fractions. However, high percentages of some specific para-
meters were found in the flush fraction. Data in Table 13 lists average
percentages found in the flush fraction for specific components of dust
and dirt. The standard deviation is also listed to indicate the con-
stancy of this fraction. Arbitrarily selecting 80% or better as satis-
factory recovery, it is readily apparent that most parameters were
adequately recovered with the dust and dirt fraction. The dry weight,
heavy metals, asbestos, grease and grease fractions, COD and others were
all found largely in the dust and dirt fraction. However, considerable
quantities of BOD, Kjeldahl-N, water soluble anions, and microorganisms
were recovered with the water flush. This has the interesting implica-
tion that recoveries given in Table 13 represent upper limits for
collection efficiencies attainable with advanced street cleaners using
a combination of sweeping and vacuuming for pickup of roadway deposits
from lightly loaded streets.
TABLE 13. DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANTS BETWEEN DUST AND DIRT AND FLUSH
SAMPLE FRACTIONS
Avg. % of Total
Parameters Pollutant in Flush % Standard Deviation
Dry Weight 7 8
Volatile Solids 20 13
BOD 36 22
COD 16 12
Grease 19 15
Petroleum 19 13
n-Paraffins 19 14
Total PO,-P 15 15
PO.-P 43 42
NO^-N 69 24
NO^-N 97 7
Total Kjeldahl-N 33 23
Chloride 43 33
Asbestos 13 31
Fecal Coliforms 76 40
Fecal Strep 44 39
Lead 4 2
Chromium 17 15
Copper 5 4
Nickel 5 2
Zinc 2 1
It was concluded from these data that flush fractions must be collected
in order to obtain accurate values for some pollutants. The constancy
of recovery with flush fractions made it possible to calculate total
42
-------
dust and dirt loadings (dust and dirt plus flush.) in those cases where
no flush was collected. It was also concluded that good performance
was maintained by the sample collection crews throughout the 12-month
field study. The sampling procedures developed and evaluated for use
in this program have been thoroughly studied and have proven to be simple
and reliable and to provide an excellent means for the determination of
loadings on streets and highways.
COLLECTION OF TRAFFIC DATA
Total traffic crossing the roadway sites during each sample accumulation
period was measured. The District Department of Highways and Traffic in
Washington, D.C. maintains a permanent magnetometer traffic counting
station near the sites on southbound Kenilworth Avenue and they supplied
traffic data for sampling periods at those sites. Traffic at all other
sites was measured using the Fisher and Porter Company Model 31PC-1S000
Junior Counter pneumatic tube counting device shown in Figure 5. Total
traffic data for the roadway samples are given in Table A-l of Appendix A.
A breakdown of the total traffic was determined on one day during each
sampling period of the field study. The breakdown consisted of the
following vehicle classifications:
• automobiles (including station wagons)
• busses
• panel and pickup tricks (including campers)
a single unit trucks
• semitractor and trailer units
Manual counts of each motor vehicle classification were taken during
15 minutes of each hour over the 12-hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Over 75% of the total daily traffic will have occurred during this
period (12). Traffic breakdowns for each sampling period are given in
Table A-3 of Appendix A.
CLLMATOLOGICAL DATA
Records of local weather conditions were maintained for the period of the
12-month field study. Local Climatological Data from the U.S. Department
of Commerce is given in Appendix G. These data were compiled from official
area weather stations at National and Dulles Airports which are located
near the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Rainfall at the roadway
sites was measured during sampling periods using the Belfort Instrument
Company recording rain gauge shown in Figure 6. In this application the
rain gauge served only as a go-no-go indicator for the collection of
roadway samples. No samples were gathered when detectible amounts of
43
-------
Figure 5. Fisher and Porter Company Model 31PC-1,000 Junior
Counter Pneumatic Tube Counting Device
precipitation had occurred during the sample accumulation period; or, if
a sample was collected, the resultant analytical data were not used in
determination of traffic-related deposition rates for roadway materials.
The cold weather season of the 12-month field study was extremely
unusual in that the total recorded snowfall was less than for any
previous year for which there are records, back to at least 1933.
The total seasonal snowfall measured at the official area weather
stations at National and Dulles Airports was 0.1 and 0.9 inches,
respectively. The lowest snowfall previously recorded was 4.6 inches
in 1943-1944. As a result, there were no widespread applications of
deicing compounds or abrasives in the metropolitan area this season.
There were some local applications in the District of Columbia, none
at the selected roadway sites, as a result of complaints or accidents
involving the release of water. No deicing compounds or abrasives were
spread on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway south of the Capitol Beltway.
Salt (NaCl containing 10% cinders) was spread at the site on I 495 on
14 and 23 February 1973. The area was covered twice during both days
at a rate of 300 to 400 pounds per lane mile. As a final footnote on
44
-------
Figure 6. Belfort Instrument Company Rain Gauge
the unusual weather conditions, a tornado occurred on 1 April 1973 in
Falls Church, Virginia just south of Washington. This was only the third
such storm recorded in this area, the first tornado since 1927.
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
General
The methodology followed for laboratory processing and analysis of the
roadway samples is given in Appendix F. Procedures in Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (13) were followed in most
cases. However, numerous modifications were occasioned as these pro-
cedures were intended primarily for use with liquid samples and no
standard methods exist for the analysis of street surface contaminants.
Investigators have used a diversity of methods, some of which need
improvement and standardization so that results of different studies
can be compared.
45
-------
Methods for grease and for characterization of grease into hydrocarbon
and normal paraffin fractions had to be pieced together from a number of
existing procedures. In some cases, no satisfactory methods existed
prior to this project for measurement of the parameters of interest.
Therefore, methods for the estimation of asbestos and rubber had to be
developed for the analysis of roadway samples. Development of these
analytical methods and their limitations are discussed in the following
sections.
Determination of Rubber
The technique of pyrolysis-gas chromatography was used to develop a method
capable of detecting 0.005% rubber in roadway dust and dirt samples.
Pyrolysis-gas chromatography was first applied to the identification of
vehicle tire rubber in roadway dust by Thompson, et_ a^ in 1966 (14).
More recently, this approach was used for the quantitative estimation
of rubbers in compound cured stocks (.15) . Styrene-butadiene rubber
(SBR) is converted to styrene and other low molecular weight compounds
by pyrolysis in a nitrogen atmosphere. The styrene is then separated
and measured via gas chromatography using a flame ionization detector.
Briefly, the method entailed pyrolysis of 20 to 25 mg of extracted
sample for 20 seconds at 640°C in an inert nitrogen atmosphere. Dust
and dirt samples were first extracted with aqueous acid to remove
soluble materials and carbonates and then with hexane to remove inter-
fering organics. Next, the gaseous pyrolysis products were chromatographed
and the styrene peak measured.
SBR is the most commonly used synthetic rubber for vehicle tires manu-
factured in the United States. Passenger car tires contain 70 to 80%
SBR, small truck tires 60 to 70% and large truck tires only 10 to 20%
SBR. Since the total traffic at the roadway sites consisted largely of
passenger cars, estimation of SBR in dust and dirt will give a satis-
factory estimate of tire material in roadway samples. The standard
curve shown in Figure F-l (see Appendix F) was generated by measuring
styrene produced upon pyrolysis of known amounts of passenger car tire
rubber. No rubber was detected in several of the roadway samples
initially examined because of large amounts of interfering compounds
produced during pyrolysis. These compounds obscured the styrene peak.
A preliminary extraction of the acidified dust and dirt samples with
hexane reduced the background interferences to a satisfactory level.
Determination of Asbestos
The method described in Appendix F was developed for the determination
of asbestos in dust and dirt and flush fractions of roadway samples.
The method was based upon an industrial hygiene procedure recommended
for airborne asbestos by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) (16). In this procedure the flush water or aqueous
46
-------
suspension of the dust and dirt was sonicated briefly to disperse
particulates and then membrane filtered. The filters were rendered
transparent by the action of a mixed organic solvent and the asbestos
fibers enumerated using phase contrast optical microscopy. Only fibers
between 5 and 100 microns in length and having an aspect ratio (length
to breadth) of 3 or greater were counted.
During development of this procedure, a "standard" suspension containing
10 mg/1 of chrysotile asbestos was prepared and analyzed repetitively
for use in estimating precision and recovery levels. Chrysotile was
selected as it is the variety of asbestos most commonly used in the
United States. The "standard" suspension was found to contain 10.6 x
10^ fibers/ml with a standard deviation of 2.8 x 10^ fibers/ml.
Recoveries of asbestos fibers added to two dust and dirt samples from
I 495 and one from Kenilworth Avenue were 98%, 85%, and 65%, respectively.
Increasing the sonication time from one minute to five minutes did not
increase the yield from dust and dirt or from the asbestos "standard"
suspension. This indicated that sonication was not fracturing fibers
in the samples. Tap water was examined along with subsurface soil
samples thought to contain no asbestos fibers in an attempt to check
for naturally occurring inferences. No asbestos was found in the tap
water Cthe detection limit in this analysis was about 10^ fibers/1).
Values of less than 3 x 10 fibers/g were found in the two soils
examined. The levels found in the soils were at the limit of detection
for these particular samples and represent less than one fiber from
each soil in over 50 fields counted under the microscope. Detection
limits on actual roadway samples were generally over one order of
magnitude better than with soils.
The toxicology of asbestos fibers has not been well defined and the
NIOSH method is based upon expediency and precedents set by earlier
investigators. Further, it was not intended for environmental samples
but rather for industrial hygiene purposes at mining operations or plant
areas where asbestos products are fabricated. Presently, asbestos
analytical methodology is trending toward the use of techniques requir-
ing more sophisticated equipment and considerably more man hours per
determination. Transmission and scanning electron microscopy are being
used for the most critical analyses of environmental samples to measure
fibers below the range of optical methods. Particle size distribution
and weight of asbestos found are frequently required in addition to
numbers of fibers. Obviously, such techniques are beyond the scope of
this project. Notwithstanding limitations of the optical method used
for this project, it was desired to conduct a preliminary study to
determine whether traffic-related asbestos occurred in roadway materials.
47
-------
DATA HANDLING TECHNIQUES
Tables of sample identification and traffic data, see Table A-l of
Appendix A, and sample fraction analyses, see Tables B-l, B-2 and B-3
of Appendix B, were prepared for the project. Flush fraction pollutant
loadings were calculated for those samples for which no flush was
collected. These calculations were made using data in Table 13 on the
average percent of each pollutant found in the flush. Pollutant loads
were calculated in pounds per curb mile for the litter and dust and
dirt fractions by dividing the sample dry weight by the lengths of the
sampling sites. The dry weight loadings were then multiplied by the
concentration of each parameter to calculate the individual pollutant
loadings. Flush fraction loadings were calculated in a similar fashion.
Tables of the pollutant loadings are given in Appendix C.
Computerized statistical analyses of the roadway data were made to
examine for possible correlations between pollutant loadings and total
traffic. Litter loadings and total dust and dirt loadings, the latter
being the sum of dust and dirt plus flush- fraction loadings, were
plotted against total traffic for each sample, excluding initial samples
and samples which were collected following runoff events. Least squares
linear relationships were calculated along with standard deviations,
correlation coefficients and significance levels for the correlations
using Student's "t" test. These data are presented in Appendix D.
Pollutant loads calculated for samples collected from along one curb
of a roadway having no barrier between traffic moving in opposite
directions were paired with the total traffic in that direction.
Loadings calculated from samples collected from along one curb of
divided roadways having a barrier between traffic moving in opposite
directions were multiplied by two and paired with total traffic in
that direction. The rationale for this approach is obvious in that
deposits due to one directional traffic on an undivided roadway would
be distributed along the curb lane running in that direction. Deposits
due to one directional traffic on a divided roadway would be distributed
along the curb and along the roadway divider, presumably in roughly equal
quantities. Actual distributions of materials along the barriers of
divided roadways will be described in a latter section of this report.
Correlation coefficients and significance of the correlations were
uniformly found to increase when calculated in this fashion as opposed
to those calculated with no multiplication factor for loads on divided
roadways. Thus, the validity of this data treatment was verified.
48
-------
SECTION V
DEPOSITION OF ROADWAY MATERIALS IN URBAN AREAS
CORRELATION OF ROADWAY LOADING INTENSITIES WITH TRAFFIC
Loading intensities of street surface contaminants measured during the
12-month, field study were examined to determine which of the individual
parameters were traffic dependent. Observed loadings were plotted as
the dependent variable against total traffic and the least square equa-
tions of the linear relationships calculated. The graphs, linear equa-
tions and correlation coefficients are given in Appendix D. The least
squares linear equations have the general form:
Y + B + mX
where Y is the predicted loading intensity which would be deposited along
the roadway, B is the intercept on the Y axis, m is the- slope or traffic-
related pollutant deposition rate and X is the total traffic which passes
the roadway area during the period of deposition. For example, the equa-
tion of the least squares line obtained upon plotting total dust and
dirt dry weight in pounds per mile against traffic in axles is:
pounds/roadway mile = 96.0 + 0.00238 times axles
That is, the predicted dry weight of total dust and dirt which would be
deposited along a roadway after passage of 100,000 axles is 238 pounds
per mile (0.00238 times 100,000). Note that, although the deposition
of traffic-related materials occurs at a constant rate, the accumulation
of materials along the roadway tends to level off after some period of
time due, in part, to traffic-related removal mechanisms which are
discussed in a later report section. However, all of the deposited
pollutants are available for transport to receiving waters during
storms and the deposition rates are valid estimates of the contributions
of motor vehicles to water pollution.
The intercept on the Y axis, 96.0 pounds per roadway mile, is the amount
of total dust and dirt dry weight which appears as a result of phenomena
not related to actual traffic on the particular road. It is anticipated
that- magnitudes of the Y-intercepts will be dependent upon geographic
location and the intensity of local particulate air pollution. Therefore,
predictions of total roadway loadings to include traffic-related and other
materials are subject to these limitations. Only a very small portion of
the intercept is due to materials abraded from the roadway during sample
collection. A portion, of the intercept is due to a positive bias intro-
duced by the. sites at Loehmann's Plaz-a Shopping Center and on New Jersey
Avenue at the CAMP Station. These two roadways had low average daily
traffic levels and much of the deposited materials at these sites was
related to land use and, therefore, nonvehicular in nature.
49
-------
In any event, a substantial portion of the Y-intercept results from
transport of the particulate pollutants by air currents from some
distance. The sample accumulation periods ranged from one to four
days for all of the samples used to determine the linear relationships
between total pollutant loadings and total traffic. Approximately
75% of the samples had a one-day accumulation period, 20% had a three-
day and 5% a four-day accumulation period. Since the rate at which
airborne materials are deposited is more nearly time dependent than
traffic related, the Y-intercept is no doubt a function of time.
TRAFFIC-RELATED DEPOSITION RATES
Slopes of the least squares lines relating traffic and pollutant load-
ings from Appendix D are presented in Table 14 along with the signifi-
cance levels for the relationships as calculated from "t" tests. The
slopes are arbitrarily taken to be traffic-related pollutant deposition
rates when the significance of the correlation is less than 2%, that is,
when the probability of the relationship occurring purely by chance is
less than 2%. Thus, for the parameters listed in Table 14, depositions
of orthophosphate, fecal coliform organisms, fecal streptococci, cadmium,
polychlorinated biphenyls, litter and components of litter on roadways
have not been shown to be related to motor vehicular traffic. In addi-
tion, no cyanide or hexavalent chromium were detected in any of the
roadway samples; and. therefore, depositions of these parameters are
not traffic related.
It is rather surprising that total phosphate-phorphorus was found to be
traffic related and that orthophosphate-phosphorus was not. This may be
related to uncertainties in the crthophosphate dissolution step of the
analytical method which was based, rather arbitrarily, upon leaching
with dilute acid following a standard soil test method (17). Many of
the cadmium values measured were near the detection limit of the method
and were, therefore, subject to considerable percentage error. The
predicted cadmium concentration of traffic-related depositions is only
about 0.001%. Only 12 roadway samples were analyzed for polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB's). Additional analyses are required to determine with a
fair degree of certainty whether or not a correlation exists between
PCB's and traffic volume.
The remaining parameters in Table 14 are considered to be traffic
dependent in light of the highly significant correlations shown. This
is not to imply that these materials are directly emitted by motor
vehicles. To the contrary, as has been mentioned previously, most of
the traffic-related materials have origins other than with the motor
vehicle itself. Speculations as to the sources of traffic-related
pollutants will be discussed in a later report section. Some geographic
variations in the deposition rates of traffic-related materials are
anticipated since much of this material is representative of the local
geology. However, it is believed that most of the rates will be uni-
formly applicable. Greatest variations will be found in depositions of
50
-------
volatile solids, BOD, COD, phosphorus, nitrogen, chloride and the
magnetic fraction. Deposition rates of total dust and dirt and those
materials originating directly from the motor vehicle are expected to
remain constant. Other pollutants not found in the Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan area may appear to be traffic related in certain areas of
the country depending upon their presence in local soils.
TABLE 14. DEPOSITION RATES OF ROADWAY MATERIALS
(a)
Parameter
Dry Weight
Volume
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Grease
Total Phosphate-P
Orthophosphate-P
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Kjeldahl-N
Chloride
Petroleum
n-Paraffins
Asbestos
Rubber
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Strep
Lead
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Magnetic Fraction
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Litter Dry Weight
Litter Volume
Litter Volatile Solids
Litter BOD
Litter COD
Deposition Rate
(Ibs./axle-mile)
2.38 x
6.33 x
1.21 x
5.43 x
1.28 x
1.52 x
1.44 x
4.31 x
1.89 x
2.26 x
3.72 x
2.20 x
10
-3
-4
10 . (quarts)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8.52 x 10
5.99 x 10
-4
-6
-4
-5
-6
-8
-7
-8
-7
-6
-6
-6
+5
3.86 x 10 - (fibers)
(organisms)
(organisms)
1.
1.
3.
2.
1.
2.
4.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
•2.
3.
24
00
31
79
85
84
40
50
11
26
0
69
72
64
49
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
^J
+
_7
-7
-6
— R
o
-9
-4
~
-7
C
Cquarts)
Significance of
Correlation
).l
).l
).l
).l
10
<2
,1
,1
1.1
1.1
1.1
).l
).l
> 5
-4.58 x 10
(a) Deposition of parameters has been arbitrarily assumed to be traffic
dependent if the significance of the correlation is less than 2%.
51
-------
The experimental design of the program and mathematical techniques
employed have served to minimize contributions of fallout of air
pollutants., other land use activities and traffic-related removal of
roadway deposits to the deposition rates of traffic-related materials.
SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN POLLUTANT LOADINGS
The sampling schedule for the 12-month field study was designed so that
each, of the roadways would be studied several times during the year in
order that seasonal variations of pollutant loadings could be investi-
gated. A total of 15 parameters were selected for examination, one from
litter and 14 from total dust and dirt, from among the traffic dependent
and independent pollutants. Inspection of Table 15 on pollutants not
related to traffic reveals no clear seasonal trend in the average
pounds per mile of litter which accumulates on the roadways during a
24-hour period. However, the densities of microorganisms found in total
dust and dirt undergo a definite seasonal pattern. Fecal coliform
organisms were found in greatest numbers at all sites during the summer
sampling periods. The fall loadings of coliforms were next in magnitude
with very much lower levels found in the winter and spring seasons.
Fecal streptococci were found to be more uniformly spread over the year
than the coliforms; however, loadings were generally higher in the summer.
Examination of variations in depositions of traffic-related pollutants
listed in Table 16 reveals a rather distinct seasonal pattern in which
summer and fall depositions are generally higher than those in winter and
spring. Note that the values in Table 16 are not to be construed as
traffic-related deposition rates, although expressed in terms of loadings
per axle, since these figures include contributions from sources other
than motor vehicles. Deposition of dry weight of total dust and dirt
is fairly uniform throughout the year with only slightly higher levels
during the summer and fall. On the other hand, volatile solids, BOD and
COD, are deposited at substantially higher levels during the summer and
fall seasons. This is probably the result of greater amounts of vegeta-
tion during these seasons. Depositions of grease and its petroleum and
n-paraffin fractions occur evenly with no distinct seasonal pattern.
The seasonal deposition pattern expected for chloride was not observed
due to the extremely mild winter conditions during which only minor
amounts of salts and abrasives were spread on area roadways. Chloride
deposition was generally highest in fall and uniformly at its lowest
level in the spring. The nitrate and total kjeldahl nitrogen patterns
were not as clear cut; however, nitrate depositions tended to be highest
in spring and lowest in the fall. Kjeldahl nitrogen tended to be highest
in summer and lowest during winter, again probably related to the amounts
of plant materials extant. A most unexpected observation was the dis-
proportionately high deposition of lead and zinc during the summer and
^fall seasons which was several times higher than during winter and spring.
Copper and nickel depositions, not shown in Table 16, were fairly uni-
form throughout the year. Seasonal data from three roadway sites indi-
cate that rubber wear is highest during summer. This may account for
52
-------
TABLE 15. SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF NONTRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
(a)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
UJ
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
I 495
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane
Litter
Ibs/mi
54.6
49.8
55.6
61.4
32.2
Fee.
Col.
million
org/mi .
0
0
1.9
0
139.0
Fee.
Strep.
million
org/mi.
149.7
16.3
15.5
2.2
20.9
Litter
Ibs/mi
48.2
61.8
48.8
48.8
226.2
Fee.
Col.
million
org/mi.
13.2
0
0.7
0
8.9
Fee.
Strep.
million
org/mi.
0.4
6.1
8.1
96.1
91.4
Litter
Ibs/mi.
111.4
201.4
31.2
46.4
48.8
Fee.
Col.
million
org/mi .
723.9
163.9
24.1
1785.2
1689.9
Fee.
Strep.
million
org/mi.
0.7
47.6
20.1
66.9
2519.9
Litter
Ibs/mi
35.2
73.4
45.4
82.8
27.0
Fee.
Col.
million
org/mi.
424.4
0
26.3
32.7
6.6
Fee.
Strep
million
org/mi.
10.7
0.8
605.3
29.1
25.9
(a) Data given are average seasonal loadings calculated from samples deposited over a 24-hour period.
-------
TABLE 16. SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
Winter _ _ Spring _ _ Summer
_ _ _ _ _
JRoadway Site Dry Wt. Vol. Sol. Dry Wt. Vol. Sol. Dry Wt. Vol. Sol. Pry _Wt. Vol. Sol.
Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/
ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi.
x 10~3 x 10~3 x 10" 3 x 10~3 x 10~3 x 10~3 x 10~3 x 10~3
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane 1.01 0.090 1.13 0.083 2.10 0.229 1.12 0.139
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
Ln
*" I 495
2.11
6.86
34.66
0.116
0.283
1.855
2.32
3.47
22.12
0.105
0.175
1.237
6.43
3.79
35.50
0.386
0.310
2.005
3.10
5.47
36.82
0.168
0.378
3.041
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane 3.01 0.210 5.33 0.276 3.45 0.242 3.37 0.386
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units, that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
(a)
Ln
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
I 495
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane
Winter
Summer
Fall
BOD
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
COD
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
BOD
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
COD
Ibs/
ax-mi .
xlO-6
BOD
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
COD
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10" 6
BOD
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 1(T6
COD
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
3.8
17.2
84
346
6.5
85
9.9
204
26.2
455
15.8
389
7.7
28.2
124
7.4
13.2
95.6
150
362
3033
7.0
8.5
74.9
172
238
2038
12.4
11.0
71.8
686
364
3379
12.8
15.3
277.3
240
360
6712
352
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers-per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units, that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
(a)
TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
Winter
Roadway Site
Grease
Ibs/
ax-mi,
x 10~6
Chloride
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x l(f 6
Grease
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
Chloride
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x l(f6
Grease
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10"6
Chloride
Ibs/
ax-mi .
xio'6
Grease
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
Chloride
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10"6
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane 13 3.0 29 0.3 21 1.5 15 4.5
Kenilworth Av,
High Spd. Lane
Ui
I 495
CAMP Station
21
42
384
3.1
4.3
7.9
21
28
287
0.9
2.3
6.4
68
43
406
1.9
3.3
16.0
25
45
589
1.0
8.0
24.6
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane 70 1.3 56 1.0 44 3.0 46 5.0
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units5 that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
Ui
^ I 495
CAMP Station
Petrol.
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
9
13
29
209
n-Par.
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10'6
6
10
24
165
Petrol.
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
8
14
17
138
n-Par .
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x ID"6
7
12
12
128
Petrol.
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10"6
9
23
21
226
n-Par.
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10'6
7
21
17
194
Petrol.
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10'6
7
11
23
156
n-Par .
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10"6
4
9
16
178
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane 37 30 31 22 26 21 26 19
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units, that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS(a)
Winter Spring Summer Fall
wn _T
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
Oi
00
I 495
N03-N
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
0.079
0.098
0.284
3.337
TKN
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
0.74
1.06
0,67
17.80
NO -N
Ibs/
ax-mi,
x 10~6
0.242
0.470
0.360
1.830
TKN
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
1.29
1.93
1.35
20.28
NO -N
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10"6
0.269
0.083
0.334
2.830
TKN
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
2.20
3.71
1.89
23.56
N03-N
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
0.230
0.131
0.251
1.036
TKN
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
0.84
0.78
2.01
31.50
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane 0.468 3.58 0.313 2.93 0.192 3.23 0.254 1.12
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units, that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
(a)
TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
Ul
I 495
Lead
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
3.01
4.15
35.04
32.29
Zinc
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
0.95
1.98
2.90
10.44
Lead
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10"6
1.57
13.69
28.39
27.09
Zinc
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
0.58
1.18
3.68
7.61
Lead
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
7.12
30.29
58.94
87.42
Zinc
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
6.41
9.90
9.31
23.66
Lead
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
5.16
18.94
77.59
40.46
Zinc
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
2.06
3.83
6.36
18.10
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane 3.47 2.23 12.48 2.89 10.02 2.51 8.56 6.93
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units, that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
TABLE 16 (CONTINUED). SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LOADINGS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED POLLUTANTS ON ROADWAYS
(a)
o
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Av.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Av.
High Spd. Lane
I 495
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane
Winter
Summer
Fall
Asbsts
fbs/
ax-mi.
xlO+3
81
69
733
1957
Rubber
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
7.8
5.3
17,7
93.3
Asbsts
ibs/
ax-mi.
xlO+3
57
144
143
-
Rubber
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x ID'6
2.1
4.3
6.1
44.3
Asbsts
fbs/
ax-mi.
in+3
x 10
22
43
106
-
Rubber
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10"6
13.4
27.5
24.8
-
Asbsts
fbs/
ax-mi.
xlO+3
26
56
1330
2968
Rubber
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
2.8
16.8
23.9
74.9
345
14.8
171
8.3
365
23.8
(a) Data given are average seasonal per axle loadings of total dust and dirt parameters.
Loadings of individual samples in pounds per mile (fibers per mile in the case of
asbestos) were divided by traffic in axles and the results averaged for each season.
Average seasonal values shown are to be multiplied by the power of ten shown under
the units that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 1.01 equals 0.00101 pounds per
axle mile'and an asbestos value of 81 equals 81,000 fibers per axle-mile.
-------
some of the seasonal increases in lead and zinc depositions since oxides
of these metals are used as fillers in the manufacture of tires.
Seasonal lead depositions from combustion of leaded fuels would not
be expected to vary in such a dramatic fashion. Motor oil leaks,
another potential source of lead and zinc, do not vary seasonably as
indicated by the relative constancy of grease and grease fraction
depositions. Limited seasonal data from three of the five roadway
sites indicates that brake and clutch wear is higher in winter and
lower in summer as evidenced by asbestos deposition in total dust and
dirt.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES
It has been stated previously that the central concern of this project
has been the investigation of traffic-related phenomena leading to
depositions of pollutants on urban roadways. Thus, the roadway sites
studied were, for the most part, selected on the basis of minimal
interference from urban land use activities. This placed considerable
limitations on the study of other land use effects. However, the two
roadway sites in commercially zoned areas, Loehmann's Plaza Shopping
Center and the CAMP Station at New Jersey Avenue and E Street, N.W. ,
received considerable contributions from associated land use activities.
Results of nontraffic contributions at the CAMP Station site, principally
from heavy construction on the opposite side of New Jersey Avenue, are
readily apparent in Table 16, which was prepared to show seasonal varia-
tions in deposition of roadway materials. Table 17 contains average
loadings for selected litter and total dust and dirt parameters at each
of the roadway sites and is intended to show typical patterns in the
loadings. It is immediately obvious that the per axle loadings of total
dust and dirt parameters at the CAMP Station and shopping center sites
were approximately one order of magnitude higher than at the others.
Based upon the total dust and dirt dry weight deposition rate given in
Table 14, the observed loadings at the GAMP Station and Loehmann's Plaza
sites would be expected with ADT's of 79,500 and 31,300 axles,
respectively. Petroleum, rubber and zinc were selected over other
total dust and dirt parameters for inclusion in Table 17 as it was felt
that these depositions might have their origins more completely with
traffic-related phenomenon and thus be independent of other land use
activities. Inspection of this table reveals that this assumption was
not justified. Rather surprisingly, the litter loadings observed at
these sites were not any higher than at sites receiving principally
traffic-related deposits. In fact, litter loadings at the Loehmann's
Plaza Shopping Center averaged lower than all but one of the other road-
way sites. Much of .the shopping center litter consisted of low bulk
density materials such as tobacco and paper products contributed by
pedestrians. The majority of the nontraffic-related depositions were
smaller particles of soil and humus from planters within the shopping
center and sweepings of the paved mall. Contributions of nontraffic
land use activities at these two sites resulted in high dust and dirt
loadings, but did not substantially increase loadings of larger sized
litter particles.
61
-------
TABLE 17. LAND USE EFFECTS ON DEPOSITION OF ROADWAY MATERIALS
Avg.
Daily Litter Dry
(a)
Roadway Site
CAMP Station
Loehmann's Plaza
Shopping Center
N. Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane
N. Capitol St.
High Spd. Lane
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy.
Kenilworth Ave.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Ave.
High Spd. Lane
I 495
I 95
Unopened Section
Zoning
C-3-B
C-l
R-3
R-3
R-18
R-l-B
R-l-B
R-60
R-R
Traffic
(axles)
5,800
2,600
40,000
40,000
73,000
83,000
83,000
109,000
0
Weight
Ibs/
mi-day
62.67
10.47
67.64
13.28
44.54
62.68
95.64
46.46
0.09
Weight
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~3
32.62
28.67
3.57
2.62
0.88
1.36
3.59
5.19
-
Petrol.
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10-6
209
201
30
25
9
8
16
23
-
Rubber
Ibs/
ax-mi .
x 10~6
71.8
149.0
15.6
15.5
2.8
6.5
13.4
18.1
-
Zinc
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
14.94
37.43
3.65
1.67
0.65
2.70
4.54
5.56
-
Chloride
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10~6
14.8
12.5
2.8
0.9
2.0
2.5
2.0
4.8
-
(a) Data given are average litter loadings and per axle loadings of selected total dust and dirt
parameters. Average values shown are to be multiplied by ten to the power shown under the
units, that is, a tabulated dry weight value of 32.62 equals 0.03262 pounds per axle-mile
and a rubber value of 149.0 equals 0.000149 pounds per axle-mile.
-------
The site on Interstate Route 95 received the lowest average deposits of
litter. This site was not opened to traffic at the time of this study
and was located in a rural area isolated by fencing, woods and consider-
able distance from man-made land use activities. Loadings found on the
Interstate Route 95 site would he expected with an ADT of about 500
based upon the total dust and dirt dry weight deposition rate given in
Table 14. Most of the total dust and dirt collected at this site resulted
from dusting and abrasion during sampling of the newly formed concrete
roadway surface. Contribution from this source would be much lower on a
roadway which had been in use for some time.
Thus, for the nine roadways studied, one received extremely low deposi-
tion of litter and dust and dirt, six sites received depositions
principally related to motor vehicular traffic and two of the sites
received depositions due mostly to associated land use activities
unrelated to traffic.
CURB HEIGHT EFFECTS
After the field study had been in progress long enough to gather a cross
section of data from all of the roadways, certain trends became apparent
upon examination of loadings from the six sites receiving deposits
principally of traffic-related materials. Some unexpected findings were
observed in the distribution of litter and dust and dirt at the sites
along opposite sides of southbound Kenilworth Avenue. Rather than the
anticipated equal distribution along the sides of the roadway, the
average amount of low—speed lane total dust and dirt was only 28% of
the total amount collected from both sides. Amounts of litter associated
with these same samples indicated a more even distribution with an average
of 40% of the total occurring along the low-speed lane. A special winter
sampling program was conducted at sites on the high-speed and low-speed
lanes of North Capitol Street in an attempt to explain the observed
unequal distributions of roadway materials. The total dust and dirt
from the low-speed lane of North Capitol Street was found to be nearly
the same, 53% of the total collected, as from along the high-speed lane.
This lead to accumulation of data in the form presented graphically in
Figure 7- Inspection of the figure reveals that the per axle total dust
and dirt dry weight loadings are strongly influenced by the height of the
curb or other roadway barrier along which samples were accumulated.
Height appears to influence dust and dirt loadings up to about 15 to 20
inches while, as might be expected, litter loadings did not appear to be
influenced. These data indicate that significant amounts of dust and
dirt become airborne and are carried over curbs to settle on areas
adjacent to the roadways. This phenomenon would result in differences
in composition of materials collected along barriers of differing heights
as larger amounts of smaller particles, which differ considerably from
the composition of the bulk sample, would be lost from along the lower
barriers.
63
-------
3
*
•H
I
n)
oo
0)
O
•a
•rl
OJ
0)
0)
P-i
d Litter - Low Speed Lane
• Litter - High Speed Lanes
O Dust & Dirt - Low Speed Lanes
• Dust & Dirt - High Speed Lanes •
Dust & Dirt
O
P
O
Litter
_L
J_
0
10 20 30 40
Roadway Barrier Height (inches)
50
fa")
Figure 7. Per axle dry weight loading vs. roadway barrier height
(a) Average per axle amounts of litter and total dust and dirt dry
weight collected at each of the sites receiving principally traffic-
related deposits have been plotted versus height of the curb or
other roadway barrier against which samples were collected.
64
-------
This effect of barrier height upon the dry weight of total dust and dirt
collected represents a significant finding in terms of the consequences of
street and highway construction.
OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING DEPOSITION OF ROADWAY MATERIALS
The random nature of roadway material deposition mechanisms limits the
accuracy that can be attained in this type of study. Replicate deter-
minations of depositions occurring on adjacent roadway sections revealed
a relative standard deviation of about 25% for litter and for dust and
dirt dry weight. This factor, coupled with physical differences in the
sites, makes it difficult to detect subtle influences on traffic-related
deposition rates. Contributions from other land use activities, seasonal
variations in deposition rates, and the effects of roadway barrier heights
previously discussed tend further to obscure differences resulting from
such factors as roadway materials of construction, average vehicular
speed and traffic mix. The bar graphs in Figure 8 show average values
for selected dust and dirt parameters at each of the roadway sites. The
roadway sites have been arbitrarily arranged along the abscissa in order
of increasing 85th percentile speed (see Table 8). However, no readily
discernible relationship is observed. Additional averages of total dust
and dirt parameters are given in Tables 17 and 18. A similar pattern in
per axle loadings was observed with most parameters, apparently unrelated
to speed. The overriding contributions of nontraffic-related land use
activities at the CAMP Station and shopping center preclude detection of
traffict-related phenomena at these sites. Data obtained from the remain-
ing six roadway sites, receiving predominantly traffic-related depositions,
also showed no pattern which was readily relatable to speed. Likewise, no
effects were observed which could be attributed to differences in road-
way surface material. Roadway surfaces at Loehmann's Plaza Shopping
Center, the CAMP Station and North Capitol Street were constructed from
asphalt. The Interstate Route 495 site had an asphalt shoulder and a
concrete roadway surface. All of the other sites were paved solely with
concrete. Grease and its petroleum and n-paraffin fractions were about
one order of magnitude higher in asphalt paving than in concrete. Nickel
content was four to five times higher in asphalt. None of these para-
meters appeared at significantly higher levels in depositions from sites
paved with asphalt (see Table 17 and 18) .
Another of the objectives of the study was to investigate effects of
differing traffic mixes on roadway deposition rates. To this end, total
traffic was broken down into five classifications during each of the
roadway site sampling periods (see Table A-3 in Appendix A). Average
traffic mixes observed at the sites are given in Table 19. Automobiles
range only from 78 to 92% while totals of the three truck categories
vary between 8 and 22%. Maximum bus traffic is only 2.5%. This is
insufficient leverage and, coupled with the other factors discussed
previously, makes it difficult to draw positive conclusions regarding
effects of traffic mix on deposition of roadway materials.
65
-------
ON
01
•n
fi
60
a)
13
a)
i-l
O
H
O
en
I
O
-r80-r 4-r
tO
O
20
30--60 -• 3 --
10--20 -- 1 --
--40 -• 2 -•
-
Volatile Solids
\
rn
|^7 |r-^
Loehmann's
Plaza
85th Percentile N. A.
Speed
CAMP N. Cap. St. N. Cap. St. Kenil. Av. Kenil. Av. Balto/Wash 1-495
Station Low Spd.. High Spd. Low Spd. High Spd. Parkway
60 mph 66+ mph
27 mph
40 mph
40 mph
46 mph
46 mph
Figure 8. Effects of traffic speed upon deposition of roadway materials
-------
TABLE 18. DEPOSITION OF TOTAL DUST AND DIRT PARAMETERS
(a)
Roadway Site
CAMP Station
Loehmann's Plaza
Shopping Center
Volatile
Solids
Ibs/
ax-mi.
x 10-3
2.112
6.077
North Capitol St.
Low Spd. Lane 0.292
North Capitol St.
High Spd. Lane 0.154
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy. 0.071
Fecal
BOD COD Grease NO^-N TKN n-Paraffins Asbestos Coliform Strep. Lead Copper Nickel
Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/ fbs/ million million Ibs/ Ibs/ Ibs/
ax-mi. ax-mi, ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. ax-mi. org/ °rg/ ax-mi, ax-mi, ax-mi.
x 10~6 x 10-6 x 10~6 x 10~6 x 10~6 x 10~6 x 10+3 mi-day mi-day x 10~6 x 10~6 x 10~6
142.2 4,015 430
290.8
21.2
7.6
5.8
Kenilworth Ave.
Low Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Ave.
High Spd. Lane
I 495
0.
0.
0.
139
203
298
6.
10.
12.
8
6
2
23.92
5,964 528 2.148 39.20
375 54 0.306 2.68
283 44 0.284 1.86
97 14 0.231 1.22
128 18 0.189 1.26 6
326 35 0.154 1.88 13
340 41 0.299 2.08 18
167
127
23
20
7
2,535 457.2 43.0 46.33 2.164 3.375
1,993 0 75.2 77.00 1.693 3.328
318 538.5 768.2 7.72 0.179 0.312
171 0 86.6 6.48 0.103 0.269
104 3,165.4 40.4 4.42 0.046 0.70
50
280.3 53.0 4.07 0.161 0.217
64 41.0 18.6 16.15 0.210 0.383
657 13.5 184.0 52.00 0.399 0.799
(a) Data given are average daily loadings of microorganisms and per axle loadings of selected total dust and dirt parameters. Average
values shown are to be multiplied by ten to the power shown under the units, that is, a tabulated COD value of 97 equals 0.000097
pounds per axle-mile and an asbestos value of 50 equals 50,000 fibers per mile day.
-------
TABLE 19. AVEEAGE BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL TRAFFIC AT ROADWAY SITES
Average Traffic Breakdown (%)
Single Semi-
Panel & Pickup Unit Tractor
Roadway Site Autos Buses Trucks Trucks & Trailer
Interstate 95
Loehmann's Plaza
Shopping Center 92.2
0
CAMP Station,
New Jersey Ave.
& E. St., N.W. 82.8 1.0
N. Capitol St.,
N.E. 86.7 1.4
Balto.-Wash.
Parkway 91.8 2.5
Kenilworth Ave. 85.3 0.6
Interstate 495,
Capitol Beltway 78.4 0.3
-No Trafcfic-
4.8
7.9
5.7
5.5
7.8
9.6
2.2
6.9
5.2
0.2
5.0
6.6
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.0
1.3
5.1
68
-------
SECTION VI
SPECIAL STUDIES
ORIGIN OF POLLUTANTS FOUND IN ROADWAY MATERIALS
The composition of total dust and dirt being deposited on roadways via
traffic-related mechanisms is given in Table 20. These values have been
calculated based upon the deposition rates given in Table 14. This
material is over 95% inorganic and has a bulk density of 1.6 grams per
cubic centimeter. A litter fraction is associated with the dust and
dirt. The weight of this former fraction is approximately 20% that of
the total dust and dirt fraction. It has been determined in previous
studies that most of the deposited materials are derived from surround-
ing land areas and do not originate with the motor vehicle or street
surface material O-l). Results from the current investigation tend
to substantiate this observation. Considerable efforts were expended
in collection and laboratory analysis of so-called "pure" substances
in order to obtain additional information on the origins of street
surface contaminants. These data, given in Table 21, are from samples
of compounds and fluids used in motor vehicles, roadway paving materials,
soil from the Metropolitan area, roadway abrasives and deicing compounds.
Cigarettes were included with the group of "pures" as an afterthought
upon observation of large numbers of tobacco product remnants in the
litter fractions of roadway deposited materials.
The volatile solids of total dust and dirt include the organic constit-
uents; rubber, protein, grease and its petroleum and n-paraffin fractions,
and other unclassified organics. Inorganic carbonates constitute a con-
siderable portion of the volatile solids as evidenced by the vigorous
evolution of carbon dioxide that generally occurred when dust and dirt
samples from the Washington, D.C. area were acidified prior to analysis.
The rubber found is a result of tire wear and the total kjeldahl nitrogen
most probably is derived from plant protein materials. Grease consists
primarily of fatty acids, fats, plant waxes and oils and hydrocarbons of
petroleum origin. The petroleum fraction of grease contains the petro-
leum derived hydrocarbons, with the exception of certain polar aromatic
and substituted hydrocarbon compounds. Therefore, the difference
between grease and its hydrocarbon fraction is an estimate of fatty
matter of plant and animal origin. The hydrocarbon fraction originates
from drippings and leaks of motor vehicle lubricants and hydraulic fluids
as well as from crankcase and less volatile engine exhaust products.
The high COD to BOD ratios observed in stormwater runoff from urban areas
or roadway surface contaminants have generally been attributed to toxicity
of heavy metals present in such samples. However, other possibilities
exist. Rubber, petroleum compounds, fatty substances and plant cellulosic
materials are resistant to biological oxidation and are not usually com-
pletely biodegraded during the normal five-day period of the BOD deter-
mination. The COD contributed by 0.52% rubber and 0.64% grease, assuming
69
-------
2.1 g COD per gram of rubber and 0.64 g COD per gram of grease, still
leaves 3.9% COD unaccounted for in the total dust and dirt. Less than
0.1% of this is attributable to the COD of proteinaceous materials.
Much of the COD unaccounted for may be from inorganic oxygen demanding
substances. The large magnetic fraction of 5.3% suggests that con-
siderable amounts of ferrous iron may he present in the roadway deposits.
This is a difficulty soluble form of iron which will contribute to COD
but not to BOD. Magnetite, a magnetic oxide containing ferrous iron,
has been identified in roadway dust and dirt. The magnetic fraction
originates from area soils which contain magnetic iron compounds. In
addition, some magnetic materials are deposited as a result of corrosion
of motor vehicle bodies, engines and exhaust systems.
The chloride content of dust and dirt was found to be traffic dependent,
that is, a function of the numbers of vehicles traveling the roadway.
TABLE 20. CALCULATED COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC-RELATED
ROADWAY DEPOSITIONS(a)
(WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA)
Parameter Percentage Composition
(Unless Otherwise Stated)
Bulk Density 1.5 (grams/cc)
Volatile Solids 5.1
BOD 0.23
COD 5.4
Grease 0.64
Total Phosphate-P 0.061
Total Nitrogen 0.025
Chloride 0.092
Petroleum 0.36
n-Paraffins 0.25
Rubber 0.52
Lead 1.2
Chromium 0.008
Copper 0.012
Nickel 0.019
Magnetic Fraction 5,3
Asbestos 3.6 x 105 (fibers/gram)
(a) The percentage composition, by weight, has been calculated based upon
deposition rates shown in Table 14. For example:
5.43 x 10-6 lhs BOD/axle-mile _
2.37 x 10-3 ibs. Dry Wt./axle-mile X 10° ~ Q'23/° BOD
70
-------
TABLE 21. ANALYSIS OF "PURE" MATERIALS - PART I
Material
Gasoline
Lubricating Grease
Motor Oil
Transmission Fluid
Antifreeze
Undercoating
Asphalt Pavement
Concrete
Rubber
Diesel Fuel
Brake Linings
Brake Fluid
Cigarettes
Salt (b)
Cinders
Area Soil (c)
Tot. Vol
Solids
(mg/g)
999.5
973.9
996.9
999.8
987.8
998.7
64.2
70.7
986.3
999.9
285.3
999.8
862.2
74.7
0.0
Tot. Vol.
Solids
(mg/g)
999.5
973.9
996.9
999.8
987.8
998.7
64.2
70.7
986.3
999.9
285.3
999.8
862.2
74.7
0.0
. .
BOD
(mg/g)
154.0
143.3
143.8
102.6
37.6
89.8
1.2
1.4
26.8
80.2
16.9
25.8
85.4
-
-
COD
(mg/g)
682.1
220.8
198.3
1102.4
309.5
85.5
63.6
2097.4
399.0
416.5
2420.8
776.8
-
59.3
Grease
(mg/g)
1.3
753.1
989.2
985.6
143.8
958.1
21.4
2.7
191.6
385.3
30.5
883.0
30.0
0.0
1.3
Petroleum
(mg/g)
1.3
665.8
937.7
941.7
69.6
182.8
15.0
1.3
97.8
307.8
8.3
33.1
21.2
0.0
1.2
n-Paraffins
(mg/g)
1.3
566.3
850.0
875.4
6.1
120.7
9.0
1.0
56.0
209.
7.
18.
2.
0.0
1.2
(a) BOD determinations were made on "pure" materials using a seed of unacclimated sewage organisms.
(b) Results are on a dry weight basis. Salt as received contained 3.7% water, assayed 93.2% sodium
chloride, and contained less than 0.005% cyanide.
(c) Soils from the Washington, D.C. area contained a magnetic fraction of from 8.9 to 12.5%, less thar
0.05 mg rubber per gram, less than 3 x 10-* asbestos fibers per gram, 50 to 100 mg/g volatile
solids and 15 to 80 mg/g COD.
-------
TABLE 21 (CONTINUED). ANALYSIS OF "PURE" MATERIALS - PART II
Material
NS
Gasoline
Lubricating Grease
Motor Oil
Transmission Fluid
Antifreeze
Undercoating
Asphalt Pavement
Concrete
Rubber
Diesel Fuel
Brake Linings
Brake Fluid
Cigarettes
Salt
Cinders
Area Soil
Detection Limit
Metals Content (yg/g)
Lead
663
0
9
8
6
116
102
450
1110
12
1050
7
492
2
0
0
2
Mercury
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
Chromium
15
0
0
0
0
0
357
93
182
15
2200
19
71
2
0
36
2
Copper
4
0
3
0
76
0
51
99
247
8
30600
5
716
2
3
23
1
Nickel
10
0
17
21
16
476
1170
264
174
8
7454
31
193
9
4
25
1
Zinc
10
164
1060
244
14
108
164
417
617
12
124
15
560
1
7
27
0.01
-------
Therefore, the levels observed in this study do not result from applica-
tion of highway deicing compounds. The low levels of chlorides and
phosphate found probably originate with area soils, abraded roadway
surface materials and, to a lesser extent, from plant and animal sources.
Much of the lead deposited on urban roadways resulted from combustion
of leaded gasoline although some is deposited with leaking motor oil
and transmission fluid. Combustion of leaded gasoline introduces
considerable quantities of lead into engine oil and transmission fluid
and motor oil becomes contaminated with wear metals, including lead from
babbitt metal bearings. Other engine wear metals include:
• Copper - from wear of thrust bearings, bushings and
bearing metals
• Chromium - from wear of metal plating, rocker arms,
crankshafts and rings
• Zinc - this is an ingredient of oil addition
• Phosphorus - also an oil additive
Zinc, lead and other metallic oxides are used as fillers in the manu-
facture of rubber tires and are deposited on roadways as tires are
abraded. High concentrations of organozinc compounds are used as
stabilizing additives in motor oils. Nickel and chromium abraded
from roadway surface materials and from the corrosion of steel motor
vehicle parts contribute to the heavy metal load of street surface
contaminants. Chromium is used for plating and is a wear metal found
in motor oils. Both nickel and chromium are present in brake lining
materials. Asbestos in dust and dirt is produced by abrasion of clutch
plates and brake linings. Copper wire is added to brake linings for
increased mechanical strength and to provide better heat transfer
properties. Brake linings contain large amounts of copper, over 3% in
the particular lining analyzed, and it is probable that much of the
copper deposits originate from this source. Calculation of copper
emissions from brake lining wear yields a value approximately one
order of magnitude higher than the deposition rate given in Table 14.
This tends to support the Bendix Research Laboratories finding that
much of the products of break wear are retained by the motor vehicle (9).
Heavy metal analyses of area soils demonstrate that significant quantities
of these elements, with the possible exception of chromium, did not origi-
nate from this source.
It has been stated earlier in this report that loadings of PCB's did not
appear to be traffic related based upon .a limited number of sample
analyses. However, if it were assumed that PCB's were deposited via
traffic-related mechanisms and if the deposition rate calculated in
Table 14 were accurate, total dust and dirt containing 0.5 ppm would
result. The 12 dust and dirt samples actually analyzed ranged from a
73
-------
low of 0.05 to a high of 3.6 ppm PCB's. Until recently, PCB's were
widely used in paints, printing inks, plasticizers and as transformer
and capacitor fluids. Use of PCB's has been greatly curtailed during
the past few years and the major application today is for dielectric
fluids and some hydraulic fluids. It might be speculated that PCB's
were and perhaps still are being dispersed throughout urban areas by
incineration of plastic, paper and other PCB containing products.
PCB's are nonflammable and would survive incineration. In any event,
it is most probable that area soils are the immediate source of PCB's
found in roadway materials.
EXAMINATION OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT
Street surface contaminants consist largely of roadway surfacing
materials and various mineral forms representative of the local geology.
Results from this study show that dust and dirt is composed of over 95%
inorganic material, most of which is insoluble. Visual examinations of
roadway samples conducted at 25 to 100 times magnification under dis-
secting and compound microscopes reveal many individual particles
appearing to be fractured mineral crystals. Considerable quantities
of an irregularly shaped transparent substance were found. This
material was later identified as alpha-quartz. Samples also contained
an iron bearing magnetic fraction amounting to about 5% by weight of
the total dust and dirt. In the midst of all the irregularly shaped
sample particles, two types of spherical particles were observed.
Transparent, nonmagnetic, almost perfectly spherical particles con-
taining pockets of gas, in some cases, were observed in most all. of
the roadway samples. These particles, which appeared to be formed from
a melt, were later identified as silica. No clues as to the origin of
the transparent spheres were uncovered. They are most likely not
directly associated with motor vehicles as they were not observed in
brake lining wear materials or in the tail pipes of several passenger
automobiles inspected for this purpose. These particles did not appear
in roadway samples collected by URS Research Company in their study of
street surface contaminants. A second type of spherical particle was
found only in samples taken at the CAMP Station site. These were opaque,
magnetic, less perfectly formed spheres and were also reported in many
of the samples studied by URS Research Company. The magnetic spheres
were identified as iron oxides. It is believed that the spheres were
produced by welding operations as part of subway and office building
construction activities in progress near the CAMP Station site during
the period of the sampling program. These particles have also been
attributed to stationary sources burning fossil fuels.
Semiquantitative emission spectrographic analyses of eight dust and
dirt samples were performed to determine the major metallic constituents
of street surface contaminants found in this study area. These results
are summarized in Table 22. Principal elements found were aluminum,
calcium, iron, magnesium and silicon with lesser amounts of manganese,
sodium, lead, titanium, zinc and zirconium. Trace amounts (less than
74
-------
0.1%) of a number of other metallic elements were also found. The
emission spectrographic analytical results generally coincide with the
energy dispersive X-ray analyses reported in Table 23 along with X-ray
diffraction results obtained on the same samples. The mineral magnetite,
Fe^O^, contains ferrous and ferric iron and may be responsible for the
high COD to BOD ratios as discussed in Section VI.
TABLE 22.
SEMIQUANTITATIVE EMISSION SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES
OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT SAMPLES
(WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA)
Element(a)
Aluminum
Boron
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Nickel
Lead
Silicon
Tin
Strontium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Concentration
Range (b)
Medium-High
Trace
Trace
Medium-High
Trace
Trace
Trace
High
Medium-High
Trace-Low
n. d.-Trace
Trace-Medium
Trace
Low-Medium
High
n.d.-Trace
Trace
Low
Trace
Low
Trace-Low
ACCUMULATION OF STREET SURFACE CONTAMINANTS
The deposition of pollutants on roadways through traffic-related
mechanisms occurs at a constant rate and is independent of loadings
already present. However, the buildup or accumulation of street sur-
face contaminants is not linear and levels off due to a combination of
(a) Other metallic elements were not detected.
(b) n.d. - not detected, trace less than 0.1%, low 0.1 - 1%, medium 1
10%, high 10 - 100%.
75
-------
TABLE 23. ENERGY DISPERSIVE X-RAY AND X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS
OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT
Roadway
Site
Loehmann 's
Plaza
Loehmann' s
Plaza
CAMP
CAMP
N. Capitol
Street
N. Capitol
Street
Kenilworth
Avenue
Kenilworth
Avenue
I 495
I 495
Sample
Identification
48D, nonmagnetic
fraction
48D, magnetic
fraction
5 5D , nonmagne tic
fraction
55D, magnetic
fraction
59D, nonmagnetic
fraction
59D, magnetic
fraction
69D, nonmagnetic
fraction
69D, magnetic
fraction
76D, nonmagnetic
fraction
76D, magnetic
fraction
Principal
Compounds by
Diffraction
Analyses
mostly oc-quartz
serpentine, Mg3Si20r(OH'
magnetite, Fe30^
quartz, Si02
mostly ^-quartz
serpentine
iron compounds
quartz
not analyzed
serpentine
iron compounds
quartz
quartz
serpentine
iron compounds
quartz
quartz
serpentine
magnetite
Principal
Elements
by Energy
Dispersive
Analyses
Ca, Fe, Si,
S, P
)4 Fe, Si
Si
Si, Fe, Pb
Si, Fe
Si, Fe
Si
Fe, Si
Si, Ca
Fe, Si, Pb
Concrete
transparent, non-
magnetic, spher-
ical particle
mostly quartz
hydrated calcium silicate
not analyzed
CAMP
opaque, magnetic,
spherical particle not analyzed
Si, K, Ca
Si (nothing
else)
Fe (nothing
else)
76
-------
factors, other than street cleaning or storm events. Information was
sought concerning the linearity of accumulation through examination
of data from the roadway samples.
Of the 127 roadway samples collected during the field study, data from
94 of these were used in calculations of traffic-related deposition
rates. The remaining 33 samples were either collected after rainstorms
or were initial samples for which no accurate traffic data was measured.
Seventy-five of the 94 samples were collected after a one-day accumula-
tion period; and, thus, the per axle deposition rates are most strongly
influenced by these data. The other 19 samples used for rate determi-
nations were gathered after either three or four days of accumulation
on the roadways. Comparisons of loading intensities from samples
having a one-day accumulation period with those having multiday accumu-
lations periods revealed the magnitude of the leveling off of accumula-
tion rates.
Inspection of the data in Table 24 demonstrates that the accumulated
loadings have begun to level off within three to four days. Table 24
lists ratios of pollutant loadings calculated from daily samples to
those from samples with accumulation periods of three to four days.
Average values for each sampling period are given in order to elimi-
nate seasonal influences on the ratios. The overall averages of the
ratios are significantly lower than 3.13, demonstrating that accumula-
tion of materials deposited on roadways is not linear, but levels off
and approaches a maximum value. That is, the loadings after a three-
or four-day accumulation period are significantly less than three or
four times the loadings from samples with a one-day accumulation period.
