EPA-600/4-77-35a
August 1977
Environmental Monitoring Series
            NEW YORK  AIR POLLUTION  PROJECT
                                          OF  1964-1969
                     Volume  I. Description  of  Data
                                  Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
                                       Office of Research and Development
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination  of traditional grouping was  consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.   Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2.   Environmental  Protection Technology
      3.   Ecological Research
      4.   Environmental  Monitoring
      5.   Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.   Scientific and Technical  Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.   Interagency  Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.   "Special" Reports
      9.   Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and  instrumentation for the identification and  quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

-------
                                           EPA-600/4-77-035a
                                           August 1977
     NEW YORK CITY AIR POLLUTION PROJECT
                OF 1964-1969

       Volume I.  Description of Data
                     by

             Robert D. Bornstein
                 Tim Morgan
                Yam-Tong Tarn
                  Tim Loose
                  Ken Leap
                Jim Sigafoose
               Carl Berkowitz
          Department of Meteorology
          San Jose State University
         San Jose, California  95192
         Contract Number 68-02-1284
               Project Officer

              George Holzworth
     Meteorology and Assessment Division
 Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or comnercial products constitute endorsement or
recoranendation for use.
                                     ii

-------
                                   ABSTRACT

     Volume I documents the meteorological and sulfur dioxide data collected
during three test periods of the New York City Air Pollution Project of 1964-
1969.  A detailed description of all the data is presented in Volume I.
Volume II supplements Volume I and contains:  (1) emission rates of sulfur
dioxide, heat, and moisture; (2) sulfur dioxide concentrations measured from
fixed sites and from automotive platforms; and (3) vertical profiles of sulfur
dioxide concentrations and temperature made from helicopters.  Other data
collected during the Project are available on microfilm:  (1) hourly synoptic
maps showing "surface" windspeed and direction at 97 sites and showing stream-
line and isotach analyses; and (2) 132 bihourly maps of hourly average sulfur
dioxide concentration isopleths for the 11 days of the three "primary" test
periods.  Pibal measurements of winds aloft (578 balloon launches) are avail-
able on magnetic tape.  The purpose of documenting and publishing all these
data (in Volume I, Volume II, microfilm, and magnetic tape) is to make these
valuable data readily available for further research and applications.

     Volume II, the microfilm, and the magnetic tape (with card deck and
print-out for reading the tape) are available from the National Technical
Information Service in Springfield, Virginia.  EPA-600/4-77-035b

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1284 by
San Jose State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  This report covers the period April 1974 to September
1976, and work was completed as of May 1977.
                                     111

-------
IV

-------
                                   OCNTENTS

Abstract	   iii

Figures	    vi
Tables	viii

Acknowledgments	     x
Dedication	    xi


     1.  Introduction   	     1
             Background  	     1
             Project description  	     2
             List of archived data	     5
     2.  Source Emission Inventories 	     8
             Introduction   	     8
             Annual SC>2 emission rates	     9
             Daily and hourly emission rates	    31
             Anthropogenic heat emission rates 	    43
             Anthropogenic moisture emission rates 	    51
     3.  Aircraft Flight Program	    63
             Flight program description  	    63
             Aircraft instrumentation  	    64
             Data tabulation at SJSU	    68
     4.  Surface Wind Data	    77
             Sampling area  	    77
             Analysis	    77
             Summary of flow patterns	    83
     5.  Upper Level Wind Data	    88
     6.  Surface S02 Observations	    96
             Sampling area	    96
             Instrumentation	    96
             Calibration procedures	   106
             Analysis procedures  	   109
             Discussion of analyses  	   113
     7.  Summary	   119


References	   120

Appendices

     I.  Summary of synoptic conditions during test periods   ....   123
    II.  Summary of inversion data from soundings taken at
         National Weather Service site at J.F.K. Airport  	   130

-------
                                    FIGURES

Number                                                                 Page

  1      Topography of study area 	     3
  2      Location of point sources of S02 in NYC area during 1965 .  .    28

  3      Boiler operating time for apartment houses as a
         function of degree days as observed in NYC area for 1966
         (from Halpern, et al.,  1971)	    32
  4      Fraction of annual area source emissions in NYC as a
         function of mean daily temperature 	    36

  5      Diurnal variation of S02 emissions from area sources at
         various average daily temperatures (from Halpern,  et al.,
         1971)	    37
  6      Diurnal variation of average total hourly electrical
         load generated during winter and summer by the entire
         Consolidated Edison power production system	    41

  7      Regression equations and correlation coefficients (r)
         relating annual S02 production (S) to annual heat
         production (H) for power plants, hospitals, commercial
         establishments, and manufacturing concerns	    47
  8      Regression equations and correlation coefficients (r)
         relating annual S02 production (S) to annual moisture
         production (M) for power plants, hospitals, commercial
         establishments, and manufacturing concerns	    58

  9      Location of helicopter sounding sites designated by
         abbreviations or names used in Table 23	    73

 10      Location of surface anemometer sites by abbreviations
         used in Table 24	    78

 11      Streamflow and isotach (in mph) analyses for 1900 EST on
         March 10, 1966	    84

 12      Streamflow and isotach (in mph) analyses for 0800 EST on
         March 11, 1966 showing frictional retardation of synoptic
         front over NYC	    85

 13      Streamflow and isotach (in mph) analyses for 1200 EST
         on March 9, 1966 showing complex sea breeze front (darker
         dashed lines) penetration pattern  	    86

  14     Location of pibal launch sites and NWS radiosonde site
         at JFK Airport listed in Table 25	    90

                                     vi

-------
                              FIGURES (continued)