Note that averages of the ratios for each parameter are significantly
lower than 3.13, but not significantly different from one another.
This would indicate that accumulation of all parameters levels off at
about the same rate. This knowledge is important in that it reflects
the amounts of deposited material which will actually remain on the
roadway and be available for collection by street cleaning operations.
The accumulated total dust and dirt begins to level off as portions of
the material are picked up by passing traffic, and perhaps by other
mechanisms, and displaced onto areas adjacent to the roadways. The
displaced material would still be largely available for rapid trans-
port by stormwater runoff in cities because of the high runoff coeffic-
ients in these areas. Mechanical fracture to smaller particle size,
as well as physical transport, is postulated as the mechanism responsible
for leveling off of litter accumulation rates. The ensuing discussion
deals with derivation of mathematical expressions to describe deposi-
tion and loss rates for roadway materials as well as a general formula
describing the relationship between accumulated pollutant loadings and
total traffic.
Whereas per axle deposition rates of roadway materials are constant,
their removal or loss rates are a function of pollutant loadings.
Assuming that the mechanisms for loss of materials deposited on
77
-------
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF LOADINGS FROM ROADWAY SAMPLES WITH ONE-DAY
AND MULTIPLE-DAY ACCUMULATION PERIODS
Site
N, Capitol St.
Low-Spd. Lane
N. Capitol St.
Low-Spd. Lane
N. Capitol St.
Low-Spd. Lane
N. Capitol St.
High-Spd. Lane
CAMP Station
CAMP Station
I 495
I 495
Multi-Day
Accum. Period
CDays)
4
3
3
3
3
Dry Wt.
2.
3.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
83
57
04
03
09
70
90
86
Ratios
Grease
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
22
77
54
17
32
67
32
08
of Loadings v ' v '
Total
Kield. N.
5
0
2
1
0
3
1
1
.00
.79
.40
.72
.80
.00
.14
.57
Lead
2.
4.
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
24
40
50
94
60
68
96
56
Litter
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3.
53
77
83
07
44
20
45
41
(a) Ratios given are loadings determined from samples having a three- or four-day accumulation period
divided by loadings calculated from samples having a one-day accumulation period. Thus, the
expected ratios would be three or four, respectively, if accumulation rates were linear.
(b) Ratios calculated from average loadings for each sampling period have been reported to reduce
effects of seasonal variations.
-------
TABLE 24 (CONTINUED). COMPARISON OF LOADINGS FROM ROADWAY SAMPLES WITH ONE-DAY
AND MULTIPLE-DAY ACCUMULATION PERIODS
VO
Site
Multi-Day
Accum. Period
I 495
Lo ehmann ' s Plaza
Loehmann's Plaza
Balto.-Wash. Parkway
Kenilworth Ave.
Low-Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Avenue
High-Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Avenue
High-Spd. Lane
Overall Average
(Days)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.13
Dry Wt.
1.99
1.03
2.75
1.45
Ratios
Grease
2.13
1.01
1.76
0.86
of Loadings
Total
K-jeld. N.
1.81
0.23
3.23
1.60
\" /
Lead
1.59
1.47
4.84
0.83
Litter
2.70
0.56
2.21
0.75
1.44
0.91
1.55
1.86
2.31
0.91
1.56
1.66
0.43
0.62
1.07
1.65
0.69
1.01
1.06
1.88
0.65
0.50
0.98
1.46
(a) Ratios given are loadings determined from samples having a three- or four-day accumulation period
divided by loadings calculated from samples having a one-day accumulation period. Thus, the
expected ratios would be three or four, respectively, if accumulation rates were linear.
(b) Ratios calculated from average loadings for each sampling period have been reported to reduce
effects of seasonal variations.
-------
roadways are mostly traffic related, the following expressions can be
derived:
^ dLd = k. deposition
dT~ X
(2) dL . _ ,
r = k_L removal
dT Z
— = k-i-k- L °et deposition or accumulation rate
Where: L is the roadway pollutant loading in pounds per mile, T is
total traffic in axles,
k- is the per axle deposition rate as given in Table 14.
k_ is the fractional removal or loss rate in reciprocal axles.
- r ln (krk2L> + ln ki - T
(4> ,
When the rate of removal equals the rate of deposition, the loading will
remain constant at its maximum level and
- 0 and L . L -
Where: L is the maximum pollutant loading, and
(5) L = Lm (l-e~k2T)
The removal rate constant, k2, is probably a function of traffic speed
and, assuming that it is related to the kinetic energy imparted to the
80
-------
particles, is a function of the square of the velocity of the motor
vehicle. The constant also contains an interaction factor which is
a function of shoulder width or the distance from the curb to the
traffic lane.
An approximate value of 1 x 10~^ to 3 x ICT^/axle was found when total
dust and dirt dry weight data from the high- and low-speed lanes of
North Capitol Street were used to solve for k~. The relationships
between total dust and dirt dry weight loading and accumulation period
shown in Figure 9 were derived using these estimates of k2, an average
daily traffic level of 40,000 axles and a kj_ of 2.38 x 10~3 pounds per
axle-mile. The magnitude of the traffic-dependent removal rate con-
stant affects the maximum loading attainable as well as the time
required to reach the maximum.
COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLE SIZES IN ROADWAY DEPOSITS
Particle Size Distribution of Roadway Dust and Dirt Samples
Dust and dirt samples from each of the roadway sites were fractionated
into eight mesh sizes in order to determine their particle size distribu-
tions. Results of these determinations are given in Table 1-1 of
Appendix I. The data were then combined and averaged to develop bar
graphs shown in Figure 10. Several distinct distribution patterns are
evident from the bar graphs. There appears to be no significant
differences in the particle size distributions obtained from along
the high- and low-speed traffic lanes of Kenilworth Avenue or North
Capitol Street. Dust and dirt from the site on an unopened portion of
I 95 consisted mostly of smaller particles. This was most probably a
result of heavy dusting by the unused concrete roadway surface. Dust
and dirt samples from sites at I 495, Loehmann's Plaza, CAMP Station
and North Capitol Street had very similar particle size distribution
patterns. The fractional amounts steadily increased with decreasing
particle size to a maximum at the 75 to 250 micron fraction. The
75 micron and smaller fraction of samples from these sites then dropped
off to about the same weight percentage as the 850 to 3,350 micron
fraction. Dust and dirt samples from the Kenilworth Avenue site showed
a very even distribution among the four largest sieve sizes and con-
tained only about 5% by weight of particulates 75 microns in diameter
and smaller. Samples from the Baltimore-Washington particle showed a
rather even distribution over all particle size ranges.
Composition of Dust and Dirt Sieve Fractions
A total of 12 roadway dust and dirt samples were divided into five sieve
fractions for chemical analysis as a function of particle size. These
results are shown in Table 1-2 of Appendix I and summarized as averages
in Table 25. Concentrations or strengths of the different pollutional
parameters showed several patterns of variation with particle size;
however, the smallest sized particles were almost invariably most highly
81
-------
300 r
0 1
0 4
345678
Accumulation Period (Days)
12
16
20
24
28
+4,
32
10 11
36 40 44
Traffic (Axles x 10 )
_ = 2.38 x 10 Ibs./axle-mile, ADT = 40,000 axles)
Figure 9. Total dust and dirt dry weight accumulation
82
-------
•H
p
3
O
H
4-1
O
4-1
13
0)
O
n
0)
CM
S>0
•H
30-
20-
10-
I 95
12345
23 45
Kenilworth Ave.
Low-Spd. Lane
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
40-
30-
20-
10-
I 495
1
N. (
LOT
]
2 3
Zap. St.
it- Speed
_,ane
4
5
12345
Particle Size Fraction
Loehmann's Plaza
(a)
12345
Particle Size Fraction
(a)
N. Cap. St.
High-Speed
Lane
12345
Particle Size Fraction
(a)
Kenilworth Ave.
High-Spd. Lane
23 45
CAMP Station
2345
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy.
2345
Figure 10. Average particle size distributions
roadway dust and dirt samples
Ca) Particle size fraction 1 is 3350 to 850 microns, 2 is 850 to 420
microns, 3 is 420 to 250 microns, 4 is 250 to 75 microns and 5 is
75 microns and smaller.
83
-------
contaminated. Volatile solids, BOD, COD and grease concentrations were
highest in the 75 micron and smaller fraction, at a minimum in the inter-
mediate size ranges and generally somewhat higher in the 850 to 3350
micron dust and dirt fraction. Concentrations of asbestos fibers were
generally higher in the small sized fractions, but rather surprisingly,
were more evenly distributed over the range of particle sizes than most
of the other pollutants. This indicated that the fibers were bound to
particle surfaces since all asbestos fibers would readily pass through
the smallest sieve used here. Rubber concentrations were uniform or
increased slightly with decreasing particle size until the 75 micron and
smaller fraction where they usually increased markedly. Concentrations
of the metals generally increased with decreasing particle size. However,
this increase was not as dramatic as with other parameters.
TABLE 25. AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS IN ROADWAY DUST AND
DIRT AS A FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE
Particle Size
(microns)
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
Particle Size
(microns)
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75
Dry Weight
15.0
19.3
23.6
31.9
10.2
Volatile
Solids
(mg/g)
76.1
43.2
34.2
59.3
125.6
Asbestos
(10+5 x fbrs./g)
0.7
1.5
1.6
2.3
1.2
64
98
3.11
3.80
6.91
Rubber
0.7
1.0
1.5
4.5
17.8
BOD COD Grease
(mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g)
,5
,7
67.
55.
51.2
106.4
211.2
Lead
0.81
3.
3.
5.
20
44
89
9.0
6.4
6.4
14.5
29.8
Zinc
(mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g)
6.43
0.24
1.02
1.60
1.81
1.56
More important than variations in strength with particle size are the
fractional distributions of the total amount of a pollutant. This
latter distribution gives a measure of the relative significance of
each particle size fraction, assuming that the sieve fractions are
transported to receiving waters with similar efficiencies. Studies
by URS Research Company have shown that this is largely true for dust
and dirt (11). Fractions of total pollutant associated with each dust
and dirt particle size range are given in Table 26 for samples taken
at each roadway site. Data given in the table have been averaged and
represent composite samples. Results on samples from high- and low-
speed lanes at Kenilworth Avenue have been combined as have those taken
at North Capitol Street. Substantial amounts of each pollutant are
84
-------
oo
ui
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Ave.
I 495
Loehmann's Plaza
CAMP Station
N. Capitol Street
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy.
Size w
Range
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Vol. Sol.
35.0
14.7
18.6
21.0
10.7
9.2
9.9
14.6
46.0
20.3
9.4
17.3
10.4
29.9
33.0
25.1
17.0
17.1
34.0
6.8
12.5
9.2
11.0
42.7
24.6
16.1
8.8
5.6
30.2
39.3
BOD
21.2
24.9
17.2
24.3
12.4
8.2
12.5
18.1
43.0
18.2
11.3
16.7
21.0
26.0
25.0
20.8
19.0
24.5
28.6
7.1
6.5
9.7
17.1
42.4
24.3
11.5
10.9
7.7
25.1
44.8
COD
16.4
16.2
16.7
36.2
14.5
8.2
9.6
14.1
46.4
21.7
6.4
13.7
13.1
33.8
33.0
21.2
16.0
18.2
37.0
7.6
6.1
8.0
11.7
44.7
29.5
12.2
8.8
8.2
31.1
39.7
Grease
21.7
16.1
23.3
26.4
12.5
8.8
7.2
14.7
46.2
23.2
5.4
10.8
9.3
37.6
36.9
17.0
8.7
15.3
49.8
9.2
5.3
5.8
6.7
49.4
32.8
11.5
13.2
5.6
31.5
38.2
Percent
Petrol.
22.8
15.8
19.3
27.2
14.9
10.0
8.6
15.8
44.1
21.5
5.7
9.5
10.1
29.3
45.4
13.4
6.6
15.0
54.1
10.9
4.9
6.2
9.8
49.1
30.0
7.9
7.9
5.2
35.8
43.2
of Total
n-Par.
22.1
16.9
16.0
29.1
15.9
7.4
8.9
13.7
46.7
23.3
6.2
8.3
8.5
32.9
44.1
12.2
7.6
16.3
52.5
11.4
5.1
6.4
10.1
48.4
30.0
8.3
5.9
5.1
34.5
46.3
Tot. PO^-P
22.7
18.2
19.6
31.3
8.2
6.3
12.3
15.7
43.7
30.8
4.2
12.5
22.4
28.7
32.2
11.9
14.5
18.3
47.5
7.8
8.7
12.2
15.3
45.2
18.6
9.6
10.7
10.5
40.3
28.9
N03-N
16.3
20.2
24.5
29.4
9.6
3.9
5.9
15.7
43.7
30.8
14.4
13.5
12.2
32.0
27.9
17.1
14.1
18.7
40.9
9.2
5.9
12.8
14.9
45.7
20.7
11.2
9.8
9.2
22.9
46.9
N02-N
34.3
26.7
11.1
22.2
5.7
8.3
12.5
19.6
34.4
25.2
5.3
13.9
17.6
17.3
45.9
52.8
11.2
0.0
16.9
19.1
5.6
9.9
0.0
35.2
49.3
13.0
14.1
16.1
32.8
24.0
TKN
29.2
21.7
13.4
24.1
11.6
17.4
13.7
14.0
35.8
19.1
8.6
29.6
17.6
25.8
18.4
31.5
28.8
18.5
18.9
2.4
4.8
20.2
22.7
34.5
17.8
29.2
22.5
16.0
13.1
19.2
(a) Particle size range 1 is 3,350 to 850 microns, 2 is 850 to 420 microns, 3 is 420 to 240 microns, 4 is 250 to 75
microns and 5 is 75 microns and smaller.
-------
TABLE 26 (CONTINUED) . TOTAL POLLUTANT ASSOCIATED WITH EACH DUST AND DIRT SIZE RANGE
CO
Roadway Site
Kenilworth Ave.
I 495
Loehmann's Plaza
CAMP Station
N. Capitol Street
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy.
Size
Range
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Percent of
Cl
17.5
16.1
30.0
26.9
9.5
10.9
16.6
20.8
36.6
15.1
9.5
22.7
18.5
24.2
25.1
26.2
17.1
6.1
35.2
15.4
5.0
9.0
14.7
45.5
25.8
12.0
6.7
9.6
33.1
38.6
Fee. Strep.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4
1.2
2.6
63.6
27.2
-
-
-
-
-
Asbestos
11.5
27.1
13.1
45.7
2.6
1.3
22.0
19.4
55.5
1.8
0.4
4.7
27.7
45.0
22.2
4.1
23.1
38.6
34.2
0.0
52.4
10.0
9.7
27.9
0.0
8.4
6.3
14.2
29.2
41.9
Rubber
6.0
10.9
17.5
38.1
27.5
1.6
5.3
8.3
57.6
27.2
0.6
2.3
2.8
23.7
70.6
4.1
4.3
17.9
39.0
34.7
3.7
5.9
10.3
44.5
35.6
2.0
3.9
11.0
23.7
59.4
Total
Pb
3.7
23.2
19.0
48.3
5.8
1.7
8.9
21.7
46.8
20.9
1.0
6.1
14.2
57.6
21.1
19.7
49.6
9.9
15.8
5.1
1.9
9.1
10.9
34.9
43.2
11.0
13.0
17.1
53.7
5.2
Cr
20.5
18.7
20.8
34.0
6.0
6.6
10.0
23.4
40.0
20.0
2.8
15.2
18.5
34.4
29.1
43.7
14.7
13.8
22.8
5.0
13.0
7.8
10.5
46.1
22.6
14.4
12.5
12.5
43.6
17.0
Ni
32.7
13.6
13.8
33.2
6.7
14.4
16.5
15.5
32.8
20.8
3.3
10.7
20.9
42.0
23.0
67.0
10.3
8.5
12.1
2.1
16.0
12.4
19.4
30.8
21.4
21.7
7.3
18.8
25.8
26.4
Zn
4.5
18.5
25.2
43.3
8.5
0.9
5.4
20.8
57.1
15.8
0.4
12.5
27.9
42.1
17.1
29.6
22.6
19.1
22.6
6.1
0.4
12.2
35.0
41.9
10.5
7.6
11.8
21.5
35.6
23.5
Cu
10.5
19.2
24.1
36.4
9.8
4.0
19.3
20.5
32.8
23.4
3.2
4.1
16.2
47.6
28.9
17.8
13.6
. 8.7
47.5
12.3
7.7
8.4
8.6
47.7
27.6
5.3
5.7
4.3
53,4
31.3
(a) Particle size range 1 is 3,350 to 850 microns, 2 is 850 to 420 microns, 3 is 420 to 240 microns, 4 is 250 to 75
microns and 5 is 75 microns and smaller.
-------
associated with the two smaller particle size ranges. This factor is
of considerable importance as regards public works practices since
sweeper efficiencies fall off with decreasing particle size.
Contributions from Litter
Prior to this study., the fractional amounts of roadway surface pollutants
contained in particulates larger than 3,350 microns was thought to be of
lesser importance. However, the data given in Table 27 clearly shows
that litter averages over 20% of the total weight of material gathered
from roadways and contains even more substantial fractional amounts of
BOD, COD and volatile solids. Fortunately, the impact upon receiving
waters of this disproportionate loading in litter is greatly reduced by
its large particle size which greatly retards in transport by storm-
water runoff. Litter is removed at high efficiencies by conventional
street cleaning equipment. It is doubtful, therefore, that litter
compares in magnitude with dust and dirt as a source of pollution of
receiving waters in metropolitan areas.
TABLE 27.
Site
Kenilworth Ave.
Low-Spd. Lane
Kenilworth Ave.
High-Spd. Lane
I 495
Loehmann's Plaza
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Low-Spd. Lane
N. Capitol St.
High-Spd. Lane
Balto.—Wash. Pkwy.
I 95
Overall Average
FRACTIONAL AMOUNTS OF TOTAL POLLUTANTS
ASSOCIATED WITH LITTER
Percent (by Weight) in Litter
(a)
Dry
Wt.
34.0
27.2
9.0
9.7
26.8
20.2
9.2
40.5
2.5
21.5
Volatile
Solids
54.7
47.0
26.6
40.6
59.7
55.5
39.1
28.0
0.8
43.3
BOD
30.7
27.6
24.4
18.9
56.7
41.9
15.8
64.8
1.2
34.6
COD
39.7
39.5
23.5
23.9
57.0
47.2
18.3
72.1
2.0
39.9
(a) The data reported are average percent pollutant by weight in litter
of the total found in litter and dust and dirt.
87
-------
REDISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS DEPOSITED ON ROADWAYS
/
The procedure for collection of roadway samples, as described in
Appendix E requires preliminary brushing of from 10 to 15 feet of the
street on either side of the roadway sampling site prior to sample
collection. The question was raised during the field study as to
whether roadway samples thus collected might contain significant
amounts of materials redistributed from uncleaned, adjacent areas as
a result of winds or localized air currents. This redistribution
would tend to obscure determination of the fresh deposition of pollu-
tants due to traffic over the specified sampling interval.
TABLE 28. REDISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS DEPOSITED ON ROADWAY -
BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT (a)
Road
Section
First 24-Hour Sample
Dust
&
Litter Dirt Grease
(g) (g) (mg/g)
Second 24-Hour Sample
Dust
&
Litter Dirt Grease
(g) (g) (mg/g)
1
2
3
4
5
6
47.8
38.6
84.2
37.4
49.4
46.5
125.2
113.2
226.5
137.2
114.9
154.1
10.8
10.9
8.2
12.7
11.7
9.0
54.6
70.
34.
40.4
95.0
167.9
89.0
104.4
8.8
11.8
11.5
9.6
1-495 - High-Speed Lane
First
24-Hour Sample
Second
24-Hour Sample
Weekend
Sample
Dust Dust Dust
Road & & &
Section Litter Dirt Grease Litter Dirt Grease Litter Dirt Grease
(g) (g) (mg/g)
1
2
3
251
179
108
2915
1556
1160
7.2
6.7
7.8
(g)
169
131
170
(g) (mg/g) (g) (g) (mg/g)
1933
2098
1763
4.5
5.6
7.3
435
525
335
4357 5.0
5351 5.8
5290 6.5
In order to determine whether significant amounts of blow-in were
occurring, special experiments were conducted at two o£ the selected
roadway sites. Multiple, adjacent roadway sections of equal curb
length were subjected to an initial cleaning followed by acquisition
(a) Data reported are weights and analyses of roadway deposits taken
from adjacent sections of roadway after the stated aeeusmlation
period.
88
-------
of separate samples from each adjacent section on the following day.
If blow-in was a significant factor, lower loadings might be expected
on the interior sections or perhaps a trend of decreased loadings in
the direction of traffic or the prevailing winds.
The first experiment was conducted on the southbound lane of Kenilworth
Avenue south of Eastern Avenue in a 45-mile-per-hour zone. Six adjacent
60-foot sections of the low-speed (right) lane were sampled on two
successive days, 24 hours after an initial cleaning and again 24 hours
later. The samples were returned to the laboratory where they were
sieved, weighed, and analyzed. A similar experiment was performed on
the eastbound lane of Interstate Route 495 near the New Hampshire Avenue
exit. The speed limit at this site is 65 miles per hour. Three adjacent
80-foot sections of the high-speed (left) lane were sampled 24 hours
after an initial cleaning and again 24 hours later. A third sampling
was conducted, after a weekend, 72 hours after the previous cleaning.
The results of this study are shown in Table 1-3 of Appendix I. These
data have been condensed for presentation in Table 28. Examination of
the results reveals no trends in the loadings. This indicates that
redistribution or blow-in does not represent a significant portion of
the roadway samples as acquired.
89
-------
SECTION VII
STREAM BOTTOM AND STORMWATER RUNOFF SAMPLING
There are several ways in which stormwater runoff from urban roadways
can affect receiving bodies of water. First, dramatic effects may
result during stormwater runoff periods in which shock loadings of
particulates, toxic materials, nutrients and oxygen demanding sub-
stances are abruptly introduced. Since such events will occur several
times over the course of a year in most areas, permanent changes may
be introduced in the biological species existing in the affected down-
stream length of the receiving stream. There may also exist on a more
or less permanent basis, a dry weather sphere of influence near the
roadway/receiving water interface. Particulates introduced into the
water during storm events will settle out at various distances down-
stream from the outfall. The roadway pollutants associated with these
particulates may then exert a constant effect upon the stream biology a
as they provide a constant sink of slowly dissolving toxic materials
such as heavy metals, PCB's and grease. A series of stream bottom
samplings was conducted in order to determine if such a dry weather
sphere of influence of the roadway on the receiving water could be
detected above the background of impurities added from other sources
within an urban area. Several storm events were monitored in which
runoff from along I 495 was measured.
STREAM BOTTOM SAMPLING
Prior to actual stream bottom sampling, a special study was conducted
on dry land beneath a longitudinal joint in the roadway of an I 495
overpass near Sligo Creek in suburban Maryland. The longitudinal joint
was two to three inches wide, near the center of and parallel to the
roadway which runs generally east-west at this point. A channel had
been formed on the Cry land beneath the joint by intermittent runoff
from the roadway. The land underneath the overpass was even, uniform
in appearance, and fairly flat with only a slight slope running down-
hill from west to east. The area has been graded and is the roadbed
for the proposed Northern Parkway. Samples of soil were taken during
a dry period at varying distances north and south of the channel in
order to look for transport of heavy metals perpendicular to flow of
the intermittent stream. Results of this study are shown in Figure 11.
Peak concentrations of lead resulting from the roadway runoff are
clearly visible.
Having demonstrated the feasibility of this approach, an actual sampling
was conducted at the runoff outfall from I 495 into the Northwest Branch
of the Anacostia River. A diagram of the area with sampling points
indicated is given in Figure 12. The stream is rapidly flowing and
pooled along this sampling area and the bottom samples appeared to be
predominantly sand mixed with some silt. PCB's and chlorinated pesti-
cides were measured in addition to heavy metals in these bottom samples.
91
-------
40or
Center of Runoff Channel
300-
200-
100-
6 4
South
Figure 11,
2024
Distance from Center of Channel (ft.)
Heavy metals across runoff channel under I 495
(Bridge No. 15131)
North
-------
Earthen Flume
-60 yds
-_ -40
20
Overpass
1
T
. 1
K
\
0
— -^ •• •"> I 495 East
Concrete Flume
(Under Overpass)
Northwest Branch of the
Anacostia River at 1-495
80
100
150 yds
Figure 12. Northwest Branch of Anacostia River at I 495
stream bottom sampling area
93
-------
Heavy metals and chlorinated organics levels found in bottom samples
taken from the Northwest Branch of the Anacostia River at I 495 are
shown in Figure 13 as a function of distance from the runoff flume
beneath the center of the roadway. Downstream distances are shown as
positive numbers, upstream as negative numbers. Note the earthen run-
off flume indicated in Figure 12, which is approximately 25 yards
upstream from the center of the overpass. This is the first apparent
point of entry of roadway runoff into the Northwest Branch. The heavy
metal concentrations were at a maximum in the immediate area of the
roadway while the PCB's peak occurred about 60 yards downstream from
the roadway. The downstream translocation of the PCB's peak is
probably due to the greater association of organic compounds with
smaller sized particulates which would require a longer time for
settling. No pesticides were found in any bottom samples collected
at this site. This was as expected since pesticides were not detected
at significant concentrations in any of the roadway dust and dirt
samples analyzed. Heavy metal levels in roadway dust and dirt samples
generally occurred in the order lead > zinc > nickel > copper = chrom-
ium with very low levels of cadmium present. As expected, stream bottom
samples from the Northwest Branch contained little or no cadmium;
however, concentrations of other metals were not in the anticipated
order. The lead maximum was much smaller than would be predicted based
upon relative amounts found in roadway deposited materials. The zinc
maximum, although larger than lead, was smaller than expected in rela-
tionship to chromium, nickel and copper, again based upon the relative
amounts found in roadway dust and dirt.
Similar stream bottom studies were conducted on Sligo Creek in Maryland
at an outfall from I 495 and on an unnamed tributary of the Anacostia
River crossing the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Greenbelt Park in
Maryland. However, the effects of these roadways upon the stream bottoms
was not clearly defined in these cases, probably due to heavy metals
introduced into the streams from industrial sources.
Despite inability to clearly "see" the roadway in some cases, feasibility
of determining the dry weather area of influence of a roadway along the
length of the receiving stream has been demonstrated. This approach
should be more widely applicable to the study of roadways outside of
industrialized urban areas.
STORMWATER RUNOFF SAMPLING
Six storm events were monitored at outfalls carrying runoff from I 495
into the Northwest Branch of the Anacostia River. The outfalls sampled
were located on either side of and beneath the Northwest Branch overpass
approximately 300 to 400 yards west of the roadway sampling site on
I 495. Five runoff events were monitored at the outfall on the western
side of the overpass and one event was monitored at the eastern outfall.
The roadway areas drained by the two outfalls were approximately 15,000
and 600 square feet, respectively. A diagram showing the drainage areas
is given in Figure 14. It is believed that runoff from these drainage
94
-------
I First Entry Point of Roadway Runoff
0 40 80
Distance from Runoff Flume (yds)
120
Figure 13. Heavy metals in stream bottom samples - Northwest
Branch of Anacostia River at 1-495
95
-------
First Entry Point of Roadway Runoff
-40
0 40 80
Distance from Runoff Flume (yds)
120
Figure 13 (continued)
96
-------
.05
First Entry Point of Roadway Runoff
,.04
60
CD
O
•H
C
ni
T3
cu
4J
s
•H
S-l
O
.02
.01
Chlorinated
Pesticides
A !
0 40 80
Distance from Runoff Flume (yds)
120
Figure 13 (continued)
97
-------
uiao:js
N
Concrete Flurne,
loint
^Drainage Area includes J
west bound lane from acuppeta closest to /
Drainage ar^a includes
east bound lane1' from drain to
Concrete Flurne
OO
C1)
-------
areas contained mostly materials previously deposited on the roadway.
Carry over onto the roadway of materials eroded from adjacent higher
areas was prevented by slope of the roadway and surface drainage ditches
running parallel to I 495.
Storm events were monitored by measuring total rainfall, runoff flow
rate and concentration of pollutants in runoff samples taken at known
intervals throughout the storm. Data from the storm event of 31 July
1973 are shown in Figure 15. The flowmeter malfunctioned during this
storm and no flow measurements were obtained. Figures 16 through 19
describe storm events on 21 August 1972, 2 September 1973, 14 September
1973 and 18 September 1973, respectively. The storm event of 6 September
1974, shown in Figure 20, was monitored at the outfall on the eastern
side of the I 495 overpass. Runoff yields averaged about 75% of that
predicted from rainfall over the estimated drainage areas.
Inspection of these data reveals a marked first flush effect in which
the concentrations of runoff pollutants are initially high and then
fall off to a lower, but still significant level which would require
treatment. The first flush was less noticeable during storms with a
low, even rate of runoff. Runoff samples taken at these outfalls were
still highly polluted after three hours of continuous flow. Concentra-
tions tended to increase again, after the initial flush of the roadway
surface, when there was an increase in the runoff flow rate. The second
concentration peaks may be quite high, depending upon flow kinetics and
amounts of materials already washed off the roadway.
It was observed that soluble zinc levels were almost always higher than
soluble lead in roadway runoff, this despite the fact that materials
deposited on roadways contained approximately eight times more lead
than zinc. This indicates that the deposited zinc compounds are more
soluble than the lead compounds. Additionally, the ratio of total lead
to zinc in runoff samples was much lower than expected which suggests
that zinc is washed from the roadways at a faster rate. This is graph-
ically illustrated in Figure 18 which contains a sharp second peak in
suspended solids levels resulting from an increased rate of rainfall
and/or runoff flow during the storm event. The total lead concentrations
at this second peak in suspended solids level rises sharply while total
zinc continues to decrease. This would indicate that much of the deposited
zinc had already been removed, probably in solution, prior to the second
flush of roadway solids.
99
-------
a
•H
(3
•H
o
H
1.0
0.5
(flow not recorded)
0 10 20 30
Time After Start of Rainfall (min)
40
(Outfall on Western End of I 495 Overpass at Northwest Branch)
Figure 15. Storm event of 31 July 1971
100
-------
500
400
60
O
CO
300
200
100
Total Solids
Suspended
Volatile
Solids
10 20
Time After Start of Rainfall (min)
Figure 15 Ccontinued)
101
-------
1.0
CO
iH
cd
4-1
0)
0)
rH
O
CO
Cd
•H
cd
•u
O
H
Total Lead
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Soluble Lead
10
Time After Start of Rainfall (min)
20
Figure 15 ("continued)
102
-------
3.0
2.0
30 -
28 -
26 -
24 -
22 -
20 -
18
16
14
1.0
12
10
0.5
Flow
Rainfall
40
80
120
160
200
240
(Outfall on Western End of I 495 Overpass at Northwest Branch)
Figure 16. Storm event of 21 August 1973
(a) A small amount of rainfall and low runoff flow rates were recorded
over a 30-hour period prior to zero time.
103
-------
400
300
•H 200
100
s
0)
•§
•a
0)
o
H
1.5
1.0
0.5
Suspended Solids
f ,
Suspended Volatile Solids
40
80 120 160 200
Time After Start of Runoff (rain)
240
Total Lead
Total Zinc
Soluble Lead
Soluble Zinc
40
80
120
160
200
240
Figure 16 (continued)
104
-------
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
c
Hl6
14
12
10
1 0
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
200
240
(Outfall on Western End of I 495 Overpass at Northwest Branch)
Figure 17. Storm event of 2 September 1973
105
-------
1000
800
en
T3
•H
O
CO
600
400
200
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 17 (continued)
106
-------
Total Lead
too
e
01
a)
(3
cfl
Total Zinc
Soluble Zinc
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 17 (continued)
107
-------
3.0
2.0
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
1.0
14
10
0.5
(off scale)
Rainfall
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
200
240
(Outfall on Western End of I 495 Overpass at Northwest Branch)
Figure 18. Storm event of 14 September 1973
108
-------
1200
1000
800
60
0
CO
-a
•H
iH
O
CO
600
400
200
Total Volatile Solids
Suspended Volatile Solids
I I
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 18 Ccontinued)
109
-------
Total Lead
w
H
cfl
4-1
0)
•5
i-i
o
C/5
O
H
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 18 (continued)
110
-------
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
I 16
a
ao
14
12
10
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Sunoff (mln)
200
240
CQutfall on Western End of I 495 Overpass at Northwest Branch)
Figure 19. Storm event of 18 September 1973
111
-------
1000
800
60
6
CD
13
600
400
Total Solids
200
Total
Volatile
Solids
Suspended Volatile Solids
J
I
20 40 60 80
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 19 (continued)
112
-------
rH
3
N«/
0}
H
0)
0)
•§
H
O
C/3
C
CS
cfl
+J
O
H
Total Lead
Total Zinc
Soluble
Zinc
Soluble
Lead
20 40 60 80
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 19 (continued)
113
-------
3.0 . 30 -
28 -
26
24
22
2.0
- 20
18
"3
•g 16
s
o
.H
In
14
1.0
12
- 10
0.5
Rainfall
Flow
40 80 120 160
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
200
240
(Outfall on Eastern End of I 495 Overpass at Northwest Branch)
Figure 20. Storm event of 6 September 1974
114
-------
2001-
Q
O
O
100 h
500
300
w
T3
•H
O
CO
100
50 100 150 200
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Suspended
Solids
50
100
150
200
Time After Start of Runoff (min)
Figure 20 (continued)
115
-------
60
0
w
rH
Cfl
4-1
0)
O
H
I
_L
50 100 150
Time After Start of Runoff
200
Figure 20 (continued)
116
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
!• Jacko, M.G., DuCharme, R.T. and Somers, J.H., "Brake and Clutch
Emissions Generated During Vehicle Operation," Paper No. 730548
presented at the meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers
in Detroit Michigan, May 14-18, 1973.
2. Raybold, R.L. and Byerly, R., Jr., "Investigation of Products of
Tire Wear," NBS Report No. 10834, 21 April 1972, U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
3. "Caution:Asbestos Dust," National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health Pamphlet, Public Health Service, U.S. DHEW, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202.
4. Fair, G.M. and Geyer, J.C., Elements of Water Supply and Waste-
Water Disposal. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1958.
5. "Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C., October 1971.
6. Salotto, B.V., Grossman, E. Ill and Farrell, J.B. , "Elemental
Analysis of Wastewater Sludges from 33 Wastewater Treatment Plants
in the United States," Proceedings of the Research Symposium,
Pretreatment and Ultimate Disposal of Wastewater Solids, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 21 and 22, 1974, EPA-902/9-
74-002.
7. "Existing Transportation Systems in the Washington Metropolitan
Area," Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National
Capitol Region Transportion Planning Board.
8. Sartor, J.D. , Boyd, G.B. and Agardy, F.J., "Water Pollution Aspects
of Street Surface Contaminants," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, _46, 458, 1974.
9. Jacko, M.G. and DuCharme, R.T., Bendix Research Laboratories,
"Brake Emissions:Emission Measurements from Brake and Clutch
Linings from Selected Mobile Sources," U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Report 68-04-0020, March 1973.
10. American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of
Urban Runoff," Water Pollution Control Research Series Report WP-
20-15, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, January
1969.
117
-------
11. Sartor, J.D. and Boyd, G.B., "Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA-R2-72-081, November 1972.
12. Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies, Cleveland, D.E. ed. , Institute
of Traffic Engineers, Third Edition, Washington, B.C., 1964.
13. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water
Pollution Control Federation, Thirteenth Edition, New York, 1971
14. Thompson, R.N., Nau C.A. and Lawrence, C.H., "Identification of
Vehicle Tire Rubber in Roadway Dust," American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, 27, 488, 1966.
15. Krishen, A., "Quantitative Determination of Natural Rubber, Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber, and Ethylene-Propylene-Terpolymer Rubber in
Compounded Cured Stocks by Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography," Analytical
Chemistry. 44, 494, 1972.
16. "Criteria for a Recommended Standard...Occupational Exposure to
Asbestos," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health Administration,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1972.
17. "Soil Testing Methods," Agronomy Mimeo No. 37, June 1969, University
of Maryland Soil Testing Laboratory, University of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland.
118
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE INFORMATION
TABLE A-l. SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION AND TOTAL TRAFFIC DATA
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SAMPLE
FRACTION
L D&D —
L D&D --
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D —
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D —
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D —
D&D F
D&D F
SAMPLE
TYPE
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
DATE
DAY MO YR
17 7 72
18 7 72
19
20
21
24
31
1
2
3
4
7
8
31
1
2
3
4
7
8
14
15
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
SAMPLING SAMPLING
SITE CONDITIONS
195 NO RAIN
195 NO RAIN
195
195
195
195
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
1495
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1495
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
MO RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
TRAFFIC
AXLES
0
0
0
0
0
84720
83940
83840
87260
208320
81720
84720
83940
83840
87260
208320
81720
-----
109104
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED). SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION AND TOTAL TRAFFIC DATA
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLING SAMPLING TRAFFIC
NUMBER FRACTION TYPE DAY MO YR SITE CONDITIONS AXLES
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
D&D F
D&D F
DSD F
D&D F
D&D —
D&D —
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D —
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
16
18
21
22
11
12
14
15
18
20
25
26
29
3
25
26
29
3
16
17
18
23
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
1495
1495
1495
1495
LM
LM
LM
LM
LM
LM
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
KEN
PLAZA
PLAZA
PLAZA
PLAZA
PLAZA
PLAZA
AV R
AV R
AV R
AV R
AV L
AV L
AV L
AV L
1495
1495
1495
149
5
NO
RAI
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RAI
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RAIN
N
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
N
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
96661
97266
299766
109104
2440
2459
2364
8128
2614
81760
86040
81220
81760
86040
81220
98430
110590
291002
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED). SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION AND TOTAL TRAFFIC DATA
MPLE SAMPLE
MBER FRACTION
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
D&D F
D&D F
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D --
D&D —
D&D --
SAMPLE
TYPE
1
DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
WK
1
END
DAY
INITIAL
1
1
1
WK
DAY
DAY
DAY
END
INITIAL
1
1
WK
DAY
DAY
END
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1
1
1
WK
DAY
DAY
DAY
END
DATE
DAY MO
24
25
27
31
6
7
6
7
9
10
13
27
28
29
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
1 1
11
1 1
11
1 1
12
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
YR
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
73
SAMPLING SAMPLING
SITE CONDITIONS
1495
1495
LM PLAZA
LM PLAZA
LM PLAZA
LM PLAZA
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
TRAFFIC
AXLES
113623
1 10590
2699
8287
2699
-----
5223
5210
5544
10853
...-_
32926
31052
94102
32926
79108
78960
78996
85602
187804
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED). SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION AND TOTAL TRAFFIC DATA
iMPLE
MBER
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
SAMPLE
FRACTION
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
D&D --
D&D —
D&D --
D&D --
D&D —
D&D --
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D --
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D F
D&D --
D&D F
SAMPLE
TYPE
INITIAL
1 DAY
1
1
1
WK
1
1
1
1
1
DAY
DAY
DAY
END
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
INITIAL
1
4
3
4
1
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
INITIAL
1
4
3
4
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DATE
DAY MO
8
9
10
11
12
15
24
25
26
30
31
5
6
13
16
20
21
5
6
13
16
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
YR
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
SAMPLING SAMPLING
SITE CONDITIONS
ir I-^IWT y\ T T f RT /"* t~» A T- At
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
1495
1495
1495
1495
1495
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP R
N CAP L
N CAP L
N CAP L
N CAP L ,
N CAP L
iv u
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
J1H1 W
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
•RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RAI
NO
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
N
RAIN
TRAFFIC
AXLES
79108
78960
78996
85602
187804
115162
135535
1031 17
109158
116162
39132
134400
116501
117792
36905
39132
134400
116501
1 17792
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED). SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION AND TOTAL TEAFFIC DATA
SAMPLE
NUMBER
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
SAMPLE
FRACTION
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
SAMPLE
TYPE
1 DAY
INITIAL
4 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
INITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK END
INITIAL
1 DAY
DATE
DAY MO
21
22
26
27
28
1
5
9
13
14
27
28
29
27
28
29
9
11
12
16
23
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
YR
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
SAMPLING SAMPLING TRAF1
SITE CONDITIONS AXL1
N CAP L
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
BW PKWY
BW PKWY
BW PKWY
BW PKWY
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
KEN AV R
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
KEN AV L
1495
1495
1495
1495
N CAP R
N CAP R
NO RAIN
NO RAIN
RAIN
NO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
RAIN
36905
18037
5324
5773
6090
72045
68602
64540
84060
84740
84060
84740
11 1807
105000
299882
_____
52059
A-5
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED). SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION AND TOTAL TRAFFIC DATA
AMPLE
UMBEH
1 11
1 12
1 13
114
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
120
121
122
123
125
1S6
127
SAMPLE SAMPLE
FKAC1IOM TfPE
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
i_
D&D
DfiD
D4D
D*D
DftD
D£D
DS.-D
D&D
D&D
D4D
D&D
D&D
D&D
D&D
DAD
BSD
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1 DAY
I M I T I AL
1 DAY
WK EMD
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK EMD
1 DAY
IMITIAL
1 'DAY
1 DAY-
1 DAY
IMITIAL
1 DAY
1 DAY
WK E:\fD
1 DAY
PATE
DAY MO
2
10
1 1
14
17
22
4
8
9
10
12
17
23
24
27
30
31
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
YR
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
SAMPLIMG
SITE
M CAP R
BW PKWY
BW PKWY
Btf PKWY
BW PKWY
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
C AM P
CAMP
CAMP
CAMP
M CAP R
M CAP R
M CAP R
M CAP fi
M CAP R
SAMPLIMG
COMDITIOMS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
RAIM
KAIM
RAIM
RAIM
TRAFFIC
AXLES
49714
79444
240584
80984
6361
20657
7664
5351
5858
5226
30728
40200
1 18039
49531
A-6
-------
TABLE A-2. SCHEDULE OF ROADWAY SAMPLING PERIODS -
ANTECEDENT CLEANING INFORMATION
Roadway Sites
I 95
Sampling Period
17 July - 24 July 1972
Kenilworth Avenue 31 July - 8 Aug. 1972
I 495
14 Aug. - 22 Aug. 1972
Loehmann's Plaza 11 Sep. - 20 Sep. 1972
Kenilworth Avenue 25 Sep. - 2 Oct. 19.72
I 495
16 Oct. - 25 Oct. 1972
Loehmann's Plaza
CAlfl? Station
27 Oct. - 7 Nov. 1972
6 Nov. - 13 Nov. 1972
N. Capitol St.
27 Nov. - 5 Dec. 1972
Comments
This is an unopened section of
roadway and has never been swept.
Information on the most recent
sweeping prior to sampling was
not available. The roadway site
was not swept during the sampling
period (the sweeper was diverted
on 2 August '72 and bypassed the
area.
The site was not swept during
this sampling period. The area
was last cleaned on 8 August 1972
prior to the sampling period.
By agreement with maintenance
personnel, the area was not
cleaned during this period.
Most recent previous cleaning
was 5 September 1972.
The most recent antecedent
sweeping was on 20 September
1972 and, by agreement, the
area was not swept again before
7 October 1972.
The area was swept on 5 October
1972. By agreement with the
Resident Maintenance Engineer,
the site was bypassed on the
19th of October.
The site was cleaned on 22 October
1972 and bypassed during the
sampling period.
The area was swept on 24 October
1972 and scheduled for sweeping
again on 8 November 1972. However,
it was arranged to bypass this site
until 15 November 1972.
The site was last cleaned on 25
October 1972 and bypassed during
the sampling period.
A-7
-------
TABLE A-2 (CONTINUED). SCHEDULE OF ROADWAY SAMPLING PERIODS -
ANTECEDENT CLEANING INFORMATION
Roadway Sites
Kenilworth Avenue
I 495
Sampling Period
8 Jan. - 15 Jan. 1973
23 Jan. - 31 Jan. 1973
Comments
The area was last swept 30 Nov.
1972 and bypassed during the
sampling period.
The area was last swept on
17 January 1973 and bypassed
during the sampling period.
N. Capitol St.
CAMP Station
5 Feb. - 21 Feb. 1973
22 Feb. - 1 Mar. 1973
Bait.-Wash. Pkwy. 5 Mar. - 14 Mar. 1973
Kenilworth Avenue 27 Mar. - 29 Mar. 1973
The site was not cleaned since
our last sample collection there
on 5 December 1973 and was oy-
passed during the sampling period.
The site was last swept on 21 Feb.
1973 and was bypassed during the
sampling period.
This site is not swept except under
unusual conditions.
The area was last swept on 19 March
1973 and bypassed during the sampling
period.
I 495
N. Capitol St.
9 April - 16 April 1973 The area was last swept on 29 March
1973 and bypassed during the sampling
period.
23 April - 4 May 1973
Bait.-Wash. Pkwy. 10 May - 17 May 1973
CAMP Station
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
22 May - 8 June 1973
9 July - 17 July 1973
23 July-31 July 1973
The site was last swept on 16 April
1973 and bypassed during the sampling
period.
This site is not swept except under
unusual conditions.
The site was last swept on 25 April
1973 and bypassed during the sampling
period.
The site was last swept in June 1973
and bypassed during the sampling period,
The site was last cleaned on 16 April
1973 and bypassed during the sampling
period.
A-8
-------
TABLE A-3. TOTAL TRAFFIC BREAKDOWN FOR ROADWAY SAMPLING PERIODS
Traffic Breakdown (%)
Panel & Pickup Single Unit
Location
I 95
Kenilworth Ave.
I 495
Loehmann's Plaza
Kenilworth Ave.
I 495
Loehmann's Plaza
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Kenilworth Ave.
I 495
N. Capitol. St.
CAMP Station
Bait o. -Wash. Pkwy.
Kenilworth Ave.
I 495
N. Capitol St.
Balto.-Wash. Pkwy.
CAMP Station
CAMP Station
N. Capitol St.
Sampling Period
17 - 24 July 72
31 July - 8 Aug. 72
14 - 22 Aug. 72
11 - 20 Sept. 72
25 Sept. - 3 Oct. 72
16 - 25 Oct. 72
27 Oct. - 7 Nov. 72
6-13 Nov. 72
27 Nov. - 5 Dec. 72
8-15 Jan. 73
24 - 31 Jan. 73
5-21 Feb. 73
22 Feb. - 1 Mar. 73
5-14 Feb. 73
27 - 29 March 1973
9-16 April 1973
23 April - 2 May 73
10 - 17 May 73
22 May - 8 June 73
9 July - 17 July 73
23 July - 31 July 73
Autos
84.8
77.7
93.2
88.0
76.2
91.2
77.8
83.0
85.0
79.2
87.0
73.9
89.4
83.2
80.3
89.8
94.3
89.7
89.8
87.0
Buses
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.6
2.0
0.6
0.2
1.3
1.8
3.2
0.6
0.3
0.7
1.7
0.7
0.9
1.6
Trucks
JNO
7.7
9.2
4.5
7.0
10.1
5.1
9.8
6.4
7.7
9.5
4.9
11.0
7.3
8.8
9.9
6.0
3.8
5.4
5.4
5.5
Trucks
T-r-aff -?/->___—_ — -
5.0
6.9
1.6
3.1
8.0
2.8
10.1
7.0
5.4
6.2
5.6
11.9
0.1
6.4
5.1
3.0
0.2
2.9
2.7
5.2
Semi Tractor
& Trailer
1.7
5.9
0.7
1.4
5.4
0.9
1.7
1.6
1.3
4.9
1.2
1.4
0.0
1.0
4.4
0.5
0.0
1.3
1.2
0.7
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSES OF ROADWAY SAMPLES
TABLE B-l. ANALYSES OF LITTER
SAw P.
NO .
1L
2L
3L
4L
5L
6L
7L
8L*
9L
10L
1 1L*
12L
13L
14L
1 5L*
16L
17L
18L*
19L
20L
21L
22L
*
Dii'f
WEI GHT
(G)
123.0
2.0
0.3
0. 1
0. 2
0-5
724. 5
17-3
87.8
62.3
144. 7
94. 5
712-5
943.9
26.8
302.9
532.8
1 340.6
209. 3
722-9
243-2
127.0
INDICATED
DHf VOLATILE
VOLUME SOLIDS
(ML) CMG/G)
75
1
0
0
0
0
6700
1 5
250
150
300
100
1000
680
100
350
700
1400
300
600
200
100
SAMPLES
0. 1
240.4
135-4
187. B
276.9
36. 2
835. 1
89.8
48.2
191.1
48.3
31.4
119.4
49.9
396. 7
130.0
176-5
114.6
150. 3
y 1.0
74. 5
198. 2
COLLECTED FOLLOWI
BOD
(MG/G)
0.26
0.59
0.50
1. 70
0-31
0.26
0.28
0.36
0-36
1 -49
2.12
0.36
0-33
0. 20
0. 38
0.39
1.08
MG HAIM
COD
CrtG/G)
10.6
229.9
55.9
94.3
112.6
76. 3
30.7
98.2
38.3
40.6
38. 7
30-6
18. 1
191.3
19. 1
40. 4
90.6
A-11
-------
TABLE B-l (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF LITTER
SAMP.
NO.
23L
24L*
25L
26L
27L
28L
29L
30L*
31L
32L
33L
34L
35L
36L
37L
38L
39L
40L
41L
42L
43L
44L
*
DRY
WEIGHT
(G)
130.6
207.8
155.0
63.4
103.9
53.3
126.5
25.4
43.4
53.2
746.8
117.4
80.5
75.3
1846.6
160.2
162.9
249.3
1933-7
179. 1
130.8
529.3
INDICATED
DRY VOLATILE
VOLUME SOLIDS
(ML) CiXiG/G)
100
200
90
50
470
350
550
300
300
300
715
175
200
175
1200
175
175
250
1600
200
250
565
SAMPLES
130.0
30. 1
1 18.6
90.4
835.0
843.0
900.6
765.6
845. 7
863. 1
247.3
386. 7
792. 5
214. 1
209.9
565.0
307-5
184. 3
550.8
540.2
132.7
60. 3
COLLECTED FOLLOWI
BOD
OiG/G)
1.03
1.43
2. 70
2.60
18.80
14.88
1 1.66
16.45
16.99
16.48
3«79
5.26
3. 71
1 1.26
4.75
1.37
5.55
14.57
15.94
20.20
18.24
9.39
MG RAIM
COD
(MG/G)
109.3
48.8
63.9
46. 3
333.3
157.3
377- 1
463.9
646.4
929. 1
78.8
167.7
131.7
149.3
60.2
191-1
154.6
265.2
144.5
185.7
175.9
254.7
A-12
-------
TABLE B-l (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF LITTER
SAMP.
45L
46L
47L
48L
49L
SOL
51L
52L
53L
54L
55L
56L
57L
58L
59L
60L
61L
62L
63L
64L
65L
66L
*
Dn*
WEIGHT
(G)
139.
174.
116.
39.
175.
119.
3901.
361.
852.
713.
920.
173.
207.
68.
221.
158.
3452.
452.
268.
246.
157.
183.
2
1
6
7
6
2
1
7
5
2
7
9
2
5
6
7
6
4
6
7
2
8
DRY VOLATILE
VOLUME SOLIDS
(ML) CMG/G)
275
350
625
300
800
350
3000
550
2000
1400
1450
350
450
200
250
325
2500
300
150
300
150
350
INDICATED .SArtHLFS
669.
278.
868.
844.
845.
821.
758.
32V.
V28.
592.
345.
545.
384.
471.
384.
744.
177.
106.
485.
564.
270.
241.
COLLECTED
A-13
3
1
9
5
4
3
4
6
2
5
8
2
6
9
6
8
3
1
0
5
0
3
FOLLO
BOD
(MG/G)
7.
11.
9.
1 1.
15.
18.
16.
13.
18.
13.
14.
8.
3.
9.
10.
10.
1.
1 .
2.
1.
1.
2.
W I M G
61
49
85
95
54
46
88
43
29
08
33
71
71 .
99
29
60
42
93
02
62
28
70
HA I M
COD
(hG/G)
353.
262.
422.
331.
1063.
978.
1033.
509.
725.
653.
918.
918.
436.
820.
699.
1036.
109.
60.
204.
97.
54.
253.
.8
6
2
8
1
6
0
4
0
4
4
8
7
7
7
4
4
8
1
7
2
2
-------
TABLE B-l (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF LITTER
;AMP-
67L
68L
69L
70L
71L
72L
73L
74L
75L
76L
77L
78L
79L
80L
81L*
82L
83L
84L
85L
86L
87L*
88L
*
DK*
WEIGHT
(G)
7428.0
371 .8
157-9
181.5
316.8
252-6
336.4
224.3
181.6
132. 1
82.6
782. 1
278.8
436.8
372.7
174.6
66.8
782. 1
90.5
177- 1
257.7
1 18.5
IMDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
(ML)
6400
400
200
250
200
250
150
175
150
150
75
800
150
900
400
200
100
800
100
200
200
150
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
(MG/G)
52.6
128.8
204 . 4
238.5
125.2
206.0
137.6
316- 1
236.9
266.0
177.6
474.0
310.0
305. 9
679.2
168.9
257.8
252.5
457.4
100.8
642.9
244. 7
SAWFLFS COLLECTED FOLLOWI
BOD
CMG/G)
3.58
1 .46
1.32
1.71
1-91
1 .33
2.90
2.40
1.99
2. 52
2.83
3.36
2.88
1 1 .00
6.34
7.48
6-67
3.71
2.46
4.07
3.09
3-80
tMG nAIi\J
COD
(MG/G)
132.7
140- 1
137.2
247.9
1 19.8
130.5
69.9
58. 1
135.5
1 15.2
130.5
139.9
151.3
156.2
1 13.3
104. 1
396.0
130.6
217.5
145.7
77.0
297.0
A- 14
-------
TABLE B-l (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF LITTER
SAMP.
iNJO.
89L
90L
91L*
92L
93L
94L
95L
96L
97L
98L
99L
100L
101L
102L
103L
104L
105L
106L
107L
108L
109L
1 10L
DRY
WEIGHT
(G)
52.2
12388.2
1367.4
511.4
378.6
534.5
6206.8
431.3
74.2
84.0
884.9
338.2
158.6
1365.8
364. 1
274.4
264.9
179.2
156.7
453.9
1859.8
122.5
DRY
VOLUME
(ML)
80
7900
1300
500
400
480
3750
350
150
65
600
300
200
1200
400
160
150
150
150
250
5000
350
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
(MG/G)
504.4
65. 1
220.5
163.7
225.2
65.2
47. 1
32.3
109.4
29.5
172.6
105. 3
111.3
10.4
75.4
73.3
48.0
150.3
262.2
85.4
125.4
624. 7
BOD
(MG/G)
4.84
3.51
7.61
1.60
8.34
7.54
1 -. 76
5.34
7.35
2.92
6.88
5.51
4.09
5. 16
5.20
2.92
8. 71
12.40
15.56
16.23
6.98
16.70
COD
(MG/G)
337.0
67.2
136.9
364.9
446.4
459.4
399.0
410.2
366.4
279.5
79.8
94.4
145.3
164. 1
386.2
310.4
170.6
242.7
227. 1
141.2
255.0
235.5
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-15
-------
TABLE B-l (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF LITTER
SAMP.
NO.
11 1L
1 1SL
1 13L
114L
1 15L
1 16L
1 17L
1 18L
119L
120L
121L
122L
123L
124L
125L
126L
127L
*
DHlC
WEIGHT
(G)
2307.8
2863.3
283.8
203-6
256.5
426.5
378.2
203.6
1341.5
369. 1
246.8
284.3
21 1.6
45.3
296.4
479.6
446. 1
INDICATED
DRY VOLATILE
VOLUME SOLIDS
(ML) (MG/G)
3100
1800
200
150
200
600
400
150
800
400
400
200
800
75
350
800
800
SAMPLES
51 1.6
49.9
23.0
21.0
30.7
297.7
71- 1
151. 1
209.0
212.0
155.5
290.8
377.9
116.5
553.5
349.3
201.7
BOD
(MG/G)
14. 19
5.78
16.01
14.36
22.48
10. 10
1 1. 76
9.54
5.76
1 1.41
25. 18
9. 19
16.31
17.80
24.44
21.40
16. 65
COD
(MG/G)
333.0
405.9
271.9
401.3
370.7
321.4
145.9
335. 1
369. 1
328. 1
366.7
254.0
268.8
371.4
568.0
648.2
571.2
COLLECTED FOLLOWIMG HAI.N)
A-16
-------
TABLE B-2. ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP-
I\fO.
ID
2D
3D
4D
5D
6D
7D
8D*
9D
10D
1 ID*
12D
13D
14D
15D*
16D
17D
18D*
19D
20D
21D
22D
DRY
WEIGHT
CG)
934.8
122.8
94.5
54.8
91.0
58.4
2033.2
67.8
1-88.8
276.3
141.6
268.4
1 132.5
938.2
185.5
1 145.4
1689.2
864.6
1 180.0
1817. 1
1648.3
1883.0
DRY
VOLUME
C ML )
1250
135
110
30
75
45
6060
50
250
500
100
185
800
555
125
775
900
700
850
1200
1000
1200
* INDICATED SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
(MG/G)
93. 1
106.6
129.4
94.9
1 15.0
149.3
34.9
82.0
125.7
122.0
96.5
74.3
75.7
88.9
1 18. 1
60.8
61.8
87.5
61 .0
34.5
68.0
68. 1
COLLECTED
BOD
(MG/G)
2.88
2.51
4.67
6.31
7.38
8. 19
1-57
2. 12
1.69
0.83
1 .83
2. 15
1.05
1.37
1.78
1.43
1-38
1.04
3. 38
0.69
1.82
1;78
FOLLOWING
COD
(MG/G)
69.8
170.0
169.5
185.9
222.3
248.0
188.5
207.2
168.0
185.7
159.9
91.5
33.0
50.0
115.4
141.0
144.9
216.6
66.0
33.0
1 13.3
85.6
RAIN
GREASE
(MG/G)
0.6
0.6
2.4
15.2
7.3
16.9
8. 7
21- 1
14.0
8.8
10.7
10.6
6.2
7*8
14. 1
7. 1
11.4
9.7
9.2
8.5
8.9
11.3
A-17
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
23D
24D*
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
30D*
31D
32D
33D
34D
35D
36D
37D
38D
39 D
40D
41D
42D
43D
44D
DRY
WEIGHT
(G)
1295.8
2347.2
2702.4
1216.7
1776.6
482.3
832.4
635.9
764.5
748.8
1564.9
252.4
246.0
207.0
3158.6
647.2
564.8
649.5
5837. 3
1556.3
2098.0
5351. 1
DRY
VOLUME
(ML)
850
1500
1800
800
1340
365
1 1 15
450
550
525
1 195
245
175
180
2135
450
300
450
3570
980
1350
3455
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
CMG/G)
80.6
35.5
45.7
107.3
127.5
170.5
348.6
79.4
1 10.7
61.9
61 .4
90. 1
82. 1
75.0
40. 1
33.0
47.5
85.4
44. 1
49.2
38.8
59.9
BOD
CMG/G)
1.83
2.00
3.50
1.95
9. 77
7.08
4.84
7.24
5. 13
5.04
2.53
3.42
3.59
3.00
2. 1 1
2. 13
3.64
2.87
2.25
2. 12
2.28
2. 54
COD
CMG/G)
92.8
69.4
77.6
92.6
240. 1
216.4
229.4
85-8
129.5
106.8
70.2
87.9
81.6
111.1
46.0
55. 7
68.0
84.8
40. 1
71.9
54. 8
56.9
GREASE
CKG/Q)
12.0
5.9
8.2
10.9
16.9
21.4
14.3
9.1
14.6
11.0
5.8
7.3
9.6
13.4
5.4
5.9
7.3
8.0
5.7
6-7
5.6
5.8
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIivJ
A-18
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
45D
46D
47D
48D
49 D
SOD
51D
52 D
53D
54D
55D
56 D
57 D
58D
59D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
66D
DHY
WEIGHT
CG)
1361 .6
2743.8
2490.8
546. 5
1 196.2
303.5
5992.6
1229.8
3140.9
1248.9
1424.3
1686.9
731.2
465.3
1584. I
497. 6
5006.8
1031 .3
189.4
277.5
237.4
484.2
DRY
VOLUME
CML)
1025
1770
1900
418
1200
280
4050
880
1675
810
970
1 125
515
350
1485
350
3100
800
100
200
200
400
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
CMG/G)
73.9
49.0
106. 1
1 14.8
198.6
141.8
67.6
62.0
63.2
63.3
60.5
115.0
202.9
58.4
77.0
61.1
41.2
74.8
51-4
97. 1
71-9
83-0
BOD
CMG/G)
2. 16
2.20
5.80
7. 15
8.05
7.30
4.95
4. 73
4.89
4. 86
4.47
o G' ''J
o • <-> <-»
4. 16
5.45
6.17
7 • 29
3. 14
1 .67
2.69
3.03
3.04
5.14
COD
(MG/G)
79.0
54.0
122.6
171.7
249.0
239.6
106.6
127- 1
89.2
104.0
103.2
74.6
92.0
88.2
75. 4
1 19.9
73.7
69.4
58.0
84.4
77.0
99.9
GREASE
(MG/G)
14.4
7.4
18.4
19.6
13.8
24.8
17.7
17.0
10.8
17.6
16.6
8.9
10.8
12.3
10. 1
15. 1
11.7
10.3
11.1
8. 5
1 1.9
15-8
* INDICATED 3AKFLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING HAIM
A-19
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
67D
68D
69D
70D
71D
72D
7 3D
74D
75D
76 D
77D
78 D
79 D
SOD
8 ID*
82D
83D
84D
85D
86 D
87D*
86D
DRY
WEIGHT
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
89D
90D
9 ID*
92D
9 3D
94D
95D
96D
97D
98D
99D
100D
101D
102D
103D
104D
105D
106D
107D
108D
109D
1 10D
DRY
WEIGHT
(G)
494.7
13088.3
3205.6
1487-6
1554.7
1418.6
9013.4
399.8
159.6
241.8
1581.7
404.7
446.5
2135.5
1 103.4
774. 1
2378.7
1629. 1
1382.8
2826.7
7884.5
1320. 1
DRY
VOLUME
(ML)
400
7495
1905
1000
1025
1000
7200
350
125
100
1080
300
380
1600
800
580
1600
1000
1000
2000
6030
1000
* INDICATED SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
(MG/G)
59. 1
40.7
52.6
46.3
49.3
53.8
111.3
58.2
105.0
87.2
54.9
45.7
55.0
34.2
36. 1
43.2
27.8
35.0
39.3
46.7
51. 1
41. 1
COLLECTED
BOD
(MG/G)
1.58
1.39
1.37
1 = 70
3.21
U78
1.03
2. 14
5.63
3.70
2.43
2.24
3.08
1.78
2.00
2. 18
1.57
1. 54
1.65
1. 72
3.71
2. 18
FOLLOWING
COD
(MG/G)
111.8
44.7
79.6
78.9
87.4
83.3
60. 1
96.5
99. 1
93.3
56. 1
72.7
70. 1
5'L5
67-3
66.3
59. 1
46.3
62.9
68.0
111.1
79. 1
RAIM
GREASE
(MG/G)
16.2
7. 1
13.4
11.9
6. 1
12.0
8.0
11.6
19.5
16. 1
7.3
8. 3
8. 1
6.9
8.5
7-2
6.9
6.2
6.9
7-3
9.9
8. 1
A-21
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
1 11D
112D
11 3D
114D
115D
116D
1 17D
118D
1 19D
120D
121D
122D
123D
124D
125D
126D
127D
DRY
WEIGHT
(G)
141/4.8
2032.8
427.4
522.3
287.6
1403-2
1873.4
689.3
4528.7
1 108.6
1229. 1
1319.8
690.2
351.5
834.7
1574.2
1 138.8
* IMDI
DRV"
VOLUiXiE
(ML)
1 100
1300
250
380
220
1000
1350
400
3100
800
800
900
500
180
600
950
900
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
(MG/G>
51.2
44.3
59.6
55.2
62.7
35.8
58.0
54.0
26.0
52.0
48.5
50. 1
55.6
43.9
46.8
66.2
59.9
GATED SAMPLES COLLECTED
BOD
CMG/G)
5.54
1.01
2.78
1.65
3.79
2. 12
2.80
2.98
1.45
1.28
2.27
1.66
2.51
1.91
1.54
3.36
1;79
FOLLOWING
COD
CMG/G)
78.7
75.4
99.8
81.4
83. 1
61.6
85.9
1 14.6
56- 1
87. 1
79.0
91.1
80.2
78.6
73.0
134.5
80.2
RAIM
GREASE
CMG/G)
9.8
8.2
1 1.0
5.4
1 1.3
9.2
11.8
14.4
5.8
12.0
8.2
10.2
9.4
10.1
10.2
14.2
9.4
A-22
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
SAMP.
NO.
ID
2D
3D
40
5D
6D
7D
8D*
9D
10D
1 ID*
12D
13D
14D
15D*
16D
17D
18D*
19D
20D
21D
22D
*
TOTAL
P04-P
(MQ/G)
0.207
0.395
0.215
0. 127
0.222
0. 171
0.403
0.464
0.390
0.444
0.220
0.298
0. 163
0.395
0.268
0.386
0-224
0.556
0.215
0.220
0.532
0.395
INDICATED
P04-P
CMG/G)
0.008
0.022
0.018
0.019
0.005
0.031
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.002
o.ooo
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.083
SAMPLES
NO 3- N
CUG/G)
7.2
3.8
8.0
9.8
26.8
13.6
1 1.9
7.9
3.6
7.3
1 = 7
4.9
4.5
2.6
6.6
1.7
5.7
2.6
1.9
5.3
33.4
24.8
COLLECTED
N02-N
(UG/G)
1 .48
8.05
11.41
4.16
8. 19
19.80
0.01
0.02
0.42
0. 16
4.69
3.60
0.01
0.01
0. 14
0.79
0.07
0.32
0.07
0.03
0.59
1.40
FOLLOWING
KJELD.
N
CMG/G)
1.44
2.69
3.00
1.81
3.72
3.06
1.60
1 .47
0.47
1-94
1.02
0.82
0.38
0.23
0.95
0.45
0.47
0.45
0.29
0.38
0.49
0.42
RAI^M
CL
CMG/G)
0.06
0. 16
0. 12
0. 12
0. 12
0. 14
0.22
0.35
0.33
0.21
0.33
0.25
0. 12
0. 10
0. 16
0.21
0. 19
0.29
0.21
0. 14
0.09
0. 35
A-23
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
SAMP.
NO.
23D
24D*
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
30D*
31D
32D
33D
34D
35D
36D
37D
38D
39D
40D
41D
42D
43D
44D
*
TOTAL
P04-P
CMG/G)
0.298
0.249
0.366
0.273
0.212
0.201
0.231
0. 149
0. 159
0.305
0.226
0.393
0.256
0.220
0.256
0.002
0.002
0.226
0.371
0.244
0.229
INDICATED
P04-P
CMG/G)
0.081
0.007
0.008
o.ooo
0.001
0.008
0.020
0.023
0.042
0.029
0. 133
0.005
0.001
0.021
0.063
0.001
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
SAMPLES
rJO 3-N
CUG/G)
33.1
23.8
26.9
17.9
12.2
28.0
17.3
30.4
23. 1
20.8
42.9
14.8
19.5
15.2
35.5
9.7
13.4
21.3
21.0
14.9
COLLECTED
N02-M
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
SAMP.
NO.
45D
46D
47D
48D
49D
SOD
51D
52D
5 3D
54D
55D
56D
57D
58D
59 D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
66D
*
TOTAL
P04-P
(MG/G)
0.354
0.215
0. 146
0.149
0. 110
'0. 161
0. 160
0. 159
0. 146
0.207
0. 161
0. 165
0.266
0.250
0. 181
0.173
0,268
0.807
0.281
0.275
0.295
0. 348
INDICATED
P04-P
(MG/G)
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.021
0.032
0.051
0.017
0.009
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.000
0.014
0.021
0.014
0.021
0.041
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.002
0.011
SAMPLES
•NF03-M
CUG/G)
12.8
16- 1
21.3
28.6
35.3
28.0
15-2
14.7
10.6
19.5
17.9
14.9
13.5
13.4
10-9
15.2
12-5
28. y
22. 2
24.9
25-2
17-9
COLLECTED
U02-M
CUG/G)
0.06
0. 13
0.02
0.03
0.08
0. 19
0.04
0.46
0.02
;0.01
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0. 15
0.04
0.23
0.06
0. 12
0.23
FOLLOWING
KJELD.
M
(MG/G)
0.23
0.20
1.33
1.04
1.09
0.75
0.58
0.51
0.63
0.46
0.47
0.35
0. 12
0. 13
0.20
0. 52
0.74
0. 59
0. 66
0.65
0.29
0.16
RAIM
CL
(MG/G)
0.26
1-37
0.23
0.20
0.33
0.23
0.41
0.24
0. 16
0.21
0. 18
0.48
0.40
0.27
0.41
0.. 49
0.21
0.31
4.93
3. 36
2.32
4.15
A-25
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
SAMP. TOT.AL P04-P N03-M N02-M KJELD- CL
NO. P04-P N
(MG/G) (MG/G) CUG/G) (UG/G) (MG/G) (MG/G)
67D
68D
69D
TOD
7 ID
72D
7 3D
74D
75D
76D
77D
78D
73D
BOD
0 ID*
820
8 3D
64D
85D
86D
87D*
86D
^
o.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
-
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
-
o.
I NO I
207
229
238
220
232
226
266
31 1
241
256
24 b
1 17
231
146
--
205
168
1 16
199
9 1 A
--
268
CATFD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SA!
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.002
.006
.010
.005
.010
.001
.031
.011
"5PLES
4.
23.
1 1 •
10.
9.
so.
8.
20.
13.
14.
27.
25.
26.
14.
12.
17.
9.
23.
20.
1 1 .
4
6
4
3
0
7
5
1
7
1
7
5
0
6
-
2
6
4
1
1
-
5
COLLECTED
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
--
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
--
o.
02
30
28
22
13
32
48
23
15
1 1
03
03
07
00
--
03
04
01
05
01
--
03
FOLLOWING
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
--
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
--
0.
RAI
51
44
36
35
33
26
05
04
06
13
17
25
39
28
--
26
74
18
39
47
--
43
.M
0. 14
0.41
0.72
1.63
0.80
1. 14
0.63
0.46
0.53
0.50
0.66
0. 19
0.30
0.63
0. 10
0.45
0.31
0. 18
0.28
0.44
0. 14
0.45
A-26
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
SAMP.
NO.
89D
90D
91D*
92D
93D
94D
95D
96D
97D
98D
99D
100D
101D
102D
103D
104D
105D
106D
107D
108D
109D
HOD
*
TOTAL
P04-P
CMG/G)
0.165
0. 134
0. 178
0. 183
0. 159
0.214
0.313
0.360
0.421
0.583
0.262
0.219
0.323
0.217
0. 197
0.287
0.226
0.280
0.281
0.311
0.315
0.229
INDICATED
P04-P
CMG/G)
0.007
0.001
0.005
0.007
0.000
0.020
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.063
o.ooo
p. ooo
0.011
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.046
0.047
0.095
0.056
SAMPLES
N03-N
CUG/G)
12.8
16.3
23.4
11.6
21.6
26.8
3.3
13.7
18.5
20.7
18.2
24.0
41.3
1 1.6
62.0
75.4
17.0
25.0
36.5
14.7
20. 1
21.9
COLLECTED
i\J02-M
CUG/G)
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.35
0. 13
0. 15
0.02
0-03
0.00
0.03
0.09
o.oo
0.03
0-02
0.01
0.06
o.oo
0.00
FOLLOWING
KJELD-
M
CMG/G)
0.52
0.29
0.33
0.39
0.43
0.41
0. 36
0.55
0.02
0.02
0.45
0.68
0.81
0.33
0.43
0. 79
0.23
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.68
0.45
RAIN
CL
CMG/G
0-33
0.06
0.23
0.23
0.28
0.29
0.82
0.45
1 .09
0.85
0. 13
0.25
0.27
0. 16
0. 16
0.32
0.30
0.48
0.54
0. 44
0.25
0. 12
A-27
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
SAMP.
MO.
11 ID
112D
1 13D
1 14D
1 15D
1 16D
1 17D
118D
1 19D
120D
121D
122D
123D
124D
125D
126D
127D
*
TOTAL
P04-P
CMG/G)
0.268
0.201
0.244
0.256
0. 190
0.207
0.336
0.232
0. 116
0. 1 10
0.092
0. 1 10
0. 173
0.214
0.390
0. 390
0.342
INDICATED
P04-P
(MG/G)
0.092
0.000
0.001
0.019
0-001
0.041
0.049
0.055
0.015
0.019
0.01 1
0.021
0.058
0.000
0.000
0.067
0.047
SAMPLES
AJ03-N
CUG/G)
23. 1
9.7
17.3
30.4
20.6
26-8
34.7
24.9
17.3
35.2
22.9
27.3
19.8
19.5
21.3
11.6
23. 1
COLLECTED
N02-M
(UG/G)
o.oo
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
o.oo
0.01
o.oo
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
FOLLOW IMG
KJELD.
CftG/G)
0.34
0 . 4 3
0.91
0. 79
0.23
0. 55
1.28
0.47
0. 33
0.55
0.57
0.51
0.55
0.47
0.52
0.93
0.50
RAIN
CL
CiMG/G)
0.25
0. 18
0.56
0.66
0.45
0.13
0. 10
0.36
0.09
0.26
0. 1 1
0. 15
0.31
0. 19
0.26
0.24
0.21
A-28
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO. M-PAR. ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CM CR+6
MO. (FDRS/G) COLIF. STREP
(MG/G) (MG/-G) X10EXP-5 CMG/G) (ORG/G) (ORG/G) (MG/G) (MG/G)
ID
2D
3D
4D
5D
6D
7D
8D*
9D
10D
11D*
12D
13D
14D
15D*
16D
17D
18D*
19D
SOD
21D
22D
0.4
0.2
0.7
5.7
2.0
7.0
6.0
11.3
6.6
4.3
6.0
4.2
2.1
3.3
7.3
3.2
3.0
4.3
4. 1
3. 1
4.9
5.2
*
o.o
o.o
o.o
4. 5
1.8
4.9
3.6
8.7
5.7
3.5
5.0
3.8
1.7
2.9
5.0
3.0
2.6
4.0
3.7
2.8
4. 1
4. 1
INDICATED
0.0
1.3
o.o —
1.1 —
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0 6.4
0.3 5.2
0.7
o.o —
0. 1 4.0
0.4 10.8
0.0
0.7
0.4
SAMPLES COLLECTED
0
0
0
0
0
0
40000
40000
13700
300000
1050
0
0
100
350
0
0
0
150
0
250
FOLLOWING
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
0
0
RAIN
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.od
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
A-29
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO. N-PAR. ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CM
NO. (FBRS/G) COLIF. STREP
CMG/G) CMG/G) XLOEXP-5 CMG/G) CORG/G) CORG/G) CMG/G)
Cfi+6
23D
24D*
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
SOD*
31D
32D
33D
34D
35D
36D
37D
38D
39D
40 D
41D
42D
43D
44D
5.7
3.7
3.7
5.8
6.2
7. 1
5.2
8.8
5.9
5.3
3. 1
4.2
6.3
10.9
2.7
3-7
4.6
4.6
3.8
4.0
3.0
2.7
4.2
2.8
2.6
4.7
4.9
5.8
4. 1
7.5
5. 1
2.9
2.2
3.9
5.0
5.4
2.2
3. 1
3.9
3.9
2.2
3.6
2.3
2.4
0.9
0.8
0.5
o.o
0.0
0.6
0. 1
0.0
0. 1
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
5. 1
2.6
7.6
6.4
0
10.0 0
8.0 0
8.8 0
0
0
0
0
3.4 0
7-7 0
12200
26600
2.8 10
2.4 10
0
0
6.8 0
5.2 0
0
0
4.0 0
4.8 0
350
0
0
0
550
850
450
1650
650
2400
605
7605
735
155
5275
90
95
20
3100
5200
1 180
5000
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
--
--
--
--
o.oo
o.oo
--
--
--
--
--
__
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
* INDICAlED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAI>J
A-30
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP- PETRO. M-PAR. ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CiM CR+6
MO. CFBRS/G) COLIF. STREP
(MG/G) (MG/G) X10EXP-5 (MG/G) (ORG/G) (ORG/G) (MG/G) (MG/G)
45D
46D
47D
48D
49D
SOD
51D
52D
53D
54D
55D
56D
57D
58D
59D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
66D
6.7
3.6
6.5
7. 1
6.0
8.5
7.5
8.3
2.3
7.6
7.8
4. 8
6.0
7-9
5-0
8.4
7.5
6.8
8.3
7.8
9. 1
9.5
*
1 ;7
2.4
6. 1
0.6
4.2
>=>. 1
3.7
6.6
1 . 1
5.3
7. 2
3.9
4.6
5.6
3.4
6.8
6.0
3. 1
7.3
5.7
6-3
9. 3
INDICATED
5. 1
7.0
4.5
2.5
1 -9
3.8
1.9
1.9
2.5
0.5
1- 3
2.6
1 .3
3-8
1.3
3.8
0.6
1.3
0.0
2.6
3.8
1 • 3
SAMPLES
0
250
0
8.3 0
6.4 0
0
0
0
1-2 0
0
4.3 1200
0
4.8 0
0
0
9.8 0
0
4.8 0
0
0
0
6.8 0
COLLECTED FOLLOW IMG
2S80
1625
2800
950
650
700
625
50
275
275
100
250
200
700
1100
500
200
2825
25
3100
125
550
RAIAJ
o.oo
--
--
o.oo
o.oo
--
o.oo
--
--
--
--
--
--
o.oo
--
--
--
--
--
--
o.oo
--
A-31
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO. N-PAR. ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CN , CR+6
iMO. (FBRS/G) CO'LIF. STREP
(MG/G) (MG/G) X10EXP-5 (MG/G) (ORG/G) CORG/G) CMG/G) CMG/G)
67D
68D
69D
70D
71D
72D
73D
74D
75D
76D
77D
78D
79D
SOD
81D*
BSD
83D
84D
85D
66D
87D*
88D
3.5
6.0
5.4
4.5
4.4
6.4
3-7
2.9
4.4
4.7
4.2
8.3
6.5
7.0
7.5
d.7
12.4
4.5
6.8
9.0
6.0
9.7
1.8
4.6
4.4
4.0
3.0
5.5
3.4
2. 1
4.0
3.2
3.7
5.0
5. 1
6.6
7. 1
6.9
9.5
3.7
5.5
6.9
4.5
7.0
o.o —
0.0 2.5
2.6
o.o —
0.0
1.3 3.6
5.1
2.6 3.4
1.3 3.8
2.6 1.6
0.0
1.3
3.8 6.0
2.6
3.8 6.2
1.3
0.6
3.8 4.0
0.0
0.6 9.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_„_
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
100
50
75
25
300
0
125
25
0
0
25
1975
575
0
0
50
275
175
0
...
0
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING
A-32
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP- PETRO. M-PAR. ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CM CR+6
NO. (FBRS/G) COL IF. STREP
CMG/G) CMG/G) X10EXF-5 CMG/G) CORG/G) CORG/G) (MG/G) CMG/G)
89D
90D
91D*
92D
93D
94D
95D
96D
97D
98D
99D
100D
101D
102D
103D
104D
105D
106D
107D
108D
109D
1 10D
10.0
4.8
7. 1
6.7
5. 1
4.6
3.6
5.8
12. 1
9.2
5.4
5.4
5. 1
5.4
6-3
3.9
3.6
4.0
4.4
4.2
5«6
5.9
8.0
3.0
6.6
5.2
4.3
3.7
3.5
5.0
10.3
6.5
4.4
4.5
4.3
3.0
4i7
3-7
3.9
3.7
3.8
1. 1
4.2
3.4
0.0 ---
2.6
1.3 4.5
1-3
1-3 ---
1.3 3.1
5.1 ---
1.3 2.1
2.6
1.3 5.8
2.6
1.3 1.0
1.3 3. 1
2.6
1.3 2.0
1.3 1-9
2.6
1.3 1-7
o.o ---
1.3 1.8
1.3 ---
0.0 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
25
50
0
75
0
0
25
0
0
0
1525
25
0
0
0
100
0
0
50
0
2500
450
o.oo
INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
A-33
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
P. PETRO. N-PAR. ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CM CR+6
MO. CFBRS/G) COLIF. STREP
(MG/G) CMG/G) X10EXP-5 (MG/G) (ORG/G) CORG/G) CMG/G) CMG/G)
1 1 ID
1 12D
1 13D
1 14D
1 15D
1 16D
1 17D
1 18D
1 19D
1 20D
121D
122D
1 23D
124D
125D
126D
127D
4.7
5.0
6.3
5.3
6.4
4.4
5.5
7.9
4. 1
6«d
5.0
5.6
5.2
6.4
5.9
7- 1
4. 7
*
3.9 1.3
4.5 3.8
5.6 5.1
4.6 7.7
5.4 0.0
4.0
5.5
6.5 ---
2.7
4.7
4.7
5.4
2.7
5.2
4.5
6.4
3.6
INDICATED SAMPLES CC
2.7 0
0
0
4.2 0
4.1 0
1-3 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
925
100
--•- 14275
1575
JLLFCTED FOLLOW IN
700
0
25
0
350
375
50
450
0
600
0
0
1950
825
5700.
103500
39100
G RAIN
A-34
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
METAL CO^TE-MT CUG/G)
CD BA HG AG SM SB SE A S
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
9.68 .160 0.00 6 30 40 0 0
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
0.10 -- -- -- -- --
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
SAttP
NO.
ID
2D
3D
4D
5D
6D
YD
9D
10D
12D
13D
14D
16D
17D
i fj r^it
1 OU*
19D
20D
21D
22D
PB
615
467
265
158
448
171
3020
3840
2230
3870
3640
4040
4560
5940
5350
3950
22200
17100
CR
39
35
33
39
50
52
38
49
30
27
27
29
30
21
21
28
45
46
CU
90
300
199
426
332
437
153
589
205
124
106
51
657
161
78
1 15
1250
125
\'I
67
198
157
306
210
281
125
389
425
300
97
63
185
40
63
62
118
133
W
1790
7680
5460
4440
1730
1480
1940
21 10
893
1 170
2420
2810
0.00 -- -- -- ----
0.00 100 0.00 10 40 30 00
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
0.10 -- -- -- -- --
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
3.82 110 0.00 6 30 30 0 0
0.00 -- -- -- -- --
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAILM
A-35
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND D!RT - PART 4
METAL CONTENT
SAMP
MO.
23D
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
OH Hafc
31D
32D
34D
35D
T A n
37D
38D
39D
40D
& i n
/ipn
43D
44D
PB
14300
16000
14700
3420
3870
1920
3810
2740
6740
3620
Q 7 ftO
10400
6800
8930
3SP1
7£ 77
o o o nn
9660
12300
CR
34
37
29
167
228
83
129
169
dd
23
51
Q /i
32
27
3 1
78
pn ^
TO
25
33
CU
116
139
126
52
66
51
50
46
58
81
116
1320
74
1 Zi ^
^ifiO
1 1 P!
165
198
NI
130
275
107
123
137
89
133
139
i
38
49
ft ^
56
58
O 00
0 T Q
HQ
70
1 1 s
ZM CD
2720
1640
24SO 6.91
1210
3040 3-87
1170
1200
751
3430 3.12
796
1 1 PO
1070 7.20
1 PRO --
1680 —
1180 278.00
i 1 1 n
BA HG AG S;\J SB SE AS
0.00 — -- -- -- --
0.00 -- -- — -- --
100 0.00 7 70 60 00
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
60 0.00 6 50 40 0 0
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
0-00 -- — -- -- --
— o.oo -- -- -- -- --
38 0.08 2 37 0 00
0 -- -- — ~ -- --
97 0.06 37 0 0 016
10c __
570. 00 4 0 0 00
MR -- -- -- -_ ___-
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAI;\I
A-36
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
SAMP.
NO.
A5D
46F>
47D
48D
49D
SOD
51D
52D
53D
540
55D
56D
57D
58D
59D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
66D
PB CK
11900 39
14000 36
1930 76
2230 151
3890 85
2154 133
899 14
1560
1 100
994
641
898
3260
3410
2090
1 190
2206 130
1510 87
4927 83
1960 162
2865 83
1020 73
METAL CONTENT CUG/R)
cu >u Z.M CD PA
HG
AG SM SB SR AS
18
9
15.
6
18
15
78 120 936
92 106 1070
37 «2 409
71 136 1280
117 101 837
45 98 1530
100 55 528
80 88 840
45 93 450
65 109 490
12 41 237
37 61 368
59
79 2130
18 2960 115 2800
12
53
23 27 753
89 301 2910
46 95 647
68 247 1020
61 78 541
57 153 971
54 103 1116
42 131 1160
r-,8 -- -- -- -- ----
96 -- -- -- -- — --
0 -- -- -- — — --
77 _- -- -- __ ____
1.66 52 0.16 20000
59 -- -- -- -- -- __
18 -_ — _- _- _- --
0 -- -- -- -- -- --
0.69 52 0.00 0 0 0 00
0 -- -- -- -- -- --
0 -- -- -- -- -- --
o -- -- -- -- -- --
1.36 0 0-05 0 0 0 00
72 -- -- -- -- -- -_
• «. f~) •» V "•*• «B _ _ — «__..
4.00 -- -- -- -- -- --
4 __ __ __ -- -- __
3 __ -. _. _- __ __
4 -- -- -- -- -- --
6 -- -- -- -- -- --
3 __ __ __ __ __ __
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
A-37
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
METAL CONTENT CUG/G)
SAMP .
NO.
67D
68D
oyD
70D
7 ID
1 d\j
73D
7^n
/6D
7 /D
78D
79D
dOD
R i n*
82D
83D
PC /• Ti
85D
86D
o7D*
88D
PB
2578
2160
d.d.\JO
2070
2005
46 u
7980
0 r\ /: c
o o c n
69 1 1
3080
1150
1 400
1 240
1 370
1470
y b 1 0
2370
2430
CH
88
141
/U
130
88
/ 1
205
i ^.n
i PP
0 1
191
on
82
75
73
57
i n "j
84
84
84
CD
72
67
Bb
51
94
DO
/3
Q y(
/|Q
^d
5 1
115
o4
27
46
p A
4 1
38
30
MI
74
287
d 1
123
89
Id/
199
1 RQ
1 £. O
1 79
213
1 72
b(J
78
85
73
117
142
96
2.N
394
2030
64U
72 1
554
/D
55^1
0 ^ C'
^t2B
4 34
IRA
857
633
£1 ^R
1 570
?06
9 30
473
899
CD BA HG AG SN SB bb A^
3 -- -- -- ~~ ~~ ~~
4 -- -- -- -- -- --
2
3 — — — — —
fi —-- — - — - — — _---.
-- — — • ""- — - — -
i — __ __ __ __ __ __
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING HAIN
A-38
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
LY1ETAL COMTENfT tUG/G)
SAMP.
NO.
90D
Q i n*
O /in
96D
97D
98n
yy u
1 OOD
DID
(Jdu
\ 04D
1 07D
1 08D
i non
i i nn
PB
485
o /y
1 190
4 1 50
3990
1 760
I 330
8 i An
•3 1 fin
5580
6270
i AAA
CR
7 ft
89
1 3
101
90
7Q
1 72
203
OO
1 OQ
1 oU
1 28
1 09
£30
CU MI
en if.
25 108
49 173
OQ a p.
59 74
33 66
£. Q U/t
56 143
185 1 2
46 y o
— — — Q 1
07 i c 7
1 1 oU
48 117
OO /i 1
/> £. a *7
ZM
2U4
o o c
od b
/30
375
4 fo
con
Zl 7P>
A /i n
oUo
534
T57
/i A /i
CD BA HG AG SN SB SE AS
1— _ _
4 — ~ — ~~ "" ™ ™ ----
— — — — -— -- — -- —
3— — — .
i -__ __ __
/i _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ ~ _ „
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-39
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
METAL CONTENT (UG/G)
SAMP
MO-
1 1 ID
1 18D
1 13D
1 14D
1 bu
i i 7 n
1 19D
1 2UD
i p orj
1 ?5D
1 97n
PB
2110
12400
7440
oV 1 U
2185
341 5
46? 1
CR
90
77
77
CD
on
1 *7 0
85
63
55
CU MI
49 76
40 76
54 94
oo / 1
y / 1 J4
62 82
67 111
07
-------
TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF DUST AND DIRT - PART 5
Chlor.
Sample No. PCB's Pesticides
(ppm) (ppm)
4D 3.6 <0.01
25D 0.6 <0.01
310 0.5 <0.01
39D 4.7 <0>01
45D 1.2 01
A-41
-------
TABLE B-3. ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP. VOLUME TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD
.-.JO. SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
(GAL.) (MG/L)
(MG/L)
(£»iG/L)
COD
GREASE
(MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)
IF —
2F --
3F --
4F --
5F --
6F __
7F 9 1574 311
8F* 14 430 43
9F 15 426 159
10F '6 444 334
11F* 10 274 234
12F 15 454 289
13F 18 509 274
14F --
15F* --
16F --
17F --
l&F* --
19F --
20F --
2 IF 14 2074 4 1 1
22F 8 1134 297
--
--
__ ---
--
--
1499 37 708 59.8
332 32 230 20.2
340 34 214 20.8
434 37 238 19.0
244 23 192 2 1 . 1
380 33 307 28.0
425 40 260 30.6
--
__
--
__
--
_-
-_
1769 23 234 69.4
1095 28 424 48.2
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-42
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 1
SAi«jP. VOLUME TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD COD GREASE
-MO. SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
(GAL.) (MG/L) CiXiG/L> (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)
23F 10 950 277
24F* 26 532 83
25F b 790 281
26F 13 1126 405
27F --
28F --
29F --
30F* --
32F --
33F 10 713 241
34F 10 438 266
35F- 5 3- 426
36F 10 58 341
37F --
38F --
39F --
40F --
41F --
42F 8 3043 1206
43F 10 1723 986
44F 10 2273 816
657
379
501
785
340
460
390
455
____
1835
1605
1220
24 431 31-8
16 257 21.2
34 424 29.8
50 522 31.8
___
__-
30 173 24.8
29 199 36.2
26 85 2-4.0
27 151 26.8
___
,
31 479 57.4
25 401 37.4
30 323 50.8
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-43
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP. VOLUME TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD COD GREASE
WO. SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
(GAL.) CMG/L) (MG/L) CMG/L) CMG/L) CMG/L) CMG/L)
45F 17
46F 22
47F
48F
49F
50F
51F 40
52F 35
53F 30
54F 35
55F 25
56F 33
57F 15
58F 12
59F 18
60F 14
61F
62F
63F
64F
65F
66F
3193
653
__._
1153
1048
663
1018
768
843
908
428
713
438
-„__
----
----
____
— — *» *B
946
566
----
501
' 446
376
316
306
151
1 16
116
191
121
--,-.-,
____
_ _ _ —
565
485
1250
980
820
1035
525
995
380
500
730
450
-.___
_ • _ »
29
27
__
__
--
__
52
45
43
52
55
28
29
34
59
47
__
-_
—
—
__
_ _
348
239
324
265
234
309
260
229
188
215
255
178
_ _ _
— _
— — -
— _ _
-__
...
69.8
27.0
65.4
51.4
37.0
46.6
47.2
45.6
32.2
34.2
39. S
23.8
_ __
___
_ . _
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
A-44
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP- VOLUME TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD COD GREASE
iNJO. SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
(GAL.) (MG/L) (MG/L) CMG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)
67F
68F
69F
70F
7 IF
72F
73F
74F
75F
76F
77F
76F
79F
80F
81F*
S2F
83F
64F
85F
86F
37F*
83F
--
--
20
14
15
2
10
25
36
15
--
20
28
5
28
2
--
10
----
155S
2188
653
2098
1418
3098
1743
1483
1493
1453
5333
1503
4893
1398
146
271
40
1631
236
461
206
236
211
136
836
1 11
536
201
1585
1825
1000
1 120
1350
2550
1680
1265
1535
1565
3690
750
3915
1570
— —
--
14
20
20
14
15
36
24
52
.--
52
32
39
10
49
--
48
• — —
256
295
270
225
281
209
276
497
225
252
334
268
556
215
• • ••
4.0
4.3
2.4
2.6
4.5
47.0
70.0
72.0
83.4
158.2
138.0
40.0
1-58.0
48.0
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOwlAlG HAI>J
A-45
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP- VOLUME TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD
""• (GflL.,
COD
GREASE
89F
9 OF
91F*
92F
93F
94F
95F
96F
97F
98F
99F
100F
101F
1 02F
103F
1 OAF
105F
1 06F
1G7F
1 08F
109F
i IDF
8
67
30
15
18
20
18
25
35
12
20
19
13
--
--
--
24
15
30
18
10
1ft
623
3453
3088
558
758
653
5843
933
843
363
3263
1233
883
2083
1 176
888
1373
1358
17Q8
121
371
261
111
141
121
956
146
96
40
246
276
186
126
141
201
21 1
446
166
420
3565
1965
690
880
700
5460
900
910
510
2285
1380
750
2220
1240
670
1335
1000
1035
12
14
1 1
12
15
13
24
18
24
19.
26
33
20
--
--
--
15
21
13
13
18
26
155
366
161
101
197
164
162
132
101
55
180
244
92
223
1 19
181
218
295
167
59.4
70.0
53-8
31.4
40.4
27.6
160.8
36.8
27.2
16.6
36.0
240.0
21.8
42.0
22.0
18.4
31.0
24.2
43.0
INDICATED SAKPLrb COLLECIET) FOLLOWING RAIM
A-46
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP. VOLUME TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD COD G RE ASF,
NO. SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
(GAL.) CMG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) CMG/L) (MG/L) (KG/L)
1 1 IF
1 12F
1 13F
1 14F
115F
1 16F
1 17F
1 18F
1 19F
120F
121F
122F
123F
124F
125F
126F
127F
23
20
12
19
12
30
16
14
19
18
17
17
16
22
22
24
26
678
4643
713
623
508
1068
1418
643
1008
558
713
308
153
883
863
463
573
146
586
156
101
121
206
261
221
216
161
186
96
21
126
331
121
176
610
4020
635
460
400
825
1335
515
805
425
755
230
135
890
460
397
280
20
38
16
19
13
16
18
18
10
3
IS
5
5
1 1
13
53
51
241
640
276
400
229
306
371
185
272
208
348
1 15
1 13
387
174
243
355
34.0
91.0
41.0
27.0
26.4
43.2
47.0
38.0
41 .0
34.0
38.0
19.0
12.0
33.0
32.0
24.0
25.0
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-47
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 2
SAMP. TOTAL P04-P M03-M M02-M KJELD-
MO. P04-P -M
CfcG/L) CMG/L) CMG/L) CUG/L) CMG/L)
IF
2F
3F
4F
5F
6F
7F 0.53 0.02 1.09 118 11
8F* 0.17 0.02 0.78 161 3
9F 0.15 0.01 0.56 188 4
10F 0.12 0.00 2.39 262 5
11F* 0.12 0.02 2.79 117 4
12F 0.17 0.02 0.55 166 4
13F 0.10 0.01 1.54 102 4
14F
15P*
16F
17F
18F* ---
19F
20F --.
21F 0.50 0.01 1.68 316 5
22F 0.29 0.00 2.00 151 6
CL
CMG/L)
—
--
--
--
--
--
3
3
7
9
9
8
2
--
--
„_
--
--
—
__
12
£3
* INDICATED SAi^iPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING
A-48
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 2
.AMH- TOTAL
NO. P04-P
23F 0.27
24F* 0.16
25F 0.21
26F 0.25
27F
28F
29F
30F*
31F
32F
33F 1-14
34F 0.48
35F 0.17
36F 0.20
37F "-
38F
39F
40F
41F
42F 2.00
43F 1.64
44F 1.52
P04-P M03-AJ N02-M KJELD. CL
(MG/L) C!»iG/L) (UG/L) (MG/L) CMG/L)
0.01 2.22 336 6 20
0.03 1.16 201 2 4
0.01 3.21 631 3 33
0.04 3.36 611 4 28
,
---
0.02 2.02 77 0 71
0.03 3.12 64 0 41
0.00 0.33 87 4 17
0.00 1.85 104 4 13
--- ---
0.00 1.69 201 8 34
0.01 L85 151 5 37
0.01 2.07 243 5 29
INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-49
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 2
SAMP.
NO.
45F
46F
47F
48F
49 F
50F
5 IF
52F
53F
54F
55F
56F
57F
58F
59F
60F
61F
62F
63F
64F
65F
66F
TOTAL
P04-P
(MG/L)
1. 16
0.92
____
0.72
0.47
1.04
0.42
0.36
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.39
0.24
_ — — _
P04-P
(MG/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0. 32
0.04
0.03
0.04
— — «.
N03-N
(MG/L)
1.54
3.90
0.48
0.51
0.05
0. 17
0. 1 1
0.42
0.81
0.75
0.78
0.92
MM — —
(UG/L)
243
201
--
--
--
--
64
93
30
29
50
17
17
20
17
18
--
--
--
--
--
— _
KJELD- CL
(MG/L) (MG/L)
7 1 1
4 20
--
--
-_
__
6 5
4 8
10 15
3 5
3 3
1 14
0 14
1 14
6 19
1 14
--
__
--
__
--
--
* INDICATED bAi'JPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWIMG RAI.v
A-50
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 2
SAMP .
l\iO .
67F
68F
69F
70F
71F
72F
73F
74F
75F
76F
77F
78F
79F
80F
81F*
82F
83F
84F
85F
86F
87F*
88F
TOTAL
P04-P
(MG/L)
--
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
--
o.
o.
1 .
o.
1 .
--
o.
--
54
69
42
37
36
62
68
89
--
94
60
62
36
61
--
73
P04-P
(MG/L)
-
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
-
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
-
o.
--
01
03
02
02
01
01
16
01
--
20
02
04
02
07
--
07
M03-M
CMG/L)
-
1 .
1.
1-
0.
1.
o.
o.
0.
-
2.
1 .
0.
o.
1 .
-
•5.
--
57
85
54
93
01
30
55
96
--
30
85
17
63
51
49
M02-.M
(UG/L)
--
1 1 1
185
175
128
191
60
37
70
__
44
13
141
62
262
--
54
KJELD.
M
CKG/L)
--
0
0
0
1
3
2
4
4
--
5
3
2
_A
IS
--
10
CL
(MG/L)
--
1C)
1
2
0
4
0
0
2
--
5
0
0
0
1
--
2
INDICATED S/Vu-LFS COLLECTED rOLLOivI^'G
A-51
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 2
SAW P-
MO.
89F
90F
9 IF*
92F
93F
94F
95F
96F
97F
98F
99F
100F
101F
102F
103F
104F
105F
106F
107F
108F
109F
1 10F
TOTAL
P04-P
CMG/L)
0.45
0.94
0.48
0.45
0.07
0.48
7.43
3.41
4.26
3.05
0.92
0.78
0.60
1. 19
0.66
0.66
0. 54
1 .03
0.60
P04-P
CMG/L)
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.1 1
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. 1 1
o.oo
0.03
0. 1 1
0.06
0. 10
0.02
M03-M
CMG/L)
1.99
1.48
2.64
1.65
1.77
1 = 72
2.61
1 .24
1- 16
1.39
0.63
1 .69
1.24
1.08
1.05
1 -77
1 .24
0.81
0.60
N02-N
CUG/L)
27
41
50
67
77
117
808
89
35
154
87
168
117
--
--
--
154
92
148
268
47
54
KJELD.
N
CMG/L 3
3
4
3
2
3
3
18
7
4
3
3
4
4
--
--
—
3
2
2
3
5
4
CL
CMG/L)
1
0
0
0
0
0
61
14
6
3
0
0
0
--
--
__
0
0
4
0
3
0
* INDICATED SAi^HLES COLLECTED FOLLOWIMG RAIAJ
A-52
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 2
SAMP.
NO.
11 IF
112F
113F
114F
115F
116F
117F
118F
119F
120F
121F
122F
123F
124F
125F
126F
127F
TOTAL
P04-P
(MG/L)
0.54
2.13
0.87
0.60
0.75
0.95
1.01
0.48
0.49
0.19
0.20
0.24
0.03
0.51
0.39
0.48
0.48
P04-P
(MG/L)
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0..03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
i\(03-iM
(MG/L)
0-78
0.40
1.06
1.57
1.24
0.81
0.93
1.01
1.54
1.27
1.09
0.63
0.33
0.48
0.30
0.78
0.02
N02-N
(UG/L)
34
238
319
228
221
109
109
84
154
115
44
75
27
54
74
66
87
KJELD.
M
(MG/L)
3
10
7
5
4
4
5
4
5
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
CL
(MG/L)
0
9
7
15
8
2
2
2
6
6
4
6
1
3
8
9
8
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-53
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP- PETHO. iM-PAR. ASBESTOS FFCAL FECAL CM CR+6
riO. (FBRS/L) COL I FORM STREP
CMG/L) CMG/L) X10EXP-5 COKG/100WL) (ORG/100ML) (MG/L) (MG/L)
IF
2F
3F
5F
6F
7F 33.0 30-0 0.0
8F* 15.0 12.8
9F 14.2 12.0 0.3
10F 13.8 11.0 1.6
1 IF* 12.2 9.1 0.8
12F 14.6 14.0 0.3
13F 11.8 8.0 0.5
14F
15F*
16F
17F ---
18F*
19F
20F
21F 30.2 24.4 2.6
22F 19.2 13.0 2.6
__.
4500 0 0.0 0.00
190 0 0.0 0.00
860 0 0.0 0.00
430 0 0.0 0.00
440 0 0.0 0.00
890 20 0.0 0.00
690 35 0.0 0.00
- — - _-._ __-
___
— — — — — — — ___ ___
0 0 0.0 0.00
50 0 0.0 0.00
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-54
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO. N-PAR. ASBESTOS FECAL FECAL CN CR+6
NO. (FBRS/L) 'COL I FORM STREP
CMG/L) CMG/L) X10EXP-5 CORG/100ML) CORG/100ML) (MG/L) (MG/L)
o.o o.oo
o.o o.oo
o.o o.oo
23F 18.0 10.6 5.3
24F* 13.0 10.4
25F 21.4 12.0. 2.6
26F 18.0 10.6 2.6
27F
28F
29F
3QF* ---
31F
32F ---
33F 7.8 6.0 1.3
34F 15.8 14.8 0.6
35F 10.2 9.8 1.3
36F 13.4 7.2 0.3
37F
38F
40F
41F
42F 23.8 21.4 5.1
43F 20.8 14.0 2.8
170 10
10 0
0 0
0 , 0
3250 1750
4120 47
5200 100
250 300
5 180
60 65
44F
17.2
6.8
2.1
100
30
0.0
0.00
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-55
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP- PETRO. N-PAR. ASBESTOS FECAL FECAL CM CR+6
MO. (FBRS/L) COLI FORM STREP
CMG/L) CMG/L) X10EXP-5 (ORG/lOOiML) (ORG/100ML) (MG/L) CMG/L)
0.0
45F 37.0
46F 19.2
47F
48F
49F
50F
51F 31.2
52F 33.8
53F 42.2
54F 20.2
55F 23.6
56F 25.6
57F 25.8
58F 16.2
59F 26.0
60F 6.8
61F
62F
63F
64F
65F
66F
28.0
18.8
---
__-
26.8
22.4
30.8
14.8
20.0
10.8
13.0
13.0
13.8
4.4
1.8
9.0
o.o
o.o
3.8
o.o
1.3
5. 1
2.3
1.3
2-6
0.0
_ _ _
10
95
105
185
0
0
550
285
185
140
70
125
_ _ _
20
140
1 10
75
270
75
305
105
50
30
240
295
o.o
o.o
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOwI-.vJG RAIN
A-56
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP- PETRO. M-PAR. ASBESTOS FECAL FECAL C^M CR+6
NO. CFBRS/L) COL I FORM STREP
(MG/L) (MG/L) X10FXP-5
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 3
. PETRO. M-PAR. ASBESTOS FECAL FECAL Ctf CR+6
NO- (FBRS/L) COLI FORM STREP
CMG/L) (MG/L) X10EXP-5 (ORG/100ML) (ORG/100ML) CMG/L) (MG/L)
89 F
90F
91F*
92F
93F
94F
95F
96F
97F
98F
99F
100F
101F
102F
103F
104F
105F
106F
KJ7F
108F
109F
1 10F
39.8 31.6 L3
36.0 32.2 6.4
23.8 21.2 0.0
20.8 12.6 0.0
16.6 10.8 0.0
9.2 8.2 0.0
86.4 83.6 5.1
14.8 7.2 2.6
23.8 13.8 1-3
8.4 8.2 0.0
26.3 17.4 0.0
21.4 20.4 0.0
6.2 12.2 0.0
___
21.0 21.0 5.1
10.0 7.4 2.6
10.0 9.0 0.0
17.2 10.0 2.6
16.6 13.6 0.0
18.4 10.4 2.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
625
1 10000
165
550000
15
3145
3150
0
10
0
55
265
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
195
0
1485
55
45
0
_ __ _
_ — _ _
340
25
35
1 150
1800
675
+ INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING
A-58
o.o
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO. iM-PAR- ASBESTOS FECAL FECAL CM CR+6
xMO. (FBRS/L) COL I FORM STREP
CMG/L)
-------
TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED) . ANALYSES OF FLUSH - PART 4
METAL CONTENT (MG/L)
SAMP.
NO.
7F
9F
10F
12F
13F
21F
22F
23F
25F
26F
LEAD
10.40
0.56
1.07
1.48
1.12
34.00
21.60
14.00
8.40
8.00
CHROM I UM
0.1
0*1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
C.I
0.1
COPPER
0.29
0.07
0.07
0. 10
0.09
0.26
0.16
0. 15
0.13
0.22
NICKEL
0.34
0.07
0*08
0. 12
0. 10
0.33
0.27
0. 19
0.16
0.18
ZINC
1.78
0.42
0.59
1.04
0.47
2.96
1.72
! . 10
0.93
0.81
MEKCU
0
0
O.OR
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
A-60
-------
APPENDIX C
POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
TABLE C-l. POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS - LITTER
SAMP.
NO.
1L
2L
3L
4L
5L
6L
7L
8L*
9L
10L
,11L*
12L
13L
14L
15L*
16L
17L
18L*
19L
SOL
21L
22L
*
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
17. 15
0.28
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.07
140.43
3.35
17.02
12.08
28.05
18.32
138. 10
182.96
5.19
58.71
103.27
259.85
40.57
140. 12
35.35
18.46
DRY
VOLUfcE
QT/MI
4.3
0. 1
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
535.5
1.2
20.0
12.0
24.0
8.0
79.9
54.4
8.0
28.0
56.0
111.9
24.0
48.0
12.0
6.0
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/Ml
o.oo
0.07
0.01
o.oo
0.01
o.oo
117.27
0.30
0.82
2.31
1.36
0.58
16.49
9. 13
2.06
7.63
18.23
29.78
6. 10
12.75
2.63
3.66
INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWI
BOD
*/MI
0.0045
0.0829
0.0017
0.0289
0.0037
0.0073
0.0051
0.0497
0.0658
0.0077
0. 1245
0.0371
0.0858
0.0081
0.0532
0.0138
0.0199
NG RAIN
COD
#/MI
0. 182
32.285
0.187
1.605
1 .360
2. 140
0.562
13.561
7.007
0.21 1
2.272
3. 160
4.703
7.761
2.676
1.428
1.673
A-61
-------
TABLE C-l (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS - LITTER
SAMP-
NO.
23L
24L*
25L
26L
27L
26L
29L
30L*
31L
32L
33L
34L
35L
36L
37L
38L
39L
40L
41L
42L
43L
44L
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
18.99
30.21
22.53
9.22
15. 10
7-75
18. 39
3.69
6.31
7.73
143.98
22-64
15-52
14.52
355.53
30.84
31.36
48.00
281. 10
26.04
19.01
76.94
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
6.0
12.0
5.4
3.0
28.2
21 .0
33.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
57.0
14.0
16.0
14.0
95.6
13.9
13.9
19.9
95.9
12.0
15.0
33. 9
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
2.47
0.91
2.68
0.83
12.61
6.53
16.56
2.83
5-34
6.67
35.61
8-75
12. 30
3. 1 1
74.63
17.43
9.65
8.85
154.83
14.07
2. 52
4 « 64
BOD
#/MI
0.0196
0.0432
0.0608
0.0240
0.2840
0. 1 153
0.2144
0.0607
0. 1072
0. 1275
0.5457
0.1191
0.0576
0. 1635
1.6888
0-0423
0. 1741
0.6994
4.4808
0.5259
0-3468
0.7225
COD
#/MI
2.075
1 .474
1.440
0.427
5.034
1.219
6.935
1.713
4.078
7. 185
11.345
3.796
2.044
2. 167
21.404
5.895
4.849
12.730
40.619
4.835
3.345
19.598
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RA.I.\J
A-62
-------
TABLE C-l (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS - LITTER
SAMP .
NO.
45L
46L
47L
48L
49L
SOL
51L
52L
53L
54L
55L
56L
57L
SSL
59L
60L
61L
62L
63L
64L
65L
66L
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
20.24
25.31
13.56
4.62
20.42
13.86
453.70
42.07
99. 15
82.95
107.08
16. 18
19.28
6.37
20.64
14.77
334.61
43.85
26.03
23.91
15.24
1-7.81
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
16.. 5
21.0
30.0
14.4
38.4
16.8
143.9
26.4
95-9
67. 1
69.5
13.4
17.3
7.7
9.6
12.5
99.9
12.0
6.0
12.0
6.0
14.0
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
13.54
7.04
11.77
3.90
17.24
1 1 .37
343.67
13.85
91.92
49.09
36.98
8.82
7.41
3-01
7-94
1 1.00
59.49
4.65
12.63
13.50
4. 1 1
4.30
BOD
#/MI
0. 1540
0.2908
0. 1334'
0.0551
0.3170
0.2556
7.6492
0.5643
1.8112
1.0836
1.5326
0. 1409
0. 1679
0.0637
0.2124
0. 1565
0.4751
0.0846
0.0526
0.0837
0.0195
0.0481
COD
#/MI
7- 159
6.646
5.718
1.530'
21.685
13.550
468. 106
21.403
71 .794
54. 131
98.222
14.866
8.419
5.231
14.439
15.303
36.604
2.666
5.313
2.336
0.826
4.510
IMDI.CATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING
A-63
-------
TABLE C-l (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS - LITTER
SAMP.
NO.
67L
68L
69L
70L
71L
72L
73L
74L
75L
76L
77L
78L
79L
SOL
81L*
82L
83L
84L
85L
86L
87L*
88L
DRY
WEIGHT
719.89
36.03
15.30
17.59
30.70
24.48
48.90
32.61
26.40
19.20
12.01
72.81
25.94
40.64
34.68
16.25
6.22
72.77
8.42
16.48
23.98
11.03
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
255.8
16.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
10-0
9.0
10.5
9.0
9.0
4.5
30.7
5.8
34.5
15.4
7.7
3.8
30.7
3.8
7.7
7.7
5.8
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
37.86
4.64
3. 13
4.20
3.84
5.04
6.74
10.31
6.25
5. 11
2. 13
34.49
8.04
12.43
23.55
2.74
1.60
18.37
3.85
1..66
15.41
2.70
BOD
2.5771
0.0526
0.0202
0.0301
0.0586
0.0326
0. 1418
0.0783
0.0525
0.0484
0.0340
0.2445
0.0747
0.4470
0.2199
0. 1215
0.0415
0.2700
0.0207
0.0671
0.0741
0.0419
COD
#/MI
95.524
5.048
2. 100
4.360
3.678
3. 195
3.418
1.894
3.577
2.212
1.567
10.180
3.925
6.348
3.929
1.691
2.461
9.503
1.831
2.401
1.846
3.275
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-64
-------
TABLE C-l (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS - LITTER
SAMP.