Number

  15     Input data deck for program EPATAP	   93

  16     Location of fixed surface S02 monitoring sites	   97

  17     Location of stops made by the mobile S02 monitors, as
         listed in Table 27   	   98

  18     Calibration curves for a particular Davis SC>2 monitoring
         instrument.  See text for explanation of how to use curves  .  108

  19     Analyzed values of surface S02 concentrations in pphm for
         1030 EST on December 6, 1966	110

  20     Analyzed values of surface 862 concentrations in pphm
         for 1630 EST on March 10, 1966	Ill

  21     Analyzed values of surface SO2 concentrations in pphm
         for 1430 EST on March 8, 1966	112

  22     Predicted SO2 concentration field for a 1-mile by 1-mile
         computational grid at 1200 EST on March 8, 1966 (from
         Shieh, 1969)  	  115
  23     Predicted SO2 concentration field for a 0.2-mile by 0.2-mile
         computational grid at 1200 EST on March 8, 1966 (from
         Shieh, 1969)	116

  24     Predicted S02 concentrations (solid lines) versus observed
         data along a 79th Street crosstown traverse in the
         direction of the mean flow (from Shieh, 1969)   	  118
                                      VII

-------
                                    TABLES
Number
  1      Summary of the New York City Air Pollution Project
         Data Set ............ 	    4
  2      Fuel Types Used in .NYC During 1965 .  .  .  •	   10
  3      Conposition of Uncombusted Natural Gas and Generation
         of Water by Combustion ............. 	   11
  4      Fuel Usage by Area Sources in NYC During 1965	   12
  5      Sulfur Content of Fuels Used in NYC	   14
  6      Annual Emission of SO2 in Tons Per Year from Area Sources
         in NYC During 1965 by Borough	   16
  7      Percentage of S02 Knitted from Each Fuel Type in
         Each Borough of NYC  .....................   17
  8      Emission of S02 from Area Sources in NYC During 1965
         by Fuel Type	   18
  9      Emission of SCL from Area Sources in NYC During 1965
         by Fuel Usage  ...... 	   18
 10      Latitude and Longitude, as well as Stack Height and
         Diameter and Effluent Temperature and Velocity, for
         Point Sources Emitting More Thai). 100 Tons of SO2 Per
         Year in the NYC Area	   19
 11      Degree Day Values at Central Park for 1965 .........   34
 12      Degree Day Values at Central Park for 1966	   35
 13      Suggested Methods of Prorating Annual Point Source
         Emissions into Daily and Hourly Emissions  .........   39
 14      Energy Content of Fuels Used in NYC  	 .......   45
 15      Emission of Anthropogenic Heat from Area Sources in
         NYC During 1965 by Borough	   45
 16      Emission of Anthropogenic Heat from Area Sources in
         NYC During 1965 by Fuel Type .......... 	   46
 17      Emission of Anthropogenic Heat from Area Sources in NYC
         During 1965 by Fuel Usage  ,	   46
 18      Moisture Content of Fuels Used in NYC	   53
                                     Vlll

-------
                              TABLES (continued)

Number                                                                 Page

 19      Bnission of Anthropogenic Moisture from Area Sources in
         NYC During 1965 by Borough	   54

 20      Bnission of Anthropogenic Moisture from Area Sources
         in NYC During 1965 by Fuel Type	   55

 21      Bnission of Anthropogenic Moisture from Area Sources
         in NYC During 1965 by Fuel Usage	   56

 22      Summary of Anthropogenic Moisture Bnission from Area
         Sources in NYC During 1965 in 1010 gm/year	   57

 23      Alphabetical Listing of Helicopter Sounding Sites
         Appearing in Figures 9a and 9b	   70

 24      Alphabetical Listing of Surface Anemometer Sites
         Appearing in Figure 10	   79

 25      List of Files Generated by Program DATA	   91

 26      Listing of Output from Program EPATAP  for a Typical
         Pibal Launch	   94
 27      Possible Stops in Mobile Surface  SC>2 Sampling Program   ...   99

 28      Routes Followed by Instrumented Automobiles	103

 29      Sites in Fixed SO2 Monitoring Network	104

 30      Sites Appearing in 79th Street Traverses	117
                                      ILX

-------
     The New York City Air Pollution Project was conducted by New York Uni-
versity and was directed by the late Dr.  Ben Davidson of the Department of
Meteorology and Oceanography at New York University.  Dr. Jim Halitsky,
recently an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of
Massachusetts (Amherst), directed the Project field experiments.  The Project
laboratory research was directed by Dr.  Conrad Simon of EPA Region II, New
York City.  Dr. Danny Shieh of the IBM Scientific Center in Palo Alto, Cali-
fornia and Dr. Ray .Werner of the New York City Air Resources Board, along with
Dr. Simon, supplied information on the source emission survey of the Project.

     The helicopter soundings of the Project were carried out by Betsy and
Sandy Proudfit of the Sign-X Corporation of Essex,  Connecticut.   Additional
information concerning the analysis of the helicopter soundings was supplied
by Dr. Paul Halpern of the IBM Scientific Center in Palo Alto, California.