NO.
89L
90L
91L*
92L
93L
94L
95L
96L
97L
98L
99L
100L
101L
102L
,103L
104L
105L
106L
107L
108L
109L
110L
*
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
4.86
1600.64
176.68
66.08
48.92
69.06
61 1.74
42.51
7.31
8.28
85. 76
32.78
15. 37
132.37
35.29
26.59
38.51
26.05
22.78
65.99
173.04
1 1.40
DRV
VOLUME
QT/MI
3.1
420.8
69.2
26.6
21.3
25.6
152.4
14.2
6. 1
2.6
24.0
12.0
8.0
47.9
16.0
6.4
9.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
191 .8
13.4
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
2.45
104.20
38.96
10.82
1 1.02
4.50
28.81
1. 37
0.80
0.24
14.80
3.45
1-71
1.38
2.66
1.95
1.85
3.92
5.97
5.63
21.70
7. 12
INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWI
BOD
0.0235
5.6179
1.3444
0. 1057
0.4080
0.5207
1 .0766
0.2270
0.0537
0.0242
0.5900
0. 1806
0.0629
0.6830
0. 1835
0.0776
0.3354
0.3230
0. 3544
1.0709
1.2078
0. 1903
iMG HAIiN)
COD
1.637
139.568
24. 186
24. 110
21 .836
31.725
244-060
17.435
2.679
2.314
6.843
3.094
2.233
21 = 720
13.627
8.254
6.570
6.322
5. 173
9.317
44. 124
2.684
A-65
-------
TABLE C-l (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS - LITTER
SAW P.
MO.
1 1 1L
112L
113L
1 14L
1 15L
1 16L
1 17L
1 18L
1 19L
120L
121L
122L
123L
124L
125L
126L
127L
DRY
WEIGHT
#/KI
214.70
282. 20
27.97
20.07
25.28
65.99
58.52
31.50
207-56
57. 1 1
38. 19
43.99
19.69
4.21
27.58
44.62
41.50
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
118.9
73- 1
8. 1
6. 1
8. 1
51.0
25-5
9.6
51.0
25-5
25.5
12.8
30.7
2.9
13.4
30.7
30.7
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
109.85
14.08
0.64
0.42
0.78
19.64
4. 16
4.76
43.38
12. 1 1
5.94
12.79
7.44
0.49
15.26
15.59
8.37
BOD
#/MI
3-0468
1.6310
0.4478
0.2881
0.5683
0.6650
0.6881
0.3005
1 . 1955
0.6516
0.9615
0.4042
0-321 1
0.0750
0.6740
0.9549
0.6911
COD
#/MI
71.501
1 14.536
7.605
8.052
9.371
21.209
8.537
10.556
76.609
18.737
14.002
11. 173
5.292
1.565
15.498
28.924
23.708
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-56
-------
TABLE C-2.. POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
MO.
ID
2D
3D
4D
5D
6D
7D
8D*
9D
10D
1 ID*
12D
13D
14D
15D*
16D
17D
18D*
19D
20D
21D
22D
*
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
130.32
17.12
13. 17
7.64
12.69
8. l/l
394. 10
13. 14
36.60
53.56
27.45
52.02
219.51
181 .85
35.96
222.01
327.42
167.59
228.72
352.21
239.61
273.73
INDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
QT/KI
71.9
7.2
6.3
1.7
4.3
2.6
484.4
4.0
20.0
40.0
8.0
14.8
63-9
44.4
10.0
61.9
71.9
55.9
67.9
95.9
59.9
71.9
SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
12. 13
1 .82
1. 70
0.72
1.46
1.22
13.75
1.08
4.60
6-53
2.65
3.86
16.62
16. 17
4.25
13.50
20.23
14.66
13.95
12" 15
16.29
18.64
COLLECTED
A-67
BOD
#/MI
0.3753
0.0430
0.0615
0.0482
0.0936
0.0667
0.6187
0.0279
0.0618
0.0445
0.0502
0. 11 19
0.2304
0.2491
0.0640
0.3174
0.4518
0. 1743
0.7731
0.2430
0.4361
0.4872
FOLLOWING
COD
#/MI
9.096
2.910
2.233
1.420
2.820
2.019
74.287
2.723
6. 148
9.945
4.389
4.760
7.244
9.093
4. 149
31.304
47.443
36.299
15.095
1 1.623
27. 148
23.431
RAIN
GREASE
#/MI
0.078
0.010
0.032
0. 1 16
0.093
0. 138
3.429
0.277
0.512
0.471
0.294
0.551
1.361
1.418
0.507
1.576
3*733
1.626
2. 104
2.994
2. 133
3.093
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
23D
24D*
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
30D*
31 D
32D
33D
34D
35D
36D
37D
38D
39 D
40 n
41D
42D
4 3D
44D
*
DRY
WEIGHT
188.37
341.21
392.85
176.87
258.26
70. 1 1
121.01
92.44
111.14
103.85
301-71
48.66
47.43
39.91
608. 13
124.61
108.74
125.05
848. 57
226.24
304.99
777.69
INDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
Q.T/MI
50.9
89.9
107.9
48.0
80.3
21.9
66.8
27.0
33.0
31-5
95-3
19.5
14.0
14-4
170. 1
35.8
23.9
35.8
214.0
58. 3
60.9
207. 1
SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
15. 18
12. 1 1
17.95
18.98
32.93
1 1.95
42. 18
7.34
12.30
6. 74
18.53
4.39
3.89
2.99
24. 39
4.11
5. 17
10.68
37.42
11.13
11.83
46-60
COLLECTED
BOD
0.3447
0.6824
1.3750
0. 3449
2. 5232
0.4964
0.5857
0.6693
0.5701
0. 5486
0. 7633
0. 1664
0. 1703
0.1197
1.2831
0.2654
0.3958
0.3589
1.9093
0.4796
0.6954
1.9758
FOLLOWING
COD
#/MI
17.481
23.680
30.485
16. 378
62.009
15. 172
27. 759
7-931
14.392
1 1.626
21- 180
4.278
3.870
4.434
27.974
6.941
7.394
10.604
34.028
16.267
16. 530
44.262
RAIN
GREASE
#/MI
2.260
2.013
3.221
1.928
4.881
1.500
1. 730
0.841
1.623
1. 197
1. 750
0. 355
0.455
0.535
3.284
0.735
0. 794
1.000
4.837
1.516
1 , 708
4.512
A-68
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
45D
46D
47D
48D
49D
SOD
51D
52D
53D
54D
55D
56D
57D
58D
59D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
66D
DRY
WEIGHT
197.94
398.87
289.68
63.56
139.12
35.30
696.94
143.03
365.29
145.25
165.70
156.95
68.03
43.29
147.38
46-30
485.24
99.95
18.36
26.89
23.01
46.93
• INDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
61.4
106. 1
91. 1
20. 1
57.6
13.4
194.2
42.2
80. 3
38.9
46.5
43.2
19.8
13.4
57.0
13.4
123.9
32.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
16.0
SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
# /MI
14.63
19.54
30.70
7-29
27.60
5.00
47.06
8.86
23.06
9. 18
10.06
18.05
13.80
2.53
1 1 .35
2.83
19.99
7.48
0.94
2.61
1.65
3.90
COLLECTED
BOD
0.4275
0.8775
1.6781
0.4539
1. 1 186
0.2574
3.4457
0.6757
1 .7841
0.7051
0. 7398
0.6090
0.2830
0.2359
0.9094
0.3375
1 .5236
0. 1869
0.0494
0.0815
0.0700
0.2412
FOLLOWING
COD
iff/Ml
15.637
21.539
35.472
10.900
34-599
8.447
74.204
18. 157
32.544
72.394
17.080
1 1.708
6.259
3.818
11.113
5.551
35.760
6.936
1.065
2.270
1.772
4.688
RAIN
GREASE
2.850
2.952
5.324
1.244
1.918
0.874
12.321
2.429
3.940
2.553
2.747
1.397
0.735
0.533
1.489
0.699
5.677
1.029
0.204
0.229
0.274
0.741
A-69
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
67D
68D
69D
70D
71D
72D
73D
74D
75D
76D
77D
78D
79D
SOD
BID*
82D
83D
84D
85D
86D
87D*
88D
*
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
1658. 13
103.40
78.46
78.39
89.32
105. 10
486.74
347. 13
358.12
318.65
414.22
430.37
46.78
197.31
353.50
143.90
38.38
1637.32
70.54
107.26
277.22
105.53
INDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
449.6
28.0
22. 0
22.0
24.0'
28.0
128.9
98.9
97.4
89.9
101.9
121.0
13.6
51.6
99.8
51 .8
13.4
456.6
17.3
30.7
78.7
30.7
SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
71 .79
5.36
2.90
3.63
3.82
6.93
16.01
15.97
13.93
14.05
14.95
16.57
2.02
7.50
11.91
13.44
2.68
40.77
3.01
5.46
14.42
8. 19
COLLECTED
BOD
#/MI
2.9181
0.2337
0.2024
0.2430
0.1715
0.2417
0.7204
0.7289
0.6303
0.3664
0.5468
2. 1261
0. 1366
0.4282
1. 1064
0.4087
0. 1067
1.9157
0. 1855
0.2263
1. 1089
0. 1836
FOLLOWING
COD
#/MI
73-285
6.472
4.943
6. 185
5.028
6.316
17.474
17- 147
19. 159
16. 155
24.852
29.050
4.458
15.213
30.896
18. 190
4.444
74.662
6.250
7.841
18.214
13.982
RAIM
GREASE
#/MI
9.285
0.993
0.730
0.698
0-572
0.925
2.823
2.117
2. 113
2. 167
2.858
4.863
0.487
2.249
4.313
2. 130
0.710
14.245
0.861
1.705
2. 523
1.805
A-70
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
SAMP .
MO.
89D
90D
9 ID*
92D
93D
94D
95D
96D
97D
98D
99D
100D
101D
102D
103D
104D
105D
106D
107D
108D
109D
110D
*
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
46.03
1691. 10
414. 19
192.21
200.88
183.29
888.35
39.40
15.73
23.83
153.29
39.22
43.27
206.96
106.94
75.02
345.80
236.83
201.02
410.93
733.57
122.82
INDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
15.4
399. 3
101.5
53-3
54-6
53.3
292.6
14.2
5- 1
4. 1
43.2
12.0
*
15-2
63.9
32.0
23.2
95.9
59.9
59.9
1 19.9
231 .3
38.4
SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
2.72
68.82
21. 79
8.90
9.90
9.86
96.86
22.93
1 .65
2.08
8.42
1.-79
2.38
7.08
3-86
3.24
9.61
8.29
7.90
19.20
37.49
5.05
COLLECTED
BOD
#/MI
0.0727
2.3505
0.5674
0. 3267
0.6448
0.3862
0.9149
0.0843
0. 0886
0.0882
0.3725
0.0879
0. 1333
0.3684
0.2139
0. 1635
0-5429
0. 3647
0. 3317
0.7068
2.7216
0.2678
FOLLOWING
COD
#/M I
5. 146
75.588
32.967
15. 164
17. 556
15.267
53.385
3.802
1.559
2.223
8.599
2.851
3.033
10.658
7. 196
4.974
20.436
10.965
12.644
27.942
81 . 500
9.715
RAIN
GREASE
#/MI
0. 746
12.006
5.550
2.287
1.225
2. 199
7. 106
0.457
0.307
0. 384
1. 119
0-326
0.350
1 .428
0.909
0.540
2.386
1.468
1 .387
3.000
7.262
0.995
A-71
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 1
GREASE
SAMP.
NO.
1 1 ID
112D
11 3D
1 14D
115D
1 16D
117D
118D
119D
120D
121D
122D
123D
124D
125D
126D
127D
*
DRY
WEIGHT
#/MI
131.63
200.35
42. 12
51 .48
28.35
217- 11
289.86
106.65
700.69
171.53
190.17
204.20
64.22
32.70
77.66
146.46
105.95
INDICATED
DRY
VOLUME
QT/MI
42.2
52.8
10.2
15.4
8.9
63.8
86. 1
25.5
197.7
51.0
51.0
57.4
19.2
6.9
23.0
36.4
34.5
SAMPLES
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
#/MI
6.74
8.87
2.51
2.84
1.78
7.77
16.81
5.76
18.22
8.92
9.22
10.23
3.57
1.44
3.63
9.70
6.35
COLLECTED
BOD
# /M I
0.7292
0.2023
0. 1171
0.0849
0. 1074
0.4603
0.81 16
0. 3173
1.0160
0.2195
0.4317
0.3390
0.1612
0.0625
0. 1 196
0.4921
0. 1897
FOLLOWING-
COD
10.360
15.105
4.204
4. 190
2.355
13.374
24.898
12.222
39. 308
14.940
15.023
18.603
5. 150
2. 570
5.669
19.699
8.498
RAIM
~.m
1.290
1.643
0.463
0.278
0.320
1.997
3.420
1.536
4.064
2.058
1.559
2.083
0.604
0.330
0.792
2.080
0.996
A-72
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
#/MlLE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWM
SAMP.
NO.
ID
2D
3D
4D
5D
6D
7D
8D*
9D
10D
1 ID*
12D
13D
IAD
15D*
16D
17D
18D*
19D
20D
21D
22D
TOTAL
P04-P
2
2.698
0.676
0.283
0.097
0.282
0. 139
15.882
0.610
1.427
2.378
0.604
1.550
3.578
7-183
0.937
8.570
7-334
9.318
4.917
7.749
12.747
10.812
P04-P
2
0. 104
0.038
0.024
0.015
0.006
0.025
0.236
0.001
0.004
0.027
0.003
0.031
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.022
0.065
0.017
0.023
0.000
0.000
2-272
;NJ03-:M
2
0.094
0.007
0.01 1
0.007
0.034
0.011
0.469
0.010
0.013
0.039
0.005
0.025
0.099
0.047
0.024
0.038
0. 187
0.044
0.043
0. 187
0.800
0.679
N02-M
2
0.019
0.014
0.015
0.003
0.010
0.016
0.000
o.ooo
0.002
0.-001
0.013
0.019
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.001
0.018
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.014
0.038
KJELD.
M
0
0. 188
0.046
0.040
0.014
0.047
0.025
0.631
0.019
0.017
0. 104
0.028
0.043
0.083
0.042
0.034
0. 100
0. 154
0.075
0.066
0. 134
0. 1 17
0. 1 15
CL
0
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.087
0.005
0.012
0.01 1
0.009
0.013
0.026
0.018
0.006
0.047
0.062
0.049
0-048
0.049
0.022
0.096
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOW I'MG RAIN
A-73
-------
TABLE C-2 .(CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPOUEMT SHOWM
SAMP.
NO.
23D
24D*
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
SOD*
31D
32D
33D
34D
35D
36D
37D
38D
39D
40D
41D
42D
43D
44D
*
TOTAL
P04-P
2
5.613
8.496
14.378
4.829
5.475
1.409
2.795
1.666
1-731
6.327
'0.756
1 .874
1 .027
9.222
2. 199
0.015
0.017
19. 178
8.393
7.442
17.814
INDICATED
P04-P
2
1.526
0.239
0.314
0.000
0.025
0.056
0.242
0.256
0.457
0.602
0.445
0.016
0..003
0.880
0.541
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SAMPLES
N03-M
2
0.624
0.812
1. 135
0. 317
0.315
0. 196
0-209
0.338
0.251
0.431
0. 144
0-048
0.054
0.637
0.305
0.073
0. 1 16
0.482
0-641
1 . 159
COLLECTED
N02-N
2
0.029
0.087
0. 1 12
0.058
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.014
FOLLOWING
KJELD.
0
0.064
0-092
0. 1 14
0.087
0.065
0.074
0.217
0.023
0.027
0.025
0. 124
0.015
0.019
0.040
0.049
0.01 1
0.026
0.028
0.356
0. 100
0.089
0. 156
RAI.XJ
CL
0
0.053
0.058
0. 1 14
0.039
0.072
0.020
0.025
0.01 1
0.023
0.040
0.066
0.009
0.014
0.010
0. 147
0.023
0.032
0.022
1.205
0.260
0.384
0.420
A-74
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPOME.MT SHOWN
SAMP.
MO.
45D
46D
47D
48D
49D
SOD
51D
52D
53D
54D
55D
56D
57D
58D
59D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
66D
TOTAL
P04-P
2
7.007
8.576
4.224
0.946
1.529
0.568
1 1. 138
2.271
5.327
3.003
2.665
2.590
1.810
1.082
2.668
0.801
13.004
2.069
0.516
0.740
0.679
1.633
P04-P
2
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.608
0.203
0.709
0.060
0.627
o.ooo
0. 1 10
0. 189
o.ooo
0.220
0. 143
0.061
0.310
0. 190
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.005
0.052
M03-M
2
0.253
0.642
0.616
0. 182
0.491
0.099
1.058
0.210
0.387
0.283
0.296
0.234
0.092
0.058
0. 161
0.070
0.607
0.289
0.041
0.067
0.058
0.084
MO 2 -i\J
2
0.001
0-005
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
o.ooo
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.007
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.001
KJELD.
M
0
0.046
0.080
0.385
0-066
0. 152
0.026
0.404
0.073
0.230
0.067
0.078
0.055
0-008
0.008
0.030
0.024
0.359
0.059
0.012
0.018
0.007
0.008
CL
0
0.052
0.547
0.067
0.013
0.046
0.008
0.285
0.034
0.058-
0.034
0.030
0.075
0.027
0.012
0.060
0.023
0. 102
0.031
0.091
0.090
0.053
0. 195
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING KAI.vl
A-75
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
0/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOW.M
SAMP. TOTAL P04-P M03-M M02-M KJELD. C
MO- P04-P M
0 0
67D 34-321 0.000 0-730 0.003 0-846 0-232
68D 2.368 0.000 0.244 0.003 0-046 0-042
69D 1-867 0-000 0-089 0-002 0.028 0.057
70D 1-726 0.000 0.102 0.002 0.027 0.128
71D 2.072 0.000 0-080 0-001 0.030 0.072
72D 2.375 0-000 0-218 0.003 0-027 0.120
73D 12.947 0.000 0.414 0.023 0.024 0.307
74D 10.795 0.000 0.698 0-006 0.014 0.160
75D 8.630 0.000 0.491 0.005 0-022 0-190
76D 8-157 0-000 0-449 0-004 0.042 0-159
77D 10.272 0.041 1.147 0.001 0.070 0.273
78D 5.035 0.043 1.098 0-001 0-108 0-082
79D 1-081 0-009 0-131 0.000 0.018 0-014
80D 2.881 0.118 0.288 0-000 0.055 0.124
81D* --- --- --- --- __. 0.035
82D 2-950 0.144 0.176 0.000 0.037 0-065
83D 0-645 0-019 0-068 0-000 0.028 0.012
84D 18.993 1-637 1.539 0.002 0-295 0.295
85D 1.404 0-007 0.163 0-000 0-028 0.020
86D 2.295 0.333 0.216 0-000 0-050 0.047
87D* --- --- --- --- o.039
88D 2.828 0-116 0-121 0-000 0-045 0-048
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING HAIrt
A-76
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP.
NO.
89D
90D
9 ID*
92D
93D
94D
95D
96D
97D
98D
99D
100D
101D
102D
103D
104D
105D
106D
107D
108D
109D
HOD
*
TOTAL
P04-P
2
0.759
22.656
7.372
3.517
3. 193
3.922
27.803
1.418
0.662
1.389
4.016
0.859
1.398
4.491
2. 107
2. 153
7.815
6.631
5.649
12.780
23. 108
2.813
INDICATED
P04-P
2
0.032
0. 169
0.207
0. 135
o.ooo
0.367
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.002
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.273
0.000
0.000
0.083
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.925
1.931
6.969
0.688
SAMPLES
N03-M
2
0.059
2.756
0.969
•0.223
0.434
0.491
0.293
0.054
0.029
0.049
0.279
0.094
0. 179
0.240
0.663
0.566
0.588
0.592
0.734
0.604
1.474
0.269
COLLECTED
N02-N
2
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.008
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.001
o.ooo
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
FOLLOWING
KJELD.
N
0
0.024
0.490
0. 137
0.075
0.086
0.075
0.320
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.069
0.027
0.035
0.068
0.046
0.059
0.080
0.064
0.054
0. Ill
0.499
0.055
RAIM
CL
0
0.015
0. 101
0.095
0.044
0.056
0.053
0.728
0.018
0.017
0.020
O.U20
0,010
0.012
0.033
0.017
0.024
0. 104
0. 1 14
0. 109
0. 181
0. 183
0.015
A-77
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
4/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPO.xJE-MT SHOWN
SAMP.
MO.
1 1 ID
1 12D
113D
1 14D
1 15D
1 16D
1 17D
1 18D
1 19D
120D
121D
122P
12 3D
124D
125D
126n
127D
TOTAL
P04-P
2
3.528
4-027
1.028
1.318
0.539
4-494
9.739
2.474
8. 128
1.887
1 .750
2.246
1.111
0.700
3.029
5.712
5.009
P04-P
2
1.211
o.ooo
0.004
0.098
O.Q03
0-890
1 .420
0.587
1.051
0-309
0.209
0.429
0.619
o.ooo
o.ooo
1.631
0.828
N03-N
2
0- 304
0. 194
0.073
0. 156
0.058
0.582
1 .006
0.266
1-212
0.604
0.435
0.560
0. 127
0-064
0. 165
0. 170
0. 338
M02-U
2
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.001
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
KJELD.
AJ
0
0.045
0.086
0.038
0.041
0.007
0. 1 19
0.371
0.050
0.231
0.094
0. 108
0. 104
0.035
0.015
0.043
0. 136
0.073
CL
0
0.033
0.036
0.024
0.034
0.013
0.028
0.029
0.038
0.063
0.045
0-021
0.031
0.020
0.006
0.020
0.035
0.031
INDICATED SAMPLES COLLFCTRn FOLLOWING H
A-78
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO N-PAR ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL Ctf CR+6
NO. COL I FORM STREP
#/MI
iS
>x
/MI
P-6
0
7693
-
-
0
382
749
185
0
500
0
0
2990
5779
-
1
-
4
0
487
154
0
7615
4971
#/MI ORG./MI ORG./MI #/
X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6
— o.
— o.
— o.
— o.
— o.
— o.
240.
660.
330.
3700.
0.333 25-
1. 142 0.
— o.
1.
35.
1-310 0.
— o.
2.470 0.
24.
— o.
31.
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
--
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
'MI #/MI
X10EXP+2
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
ID 0.052 0.000
2D 0.003 0.000
3D 0.009 0.000
4D 0.044 0.034
5D 0.025 0.023
6D 0.057 0.040
7D 2.365 1.419
8D* 0.149 0.114
9D 0.242 0.209
10D 0.230 0.187
11D* 0.165 0.137
12D 0.219 0.198
13D 0.461 0.373
14D 0.600 0.527
15D* 0.262 0.180
16D 0.710 0.666
17D 0.982 0.851
18D* 0.721 0.670
19D 0.938 0.846
20D 1.092 0.986
21D 1.174 0.982
22D 1.423 1.369
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-79
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO ^-PAR ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CM CR+6
MO. COLI FORM STREP
#/MI
3RS/MI
JEXP-6
7697
14269
4015
0
0
2637
336
0
395
4131
1111
649
1457
13898
2848
1491
1715
26484
26706
35236
36031
#/MI ORG./MI
X10EXP-6
— o.o
3.412 0.0
3.143 0.0
1.556 0.0
— o.o
---. 0.0
— o.o
— o.o
0.302 0.0
0.670 0.0
1150.0
404.5
0-134 0.0
0.096 0.0
— o.o
0.0
0.744 0.0
0.656 0.0
— o.o
— o.o
1.220 0.0
3.734 0.0
ORG./MI #/MI
X10EXP-6
30.0 0.000
o.o o.ooo
o.o o.ooo
o.o o.ooo
64-4 0.000
27.0 0.000
25.0 0.000
69.0 0.000
33.0 0.000
120.0 0.000
83.0
1.6
1.1
0.1
100.5 0.000
0.4 0.000
0.3 — -
0.0
1194.3
534*1
163.4
1765.9
*/MI
X10EXP42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
«-
--
--
--
--
--
--
«* ^
23D 1.074 0-791
24D* 1.262 0.955
25D 1.454 1.021
26D 1.026 0.831
27D 1.601 1.265
28D 0.498 0.407
29D 0.629 0.496
30D* 0.813 0.693
31D 0.655 0.567
32D 0.577 0.316
33D 0.643 0.456
34D 0.141 0.131
35D 0.205 0.163
36D 0.299 0.148
37D 1.132 0.922
38D 0.318 0.266
39D 0.345 0.292
40D 0.397 0.336
41D 3.225 1.867 196484
42D 0.905 0.815
43D 0.915 0.702 105236
44D 2.100 1.867 226031
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
A-80
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP- PETRO tf-PAR ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CN CR+6
NO. COL I FORM STREP
#/MI FBRS/MI #/MI ORG./MI ORG./MI ///MI #/MI
X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP+2
45D 1.326 0.337
46D 1.436 0.957 101411
47D 1.881 U765
48D 0.451 0.038
49D 0.834 0.584
500 0.300 0.215
51D 5.221 2.576
52D 1-186 0.943
53D 0.839 0.401
54D 1.103 0.769
55D 1.291 1.192
56D 0.753 0.612
57D 0.408 0.313
58D 0.342 0.242
59D 0.737 0.501
60D 0.389 0.315
61D 3.639 2.911
62D 0.680 0.310
63D 0.152 0.134
64D 0.210 0.153
65D 0.209 0.145
66D 0.446 0.436
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-81
45832
01411
59182
7214 0.527
12000 0.889
6089
60118 •
12337
41460 0.438
3297
9780 0.712
18526 •
4015 0.327
7469
8699
7987 0.454
13218
5899 0.480
0 ---
3175
3969 ---
2770 0.319
0.0
45. 3
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
90.3
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
204.9
294.3
368.2
27.4
41. 1
11.2
197.8
3. 3
45.6
18. 1
7.5
17.8
6.2
13.8
73.6
10.5
44. 1
128.2
0.2
37.9
1.3
11; 7
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
---
o.ooo
---
---
---
---
---
o.ooo
„__
---
o.ooo
— — —
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO N-PAR ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CN CR+6
MO. COLIFORM STREP
#/Ml #/MI FBRS/MI #/MI ORG./MI ORG./MI #/MI */M I
X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP-f2
67D
68D
69D
70D
71D
72D
73D
74D
75D
76 D
77D
78D
79D
SOD
8 ID*
82D
83D
84D
85D
86D
87D*
88D
5.803
0.620
0.424
0.353
0.393
0.673
1.801
1.007
1-576
1 .498
1.740
3.572
0.304
1.381
2.651
1.252
0.476
7. 368
0.480
0.965
1 .663
1 .024
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0,
.984
.476
.345
.314
.268
.578
.655
.729
.432
.020
.533
. 152
.239
.302
.510
.933
0.365
6.
0.
0.
1.
o.
.058
'388
740
248
739
* INDICATED
0
0
9262
0
0
6203
112700
40795
21 136
37613
0
25401
8071
23290
24826
2265
44601
12170
0
2875
SAMPLES
0.
0.259 0.
.0
.0
— o.o
o.o
--- 0.0
0.378 0.
.0
— o.o
1.180 0.
1.361 0.
0.510 0.
0.
0.
0.281 0.
— o.
0.892 0.
— o.
— o.
0.282 0.
— o.
0-971 0.
• 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
75.
2.
2.
0.
12.
0.
27.
3.
o.
0.
4.
385.
12.
0.
0.
0.
204.
5i
0.
.3
.4
7
9
2
0
6
9
0
0
7
9
2
0
-
0
9
4
6
0
-
o.o
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
0.000
0.000
0.000
A-82
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO M-PAR ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FFCAL CM Cil+6
-XIO. COLIFORtf STREP
#/MI FBRS/MI #/MI ORG./MI ORG./MI #/MI #/MI
X10FXP-6 X10EXF-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP+2
1
1
1
1
1
1
89 D
90D
9 ID*
92D
93D
94D
95D
96D
97D
98D
99D
OOD
01D
02D
03D
04D
05D
106D
107D
10SD
1
1
09D
10D
0.
8.
2.
1 .
1.
0.
3.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
1 .
o.
o.
1 .
o.
o.
1.-
4.
o.
460
1 17
941
288
024
843
200
229
190
219
828
212
221
1 18
674
293
245
947
884
726
10S
725
* I
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 3
SAMP. PETRO M-PAR ASBESTOS RUBBER FECAL FECAL CN CR+6
MO. COLIFORM STREP
#/MI #/MI FBRS/MI #/MI ORG-/MI ORG./MI #/Ml #/MI
X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6 X10EXP+2
1 1 ID
112D
11 3D
114D
1 15D
1 16D
117D
1 18D
1 19D
120D
121D
122D
123D
124D
125D
126D
127D
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
.619
.002
.265
.273
.181
.955
.594
.843
.873
. 166
.951
. 144
.334
0.209
0.
1 .
0.
.458
• 040
688
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
.513
.901
.236
.237
. 153
.868
. 594
.693
.892
.806
.894
. 103
. 173
. 170
0.349
7769 0.355 0.
34565 0.
9753 0.
17996 0.216 0.
0 0.116 0.
0.282 0.
--- 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
---- — o.
- - 7.
13.
3.
0.937 949.
0.
.527
75.
• 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
5
2
8
41.
0.
0.
o.
4.
86.
6.
21.
0.
46.
0.
0.
56.
12.
201.
6882.
1880.
8
0
5
0
5
2
6
8
0
7
0
0
9
2
0
2
8
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-84
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP. PB
NO. 3
1U 106
2D 8
4D 1
5D 6
6D 1
7D 11 06
on 141
10D 119
ion o o i
13D 799
1 4D / OD
OU 1 U 1 d.
fu 1 y 4 b
19D 1224
POD 1 39 1
2 1 D 5319
ppn /i A x i
CR CU MI ZN
44 44
51 117 87
6 51 34
4
J J 2o
42 27 - - -
4 36 23
bU OUO **7 o /UDAt
1ft Pl£* 1/lP OR11
16 110 228 2924
1 h A1^ 1^A OTin
59 233 213 3798
bo 14/ lib dr)y i
1 14b9 411 4JU/
fey b
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED) . POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP. PB CR CU MI ZN CD BA HG AG SN SB SE AS
NO. 3 44 4 4 6 474 4444
23D 2694 64 219 245 5124 0 "
24D* "~ "
25D 6286 145 546 1080 6443 0 -- --
26D 2600 51 223 189 4280 1222 177 0 1238 124 177 0 0
27D 883 431 134 318 3125 —- 0 --
28D 271 160 46 96 2131 271 42 0 421 35 42 0 0
29D 232 100 62 108 1416 0
30D* --
31D 423 143 56 148 1334 0 — --
32D 298 184 51 151 818 0 --
33D 2017 67 279 94 2017 297
34D 330 11 28 19 1678 153 19 39 1 18 19 0 0
35D 173 24 39 23 380 0 •--
36D 112 38 23 41 431 80 --
37D 6367 196 710 398 6857 845 —
38D 853 34 1656 70 1342 903 122 75 46 0 122 0 20
39D 978 34 81 63 1401 12
40D 444 98 186 301 1925 378 -.
41D 651417233072 2028 7459 5091 --
42D 5407 88 267 201 3801 --- 3Q5 --- --
43D 3007 76 503 213 3599 84786 174 0 12 0 174 0 0
44D 9568 257 1540 895 8635 895 --- —- — - —
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-86
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND.DIRT - FART 4
#/MILE X 10 TO THF EXPO^E.VT SHOWN
SAMP- PB CR CU MI ZM CD BA HG AG
iVO. 3 44 4 4 6 474
45D
46D
47D
48D
49 D
51D
53D
55D
57D
58D
59D
60D
61D
62D
63D
64D
65D
SX) SB SE AS
4444
2355 77 143 238
5584 144 367 423 4268 383
558 220 107 237 1183 0 "
142 96 45 86 813 49
541 118 163 140 1163 231 72 222 3 0 72 0 0
76 47 16 35 539 21
626 97 696 383 3675 125 " "
223 26 114 126 1200 0
401 33 164 339 1642 252 190 000 190 0 0
144 22 94 158 711 0
106 10 20 66 392 0
141 28 58 96 578 0
222 10 40 54 1449 93 0 34 00 0 0 0
148 8 1281 50 1212 31
308 18 34 40 1110 0
55 25 41 139 1347 185 — --
107 63 22 46 314 243
151 87 68 247 1019 400
90 15 11 14 99 55 --
53 44 15 41 261 108 --
66 19 12 24 257 138
48 34 20 61 544 141 --
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-87
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
*/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
c* ci "J i c° B* ? ° « * * «
67D 42741459 1154 1227 6533 4974 ----- ---
68D 2S3 146 69 297 2099 414 - •
69D 173 133 67 95 502 157 '
70D 162 102 40 96 565 157
71D 179 79 84 79 495 268 •
72D 153 75 68 133 500 210 •
73D 3884 998 355 969 2696 1460
74D 1064 555 118 656 1000 694
75D 1200 437 175 580 1282 716
76D 2202 577 134 570 1364 637 •
77D 1276 791 211 882 1798 828 •
78D 495 284 69 331 800 4 •
79D 65 38 54 80 401 94 •
SOD 245 148 67 158 1249 197
81D* --- .
82D 197 105 39 112 918 144 •
83D 56 22 18 33 603 77 •
84D 43061670 426 1277 3373 3275 •
85D 198 59 29 83 15 141 •
86D 254 90 41 152 507 107 •
87D* .
88D 256 89 32 101 949 105 •
* IMDIGATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-88
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND.DIRT - PART 4
#/MlLE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP. PB CR CD NI ZN CD BA HG AG SM SB SE AS
NO. 3 44 4 4 6 474 4444
89D 123 36 23 35 755 46
90D 8201505 423 1826 3450 6764
91D*
92D 169 217 94 333 671 0
93D 239 171 78 173 673 201
94D 121 222 126 236 392 0
95D 3455 542 480 613 2887 1777
96D 164 35 22 29 288 158 •
97D 63 8 5 10 59 47 •
98D 95 19 16 20 180 71 •
99D 366 136 83 155 682 307 •
100D 69 67 22 56 275 118 •
101D 58 88 80 53 207 130 •
102D 538 172 95 192 1138 414 •
103D 870 90 71 97 620 321 •
104D 237 55 125 67 359 150 •
105D 3631 481 128 543 2213 1037 •
106D 2416 379 121 379 1198 474 •
107D 1122 257 96 235 1073 402 •
108D 2576 448 173 990 9944 1232 •
109D 1849 403 213 301 2472 734 •
HOD 204 101 56 82 570 491 •
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
A-89
-------
TABLE C-2 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
DUST AND DIRT - PART 4
#XMILE X 10 TO THE EXPO^E^I SHOW
SAMP. PB CR CU -MI Z-* CD BA HG AG SN SB SE AS
MO. 3 44 4 4 6 474 4444
HID 278 118 65 100 523 527
112D 2484 154 80 152 1188 401 '
113D 313 32 23 40 535 168 •
114D 236 65 19 37 467 257 •
115D 253 29 27 38 216 510 '
116D 197 254 126 189 267 651 •
117D 351 261 209 235 1771 1739 •
118D 230 185 50 85 736 107 •
119D 1531 596 434 575 2614 701 •
120D 586 178 115 190 1801 343 •
121D 393 173 405 179 175 380 •
122D 394 210 84 227 1719 204 —- -
123D 189 48 24 44 318 64 •
124D 151 21 20 28 295 65 •
125D 190 43 40 48 381 78 --- --- •
126D 493 82 66 101 115.0 439 --- -
127D 269 59 47 59 1007 424 -
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAItf
A-90
-------
TABLE C-3.. POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP-
wo.
** IF
**2F
**3F
**4F
**5F
**6F
7F
8F*
9F
10F
11F*
12F
13F
**14F
**15F*
**16F
**17F
**18F*
*
it
*19F
*20F
21F
22F
TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED
SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
#/MI #/MI #/wI #
9.
1 .
0.
o.
o.
0.
10.
4.
4.
2.
2-
5.
6.
13.
2.
16.
24.
12.
17.
26.
15.
4.
81
29
99
58
96
61
39
42
69
61
01
00
72
69
71
71
64
61
22
51
98
99
3.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
2.
o.
U
1.
1-
3.
3.
4.
1 .
3.
5.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
03
46
43
18
37
3 1
05
44
75
96
72
18
62
04
06
38
06
67
49
04
17
31
0.
o.
0.
" 0 .
0.
---- o.
9. . 9 0 0 .
3.41 0 .
3.74 0.
2-55 0.
1 . 79 0.
4.18 0.
5.61 0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
13.63 0 .
4. .82 0.
BOD
/I i 1
2111
0241
0345
0271
0526
0375
2243
3287
3742
2172
1688
3632
5283
1401
0360
1785
2541
0980
4348
1366
1772
1233
COD GREAS
1-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
2.
2.
1 .
1.
3.
3.
1.
0.
5-
9.
6.
2.
2.
1.
1.
733
554
425
270
537
385
675
363
355
397
409
379
434
732
790
963
037
914
875
214
803
867
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
018
002
008
027
022
032
395
207
229
1 12
159
308
404
333
1 19
370
376
381
494
702
535
212
* INDICATED SAMPLES
** INDICATED SAMPLES
COLLECTED FOLLOWING liAIi\i
CALCULATED VALUES
A-91
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 1
*
*
*
SAI-JF -
NO.
23F
24F*
25F
26F
*27F
*28F
*29F
**30F*
**31F
**32F
33F
34F
35F
36F
**37F
**38F
**39E
**40F
** 41F
42F
43F
44F
TO TAL
SOLIDS
5
7
3
8
19
5
9
6
8
8
5
3
0
0
45
9
8
9-
63
13.
.23
.61
.48
.05
.44
.28
. 1 1
.96
.37
. 19
.23
.21
.01
.43
.77
.38
. 18
.41
.87
.40
TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD
SOLIDS SOLIDS
#/MI 4/ivJl #/MI
1
1
1
2
8
2
10
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
6
1
1
2
9
5
9.48 5.
12.
.51
4.
.52
. 19
.24
.90
.23
.99
.55
. 84
.08
.69
-77
.95
• 56
.50
. 10
.03
.29
• 67
.36
.31
.43
.49
3.62 0.
5-42 0.
2.21 0.
5.62 0.
1.
o.
o.
---- o.
o.
o.
2.50 0.
3.38 .0.
1.43 0.
3.34 0.
o.
---- o.
- — o.
---- o.
1.
8.08 0.
8.83 0 .
6.71 0.
1320
2289
1497
3576
4193
2792
3294
3764
3206
3085
2201
2128
0954
1981
7217
1492
2226
2018
0739
1365
1376
1651
COD
#/MI
2.
3.
1.
3.
11.
2.
5.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
o.
1.
5-
1-
1 .
2.
6.
2«
2.
1 .
372
677
867
734
81 1
890
287
511
741
214
269
460
312
108
328
322
408
020
482
109
207
777
GREASE
if /MI
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
o.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
1.
o.
o.
o.
• 175
-303
131
227
145
352
406
197
381
281
182
266
088
197
770
172
186
235
135
253
206
280
* INDICATED b
** INDICATED SAMPLES
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIXF
a;;;P CALCULATED VALUES
A-92
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP.
NO.
45F
46 F
**47F
**48F
**49F
**50F
51F
52F
53F
54F
55F
56F
57F
58F
59F
60F
**61F
**6SF
**63F
**64F
**65F
**66F
TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE
SOLIDS SOLIDS
#/MI #/MI
29.87
7.91
21.80
4.78
10.47
2.66
20.30
16. 15
8.76
15.68
8.45
9.80
4.80
1.81
4. 52
2. 16
36.52
7-52
1.38
2.03
1. 73
3.53
8.85
6.85
7.68
1.82
6.90
1.25
8.82
6.87
4.97
4.87
3.37
1.75
0.61
0.49
1.21
0.60
5.00
1.87
0.24
0.65
0.41
0.96
SUSPENDED BOD
SOLIDS
#/MI #/MI
5.29
5.87
21.99
15.0.9
10.82
15.93
5.77
11 .56
2.01
2. 11
4.63
2.22
0.2713
0.3269
0.9439
0.2553
0.6292
0. 1447
0.9148
0.6927
0.5674
0.8005
0.6048
0.3254
0. 1532
0. 1437
0.3740
0.2317
0.8570
0. 1051
0.0277
0.0458
0.0393
0. 1356
COD
#/MI
3.256
2.893
6.757
2.076
6.590
1.609
5. 700
4.079
3.088
4.757
2.859
2.661
0.993
0.909
1.617
0.878
6.81 1
1.321
0.203
0.432
0.333
0.893
GREASE
#/MI
0.653
0.327
1.249
0.292
0.45O
0.205
1. 151
0. 791
0.488
0.717
0.519
0.530
0. 170
0. 145
0.249
0. 117
1.332
0.241
0.048
0.054
0.064
0. 174
* INDICATED SAMPLES
** INDICATED SAMPLES
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
AhE CALCULATED VALUES
A-93
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 1
SAMP .
NO.
**67F
**68F
**69F
**70F
**71F
**72F
73F
74F
75F
76F
77F
78F
79F
80F
**81F*
82F
83F
84F
85F
86F
**87F+
88F
TOTAL
SOLIDS
#/MI
124.31
7.78
5.91
5.91
6.72
7.91
17- 15
16.86
7.04
2.31
7.80
27.27
22. 10
7.83
26.61
10.51
14.33
9.39
14.82
3.45
20.87
4.92
TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD
SOLIDS SOLIDS
#/MI #/MI #/MI
17.95
1.34
0.73
0.91
0.96
1.73
1.61
2.09
0.33
1.80
1.30
4.06
2.61
1.25
2.98
1.49
1.34
1.47
1.09
0-38
3.61
0.71
17.44
14.06
8-25
1.23
7.43
22.45
21-30
6.68
10.81
15.63
6. 50
7.40
2.76
5.53
1-6414
0. 1314
0. 1139
0. 1366
0.0964
0. 1359
0. 1541
0. 1541
0. 1651
0.0154
0.0825
0.3170
0. 3043
0.2747
0-6223
0.3663
0. 3156
0.0687
0.0986
0.0345
0.6237
0. 1690
COD
13.959
1.233
0.942
1 . 1 78
0.958
1.203
2.817
2.273
2.229
0.248
1-546
1.840
3.499
2.626
5.885
1 .585
2.485
0.588
2.643
0.392
3.469
0.757
GREAS.
2. 178
0.233
0. 171
0. 164
0. 134
0.217
0.044
0.033
0.020
0.003
O.OS5
0.414
0.888
0.380
1.012
0.587
1.560
0-243
0.394
o.in
0.592
0. 169
* INDICATED SAMPLES
** INDICATED SAMPLES
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-94
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART.1
SAMP.
NO.
89F
90F
9 IF*
92F
93F
94F
95F
96F
97F
98F
99F
100F
101F
**102F
**103F
**104F
105F
106F
107F
108F
109F
110F
TOTAL
SOLIDS
#/MI
1 .76
1 13. 14
45.31
4.09
6.67
6.39
39.23
8.70
11.01
1 .62
23.94
8.59
4.21
15-58
8.05
5.65
27.51
9.72
14.66
13.65
4.78
10.95
TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPENDED BOD
SOLIDS SOLIDS
#/AI
0.34
12.16
3.83
0.81
1 .24
1 . 18
6.42
1.36
1.25
0. 18
1 .80
1 .92
0.87
1.77
0.97
0-81
1.66
1 . 16
3.32
2-09
1 .57
1.05
#/MI
1. 18
1 16.81
28.83
5-06
7.75
6.85
36.66
8.39
1 1.88
2.28
16.76
9.62
3.58
29. 32
10.24
1 1.06
13.22
3-52
6.56
#/MI
0.0338
0.4587
0. 1614
0.0880
0. 1320
0. 1272
0. 1612
0. 1679
0.3134
0-0851
0. 1903
0. 2300
0.0954
0.2072
0. 1203
0-0919
0. 1981
0. 1733
0. 2146
0. 1288
0.0634
0. 1648
COD
# /H I
0.437
11.993
2.362
0. 741
1-730
1.604
1 .090
1.231
1-319
0.246
1.321
U701
0.439
2.030
1- 371
0.947
2.945
0.982
2.988
2 . 1 59
1.039
1.059
GREASE
#/MI
0. 167
2.294
0. 789
0. 230
0.356
0.270
1.080
0.343
0-355
0.074
0-264
1 .673
0. 104
0.335
0.213
0.127
0. 555
0. 182
0.304
0.307
0.085
0.273
* INDICATED SAMPLES
** INDICATED SAMPLES
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-95
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 1
POLLUTANT LOADS Otf ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 1
SAKP .
111F
1 12F
113F
114F
115F
116F
117F
118F
119F
120F
121F
122F
123F
124F
125F
126F
127F
TOTAL TOTAL VOLATILE SUSPE-MDED BOD
SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
5.49
34.64
3.19
4.42
2.27
18.76
13. 89
5.27
11.22
5.88
7. 10
3.07
0.86
6.84
6.69
3.91
5.25
1. 18
4.37
0.70
0.72
0.54
3.62
2.45
1.81
2.40
1.70
1.85
0.96
0.12
0.98
2.56
1.02
1.61
4.94
29.99
2.84
3.26
1.79
14«50
12.51
4.22
8.98
4.48
7-52
2.29
0.76
6.90
3.56
3.34
2.56
0. 1620
0.2835
0.0716
0. 1347
0.0582
0.2811
0.1687
0. 1476
0. 1113
0.0316
0. 1195
0.0498
0.0282
0.0852
0.1007
0.4480
0*4670
COD
f/MI
1.952
4.775
1.236
2.835
1.025
5.376
3.476
1.517
3-027
2. 193
3.465
1.145
0.637
2.998
1.348
2.054
3.251
GREAS
0.275
0.679
0. 184
0.191
0.118
0.759
0.440
0.312
0.456
0.358
0.378
0. 189
0.068
0.256
0.248
0.203
0.223
* INDICATED SAMPLES
** INDICATED SAMPLES
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-96
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE. EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP.
i\JO.
**1F
**2F
**3F
**4F
**5F
**6F
7F
8F*
9F
10F
1 IF*
12F
13F
**14F
**15F*
**16F
**17F
**18F*
** 19F
**20F
21F
22F
*
**
TOTAL
P04-P
2
0.476
0. 1 19
0.050
0.017
0.050
0.025
0.350
0. 175
0. 165
0.070
0.088
0. 187
0. 132
1 .268
0. 165
1 .512
1.294
1 .644
0.868
1.367
0.385
0. 128
INDICATED
INDICATED
P04-P
2
0.078
0.029
0.018
0.01 1
0.005
0.019
0.013
0.021
0.011
o.ooo
0.015
0.022
0.013
0.027
0.000
0.017
0.049
0.013
0.017
o.ooo
0.008
o.ooo
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
itt03-M
2
0.309
0.016
0.024
0.016
0.076
0.024
0.720
0.801
0.616
1.403
2.047
0.605
2.034
0. 105
0.053
0.085
0.416
0.098
0.096
0.416
1.248
0.880
COLLECTED
M02-M
2
0.614
0.453
0.485
0.097
0.323
0.517
0.078
0. 165
0.207
0. 154
0.086
0. 183
0. 135
0.000
0.032
0. 582
0.065
0. 162
0.065
0.032
0.243
0.066
FOLLOWING
KJELD.
N
0
0.093
0.023
0.020
0.007
0.023
0.012
0.073
0.031
0.044
0.029
0.029
0.044
0.053
0.021
0.017
0.049
0.076
0.037
0.033
0.066
0.039
0.026
RAIiM
CL
0
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.020
0.031
0.077
0-053
0.066
0.088
0.026
0.014
0.005
0.035
0.047
0.037
0.036
0.037
0.092
0. 101
AliE CALCULATED VALUES
A-97
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 2
#/MlLE X 10 TO THE EXPO.MENT SHOWN
SAMP.
NO.
23F
24F*
25F
26F
**27F
**28F
**29F
**30F*
**31F
**32F
33F
34F
35F
36F
**37F
**38F
**39F
**40F
**41F
42F
43F
44F
*
**
TOTAL
P04-F
2
0. 149
0.229
0.092
0. 179
0.966
0.249
0.493
0.294
0. 305
0.836
0.352
0.062
0. 147
1.627
0.388
0.003
0.003
3.386
0.881
0.903
0.836
INDICATED
INDICATED
P04-P
2
0.006
0.043
0.004
0.029
0.019
0.042
0.183
0.193
0.345
0.010
0.015
o.ooo
0.000
0.664
0.408
0.006
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.006
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
N03-M
2
1 .222
1 -550
1.413
2.404
0.701
0.436
0.465
0-752
0.559
1.013
1 .564
0.083
0.927
1.418
0.679
0. 162
0.258
0.001
1.018
1.139
N02-N
2
0. 185
0.288
0.278
0.437
0.032
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.039
0.032
0.022
0.052
o.ooo
o.ooo
0. 032
0.032
0.226
0.089
0.033
0. 134
KJELD.
M
0
0.033
0.029
0.013
0.029
0.032
0.036
0.107
0.01 1
0.013
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.024
0.005
0.013
0.014
0. 175
0.035
0.014
0.014
CL
0
0. 1 10
0.058
0. 145
0.200
0..054
0.015
0.019
0.006
0.017
0.030
0.476
0.3P6
0. 103
0 . 089
0.111
0.017
0.024
0.017
0.909
0. 150
0.204
0. 160
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
ARE CALCULATED VALUES
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPO.MEMT SHO WM
SAMP.
MO.
45F
46F
**47F
**48F
**49F
+ *50F
51F
52F
53F
54F
55F
56F
57F
58F
59F
605-
**6 1 F
**62F
**63F
**64F
* * 6 5 F
#*66F
t*
TOTAL
F04-P
2
1.085
1.114
0.745
0. 167
0.270
0. 100
1 .267
0.724
1.372
0.647
0. 396
0.453
0.201
0. 165
0.247
0 . 1 1 8
a . 29 5
0. 365 t
0.091
0.131
0. 120
0. 285
• INDICATED
• INDICATED
P04-P
2
0.009
0-036
0.459
0. 153
0.535
0.045
0.035
0.031
0-026
0.077
0.011
0.023
0. 169
0.017
0.019
0.020
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.004
0.039
SAMPLES
S AM PL F S
.M03-N
2
0.847
2. 146
1 .371
0.405
1 .093
0.220
0.845
0.785
0.066
0.262
0.121
0.488
0.428
0.317
0.495
0.454
1-351
0.643
0.091
0. 149
0. 129
0.187
COLL EC TE
Af
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 2
X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP.
wo.
**67F
**68F
**69F
**70F
**71F
**72F
73F
74F
75F
76F
77F
78F
79 F
80F
*.*81F*
82F
83F
84F
85F
&6F
**37F*
88F
*
**
TOTAL
P04-P
2
6.057
0.418
0.329
0-305
0.366
0.419
0.594
0.532
0. 347
0.041
0. 198
0. 546
0.662
0.470
0.662
0.592
0. 26b
0.355
0.113
0.275
INDICATED
INDICATED
P04-P
2
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.011
0.023
0.017
0.002
0.006
0.009
0.203
0.005
0.141
0.020
0.007
0.020
0.005
0.025
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
N03-N
2
1.625
0.543
0. 198
0.227
0. 178
0.485
1 .728
1 .425
1.271
0. 102
0. 556
0.264
0. 697
0. 507
1.620
1.824
0.030
0.621
0. 106
1 .933
COLLECTED
ARE CALCU
N02-M
2
0.097
0.097
0.065
0.065
0.032
0.097
0. 122
0. 143
0. 144
0.014
0. 105
0.053
0.047
0.037
0.031
0.013
0.025
0.061
0.019
0.019
KJELD.
N
0
0.417
0.023
0.014
0.013
0.015
0.013
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.001
0.017
0.018
0.051
0.021
0.035
0. 123
0.004
0.039
0.009
0.035
CL
0
0.175
0.032
0.043
0.097
0.054
0.091
0. 1 10
0.008
0.018
0.000
0.021
0.000
o.ooo
0.01 1
0.026
0.035
0.002
0.000
o.ooo
0.001
0.029
0.006
FOLLOWING RAIN
LATED VALUES
A-100
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHO WM
SAMP.
NO.
89F
90F
91F*
92F
93F
94F
95F
96F
97F
98F
99F
100F
101F
**102F
**103F
**104F
105F
106F
107F
108F
109F
11 OF
*
**
TOTAL
P04-P
2
0. 127
3.080
0.704
0.330
0.068
0.423
4.989
3. 180
5.562
1.365
0.675
0.544
0.286
0.793
0.372
0.380
1 .572
0.545
1.090
0.535
0.363
0.380
INDICATED
INDICATED
P04-P
2
0.006
0.098
0.044
0.044
0-039
0. 108
0.034
0.009
0.039
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.052
0.000
o.ooo
0.063
o.ooo
0.025
0. 182
0.059
0.035
0.013
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
M03-N
2
0.561
4.850
3.873
1.357
1.731
1.514
1.753
1. 156
1.515
0.622
0.462
1. 178
0.591
0.534
1.476
1 .260
1 .426
0.867
2.922
1 .228
0.285
0.380
M02-iM
2
0.008
0. 134
0.073
0.049
0.075
0. 103
0. 140
0.083
0.046
0.069
0.064
0.117
0.056
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.203
0.076
0.244
0.265
0.017
0.034
KJELD.
M
0
0.009
0. 131
0.044
0.015
0.026
0.029
0. 121
0.065
0.052
0.013
0.022
0.028
0.019
0.033
0.023
0.029
0.040
0.01 7
0.033
0.030
0.018
0.025
CL
0
0.004
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.001
0.410
0. 131
0.078
0.013
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.025
0.013
0.018
0.000
o.ooo
0-066
O.OU5
0.010
o.ooo
COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-101
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 2
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP.
MO.
1 1 IF
112F
1 13F
1 14F
1 15F
1 16F
1 17F
1 18F
119F
120F
121E
122F
123F
124F
125F
126F
127F
TOTAL
P04-P
2
0.437
1 -589
0.38*
0.425
0.336
1.669
0.946
0.394
0.545
0.200
0. 199
0.239
0.017
0.395
0.302
0.406
0.440
P04-P
2
0.032
0.007
0.004
0.007
0-004
0.018
0-047
0.016
0.033
0.032
0.020
0.010
0.023
0.015
0.023
0.034
0.055
M03-N
2
0.632
0.298
0.475
1.113
0.555
1.423
0.371
0.828
1.714
1 -335
1.085
0.627
0. 186
0.372
0.232
0.660
0.018
M02-N
2
0.028
0. 178
0. 143
0. 162
0.099
0. 192
0. 192
0.069
0.171
0. 121
0.044
0.075
0.015
0. 042
0.057
0.056
0.080
KJELD.
N
0
0.024
0.075
0.031
0.035
0.018
0.070
0.047
0.033
0.056
0.021
0.030
0.030
0.01 1
0.023
0.023
0.025
0.027
CL
0
o.ooo
0.067
0.031
0. 106
0.036
0.035
0.019
0.016
0.067
0.063
0.040
0.060
0.006
0.023
0.062
0.076
0.073
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
** INDICATED SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-102
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP.
MO.
**1F
**2F
**3F
**4F
**5F
**6F
7F
8F*
9F
10F
11F*
12F
13F
**14F
**15F*
**16F
**i7F
**18F*
**19F
**20F
21F
22F
PETRO-
L/MI
0.012
0.001
0.002
0.010
0.006
0.013
0.218
0. 154
0. 156
0-081
0.090
0. 161
0. 156
0.141
0.061
0.167
0.230
0. 169
0.220
0.256
0.233
0.085
•M - PAR .
# /M I
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.009
0. 198
0. 131
0. 132
0.065
0.067
0. 154
0. 106
0. 124
0.042
0. 156
0.200
0. 157
0. 198
0.231
0. 188
0.057
ASBESTOS
FBRS/MI
X10EXP-6
0.0
1 149.5
0.0
57. 1
111-9
27.6
0.0
15.0
42.6
33.3
15.0
30.0
863.5
0.0
222.2
621.5
0.0
90.9
52.0
FECAL
CO LI FORM
ORG./MI
X10EXP-6
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
135.0
8.9
43.0
11-5
14.7
44.5
41.4
0.0
5. 1
1 10.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
76.0
0.0
1.0
FECAL CM
STREP
OHG-/MI if /Ml
X10EXP-6
0.0
0.0
o.o —
0.0
0.0
o.o —
o.o o.ooo
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
0.0 0.000
o.o o.ooo
1.0 0.000
2. 1 0.000
o.o —
o.o —
o.o —
o.o —
o.o —
o.o —
31.4
o.o o.ooo
o.o o.ooo
Cft+6
#/MI
X10EXP+2
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
* INDICATED
** INDICATED
SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING
SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-103
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP.
Aid .
23F
24F*
25F
26F
**27F
**28F
**29F
**30F*
**31F
**32F
33F
34F
35F
36F
**37F
**38F
**39F
**40F
* * 4 1 F
42F
43F
44F
PETRO.
4 /MI
0.099
0.186
0.094
0. 129
0.376
0. 1 17
0. 148
0. 191
0. 154
0. 135
0.039
0.079
0.026
0.067
0.266
0.075
0.081
0.093
0.756
0. 105
0. 1 15
0.095
;V - PAH .
#/MI
0-058
0. 149
0.053
0.076
0.297
0.095
0. 1 16
0. 163
0. 133
0.074
0.030
0. 036
0.025
0.036
'0.216
0.062
0.068
0.079
0.438
0.094
0.077
0.037
ASBESTOS
FBRS/MI
X10EXP-6
138.4
52.0
84.4
0.0
o.o
394.0
50.2
0.0
59.0
29.7
13-7
14.8
6.8
2076-7
425-6
222.8
256.3
29359.7
101.9
70.0
52.5
FECAL
CO LI FORM
ORG./MI
X10EXP-6
4.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
108.3
137.2
86.6
8. 3
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 1
1.5
2. 5
FECAL
STRKP
ORG./MI
X10FXP-6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.6
21.2
19.6
54.2
25.9
94.3
58.3
1.6
1.7
10.0
79.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
938.4
3.6
1.6
0.8
CM CR+6
#/MI f/MI
X10EXP+2
0.000 0.00
0.000 0.00
o.ooo o.oo
o.ooo o.oo
— -• — • . — —
* INDICATED
** INDICATED
SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-104
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP.
NO.
45F
46F
**47F
**48F
**49F
**50F
51F
52F
53F
54F
55F
56F
57F
58F
59F
60F
**61F
**62F
**53F
**64F
**6SF
**66F
PETRO.
#/MI
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
346
232
441
106
196
070
549
520
557
31 1
260
298
136
069
165
034
854
160
036
049
049
105
iM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-PAR.
#/MI
.262
.228
.414
.009
. 137
.050
.472
. 345
.406
.228
.220
. 126
.069
.055
.088
.022
.683
.073
.031
.036
.034
. 102
ASBESTOS
FBRS/MI
X10EXP-6
76.
494.
8843.
1078.
1793.
909.
0.
0.
265.
0.
65.
2691.
551.
249.
748.
0.
1975.
881 .
0.
474.
59 3 .
413.
5
7
3
0
1
9
0
1
8
0
0
0
6
4
3
0
1
5
0
4
1
9
FECAL
COLIFORM
ORQ./MI
X10EXP-6
o.
5.
o.
0.
o.
0.
8.
12.
o.
o.
27.
15.
4.
2.
2.
2.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
4
2
0
0
0
0
4
9
0
0
5
0
4
7
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
FECAL C.M
STREP
OHG./MI #/MI
X10EXP-6
0.
7.
289.
21.
32.
8.
8.
5.
16-
5.
15.
5.
1.
0.
6.
6.
34.
100.
o.
29.
1.
9.
9
7
3
5 ---
3
8
8 0.000
3 ---
2
3
2
5 0.000
2
6
9
6
*7 — _ _
7
'cL — ~ —
8
0
2
CR+6
#/i/iI
X10EXP+2
* INDICATED
** INDICATED
SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAI:
SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-105
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP.
MO.
**67F
**68F
**69F
**
**
**
**
**
70F
71F
72F
73F
74F
75F
76F
77F
7 or
79F
80F
8 IF*
S2F
83F
84?
85F
86 F
57F*
8SF
PE
4
1 .
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o .
o.
0.
o.
0 «
o.
TRO .
/ iXi I
361
145
099
083
09 &
153
172
160
130
025
132
366
4.2
190
622
3 3 3
600
1 12
231
050
390
Ob5
•sj-FAR.
# /M I
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0 .
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
700
1 12
081
0 7 4
063
136
154
134
071
010
1 18
169
312
1 19
5tt9
251
538
104
199
043
293
081
ASBESTOS
F3RS/MI
X10EXP-6
0.
0.
1384.
0.
0.
926.
0.
909.
0 .
0.
649.
0.
1496.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
163.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
4
0
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
n
0
1
0
FECAL
CO LI FORM
OHG./MI
X10EXP-6
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
4.
o.
o.
o.
0 «
o.
139.
0.
o.
0 .
15-
0 .
0 •
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
FECAL CM CR+6
STREP
OHG./KI 4/MI #/MI
X10EXP-6 X10EXP+2
59.
1.
2.
0.
9 .
0.
0.
1.
o.
0.
o.
7.
7-
o.
-
0.
o.
3.
80.
0.
-
0.
2
9
1
7
6
0
4
9 -
o —
0
3
6
8
1 0.000
0
0
7
4 -_-
0 0.000
INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLO!-;I\)G RAI
INDICATED 5AXPLE3 Arl7. CALCULA'IFD VALUES
A-106
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 3
SAMP -
MO.
89F
90F
91F*
92F
93F
94F
95F
96F
97F
98F
99F
10 OF
101F
**102F
**103F
**104F
105F
106F
107F
108F
109F
1 10F
PETRO.
#/MI
0. 1 12
1. 180
0.349
0. 153
0. 146
0.090
0.580
0. 138
0.31 1
0.038
0.197
0. 149
0.030
0.262
0. 158
0.069
0.277
0.083
0. 165
0. 1 70
0.058
0.11 7
iM-PAH.
#/MI
0-089
1.055
0.31 1
0.092
0-095
0.080
0.561
0.067
0. 180
0.037
0. 128
0. 142
0.058
0. 146
0. 118
0.065
0.277
0-061
0. 149
0. 099
0.048
0.066
ASBESTOS
FBRS/MI
X10EXP-6
166.3
9521.4
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
1555-9
1 101 .0
770.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3594.3
928.5
651.5
3070.0
959.0
0.0
1151.0
0.0
748.0
FECAL
COL I FORM
ORG./MI
X10EXP-6
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
26.5
6521.0
3.4
18321 .0
0.5
68. 1
0.0
o.o
o.o
188.9
0.0
0. 7
0.0
0.9
7.6
FECAL CiM
STREP
ORG*/MI #/MI
X10EXP-6
0.0 ---
o.o ---
o.o ---
0.0 0.000
o.o ---
o.o ---
6.1
8.3 ---
0.0 ---
30.2
1.8 ---
1.4
o.o —
0.0 ---
0.0
2.7
20.4
0.9
2.6
51-7 ---
28.8
19.4
CR+6
#/MI
X10EXP+2
----
__»_
-___
_-__
____
____
----
____
____
_ _ _ „
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
** INDICATED SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-107
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 3
SAi'iP.
MO •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IF
2F
3F
4F
5F
6F
7F
8F
9F
2 OF
2
IF
22F
2
3F
24F
2
5r
26F
2
7F
FETRO .
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
0.
o.
n.
o.
122
381
090
1 13
090
334
169
139
223
127
209
100
062
132
124
101
1 10
N-PAH.
# /n I
0.
o.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
122
201
094
106
067
334
221
139
134
137
169
070
041
1 16
1 16
093
1 10
ASBESTOS FECAL
COLIFORi"!
FBRS/i'il ORG./MI
X10EXP-6 X10EXP-6
0.0 1 -
1728.0 0.
264.0 0.
0.0 0.
264.0 1361.
0.
0 .
— o .
--- o.
— 1.
--- 4520.
--- 784.
V — «. 1
193.
2233.
17.
14.
3
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
4
2
3
8
5
7
3
6
FECAL
STREP
ORG./MI
X10EXP-6
5.
4.
0.
1.
57.
56.
23.
27«
0.
29.
15.
109 .
13.
17.
212.
126.
1455.
1
2
5
0
0
6
4
5
0
0
1
8
2
6
8
6
/j
C-M
CR + 6
K10EXP+2
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIM
** INDICATED SAMPLES APE CALCULATED VALUES
A-108
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 4
E X 10 TO THE EXPOMEMT SHGw.M
SAMP.
MO.
**1F
**2F
**3F
**4F
**5F
**6F
7F
8F*
9F
10F
11F*
12F
13F
**14F
**15F*
**16F
**17F
**18F*
**19F
**20F
21F
22F
LEAD
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
69
--
6
6
--
16
15
31
--
42
81
--
51
58
262
95
CHROMIUM
4
10
1
1
1
1
1
7
--
1 1
6
--
1 1
13
11
—
14
14
--
10
20
15
4
COPPER
4
6
3
1
2
2
2
19
--
8
4
--
11
12
8
--
77
28
--
9
21
20
7
AilCKEL
4
5
2
1
1
1
1
23
--
8
5
--
13
13
6
--
22
7
--
8
1 1
25
12
ZlL\)C MFHCUHY
4 7
--
__
__
__
__
__
i ie o
__
46 0
35 1174
--
1 15 1 101
62 0
55
_-
88
141
__
42
84
228 0
76 0
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIL\)
** INDICATED SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-109
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 4
-4/MlLE >" 10 TO THE EXPOMF.NJT SHOlvX1
LFAD CHnGrtIDM COPPEH NICKEL 21.MC
34 4 4 A
rtFhCURY
7
77
1 1
61
550
25F
26F
**27F
* * 2 8 F
**29F
**31F
**32F
**33F
**34F
**35F
**36F
**37F
**38F
**39F
**40F
* + 4 IF
**42F
**43F
**44F
37
57
37
1 1
10
13
12
54
14
7
5
265
36
41
19
S71
225
125
399
5
7
CM
33
20
29
3b
14
2
5
8
40
7
7
20
353
18
16
53
8
16
7
2
3
3
3
15
1
o
1
37
87
4
10
162
14
26
81
7
13
17
5
6
8
8
5
1
1
2
21
4
3
16
107
1 1
11
47
41
58
64
43
29
27
17
41
34
3
9
140
27
29
39
152
78
73
176
0
0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
_ ..
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTFD FOLLOWING RAI.M
** INDICATED SAMPLES AriF, CALCULATED VALUES
A-110
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 4
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAMP.
wo.
**45F
**46F
**47F
**48F
**49F
**5QF
**51F
**52F
**53F
**54F
**55F
**56F
**57F
**58F
**59F
**60F
**61F
**62F
**63F
**64F
**65F
**66F
LEAD
3
98
233
23
6
23
3
26
9
17
6
4
6
9
6
13
2
4
6
4
2
3
2
CH ROM I UK
4
16
29
45
20
24
10
20
5
7
5
2
6
2
2
4
5
13
18
3
9
4
7
'COPPER
4
8
19
6
2
9
1
37
6
9
5
1
3
2
67
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
NICKEL
4
13
22
12
.5
7
2
20
7
18
8
4
5
3
3
2
7
2
13
1
2
1
3
ZIMC
4
38
87
24
17
24
1 1
75
24
34
15
8
12
30
25
23
27
6
21
2
5
, 5
11
MERCURY
7
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
__
__
--
--
--
, , --
--
--
. _
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIiN
** INDICATED SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-lll
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 4
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOw.vJ
SAMP.
NO.
**67F
**68F
**69F
**70F
**71F
**72F
**73F
**74F
**75F
**76F
**77F
**78F
**79F
**80F
**81F*
**82F
**83F
**84F
**85F
**86F
**87F*
**88F
LEAD
3
178
9
7
7
7
6
162
44
50
92
53
21
3
10
--
8
2
179
8
11
--
11
CHROMIUM
4
299
30
27
21
16
15
204
1 14
90
118
162
58
8
30
--
22
5
342
12
18
--
18
COPPER
4
63
4
4
2
4
4
19
6
9
7
1 1
4
3
4
--
2
1
22
2
2
__
y
NICKEL
4
64
16
5
5
4
7
51
35
31
30
46
17
4
8
--
6
2
67
4
8
—
R
£I.\JC MF.RCUH'/
4 7
133
43
10
12
10
10
55
20
26
28
37
16
8
25
--
19
12
69
13
10
— — __
» Q
* INDICATED SAMPLES COLLECTED FOLLOWING
** INDICATED SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VftLUFS
A-112
-------
TABLE C~3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 4
#/MILE X 10 TO THE EXPOMEMT SHOtJAl
SAMP.-
i\)0 •
**89F
**90F
**91F*
**92F
**93F
**94F
**95F
**96F
**97F
**98F
**99F
**100F
* * 1 0 1 F
**102F
**103F
**104F
**105F
**106F
**107F
**108F
**109F
**1 10F
LEAP
3
5
3^.
--
7
10
5
144
7
3
Zl
15
3
8
22
3-6
10
151
101
47
107
77
9
CHKOMIUW
4
7 •
3US
--
44
35
45
111
7
2
4
28
14
18
35
18
1 1
99
78
53
92
83
21
COPPER
4
1
22
--
5
4
7
25
1
0
1
4
1
4
5
4
7
7
6
5
••)
1 1
3
MICKFL
4
2
96
--
18
9
12
32
2
1
1
8
3
•3
10
5
4
29
20
12
52
16
4
Z I:\JC
4
15
70
--
14
14
8
59
6
1
zj
14
f,
4
23
13
7
45
24
22
203
50
12
MERCURY
7
--
--
--
__
__
--
__
__
__
--
--
--
--
--
__
__
--
--
.-
--
--
—
* I >I r> I C A T E u S AM F L F S C 0 L L F 0 T F D 1-' 0 L. L 0 V, I .\' G H A1 J'j
-.}--* I xjmC.^TFr! SAMPLES AFF C-A-LCL'L AIKO VALUES
A-113
-------
TABLE C-3 (CONTINUED). POLLUTANT LOADS ON ROADWAYS
FLUSH - PART 4
X 10 TO THE EXPONENT SHOWN
SAM P.
NO.
**1 1 IF
**112F
**1 13F
**1 14F
**1 15F
*+ 1 16F
* * 1 1 7 F
**1 18F
* * 1 1 9 1
**120F
* * 1 2 1 F
**122F
**123F
*# 124F
** 125F
* * 1 2 6 F
**127F
LEAD
3
12
104
13
10
11
8
15
10
64
24
16
16
8
6
8
21
1 1
CHROMIUM
4
24
32
7
13
6
52
53
38
122
36
35
43
10
4
9
17
12
COPPEH
4
3
4
1
1
1
7
1 1
3
23
6
21
4
1
1
2
3
2
NICKEL
4
5
8
2
2
2
10
12
4
30
10
9
12
2
2
3
5
4
ZINC
4
1 1
24
1 1
10
4
5
36
15
53
37
4
35
6
6
8
23
21
MERCURY
7
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
_ _
IjJDIC^'-:n SAWPLF.S COLLECTED FOLLOWING RAIN
INDICATED SAMPLES ARE CALCULATED VALUES
A-114
-------
APPENDIX D
STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND PLOTS OF SAMPLE DATA
LITTER
DHYWTLOAD < VERT) US. AXLES (HORZ.)
LB/MILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000-00 240000.00 300000.00
600.00
520.00
440.00
360.00 +
- . *
280.00 + . *
200.00 + .
~ * .
- • * .
- . * *
120.00 + .** * *
-.* *** ,** * .
- * . 4 * 4 33****
- .5 * 33 2 ,5** * 2 * * *
40.00 + 2* 2*2 * 2 *3 ***
- 8* **
0.00 60000.00' 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000-00
LB/MILE = 43.9218710000 + 0.0001689014 X XUALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFI C I ENT= 0.182
T= 1.7655
N= 93
A-115
-------
LITTER
(JOLUMKLOAD (VERT) vJS. AXLES CHO-RZ)
LP/rtlLF
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000-00 240000.00 300000.00
240.00 + .
208.00 +
176.00 + .
144.00 + .
112.00 + .
80.00 + .
- . * * *
- . *
48.00 + .* .2 *
-2*6 * * * * *2!i # * *
- 32 * 2 4* **22* * *
1 6 « 0 0 + . * * 2 2 2 * * * 2 * *
- 5
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 130000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/KILE = 28.5567700000 + 0.0000172165 X X\;ALUE
LI:\IEAH CORRELATION COEFFICIE.SIT= 0.035
T= 0.3306
A-116
-------
LITTER
VOLSLDSLOAD (VERT) VS. AXLES CHORZ)
LB/rtlLE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
240.00 + .
208.00 + .
176.00 + .
144.00 + .
112.00 +.
30-00 +
- .*
48.00 + .
-3- * 3 *
- . * 22 * * *
- *4 * *** 4 #*** * .
16.00 + 37 * **3 44 * 42S 2 * *2
- 6 **2 2*2* * * * *
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILF _ 16-4911500000 + -0.0000264206 X X\;ALUE
LIMEAK CORrtHlLATIOiNj COEFFI CI EMT= -0 • 070
T= -0.6729
,s3= 9 3
A-117
-------
LITTFR
BODLOAD (VERT) US. AXLES CriOR£>
LB/MILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 340000.00 300000.00
+ •
7.20 + .
6.24
5.28 + .
4.32 + .
3. 36 + .
.40 +.
- . * * *
1 .44 +2- *
- . 2 * * *
- .2 * ' 2*
-.4 **##
0.48 +32 45 24 2* **
- 22 2* 2 49 **3** 2
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000-00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 0.4332856200 + 0-0000003489 X XVAL'JE
LlAiEAR 'CORRELATIO.'I COEFFICIEMT= 0.030
T= 0.2800
rg= 88
A-118
-------
LITTER
CODLOAD (VERT) l/S. AXLES CHOP/,)
LB/^ILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
+
1/14.00 + .
124.50
105-60 +
86.40 + .
- .*
67.20 + .
- . *
- •*
- . *
4&.00 + .
~ •
- . *
- 2 . * * *
28.80 + .* * 2
- • 5 *
-**** * #2 *
- . g * * * 33** *
9.60 + 2* *23*23d**328** *.
- 2 * *
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 130000-00 840000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 19.0750490000 + -0.0000457811 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFI CI F.AiT=-0 . 1 44
T= -1.3516
3= 38
A-119
-------
T9TAL DUST £ DIRT
DRYWTL0AD (VERT) VS. AXLES
LB/MILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
1800.00
1560.00 + • *'
1320.00
1080.00 + . •
- . *
• . .
- . * *
840.00 + . * *
- . * * * .
- . * .
- • 2
600.00 + • * .
- . * * * * .
- . * ** * .
- .* * * .
360.00 + • * * 2
- .* #2* *3 * * * .
-2.8* 23*'
- 23 223 * 3 * * * .
120.00 + 3 2 2 43
- 5
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 96.0268380000 + 0.0023848895 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIENT* 0.597
T= 7.0967
N= 93
A-120
-------
DUST £ DIRT
V0LUMEL0AD (VERT> VS. AXLES
LB/MILE
0*00 60000*00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
+ .-..--.....(... ----- .._ + ..__... .4. + •_« «,..,-. +..._._ --- +
420.00 + .
364.00
308.00
252.00 + . *
— • »
- . * *
- . * *
1S6.00 + • * * • .
- . * .
- . * .
- . * *
140.00 + . 2 *
- . 2 *2
- . * * * * .
-.****
84.00 + * ** 2 * •
-,g*2 * * * •
-2.2* * * 24
- 82 224 * 2 * * *
28.00 + 2*24*
- 5
+--. «-+--- -. + — ..---_- + , » + _„„, ._„ +
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000®QQ 240000.00 300000-00
LB/MILE = 26.7195530000 * 0*0006333310 X XVALUE
LINEAR C©RRELATI@N C0EFFICIENT= 0.612
T= 7.3895
H» 93
A-121
-------
TOTAL DUST ft DIRT
AXLES CHORZ)
0.00 60000- OQ 120000.00 180000.00 240000-00 300000.00
v'OLSLDSLOAD (VERT) VS.
LB/MILE
106.UO + .
93.60+.
79.20 +.
6/i.SO +.
- *
50.40 +.
36.00+.*
•*
*222
21.60+.* #-* * *. *
- *3* 2 *
-2.7 * * 7 . *
- 3* 225 * 4
7.20+2 * * 2*
- 3
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000-00
ILE = 10.0441880000 + 0.0001205068 X XvALuF.
L IMEA-h CORRELATION COEFFI CI FJvT= 0.502
I- 5.5351
.M= 93
A-122
-------
TOTAL DUST & DIRT
PC^LOAD (VERT) VS. AXLES (HORZ)
LBAXdLE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
6.00 + .
5.20
4.40 +• *•
3.60 + .
- . * * *
- .*
— •
2.00 + . * * *
- . * *#*
- .2 2 *** *
-•*******
1.20 + . * 2 * ** *
- 33 2** * * 24 * 2
- ** 3 24 * *
-2*4 2 **2
0.40 + 2* ** 2*
- 3
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 0.5650034300 + 0.0000054341 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COFFFICIEXT= 0.524
T= 5.8675
N= 93
A-123
-------
TOTAL DUST * DIRT
CODLOAD (VERT) l/S. AXLES CHORZ)
LB/MILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000. OQ 300000.00
1 14.00 +
98.80 + .
~ •
- • *.
~" •
83.60 +. |
68.40 + .
- . jjc
- . *
— » »
53.20 + . ** .
- . *
- . * * .
- .* * 22* *
38.00 + .* # * * .
- * S
- . * * * .
- .* 2 2 * *
22.80 + *4* * * *
-2*4 **2 33 *
- 2* 2** *23
- . * 2 **
7.60+4 22*
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000-00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 14.6379690000 + 0.0001278616 X XvALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIENT^ 0.434
T= 4.6003
W= 93
A-124
-------
TOTAL DUST £ Din I
GHEASELOAD (VERT) VS. AXLES
LR/ttlLE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
+ + + + + +
12.0'0 + .
~ * •
™* . •
— « »
10.40 +.
— • .
- . *.
- . * .
8.80 + .
- . *
7•20 + . *
- . P
5.60+. ** *
- . *
4 • 00+.* 2** *
- .2* * * ##
- . * *
-.4 * * * g * *
2.40 +2*3 * *
- 32 2* #23 * *
-.**** +
0.60 + . S
- H
0.00 60000.00 1£0000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LP/KILE = 1.7347831000 + 0.0000151816 A XvALUE
LIivJEAR CORJ
-------
TQTAL DUST £ DIRT
ASBESTOSLD (VERT) VS. AXLES (HORZ)
FIBERS/MILE X 10EXP-6
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
480000.00
416000.00
352000.00
288000.00
- . *
224000.00 + • *
- . *
160000.00
- . *
96000*00 + * * * *
— » •
- .* ** * * *
- . * * *
32000.00 + 25* 3 4* 3* 2 * * *
- 82 22 * 2*59 2** * * *
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
FBRS/MILE= -4812.0518000000 + 0.3862825000 X XVALUE
X 10EXP-6
LINEAR CiRRELATION C0EFFI CIENT= 0.415
T= 4.1267
N= 84
A-134
-------
DUST t DIRT
RUBBERL0AD (VERT) VS. AXLES CH0RZ)
LB/MILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
7.80 +.
6.76
5.72
4.68
3.64 + . '
- . *
— .
- . * *
2.60+. * *
- . *
- . 2
- . *
1.56 + • *
- . * *
- .«* * * * *
-22*3* **
0.52 + .2 2 ***2
- . * *
0.00 120000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE ,,. 0.1376632900 + 0.0000124289 X XVALUE
LINEAR C8RRELATI0N C©EFFICIENT= 0.637
T= 5.4142
N= 45
A-135
-------
T0TAL DUST £ DIRT
C8LIF©RMLD (VERT) VS. AXLES (H0RZ)
ORG/MILE X 10EXP-6
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
18000.00
15600.00
13200.00
10800.00
8400.00 + .
^ . .
- . »
- . •
6000.00 + •
•• • • .
- .* * •
•* e •
3600.00 + .
- .* .
- . * .
- . 2
1200.00 +3« * *
- 99** 326** **89 3*642 2* 2 * * *2
+ «,-___„„__ + _«,_„„_„ _. 4..»»_»»»_« + _»___™___ + _._____„_ +
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
ORG/MILE * 427.84f0600000 + -0.0010032825 X XVALUE
X 10EXP-6
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIENT=-0.044
T= -0.4139
N= 92
A-136
-------
TOTAL DUST & DIRT
STREPLOAD (VERT) VS. AXLES
ORG/MILE X 10EXP-6
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
+ _,. ,_.«. + .___._+_ • __«...._ + _ __„__. -. + . _.__--_- +
18000.00
15600.00 + .
13200.00
10800.00
8400.00
6000.00
3600.00
- . * .
1200.00 + * * * * *.
-289** 426** 2*79 3*432 2* 2 2 * 2
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
ORG/MILE = 284.2169600000 + -0.0003311105 X XVALUE
X 10EXP-6
LINEAR CORRELATION C0EFFI CI ENT=-0.0 1 5
T= -0.1395
N= 92
A-137
-------
TOTAL DUST & DIRT
LEADLOAD Cv'EHT) VS. AXLES CKORZ)
LD/MILE X. 10EXF+3
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 £40000.00 300000.00
24000-00 + .
80800.00 + •
™ • * •
17600-00
14400.00 + •
11200.00 + .
- . *
8000.00 •)- .
- . *
- . *
- • 22
4800.00 + . *
- • *
1600.00 + .4 * *R* 32 * 8 2 * *
-299** 324 2*56 * 2
' ""•"""*"*"'T~'~*~"*"*-" — "—+•" — —•—" — — — — +-. — — »« — ™«.^..™— — — — -• — —' +
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 150000.00 240000-00 300000. '00
L^/MLF = -0.3451714500 + 0.0000278910 X XvALUE
L 1 :0 F A R C J K R EL A T 1 0 M CO E F F I C I F- M I = 0.572
1= G.6473
:\!= y 3
A-138
-------
T0TAL DUST £ DIRT
CHROMIUMLD (VERT) VS. AXLES (HORZ) .
LB/MILE X 10EXP+4
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
2404*00 + • * .
~ • •
- « •
•• • •
2084.00 + •
- • *
1764.00 + - I
1444.00 + • *
- . *
1124.00 + . * *
- . * .
804.00 + .
484.00 + »
- •* * 2 * *
- *5 2** *2 * * 2 *
- *4 3* *4 * *** *
164.00 +*3 22* **36 * *
- 53* 2 * *2 *
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 0.0114907390 + 0.0000001847 X XVALOE
LINEAR CiRRELATIiN C@EFFICIENT= 0.321
T= 3.2293
N= 93
A-139
-------
TOTAL DUST & DIRT
CGPPERL0AD CVERT) VS.. AXLES
LB/MILE X 10EXP+4
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
3600.00 + «
- . *
3120.00 + .
- . *
2640.00 + •
2160«00 + •
~ « «
<~> « •
*"• « »
1680.00 + • .
™ « 9
- • •
— » •
1200.00 + • * * *
"* • »
- . *
- • 2* .
720.00 + . * .
- . 2 * ** .
r .* * * * *
-.***22* ,
240.00 +2*t 2 32* 43 * 3 2 * *
- 92* *22 2*43 * *
+ _-, + , + ..-_»._ — + _„ .-_„+ _. _ +
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE s 0.0120903890 + 0.0000002842 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATI8N C@EFFICIENT= 0.295
T= 2.9412
M= 93
A-140
-------
TOTAL DUST £ DIRT
NICKELLSAD CVERT) VS. AXLES (H0RZ)
LB/MILE X 10EXP+4
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
+ + + +. + +
2400.00 + .
.
- . *
2080*00 + • * *
1760.00 + .
— • .
• • .
~ * .
1440.00 + • *
- . **
1120.00 + . I
- . *
- . * * .
800*00 + * * .
- * ** .
- . *2 * ** .
480*00 + * * * 2 .
- .2 * * 2 2
-.2***3 *
- *8 4** 23 *
160.00 +23** 322 **33 * *
,- 6 * **
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000*00
LB/MILE = 0.0032283994 + 0*000.0004397 X XVALUE
LINEAR C0RRELATI©N C0EFFICIENT" 0*616
T= 7.4634
N» 93
A-141
-------
TOTAL DUST « DIRT
ZINCLOAD (VERT) VS. AXLFS (HORZ)
LB/MILF X 10FXP+4
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
•¥•
24000-00 + •
20800-00
17600.00 +
14400.00
11SOO.OO
- . 22
6000.00 + . * * *
- • *
4800.00 + . ** *
- • * * 2
- * 2 2 **2** *
- *4 * * * * 2*
1600.00 + 36 **5** *54 * 2
- . 3* * ' 2 *
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILF = 0.0341444240 + 0-0000035045 X XVALUF
LINFAh CORRFLATION COFFFI CI ENT= 0.589
T= 6.7573
N= 88
A- 142
-------
DUST & DIRT
CADMIUML9AD (VERT) VS. AXLES CHORZ)
LB/MILE X 10EXP+6
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
180000.00 + .
156000.00
132000.00 +
108000.00 + .
84000.00 + .
60000.00 + .
36000.00 + .
12000.00 + .
-229 * 3262* 2*87 *333 2*
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 0.0009093660 -«• 0.0000000311 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION C0EFFICIENT= 0.088
T= 0.6970
N= 64
A-143
-------
DUST £ DIRT
MAGFRACTI0N (VERT) VS. AXLES (HORZ)
LB/MILE
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
+ ____„_»_»+_«.----"_. + -------•- + -------»- + -.-----.- +
72.00 +*.
•> • .
~ . .
~ » •
62.40 + .
- • *
™ • •
52.80 + . I
"" * •
- . *
- . *
43.20 + .
- » *
* •
* •
33.60 + . *
•" *
•
•
24.00 + • "
- . *
14*40 + . *
-»** * * **
- .* *** *
7 • 2 *
4.80 + * * * *
-2.
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
LB/MILE = 2.9111505000 + 0-0001262000 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIENT^ 0.587
T» 3.4772
N= 25
A-144
-------
PCBLOAD (VERT) VS. AXLES CHORZ)
LB/MILE X 10EXP+4
0.00 60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000*00 300000.00
12.00 + .
— * •
~ • •
~ » »
10.40 + . *
8.80
7.20 + .
5-60 + .
4.00 + ,
- . *
2.40 + .*
0*80 + ##
0.00 .60000.00 120000.00 180000.00 240000.00 300000.00
YCLB/MI)= 0.0002352577 + 0.0000000010 X XVALUE
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIEWT= 0.294
T= 0.9717
N= 12.0
A-145
-------
APPENDIX E
SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR THE COLLECTION OF STREET SURFACE CONTAMINANTS
EQUIPMENT
• Hard bristle broom
• Alternator power plant, 3500 watt, Dayton Electric Manu-
facturing Co., Model No. 1W832A
• Two wet and dry vacuum cleaners, 10 gallon, Dayton Electric
Manufacturing Co., Model 2Z612
• Steel drum, 55 gallon, with lid and rim lock, containing 40 to
50 gallons of water
• Rotary screw pump, 3.5 amperes, Dayton Electric Manufacturing
Co., Model No. 3P569
• Garden hose, 100 feet
• Dual motor shop wet and dry vacuum, Dayton Electric Manu-
facturing Co., Model No. 3Z107 mounted on a 55 gallon steel
drum
• Sand bags
PROCEDURE
1. Select a roadway sampling area of 100 curb feet or more.
The street surface and curbing should be in relatively good
condition.
2. Brush along the curb on both sides adjacent to the roadway
sampling area for 10 to 15 feet away from the area.
3. Vacuum along the entire curb length of the roadway sampling
site out to a distance of from four to five feet from the
curb. Three vacuumings of the site should be carried out to
collect the litter and dust and dirt sample fractions. Two
vacuum cleaners are used simultaneously to speed up the opera-
tion.
4. Position several sand bags at the curb of the lower end of
the sampling area to impound the flush water.
5. Place the nozzle of the dual motor shop vacuum at a low point
in front of the sand bags so as to suck water into the 55-
gallon drum.
A-147
-------
6. Place the intake hose from the rotary screw pump into the
55-gallon drum filled with water and begin flushing the road-
way using the garden hose.
7. Flush the entire roadway surface area toward the curb and
finish by flushing the. curb area toward the sand bags.
8. Approximately 15 to 25 gallons of water are required to flush
600 to 1000 square feet of roadway. Generally greater than
50 percent of the flush water applied is recovered by the
vacuum.
A-148
-------
APPENDIX F
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR ROADWAY SAMPLES
SAMPLE PREPARATION AND DRY WEIGHT AND VOLUME MEASUREMENTS
Summary
Roadway samples are returned to the laboratory and air-dried, if
necessary, prior to separation into litter and dust and dirt fractions.
Equipment
C. E. Tyler RoTap Sieve Shaker
U.S.A. No. 6 Sieve (3.35 mm Openings) with Cover and Bottom
Top Loading and Analytical Balances
Graduated Cylinders, 5 Liter and 1 Liter Capacity
Aluminum Foil
Scissors
Blender
Mortar and Pestle
Porcelain Crucible, 60 ml Capacity
Drying Oven
Procedure
1. If the roadway particulates are damp, spread them out on
aluminum foil for overnight drying at room temperature.
2. Separate the samples into litter particles (larger than
3.35 mm) and dust and dirt fractions (particles smaller
than 3.35 mm) using a U.S.A. No. 6 sieve and the RoTap Sieve
Shaker.
3. Weigh and measure the bulk volume of each particulate sample
fraction. The dust and dirt sample fraction is now ready
for analysis; however, the litter must be further processed
before it can be accurately sampled.
4. A representative subsample consisting of 20 to 25% of the
total amount of litter is homogenized by a combination of
techniques including grinding, cutting and blending to pre-
pare it for analysis.
5. The flush fraction is analyzed for total solids by drying a
60 ml portion overnight at 110°C in a tared porcelain
crucible. The crucible is cooled for one hour in a
desiccator and rewexghed.
A-149
-------
VOLATILE SOLIDS
Summary
Particulates are heated at 550°C for one hour to determine their
weight loss under these conditions.
Equipment
Muffle Oven
Porcelain Crucible, 20 ml Capacity
Analytical Balance
Desiccator
Procedure
1. From 1 to 3 g of litter or dust and dirt solids are weighed
into a tared crucible. Residue from the total solids determi-
nation is used for the measurement of volatile solids in the
flush fraction.
2. Solids are placed in a muffle oven and heated at 550°C for
one hour.
3. The crucible is cooled for one hour in a desiccator and
reweighed.
A-150
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Summary
From 50 to 300 mg of litter and dust and dirt and from 20 to 50 ml of
flush are taken for BOD determinations following procedures in Standard
Methods (a). An oxygen sensitive electrode is used for dissolved oxygen
measurements.
(a) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, p 489, (1971).
A-151
-------
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Summary
From 30 to 200 mg of litter and dust and dirt and 20 ml of flush are
taken for COD measurements as described in Standard Methods (a) except
than 20 ml, rather than 10 ml, of 0.25 N dicromate are used for oxidation
of particulate samples.
(a) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, p 495, (1971).
A-152
-------
GREASE, PETROLEUM AND N-PARAFFINS
Summary
Grease is determined gravimetrically in roadway samples after extraction
with n-hexane. Grease is characterized by isolation of a petroleum and
then an n-paraffin fraction using column chromatographic techniques.
Apparatus and Equipment
Soxhlet Extraction Apparatus Equipped with 125 ml Round
Bottom Flask
Electric Heating Mantle Regulated with a Variable Transformer
Buchner Funnel and 1 Liter Vacuum Filtration Flask
Filtered Compressed Air Line
Distillation Apparatus
Chromatography Columns, 50 cm x 10 mm I.D.
Round Bottom Flasks, 125 ml
Drying Oven
Desiccator
Analytical Balance
Reagents
Hydrochloric Acid, Cone.
Hydrochloric Acid, 1/10
n-Hexane
Whatman No. 40 Filter Paper
Hyflo Super-Gel (Johns-Manville Corp.)
Muslin Cloth Disks
Glass Wool
Sodium Chloride
Activated Alumina, 80-200 Mesh, Fisher Scientific Co., Activated
for Five Hours at 600°C.
Silica Gel, Grade 922, Davidson Co.
Procedure for Water Flush
1. Acidify to pH 1.0 a 500 ml aliquot of flush water with
concentrated hydrochloric acid.
2. Add 0.5 g of Hyflo Super-Cell, 150 g of sodium chloride,
and stir for two hours at 4°C.
3. Prepare for filtration of the sample by attaching the one
liter filtration flask to a vacuum line, placing the funnel
on the flask, and placing the muslin cloth disk overlaid with
filter paper in the Buchner funnel. Moisten the filter paper
and apply suction.
A-153
-------
4. Filter the cold acid sample suspension.
5. Remove the filter paper, fold and carefully place in an
extraction thimble and cover with glass wool.
6. Dry the extraction thimble for 30 minute at 103°C.
7. Dry the extraction flask for one hour at 103°C, cool for
one hour in a desiccator, and weigh to the nearest 0.0001 g.
8. Place the thimble in the assembled extraction apparatus and
extract for four hours with n-hexane at a rate of 20 cycles
per hour.
9. Fit the extraction flask to the distillation apparatus and
distill off n-hexane using a hot water bath.
10. Remove the extraction flask from the distillation set up and
blow off the remaining solvent with filtered air.
11. Dry the extraction flask containing grease for one hour at
103°C, cool for an hour in a desiccator, and reweigh.
Procedure for Dust and Dirt
1. Weigh a 5 to 10 g sample of dust and dirt and add 25 ml of
10% hydrochloric acid.
2. Filter the sample slurry after 15 minutes through Whatman
No. 40 paper and wash five times with 100 ml portions of
water.
3. Complete the determination of grease in dust and dirt by
carrying out steps 5 to 11 under the water flush procedure.
4. Reserve the extracted grease for the grease characterization.
Procedure for Grease Characterization
1. Dissolve the weighed residue from the grease determination in
10 ml of n-hexane.
2. Add this to a chromatographic column packed with 10 ml (12 cm)
of alumina and containing glass wool plugs at the top and
bottom.
3. Elute the column with seven 10 ml portions of solvent,
collecting the solvent in a tared round bottom flask.
A-154
-------
4. Attach the tared flask to the distillation apparatus and
remove n-hexane on a hot water hath.
5. Remove the flask from the dts-tillatton set UP and blow off
the remaining solvent with filtered air.
6. Dry the flask for one hour at 103° C, cool for one hour in a
desiccator, and weigh to the nearest 0.0001 g. This repre-
sents the hydrocarbon portion of the grease.
7- Dissolve the hydrocarbon fraction in 10 ml of n-hexane.
8 . Add this to a chromatographic column packed with 15 ml
(15 cm) of silica gel and containing glass wool plugs at
the top and bottom.
9. Elute the column with five 15 ml portions of n-hexane,
collecting the solvent in a tared round bottom flask.
10. As before, remove the n-hexane, heat, cool, and reweigh
the flask to the nearest 0.0001 g. This represents the n-
paraffin fraction of the extracted grease.
A-155
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHATE-PHOSPHORUS
Summary
Acid-hydrolyzable phosphate content of dust and dirt and flush samples
is measured following a procedure based upon Standard Methods (a).
Apparatus and Reagents
See Standard Methods (a)
Procedure
1. A 0.5 g portion of dust and dirt or a 100 ml portion of flush
water is placed into a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask. Add 100 ml of
distilled water to the particulate samples.
2. Add 4 ml of strong acid (300 ml cone, sulfuric acid and 4.0 ml
cone, nitric acid per liter) to the flask and boil for 90
minutes keeping the volume between 25 and 50 ml.
3. Dilute the sample to 100 ml in a graduated cylinder and then
filter, discarding the first 10 ml of filtrate.
4. Take a 10 to 20 ml portion of filtrate, neutralize to
phenolphthsilein with 2 N sodium hydroxide and add three
drops of excess strong acid. Important - do not take a dust
and dirt filtrate aliquot larger than 10 ml or low results
will be obtained. Low results will also be obtained without
the excess strong acid.
5. Dilute to 50 ml and determine orthophosphate as described in
Standard Methods (a).
(a) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, p 523, (1971).
A-I56
-------
ORTHOPHOSPHATE, NITRATE AND NITRITE
Summary
Orthophosphate, nitrate and nitrite are measured on filtered flush
samples. These ions are dissolved from dust and dirt with a special
extraction solution and then measured colorimetrically following
procedures in Standard Methods (a)(b)(c).
Apparatus and Reagents
Beaker, 100 ml
Magnetic Stirrer and Stirrer Bar
Extraction Solution - 0.67 ml Cone. Sulfuric Acid, 4.1 ml Cone.
Hydrochloric Acid and 10 g of Darco G-60 Carbon Black per
Liter
Hydrochloric Acid, 0.2 N
pH Meter
See Standard Methods (a)(b)(c) for other apparatus and reagents.
Procedure
1. Filter flush water and analyze for orthophosphate as described
i-n Standard Methods (a), analyze for nitrate as described in
Standard Methods (b) and for nitrate as in Standard Methods (c),
2. Add 25 ml of extraction solution to 5 g of dust and dirt.
Stir for 15 minutes, adjust to a pH 2.0 with 0.2 N hydro-
chloric acid and stir for an additional 15 minutes.
3. Filter the above suspension and analyze filtrate for ortho-
phosphate, nitrate and nitrite.
(a) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF,, p 530, (1971).
(b) Ibid, p 461.
(c) Ibid, p 240.
A-157
-------
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Summary
Kjeldahl nitrogen is measured following a procedure similar to that
described in Standard Methods (a).
Apparatus
Kjeldahl Distillation Apparatus, Semimicro
Kjeldahl Flasks, 100 ml and 30 ml
Kjeldahl Digestion Rack
Microburet, 10 ml
Erlenmeyer Flask, 125 ml
Analytical Balance
Reagents
Boric Acid, 3%
40% Sodium Hydroxide - 5% Sodium Thiosulfate Solution
Digestion Mixture - 134 g Potassium Sulfate, 2 g Mercuric
Oxide and 200 ml Cone. Sulfuric Acid per Liter
Boiling Chips
Standard 0.01 N Hydrochloric Acid
Mixed Indicator - 100 mg Methyl Red and 50 mg Methylene Blue
in 150 ml of 95% Ethanol
Procedure
1. Add 10 ml of digestion mixture and a boiling chip to 50 ml of
flush in a 100 ml Kjeldahl flask or 1 g of dust and dirt in a
30 ml Kjeldahl flask.
2. Heat on the digestion rack to fumes of sulfuric acid and for
30 minutes after the digest clears.
3. Cool the digest, add 10 ml of water to the flask and cool
again.
4. Transfer the diluted digest to the distillation apparatus using
a minimum amount of wash water to complete the transfer.
5. Add 10 ml of the basic thiosulfate mixture and steam distill
the liberated ammonia into 5 ml of boric acid containing two
drops of mixed indicator.
(a) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, p 468, (1971).
A-158
-------
6. Steam distill for three minutes after the indicator changes
color, lower the receiving flask and continue the distillation
for one additional minute.
7. Titrate the distillate with 0.01 N hydrochloric acid.
A-159
-------
CHLORIDE
Summary;
Chloride is measured in roadway samples using a mercurimetric titra-
tion patterned after Standard Methods (a).
Apparatus
Vacuum Filtration Apparatus
Buret, 10 ml
Beakers, 150 ml
Reagents
0.0141 N Standard Sodium Chloride
0.0141 N Standard Mercuric Nitrate
0.1 N Nitric Acid
Sodium Bicarbonate
0.1 N Sodium Hydroxide
Indicator Solution, 0,5 g S-Diphenylcarbazone and 0.05 g Bromo-
phenol Blue per 100 ml of 95% Ethanol.
Procedure
1. Add 5 g of dust and dirt to 20 ml of distilled water and stir
for 30 minutes.
2. Take as the sample 10 ml of filtrate from the above or 20 ml
of filtered flush water and dilute to 50 ml.
3. Add 10 mg of sodium bicarbonate and 0.5 ml of indicator. Add
0.1 N nitric acid until the indicator turns yellow.
4. Titrate with the mercuric solution to a reddish-purple end
point. The mercury solution is standardized in a similar
fashion using 0.0141 N sodium chloride.
(a) Standard Methods for the Examinatlen_gJJWat^_aad^astegater> 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, p 97, (1971).
A-160
-------
FECAL CQLIFORM AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS ORGANISMS
Fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus organisms are determined in
roadway samples using the membrane filter procedures described in
Standard Methods (a) (b) .
Apparatus and Reagents
See Standard Methods (a) (b) .
Procedure
1. Add 0.1 g of dust and dirt to 100 ml of sterile water and mix.
Membrane filter portions up to 1 ml of flush water or 10 ml
of dust and dirt suspension. Note: It has been shown that
amounts of roadway particulates greater than 10 mg per filter
will inhibit growth of fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus
organisms .
2. Determine fecal coliforms as described in Standard Methods (a).
3. Determine fecal streptococcus organisms following Standard
Methods (b) . ~
4. The procedures described above have been verified for use with
these samples by the recoveries of known numbers of organisms
added to roadway dust and dirt .
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th
Edition, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, p 684, (1971).
(b) Ibids p 690.
k-161
-------
ASBESTOS
Summary
Asbestos fibers in roadway samples are evaluated by phase contrast
microscopy using a procedure adapted from a NIOSH method (a).
Apparatus
Heat Systems-Ultrasonics, Inc., Model W185D Sonifier Cell
Disruptor Equipped with a Water-Cooled Cup Horn
25 ml Polycarbonate Plastic Sonifier Tubes
Carl Zeiss Phase Contrast Light Microscope
Porton Ocular Reticle
Ocular Micrometer
Millipore Membrane Filter Holder
AAWPO Millipore Membrane Filters, 25 mm Diameter, 0.8 y Pore Size
Dimethyl Phthalate - Diethyl Oxalate Mounting Medium (1:1)
Stoppered Graduated Cylinder, 100 ml
Glass Microscope Slides 25 x 75 mm and No. 1 1/2 Coverslips
Procedure
1. Weigh 100 mg of dust and dirt into a 25 ml sonifier tube,
add 25 ml of water, and sonify for one to two minutes at
100 watts in the water-cooled cup horn.
2. Transfer the suspension to a 100 ml graduated cylinder and
dilute to volume.
3. Assemble the membrane filtration apparatus and filter from
one to ten ml of well mixed dust and dirt suspension or water
flush. As much sample as possible should be filtered in order
to obtain maximum sensitivity. The amount must be determined
experimentally as counting the filter will be difficult or
impossible if too much sample is taken.
4. Place the air dried filter on a microscope slide and add two
to three drops of mounting medium. Cover with a coverslip
after the filter becomes transparent.
5. Examine the slide using phase-contrast optics under a 40x
objective and a lOx eyepiece equipped with a Porton reticle.
Count the asbestos fibers in 25 randomly selected fields.
(a) Criteria for a Recommended Standard...Occupational Exposure to
Asbestos, U.S. Department of HEW, Public Health Services and Mental
Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, p VII-5, (1972).
A-162
-------
6. Asbestos fibers are taken as any refractile particle greater
than 5 y in length and haying an as.pect ratio (length to
width) greater than three.
A-163
-------
RUBBER
Summary
The technique of pyrolysis-gas chromatography, utilizing a flame
ionization detector to measure the styrene liberated from SBR, is
employed for the estimation of rubber in roadway samples.
Apparatus and Reagents
Gas Chromatograph with Flame Ionization Detector
Nitrogen Carrier Gas
Pyrolysis Accessory
Chromatographic Column, 4' x 1/4", 2% Apiezon L on 60/80 Mesh
Diatoport 5
Soxhlet Extraction Apparatus
Hexane
Styrene
Procedure
"-»--••-- • •• • ' *
1. Extract approximately 1 g of dust and dirt for one hour with
hexane in the Soxhlet extractor.
2. Air dry the extracted dust and dirt and weigh 20 to 25 mg into
a sample boat and place in the pyrolysis chamber.
3. Adjust the nitrogen carrier gas flow to 25 ml/minute and the gas
chromatographic column to 50°C. Sweep air from the system for
five minutes.
4. Pyrolyze the sample for 20 seconds at 640°C.
5. After one minute, program the column temperature to 80°C at
40/minute to elute styrene.
6. Rapidly raise column temperature to 210°C and hold until the
column is cleared.
7. Measure the styrene peak height and quantitate using a calibra-
tion curve prepared with rubber from a passenger car tire; see
Figure F-l.
A-164
-------
H
II
-U •
fi a
oo cu
•H 4J
a) -u
OJ X
fi
a) en
M fi
!*, O
*J -H
W CD
•H
Pi
i-i
n)
0.5
1.0 1.5
Rubber (mg)
2.0
Figure F-l. Standard curve - rubber in dust and dirt
A-165
-------
METALS
Summary
Metals are determined in roadway samples by atomic absorption spectro-
photometry (MS) following acid digestion of the samples.
Apparatus
Teflon Beakers, 150 ml
Filter Funnels
Graduated Cylinders
Hot Plate
Analytical Balance
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
Reagents
Deionized Water
Nitric Acid, Concentrated
Hydrofluoric Acid, Concentrated
Procedure
1. From 1 to 5 g of dust and dirt or up to 100 ml of flush are
placed in 150 Teflon beaker with 10 ml of nitric acid.
2. Samples are carefully taken just to dryness on a hot plate.
A second 10 ml of nitric acid is added and the samples again
taken to dryness.
3. Five ml of concentrated hydrofluoric acid is added and the
sample heated to dryness to remove silica. A second treat-
ment with hydrofluoric acid is carried out.
4. The samples are heated almost to dryness after addition of
10 ml of nitric acid.
5. The residue is quantitatively transferred to a 50 ml graduated
cylinder, diluted to volume and filtered.
6. The filtrate may be analyzed for lead, zinc, nickel, cadmium,
chromium, copper and other metals using the standard conditions
described in Perkin-Elmer's methods manual (a).
(a) Analytical Methods for Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, Perkin-
Elmer Corporation, (March 1971).
A-166
-------
APPENDIX G
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ D.C.
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JULY 1972
Latitude 38° 57' N Longitude 77' 27' H Elevation 'ground'
290 ft. Standard time used: EASTERN
WBAN #93736
&
(Q
P
1
1
2
•4
4
5
6
/
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•it
28
29
30
31
Temperature
1
E
x
S
2
87
89
86
60
66
73
79
78
84
87
87
63
68
90
90
90
89
89
92
93
94
95*
94
93
91
65
80
82
72
67
80
Z637
Avg.
85.1
E
S
3
03
64
68
65
58
60
57*
59
62
65
6t
69
71
66
71
71
66
70
70
72
74
75
72
72
72
63
68
65
64
62
65
~ 206!)
Avg.
66.6
OJ
n?
QJ
<
4
75
77
78
73
63*
67
68
69
73
76
76
76
60
78
81
81
79
80
81
83
84
65*
83
63
62
74
74
74
68
65
73
Avg.
75.9
°F
£
"£
o
S.E
Q
5
£
Dep.
«.s
> ^
<-§
B
64
67
68
58
59
58
58
59
63
64
67
70
71
71
72
72
72
73
74
V5
76
V4
V4
70
66
60
65
64
M
62
6/
Avg.
6C
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
390° }
10
<32°
0
Minimum Temp.
==32°
0
< 0°
0
Degree days
c
nj
w
7A
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dep.
Total
2
Dep.
a
o
7B
10
12
13
8
0
2
3
4
8
11
11
11
15
13
16
16
14
15
16
18
19
20
18
18
17
9
9
9
3
0
B
Dep.
Total
503
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
5 Hail
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
1 8
1 3 8
1 8
8
1
1 8
2 8
3 8
1 8
8
1 8
2 8
1
1 8
1 8
1 3 8
2
2 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
6
1 6
8
1
a
1 8
1 8
1
Snow
ice
pellets
at
07AC
In
f)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
>: .01 inch 11
> 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms '3
Heavy fog X 4
Precipitation
equiva-
lent
In.
10
0
.37
.22
T
.17
T
0
.05
0
0
0
.04
.10
0
0
.28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
.01
0
.01
.22
.06
1.53
Dep.
Snow,
ice
pellets
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avg.
station
pres-
In
Elev.
r
m
'*?•>
S.I.
12
29
?9
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
~ST
.49
• A?
.59
.79
.76
.63
.68
.68
• 68
.88
.93
.66
• 61
• 62
• 64
.68
• 79
.63
.65
• 84
.76
• 71
• 61
• 53
• 51
.65
• 66
.64
.66
.75
.79
• I'i
Wind
gs
ss
K^
13
22
70
?3
36
02
03
29
?0
17
19
17
13
36
16
?0
17
13
29
?3
31
30
33
27
27
28
33
35
01
34
06
17
~24]
j:
c E
j->
14
4.2
3.1
6.4
5.1
7.8
1.0
3.3
4.5
4.5
9.4
6.6
5.7
4.4
5.1
9.3
3.7
1.1
2.6
2.3
3.0
4.3
3.5
4.9
4.7
6.0
5.6
.5
4.3
1.7
1.6
2.9
The —
1.3
"S
dj
QJ
o O.
< h
15
6.8
5.3
7.6
6.6
8.3
4.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
9.6
6.8
6.6
6.8
5.5
9.6
6.0
4.9
4.9
3.0
4.6
6.0
5.5
7.1
6.2
7.9
7.3
5.5
5.8
5.5
4.3
4.9
6.2
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.48] 2- 3
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 9 Partly cloudy 9 Cloudy 13
Fastest
mile
OJ Q,
16
14
14
16
13
14
10
10
12
12
16
10
14
15
12
17
15
6
8
7
9
12
12
14
14
16
16
9
7
9
9
8
c
o
*J
01
a
17
31
33
24
35
04
15
26
24
18
21
16
12
36
20
20
26
16
30
23
25
28
36
30
30
27
30
01
04
20
12
17
17| 20
Date- 15
Sunshine
•a
c
m
VI
3
K
Ifl
~s
S
18
Poss
ible
„ .0
K a.
P- 0
19
tor
month
Sky cover
Tenths
C)
•— -flj
C c
(f) w
20
3
9
8
7
10
10
6
4
6
3
3
10
6
2
1
9
6
9
2
3
6
3
2
7
6
5
10
10
10
10
10
196
Avg.
6,4
12 JZ
.— ,5P
T3 T3
S E
21
3
7
7
7
10
9
6
5
6
2
S
10
5
2
2
9
7
7
4
6
5
4
3
7
6
6
10
10
10
10
9
199
Avg.
6.4
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0
Q
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
fl
9
10
11
1?
14
1A
17
18
19
7(1
71
7?
73
74
26
77
76
29
30
31
-------
H
(^
00
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON' D.C.
DUUL6S INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUGUST 1972
mt*~""J*mkl Latitude in'
*
O
1
1
2
a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
li
16
1 1
in
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
ai
57' N Longitude 77" zT V Elevation 'ground' 290 ft. Standard time used' EASTERN HBAN »93738
m 0_ Weather types
Temperature F on dates' ol
E
E
X
2
88
87
90
83
80
83
B7
85
87
78
80
86
86
89
82
77
71
87
87
86
86
86
89
93
95*
93
89
83
87
87
85
2652
Avg.
85.5
•
1
i
3
60
66
67
64
58
56
68
62
62
52
47*
60
66
62
56
49
62
65
62
58
54
59
63
64
67
69
70
64
60
61
59
1892
Avg.
61.0
be
ra
<
4
74
77
79
74
69
70
78
74
75
63
64
73
76
76
69
63*
67
76
75
72
70
73
76
79
81
81*
80
74
74
74
72
Avg.
73.3
0,
p
O
„
£
o
c
H
o
5
Dep.
Number of days
Maximum Temp
590° i
4
3 32°
0
Degree d.ays , °™«
Base 00 2 He-avy fog x
bo o
a o.