     Kevin Crosby, John Lynn, Richard Nederostek, Grover Prowell, and Steve
Sundell, all students at San Jose State University, participated in the
analysis of the data set.   Linda LaDuca of San Jose State University typed the
first draft of this report, and Brookhaven National Laboratory prepared the
second draft.
                                     x

-------
                                  DEDICATION

     This report is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Ben Davidson of the De-
partment of Meteorology and Oceanography at New York University.  Dr. Davidson
was the principal investigator of the New York City Air Pollution Project
conducted by New York University.
                                      XI

-------
Xll

-------
                                   SECTION I

                                 INTRODUCTICN

MCKGRQUND
     Fran 1964 to 1969, New York University (NYU) conducted the New York City
Air Pollution Project under the sponsorship of U.S. Public Health Service
Grant No. AP-00328-04.  The late Dr. Ben Davidson of the Department of Meteo-
rology and Oceanography, New York University, directed the Project.  The main
goal of the Project, as described by Davidson (1967), was to develop an urban
air pollution model for predicting the distribution of sulfur dioxide (SC^) in
New York City (NYC).  For details of the final model, see Shieh (1969) and
Shieh, Davidson, and Friend (1969).  In addition, various members of the
Project used the data collected by the extensive monitoring networks estab-
lished during the Project.  The value of these data is attested to by the
large number of titles preceded by asterisks in the list of references at the
end of Volume I.  The asterisks designate research carried out using data
collected during the Project.

     The data collected in the New York City Air Pollution Project were,
however, never published due to the untimely death of Dr. Davidson.  In 1974,
the Environmental Protection Agency awarded a contract to San Jose State
University (SJSU) to organize, collate, and publish the data.  Meteorologists
believed that the data set was unique and that it would be extremely useful to
investigators interested in studying the dynamics of the urban boundary layer
and/or the distribution of pollutants within the atmosphere over NYC.  The
contract group at San Jose State University prepared the following to document
the previously unpublished New York City Air Pollution Project data:  (1)
Volume I, which describes all the data in detail; (2) Volume II, which pre-
sents (a) emission rates of sulfur dioxide, heat, and moisture, (b) sulfur

-------
dioxide concentrations measured from fixed sites and from automotive plat-
forms, and (c) vertical profiles of sulfur dioxide concentrations and tem-
perature made from helicopters; (3) microfilm,  which contains (a) hourly
synoptic maps showing "surface" windspeed and direction at 97 sites and
showing streamline and isotach analyses,  and (b) 132 bihourly maps of hourly
average sulfur dioxide concentration isopleths for the 11 days of the three
"primary" test periods; and (4) magnetic tape,  which contains pibal measure-
ments of winds aloft (578 balloon launches).   Volume II, the microfilm, and
the magnetic tape (with card deck and print-out for reading the tape) are
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) in Spring-
field, Virginia.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

     As shown in Figure 1, the area studied in the Project is about 30%
water, 60% open country, and 10% built-up urban or suburban land.  Most of the
area is close to sea level, but the northwestern 10% of the area is highlands
ranging in elevations up to 165 m above mean sea level.

     A summary of the most important data collected during the Project is
given in Table 1.  As can be seen from the table, the Project included 12 test
periods (T-l to T-12), of from 3 to 5 days duration, during the period from
September 1965 to December 1966.  In addition,  preliminary data (PT-1) were
obtained from July 1964 to April 1965, and additional data were obtained on
days intermediate between several of the test periods (1-2/3 to 1-8/9).

     One of the 12 test periods (T-3) was cancelled before any data were
collected, and over the years some data have been lost from T-l, T-4, and T-
11.  Of the remaining eight tests, three (T-6,  T-10, and T-12) were selected
for complete documentation because of their interesting meteorological condi-
tions, observed S02 concentration patterns, general overall quality of data
and previous analysis by the Gaussian puff model of Shieh (1969).  Synoptic
conditions for each of the 12 test periods are given in Appendix I.  Greater
detail is supplied for the three "primary" test periods selected for complete
documentation.

-------
                74°I5"
74*00'
73°45'
4I°00'
40°45
40°30'H
         ATLANTIC OCEAN
      (cross-hatching indi
                                         cates built-iq? area)
                              - 41° 00
                              -40°45'
                              -40° 30'
        Numbers represent feet
       | above sea level.	
                    I

                  74° 15'
  74° 00'
 7 3° 45'
                   Figure 1.   Topography of  study  area.

-------
                  TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF THE NEW YORK CITY AIR POLLUTION PROJECT DATA SET
                                   (See text for explanation of entries.)
TEST
PERIOD
CODE (DATE)
PT-1 (7/7/64-4/30/65)

T-l (9/19/65-9/24/65)
T-2 (10/14/65-10/16/65)
1-2/3 (10/18/65)
T-3 (cancelled)
T-4 (12/7/65-12/12/65)
T-5 (2/2/66-2/5/66)
*T-3 (3/8/66-3/12/66)
1-6/7 (3/22/66-3/23/66)
T-7 (5/2/66-5/7/66)
1-7/8 (5/24/66-9/9/66)
T-8 (10/3/66-10/6/66)
1-8/9 (10/25/66-10/27/66)
T-9 (10/31/66-11/1/66)
*T-10 (11/15/66-11/17/66)

T-ll (11/23/66-11/25/66)
*T-12 (12/5/66-12/8/66)
MESOSCALE
WIND MAPS
NO. TYPE
NONE

NONE
36 NYU
NONE
NONE
NONE
96 NYU
120 SJSU
NONE
72 NYU
NONE
72 NYU
NONE
24 NYU
108 SJSU

48 NYU
72 SJSU
HELICOPTER
TEMP. SOUNDINGS
NO. TYPE
150 SIGN-X
7 NYU
23 SJ25
15 NYU
53 SIGN-X
3 NYU
3 SIGN-X
NONE
61 SIGN-X
15 SJ25
33 SIGN-X
38 NYU
5 SIGN-X
98 NYU
7 SIGN-X
2 SJ25
59 NYU
15 SJ25
134 SIGN-X
29 SJ25
5 SIGN-X
46 NYU
17 SJ25
17 NYU
19 NYU
16 SIGN-X
37 SJ10
NONE
1 SJ10
42 SIGN-X
PIBAL
WIND OBS.
NO. TYPE
853 S
74 D
136 DD
43 S
63 S
NONE
NONE
126 S
116 S
202 S
NONE
240 S
2 S
83 S
18 S
86 S
170 S