6
64
67
70
68
58
62
69
63
62
53
56
63
69
66
61
54
63
70
66
59
60
64
67
70
71
vo
71
67
63
61
59
Avg.
64
Minimum Temp
^32°
0
< 0°
0
10 bo
•H 5
0
' E
7A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dep.
Total
5
Dep.
u
7B
9
12
14
9
4
5
13
9
10
0
0
8
11
11
4
0
2
11
10
7
5
8
11
14
16
16
15
9
9
9
7
268
Dep.
Total
771
Dep.
4 Ice pellets
6 Glaze
7 Dugtstorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
1 8
1 8
1 3 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1
1 8
1 8
2 8
1 8
1 8
2 8
1 8
1
1
1 8
2 8
2 8
1 3 6
1 3
1
1 8
Snow,
ice
pellets
ice on
07AM
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
=» .01 inch 7
> 1.0 inch Q_
Thunderstorms 3
Heavy fog X 4
Precipitation
equiva-
lent
Sno\v,
ice
pellets
In.
10 11
0
.01
.36
.50
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
.07
0
0
T
.42
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
.55
0
0
0
0
2.09
Dep.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avg,
station
pres-
sure
In.
Elev.
323
fe
m.s.l.
12
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
.78
.67
.59
.71
85
71
44
51
58
88
.91
.77
.75
.74
.80
.92
.63
.61
.65
.77
.78
.67
.65
.67
.69
.65
.54
.56
.63
.76
.86
.70
Wind
s-=
(Si
13
25
18
20
35
01
19
20
26
76
33
18
20
34
27
05
17
15
36
34
01
17
17
17
18
19
33
21
27
30
02
04
21
-C
a.
c E
3
~5 "^
K &
14
3.1
5.8
4.2
4.6
4.6
3.2
9.0
3.2
5.3
5.1
6.0
6.1
3.0
2.4
4.1
4.5
5.4
2.6
5.0
4.9
3.4
7.0
7.0
3.5
3.9
1.0
7.7
4.3
1.3
5.8
2.5
1.4
Sf-c
< *
15
4.5
6.3
6.2
7.5
6.2
6.5
9.5
5.3
8.5
7.1
6.8
6.9
4.9
3.5
6.5
5.8
6.9
5.5
6.2
5.9
5.2
7.3
7.3
4.2
4.2
5.6
10.1
5.5
3.9
7.3
Fastest
mile
t*.
"•
16
9
12
18
16
13
15
16
13
15
16
14
12
14
10
17
13
13
10
14
13
12
14
13
10
15
70
16
12
9
14
5.8 10
6.2
Greatest in 24 hours and dates'
Precipitation
.551 27
Snow, ice pellets
Q
Clear 7 Partly cloudy 15 Cloudy 9
=
3
5
17
27
20
30
36
04
24
18
30
31
35
19
19
01
32
36
18
17
36
01
36
13
18
17
18
23
36
18
27
31
01
10
201 36
Date. 26
Sunshine
1
CS
XZ
18
Possible
Si
£ 1
£•3
19
for
Sky cover
Tenths
2
|"
in Z
20
6
10
10
10
7
5
7
2
9
3
5
6
7
4
8
7
10
7
5
0
2
8
4
2
3
9
7
10
1
1
5
18?
Avg.
5.9
^
•O T3
S£
21
3
9
8
9
6
4
8
3
6
3
3
7
7
4
6
6
10
8
5
0
1
5
3
2
5
9
7
9
1
0
4
163
Avg.
5.2
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 I
&
22
1
Z
3
4
1
6
7
8
9
in
11
i?
11
14
11
16
17
Ifl
19
70
22
23
24
75
77
7B
79
in
31
-------
I
(-1
ON
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON' D. C.
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
AUGUST 1972
^•"""''••8 Latitude 38° 51 N Longitude 77' 02' W Elevation 'around) loft. Standard time used EASTERN WBAN #13743
It
Q
1
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
x
S
2
88
87
88
84
79
84
87
84
88
78
79
83
86
87
80
76
70
85
86
B5
84
64
87
90
91
92*
87
84
86
87
85
2623
84.6
E
E
S
3
66
69
72
67
63
66
72
67
65
60
57
66
69
66
64
57+
64
68
70
66
65
64
70
72
74
75
74
70
66
69
70
2083
67.2
QJ
ra
.01 inch 8
> 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 3
Heavy fog X o
Precipitation
lent
In
10
0
T
.02
.34
0
0
.23
0
0
0
0
0
1.72
0
0
0
.28
.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.03
.15
T
0
0
0
2.82
-2.08
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avg.
station
pres-
In.
Elev.
fr
m
61
S.I.
12
30
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
29
.04
.95
.86
.97
.11
.99
.72
.78
.84
.14
.19
.05
.02
.01
.06
.19
.96
,87
.92
.03
.05
.95
.92
.94
.96
.92
.82
.83
.90
.02
.13
.97
Wind
sis
&k
13
74
19
21
01
05
17
21
3j
77
33
19
19
12
22
07
13
16
36
35
05
19
19
18
18
19
19
2 \
29
32
02
08
19
j:
EX
c E
K S-
14
3.5
6.3
6.2
6.6
7.1
5.7
12.5
3.2
4.2
7.6
4.6
8.9
3.2
1.5
5.9
3.5
5.2
2.7
6.2
4.7
3.8
7.1
7.3
5.4
6.5
5.0
10.7
4.5
4.1
6.3
4.9
$
Q.
01
S n.
< fc
15
6.2
6.6
6.8
8.3
8.6
6.6
12.8
7.6
8.6
8.6
3.8
9.2
6.9
4.5
10.2
5.3
7.3
6.6
8.5
6.6
5.6
7.5
7.6
5.6
6.8
6.5
12.8
6.3
5.2
7.9
6.5
7.4
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.72] 13
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 9 Partly cloudy 13 Cloudy 9
Fastest
mile
-a -c
Si "•
03 fc
16
10
10
12
17
13
11
18
13
18
16
12
11
20
8
13
11
13
8
12
9
9
10
10
9
10
13
18
12
10
12
10
h'
c
o
Q
17
NH
S
sw
N
N
S
SW
NW
NW
NW
S
S
SE
N
NE
E
S
S
NE
NE
S
SE
S
S
S
W
sw
N
N
NE
E
201 SE
Sunshine
Tl
C
nj
= |
18
13.4
5.7
5.1
1.5
11.5
10,6
5,7
11.2
10.2
12.8
9.6
11.1
3.4
12.4
4,4
12.7
0.0
6.8
•11.2
12.9
11.0
12.4
10.7
11.5
8.0
5.9
6.2
6,4
11.7
10.5
10.0
276.5
423.0
-1
flj M
K o.
IX o
19
94
40
36
11
82
76
41
80
73
97
70
BO
75
91
32
93
0
50
82
96
81
93
80
86
60
44
47
48
89
80
76
for
65
Sky cover
Tenths
o
X
w 3
20
4
10
10
10
6
5
7
2
8
3
5
7
10
4
8
6
10
7
4
0
2
6
3
2
5
9
6
10
1
1
4"
_5.6
.£ J2
•0-0
S E
21
4
9
8
9
7
5
7
3
5
2
3
7
8
3
6
5
10
8
4
1
2
4
3
3
5
8
6
10
1
1
161
5.2
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
£
0
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
In
17
IB
19
70
22
23
74
75
77
28
79
in
31
-------
M
~^J
O
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON; D.C.
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SEPTSM8ER 1972
HLl""ll*i Latitude 33'
01
O
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Temperature
E
X
S
2
76
78
85
77
71
81
84
86
85
77
77
80
90
92
79
86
92*
86
82
67
62
81
72
74
83
91
76
73
68
70
Sum
238*
Avg.
79.8
E
E
S
3
60
65
59
54
50
45
48
50
57
45
44
62
65
63
56
55
57
66
62
55
58
57
41*
60
59
65
68
63
62
45
Sum
1696
Avg.
56.5
aj
te
<
4
69
72
72
66
61
63
66
68
71
61
61
71
78
78
68
72
75
76
72
61
60
69
57*
67
71
76*
72
68
65
56
Avg.
68.0
«j
t
Q.
57' N Longitude 77'" 27' W Elevation 'ground' 290 ft. Standard time used" EASTERN W6AN #93738
°F
E
C
t
Qi
5
Dep.
^
OJ 5
of D.
> *
6
61
63
65
61
54
53
55
58
60
47
53
66
68
66
57
59
64
71
63
54
5V
57
48
60
66
67
69
64
64
55
Avg.
60
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
> 90° t
4
:= 32
0
Minimum Temp.
< 32°
0
< 0°
0
Base 65°
to
c
"co
E
7A
0
0
0
C
4
2
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Total
38
Dep.
"TotaT
43
Dep.
be
C
0
O
7B
4
7
7
'1
0
0
1
3
6
0
0
6
13
13
3
7
10
11
7
0
0
4
0
2
6
13
7
3
0
0
Total
134
Dep.
Total
905
Dep.
Weather 'pes
on date of
1 Fog
2 Heavy f g x
4 Ice pell s
S Hall
6 Glaze
9 Blowing snow
8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1
1 8
2 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
8
1 8
1 8
2 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
2 8
1 8
1 8
1 6
1 8
1
Snow.
ice
or
Srounc
at
07AP
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
Number of days
Precipitation
5 .01 inch 1C
> 1.0 inch o
Thunderstorms o
Heavy fog X 3
Precipitation
Water
lent
In
10
T
.19
T
.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
0
.22
0
0
0
.12
0
0
.01
T
0
.03
0
T
.09
0
.01
.64
Total
1.40
Dep.
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
a
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
c
Avg
station
sure
In
fe
3?3
ft
m.s.l
12
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
.79
.70
.63
.62
.64
.72
.75
.69
.69
.97
.91
.77
.70
.55
.65
.56
.66
.74
.80
.9!
.80
.76
.96
.91
.SI
.79
.7f
.66
.6C
.35
Fo
29
.74
Wind
^
~-£
rial
«-3
n
0?,
35
31
34
01
03
35
30
35
35
19
19
22
?6
36
22
18
18
34
03
36
34
13
17
19
20
21
06
15
27
r
32
^
o.
— -o
1% ^
Pi VI
14
4.6
6.5
3.0
5.6
1.2
3.4
1.3
1.3
6.3
3.1
6.2
4.E
5.5
4.4
2.2
3.4
7.1
4.8
7.2
9.3
11.7
7.0
2.4
7.5
2.1
6.1
2.6
6.3
4.9
6.1
the
.9
-o
CL
OJ
CO X
< E
15
5.2
7.1
5.2
6.5
3.7
4.6
3.9
2.7
7.8
7.2
6.8
5.3
6.8
8.1
5.0
5.5
7.6
6.0
9.4
10.!
11.9
7.2
6.8
8.2
4.0
7.1
4.0
9.4
6.6
10.6
m o n
6.7
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.641 30
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 7 Partly cloudy 6 Cloudy 17
Fastest
mile
12 ^
W fc
16
12
16
10
12
8
U
12
8
18
15
15
13
14
23
13
12
U
12
2C
n
n
16
13
14
9
10
9
14
U
25
o
-£
^
O
17
05
36
92
01
02
05
36
01
34
06
21
24
24
36
01
25
IB
18
36
04
36
36
14
20
21
23
36
01
18
30
th .
251 30
Date: 30
Sunshine
en
ss
£
xs
18
To
.al
Possible
u
S »
£ a
CU *o
19
%
month
Sky cover
Tenths
0
&
•- "£
3 C
20
10
10
6
7
9
0
1
. 1
7
0
10
10
9
8
1
3
3
10
4
10
10
4
7
9
10
8
10
10
10
10
Sum
207
Avg.
6.9
S E
21
10
10
6
6
7
1
0
2
6
1
7
10
8
8
3
4
4
8
3
9
10
5
6
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
Sum
202
Avg.
6.7
Greatest depth on ground of snow.
ice pellets or ice and date
0
n
22
1
2
3
4
•i
ft
7
6
9
in
1 1
17
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?0
21
22
23
?4
26
?7
?9
30
-------
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ D. C.
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
SEPTEMBER 1972
^/•—••^^ T..tit,,Ho 1fl° ^,' N I.rmRihiHp 77 p?- H Fi0,,ptlnp ijirnimrfi ] n fi Standard time used' PASTFPN WFIAN fllVil
^B
^
tu
O
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
u
12
u
14
15
16
17
16
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2S
29
30
t_ ! Weather tvpes
Temperature F on dates' £(
E
Zl
'£
2
2
82
77
65
76
72
81
85
86
85
77
7}
79
89
91
80
67
91*
83
83
67
64
62
74
76
63
69
76
73
70
73
Sum
2391
Avg.
3
i
3
67
68
66
6'2
59.
55
56
60
64
57
54
65
69
66
62
63
68
69
64
61
60
61
53
60
62
69
71
63
63
50*
Sum
1867
Avg.
QO
fc
<
4
75
73
76
69
66
68
71
73
75
67
65
72
79
79
71
75
60*
76
74
64
62
72
64
66
73
79
74
68
67
62*
Avg
1
_
S.E
Pi
S
1
-1
3
-4
-7
-5
-1
1
3
-4
-6
1
6
8
1
5
11
7
5
-5
-6
4
-3
1
6
13
a
2
2
-3
Dep.
^
bo o
< -S
6
61
65
65
60
52
54
57
59
59
46
53
65
10
66
57
63
69
70
63
53
58
57
47
59
66
68
69
63
63
57
Avg
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
>90° t
2
< 32°
Minimum Temp,
< 32° < 0P
000
Base
00
c
ra
K
7A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Total
e
Dep
c
O
7B
10
6
11
4
1
3
6
8
10
2
0
7
14
14
6
10
15
11
9
0
0
7
0
3
8
14
9
3
2
0
Total
195
Dep.
Total I Total
6 1176
Dep. | Dep
-25
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy (og x
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
8
B
B
B
8
8
1 8
1 B
8
1 8
1 8
1 3 8
1 8
1 8
1
8
1 8
1 8
1 B
i a
1
1
Snov^ .
ice on
gl OUIV
Precipitation
Water
equiva-
Snow
ice
pdlels
lent In
1
In
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
Snow, ice pellels
5 1.0 inch o
Thunderstorms 1
Heavy fog X c
10
11
Tl 0
.12 0
0 0
.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06
0
.26
0
0
0
.10
0
0
.04
.01
0
.06
0
0
.17
T
T
.38
Total
1.27
Dep.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
Total
c
Avg. . Wind Sunshine
station
es-
sure
In
Elev
ftS
feet
m
Fastest
•u mile ^
~-r~r?
3 y 3 Si
si. 1(5-3 (Ss-
12 | 13 ! 14
30
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
25
.06
.96
.89
.89
.91
.99
.02
.96
.94
30.24
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
3t
30
30
30
29
29
.19
.05
.96
.81
.92
.85
. 94
.02
.05
.20
.06
.02
.23
.19
.14
.07
.05
.13
.66
.61
F o
30
.01
07
02
32
34
0?
04
07
10
01
04
20
21
19
20
33
19
1 9
19
35
03
02
33
06
19
18
19
?0
06
13
21
r
o;
3.4
8.9
5.4
7.6
2.0
3.2
1.3
1.1
6.0
5.5
7.3
6.6
5.3
3.8
4.8
6.0
7.8
6.7
9.1
11.6
11.6
9.1
6.2
6.4
4.1
8.6
5.2
9.9
3.8
8.7
the
.7
™JZ
o Q-
< fc
15
6.5
9.6
7.2
8.3
6.2
6.3
4.2
3.9
9.1
8.5
7.8
7.2
5.5
6.9
6.9
6.6
8.1
7.3
12.9
12.5
12.7
9.5
8.3
6.6
4.2
8.9
6.5
10.5
8.1
14.4
m o n
6.1
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.sal 29-30
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 7 Partly cloudy 6 Cloudy 15
=
-o
c
QJ Q.
CO u
16
17
12
11
14
9
9
£ ; ^ —
Q
17
NH
N
NW
NH
NE
E
91 SE
9 SE
17
14-
14
13
10
31
10
10
10
11
19
17
16
14
15
12
9
12
8
15
10
24
N
NE
S
SW
SW
NW
N
SW
S
5
N
N
N
NE
NE
SW
S
SW
NE
E
E
NW
3ll NW
Date 1 4
W
18
1.9
0.3
7.4
4.9
2.4
12.5
11.3
11.3
4.8
12.5
3.7
0.1
2.1
6.9
11.3
9.4
10.3
O.B
6.6
0.0
0.0
8.2
9.8
0.6
5.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
Total
152.0
Possible
_OJ
^ "w
u a.
P- "o
19
11
2
57
38
19
9fl
6B
88
38
9fl
?9
1
17
55
90
76
83
7
54
0
0
67
81
5
41
61
0
0
0
3
mml^
Sky cover
Tenths
3
% ~.
= P
20
10
10
2
7
10
0
1
2
7
0
10
10
10
6
2
4
2
10
5
10
10
f
e
10
7
6
10
10
10
10
Sum
504
Avg
^ ^
»•§,
•a -Ei
S E
21
10
9
4
6
7
0
1
3
5
0
e
10
9
6
2
3
g
3
9
10
5
6
9
7
7
10
10
10
9
Sum
192
Avg
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
-S
d
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
?0
2 i
22
?3
24
25
76
?7
28
?9
30
-------
S3
LOCAL CLiMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
OCTOBER 1972
Latitude 38° 57' N Longitude 77' 27' W Elevation 'ground'
290 ft
Standard time used EASTERN
HBAN 093738
OJ
o
1
2
•a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
li
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
3
E
X
s
2
65
72
73
73
72
72
69
77*
63
60
65
71
67
71
65
63
76
51
42
49
55
64
66
73
58
56
63
59
68
61
47
?um
986
6?.l
E
S
3
37
37
39
44
59
63
51
45
34
31
28
43
47
44
33
35
47
40
28
20*
22
40
36
48
35
26
26
48
43
36
34
Sum
1206
38.9
1
o
a
QJ
4
51
55
56
59
66
68*
60
61
49
46
47
57
57
58
49
49
62
46
35
35*
39
52
51
61
47
41
45
54
58
50
41
51.5
OJ
•^
w
_
£
c
F
5
o.E
6
41
44
46
53
62
64
54
43
37
32
38
53
48
50
35
45
46
35
36
25
29
42
49
52
40
33
38
52
52
41
36
-&
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
>90°t
0
< 32
0
Minimum Temp.
532°
< 0
0
c
"ra
7A
14
10
9
6
0
C
5
4
16
19
1G
8
B
7
16
16
3
19
30
30
26
13
14
4
18
24
20
11
7
15
24
Total
414
Total
457
Dep.
c
•^
<->
7B
O1
0
0
0
I
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
4
Total
909
Dep.
Weather tvpes
on dates of
occurrence
'1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Du9istorm
9 Blowing snow
8
1
1
2
1
1
1
1 6
1
1
2
2
1
2 8
1
2
Snow
ice
ice on
grounc
at
07Af
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
5 .01 inch 7
=> 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 0
Heavy fog X 5
Precipitation
Water
equiva-
lent
In.
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
10
0
0
0
0
.02
.68
.27
0
0
0
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.69
0
0
T
.02
0
0
0
T
1.61
0
0
T
Total
3.44
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
.1
Av.B' Wind
station
sure
In.
Elev
fp
m
323
s 1
12
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
.69
.94
.06
.04
.65
.51
.17
.28
.76
.28
.30
.67
.73
.68
.62
.60
.48
.93
.94
.21
.17
.96
.69
.65
.74
.82
.91
.63
.58
.69
.03
Fo
29
.81
"c c
5 v
16 TJ
13
35
10
13
09
07
06
33
28
31
02
14
24
36
18
3?
20
31
09
35
33
17
ie
?6
35
34
71
08
35
?9
34
05
r
3i
,c
c £
*^
3*
K n
14
4.0
.9
2.8
3.6
10.1
8.2
13.8
9.4
7.4
2.4
4.2
3.0
5.6
2.9
7.2
11.5
3.2
3.4
9.3
3.9
4.6
6.7
2.0
4.9
8.5
.5
3.6
5.6
3.1
5.3
3.7
the
1.7
Fastest
£
a
ra .c
fc a.
"*
15
4.5
1.9
5.2
6.3
10.8
10.2
14.1
11.2
9.1
3.3
4.5
6.2
7.6
5.0
10.2
11.7
9.5
6.3
9.9
6.5
6.3
7.9
5.2
8.5
9.1
4.3
6.3
7.1
7.8
7.1
5.6
m o n
7.4
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.6l] 28
Snow, ice pellels
i
Clear 12 Partly cloudy 3 Cloudy 16
19
mile
TD -C
Si o.
16
12
7
12
12
17
16
22
20
17
12
1?
12
14
14
21
23
18
16
17
13
14
14
10
IB
16
10
10
14
Z?
14
9
th:
23
c
-j
OJ
°
17
36
14
14
15
08
03
32
29
29
03
14
32
01
20
34
19
36
35
36
02
13
18
26
36
36
36
14
04
31
36
04
19
Sunshine
•a
c
ul
3
W
M
£
"
18
Total
OJ
^ -D
cj O
P- 0
19
lor
Sky cover
Tenths
_o
M -kJ
C "
M to
20
3
0
2
9
10
10
10
0
2
2
3
9
6
9
1
9
3
10
10
0
9
9
10
9
6
0
1
10
9
3
10
Sum
186
6,0
.H?.5?
££
S £
21
1
0
2
8
10
10
8
2
3
2
4
9
6
7
3
6
3
9
8
0
9
9
9
9
8
1
5
9
9
4
10
Sum
185
6,0
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0
£
(->
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
1 1
1?
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
?0
2 1
22
23
?4
26
?7
29
10
31
-------
U)
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ 0. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE OFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
OCTOBER 1972
^^^"'^fl T.ntitilHf *"' sl' N ' "npit'M" 77' 0?' w Elrvntinn 'rrounrl' lift Standard timp iisprt- p^STFPN WBA>J Pla74'
aj
Q
1
1
i
3
4
b
6
7
B
9
10
U
12
13
14
16
16
l r
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
3
X
S
2
67
72
74
73
73
73
69
76
64
61
67
69
67
69
64
60
79*
53
45
51
55
64
73
75
61
56
64
65
71
63
49
Sum
2024
Avg.
63.3
E
S
'j
46
45
48
53
62
65
52
50
46
41
36
52
53
52
41
43
51
44
34
31*
32
49
47
57
44
40
37
54
54
46
40
Sum
144 7
Avg.
.01 inch 8
Snow, ice pellets
5 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 0
Heavy fog X 1
Precipitation
Snou',
ice
Av8 ' Wind
station
pres-
In.
•*= %
Q. Q.
fppt 3 S S s
10
0
0
0
0
.06
.69
.14
0
0
0
0
.01
0
0
0
0
0
.02
.59
0
0
T
.02
0
0
0
T
2.03
0
0
T
Total
3.56
Dep
0.49
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
T
m
s 1 iffi-3 K S-
12
29,96
30.21
30.34
30
30.12
29
.77
29.41
29
.55
30.02
30
.55
30.57
30.14
30
.00
29.96
30.09
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
30
30
30
29
29
30
30
.69
.71
.21
.21
.49
.46
.25
.97
.91
.01
.11
.19
.90
.64
.15
.31
Fo
30
.OB
13
14
34] 6.2
36| 1.1
11
09
06
06
33
?9
32
0?
20
2 1
34
15
13
21
11
06
36
35
IS
19
19
35
15
06
06
15
30
14
05
r
35
2.2
6.6
13.1
12.1
15.6
8.2
9.6
2.8
3.6
6.3
6.Q
2.9
9.2
11.4
7.3
6.9
11.5
7.3
3.2
6.2
4.9
5.2
10.6
1.7
4.1
4.9
4.9
8.6
6.3
the
2.8
fc 0.
< b
15
7.5
3.9
4.6
7.8
13.2
12.7
16.0
10.9
10.2
6.2
5.2
7.5
7.5
5.5
11.4
11.5
10.9
9.4
12.8
6.9
6.0
6.5
6.2
8.1
10.6
5.2
5.2
6.5
9.4
9.9
7.2
m o n
8.5
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
2.03] 27-28
Snow, ice pellets
T
Clear 11 Partly cloudy 4 Cloudy 16
19
Fastest
mile
16
12
10
10
1?
19
17
26
18
21
11
9
11
17
9
?7
21
19
17
18
13
9
9
11
17
16
11
11
10
1?
11
i
U
p
17
N
SE
SE
E
SE
E
N
N
N
E
W
SW
N
W
N
SW
NE
NE
NE
NE
SW
SW
SW
NE
NE
SE
SE
E
NW
N
NE
h •
27| N
Date' 15
Sunshine
c
3 -»
XS
18
10.5
11.8
11.6
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
11.5
10.0
11.3
11.0
1.9
7.9
5.8
11.2
0.3
9.2
0.6
0.0
11.0
5.9
3.7
3.2
4.6
4.6
10.6
8.5
0.0
2.7
10.2
0.6
Total
183.8
Possible
346.7
OJ
^ -0
S M
u a.
(X "o
19
89
100
99
?4
0
0
•3
100
87
99
96
17
70
51
100
n?
1
0
100
54
14
?9
44
41
100
79
0
96
6
%
for
month
53
Sky cover
Tenths
o
c S
Az
20
1
0
1
8
10
10
10
0
2
2
3
10
6
6
0
10
4
10
10
0
9
8
9
9
6
0
J
10
8
2
10
Sum
Ul
Avg.
5,8
lilr
•a-fe
S £
21
1
0
1
7
10
10
8
1
3
1
3
9
5
8
2
9
3
9
8
0
6
8
9
a
i
5
9
6
3
10
Sum
176
Avg.
5,7
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
.£
0
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
IS
16
17
IB
19
20
2 1
22
71
?4
26
?7
?9
10
31
-------
>-•
VJ
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
Latitude 38° 57' N Longitude 77 27' « Elevation igroundi 290 ft
WASHINGTON) D.C,
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE OFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 1972
Standard time used. EASTERN
WBAN *93738
.2
p
I
.
2
3
4
6
7
t
1C
11
12
13
14
16
17
1G
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Temperature °F
£
a
X
§
2
52
69
72*
64
60
56
62
60
56
56
61
57
60
56
51
42
41
49
40
50
44
36
37
48
43
53
53
51
43
33
1555
Avg.
31.8
E
£
c
g
3
43
52
49
48
33
29
28
52
38
26
43
33
29
44
29
20
27
23
32
32
25
23
17
19
17*
35
33
36
21
27
963
Avg.
32.1
<
4
48
61
61*
56
47
43
45
56
47
41
52
45
45
50
40
31
34
36
36
41
35
30
27*
34
30
44
43
44
32
30
Avg.
42.0
II
$•*
Qi
5
Dep.
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
>90°J
0
332°
0
.01 inch 11
> 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 1
Heavy fog X 1
.
Precipitation
Water
lent
In.
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
10
.52
T
T
0
0
0
.02
1.29
0
0
T
0
.03
1.90
C
0
0
0
1.33
.01
0
.06
T
a
.57
.69
0
T
C
.67
7.09
^Dep.
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6
T
0
T
0
0
0
0
T
Totaj
.6
M
stat
g- Wind
sure
In
Elev.
571
feet
m s.l.
12
29
29
29
29
29
3n
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
29
.93
.66
.57
.67
.89
.17
.85
.31
.62
.73
.64
.85
.80
.26
.59
.85
.71
.88
.85
.58
.84
.77
.87
.87
.61
.00
.48
.74
.07
.74
./I
t: c
",X
«-o
13
1?
70
30
W
34
n
18
in
3?
15
31
34
14
05
3?
04
36
36
04
32
32
?1
30
74
18
75
70
73
36
35
31
a.
c E
^
1 »
K §•
14
5.2
10.0
6.4
7.5
6.4
.9
3.3
15.8
14.4
2.9
4.8
4.0
4.4
4.5
14.4
2.0
5.4
3.6
5.2
9.5
7.1
2.6
1.7
4.8
4.1
3.4
12.0
4.4
2.5
7.1
t~FTe —
2.7
Fastest
-o
a.
^
ffl -C
ai &•
< £
15
6.0
10.9
10.4
8.2
7.9
5.0
6.2
19.0
14.7
6.9
6.9
6.3
7.1
7.8
14.7
4.6
6.3
5.8
7.6
9.9
7.E
6.3
5.8
6.3
7.6
8.3
12.4
10.2
6.2
8.1
8.4
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.93] 13-14
Snow, ice pellets
.6
Clear 6 Partly cloudy 7 Cloudy 17
22
mile
TD J=
8°-
« L
Ifi
10
17
18
14
17
in
15
31
26
10
16
12
12
17
24
9
12
12
14
18
14
10
9
14
14
15
20
1C
14
16
th •
c
0
-j
s
Q
17
15
22
30
32
36
15
20
30
31
15
SO
01
14
32
SO
19
01
35
04
31
32
20
32
29
12
26
20
31
02
36
311 30
Date: 08
Sunshine
T3
C
in
tn
^
18
Pos-
ible
Greatest depth
ice pellets or
T
^ 3
t-i CX
P-, "o
19
for
Sky cover
Tenths
o
^5
M 3
20
10
10
5
9
2
0
7
10
5
1
8
2
9
10
7
8
10
4
10
8
8
10
8
0
10
7
0
10
4
10
202
Avg.
6."
£ J3
-Bf.SP
**
§ 6
21
10
10
7
9
1
0
7
10
5
3
7
2
7
9
5
7
8
4
10
6
6
8
4
0
a
8
3
8
4
10
186
Avg.
6,2
on ground of snow,
ice and date
23+
a
«
22
1
?
3
4
•i
6
7
R
9
in
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
in
19
70
?1
7?
73
74
?•>
76
?7
78
79
30
-------
M
^j
Ln
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON) 0. C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 1972
Latitude 38" 5l' N Longitude 77' 02' W Elevation 'ground'
10 ft
Standard time used EASTERN
H8AN #13743
If
p
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Temperature °F
E
X
S
2
53
71
76*
64
62
57
63
62
59
57
61
59
61
60
52
43
47
51
42
55
46
38
41
50
47
59
57
60
46
36
1637
Avg
•54.6
3
£
s
3
44
52
57
53
44
38
36
54
44
38
45
43
39
48
34
28
35
33
40
35
30
31
26
26
26*
42
39
38
33
35
1166
Avg.
38.9
OJ
5
-; u
< -a
6
46
56
50
44
37
34
42
47
38
36
45
38
44
SO
27
24
30
28
34
34
24
25
21
21
30
41
30
35
23
30
=
Avg.
35
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
>90° t
0
^ 32°
0
Minimum Temp,
< 32° 50°
6 0
no
TO
K
7A
16
3
0
6
12
17
15
7
13
17
12
14
15
11
22
29
24
23
24
20
27
30
31
27
28
14
17
16
25
28
543
Dep.
24
Total
529
Dep
60
M
C
U
7B
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Dep.
to date
Total
1186
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog X
3 Thunderstorm
< Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Dusiscorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
1 8
1 8
8
8
8
1
8
1 8
8
2 8
1 3
a
1 8
1 8
1
1 4
Snou .
ice
pelkls
^rounr
07Af
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
> .01 inch 1C
Snow, ice pellets
=» 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 1
Heavy fog X 1
Precipitation
Water
Snow,
ice
pellets
lent I"
In
10 11
.35 0
T 0
0 0
o| o
0| 0
0
T
1.07
0
0
.02
0
.07
1.56
0
0
0
0
1.42
.08
0
T
T
0
.47
.35
0
T
0
.66
6.05
Dep.
3.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
Total
T
AvB' Wmd
station
es-
In.
El01' ^ -
ff
m
»S
65-~
et 138
s.l IK'^3
12
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
29
29
30
29
30
30
29
29
30
29
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
29
.22
.95
.63
.94
.16
.40
.14
.56
.88
.01
.9?
.16
.09
.54
.86
.12
.99
.15
.12
.65
.13
.05
.16
.11
.91
.26
.77
.03
.36
.02
.99
13
11
20
30
36
35
07
18
3n
33
32
34
34
19
03
33
36
34
35
05
33
34
35
34
?4
15
24
21
24
34
02
32
JZ
d.
ra
M °
£3-
14
5.7
8.7
5.0
5.8
7.8
2. 1
3.1
10.4
18.2
.8
1.3
3.6
4.7
5.2
14.8
2.1
6.1
7.0
7.5
12.2
8.7
1.1
4.7
7.7
2.4
7.8
12.3
4.8
6.7
B.e
3.2
-------
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
Standard time used' EASTERN
WASHINGTON/ B.C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE OFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
DECEMBER 1972
Latitude 38° 57' N
77 ' 27' W
Elevation igroundt
290 ft
WBAN 093736
-M
P
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
a
14
IS
16
I/
IS
Temperature °F
E
3
E
x
s
2
47
57
64
58
64*
62
38
35
52
56
44
39
56
41
38
38
28
40
19 55
20
2 1
•a
it
24
25
26
27
ae
58
46
44
45
43
45
43
44
47
29 43
30 43
3i| 63
Sum
1476
Avg.
47.6
E
c
s
3
28
30
36
37
32
35
23
22
35
44
27
28
34
31
35
19
11*
12
28
41
41
38
39
29
38
36
27
21
24
34
CJ
a
fc
^
4
38
44
50
48
48
49
31
29
44
50
36
34
45
36
37
29
20*
26
42
50
44
41
42
36
42
40
36
34
34
39
43 53*
Sum
958
Avg.
30.9
Avg.
u
=
t.
^
E
o
c
S.E
Q
L,
5
Dep.
39.3
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
39o°tl 332°
°l T-
„
bn ~
to a
o 5
6
29
33
37
42
41
51
21
30
43
47
27
34
40
32
35
14
7
15
21
39
44
42
43
38
42
40
28
28
27
38
52
Avg.
34
Minimum Temp.
==32°
16
30°
0
Degree days
be
c
"TO
E
7A
27
21
15
17
17
16
34
36
21
15
29
31
20
29
28
36
45
39
23
15
21
24
23
29
23
25
29
31
31
26
12
Total
788
Dep.
Total
1931
Dep.
QD
C
O
U
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lotal
0
Dep.
Total
909
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
3 Thunderstorm
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Du9tstorm
8
8
1 8
1 8
1 6
1
2
1 6 8
1
1
1 8
1
1
2
2 8
2 8
1 8
2
Snou
pellets
£rounc
07AM
9
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Precipitation
Water
lent
In
10
0
0
0
T
0
.52
0
1.24
.05
.15
0
.03
T
0
.98
0
0
0
0
.09
1.03
.89
.16
T
T
.12
0
0
ol o
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
> .01 inch 13
s 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 0
Heavy fog X 5
.04
.76
Total
6.06
Dep.
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Av,8' Wind
station i
pres-
In.
Ele"
323
feet
= 1
12
29
29
29
79
29
29
30
30
29
29
30
30
29
30
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
01 30
01 29
Total
0
.48
.75
.70
.73
.77
.65
.in
.09
.76
.66
.09
.09
.81
.01
.6?
.55
.09
.03
.77
.58
.60
.36
.62
.75
.74
.50
.48
.ftft
.11
.03
.75
Fo
29
.77
^
^ 1 ^ tt
« o! re
— Z
vi QJ
tS-5
13
74
20
18
0?
35
74
34
30
11
36
16
77
01
35
79
30
18
20
19
05
36
01
11
02
20
30
30
71
IB
18
r
30
14
9.2
9.7
5.5
5.6
2.9
1.7
8.1
2.9
.2
4.3
7.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
9.3
22.2
18.2
3.7
8.5
3,8
6.6
11,7
9.5
2.3
2.0
4.5
8.2
7.6
2.4
2.0
aj
03 SI
V D.
< ^
15
10.4
9.9
7.9
6.6
5.3
10.4
8.8
6.3
5.6
6.8
8.2
6.9
12.7
5.0
9.6
22.6
19.4
6.6
8.6
6.9
7.1
12.4
9.9
5.0
4.9
8.3
10.4
9.8
7.1
4.6
4.2 8.5
the m o n
2.6
8.6
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.75] 21-22
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 5 Partly cloudy 4 Cloudy 22
Fastest
mile
-a J=
QJ R-
[^ £
16
20
15
12
9
9
70
17
10
13
17
17
12
20
9
16
32
30
13
15
12
12
20
14
8
7
15
17
1ft
13
8
17
-£
£
O
17
27
16
25
03
36
32
32
19
19
31
02
18
20
02
35
28
30
20
16
36
04
36
01
12
14
31
30
30
14
31
16
th
321 28
Date: 16
Sunshine
T3
C
CTJ
in
-------
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON. 0. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE OFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
DECEMBER 1972
Latitude 38" 51' N Longitude 77" 02' W Elevation 'ground'
10 ft
Standard time used1 EASTERN
HBAN #13743
4J
Q
1
1
'i
3
4
i
6
7
U
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
EO
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
26
29
30
31
1 .
Temperature °F
E
E
w
S
2
50
59
65
61
67*
65
42
39
55
59
46
40
61
44
45
41
32
42
57
61
48
48
48
46
48
46
47
51
45
47
63
Sum
1570
Avg.
50.6
E
i
3
33
36
39
44
40
38
32
34
39
48
34
35
40
39
38
22
20
19*
30
43
43
42
43
39
42
40
35
31
32
38
45
Sum
1133
Avg.
36.5
^
01
4
42
46
52
53
54
52
37
37
47
54
41
38
51
42
42
32
26*
31
44
52
46
45
46
43
45
43
41
41
39
43
54*
Avg.
43.6
.1
£ C
D.E
Qi
5
0
7
11
13
14
13
-2
-2
6
16
3
0
13
4
4
-6
-12
-7
6
15
q
8
ra D.
OJ £
< -a
6
28
32
36
41
42
48
19
29
43
47
26
32
39
28
35
13
6
15
24
38
42
42
9 | 41
6
8
6
4
4
2
6
17
Dep.
5.5
38
41
39
27
27
26
37
52
Avg.
33
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
590° t
0
5 32°
1
Minimum Temp.
B 32° ==0°
7 0
Degree days
1
M on
C C
« 1 i
w ! o
7A
23
17
13
12
11
13
28
28
18
11
24
27
14
23
23
33
39
34
21
13
19
20
19
22
20
22
24
24
26
22
11
Total
654
Dep.
-180
Total
1483
Dep.
-120
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Dep.
Total
1186
Dep
Weather tvpes
on dates of
occurrence
\ Fog
2 Heavy fog X
3 Thunderstorm
4 Ice pellets
6 Glaze
7 Dustsrorrn
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1
1 8
1
1 8
1
1
1
1 fl
1 8
1 6
1 8
1
Snow
ice
or
ice on
grount
07AM
In
9
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
=. .01 inch 13
=• 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 0
Heavy fog X 0
Precipitation
Water
equiva-
lent
ice
pelleis
In.
In
10
0
0
0
T
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
.321 0
0
1.35
.05
.29
0
.08
T
0
.67
0
0
0
0
.06
.52
.61
.06
T
T
.12
0
0
0
.10
.12
Total
4.55
Dep
1.77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Avg' Wind
station
pres- I
sure 1
In
fr
m
Sunshine
Fastest
•a 1 mile
! -d g
- U »
65l— ~] —
et H 3 vl 3 £
si
12
29
30
29
30
30
29
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
29
29
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
.76
.04
.99
.01
.05
.9?
.47
.37
.04
.94
.37
.38
.09
.79
.89
.87
.37
,32
.06
.86
.86
.62
.89
.04
.03
.79
.76
.94
.41
.32
.03
Fo
30
.06
13
25
20
20
14
6.9
7.9
5.7
04 5.6
051 4.6
29! 3.6
35 9.0
01
1 7
36
34
1?
28
04
01
79
31
70
70
18
05
36
03
09
10
24
32
30
10
06
18
r
33
1.4
1.2
3.3
11.4
3.2
3.1
7.8
8.3
19.6
16.5
5.4
6.5
2.6
8.0
9.4
8.3
3.3
2.1
4.0
9.1
7.9
2.8
3.2
5,8
the
2.2
n -c -a ^
< E
15
10.8
8.1
7.2
5.9
5.3
10.2
10.9
6.0
5.0
6.3
11.5
5.8
c£fc
16
28
15
12
10
14
29
20
13
12
17
27
1 1
14.4 20
8.1 12
11.1 16
20.3 29
16.8
6.6
6.6
5.8
6.2
10.1
6.5
4.5
4.3
9.8
12.1
9.5
6.5
4.5
6.3
m o n
8.7
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.40| 8- 9
Snow, ice pellets
o
Clear 6 Partly cloudy 5 Cloudy 20
26
15
13
10
1?
17
13
13
9
28
20
•a
U
Q
17
SW
S
W
NE
NE
NW
NW
NW
S
NW
NW
ME
N
N
NW
W
NW
SW
S
N
NE
N
N
N
E
N
N
17| NW
12 SE
9
23
E
SE
h
291 W
Date. 16 +
V
z£ ! £ "
0 C
xs
18
9.2
9.5
9.6
5.4
7.3
0.0
8.5
0.0
1.2
0.0
5.5
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
8.2
9.3
2.6
0.9
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
4.2
4.4
0.0
0.0
Total
96.4
Possible
294.5
19
95
9fl
100
5ft
7ft
0
89
0
0
56
0
28
0
0
flft
77
9
31
0
0
0
0
0
n
53
44
4ft
0
0
%
month
33
Sky cover
Tenths
o
•^ ~
20
1
2
0
6
2
10
5
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
2
0
9
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
5
9
10
10
Sum
233
Avg
7,?
_O
-C J=
"O T3
S E
21
2
1
2
7
6
9
6
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
2
0
7
9
9
10
10
10
8
10
10
6
2
6
10
10
Sum
232
Avg.
7.5
Greatest depth on ground of snow.
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
X
Q
22
1
2
3
4
•i
fi
7
K
9
10
1 1
1 7
13
14
1 5
1ft
17
Ifl
19
70
77
73
74
7ft
77
79
30
31
-------
CO
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JANUARY 1973
Latitude 39 57'
Longitude
Elevation 'ground'
290 ft.
Standard time used
6ASTERN
WBAN #93738
fi
p
1
1
2
3
4
c
6
7
U
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
3
£
X
s
2
63
45
36
48
44
35
24
20
30
35
39
33
36
42
42
53
63
64
57
43
46
58
51
43
54
65*
4.6
47
44
34
44
Sum
vg.
44.6
p
E
S
3
41
24
21
33
34
21
17
17
11
11
8
11
a*
11
24
ia
21
22
42
26
ia
33
40
24
18
27
38
35
21
15
12
Sum
Avg.
22.6
M
a
a;
4
52«
35
29
41
39
28
21
19*
21
23
24
22
22
27
33
36
42
43
50
35
32
46
46
34
36
46
42
41
33
25
28
Avg.
33.6
a
3
1-
&
O
^
E
0
c
b
*
5
Dep.
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
S90° t
0
< 32°
3
^
M
ro o.
(U £
< TJ
B
42
23
25
37
31
17
6
4
7
10
U
7
12
U
SO
28
28
32
46
27
If
42
37
23
24
31
41
42
23
12
18
Avg.
24
Minimum Temp.
==32°
23
50°
0
Degree days
bo
^
«
7A
13
30
36
24
26
37
44
46
44
4?
41
43
43
38
32
29
23
22
15
30
33
19
19
31
29
19
23
24
32
40
37
Total
Dep.
Total
2895
Dep.
c
CJ
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Dep.
t d t
Total
0
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
9 Blowing snow
8
1 6
2
6
2
1
1
2 8
1
Snow,
ice
icllels
07AM
In.
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Precipitation
> .01 inch 8
> 1.0 inch o
Thunderstorms 0
Heavy fog X 3
Precip tation
Water
lent
In.
10
0
0
.22
.18
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
0
0
0
.17
0
0
.47
T
0
0
0
.45
.62
.13
0
0
Total
Dep
Snow.
ice
pelleis
In
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
Ax
sta
g
inn
Wind
pres- j
sure
In
Elp"
fe
371
pt
m.s.l.
12
29
29
30
?9
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
.72
.95
.11
.67
.68
.83
.10
.04
.93
.91
.70
.90
.03
,79
.66
.96
.90
.83
.42
.52
.90
.50
.42
.63
.77
.76
.54
.42
.38
.83
,05
i'o
^
~~>
K'-S
13
32
33
12
2 1
31
32
33
01
32
24
31
30
08
18
34
21
19
19
21
31
04
19
28
31
71
71
02
16
3?
76
14
r
X
a
B &
14
4.6
9.2
3.7
1.8
9 .3
1P-9
J )
i j j
V.4
7.0
5.3
7.5
.4
5.1
5.9
4.6
4.0
2.3
5.6
15.4
3.1
5.0
6.6
10.1
5.5
2.4
3.7
3.9
12.9
4.1
4.8
the
H~n
ra -C
v °-
< fc
15
6.9
9.0
6.0
6.6
10.1
11.2
11.1
10.6
a. 5
7.5
7.9
9.1
5.5
5.6
7.2
8.2
5.9
7.1
10.1
15.5
8.1
9.8
8.5
10.8
7.5
6.2
6.6
6.0
13.7
9.1
4.9
m o n
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.7!] 28-29
Snow, ice pellets
T
Clear 6 Partly cloudy 7 Cloudy ia
15 +
Fastest
mile
13 -C
16
14
18
12
1?
17
18
16
15
14
14
15
15
8
1?
12
14
9
14
22
26
14
21
13
18
n
9
14
12
78
15
14
o
•£
^!
Q
17
36
30
16
31
32
31
32
02
36
27
31
31
15
18
34
20
19
17
30
30
01
14
25
SO
24
17
36
14
31
18
12
th :
Date: ,9
Sunshine
c
«
g C
33 a
18
Total
Possible
—
~. -B
£ g
ti Q.
(£•8
19
Sky cover
Tenths
2
tU
20
i
6
10
9
10
10
to
10
0
7
3
0
6
9
10
4
8
10
10
8
7
10
10
3
0
5
10
10
7
8
9
Sum
Avg.
7.1
"
"bb"§D
-0 13
S E
21
4
7
a
8
10
7
a
10
2
5
2
0
3
a
9
1
6
7
a
5
6
8
8
3
0
5
10
10
6
4
7
Sum
Avg.
A.n
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0
Q
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
1?
n
14
15
16
17
IB
19
70
71
23
74
7iS
77
79
31
-------
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON* D. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE DFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
JANUARY 1973
Latitude 38° 51 N Longitude 77'
02
Elevation 'ground'
10 1
Standard time used:
E4STERN
HBAN ((13743
V
p
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
1 /
ID
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
3
X
S
2
64*
48
40
49
47
38
27
24
32
36
41
34
38
42
46
53
59
61
63
46
46
62
55
45
55
62
48
50
46
35
46
Sum
1440
Avg.
46.5
E •
S
3
46
32
29
35
38
25
19
20
18
17*
19
19
20
20
31
28
26
31
41
31
23
35
43
30
26
34
42
43
24
20
22
Sum
689
Avg.
28,7
QJ
4
55*
40
35
4?
43
32
23
22*
25
27
30
27
29
31
39
41
44
46
52
39
36
49
49
38
41
46
45
47
35
28
34
Avg.
37.6
_
^ E
D O
L. C
Q.E
Qi
5
18
3
-2
5
6
-5
-14
-15
-12
-10
-7
-10
-8
-6
2
4
7
9
15
2
-1
12
12
1
4
11
8
10
-2
-9
-3
Dep.
0.7
^
QJ >
< -o
6
42
19
23
37
28
15
4
1
4
9
9
5
13
19
29
28
29
34
45
25
16
44
35
19
23
32
40
42
25
10
19
Avg.
23
Number of days
Maximum Temp
5 90° t
0
c 32°
3
Minimum Temp.
532° 50°
22 0
tM
X
7A
10
25
30
23
22
33
42
43
40
38
35
38
36
34
26
24
21
19
13
26
29
16
16
27
24
17
20
18
30
37
31
Total
r,643
Dep.
-28
Total
2326
Dep.
-148
bJJ
C
—
O
o
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Dep
Total
0
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy [og X
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
8 Smoke, Haze
o Blowing snow
8
1
1
8
8
8
8
1
8
1
1 8
1
8
Snow
ice
groyne
07AP
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
> .01 inch 8
> 1.0 mch o
Thunderstorms o
Heavy fog X Q
Precipitation
Water
lent
Snow,
ice
pelleis
In
In
10
T
0
.18
.29
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
0
0
0
.24
0
0
.38
0
0
0
0
.42
.60
.14
0
0
Total
2,26
Dep
-0.77
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
T
Avg.
station
sure
In.
El°"
f
m
65
si.
12
29
30
30
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
29
29
30
29
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
.99
• 22
.41
.90
.96
.10
.38
.33
.22
.20
.99
.19
.32
.06
.93
.74
.19
.1 1
.70
.80
.19
.78
.70
.91
.06
.05
.83
.71
.64
.12
.35
Fo
30
.05
Wind
^
§ G
^ +J
5) 1J
(3-3
13
34
34
1 1
75
31
33
3?
o?
33
74
30
33
33
16
33
71
19
70
23
32
35
15
77
32
22
?0
36
12
33
76
13
r
31
jf
D.
" "O
S ^
£ 8-
14
2.5
9.1
2.8
3.0
11.1
13.6
12.7
8.9
6.9
5.6
6.9
9.7
1.8
4.7
3.7
3.6
5.6
5.6
7.4
14.3
2.7
3.6
6.7
12.9
4.7
4.6
5.3
2.4
18.3
5.3
3.8
the
3.9
"S
D.
O ^
< E
15
6.9
9.4
5.5
7.1
11.2
13.7
12.8
9.6
9.1
6.6
8.9
10.6
4.9
5.9
6.2
7.1
5.8
5.8
9.9
14.8
6.9
10.2
9.6
13.1
6.8
5.6
7.6
4.9
18.6
10.2
6.2
m o n
8.7
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
. .74] 28-29
Snow, ice pellets
T
Clear 6 Partly cloudy 10 Cloudy 15
8
Fastest
mile
Tli
a. c
GO c
16
14
20
10
19
22
73
23
17
16
0
^
-------
00
o
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON* D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FEBRUARY 1973
Latitude 38 57' N Longitude
77 27' W
Elevation 'ground1
290 ft
Standard time used
KBAN (93738
OJ
p
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
IV
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2 1
28
-_ Weather tvpes
Temperature F on dates' £f
E
x
3
2
37
64*
48
53
58
44
50
44
32
27
31
37
45
34
52
40
25
35
50
54
50
40
43
46
50
51
38
52
Sum
1230
Avs.
E
E
5
3
28
32
34
28
32
35
34
27
20
20
14
7
6
19
33
13
5*
7
10
23
28
23
24
23
17
32
30
18
Sum
622
Avg.
43.9 22.2
QJ
ra
oi
<
4
33
48*
41
41
45
40
42
36
26
24
23
22
26
27
43
27
15*
21
30
39
39
32
34
35
34
42
34
35
Avg.
33. 1
-
"u
Q
E
o
r-
Dep.
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
590° t
0
« 32°
4
Degree days
Base 65°
1 Fog ^
o!
ro o.
OJ s
*£ -a
fi
29
48
34
29
33
36
36
36
13
13
3
4
10
26
36
13
- 2
4
16
?. 6
29
16
22
21
21
30
20
16
Avg.
ii
Minimum Temp.
332°
24
< 0°
0
GO
"to
X
7A
32
17
24
24
20
25
23
29
39
41
42
43
39
38
22
38
50
44
35
26
26
33
31
30
31
23
31
30
Total
986
Dep.
Total
3781
Dep.
i I nunaerstorm
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
c 6 Glaze
•5 7 Duscstorm
o 8 Smoke, Haze
u 9 Blowing snow
7B
0
8
2 6
Snou
ice
pellets
or
at
Precipitation
Avg Wind Sunshine i Sky cover
station . Tpnths
Snou- pr
Water ice su
lent In
In
es-
re -o
fastest
mile
c- B" TT
Elev G d c E t 5 • i
07AM
: fp
In
9
10 '11
m
3231—^ — -a ? •*- ^ J- o £
12 13 ' 14
0 .02 0, 30
02 6 0 1.231 Oi 29
0 0 Oi 0 29
0 0
0
0. 0 29
0! 0' Ol 29
0 1 Oi .58' T 29
Ol 1 80' T: 0 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Dep.
Total
0
Dep.
1 8 0' .33
1 4 6
2 8
1
0, 0
O1 0
0 0
0 29
0
0
0
0 Ol 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
.65
T
0
0
0
0
0 T
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days j
Precipitation
=. .01 inch
7
=> 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 0
Heavy fog X 3
.02
0
.01
0
0
0
T
0
Total
2.84
Dep.
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
29
29
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
.3 29
0 29
0
0
T
0
Total
.3
30
29
29
30
. 13' 05 4.6
.43 15 3.3
.33' 311 11.0
.72 23
6.4
< 6 ;£ E, a i
h—
'. ~ -2 ~l
c ' " a c g
1 Z^.Zl
15 ! 16 17 18 19 20
6,9 12; 05
8.9
11.7
8.8
.85 01 3.5l 5.6
.92! 04 8.7
.881 36 8.4
.58' 25
4.0
.821 34 12.4
.S9
.00
.05
.00
.80
.40
.56
.95
.00
.92
.80
.69
.50
.50
.83
.07
.94
.95
.03
Fo
29
. SU
I
02 15.3
36
35
22
01
27
31
33
78
?1
72
30
31
35
30
IB
02
07
01
r
J4
1
17.4
6.5
3.0
2.9
2.3
17,3
13.0
1.3
2.6
3.3
7.2
16.4
5.0
6.6
6.3
6.8
10.6
1.2
the
4.8
10.4
29
25
30 :
30
16 23
10 07
171 36 I
9.4 15 36
10.6
12.5
15.5
17.5
8.1
5.0
5.8
7.1
17.7
13.1
5.9
4.6
6.9
9.2
16.5
6.8
10.2
7.9
9.5
11.1
6.2
m o n
L. 9.6
21' 32
20 36
231 03
281 36
13| 24
8
9
20
29
21
13
12
16
23
23
15
70
14
18
16
9
18
30
30
30
34
74
20
32
30
30
29
31
23
01
36
02
th :
29| 30
Date: 16 +
Greatest m 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.2*1 1- 2
Snow, ice pelkls
.3
Clear 8 Partly cloudy 4 Cloudy 16
23
10
1 10
9
3
io
10
7
10
1
-c Z
- ~
-5- S
5 E p
21
22
10 1
10 l 2
8 3
5
4
9 • 5
10 6
8 7
10 ' 8
5 1 4 ' 9
io
Total
Pos
iblc
Greatest deptr
ice pellets or
T
,„
0
0
1
10
9
10
0
9
7
10
3
t
3
8
10
10
0
Sum
i-^
t>.7
10 ' 10
2 11
0
0
10
10
10
12
13
14
15
1 6
0 ' 17
5 ! 18
4 ' 19
8 20
8 21
4 22
7 23
it
6
10
1U
Sum
183
Avg.
6.5
on ground of snow,
ice and date
23
74
75
76
77
28
-------
00
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D. C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
FEBRUARY 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
Latitude 38 51' N Longitudr
77 02' W
Elevation 'ground1
10 ft
Standard time used EASTERN
WEAN *13743
S
p
1
1
2
j
4
5
„, ~ Weather types
Temperature F on dates- £f
Degree days ' , °«urrence
i | ; ; Base 65 , 2 Heavy log x
£
E
X
^
2
41
63*
53
S5
58
6 47
7
a
V
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
53
46
36
31
33
40
45
40
48
44
29
37
48
54
52
43
43
47
51
54
41
51
Sum
1283
Avg.
43 . 6
E
£
S
3
30
41
40
37
38
40
37
33
23
23
18
13
18
26
36
17
9*
13
20
28
36
27
28
32
27
38
34
28
Sum
790
Avg
28.2
OJ
j e
= ° Si, K ! u>
n i- c ra D. E:
4
36
52*
47
46
48
44
45
40
30
27
26
27
32
33
42
31
19*
25
34
41
44
35
36
40
39
46
38
40
Avg.
37.0
Qi
5
-1
15
10
9
11
7
8
3
-7
-10
-H
-10
-6
-5
4
-7
-19
-13
-4
2
5
-4
-3
1
0
7
-2
0
Dep.
-0.8
< -a
6
30
50
35
28
33
35
36
37
13
11
2
1
14
25
36
17
- 6
4
18
25
30
18
21
22
24
33
23
1 /
Avg
23
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
5 90° t
0
3 32°
2
Minimum Temp.
<: 32° ^ 0"
17 0
c
TO , -3
E
7A
29
13
18
19
17
21
20
25
35
38
39
38
33
32
23
34
46
40
31
24
21
30
29
25
26
19
27
25
Total
777
Dep.
15
Total
3103
Dep
-133
CJ
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Dep.
Total
0
Dep.
A Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
2
2
1
1
1 8
8
1
2 8
3
8
8
Snovv
ice
pellels
ice on
Ljiounr
at
07AF
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
> .01 inch ^
=. 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 1
Heavy fog X 3
Precipitation
1 Snow.
Water I ice
equiva- Pellels
lent i In
In
10
T
1.35
0
0
0
.46
.08
.25
0
0
0
0
0
.45
.02
T
T
0
0
0
.07
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2.68
Dep
0.21
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
T
0
0
0
T
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
.1
sta
'e Wind
ion
pres- Fastest
Mire ' ^ ' mile
In i ^ £
Elev
fr
rn
65
S.I.
12
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
JO
.41
.71
.60
.99
.12
.19
.15
.86
.09
.17
.28
.33
.29
.09
.68
.83
.23
.30
.21
.09
.97
.77
.79
.11
.36
.22
.23
.32
Fo
30
.OB
£c
^. — '
W OJ
(2-3
13
05
?n
30
26
08
05
35
25
34
03
36
33
16
OB
24
32
33
29
20
23
33
32
33
33
18
06
05
09
r
34
D.
c E
D.
K S-
14
9.1
4,3
10.1
6.6
3.6
11.1
9.4
5.5
13.3
14.3
17.1
7.1
1.1
2.4
3.7
19.4
15.7
3. 1
4.7
3.2
4.9
17.1
8.2
5.5
5.0
5.4
12.0
4.2
the
4.5
Cj O.
< h
15
9.5
7.9
12.1
9.5
7.1
11.8
9.8
10.4
13.7
14.4
17.7
7.9
3.6
4.3
5.9
19.8
16.0
6.6
5.2
6.6
7.3
17.4
8.5
8.3
6.3
7.9
12.4
6.3
m o n
9.8
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.35] 1- 2
Snow, ice pellets
.1
Clear 8 Partly cloudy 2 Cloudy 18
23
-D -C
^ 0-
a. c:
en e
16
15
29
25
17
13
23
16
27
?6
24
28
16
10
11
17
33
33
11
9
16
17
29
17
21
12
20
22
10
c
o
•£
i
Q
17
E
W
NW
5W
NE
N
N
NW
NW
NE
N
N
NE
E
NW
N
N
NW
S
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
SE
NE
NE
NE
h
33 N
Date. 17*
Sunshine
q
vi in
i!
xs
18
0.0
0,2
2.4
9.9
4.2
0.0
3.0
0.0
8.3
0.0
10.4
10.7
10.6
0.0
2.0
4.5
10.9
9.1
5.0
3.0
4.4
10.0
4.9
9.8
7.5
1.7
0.0
11.3
Total
143.8
Possible
301.0
_OJ
OJ
-------
00
to
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA «»?& SERV.CE DFC
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DUUES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION MARCH m3
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
Latitude 3e ' 57 N Longitude 77 ' 27 ' H Elevation 'ground' 290 fl Standard time used EASTERN HBAN H9373B
N
O
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
6
X
S
2
60
68
55
55
52
45
48
67
67
61
56
73*
66
72
72
68
72
40
49
53
42
45
56
64
59
57
63
59
57
67
55
Sum
1823
58.8
E
S
3
23
26
42
44
45
42
42
44
41
39
46
49
43
41
47
58
39
32
34
29
32
31
30
22*
30
47
36
29
32
48
48
Sum
1191
AVg
38.4
fe
<
4
42
47
49
50
49
44
45
56
54
50
51
61
55
57
60
63*
56
36*
42
41
37
38
43
43
45
52
50
44
45
58
52
48.6
o
r.
n
Q
_
E
e
h
5
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
>90°t
0
.= 32°
0
„
1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 1
Heavy fog X 4
Precipitation
Water
lent
10
0
0
.29
T
.26
.09
.07
.15
0
T
.04
0
0
0
.03
.19
.21
T
0
0
.06
0
0
0
.26
.32
.07
0
T
.21
.41
Total
2.66
Snow,
ice
pelleis
In
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
.2
Av§ Wind
station
pres-
sure
In,
El*31'
323
fc
m
si.
12
30
30
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
2S>
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
05
00
94
82
91
06
94
85
96
01
81
55
75
62
53
42
83
14
48
57
5b
70
86
87
56
16
52
92
89
80
73
Fo
29
70
^
S'S
K-o
13
20
16
11
11
10
05
07
04
11
07
15
26
30
03
23
18
21
24
78
27
03
34
34
30
16
35
36
12
16
17
10
r
?3
-C
a
3
M ^
£%
14
9.1
5.1
4.0
.4
7.4
8.5
3.7
4.4
4.5
3.9
5.7
8.1
3.3
4.0
3.9
7.2
19.2
17.8
12.5
6.0
9.9
11.4
11.2
1.3
5.6
10.1
10.9
6.4
5.9
5.3
6.5
[he
.3
o
<*
15
9.8
6.8
7.1
5.6
8.5
8.6
6.5
5.9
6.8
7.2
8.1
14.5
7.1
6.9
8.1
8.1
22.6
17.8
15.4
8.6
11.1
11.8
11.7
5.3
6.6
10.8
11.8
7.6
6.9
6.6
7.2
m o n
9.3
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.52] 25-26
Snow, ice pellets
.2
Clear 1 Partly cloudy 6 Cloudy 24
21
Fastest
mile
-a J=
Q a.
a. c
M e
16
17
10
14
10
14
12
12
10
15
13
20
25
13
12
17
15
30
31
25
18
16
11
22
10
16
18
20
14
15
12
12
th :
31
a
IU
Q
17
23
15
12
35
10
05
08
02
11
12
15
31
31
06
18
16
22
24
25
30
02
35
36
35
13
02
36
15
16
19
13
24
Sunshine
T3
M M
P 5
xs
18
Total
OJ
c w
f n
0,0
19
%
Sky cover
Tenths
0
S^
r $
ak
20
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
4
7
9
10
10
a
10
6
9
10
8
7
6
10
10
5
3
10
8
10
Sum
264
9.5
°
UO QO
s'i
21
6
7
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
a
10
4
7
a
10
10
9
10
5
9
10
a
5
3
8
10
5
2
9
9
10
Sum
250
8.1
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
T 1 21
X
P
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?0
21
??
?3
74
?5
26
?7
?8
29
30
31
-------
00
Lo
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
Latitude 33 " 51 N Longitude 77 " 02 ' W Elevation 'ground' 10 ft Standard time used: EASTERN
WASHINGTON/ D. C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
MARCH 1973
WBAN #13743
S
CTJ
O
1
1
2
3
4
5
ft
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
1ft
17
IB
19
?0
2 1
22
?3
?4
25
26
?7
28
?9
31
Temperature
E
3
X
S
2
59
66
57
58
54
47
50
65
67
62
55
73*
64
71
71
72
72
44
52
56
46
47
58
62
59
61
64
58
58
63
57
1848
Avg.
59.6
3
E
§
3
31*
34
47
47
47
44
44
48
44
44
46
51
46
46
48
61
41
35
37
36
35
35
34
33
38
50
45
38
37
48
50
1320
Avg
47.6
n>
4
45
50
52
53
51
46
47
57
56
53
51
62
55
59
60
67*
57
40*
45
46
41
41
46
48
49
56
55
48
48
56
54
Avg.
51 .1
0,
p
S
Q
5
1
°F
„
E
0
E
4
9
1
12
10
4
5
14
13
10
8
18
11
15
15
22
12
-5
_
1
0
-6
-6
_
1
1
1
8
7
1
1
6
4
Dep.
6.3
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
S90° t
0
< 32°
0
„
« p.
oj >
<•&
B
27
34
47
48
47
4?
44
50
45
42
48
49
41
45
49
56
47
23
23
25
3?
26
2?
23
36
49
40
30
37
49
51
Avg
40
Minimum Temp.
532'
1
< 0°
0
M
a
7A
20
15
13
12
14
19
IB
8
9
12
14
3
10
6
5
0
B
25
20
19
24
24
19
17
16
9
10
17
17
9
11
TS*23
Dep.
-203
Season
Total
3526
Dep.
-336
bo
-3
o
O
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 2
Dep.
to date
Total
2
• Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
7 Duststorm
8 Smoke, Haze
Q Blowing snow
8 •
1 8
1 8
1 8
1
1
1 8
2 8
1 8
1
1
8
3 8
3
1
1
1 8
8
1 B
2 8
Snov*'.
ice
irounc
07AM
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Number of days
Precipitation
=- .01 inch 16
Snow, ice pellets
> 1.0 inch o
Thunderstorms 2
Heavy fog X 2
Precipitation
Water
lent
Snow.
ice
pellets
In
In
10
0
0
.49
T
.24
.01
.06
.31
0
.01
.09
0
0
0
.03
.15
.13
T
0
0
.06
0
0
0
.44
.26
.02
0
T
.22
.45
2.97
Dep.
-0.24
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
Av.B' I Wind
station .
es-
sure
In
E]PV
fr
m
sl.
12
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
29
34
29
?3
09
19
35
22
13
23
28
09
ai
02
89
80
69
12
41
75
86
86
97
13
15
86
43
78
21
IB
09
03
90
+j
nc
(S4;
13
20
18
07
17
08
05
06
15
08
07
13
28
29
06
14
20
22
29
31
33
05
35
36
30
16
34
36
11
15
14
08
01
-c %
a.
nj
VI ^
K S-
14
9.2
3.4
4.4
2.2
7.5
10.9
6.9
2.6
5.3
6.7
3.6
7.3
2.6
4.4
.7
5.2
20.4
17.0
14.5
5.2
12.7
14.4
13.3
1.2
6.5
9.1
9.9
6.5
2.9
2.8
6.4
o a.
< b
15
9.4
4.6
6.3
4.8
8.2
11.1
7.2
4.3
7.2
8.1
7.9
13.8
6.8
5.5
7.2
7.8
22.9
17.8
15.7
6.8
13.5
15.1
13.7
6.3
6.9
9.4
10.9
7.6
5.3
4.8
6.8
9.1
Greatest m 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.70] 25-26
Snow, ice pellets
T
Clear 1 Partly cloudy 10 Cloudy 20
21 +
Fastest
mile
•a •*=
OJ Q.
O. d
W c
16
17
8
13
8
16
17
14
B
16
19
19
33
13
17
21
1 1
38
32
23
14
25
23
25
13
12
21
20
15
10
10
10
h -
38
o
ai
Q
17
SW
S
E
N
E
E
E
SE
E
NE
S
N
N
NE
NE
N
SH
W
W
N
NE
N
N
N
E
NW
N
E
S
S
E
SW
Date' 17
Sunshine
•a
c
2J=
W !
18
9.2
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
9.0
5.1
0.0
10.2
10.2
4.9
3.0
1.0
3.8
1.0
7.0
8.6
0.0
4.4
11.3
12.3
0.3
0.6
8.0
12.4
6.9
4.0
0.0
144.9
Possible
370.8
Si
£~s
19
81
Bl
0
0
0
0
0
22
76
44
0
86
86
41
25
8
32
8
58
71
0
36
92
100
2
5
65
99
55
32
0
39
Sky cover
Tenths
S
S
c g
«3
20
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
10
4
7
9
10
10
7
10
4
7
10
9
5
2
10
10
6
4
10
8
10
252
Avg.
8.1
i-
TJ -D
S E
21
6
7
10
10
10
10
10
9
7
8
10
4
7
8
10
10
8
10
4
8
10
9
5
1
9
10
5
3
B
7
10
243
Avg.
7.8
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
T 1 21
a
22
1
2
3
4
i
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
?9
30
31
-------
00
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON* D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
APRIL 1973
^L^^H Latitude ,„ '
rt
P
1
1
2
4
1
IS
7
B
9
in
11
1?
13
14
11
16
17
IB
19
20
?1
23
24
25
?7
29
30
Temperature °F
E
3
E
S
2
65
63
64
54
54
68
67
50
60
51
46
42
51
58
69
73
69
78
79
79
76
87*
82
76
60
54
52
56
66
63
1912
63.7
6
S
3
53
49
44
45
42
34
35
35
29
35
31
25
25
24*
29
40
57
57
56
54
51
56
57
45
46
50
48
43
36
40
1271
42,4
OJ
ro
<
4
59
56
54
50
48
51
51
43
45
43
39
34*
38
41
49
57
63
68
68
67
64
72*
70
61
53
52
50
50
51
52
53,1
u
3
s~
R
^
E
o
u
5
Deo
w
ra Q.
< -u
6
57
44
41
43
33
3?
37
43
36
31
23
27
23
?4
31
33
49
5?
5?
53
51
54
56
49
47
50
48
39
32
40
41
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
> 90° t
o
532°
0
Minimum Temp.
<32°
6
< 0°
0
00
X
7A
6
9
11
15
17
14
14
22
20
22
26
31
27
24
16
8
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
12
13
15
15
14
13
371
Total
4652
£>ep.
c
u
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
0
7
5
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
20
Total
20
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
t Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
8 Smoke, Haze
0 Blowing snow
8
23
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1 8
1 8
1 8
1
1
Snou-.
ice
ice on
ground
07AM
In.
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
>• .01 inch 15
> 1.0 inch 1
Thunderstorms 2
Heavy fog X 2
Precipitation
Water
Snow.
pellets
lent ! In
In
10
1.64
.09
0
.75
0
0
.16
.53
.02
.48
T
.13
0
0
0
0
T
.01
0
T
0
0
.32
.02
1.34
.20
1.65
.01
0
T
7.35
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
T
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
±?J Wmd
In
Ele" - -
3
fe
23
— •£
m.s.l. 1(2=5
12
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
30.
30.
30.
29.
29.
29.
29.
30.
29.
29.
29.
29
29
29.
29.
29
29.
29
30
22
36
16
39
62
52
36
62
30
58
62
84
03
10
00
90
90
87
9V
02
68
48
52
54
46
11
26
65
83
61
13
16
28
35
33
30
26
13
03
14
27
29
21
32
02
18
19
19
20
19
10
15
21
25
34
03
01
06
29
29
13
26
—
j-
D.
•~ -D
K s-
14
5.6
11.5
3.6
4.5
17.2
8.5
4.8
12.3
7.1
12.3
13.8
4.8
10.9
1.9
8.7
14.5
9.9
7.9
7.2
7.8
7.3
10.4
2.3
4.1
8.0
7.3
5.1
12.7
10.0
3.6
2.5
CO .C
< fc
15
7.8
12.5
7.8
10.2
17.4
10.5
6.6
13.8
10.2
12.9
15.0
7.1
11.5
5.8
9.8
14.8
10.4
8.3
8.6
8.3
8.3
11.2
7.8
5.9
9.6
7.9
9.4
12.9
10.9
6.0
10.0
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.731 1- 2
Snow, ice pellets
1.0
Clear 6 Partly cloudy 5 Cloudy 19
12
Fastest
m
T3 -^
D. £
16
17
21
13
18
24
18
\l
23
22
29
23
20
22
10
15
21
16
16
16
17
14
17
22
10
15
14
21
23
18
9
29
lie
Q
17
30
28
36
30
30
30
07
02
13
27
28
22
31
36
20
18
19
22
24
11
19
22
22
30
04
03
06
30
28
19
Sunshine
-o
c
to
£
£
18
S
£ g
QJ ,„
19
lor
Sky cover
Tenths
o
(U
c £
20
10
10
7
8
9
0
9
10
3
7
7
9
3
0
0
8
10
10
9
6
6
8
9
3
10
10
10
10
0
10
2U
7.2
•"
•0 T3
S S
21
10
10
7
8
7
0
9
9
4
7
7
7
2
0
0
7
10
10
9
9
6
a
9
6
10
10
10
9
1
9
210
7.0
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
T
12
Q
22
1
2
•j
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-------
a>
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON. D. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE OFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
APRIL 1973
Latitude
38 51 N
Longitude
Elevation ' ground1
10
Standard time used1
EASTERN
HBAN #13743
f.
&
1
1
2
1
4
*
6
7
8
9
in
11
i?
13
14
n
16
17
IB
19
20
?1
22
?1
24
25
?IS
?7
2B
?9
30
Temperature °F
E
3
E
t<
S
2
67
65
65
59
5*
67
67
51
61
58
50
4»
54
59
67
74
72
77
79
75
75
s»*
83
77
64
57
54
60
67
64
1958
Avg.
65.3
E
E
is
3
55
51
50
49
45
41
43
41
36
39
37
33
33
32*
35
42
55
58
57
55
51
60
59
54
50
52
50
49
41
45
1398
Avg.
46.6
oi
re
QJ
<
4
61
58
58
54
51
54
5!
46
49
49
44
40*
44
46
51
58
64
68
68
65
63
73*
71
66
57
55
53
55
54
55
Avg.
Sb.O
^
v £
^fe
i- c
cx E
Q £
5
11
7
7
3
.1
2
3
.7
-4
-5
-10
-14
•11
.9
-5
2
a
11
10
7
3
14
12
7
-3
.5
-7
-6
.7
.7
Dep.
0.3
(US
rt D.
fe >
<3
B
57
45
41
44
11
3?
41
S3
38
3?
22
27
25
?5
35
37
49
53
55
53
'?
67
»7
49
49
sn
BO
39
33
41
Avg
4?
Number of days
Maximum Temp
390° t
0
5 32°
0
Minimum Temp.
< 32° 50°
1 0
Degree days
GC
C
"ra
E
7A
4
7
7
11
14
11
10
19
16
16
21
25
21
19
14
7
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
10
12
10
11
10
286
Dep.
-2
Total
3812
Dep.
.338
c
o
u
7B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
8
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
„ 21
Dep.
Total
23
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog X
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Duscstorm
8 Smoke. Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
23
3
1 3
1
1
8
1
1 8
1
Snow.
ice
nelleis
ice on
jrounc
at
07AM
In.
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
=. .01 inch 10
> 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 3
Heavy fog X 1
Precip tation
lent
In
10 •
.50
T
T
.88
0
0
.20
.39
0
.20
0
.11
0
0
0
0
0
.02
0
T
0
0
T
T
.68
.44
.77
T
0
T
4.19
Dep
1.04
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
Av8 ! Wind
station
pres-
sure
In
Elev.
fr
m
A5
pf
S.I.
12
29
29.
29
29
29
29
29.
29.
29.
29
29
29
JO.
30
30.
30.
30
30
30
30
30.
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
JO
29
58
48
64
42
66
91
81
63
92
58
86
91
12
32
40
30
19
1»
16
26
31
97
76
79
U2
73
39
53
93
11
yy
c c
— •£
d fl
(£-3
13
12
29
15
01
30
27
15
OS
14
28
29
25
32
35
IB
20
19
?0
18
10
16
20
22
35
06
03
07
29
29
11
21
J=
Q.
c E
a S
14
2.2
9.7
3.6
4.2
15.3
7.7
5.1
12.0
5.7
13.0
12.8
5.2
12.2
4.3
5.9
10.9
7.8
6.6
6.0
6.6
5.1
10.0
3.9
2.2
9.7
9.2
6.4
12.3
8.4
2.6
2.0
a .c
-------
>
M
Oo
LOCAL CLiMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MAY 1973
Longitude
Elevation 'ground1
Standard time used
EASTERN
WBAN #93738
_QJ
P
1
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
n
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
1ft
17
IS
19
20
21
2?
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature
F
3
X
s
2
81
84
69
59
63
71
78
68
79
84*
78
73
70
69
67
68
63
65
75
66
72
80
66
61
56
57
63
83
82
82
74
Sum
Vne>
71.2
E
E
i
3
42
62
54
39
38
38
42
55
54
48
50
44
48
50
43
36
35
33*
40
53
50
44
56
54
52
53
54
63
61
56
51
Sum
148H
48.3
tu
n
fc
<
4
62
73
62
49
51
55
60
62
67
66
64
59
59
60
55
52
49
49*
58
60
61
62
61
58
54
55
59
73*
72
69
63
19.8
p
t.
Q
c
•F
„
£
o
h
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
:>90° J
0
< 32
0
*!
a 0.
OJ £
<-s
6
50
53
56
36
33
37
44
55
5S
5?
47
44
44
48
45
3fl
44
36
44
54
47
50
58
56
52
53
55
66
64
5fl
54
49
Minimum Temp.
.= 32°
0
< 0
o
Degree days
£
7A
3
0
3
16
14
10
5
3
0
0
1
6
6
5
10
13
16
16
7
5
4
3
4
7
11
10
6
0
0
0
2
Total
Total
A838
bep.
c
-£
o
U
7B
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
7
4
0
Total
-10
Total
_ 50
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 F.og
2 Heavy fog X
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
8 Smoke, Haze
0 Blowing snow
8
1
1
1
1 5
1
1 3 8
1 8
1
1
1 8
1
1
Snou ,
ice
pelleis
ice on
groyne
at
07AM
In
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
> .01 inch l 3
^ 1.0 inch Q
Thunderstorms i
Heavy fog X n
Precipitation
Snow,
Water ice
equiva- Pellels
lent In
In
10 i 11
0 ) 0
0 0
.58 0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0
.52
.04
0
T
T
0
T
.07
0
.23
.01
0
.37
0
0
.25
.71
.01
.01
.11
1.06
T
T
T
Total
,3.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Ave Wind
station
pres-
sure
In
Elev
•
fe
?'<
Pt
m s 1
12
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29
29.
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
!§
^ -j
BJ-a
13
85 |19
76 19
56
22
56 30
61 29
77
85
71
48
50
41
50
70
83
71
62
43
53
53
35
41
49
37
40
49
59
56
34
45
59
6.6
Fo
29.57
29
15
15
24
20
27
21
35
04
34
22
27
27
19
18
31
27
10
09
02
13
10
IB
29
34
?7
r
?4
—
jd S
c £ 1
14
5.2
13.1
6.1
9.9
10.5
6.7
5.9
10.2
6.4
8.7
7.7
4.7
4.7
2.5
7.1
6.3
4.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
11.5
4.1
1.4
6.1
9.0
6.6
8.7
11.8
1.0
4.8
6.6
the
?.?
a ^
< t
IS
7.2
13.5
10.4
10.9
11.5
8.8
8.3
10.6
9.6
8.9
11.8
9.1
7.2
5.5
8.8
9.4
7.6
8.1
7.3
7.9
12.8
7.2
6.6
7.8
9.9
7.5
9.2
14.0
9.1
5.9
9.1
Sunshine
Fastest
mile 1
•c -^
i
c
•£)
o °- L!
16
16
U
18
25
22
17
16
11
17
18
28
16
17
13
18
16
16
17
14
17
22
18
13
12
13
14
14
25
16
23
17
Q
17
22
24
20
31
30
01
20
IB
IB
19
30
33
01
36
31
21
32
30
14
29
29
28
01
08
36
14
12
20
35
30
? 8
month:
-3^0.
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.16] 27-28
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 2 Partly cloudy 1 3 Cloudy 1 6
28 1 10
c
12 _c
3 -;
Ss
18
Total
_ £
OJ M
£ 0,
IX 'o
19
%
lor
Sky cover
Tenths
Jj
20
9
8
10
8
6
6
5
10
7
6
4
5
5
10
9
0
8
5
6
10
3
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
6
5
Sum
«4
7.2
-C S
•0 T3
S £
21
6
8
10
7
4
6
7
10
6
4
4
3
7
9
7
0
6
4
7
10
4
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
6
6
Sum
217
7.0
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
£
a
22
1
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
11
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
-------
M
00
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ D. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE OFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
HAY 1973
Latitude
^ Longitude
Elevation 'ground'
Standard time used1
EASTERN
HBAN #13743
Q
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
in
11
i?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
?4
26
27
28
29
30
31
Temperature °F
E
D
E
S
2
78
83
71
61
64
73
78
71
78
62
BO
77
72
71
67
69
73
65
76
66
73
81
67
63
57
59
63
80
85*
62
77
Sum
J247
Avg.
72.3
E
5
3
49
60
56
45
42
46
49
59
60
54
59
52
54
58
49
41
43
40*
45
56
55
50
56
if
53
55
55
62
68
62
57
Sum
1651
Avg.
53.3
oi
m
4
64
72
64
53
53
61
64
65
69
68
70
65
63
65
58
55
58
53*
61
62
64
66
63
59
55
57
59
71
77*
72
67
Avg.
62.8
^_
£ 1
3 0
t^ q
Q.E
5
2
10
2
-10
-10
-2
1
1
5
4
5
0
-2
0
-7
-11
-8
-14
-6
-5
-4
-2
-5
-9
-14
-12
-10
2
7
2
-3
bep.
-3.0
„
1.0 inch o
Thunderstorms 2
Heavy fog X o
Precipitation
Water
lent
Snow,
ice
pellets
In
In
10
0
0
.41
T
0
0
0
.38
.02
0
.12
T
T
.03
.08
0
.09
T
0
.14
0
0
.43
.71
.01
T
.19
.78
0
0
T
Total
3.39
Dep.
-0.75
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Avg Wind
station :
pres-
In
fr
m
M
Si
12
30
30
29
29
29
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
14
05
85
64
89
04
14
01
76
78
66
77
98
10
98
91
71
61
82
63
6U
76
65
66
76
68
86
6J
72
86
93
Fo
29.65
^
re o
ri-"
m «
£%
13
17
70
21
30
30
32
16
14
21
19
28
30
34
06
02
21
30
28
16
20
31
26
35
07
04
13
09
18
21
31
31
r
76
.c
o.
IKS'
14
4.6
11.4
7.0
10.3
9.4
6.2
4.9
6.1
6.6
6.6
9.3
4.7
4.1
4.3
5.6
5.4
4.1
8.9
4.2
4.4
11.5
4.9
1.6
8.0
10.4
6.6
6.7
6.2
4.6
4.7
5.7
the
1.6
OJ
O.
CO £.
v a-
15
6.3
11.7
9.9
12.5
11.8
9.1
5.9
7.1
8.8
6.9
12.1
9.5
6.9
5.3
7.6
8.2
10.9
10.5
5.0
6.9
13.4
7.3
5.5
6.9
10.6
7.2
6.9
10.4
9.6
8.6
7.2
m o n
8.7
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.95] 27-28
Snow, ice pellels
0
Clear 2 Partly cloudy 15 Cloudy 14
Fastest
mile
•a -^
if "•
°- E
C/3
16
12
20
19
30
26
1 /
16
16
16
16
25
25
16
15
19
16
22
IB
12
14
2V
16
16
17
20
12
13
IV
19
26
16
£;
O
17
S
S
w
N
NW
NW
SE
S
S
S
W
N
NW
NE
NW
S
NW
SH
S
SE
NW
NW
NE
NE
NE
SE
NE
S
sw
NH
H
h:
30 1 N
Date: 04
Sunshine
•u
c
a
X
.c
S
18
11.1
7.7
0.8
6.4
10.1
12.6
1
i.l
0.4
.3
12.3
12.7
11.3
11.2
4.5
t
.2
14.3
.2
10.8
10.3
0.3
11.0
11.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
'
.6
10.5
11.7
11.4
Total
230.3
Pos,
ible
443.2
2
a; w
ft! "3
19
80
55
6
46
?2
vo
V4
3
5V
87
69
60
79
31
29
100
57
75
72
2
76
79
0
1
0
0
0
25
71
80
78
%
mo"tl,
5?
Sky cover
Tenths
S
20
7
9
10
7
6
6
4
10
7
5
4
4
4
9
9
1
8
4
7
10
4
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
6
5
Sum
218
Avg.
7.0
~_
•&-&
•o-o
S E
21
7
9
10
7
4
5
5
10
6
3
3
3
5
9
8
0
5
3
7
9
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
6
6
Sum
206
AVE.
6.6
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0
O
22
1
2
3
4
i
6
/
6
V
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
78
29
30
31
-------
OS
CO
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON* D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JUNE 1973
B^"!^ Latitude 3B ° 5
S
O
1
1
2
4
S
ft
7
K
in
11
1?
14
1ft
17
IB
1.9
20
21
23
?4
25
26
?7
28
29
30
Temperature
£
X
S
2
79
84
83
90
89 T
87
85
89
90
90
90
90
87
83
84
85
74
71
77
87
90*
81
84
86
87
84
84
85
84
85
Sum
2544
Avg.
84.8
£
£
S
3
48*
50
57
63
63
67
65
64
70
67
68
70
69
59
52
65
64
60
65
61
70
69
67
62
64
67
66
68
66
60
Sum
1906
Avg.
63.5
a
90° T
6
<32°
0
-
•" *
<3
6
51
56
62
67
67
68
66
68
70
69
70
69
67
54
54
67
64
61
64
66
70
66
67
66
66
66
68
68
65
60
Avg.
65
Minimum Temp.
532°
0
< 0°
Degree days
Base 65°
00
to
a
7A
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
Dep.
Season
Total
4839
Dep.
0
c
0
O
7B
0
2
5
12
11
12
10
12
15
14
14
15
13
6
3
10
4
1
6
9
15
10
11
9
11
11
10
12
10
8
Total
281
Dep.
to date
Total
331
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
4 Ice pellets
6 Glaze
7 Duststorm
9 Blowing snow
8
Snow,
ice
pellets
ice on
Jrounc
07AM
In.
9
0
0
i a o
1 3 B
1 8
1 3 8
1 8
8
1 8
8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
2 6
1 3 8
1 8
1 3 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1 8
1 3 8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
5 .01 inch 12
Snow, ice pellets
5 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 5
Heavy fog X 1
Precipitation
equiva-
lent
10
0
0
T
.15
0
.04
Sno\v,
pellets
In
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
.02 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.03
.06
.08
T
0
.34
.32
.06
T
0
0
.51
.28
.02
0
Total
1.91
Dep.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
o
ft. Standard time used. EASTERN W8AN #93738
Avg.
station
pres-
In
Elev.
3
fe
Wind
23 ==
•t
m s.l.
12
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29 .
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29
29
29
29
29
73
71
76
76
76
71
76
81
72
69
66
59
56
69
70
46
49
64
76
80
Ti
71
68
65
65
68
58
42
40
54
Ul JJ
K'-S
13
21
16
06
16
21
20
19
21
20
20
22
21
31
33
15
22
08
08
02
11
20
04
19
12
21
15
16
17
05
30
ji
'S
Fastest
mile
c E
"3 "°
« #
14
4.0
.9
.5
3.8
4.5
7.6
4.7
4.2
8.3
3.3
5.9
7.0
5.2
6.8
4.3
7.8
4.6
5.3
8.2
6.2
6.6
1.6
2.7
2.5
2.7
7.4
4.3
10.9
2.1
2.6
a, H.
15
5.8
5.2
5.2
6.9
7.8
8.2
7.8
7.6
9.1
5.3
6.8
8.8
7.3
8.5
6.6
8.8
10.4
6.3
8.6
6.2
7.3
6.6
5.6
5.5
5.3
8.1
6.2
11.1
7.3
6.0
•0 J=
oj DH
w fc
16
14
9
8
26
12
23
12
12
12
9
12
16
14
14
13
15
14
10
12
14
14
It
9
12
14
13
14
21
12
10
c
•Jj
M
Q
17
27
36
33
35
24
24
18
19
22
25
19
20
29
32
20
23
1 4
08
03
22
32
02
23
14
14
15
1 ^
18
35
2*
For the month:
66
191 2.5
1.2
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.66j 21-22
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 6 Partly cloudy 11 Cloudy 13
261 35
Date: 04
Sunshine
•u
c
§ =
18
Total
Possible
0 g
^ A,
a- "o
19
for
Sky cover
Tenths
S
- "S
3 C
w 3
20
2
0
10
6
2
a
5
5
6
2
4
5
9
1
4
10
10
10
10
7
9
9
9
4
7
a
8
8
6
2
Sum
1U6
Avg.
6.2
tlD bO
c 'c
"O "U
s i
21
2
0
6
7
2
7
5
4
5
1
3
5
9
1
4
10
9
10
10
7
10
9
9
4
5
7
7
9
7
1
Sum
177
Avg.
5.9
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
OJ
^
H
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
/
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
I/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2i
26
27
28
29
30
-------
00
VO
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE DFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
JUNE 1973
Latitude 38
Longitude
77 02
Elevation iground'
Standard time used
HBAN »13743
a
p
1
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
i*>
76
27
28
29
30
Temperature °F
E
3
X
CO
2
80
84
86
91
90
88
83
91
93
93
93
92
89
85
85
86
77
73
76
85
93*
82
85
83
86
85
85
87
86
87
Sum
2579
Avg.
86.0
E
c
S
3
55*
58
64
67
67
72
72
68
73
72
74
74
74
67
61
70
65
62
67
68
71
69
70
70
70
70
71
70
69
67
Sum
2047
Avg.
68.2
00
™
<
4
68
71
75
79
79
80
78
80
83
83
84*
83
82
76
73
78
71
68*
72
77
82
76
78
77
78
78
78
79
78
77
Avg.
77.1
„
f f
3 0
|s
5
-2
0
4
7
7
8
6
8
10
10
11
9
8
2
-2
3
-4
-7
-3
1
6
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
-1
Dep.
2.9
„
bo S
n S.
> I
fi
52
57
63
68
67
69
66
70
70
69
72
70
67
53
52
67
63
61
64
66
70
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
67
61
AVR.
65
Number of days
Maximum Temp.
S 90° i
8
S 32°
0
Minimum Temp.
< 32° < 0°
0 0
u
ra
£
7A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
Dep.
0
Total
3921
Dep.
-303
60
8
u
7B
3
6
10
14
14
15
13
15
18
18
19
18
17
11
8
13
6
3
7
12
17
11
13
12
13
13
13
14
13
12
Total
371
Dep.
Total
441
Dep.
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog x
4 Ice pellets
5 Hall
7 Duscscorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
8
8,
1 3 8
8
a
e
a
8
8
8
i
1 8
1 8
1 3 8
1 8
1 3 8
1 3 8
i a
1 8
3 8
3 8
8
Snou
ice on
irounc
07AM
In.
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
=. .01 inch 7
> 1.0 inch o
Thunderstorms 6
Heavy fog X 0
Precipitation
Snow.
Water
lent
ice
pellets
In
In,
10
0
0
0
.12
0
0
T
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
.07
T
.03
T
0
1.14
.32
T
T
0
0
T
.42
.01
0
Total
2.11
Dep
-1.10
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
1
Avgi , Wind
station |
In
El"v
6*1
feet
m.s.l.
12
30
29
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
01
99
04
04
04
99
04
09
00
96
93
87
83
95
97
73
77
92
03
08
00
98
95
92
92
96
86
71
68
81
Fo
29
94
.c
^
rt O
s|
13
74
19
70
19
19
19
20
18
21
20
20
72
30
34
18
21
10
07
05
16
21
30
16
13
15
15
13
18
20
31
r
19
Q.
3
II
14
4.6
2.8
4.0
5.5
4.3
10.0
6.9
6.6
9.6
3.0
8.0
9.6
5.0
10.6
2.2
9.9
6.2
8.0
8.1
4.7
4.9
1.7
3.9
2.9
4.5
4.9
5.0
8.5
2.7
3.8
:he
3.1
S
S.
Si .
l£
15
7.1
5.2
6.2
7.5
6.0
10.2
7.9
6.8
9.8
4.6
8.3
9.6
9.2
10.9
6.6
10.9
9.9
8.5
8.9
5.5
8.2
6.0
5.5
5.0
5.5
5.2
6.8
8.9
5.5
7.1
m o n
7.4
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.461 21-22
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 8 Partly cloudy 12 Cloudy 10
Fastest
mile
•o -c
£ R-
16
13
10
10
30
13
18
13
13
18
10
13
17
17
17
15
19
20
15
13
9
29
22
17
17
13
13
17
25
11
11
o
£
R
17
SW
SW
NW
NW
S
S
S
S
SW
SW
SW
SW
NW
NW
S
SW
NE
NE
N
S
NW
NW
SE
NE
E
S
S
W
W
W
h .
30
NW
Date1 04
Sunshine
1
«
o c
xz
18
13.5
14.1
9.9
10.2
13,9
12.2
7.7
10.9
13.4
13.2
11.5
12
.i
11.3
14.6
14.6
5.9
2.0
.3
0.6
9.6
6.2
6.3
7.5
1
.5
10.7
10.4
9.0
7.1
i
.1
13.7
Total
290.4
Pos
ible
445.4
2
v ^
C- 0
19
92
96
67
69
94
82
i2
74
91
89
n
U4
76
98
98
40
13
9
4
64
42
42
50
57
72
70
60
48
54
92
(or
month
65
Sky cover
Tenths
2
-------
M
VO
O
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON. D.C.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE QFC
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JULY 1973
^ ^-^^m T.ntitnHp in ° .
to
&
1
1
?
^
j
6
7
fl
9
in
11
1?
14
1C,
17
in
19
?0
22
23
?4
25
?7
29
30
3;
7 N Longitude 77 ' 27 ' H Elevation 'ground' 290
Temperature °F
E
a
E
s
2
85
83
90
90
88
85
89
92
93
92
86
78
90
93*
85
86
62
87
90
91
83
74
85
85
79
88
91
89
85
88
89
2691
Avg.
86.1
|
E
i
3
63
68
69
68
68
62
61
64
69
69
52*
56
67
70
66
65
61
62
69
70
68
65
60
61
69
72
67.
65
61
65
2016
Avg.
65.0
1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 7
Heavy fog X 3
Precipitation
Water
Sno\v.
ice
equiva- i Pellels
lent ln
In.
1
10 11
.59
.13
.52
T
0
0
0
0
0
.34
T
0
0
0
.10
T
.07
0
0
1.42
1.15
.22
.05
0
0
.35
T
T
0
0
.05
4.99
Dep.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
ft Standard time used E4STERN NBAN S93738
Av8 wind : Sunshine ! Sky cover
station ] Tenths
pres- Fastest j
sure ' -~ i mile
In.
Elev •£ c
•
fe
23 3-=
m s 1. pi-3
12
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29 .
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29 .
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29
29
29
68
7!
6U
53
46
65
73
72
64
50
45
64
62
54
52
65
79
84
79
66
54
72
92
94
78
60
54
58
60
70
67
66
_d 5
** e ] ^ 1
£ &
13 14
18
3.6
12 3.0
20
25
33
33
18
24
28
26
31
33
20
20
33
03
19
20
18
19
19
03
10
21
18
19
20
18
31
22
16
21
6.5
3.5
6.1
2.8
4.1
2.6
1.6
1.6
6.1
5.7
9.9
4.5
2.0
5.9
2.2
4.1
B.3
4.9
2.5
5.8
2.4
3.2
8.4
9.5
6.4
5.3
4.8
.7
3.9
2.1
(0 -C
i d-
< b
15
6.6
6.2
6.8
6.8
6.5
5.2
4.6
6.6
5.5
4.5
a. 6
7.9
10.2
6.9
7.5
7.8
6.5
5.2
8.5
6.6
8.2
6.9
5.9
5.6
8.8
9.6
7.6
6.2
6.6
4.6
5.6
6.U
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
1.43] 20-21
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 8 Partly cloudy 13 Cloudy 10
TJ
c C
-o -c tl £ £
S °- S. = 5
w" ^ O
16
13
10
17
10
14
14
9
12
12
16
16
17
17
12
14
13
9
12
15
17
21
10
12
9
14
14
14
9
14
12
10
21
17
19
09
16
28
30
30
26
30
27
12
36
36
20
21
01
06
18
17
18
27
29
01
14
18
22
18
20
18
30
09
13
29
Date: 21
._ -Q
£ tn
^ Q,
IX "o
18 19
|
Possible
for
2
•— "01
= c
20
8
10
9
6
7
6
1
1
5
10
7
4
3
3
9
4
9
3
1
8
10
10
7
7
10
7
5
7
3
3
5
188
Avg.
6.1
££
c ™
S £
21
8
9
7
6
7
5
1
1
4
9
6
2
4
3
9
5
8
2
2
a
9
10
6
6
a
e
6
5
3
2
5
174
Avg
5.6
Greatest depth on ground of snow.
ice pellets or ice and date
0
Q
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
-------
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
WASHINGTON/ D. C.
NATIONAL HEATHER SERVICE DFC
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
JULY 1973
Latitude 3B ° 51
Longitude 77
Elevation 'ground1
Standard time used EASTERN
WBAN #13743
K
Q
1
1
?
3
4
5
ft
7
B
9
in
11
1?
13
14
15
1ft
17
in
19
20
?1
??
?1
?4
?s
?6
?7
?n
79
30
31
Temperature °F
E
3
X
s
2
86
86
89
92
88
B6
89
93
95
94
86
80
91
95*
84
87
83
87
90
90
87
78
87
87
85
89
93
92
88
89
91
2737
Avg.
88.3
E
3
E
S
3
69
72
73
71
74
68
67
70
75
72
70
61*
63
72
71
68
71
67
67
75
73
69
73
67
66
71
76
73
72
68
70
2174
Avg.
70.1
0)
V
<
4
78
79
81
82
81
77
78
82
85
83
78
71*
77
84
78
78
77
77
79
83
80
74
80
77
76
80
85*
83
80
79
81
Avg.
79.2
„
oj E
P 0
2.E
Q £
5
0
1
3
4
3
-1
0
4
7
5
0
-7
-1
6
0
0
-1
-2
0
4
1
-5
1
-2
-3
1
6
4
1
0
3
Dep.
1.0
« p.
oj |j
< -a
B
67
71
72
70
65
58
63
68
71
70
64
48
60
69
69
63
63
64
64
69
72
66
65
60
63
68
70
71
65
61
67
Avg
66
Number of days
Maximum Temp
590° t
11
« 32°
0
Minimum Temp
<32° 50°
0 0
Degree days
M
"ro
BB
7A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dep.
0
Total
0
Dep
0
GE
U
7B
13
14
16
17
16
12
13
17
20
18
13
6
12
19
13
13
12
12
14
18
15
9
15
12
11
15
20
18
15
14
16
446
Dep.
Total
889
Dep
Weather types
on dates of
occurrence
1 Fog
2 Heavy fog X
t Ice pellets
5 Hall
7 Dustsiorm
8 Smoke, Haze
9 Blowing snow
8
8
1 8
1 3 8
i a
e
a
8
3 8
8
B
B
8
1 8
8
3 8
1 3 8
1 8
B
8
8
8
Snow
pellels
ice on
at
07AM
In.
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of days
Precipitation
=> .01 inch 9
=- 1.0 inch 0
Thunderstorms 4
Heavy fog X 0
Precipitation
Water
lent
In
Snow,
ice
pelleis
In
10
T
.59
.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
.48
T
0
0
0
.15
0
T
0
0
.15
.62
.25
T
0
0
.07
0
0
0
0
.30
2.68
Dep.
-1.47
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AvS- Wind
station
pres-
sure
I
n
Elev.
f
rn
ftS
si
12
29
30
29
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
29
2V
29
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
96
02
96
80
73
92
00
99
90
76
71
91
90
82
79
92
06
12
01
94
82
99
19
22
07
89
81
Si
88
9'
95
9J
c g
BIS
K3
13
1 B
11
18
?3
33
35
20
18
28
?8
32
32
21
21
27
06
11
20
19
19
23
05
08
15
19
?0
22
19
31
05
18
21
jr
Q.
c E
CB
M ^
K 8-
14
5.4
2.9
6.4
4.7
7.5
6.2
4.B
4.3
3.6
3.5
6.7
10.9
10.8
8.1
2.0
7.5
2.6
5.1
7.9
7.7
3.9
7.2
4.3
2.7
7.1
14,1
9.7
6.7
6.1
2.5
4.2
t~n~e —
2.5
0
aj °-
<>=
15
6.5
5.9
6.8
6.5
8.1
8.2
5.3
5.0
6.9
5.8
8.6
12.4
10.9
8.5
9.2
8.9
6.5
5.8
8.2
8.8
6.8
8.2
6.6
5.6
7.8
14.2
10.1
7.1
9.1
6.0
5.2
7.8
Greatest in 24 hours and dates
Precipitation
.871 21-22
Snow, ice pellets
0
Clear 9 Partly cloudy 1 3 Cloudy 9
Fastest
mile
-o -c
f, =•
w fc
16
16
15
13
12
15
13
12
9
15
24
22
21
17
15
17
14
U
12
15
16
13
11
12
9
14
17
16
14
15
9
14
h -
c
o
Q
17
S
S
N
H
NW
N
S
S
NH
H
NH
NW
W
S
W
N
NE
S
S
sw
N
N
E
SE
S
S
SW
S
S
E
SE
241 W
Date: 10
Sunshine
•o
c
3 C
XS
18
10.9
6.1
9.5
12.8
11.4
14.7
14.4
13.3
13.5
9.3
9.7
14.7
12.2
12.9
7.2
9.7
7.6
12.6
13.3
9.2
6.3
0.7
10.8
12.8
8.5
10.5
9.2
9.4
10.8
10.7
7.7
322.4
Possible
452.0
^ -Q
£ "3
19
73
41
64
86
77
99
97
90
92
63
66
100
83
88
49
66
52
66
92
63
44
5
75
69
59
73
64
66
76
75
54
lor
month
n
Sky cover
Tenths
S
c £
A =
20
8
9
B
4
6
6
1
3
4
7
7
2
4
2
9
5
9
2
0
7
8
10
5
4
9
4
6
8
3
3
3
166
Avg.
5.4
J2 £
•§•§
S E
21
8
9
6
5
6
5
1
2
4
7
7
1
3
3
10
7
7
1
1
B
9.
10
6
4
8
6
6
7
3
2
5
169
Avg.
5.5
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
o I
£
q
22
1
2
3
4
i
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
U
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?5
76
27
28
29
30
31
-------
APPENDIX H
LITERATURE REVIEW ON URBAN RUNOFF - 10 OCTOBER 1972
INTRODUCTION
Although it is now of common concern that the air, the land and the water
are all subject to contamination as industry and populations continue to
grow or concentrate, the complex relationships among these interlocking
ecological spheres are largely unexplored. Water pollution arising from
stormwater runoff in urban areas, nonetheless, is a resultant product of
these complex relationships. Either the lack of understanding of these
relationships or changes in them now make questionable one of the most
generally accepted "modern" maxims in sanitary engineering: that urban
areas should be served with separate sewerage systems with the storm
sewers discharging untreated runoff directly to receiving waters. That
this basis may not be valid is implied by an increasing number of state-
ments such as "Until recently, it was assumed that stormwater discharged
from separate sewer systems was relatively unpolluted. Indeed this
assumption is one of the important justifications for separate
systems"(1)• The purpose of this literature review is to provide an
overview of the relationships of urban stormwater runoff to the total
water pollution problem. The view will also delve into analytical
aspects of urban runoff pollution and provide information and inter-
pretations of data.
The total pollutional load borne by a receiving body of water serving
an urban area results from a combination of factors including effluents
from sewage treatment plants, urban stormwater runoff, overflox^ from
combined sewerage systems, industrial and other wastes discharged
directly with and without prior treatment, plus that portion of the up-
stream load not yet assimilated. A detailed analysis of all aspects of
the problem is required in order to develop efficient systems for
meeting existing or future stream water quality standards at minimum
cost. The analysis might conclude that a number of acceptable trade-
offs or treatment schemes with respect to urban stormwater runoff exist
in a particular drainage area. As previously stated, the contribution
of urban stormwater runoff has only recently been recognized and much
additional information concerning this source of water pollution must be
gathered to bring the "body of related knowledge" up to a par with that
already acquired for the other sources of water pollution.
The following questions on urban stormwater runoff need to be answered:
1. To what extent does the pollution load from urban runoff affect
the water quality of the receiving waters?
2. How does the pollutional load from urban runoff compare with the
total water pollution in a given drainage area: (a) on a yearly
basis, and (b) on a shock load basis as occurs during a storm
event?
A-193
-------
3. What are the concentrations of pollutants in urban storrawater
runoff and how do these concentrations vary during the course
of a rainstorm? How do these concentrations compare with raw
sewage and sewage treatment plant effluents, and is it neces-
sary to treat any or all of the runoff from a particular storm
event.
4. What factors contribute to runoff pollution in urban areas?
Is the contribution from roadways significant? What is known
about the effects of motor vehicle traffic upon urban runoff?
5. What are the significant gaps in the knowledge presently avail-
able concerning the aforementioned areas and what types of
studies will be required to understand and treat the problems
arising from urban runoff pollution?
In the review of the literature to follow, it will be seen that a great
deal of information exists on the subject of urban runoff. However,
this information has yet to form a coherent whole which can provide a
clear picture of the full extent or complete nature of the problem.
URBAN RUNOFF - A FACTOR IN WATER POLLUTION
In June 1969, Environmental Science and Technology summarized in its
"Outlook" column the results of a survey undertaken by the American
Public Works Association (APWA):
In general, APWA finds that urban runoff amounts to 1% of the raw
sewage for the particular area. Another way of looking at the
magnitude of the pollution potential is that this water pollution
potential amounts to 5% of the BOD discharged from the area's
secondary waste treatment facilities. But the water pollution
from this urban source occurs only during rainfall or snow thaw.
Assuming that a 14-day accumulation of street litter and that all
of the soluble BOD in the dust and dirt fraction would be dis-
charged into the street inlets during a two-hour storm, APWA esti-
mated that the shock pollution load on the receiving waters would
be 160% of the raw sewage BOD and 800% of the secondary treatment
effluent during the two-hour period (2).
While the APWA study, conducted in the Chicago area, shows urban runoff
to be significant only in terms of shock loading of receiving waters,
studies in other urban areas have shown an even more dramatic contribu-
tion from this source. For example, storm drainage from urban areas in
Atlanta, Georgia constitutes 65% of the annual pollution load, in terms
of BOD, contributed by the metropolitan area to the South River. This
study found that a storm of two-week frequency caused anaerobic condi-
tions to exist 19 miles below the study area (3). In a similar study
(4) conducted at Cincinnati, Ohio, urban runoff again proved to be a
significant source of water pollution both in terms of annual load and
A-194
-------
on the basis of daily discharges during storms. This study was con-
ducted on a 27 acre residential and light commercial urban area of
Cincinnati having a population density of nine persons per acre.
Constituent loads in urban runoff from the area, calculated on an
annual basis as percentage of sanitary sewage production at a nine-
person per acre population density were as follows:
Suspended Solids 160%
COD 33%
BOD 7%
Total Phosphate 5%
Total Nitrogen 14%
During runoff, the corresponding stormwater runoff rates were:
Suspended Solids 2,400%
COD 520%
BOD 110%
Total Phosphate 70%
Total Nitrogen 200%
Assuming a sewage treatment plant of about 80%, these results
should be multiplied by a factor of five to estimate the contributions
to the receiving waters of stormwater runoff relative to those of sewage
treatment plant effluent. Results of an urban runoff study conducted in
Tulsa, Oklahoma are shown in Table 1 (5). Again, a significant contri-
bution of urban runoff to the total water pollution load is demonstrated.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED DAILY LOAD OF POLLUTANTS ENTERING THE TULSA,
OKLAHOMA AREA RECEIVING STREAMS(a)
Parameter
BOD
COD
Susp. Solids
Org. Kjeld. N.
Sol. P04-P
Average Daily Pollution Load (Ibs.)
Sewage Treatment
Plant Effluents
Stormwater
(b)
4,455
30,803
107,200
355
469
19,370
67,180
18,400
760
11,020
Total
23,825
97,983
125,600
1,115
11,489
Relative
Contribution of
Stormwater (%)
20
31
85
31
4
(a) These results are taken from Reference 5, page 115.
(b) The reported values for stormwater were calculated from the total
load on a yearly basis averaged over each day of the year.
A-195
-------
The above-mentioned studies, and others (6, 7, 8, 9, 10), amply demon-
strate that urban runoff is a significant source of pollution, both in
terms of shock load and fraction of the total water pollution entering
a body of water serving an urban drainage area. These findings make
it apparent that stormwater runoff must be reduced or treated prior to
discharge if water quality of the receiving waters is to be protected.
In order to devise cost effective systems for handling this problem,
information is required concerning the quality and quantity of urban
runoff. Also, information on the temporal distributions of these para-
meters in relation to rainfall intensity during runoff periods should
be known. Means and ranges of concentrations of solids, organic materials,
nutrients and microorganisms in urban runoff are presented in Table 2, 3
and 4. These are comparative data for qualitative review in that intens-
ities, duration and frequencies of storms and characteristics of drainage
areas and sewerage systems have not been adjusted to a common basis for
comparison. The concentration data, coupled with estimates of volume,
support the conclusion that runoff from urban areas constitutes a serious
source of water pollution.
Examination of ranges in Tables 2 and 3 reveals that, for some portion of
the storm event, runoff is relatively free of pollutants. This has led
to a number of investigations in which pollutant concentrations, runoff
volume and rainfall intensity were measured as a function of time in the
hopes that these studies would demonstrate that at least some of the
runoff need not be treated= Figure 1 (11) shows this diagramatically.
Unfortunately, these studies have led to widely varying results indi-
cating that runoff elements of the particular drainage system must be
studied individually to determine which, if any, portions of the runoff
may be discharged without treatment. To quote a 1949 Detroit Michigan
study conducted by C. L. Palmer (12), "In some cases the quality of the
material became worse as the storm progressed and in others it became
better, and in still others no pattern was apparent." However, review
of a number of these studies (3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14) has led to the
following general conclusions:
1. Concentrations of pollutants in urban runoff tend to diminish
after the initial flushing for rainfalls of extended duration.
2. The quantities of pollutants discharged during the initial flush
of storm runoff is directly related to the length of antecedent
dry-weather period.
3. Peak loadings usually occur close to the point of maximum flow.
4. Urban stormwater runoff is generally high in COD and suspended
solids.
Despite the lack of uniformity in performance by individual urban storm
sewer systems, a number of mathematical models have been developed (5, 7,
21) which, given the necessary data inputs, enable computerized predic-
A-196
-------
TABLE 2. QUALITY OF URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
Ref. 15
Cincinnati,
Ohio
Mean
BOD (mg/1) 17
COD (mg/1) 111
SS (mg/1) 227
TV's (rr\a f~\} -
^5 Tot. K>4-P (mg/1) 0.3
Org.-N (mg/1) 3.1 (b)
Coliforms (/100 ml)
Fee. Col. (/100 ml)
Fee. Strep. (/100 ml)
Ranae
1/173
20/610
5/1200
0/1.8
0.1/3.4 (a)
0.3/7.5 (b)
2.9/460
0.5/76
4.9/110
Minsk' Id R«f- 16 Ref' 17 Ref' 18 Ref" 13 Ref' W
Soligorsk Chicago, Washington, Sacramento, Lawerence, Tulsa,
Uggg^ ' Illinois D. C. California Kansas Oklahoma
Mean Range Mean Range Mean
12.5/145 70/175 19
- 91 fifi
_ _ _ 302
- - 2 1 (b)
21
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
3/90 24/283 6.9 4.6/12.3 12 1/39
29/1514 27/176 33 11/69 85 12/405
338/14,600 536 344/4920
10/1004 149 22/733
n s/ft s ^ ' — - - i 7 n £>l L n - -
(a) Total inorganic nitrogen, sum of N02~N, NO^-N and NH-j-N.
(b) Total nitrogen, inorganic plus organic.
-------
TABLE 3. CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF (2)
and Date
Cincinnati
7/62-9/63
Detroit
1949
Ann Arbor
£ Oxney, Eng.