NONE
209 S
MESOSCALE
S0p MAPS
NO. TYPE
NONE

NONE
61 NYU
NONE
NONE
61 NYU
113 NYU
60 SJSU
NONE
106 NYU
NONE
62 NYU
NONE
36 NYU
50 SJSU

72 NYU
36 SJSU
HELICOPTER
S09 SOUNDINGS
NOT TYPE
49 SIGN-X
7 NYU

15 NYU
45 SIGN-X
25 NYU
NONE
NONE
36 SIGN-X
38 NYU
5 SIGN-X
98 NYU
NONE
59 NYU
49 SIGN-X
NONE
46 NYU
5 SIGN-X
NONE
17 NYU
19 NYU
16 SIGN-X
37 SJ10
NONE
7 SJ10
33 SIGN-X
* Prirrary Test Period

-------
LIST OF ARCHIVED DATA

     This section summarizes the availability of the data collected during the
New York City Air Pollution Project, referred to hereafter in the text as the
NYU/NYC data set.  Parts of the NYU/NYC data set are listed in Table 1.

     It is hoped that the NYU/NYC data set will be of use to investigators
wishing to model the various aspects of the urban boundary layer over NYC.
Additional information or data can be obtained from Robert Bornstein of the
Department of Meteorology at San Jose State University.

Bnission Inventory

     Most of the 1965 fuel usage data from which the SO2, heat, and moisture
emissions inventory was constructed at NYU is currently at SJSU, but some of
them were lost while the data set was in storage.  Cue of the 12 books con-
taining the area source fuel usage data in a large area of Brooklyn is miss-
ing, as is the fuel usage data for some of the point sources.

     The tabulated annual SO2 emissions from all of the area and point sources,
which were computed at NYU after the fuel usage data set was completed, are
described in Section 2 of Volume I and are listed in Volume II.  Section 2 of
Volume I also contains a summary of the method by which the SO2 emissions were
used to estimate the annual heat and moisture emissions associated with the
combustion of fossil fuels in NYC.  Volume I also includes a summary of the
method used to determine the daily and hourly emission rates of SO2, heat, and
moisture from the area and point sources.

Surface Wind Data

     The original surface wind data rolls are generally not available, except
for those from several of the sites operated by NYU.  The available data rolls
are currently at SJSU, as are the tabulated hourly averaged windspeed and
direction data for many of the stations.

-------
     As indicated in Table 1, the bihourly surface streamflow and isotach
analyses described in Section 4 of Volume I are available at SJSU for six. of
the test periods (indicated by "NYU").  In addition, hourly charts are avail-
able for three additional periods, i.e., those designated as the "primary"
test periods (indicated by "SJSU").  These latter charts are available at SJSU
and are on a microfilm that can be obtained from NTIS.

Pibal Wind Data

     The original data sheets from all of the pibal launches listed in Table
1 are at SJSU.  The data set, described in Section 5 of Volume I, includes
single pibal launches (designated as "S"), double pibal launches (designated
as "D"), and double-double pibal runs (designated as "DD").

     Computer programs required to correct errors in the input data and to
compute wind velocities are available at SJSU, and all of the corrected
observations are on a computer tape at SJSU.  The computed velocities from the
three primary test periods are also on computer tape at NTIS, along with the
computer program (deck and listing) required to read the winds from the tape.

Helicopter Soundings

     The original helicopter strip charts containing the SO2 and temperature
soundings taken during the periods shown in Table 1 and described in Section
3 of Volume I are at SJSU.  In addition, some of the strip charts obtained
before the first test period contain additional soundings of wet-bulb tem-
perature.  All of the soundings, and some horizontal traverses, have been
plotted, but only those from the three primary test periods are included in
Volume II.

Surface SO2 Observations

     The original strip charts from the surface S02 observation network des-
cribed in Section 6 of Volume I are available at SJSU.  Bihourly analyzed
surface charts are also available at SJSU for the 10 test periods indicated in
                                      6

-------
Table 1.  The analyzed charts from three of the 10 test periods (i.e., the
three "primary" test periods) are also on the microfilm at NTIS that contains
the surface wind analyses.  Finally, the tabulated hourly S02 values from all
of the fixed surface sites, and plotted SC>2 values obtained during a series of
automobile traverses across Manhattan taken during the sixth test period,
are contained in Volume II.

-------
                                   SECTION 2

                        SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR
                             S02, HEAT, AND WATER
INTRODUCTION
     During the New York City Air Pollution Project, Ingram, Kaiser, and Simon
 (1965) compiled, but did not publish, an inventory of the annual emission
 rates of S02 from the known fixed and mobile area and point sources in the New
 York Metropolitan region.  Emissions were computed from fuel usage data
 obtained from the following sources:  (1) the U. S. Bureau of Mines, which
 publishes an annual report on the shipment of fuel oil; (2) the New York Oil
 Heating Association; (3) the American Petroleum Institute; (4) the NYC Council
 Committee on Air Pollution; (5) the NYC Housing Authority; (6) the NYC Air
 Pollution Control Agency; (7) the NYC Fire Department; (8) the NYC Licensing
 Agency, which controls the installation, registration, licensing, and insur-
 ance of each furnace or power plant in NYC; and (9) the answers supplied to
 questionnaires.

     The SO2 emission data were used by Leahey (1969) and Leahey and Friend
 (1971) to compute the spatial distribution of the annual production of anthro-
pogenic heat in New York due to fossil fuel usage.  Their results were used in
a model of the energy balance of the NYC area.

     Volume II presents the 1965 area source emission inventory of S02, heat,
and moisture produced from the combustion of fossil fuels in the NYC area.
Similar annual emission rates are presented for the 378 point sources of S02
known to exist in the NYC area in 1965.  The 1965 emission rates are used,
even though the primary test periods selected for complete analysis were run
 in 1966.  In addition, stack height and heat emission data are presented for
                                      8

-------
many of the point sources so that estimates of plume rise values can be made.
Finally, methods are presented to compute the daily and hourly emission rates
of both the point and area sources.

ANNUAL S02 EMISSICN RATES

     The seven main types of fuel consumed in the NYC area, the uses to which
they are put, and the annual rates of consumption of each in NYC in 1965 are
listed in Table 2.  Details on the composition of natural gas are given in
Table 3.  A breakdown of the fuel usage in each of the five boroughs of NYC is
given in Table 4.

     Because fossil fuels are composed of carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur, the
combustion of these fuels produces oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, aldehydes, hydrocarbons, particulates, and
water vapor.  The quantities of these products put into the atmosphere depend
on the rate of the combustion process, the content of impurities per unit
mass, the equipment used for the combustion process, and the kinds of control
devices installed on the equipment.  For example, in the steam boilers of
Consolidated Edison power plants, 1.4 Ib of steam are added per 100 Ib of
residual oil consumed.  This is done to atomize the oil, therefore increasing
the efficiency of the combustion process.  As a result, the water vapor
emission rate from these stacks is greater than that from other point sources.

     Sulfur is found in fuels in three basic forms:  (1) pyritic sulfur, in
the form of pyrite or marcasite; (2) organic substance; and (3) sulfate, in
the form of iron or calcium sulfate.  No evidence indicates that sulfur
occurs initially in its free state.  During combustion, about 70 to 90% of the
sulfur appears in the combustion products as S02.  About half of the sulfur in
coal is carbonized in "byproduct ovens" and is retained as coke.

     The basic equations for the combustion of coal (after the sulfur has been
released) are:

-------
                         TABLE 2.  FUEL TYPES USED IN NYC DURING 1965
    Fuel Type
                 Uses
    Annual
  Consumption
 Bituminous coal
Space heating and firing of industrial
boilers
    x 10  tons
 Anthracite coal
Residential space heating
0.72 x 10  tons
Distillate oil
Space heating of small apartment
houses
1.5 x 10^ gal.
 Residual oil #6
Space heating of large apartment houses
and operation of industrial plants and
factories
2.6 x 10y gal.
   Natural gas
Fuel in power plants, energy  for
industrial plants, space heating,  and
home cooking
1.6? x 1011 ft.3
    Gasoline


     Diesel
Automobiles, trucks, and buses
Automobiles, trucks, and buses
1.1 x 10? gal.
66.6 x ICT gal.

-------
          TABLE 3.  COMPOSITION OF UNCCMBUSTED NATURAL GAS AND GENERATION OF WATER
                                     BY COMBUSTION
 Paraffin
Hydrocarbon
                    Fraction  of
                  Total Mass  (%)
            After Combustion
Water Content        Water  Content
by volume  (%)         by mass  (%)
    CH
                       93.45
   186.90
210.26
   C2H6
                        3.67
     11.01
  6.61
   C H
     n
                        1.78
     7.12
  2.92
  4 10


Others
                           0.65
                           0.45
                                              3.25
                           1.01
                  Total  100.00%
                                      Total 208.28%
                   Total 220.8%

-------
      TABLE 4.   FUEL USAGE BY AREA SOURCES IN NEW YORK CITY DURING 1965
FUEL TYPES
BRONX
BROOKLYN
STATEN
ISLAND
MANHATTAN
DOMESTIC FUEL

 Bituminous coal (ton)
 Anthracite coal (ton)
 Distillate oil (103gal)
 Residual oil (103gal)
 Natural gas (106ft3)

CX11MERCIAL-O3VEEINMENT

 Bituminous coal (ton)
 Anthracite coal (ton)
 Distillate oil (103gal)
 Residual oil (103gal)
 Natural gas (106ft3)

INDUSTRIAL FUEL

 Bituminous coal (ton)
 Anthracite coal (ton)
 Distillate oil (103gal)
 Residual oil (103gal)
 Natural gas (106ft3)

POWER PLANTS

 Bituminous coal (ton)
 Residual oil (103gal)
 Natural gas (106ft3)

TRAFFIC
 Gasoline (103gal)
 Diesel (103gal)

TOTAL FUEL USE

 Bituminous coal (ton)
 Anthracite coal (ton)
 Distillate oil (103gal)
 Residual oil (103gal)
 Natural gas (106ft3)
6343
120507
132056
215629
7520
3847
148300
482305
233111
29535
365
6554
28525
14738
4922
9221
175422
18288
398552
4823
2170
37556
412912
120018
21367
 10000
 41508
 51501
 64170
  2581
 20000

  6427
 17425
  1230
122438
  9546
145586
  8908
   6300
  67202
 152701
 179762
   6341
  21037

  25246
 116713
   3040
 432200
 253512
    793
 233836
  13692
  1000
 30248
 15417
  7240
  1057
  1000

  6185
 13372
   506
669700
  3948
 32006
  2558
    10000
    64313
    32823
    85184
     7298
    20000

     9597
    33376
     3346
  2232900
   185052
    24779
   253167
    13529
   3000
  31525
 112734
 117980
   5306
  15000

  13341
  83057
   2515
1916600
 320630
  30124
 424113
  27872
36343
162015
189984
419662
21147
463384
215502
660252
783098
39709
672065
36802
50127
39298
6485
2272121
239735
60708
702164
40246
1936770
69081
538987
641685
59312
                                      12

-------
                                  C + O2 •»• CD2                         (1)

                                 2C + 02 + 200                         (2)

                                2H2 + 02 -»• 2H20                        (3)

                                 S + 02 + S02   .                       (4)

Equation 1 is the result of total combustion, while Equation 2 results during
partial combustion.

     The general formula for the combustion of oil and gas is

                       CxHy + (x + |) 02 + x 002 + | H20,              (5)

where

                                  y = 2X + 2                           (6)
if the hydrocarbon C H  is saturated.
     The sulfur content of each of the fuel types used in the NYC area is
given in Table 5, as is the rate of emission of S02 per unit of fuel consumed.

     Multiplication of the seven S02 emission factors of Table 5 by the
corresponding seven fuel usage rates for each 1-mile by 1-mile grid area
yields the S02 emission rates for each fuel type.  Summation of these partial
emission rates in each square grid area yields the annual S02 area (fixed and
mobile) source emission rates tabulated in Volume II.  The origin of the grid
shown in Volume II is at Battery Park, which lies at the southern tip of
Manhattan Island.

     For studies requiring a more detailed emission pattern, a 0.5-mile by
0.5-mile area source grid was constructed over Manhattan Island, the region of
maximum S02 emission.  In computing the emission rates for this finer grid
                                      13

-------
                     TABLE 5.  SULFUR CONTENT OF FUELS USED IN NYC
   Fuel Type
Sulfur Content (%}
      so2
Emission Factor
Bituminous coal

Anthracite coal

Distillate oil

 Residual oil

 Natural gas

  Gasoline

   Diesel
      1.875

      0.625

      0.575
      2.450

      4 ppm

      0.030

      0.300
 75-0 Ib/ton

 25.0 Ib/ton

 85.0 lb/103 gal

390.0 lb/103 gal

  0.6 lb/106 ft3

  5.0 lb/103 gal

 45.0 lb/103 gal

-------
(see Volume II for results), emissions from the larger grid areas were assumed
to be homogeneously distributed over built-up areas of the city, while emis-
sions from the rivers around Manhattan and from Central Park were taken to be
zero.  Results presented in Section 6 demonstrate the effect of area source
grid size on the concentrations of SO2 predicted by an urban air pollution
model.

     A summary of the area source emissions of S02 in each borough, for each
use of each fuel type is given in Table 6.  Table 7 presents a tabulation of
some of the same data by percentages.  The total area source emissions of S02
in NYC during 1965 was 7.35 x 105 tons; Tables 8 and 9 summarize the breakdown
of this emission by fuel type and source type, respectively.

     There were 378 point sources of S02 in the NYC area in 1965, each with an
annual emission rate of at least 100 tons of S02.  The location of each point
source is given both in Table 10 and in Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c).  Three
projections are needed to show the many point sources.  Only one set of lati-
tude and longitude values is indicated for those sites having more than one
stack, but separate stack parameters are given for each stack.  As seen in the
figure, the sources have been grouped according to source type; i.e., "P" is
for power plants, "M" is for manufacturing concerns, "C" is for commercial
concerns, and "H" is for hospitals.  They are so listed with their annual S02
emission rates in Volume II.  The 205 point sources within NYC emitted 3.67 x
105 tons of SO2 per year, which is about one-half that emitted by the area
sources within the city.

     Stack height and diameter, as well as effluent temperature and velocity
(needed for plume rise computations) are given for each stack, when available,
in Table 10.  The NYC Department of Air Resources supplied these stack para-
meters to SJSU from their 1970 emissions inventory.  In many plume rise
formulations, these stack parameters must be used to compute the effective
flow rate at standard conditions, i.e., at an effluent temperature of 294°K.
When stack parameters are not available for a given stack, it is recommended
that the stack heat emission rates of Volume II be substituted.  The stack
heat emission values were obtained following the procedure outlined  in this

                                      15

-------
TABLE 6.  ANNUAL EMISSION OF S02 IN TONS PER YEAR FROM AREA
          SOURCES IN NYC DURING 1965 BY BOROUGH

DOMESTIC FUEL
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
TOTAL
OMIERCIAL^VERNMENT
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
TOTAL
INDUSTRIAL FUEL
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
TOTAL
POWER PLANTS
Bituminous Coal
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
TOTAL
TOTAL FUEL
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
TOTAL
REFUSE DISPOSAL
NDBILE SOURCES
Gasoline
Diesel
TOTAL NON FUEL
GRAND TOTAL
BRONX

238
1506
5612
42048
2
49406

375
519
2189
12513
1
15597

750
-
273
3398
—
4421

-
22552
3
22555

1363
2025
8074
80511
6
91979
207

364
200
771
92750
BROOKLYN

144
1854
20498
45457
9
67962

236
840
6490
35054
2
42622

789
-
1073
22759
1
24622

14406
45683
—
60089

15575
2694
28061
148953
11
195294
830

549
308
1687
196981
STATEN
ISLAND

14
82
1212
2874
2
4184

38
378
655
1412
—
2483

38
—
263
2608
—
2909

13367
678
_
14045

13457
460
2130
7572
2
23621
4

80
58
142
23763
MANHATTAN

346
2193
777
77718
1
81035

375
804
1395
16611
2
19187

750
—
408
6508
1
7667

84228
34027
7
118262

85699
2997
2580
134864
11
226151
772

633
304
1709
227860
QCMS

81
470
17549
23404
6
41510

112
394
4791
23006
2
28305

563
—
567
16196
1
17327

44791
60182
9
104982

45547
864
22907
122788
18
192124
103

1060
627
1790
193914
                           16

-------
TABLE 7.  PERCENTAGE OF S02 EMITTED FROM EACH FUEL TYPE  IN EACH BOROUGH OF NYC

Fuel Type
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil # 4
Residual oil # 6
Natural gas
Gasoline
Diesel
TOTAL
Bronx
1.45
2.16
8.60
87.18
0.01
0.39
0.21
100.00%
Brooklyn
8.61
1.34
13.91
75.69
0.01
0.29
0.15
100.00%
Queens
32.53
0.39
10.26
56.05
0.01
0.48
0.28
100.00%
Manhattan
37.26
1.31
1.13
59.88
0.01
0.28
0.13
100.00%
Staten Island
70.80
1.29
5.99
21.53
0.01
0.22
0.16
100.00%

-------
TABLE 8.  EMISSION OF S02 FROM AREA SOURCES IN NYC DURING 1965 BY FUEL TYPE
FUEL TYPE
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Gasoline
Diesel

TOTAL S02 EMITTED (ton)
161,641
9,040
63,752
494,688
48
2,686
1,497
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
22.0
1.2
8.7
67.5
-
0.4
0.2
100.0$

        TABLE 9.   EMISSION OF SO2 FROM AREA SOURCES IN NYC DURING 1965
                                 BY FUEL USAGE

FUEL USAGE
Domestic
Industrial
Government &
Commercial
Power Plants
Refuse incineration
Motor vehicle

TOTAL S02 EMITTED (ton)
244,097
56,946
108,194
319,993
1,916
4,183
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
33-2
7-7
14.7
43-5
0.3
0.6
100.0%
                                   18

-------
        TABLE 10.  LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE, AS WELL AS STACK HEIGHT AND
              DIAMETER AND EFFLUENT TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY, FOR
             POINT SOURCES EMITTING MORE THAN 100 TONS OF S02 PER
                             YEAR LN THE NYC AREA



L
OCA
LATITUDE
Number
P-l
P-2
P-3-1
P-3-2
P-3-3
P-3-4
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7-1
P-7-5
P-7-7
P-8
P-9-1
P-9-2
P-9-3
P-9-4
P-10
P-ll-1
P-ll-2
P-ll-3
P-ll-4
P-12
P-13-1
P-13-2
P-13-3
P-14-1
P-14-2
P-15
P-16-1
P-16-2
P-17-1
P-17-2
P-17-3
P-17-4
P-17-5
P-18
P-19
P-20-1
P-20-2
P-21
(deg)
40
40
40



40
40
40
40


40
40



40
40



40
40


40

40
40

40




40
41
40

40
(min)
33
35
44



44
44
49
46


46
42



42
43



44
44


45

45
47

47




53
15
36

44
(sec)
43
06
10



00
40
55
08


18
00



00
23



45
56


16

58
00

46




18
12
08

40
T I 0 N


LONGITUDE
(deg)
74
74
74



74
74
74
73


73
73



73
73



73
73


73

73
73

73




73
73
73

74
(min)
14
12
07



06
04
01
59


59
59



58
58



58
58


56

57
55

55




55
58
40

04
(sec)
50
11
25



30
42
20
51


32
08



32
52



40
29


57

17
02

02




42
06
10

42
STAC
Height
(m)

157.89
83.82
83.82
83.82
83.82



160.93
74.98
74.98

117.96
117.96
117.96
117.96

115.21
115.21
115.21
115.21
120.09
146.30
146.30
146.30
156.97
156.97
158.50
96.01
96.01
89.61
89.61
89.61
89.61
89.61
102.41
143.26
106.68
76.20
67.97
K P A R A M E
Temp.
(k)

388.64
435.90
566.56
566.56
424.78



474.82
473.15
473.15

444.24
444.24
444 . 24
444.24

458.14
458.14
458.14
458.14
488.72
438.12
438.12
435.34
416.44
416.44
464.26
419.22
419.22
454.25
454.25
454.25
454.25
454.25
424.78
497.06
405.32
408.10
435.90
T E R S
Dia. Velocity
(m) <

5.85
4.75
5.30
5.30
4.79



5.03
4.57
4.57

7.07
7.07
7.07
7.07

6.58
6.58
6.58
6.58
6.10
6.22
6.22
6.10
7.19
4.18
4.88
4.11
4.11
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
5.97
2.65
3.11
4.88
4.88
(m-s'l-)

19.51
2.13
2.44
0.61
0.30



7.32
10.36
4.27

3.05
5.79
8.84
3.05

5.79
6.71
6.10
5.79
3.05
3.96
5.18
3.96
10.67
33.53
10.67
13.72
16.76
5.79
5.49
4.88
5.79
5.79
6.71
26.21
18.59
2.74
6.71
(continued)
                                      19

-------
                             TABLE 10 (continued)
                  LOCATION
STACK  PARAMETERS
LATITUDE
Number
7-22-1
P-22-2
P-22-3
P-23
P-24-1
P-24-2
P-25
P-26
P-27-1
P-27-2
P-27-3
P-27-4
P-27-5
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-ll-1
C-ll-2
C-12-1
C-12-2
C-12-3
C-13
C-14-1
C-14-2
C-14-3
C-14-4
C-14-5
C-14-6
C-14-7
C-14-8
C-15-1
C-15-2
C-16
C-17-1
C-17-2
(deg)
40


40
40

40
40
41




40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40


40
40







40

40
40

(min)
29


28
38

36
49
15




53
47
50
46
52
49
51
56
55
55
43

42


44
44







39

38
39

(sec)
25


33
18

29
24
12




43
51
11
29
10
35
20
08
47
57
17

51


25
04







24

40
39

LONGITUDE
(deg)
74


74
74

73
73
73




74
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74

74


74
74







74

74
74

(min)
17


21
13

46
39
59




04
59
05
08
07
08
11
11
09
09
07

08


09
07







06

08
10

(sec)
05


22
29

30
43
05




42
58
09
05
04
05
01
14
53
25
51

00


58
11







45

59
26

Height
(m)
67.06
67.06
64.01

68.58
68.58
81.08
75.29
74.68
53.34
53.34
61.87
65.53

36.58








15.24
15.24
76.20
76.20
76.20

30.48
28.96
24.38
30.48
30.48
30.48
30.48
27.432
56.39
56.39

36.58
36.58
Temp.
(k)
444.24
444.24
449.80

399.76
402.54
410.88
408.10
419.22
433.12
433.12
433.12
419.22

449.80








537.09
537.09
449.80
345.83
345.83

449.80
330.26
330.26
330.26
330.26
330.26
330.26
330.26
477.60
477.60

449.80
449.80
Dia.
(m)
3.51
3.51
3.66

3.66
3.66
3.96
3.96
4.88
1.98
0.98
2.71
3.96

1.49








1.49
1.49
1.68
1.68
1.68

1.68
2.44
2.44
1.31
1.68
0.40
0.67
2.74
3.05
3.05

1.49
1.49
Velocity
(m.s-1)
13.11
14.33
13.72

4.57
9.14
7.32
18.59
4.88
4.57
18.59
24.08
9.14

11.28








5.49
5.49
1.83
3.05
4.57

6.10
3.96
2.44
6.40
10.97
18.59
10.36
1.52
14.94
14.94

30.48
11.28
(continued)
                                      20

-------
                             TABLE 10 (continued)


L 0
C A
LATITUDE
Number
C-18
C-19-1
C-19-2
C-20-1
C-20-2
C-21
C-22-1
C-22-2
C-22-3
C-23
C-24-1
C-24-2
C-24-3
025
C-26
C-27
C-28-1
C-28-2
C-29
C-30-1
C-30-2
C-30-3
C-31
C-32-1
C-32-2
C-32-3
C-33
C-34
C-35
C-36
C-37
C-38
C-39
C-40
C-41-4
C-41-5
C-41-6
C-42
M-l
M-2
M-3
M-4
(deg)
40
40

40

40
40


40
40


40
40
40
40

40
40


40
40


40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
40


40
40
40
40
40
(min) _£
41
38

36

36
36


35
35


38
36
35
34

32
32


32
32


30
28
27
38
55
59
00
04
33


49
53
48
47
51
sec)
37
02

53

29
40


48
38


19
40
48
46

31
10


10
00


49
19
27
08
26
14
57
34
23


55
53
43
41
17
T I 0 N


LONGITUDE
(deg)
74
74

74

74
74


74
74


74
74
74
74

74
74


74
74


74
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
74


74
74
73
73
74
(min) 1
13
14

15

15
12


12
12


12
12
16
13

15
16


16
15


19
26
20
11
54
53
51
50
33


05
08
59
59
03
sec)
49
02

36

57
02


49
49


49
02
38
10

44
19


30
44


31
00
00
14
43
36
12
04
17


36
12
19
59
08
STAC
Height
(m)

39.62
22.86
15.24
9.14

73.15
21.95
17.68

36.58
39.62
30.48



12.19
12.19

91.44
91.44
91.44

36.58
60.96
60.96



60.96
45.72



30.48
30.48
28.96





K P A
Temp.
(k)

449.80
449.80
449.80
449.80

324.70
324.70
310.80

449.80
449.80
449.80



530.42
530.42

728.36
728.36
329.70

449.80
811.20
922.40



474.82
477.60



449.80
449.80
1000.24





RAM
Dia.
(m)

1.49
1.49
1.01
1.01

1.37
0.49
0.49

1.83
1.83
1.83



1.19
1.19

0.91
0.91
2.19

1.49
1.01
1.68



3.66
3.05



1.83
1.83
1.19





E T E R S
Velocity
(m-s-1)

6.10
6.10
4.88
2.13

10.97
7.62
7.62

10.97
15.54
6.71



4.88
3.05

22.56
22.56
10.67

24.38
1.83
15.24



3.66
4.27



6.71
6.71
1.52





(continued)
                                      21

-------
                              TABLE 10 (continued)


L 0
C A
LATITUDE
Number
M-5
M-6
M-7-1
M-7-2
M-7-3
M-7-4
M-8-1
M-8-2
M-9
M-10
M-ll
M-12
M-13
M-14
M-15
M-16
M-17
M-18-1
M-18-2
M-19
M-20
M-21
M-22
M-23
M-24
M-25
M-26
M-27
M-28
M-29
M-30
M-31
M-32
M-33
M-34
M-35
M-36
M-37
M-38
M-39-1
M-39-2
M-40
(deg)
40
40
40



40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40
(min) _£
51
51
51



52

51
50
49
46
46
44
43
43
43
43

42
41
49
46
46
44
44
44
44
44
44
42
43
39
38
38
37
35
35
34
34

33
sec)
20
27
34



00

18
47
03
39
35
25
43
54
37
23

30
08
55
29
08
52
10
33
33
33
49
42
43
52
49
12
21
31
06
42
04

47
T I 0 N


LONGITUDE
(deg) j
74
74
74



74

74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74

74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74

74
[min) _£
06
06
06



07

07
08
08
12
14
13
09
09
09
08

08
12
01
02
04
10
09
09
08
05
01
02
11
12
12
12
19
14
14
13