1954
Moscow, USSR
1948-1 950
Leningrad, USSR
1948-1 95O
Seattle
19S9-1 Q£n
Stockholm
1945-1940
Pretoria,
S- Africa
Business
BOD COD Organic N Soluble P04
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
2~84 19 2°-610 99 0.2-4.8 1.7 0.07-4.3 0.8
96 234 147 —
^ Wax. 4.0 1.0 Max. 3.4 0.8
Max. 100
186-285
36 ___
JMax. 9.0
Max. 80 17 Max. 3,100 188 - -
30 99 c /
/y 5.4
- - 34 28 - - q 5
SS
Mean
210
2,080
-------
TABLE 4. BACTERIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF (20)
Location
and Date
Cincinnati
7/62-4/63
Cincinnati
1/62-1/64
Bacteria (Number/100 ml)
Seattle
1959-1960
Pretoria
S. Africa
Source
Street
Gutters
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Business
District
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Sinter
Residential
Business
Total
Colif orm
58,000
1,400
90,000
290,000
1,500
22,000
172,000
290,000
46,000
15,000
240,000
230,000
Fecal
Coliform
10,900
230
6,400
47,000
50
2,500
13,000
40,000
4,300
Fecal
Streptococcus
20,500
3,100
150,000
140,000
2,200
13,000
51,000
56,000
28,000
Remarks
(Median Values)
(Median Values)
(Median Values)
MPN/100 ml
MPN/100 ml
-------
M-l
>H
O
a
4J
9
4J
H
H
O
fi
o
•rl
JJ
0)
o
a
o
I
-------
tions of the quantity and quality of urban storm runoff and combined
sewer overflow. These predictive models represent an important initial
step towards successful handling of the urban stormwater runoff problem.
URBAN RUNOFF - THE CONTRIBUTION OF STREETS AND ROADWAYS
Qualitative statements referring to the contributions of urban roadway
and motor vehicular traffic runoff pollution appear throughout the
literature cited in the previous section. It is not surprising that
roadways have a significant effect upon urban runoff since they consti-
tute a high percentage of the total area in cities and impervious road-
way surfaces have high runoff coefficients. There have been two in-
depth studies relating to the contributions of runoff from streets and
roadways to water pollution. The first, conducted by APWA, surveyed all
factors contributing to urban runoff and concluded that:
The most determinable measure of pollution potential of street
litter was deemed to be the BOD of the soluble dust and dirt
fraction. This BOD varied from three to 14 mg/g of dry material.
As stated, the average was 5 mg/g. This amounted to 0.40 pounds
of BOD per day per curb mile. Compared to the BOD reduction of
80% considered attainable for secondary treatment of sewage, the
BOD of the street litter was equivalent to 25 persons per day per
mile. National population densities per mile of roadways' and
streets indicate that for a city of Chicago's size, 500 persons
would live adjacent to each mile of street. Thus, with a street
litter BOD equivalency of five persons per day per mile, street
litter would have a pollution potential of 1% of the raw sewage
pollution loading and 5% of the secondary treatment effluent
described above (22).
The second significant study (23) was conducted by URS Research Company
into the water pollution effects of street surface contaminants. The
investigators stated that, "It is with reasonable assurance that we
conclude that street surface contaminants represent a significant non-
point source of pollution of receiving waters" (24). These two studies
produced the first quantitative information on the surface loadings of
pollutant per unit area or length of roadway. Variations in loadings
with land use, zoning, traffic intensity and other factors are discussed.
Data reported by APWA (25) for gutter sweeping studies in Chicago in
1967 are shown in Table 5. Statistical analyses of these data reveal
strong indications that the amounts of BOD and COD in dust and dirt
samples, unaffected by rainfall, are directly proportional to traffic
intensity, regardless of zoning, land use, street width and other
factors; see Table 6 and Figure 2 (^26). The dust and dirt was found
by these analyses to contain a loading of 0.14 pounds of BOD and 0.80
pounds of COD per 1,000 feet of curb per 10,000 vehicles.
Thus far in the literature review, we have discussed stormwater runoff
more or less in conventional terms as regards wastewater and compared it
to sanitary sewage or sewage treatment plant effluents. However, the
A-201
-------
TABLE 5. VARIATION OF DUST AND DIRT LOADING RATES WITH TRAFFIC INTENSITY
(a)
(25)
I
NJ
o
Area
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
17
18
19
20
Zoning
Bus.
Bus.
Ind.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Traffic
(Vehicles /day
x 10-4)
0.80
2.04
1.11
0
0.10
0.08
0.20
0.59
0.59
0
1.41
0
1.73
0
0.16
Dust and Dirt
Avg . BOD
(mg/1)
5.05
4.03
2.95
1.72
9.1
2.18
2.81
4.77
2.9
6.32
2.28
9.43
1.94
2.82
3.22
Avg . COD
(mg/1)
26.7
24.8
23.0
18.3
53.1
50.7
29.5
61.3
32.6
45.6
24.6
72.8
32.1
31.8
34.6
Roadway Dust and Dirt Loading Rates
Dry
(No
25
29
2?
5
7
5
0
5
7
1
0
1
1
1
0
Weather Samples^ '
.) (lb/day/100 ft)
2.73
7.00
3.60
0.14
0.59
2.70
0.60
0.70
1.98
0.06
0.44
7.16
Wet
(No.
13
16
17
12
11
11
6
13
13
8
7
7
8
8
9
(c)
Weather Samples v '
) (lb/day/100 ft)
2.11
4.72
8.76 '
0.46
0.62
2.12
0.67
1.90
1.44
2.62
2.80
0.42
2.00
10.53
2.90
All
(No.)
38
45
46
17
18
16
6
18
20
9
7
8
9
9
9
Samples ^
(lb/day/100 ft)
2.53
6.19
5.37
0.36
0.61
2.30
0.67
1.54
1.18
2.55
2.80
0.37
1.82
10.16
2.90
(a) All reported related data are included with the following exceptions: (a) data from areas 3 and 16 were
excluded as no traffic estimates were reported, (b) data from areas 11 and 12 were not given in Reference 25,
(c) APWA stated that data from area 13 may be regarded as nontypical.
(b) No significant amounts of rainfall occurred during accumulation of the "Dry Weather Samples."
(c) Precipitation was noted during accumulation of the "Wet Weather Samples."
(d) All samples, wet and dry weather, are grouped together.
-------
TABLE 6. EFFECT OF TRAFFIC ON BOD AND COD IN ROADWAY
DUST AND-DIRT (a) (26)
Y = A + BX
Y = pounds of BOD or COD which accumulates each day per 1,000 feet of
curb
A = intercept of the curb on the "Y" axis, Ib BOD or COD/1,000 feet of
curb/day
B = slope of the curve, Ib BOD or COD/1,000 feet of curb/10,000 vehicles
X = traffic intensity, ten thousands of vehicles per day
-------
,£>
in
U
P
o
0.20
1 °-15
0.10
0.05
Wet Weather Samples
Dry Weather Samples
0.5 1.0 1.5 2,0
Estimated Daily Traffic, Tens of Thousands
2.0
§ I-'
tfl
Q
Q
O
U
1.0
0.5
Wet Weather Samples
Dry Weather Samples
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Estimated Daily Traffic, Tens of Thousands
2.5
Figure 2. Effect of traffic on BOD and COD
in Street Dust and Dirt(a) (26)
(a) Lines are least square representations computed by Biospherics
Incorporated based on APWA data in Reference 25.
A-204
-------
literature describes several unique characteristics of urban runoff not
shared by sanitary sewage:
1. The COD-to-BOD ratios of urban runoff are much higher than for
sanitary sewage.
2. Roadway dust and dirt as well as urban runoff contain large
amounts of toxic materials - heavy metals, pesticides, and
polychlorinated biphenyls.
3. Roadway deicing chemicals and abrasives applied during the
winter are a significant contributor to loadings in urban
runoff.
Examination of Tables 2 and 3 show COD/BOD ratios for urban stormwater
ranging from five to 18, all much higher than the ratio of about 1.1 to
1.5 generally found in raw sanitary sewage. It is interesting to note
that the ratio of roadway COD to BOD previously calculated from the APWA
study C25) and attributed to vehicular traffic is approximately six. The
URS Research Company study reported high COD/BOD ratios on roadway dust
and dirt and stated that:
It should be noted that while BOD's were run for many samples
collected from street surfaces, the data should be viewed with
some skepticism. This is primarily due to the fact that the
presence of toxic materials can seriously interfere with measured
BOD results. Such materials (particularly heavy metals) have been
found to be present in many samples at levels far in excess of
those known to cause substantial interference. Note that the
interference is in the direction of yielding low results, so that
our measurements should probably all be raised somewhat (by how
much we would not speculate).
The COD test provides a better basis for estimating the oxygen
demand potential, primarily because it is not subject to inter-
ference by toxic materials (27).
Another investigator (28) has commented on the ratio found in separated
and combined sewer discharges:
"'In view of the ratio of BOD to COD, depression of biological
oxidation is suspected."
As suggested by the URS Research Company report, the observed ratios may
be caused by depression of biological oxidation by toxic substances.
Other possibilities may be that the samples contain a large inorganic
oxidizable fraction, nonbiodegradible organic materials are present, or
that insufficient seed organisms are present in the sample to complete
the five-day BOD test. Dust and dirt BOD and COD values obtained to date
under Biospherics' current EPA program confirm previously reported results.
COD/BOD ratios in excess of 100 have been found in some samples (29).
A-2 05
-------
The presence of toxic materials in urban stormwater has been pointed
out by a number of investigators. A report of a study of the Potomac
estuary cites significant increases in the heavy metals content of sedi-
ment samples taken near sewage outfalls C30). Although the authors
attribute this to heavy metals in sewage treatment plant effluent, they
state that urban runoff may also be responsible. Significant concentra-
tions of particulate lead, but no soluble lead, were reported by
E. E. Angino, et_ al^ in a study of runoff in Lawrence, Kansas C31) •
G. Soderlund, et^ al^ (32) found up to 100 mg/1 of lead in snow and
attributed this to motor vehicular traffic in a study conducted at
Stockholm, Sweden. To date, the most extensive study conducted concern-
ing the heavy metals content of roadway surface deposits has been reported
by URS Research Company (33). Values found from studies in seven cities
of the United States are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7. HEAVY METALS CONTENT OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT (33)
Heavy Metats Content (yg/g)
City Cd Ni Pb Zn Cu Cr Hg
San Jose, California 3.4 160 2000 1400 550 220 470
14 150 47 3 23 14
Phoenix, Arizona 42 140 390 63 32 24
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1.5 13 840 980 230 20
Baltimore, Maryland 2.8 87 630 1300 360 440
Atlanta, Georgia 49 180 260 150 24 52
Tulsa, Oklahoma 35 93 190 97 10 60
Seattle, Washington 61 1100 810 160 180 75
Numerical Mean 58 650 670 200 120
Pesticides as possible sources of pollutants in urban runoff were cited
by APWA (34). A study in Cincinnati, Ohio, described by S. R. Weibel,
et al (35) reported organic chlorine (a measure of chlorinated pesticide
content) levels ranging from 0.38 to 4.72 yg/1 in urban stormwater runoff.
The organic chlorine levels found in rainfall collected in this area
varied from 0.08 to 0.41 yg/1. Use of pesticides in urban areas was
cited as a possible source in rainfall.
As with the heavy metals, the most extensive study to date of organic
toxic components of street deposits was conducted by URS Research
Company (33). Endrin, methoxychlor, lindane and the thiophosphate
pesticide methyl parathion were each found in samples from one or more
of the eight cities surveyed. DDD, p, p'-DDT and dieldrin were found in
all eight cities at average levels of 72, 72 and 27 yg/g, respectively.
Surprisingly, polychlorinated biphenyls were found in each of the cities
at an average level of 530 yg/g. The discovery of these high levels of
toxic materials, heavy metals and chlorinated organics, in urban storm-
water runoff constitutes an extremely significant finding.
A-206
-------
Highway deicing practices are another source of water contamination.
The relatively inert sand and ash used as abrasives add suspended solids
to stormwater runoff. A review of the literature on highway deicing
found salt applied for this purpose to be a significant pollutant in
water as well as a contributor to highway and vehicle deterioration.
Specific studies have shown quite high salt levels:
Runoff samples collected from a downtown Chicago expressway in the
winter of 1967 showed chloride content from 11,000 to 25,000 mg/1.
It has been calculated that 600 Ibs. salt when applied to a one-
mile section of roadway 20 feet wide containing 0.2 inches of ice,
will produce an initial salt solution of 69,000 to 200,000 mg/1 in
the temperature range of 10°F - 25°F. At Milwaukee on January 16,
1969, extremely high chloride levels of 1,510 to 2,730 mg/1 were
found in the Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, (sic)
believed directly attributable to deicing salts entering these
streams via snow melt. The dumping of extremely large amounts of
accumulated snow and ice from streets and highways, either directly
or indirectly into nearby waterbodies, could constitute a serious
pollution problem. These deposits have been shown to contain up
to 10,000 mg/1 sodium chloride, 100 mg/1 oils and 100 mg/1 lead (36)
A study in Boston (37) found that "Salt concentrations may be of some
concern to persons on low sodium diets and to persons who obtain water
from wells in the vicinity of major highways where salt concentrations
could be several times higher than average."
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the literature reviewed
herein:
1. The pollutional load imposed on receiving waters by urban run-
off is significant on a shock load basis, and, in most cases,
on a yearly basis.
2. All or a portion of runoff from urban areas must be treated or
reduced if water quality of the receiving waters is to be
protected.
3. During portions of the runoff event, the concentrations of
pollutants in urban runoff may be higher than those of sanitary
sewage.
4. During some portions of the runoff period, generally after long
periods of rainfall, the concentration pf pollutants is low
enough so that only moderate or no treatment is required.
5. The contribution of streets and roadways to urban runoff pollu-
tion is significant; and, based upon statistical analyses of
A-207
-------
the limited amount of data available, the contribution of motor
vehicular traffic is of major importance.
6. Computerized mathematical models devised to predict the quality
and quantity of overflow from combined and separate sewer
systems in urban areas have been successfully tested.
7. Urban stormwater runoff differs qualitatively from sanitary
sewage in two important and, perhaps, related aspects:
a. Stormwater runoff contains significant concentrations of
heavy metals and toxic organic compounds.
b. The COD/BOD ratios for urban stormwater runoff are much
higher than those of sanitary sewage.
As a result of the literature review, we have become aware of a number of
gaps in existing knowledge and technology required for solving the prob-
lems associated with urban stormwater runoff. On this basis, additional
studies are recommended in the following areas:
1. Studies are required to establish the quality and quantity of
urban runoff from various types of storm sewer systems.
Hydrological data should be factored into these studies in
order that variations in temporal distributions of these para-
meters can be studied as a function of differing intensities
and durations of precipitati&n. Specific factors in drainage
systems which affect the concentration and total load versus
time curves should be studied. These studies may permit the
design and construction of new urban area sewer systems which
will reduce the volume of runoff which must be treated.
2. Development of storage systems to contain stormwater runoff
should be undertaken.
3. The effects of stormwater upon conventional types of sewage
treatment processes should be investigated under conditions of
normal runoff and continuous feed from a storage facility.
4. Special wastewater treatment processes should be developed for
stormwater from combined and storm sewer systems.
5. Potential for reuse of treated water should be evaluated.
6. A detailed investigation should be made of the kinds and amounts
of toxic materials found in urban runoff. The impact of toxic
materials on receiving water should be studied.
1. The specific contributions and potential hazards of motor
vehicular traffic to urban runoff should be investigated
and recommendations made to reduce this contribution.
A-208
-------
8. The possibility that hazardous levels of toxic materials or
microorganisms from urban runoff might be induced in potable
water supply sources should be investigated.
9. The capability of conventional potable water treatment plants
to reduce possible excessive levels of refractory components
of urban runoff in water supply sources should be investigated.
REFERENCES
1. Heaney, J.P. and Sullivan, R.H., "Source Control of Urban Water
Pollution," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 43,
p 571, (1971).
2. "Urban Runoff Adds to Water Pollution," Environmental Science
and Technology, 6_, p 527, (1969).
3. "Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Sources and Abatement,"
Water Pollution Control Research Series, EPA, 11024, ELB,
(January 1971).
4. Weibel, S.R., Weidner, R.B., Christiansen, A.G. and Anderson,
R.J., "Characterization, Treatment, and Disposal of Urban
Stormwater," Third International Conference on Water Pollution
Research, Section 1, Paper No. 15.
5. "Storm Water Pollution from Urban Land Activity," Water Pollution
Control Research Series, FWQA, 11034 FKL, (July 1970).
6. "Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution,"
Water Pollution Control Research Series, EPA, 11024 FKM,
(December 1971).
7. "Urban Runoff Characteristics," Water Pollution Control Research
Series, EPA, 11024 DQU, (October 1970).
8. DeFilippi, J.A. and Shih, C.S., "Characteristics of Separated
Storm and Combined Sewer Flows," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 43, p 2033, (1971).
9. Pravoshinsky, N.A. and Gatillo, P.A., "Determination of the
Pollutional Effect of Surface Runoff," Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Water Pollution Research, Prague,
p 187, (1969).
10. Weibel, S.R., Weidner, R.B.s Cohen, J.M. and Christiansen, A.G.,
"Pesticides and Other Contaminants from Rainfall and Runoff as
Observed in Ohio," Journal American Water Works Association, _58_,
p 1075, (1966).
A-209
-------
11. Angino, E.E., Magnuson, L.M. and Stewart, G.F., op. cit., p 140.
12. Palmer, C.L., "The Pollutional Effects of Storm-water Overflows
from Combined Sewers," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 22, p 154,
C1950).
13. Angino, E.E., Magnuson, L.M. and Stewart, G.V., "Effects of
Urbanization on Storm Water Runoff Quality: A Limited Experi-
ment, Naismith Ditch, Lawrence, Kansas," Water Resources Research,
8., p 137, (1972).
14. Sbderlund, G., Lehtinen, H. and Friberg, S., "Physicochemical
and Microbiological Properties of Urban Storm-water Runoff,
Fifth International Water Pollution Research Conference,
1-2/1, (July-August 1970).
15. Weibel, S.R., Weidner, R.B., Christiansen, A.G. and Anderson,
op. cit. , p 7.
16. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff, "Water Pollution Control
Research Series, FWPCA, WP-20-15, p 84, (January 1969).
17. DeFilippi, J.A. and Shih, C.S., op. cit., p 2049.
18. "Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution,"
op. cit. , p 55.
19. "Storm Water Pollution from Urban Land Activity, op cit., pp
76 and 81.
20. Ibid, pp 74 and 75.
21. "Storm Water Management Model," Volumes I-IV, Water Pollution
Control Research Series, EPA, 11024 DOC, (July 1971).
22. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," op. cit., p 3.
23. "Water Pollution Effects of Street Surface Contaminants,"
URS Research Company, Draft of Final Report on EPA Contract
No. 14-12-921, (January 1972).
24. Ibid, p 1-1.
25. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," op. cit., pp 163-194.
26. "Urban Runoff Pollution from Motor Vehicles," Proposal No.
P-7011-104, Biospherics Incorporated, (November 1970).
27. "Water Pollution Effects of Street Surface Contaminants," op. cit.,
pp 3-41.
A-210
-------
28. DeFilippi, J.A. and Shih, C.S., op. cit., p 2058.
29. "Urban Runoff Pollution from Roadways," Biospherics Incorporated
Fourth Monthly Progress Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0197,"
PP 9-10.
30. "Water Resource-Water Supply Study of the Potomac Estuary,"
EPA Technical Report 34, p VIII-7, (April 1971).
31. Angino, E.E. , Magnuson, L.M., and Stewart, G.F., op. cit.,
p 139.
32. Soderlund, G., Lehtinen, H. and Friberg, S., op. cit., p 1-2/3.
33. "Water Pollution Effects of Street Surface Contaminants," op.
cit., p C-6.
34. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," op. cit., p 100.
35. Weibel, S.R., Weidner, R.B., Christiansen, A.G. and Anderson,
R.J., op. cit., pp 3 and 7.
36. "Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing," Water Pollution
Control Research Series, EPA, 11040, GKK, pp 101-102, (June
1971).
37- Huling, E.E. and Hollocher, T.C., "Groundwater Contamination by
Road Salt, Steady-State Concentrations in East Central
Massachusetts," Science, 176, p. 288, (1972).
A-211
-------
APPENDIX I
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND ANALYSIS
TABLE 1-1. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF ROADWAY SAMPLES
DUST AND DIRT
Sample Description Particle Size (u)
No. Location Type 3350-1700 1700-850 850-420 420-250 250-150 150-75 75-45 45-
wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.%
1-D 1-95 Initial 6.8 2.5 1.7 1.0 5.1 1.3 13.0 6.4 21.3 12.8 31.1 33.2 19.8 39.6 1.2 3.2
2-D 1-95 1-day 2.3 1.2 10.8 5.7 8.0 1.2 10.6 11.5 11.0 11.5 17.9 11.5 11.6 11.6 27.8 45.9
7-D Ken. Av.-Right Initial 16.1 32.6 16.5 26.1 20.7 17.9 21.0 8.1 13.5 6.5 8.4 4.9 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.3
10-D Ken. Av.-Right 1-day 9.6 20.0 12.2 16.0 20.9 16.0 23.6 14.4 16.9 16.0 9.8 8.0 3.4 5.6 3.6 4.0
13-D Ken. Av.-Right 1-day 7.7 0.2 8.5 12.0 21.6 22.0 30.3 30.4 17.6 15.3 10.5 9.2 2.5 1.3 1.3 0.6
NJ 14-D Ken. Av.-Left Initial 31.5 32.6 15.3 14.0 16.2 16.8 15.1 14.0 9.0 7.4 6.4 5.6 2.6 4.0 2.9 5.6
M
19-D Ken. Av.-Left Weekend 12.9 16.6 13.6 12.5 24.8 25.0 25.8 25.8 13.5 12.0 7.4 7.5 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.1
20-D Ken. Av.-Left 1-day 13.0 14.4 9.6 10.2 19.9 19.7 25.5 25.4 16.1 14.3 11.2 10.2 2.8 3.3 1.9 2.5
21-D 1-495 Initial 4.9 4.7 5.7 5.1 11.0 7.0 16.9 13.4 20.2 17.4 20.1 29.5 15.2 14.8 6.0 8.1
22-D 1-495 1-day 4.2 4.0 5.2 4.8 11.2 7.6 19.4 19.6 20.9 20.8 23.0 23.6 10.2 10.4 5.9 9.2
26-D 1-495 1-day 4.6 3.2 6.8 7.0 15.5 14.7 22.3 19.1 20.8 22.1 19.5 21.4 7.9 8.1 2.6 4.4
27-D Loehmann's Initial 0.3 0.4 4.0 4.4 17.2 15.4 25.7 23.8 16.2 14.1 19.5 19.8 10.3 11.5 6.8 10.6
31-D Loehmann's 1-day 1.0 1.3 4.9 5.3 23.1 19.8 25.7 21.1 14.2 13.2 16.3 19.5 10.2 13.2 4.6 6.6
32-D Loehmann's 1-day 2.1 0.7 5.0 4.1 6.6 22.7 31.5 24.9 18.9 15.9 20.1 16.8 9.5 8.1 6.3 6.8
33-D Ken. Av.-Right Initial 14.3 15.8 17.7 21.6 24.7 25.1 22.6 18.7 12.7 11.8 6.6 6.5 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.1
34-D Ken. Av.-Right 1-day 12.9 11.1 14.5 11.1 19.6 17.9 20.4 22.2 17.0 22.2 9.8 11.1 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.2
35-D Ken. Av.-Right 1-day 7.1 1.4 11.8 7.0 20.5 16.9 25.7 28.2 17.5 35.2 13.1 8.5 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.4
-------
TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF ROADWAY SAMPLES
DUST AND DIRT
>
Sample Description
No. Location Type
37-D Ken. Av.-Left Initial
38-D Ken. Av.-Left 1-day
39-D Ken. Av.-Left 1-day
Particl
wt.%
Initial
1-day
Weekend
Initial
Weekend
1-day
41-D I 495
43-D I 495
44-D I 495
47-D Loehmann's
49—D Loehmann's
50-D Loehmann's
51-D CAMP Station Initial
53-D CAMP Station 1-day
55-D CAMP Station Weekend
56-D N. Cap.-Bight Initial
59-D N. Cap.-Eight Weekend
60-D N. Cap.-Right 1-day
12.3
9.6
10.6
10.6
4.1
4.3
2.0
2.8
2.5
4.6
9.0
4.9
1.7
2.2
3.7
11.2
4.6
8.9
6.9
2.9
2.4
1.4
6.8
2.6
4.8
8.2
4.0
0.3
1.4
2.0
Wt.% V.% Wt._% Vi% Wt.% V.% Wt.
12.7 13.7 22.6 24.4 25.8 26.6
12.9 11.5 24.8 25.3 24.6 24.0
12.1 16.4 22.1 24.0 25.8 24.7
14.0 16.7 21.5 20.8 23.6 24.7
7.4 5.9 18.2 17.4 26.6 25.9
9.0 8.9 20.0 20.7 24.4 23.7
6.4 6.3 23.1 21.5 25.3 25.0
8.4 18.0 25.6 24.3 23.5 17.0
9.0 7.9 22.5 34.4 20.4 25.4
7.8 10.6 17.8 19.4 22.9 24.7
9.8 10.1 20.4 20.1 27.6 27.6
5.7 5.0 17.6 18.1 24.8 20.2
3.6 0.8 18.5 19.4 30.8 29.2
7.4 7,2 22.4 21.7 26.4 25.3
6.9 4.0 18.2 13.9 20.4 19.9
250-150 150-75 _ 75-45 45-
15.1 15.5
13.6 22.1
16.0 16.4
16.2 17.0
20.6 20.6
17.5 17.3
16.0 14.6
15.4 11.2
11.8 7.9
14.8 14.5
17.7 18.2
16.4 15.1
23.2 24.2
23.6 23.8
17.4 17.9
8.1 7
9.4 11
9.6 8
11.2 13
15.9 15
17.0 17.
17.2 18.
10.3 11.
15.0 10.
14.9 16
12.4 12
19.9 23
16.1 17
14.8 16
22.8 29.
i! wt.% v.Z
.5 2.2 0.7
.5 2.4 0.5
,6 2.3 0.7
4 2.0 0.4
3 4.1 8.5
.8 4.9 4.9
.1 6.3 6.9
.6 10.2 7.7
.6 18.2 10.6
.0 16.3 9.7
.6 2.8 3.1
,2 10.4 14.1
8 5.5 8.1
6 2.6 3.6
9 10.0 12.0
wt.% v.%
1.2 0.4
2.7 0.5
1.5 0.3
0.9 0.1
3.1 3.5
2.9 4.3
3.7 6.2
3.8 3.4
0.6 0.6
0.9 0.3
0.3 0.1
0.3 0.3
0.6 0.2
0.6 0.4
0.6 0.4
-------
TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF ROADWAY SAMPLES
DUST AND DIRT
Sample Description Particle Size (u)
No. Location Type 3350-1700 1700-850 850-420 420-250 250-150 150-75 75-45 45-
wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.% wt.% v.%
61-D Ken. Av.-Right Initial 10.6 9.1 14.9 14.2 23.1 22.7 18.7 17.0 12.6 11.9 10.2 11.4 6.6 9.1 3.3 4.6
62-D Ken. Av.-Right 1-day 11.0 12.7 15.1 18.9 24.1 30.4 22.8 12.7 14.2 12.7 8.7 8.8 2.4 2.5 1.7 1.3
66-D Ken. Av.-Right Weekend 12.3 6.8 17.9 18.8 21.8 22.3 18.8 17.1 13.3 15.4 11.6 15.4 3.3 3.4 1.0 0.8
67-D Ken. Av.-Left Initial 5.9 5.5 8.8 9.1 29.1 27.3 29.6 28.5 16.9 19.7 7.1 7.2 2.2 2.4 0.4 0.3
68-D Ken. Av.-Left 1-day 6.4 4.7 10.2 9.3 19.9 19.4 24.7 25.8 15.5 14.8 13.6 13.9 8.7 12.0 1.0 0.1
f> 72-D Ken. Av.-Left Weekend 8.1 8.7 12.9 13.4 25.8 20.1 26.7 28.7 14.5 15.3 8.8 10.5 2.6 2.9 0.6 0.4
^
M 79-D N. Cap.-Right 1-day 3.9 3.8 7.5 7.9 18.9 17.5 23.3 20.6 17.1 15.9 18.6 19.1 9.2 12.7 1.5 2.5
Ln
82-D N. Cap.-Right 4-day 2.4 2.7 6.2 6.6 21.8 19.9 31.5 31.8 20.6 21.2 10.1 9.3 6.9 8.0 0.5 0.5
83-D N. Cap.-Right 1-day 4.5 4.2 11.8 10,5 19.6 17.5 20.2 18.2 15.4 15.7 20.2 22.7 7.7 10.5 0.4 0.7
85-D N. Cap.-Right 1-day 3.0 4.1 6.1 6.1 17.9 16.4 26.8 25.6 18.9 18.5 17.9 18.5 7.6 0.2 0.9 1.6
88-D N. Cap.-Left 4-day 3.2 3.4 6.0 6.7 16.1 15.2 22.5 20.2 19.9 18.5 22.1 23.5 9.8 11.8 0.4 0.7
89-D N. Cap.-Left 1-day 4.6 4.5 8.4 8.7 20.8 19.0 24.6 22.5 15.9 15.6 16.1 17.3 9.3 12.1 0.3 0.3
92-D CAMP Station 1-day 4.1 3.V 8.0 8.8 20.1 21.3 21.7 20.0 16.7 13.7 18.2 16.3 10.2 13.7 1.0 2.5
93-D CAMP Station 1-day 5.7 5.9 9.1 9.3 18.2 16.3 19.9 17.4 15.7 15.1 18.1 17.4 11.6 15.1 1.7 3.5
94-D CAMP Station 1-day 4.6 4.2 7.3 7.3 17.7 16.7 21.2 19.8 16.6 15.6 18.8 18.7 12.3 14.6 1.5 3.1
96-D Bait-Wash. 1-day 5.3 5.7 7.7 7.6 14.1 13.5 16.0 15.4 14.1 13.5 18.8 15.4 11.2 13.5 12.8 15.4
97-D Bait-Wash. 1-day 9.7 12.5 10.3 12.5 13.4 12.5 13.2 12.5 12.5 12.5 19.2 18.7 13.4 12.5 8.3 6.3
98-D Bait-Wash. 1-day 11.2 15.4 10.8 15.4 15.7 15.4 13.8 15.4 10.4 7.7 13.5 7.7 15.6 15.4 9.0 7.6
-------
TABLE 1-2. ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 1
Particle
Size
(microns)
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
Dry
Weight
(g)
Sample
183.5
244.6
343.2
318.2
43.0
Sample
410.7
361.6
463.3
496.1
85.4
Dry
Volume
Volatile
Solids
(%) (ml) 00 Ong/g)
13 D, Kenilworth Avenue, Right
16.2
21.6
30.3
28.1
3.8
20 D,
22.6
19.9
25.5
27.3
4.7
130
173
242
225
30
16.3
21.6
30.3
28.1
3.8
75.2
32.6
38.9
29.7
106.1
Kenilworth Avenue, Left
295.2
236.4
304.8
294.0
69.6
Sample 22 D,
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
176.7
210.0
364.9
827.7
303.7
9.4
11.1
19.4
44.0
16.1
Sample 31
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
45.1
176.6
196.5
233.2
113.1
5.9
23.1
25.7
30.5
14.8
114.4
98.8
254.8
577.2
254.8
24.6
19.7
25.4
24.5
5.8
1-495
8.8
7.6
19.6
44.4
19.6
D, Loehmann's
36.3
108.9
116.0
179.9
108.9
6.6
19.8
21.1
32.7
19.8
98.8
26.5
24.9
40.1
91.1
, 15 Aug.
37.2
31.0
22.6
49.7
72.4
Plaza, 18
45.3
43.4
38.6
121.6
219.8
BOD
(mg/g)
, 8 Aug. 19
2.11
2.33
1.84
2.72
4.56
COD
(mg/gy
72
26.5
26.3
29.3
56.7
142.7
Grease
Tmg/S)
10.3
4.7
4.2
7.3
20.1
, 8 Aug. 1972
1.84
2.29
2.90
3.26
5.78
1972
2.83
1.85
2.24
2.79
3.55
Sep. 1972
3.04
2.29
2.60
4.10
9.23
45.7
45.0
38.0
66.8
170.9
61.1
87.5
81.5
141.7
180.8
15.7
65.0
45.8
160.8
336.2
6.0
5.2
5.7
5.7
17.6
9.0
6.3
7.3
13.1
21.5
6.7
2.4
3.1
21.3
51.5
A-216
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES.OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 1
Particle
Size
(microns)
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
Dry
Weight
(g)
Sample
69.2
49.5
51.5
67.6
14.6
Sample
145.6
160.5
159.2
148.9
33.0
34 D
27.4
19.6
20.4
26.8
5.8
38 D
22.5
24.8
24.6
23.0
5.1
Dry
Volume
Volatile
Solids
(ml) (%) (mg/g)
, Kenilworth Avenue, Right
54
43
54
81
10
.4
.9
.4
.6
.7
22.2
17.9
22.2
33.3
4.4
86
38
57
57
116
.9
.5
.7
.0
.9
, Kenilworth Avenue, Left,
72
113
108
151
4
.4
.9
.0
.2
.5
Sample 43 D,
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
241.3
381.8
558.0
765.8
151.1
11.5
18.2
26.6
36.5
7.2
Sample
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
34.9
68.3
61.9
81.3
57.1
11.5
22.5
20.4
26.8
18.8
118
234
349
484
162
.8
.9
.6
.7
.0
16.1
25.3
24.0
33.6
1.0
1-495
8.8
17.4
25.9
35.9
12.0
50 D, Loehmann's
29
96
71
51
31
.4
.3
.1
.8
.4
10.5
34.4
25.4
18.5
11.2
53
32
26
32
113
.0
.3
.2
.9
.8
, 18 Oct.
37
27
30
48
83
Plaza
213
163
74
113
251
.4
.5
.0
.9
.5
, 7
.7
.0
.8
.5
.3
B
- is;
, 26
3
4
2
4
5
OD COD
gTg) (mg/g)
Sep. 1972
.35
.40
.98
.21
.14
65.1
53.3
49.3
104.3
204.1
Grease
(mg/g)
6.6
8.0
13.8
8.9
23.0
26 Sep. 1972
1
1
1
2
5
1972
1
2
2
3
5
Nov.
17
9
11
10
14
.53
.72
.91
.60
.90
.57
.96
.18
.19
.19
1972
.20
.19
.58
.10
.05
36.3
51.0
39.0
94.8
191.5
75.0
26.4
24.6
57.6
141.6
200.3
111.7
120.5
186.5
239.6
6.3
4.4
4.5
8.0
16.3
6.2
2.7
4.2
7.6
14.2
20.3
17.8
14.3
33.7
43.4
A-217
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 1
Particle
Size
(microns)
Dry
Weight
(g)
(%)
Dry
Volume
(nil)
Volatile
Solids
(%) (mg/g)
Sample 53 D, CAMP Station,
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
590.5
640.7
866.9
945.4
97.4
Sample
52.8
90.6
101.5
200.0
52.7
18.8
20.4
27.6
30.1
3.1
60 D,
10.6
18.2
20.4
40.2
10.6
Sample 85 D
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
75-
75.8
135.7
203.2
279.0
64.4
Sample
52.0
56.4
64.0
131.5
96.0
10.0
17.9
26.8
36.8
8.5
96 D,
13.0
14.1
16.0
32.9
24.0
306.5
336.7
462.3
515.9
53.6
18.3
20.1
27.6
30.8
3.2
North Capitol
21.0
48.7
69.7
167.3
43.3
6.0
13.9
19.9
47.8
12.4
, North Capitol
45.9
73.8
115.2
166.5
48.6
Baltimore
46.6
47.3
53.9
101.2
101.2
10.2
16.4
25.6
37.0
10.8
57
35
26
48
94
Street,
102
30
29
69
125
Street
31
22
19
45
135
BOD
(mg/g)
COP
(mgTgl
urtjciovi
TSg/g)
9 Nov. 1972
.2
.7
.5
.3
.5
Right,
.8
.8
.7
.0
.7
, Left,
.7
.0
.0
.9
.3
Washington Parkway,
13.3
13.5
15.4
28.9
28.9
73
36
20
54
97
.8
.8
.9
.5
.1
3
2
2
2
6
5
1
1
2
3
9
6
2
2
2
4
7
9
2
2
1
2
5
.22
.72
.59
.77
.69
Dec.
.92
.57
.74
.21
.08
Feb.
.26
.04
.19
.23
.80
March
.79
.44
.53
.42
.92
89.
61.
52.
97.
194.
1972
44.
38.
42.
139.
373.
1973
49.
34.
37.
69.
181.
1973
100.
67.
55.
101.
178.
0
6
1
0
2
4
7
0
1
6
7
2
0
4
1
7
2
0
9
4
13.2
6.2
8.1
24.2
43.4
5.3
4.7
4.5
17.1
47.1
7.4
3.5
2.9
15.3
40.3
10.5
11.1
4.2
11.4
18.9
A-218
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 2
Particle Total
Size P04-P
(microns) (mg/g)
P04-P
(mg/g)
no3-N
("g/g)
N02-N Kjeld.
N
(ug/g) (mg/g)
Sample 13
3350-850 0.390
850-420 0.146
420-250 0.116
250- 75 0.222
75- 0.412
t
*> 3350-850 0.146
850-420 0.173
420-250 0.171
250- 75 0.256
75- 0.329
3350-850 0.112
850-420 0.257
420-250 0.244
250-75 0.434
75- 0.458
0.035
0.047
0.042
0.044
0.091
18.5
19.9
20.7
21.0
42.0
0.15
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.15
Sample 20
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.094
7.4
3.5
8.4
18.8
32.7
5.8
9.1
10.9
14.0
96.1
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.14
0.15
0-15
0.08
Cl CM Petrol.
(mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g)
D, Kenilworth Avenue,
0.31
0.62
0.25
0.57
1.73
0.24
0.42
1.00
0.36
0.32
D, Kenilworth Avenue,
0.32
0.25
0.19
0.34
0.91
Sample 22
0.42
0.39
0.26
0.48
0.96
0.21
0.10
0.15
0.16
0.33
D, 1-495, 15
0.23
0.38
0.55
0.56
0.86
n-Par. Fecal
Coliform
(mg/g) (org./g)
Fecal
Strep.
(org./g)
Asbestos
(fbrs/g) Rubber
xlo~ mg/g
Right, 8 Aug. 1972
4.9
3.3
2.8
4.5
12.9
Left, 8 Aug
4.4
2.8
3.4
4.1
13.4
Aug. 1972
4.9
3.2
3.8
6.3
9.8
3.6
2.6
2.5
3.3
10.9
. 1972
3.5
2.4
2.8
2.9
9.4
3.1
2.2
2.5
5.5
9.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6-
2.9
1.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
4.4
10.0
0.2
1.4
1.6
2.9
9.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.4
-------
t-o
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 2
Particle Total PO^-P N03-N N02-N Kjeld. Cl CN Petrol. n-Par. Fecal Fecal Asbestos
Size Pf>4-P N Colifom Strep. (fbrs/g) Rubber
(microns) (mg/g) (mg/g) (ug/g) (ug/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (org./g) (org./g) xlO~5 mg/g
Sample 31 D, Loehmann's Plaza, 18 Sept. 1972
3350-850 0.093 0.101
850-420 0.051 0.005
420-250 0.138 0.004
250- 75 0.214 0.001
75- 0.427 0.001
3350-850 0.378 0.045
850-420 0.292 0.060
420-250 0.256 0.047
250- 75 0.384 0.078
75- 0.488 0.015
3350-850 0.098 0.004
850-420 0.146 0.044
420-250 0.144 0,040
250- 75 0.210 0.025
75- 0.295 0.032
41.3
13.1
8.6
21.9
44.1
0.04
0 = 04
0.05
0.04
0.12
Sample 34 D,
15.2
24.6
18.2
13.4
24.6
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
Sample 38 D,
14.8
23.7
25.8
31.0
48.6
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.75
1.39
0.56
0.46
0.72
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.64
Kenilworth Avenue,
0.36
0.65
0.24
0,16
0,34
0.22
0.26
0.25
0.27
1.30
Kenilworth Avenue,
1.36
0.25
0.25
0.56
1.23
0.20
0.17
0.19
0.37
0.46
6.0
1.6
2.0
9.0
20.3
Right, 26
3.7
4.3
3.1
5.1
15.3
Left, 26
4.7
2.5
4.0
4.4
12.2
5.7 0
1.3 0
1.0 0
8.2 0
13.9 0
Sep. 1972
2.5
2.8
2.0
3.8
11.8
Sep. 1972
3.2
2.4
0.9
4.3
10.4
0 0.2
0 0.5
0 3.2
0 2.5
0 6.4
1.3
0.6
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.6
3-. 8
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.8
10.8
75.6
1.0
1.6
2.2
2.6
24.6
0.4
0.5
1.4
2.6
7.5
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 2
Particle Total
Size POA-P
(microns) (mg/g)
3350-850 0.244
850-420 0.238
420-250 0.250
250- 75 0.242
75- 0.315
3350-850 0.122
850-420 0.193
420-250 0.295
250- 75 0.234
75- 0.427
3350-850 0.095
850-420 0.107
420-250 0.100
250- 75 0.238
75- 0.381
P04-P
(mg/g)
N03-N
(ug/g)
N02-N
(ug/g)
Kjeld
N
(mg/g
Sample 43
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.042
0.031
0.047
0.052
0.012
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.002
0.001
13.4
11.6
24.3
42.0
40.1
16.0
7.5
9.7
17.1
13.6
13.4
10.2
10.0
20.1
43.8
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.30
Sample
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
Sample
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.90
0.35
0.14
0.22
0.32
50 I),
1.14
1.08
0.89
1.26
1.37
53 D,
0.75
0.63
0.30
0.28
0.35
Cl CN
) (mg/g) (mg/g)
Petrol
(mg/g)
. n-Par. Fecal
Coliform
(mg/g) (org./g)
Fecal Asbestos
Strep. (fbrs/g) Rubber
(org./g) xlO-5 mg/g
D, 1-495, 18 Oct. 1972
1
1
1
1
1
.80
.82
.17
.20
.63
Loehmann's Plaza,
0
0
0
0
0
CAMP
0
0
0
0
0
.73
.63
.46
.46
.69
Station, 9
.25
.15
.04
.21
.89
5.0
2.9
3.3
5.0
9.1
7 Nov.
5.0
5.4
5.4
8.3
25.4
2.
2.
2.
3.
6.
1972
3.
3.
3.
6.
19.
5
6
2
6
6
3
3
6
2
0
0.5
«»p R
3.
5.
0.
0.
0.
2.
5.
0.
,8
,2
,1
0
0
5
6
1
0
0.6
1.5
1.5
6.7
10.8
1.0
1.0
1.9
8.0
19.6
Nov. 1972
5.2
2.4
4.0
13.2
25.7
3.
1.
3.
8.
18.
3
9
0
9
8
0.
2.
3.
2.
0.
5
6
2
6
0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6
5.2
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 2
r
NJ
N3
to
Particle Total PO -P
Size P04-P 4
(microns) (mg/g) (mg/g)
3350-850 0.173 0.017
850-420 0.110 0.015
420-250 0.092 0.020
250- 75 0.193 0.026
75- 0.287 0.001
3350-850 0.134 0.001
850-420 0.146 0.008
420-250 0.152 0.015
250- 75 0.250 0.009
75- 0.469 0.000
3350-850 0.256 0.009
850-420 0.266 0.010
420-250 0.229 0.007
250- 75 0.427 0.000
75- 0.420 0.106
NO -N NO--N
(ug/g) (ug/g)
Kjeld.
N
(mg/g)
Sample 60 D, North
10.9
11.2
7.4
13.9
25.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.09
Sample 85 D
4.3
8.5
10.3
21.3
36.5
Sample
12.8
10.3
8.5
10.3
28.9
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
96 D,
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.50
2.35
1.95
0.85
0.45
, North
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.45
1.48
Cl CN Petrol
(mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g)
Capitol Street
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.69
1.54
Capitol Street
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.30
0.71
Baltimore Washington
0.45
0.32
0.20
0.08
0.16
0.52
0.27
0.34
0.57
0.91
, Right,
2.7
1.9
2.2
10.3
25.7
, Left, C
4.2
3.0
3.5
8.5
20.7
Parkway ,
4.3
4.0
2.3
7.7
12.7
. n-Par. Fecal Fecal
Coliform Strep.
(mg/g) (org./g) (org./g)
5 Dec. 1972
2.4 0 400
1.6 0 50
2.0 0 100
10.0 0 1250
24.7 0 2025
i Feb. 1973
4.1
2.9
3.3
7.0
17.8
9 March 1973
3.8
2.5
1.9
6.2
11.4
Asbestos
(fbrs/g) Rubber
xlO"^ mg/g
0.6 0.2
1.5 0.7
1.3 0.9
1.9 6.6
0.0 27.4
2.6 2.1
0.0 1.6
0.0 2.0
0.0 3.6
0.0 7.8
1.9 0.9
1.3 1.6
2.6 4.0
2.6 4.2
5.1 14.4
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES.OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 3
Particle
Size
(microns)
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
350-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
350-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
Lead
(ug/g)
Sample
905
1840
908
8570
5070
Sample
370
1610
3360
4820
9630
1440
3760
9100
20260
25900
Chromium Nickel Zinc
(ug/g) (ug/g) (ug/g)
13 D, Kenilworth Avenue, Right
23 85 217
22 33 708
11 0 1040
56 217 2570
34 67 1480
20 D, Kenilworth Avenue, Left,
9 53 251
19 24 918
18 18 692
19 42 1350
44 115 2490
Sample 22 D, 1-495, 15 Aug.
21 83 102
22 90 764
21 33 1920
32 73 3460
55 233 2710
Sample 31 D, Loehmann's Plaza, 18
3350-850
350-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
391
377
767
6390
3370
Sample
284
4150
2670
2740
809
Sample
900
9900
5810
12800
4500
74 22 82
56 0 931
70 79 1530
205 240 1990
95 77 1490
34 p, Kenilworth Avenue, Right
53 166 542
70 98 4140
65 74 4140
89 106 4330
35 68 732
38 D, Kenilworth Avenue, Left
110 226 94
69 77 42
79 104 535
99 100 1230
161 244 1890
Copper Cadmium
(ug/g) (ug/g)
, 8 Aug. 1972
89
67
37
412
105
8 Aug. 1972
35
39
156
106
326
1972
51
283
56
129
308
Sep. 1972
29
0
27
117
48
, 26 Sep. 1972
63 4
357 3
241 3
119 4
75 2
, 26 Sept. 1972
57 2
67 0
45 4
116 3
310 7
Barium
(ug/g)
58
0
0
199
81
0
56
0
0
190
0
0
0
122
188
0
0
0
135
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
—
—
A-223
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONTINUED). ANALYSES OF ROADWAY DUST AND DIRT AS A
FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SIZE - PART 3
Particle
Size
(microns)
Lead
(ug/g)
Chromium
(ug/g)
Nickel
(ug/g)
Sample 43 D, 1-495
3350-350
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
2369
5840
13400
7400
16700
111
121
191
175
303
Sample 50 D,
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
3350-850
850-420
420-250
250- 75
<75-
48
595
1460
911
1180
856
1990
294
428
1340
Sample 60
255
285
237
237
5330
Sample 85
63
1050
946
2520
2770
Sample 96 D
1840
2000
2310
3540
476
26
148
175
164
435
Sample
427
132
92
139
298
D, North
84
4
34
88
202
D, North
117
69
37
101
160
275
203
141
138
228
Loehmann1 s
103
153
216
238
369
53 D, CAMP
1180
166
100
132
238
Zinc
(ug/g)
, 18 Aug
154
403
909
973
1530
Plaza,
34
579
1780
2040
1310
, 9 Sep.
542
384
239
259
671
Copper
(ug/g)
. 1972
43
42
163
71
133
7 Sep. 1972
18
23
62
94
170
1972
51
36
17
85
214
Capitol Street, Right, 5 Dec
179
69
47
144
378
93
1840
3550
2590
2010
54
25
28
97
191
Capitol Street, Left, 6 Feb.
406
194
263
119
363
42
512
1310
976
1290
32
25
15
49
138
, Baltimore Washington Parkway, 9 Mar
83
66
58
99
53
294
91
206
138
194
697
1000
1600
1290
1170
56
56
37
224
180
Cadmium
(ug/g)
2
2
3
2
5
0
4
1
4
5
1
0
2
2
5
. 1972
0
0
0
0
3
1973
1
2
1
3
5
. 1973
3
2
3
3
6
Barium
A-224
-------
APPENDIX J
BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT
TABLE J-l. BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT - LITTER
Location
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
(a) Ken. Av.
Right
(a) Ken. Av.
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495.
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
Date Section
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
17 Oct
17 Oct
17 Oct
18 Oct.
18 Oct.
18 Oct.
23 Oct.
23 Oct,
23 Oct
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
72
'72
. '72
. '72.
. '72
'72
'72
'72
'72
. '72
. '72
(#)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Dry
Weight
(g)
47.
38.
84.
37.
49.
46.
54.
428.
506.
70.
34.
40.
251.
179.
101.
169.
130.
169.
435.
529.
335.
8
6
2
4
4
5
6
1
0
1
1
4
4
1
8
2
8
6
3
3
2
Dry
Volume
(ml)
75
80
250
150
80
75
80
300
320
150
50
50
300
200
120
250
250
300
495
565
375
Volatile
Solids
(mg/i
27
273
498
375
240
329
990
988
893
285
885
730
316
540
928
141
132
94
332
60
177
COD
g) (mg/g)
.2
.1
.6
.2
.9
.3
.0
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.9
.2
.6
.6
.7
.4
.2
.3
.0
439
319
148
215
201
148
161
66
93
205
121
403
165
185
132
234
175
225
208
254
426
.2
.4
.7
.5
.2
.6
.1
.0
.6
.6
.9
.9
.5
.7
.0
.0
.9
.0
.1
.7
.2
(a)A spill of sand, proabably from a passing truck, was noted on Sections 2
and 3 of Kenilworth Avenue on 6 October 1972.
A-225
-------
TABLE J-2. BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT
DTJST AND DIRT - PART 1
Location
Ken. Av.
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
Ken." Av.
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
(a) Ken. Av.
Right
(a) Ken. Av.
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
Ken. Av.
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
Date Section Dry
Weight
(//) (g)
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
5 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
17 Oct.
17 Oct.
17 Oct.
18 Oct.
18 Oct.
18 Oct.
23 Oct.
23 Oct.
23 Oct.
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
125.2
113.2
226.5
137.2
114.9
154.1
95.0
249.2
238.4
167.9
89.0
104.4
2915.4
1556.3
1160.1
1933.1
2098.0
1762.8
4356.6
5351.1
5289.9
Dry
Volume
(ml)
80
90
160
125
90
120
75
180
180
125
65
75
1905
980
810
1370
1350
1310
2770
3455
2795
Volatile
Solids
(mg/g)
656.4
975.3
784.1
946.6
123.8
70.2
186.4
58.9
53.2
108.2
270.3
188.3
54.8
49.2
57.8
40.8
38.8
47.3
84.7
59.9
80.3
COD
(mg/g)
94.9
91.5
62.5
138.9
103.5
105.4
115.4
66.6
75.5
132.9
69.9
95.4
78.8
71.9
86.0
53.6
54.2
62.9
49.9
56.9
55.8
Grease
(mg/g)
10.8
10.9
8.2
12.7
11.7
9.0
8.8
11.3
6.5
11.8
11.5
9.6
7.2
6.7
7.8
4.5
5.6
7.3
5.0
5.8
6.5
(a)A spill of sand, probably from a passing truck, was noted on Sections 2
and 3 of Kenilworth Avenue on 6 October 1972.
A-226
-------
TABLE J-2 (CONTINUED). BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
Location Date
Ken. Av. 5 Oct. '72
Right
Ken. Av. 5 Oct. '72
Right
Ken. Av. 5 Oct. '72
Right
Ken. Av. 5 Oct. '72
Right
£ Ken. Av. 5 Oct. '72
•^ Right
Ken. Av. 5 Oct. '72
Right
Ken. Av. 6 Oct. '72
Right
(a) Ken. Av . 6 Oct. '72
Right
(a)Ken. Av. 6 Oct. '72
Right
Ken. Av. 6 Oct. '72
Right
Section Total NOo-N Kjeld. Petro. n-Par. Asbestos
P04-P N (fbrs/g)
(//) (mg/g) (ug/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) xlQ-5
1 0.366 32.2 0.71 6.4 5.6 1.9
2 0.207 36.5 0.28 5.6 5.1 0.6
3 0.293 33.4 0.59 4.9 3.8 0.0
4 0.329 29.4 0.79 7.7 5.9 0.6
5 0.268 28.0 1.09 7.8 4.9 1.3
6 0.390 23.1 0.60 5.8 3.4 0.0
1 0.287 38.9 0.80 5.6 4.6 1.3
2 0.414 33.1 0.77 8.0 7.2 0.0
3 0.281 28.0 0.55 3.7 3.0 1.3
4 0.259 37.8 1.03 8.2 7.1 0.0
(a)A spill of sand, probably from a passing truck, was noted on Sections 2 and 3 of Kenilworth Avenue
on 6 October 1972.
-------
TABLE J-2 (CONTINUED). BLOW-IN EXPERIMENT
DUST AND DIRT - PART 2
Location
Ken . Av .
Right
Ken . Av .
Right
f 1-495
K3
" 1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
1-495
Date
6 Oct.
6 Oct.
17 Oct.
17 Oct.
17 Oct.
18 Oct.
18 Oct.
18 Oct.
23 Oct.
23 Oct.
23 Oct.
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
'72
Section
(#)
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Total
P04-P
(mg/g)
0.305
0.250
0.342
0.371
0.342
0.217
0.244
0.281
0.244
0.229
0.256
N03-N
(ug/g)
26.8
32.8
19.8
21.3
19.3
16.4
21.0
15.5
17.6
14.9
13.7
Kjeld.
N
(mg/g)
0.81
0.87
0.36
0.44
0.41
0.28
0.29
0.31
0.17
0.20
0.25
Petro.
(mg/g)
7.7
6.8
3.5
4.0
4.9
3.0
3.0
4.0
•2.6
2.7
3.1
n-Par .
(mg/g)
6.3
5.4
2.8
3.6
2.3
2.1
2.3
3.4
2.3
2.4
1.8
Asbestos
(fbrs/g)
xlO-5
2.3
0.0
1.8
2.6
3.2
9.6
7.6
4.4
2.6
6.4
7.7
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-75-OOH
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF URBAN ROADWAY USAGE
TO
WATER POLLUTION
5. REPORT DATE
March 1975; Approval Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Donald G. Shaheen
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Biospherics Incorporated
4928 Wyaconda Road
Rockville, Maryland 20852
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB034 Roap/Task 21 ASY 05
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-0197
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - 4/72 - 9/74
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20U60
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT _ ^ . • ,. . , . , ,
Street surface contaminants are deposited on roadways from many sources
within an urban area. Industrial operations, land use activities, fallout of air
pollutants, roadway usage and other activities contribute to the loading of
particulates on urban roadways. These materials are then carried into receiving
waters by storm runoff where they constitute a substantial portion of the overall
water pollution problems of cities. Metropolitan Washington, D.C., with its low
background of industrial emissions, was the area chosen for study of contributions
of motor vehicle usage to urban roadway loading factors. Specific roadway study
sites within this area were selected so as to provide minimal interference from
nontraffic-related land use activities and thus isolate, as much as possible, the
traffic-related depositions.
Motor vehicular traffic is directly or indirectly responsible for deposi-
tion of substantial quantities of materials on roadways in urban areas. Signifi-
cant levels of toxic heavy metals and asbestos and slowly biodegradable petroleum
products and rubber are deposited directly from motor vehicles along with large
quantities of particulate materials contributed indirectly by traffic. The particu-
lates contributed indirectly by traffic are largely inorganic, but have associated
with them solids and nutrients which represent a serious source of water pollutants
in all metropolitan areas. ______^
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Storm Runoff, Surface Runoff, Traffic-
Related Urban Runoff, Pollution (Water),
Nutrients, Solids, Heavy Metals,
Asbestos, Rubber, Grease
Traffic-Related
Street Surface
Contaminants
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
128 Rpt.; 230 Ap,
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |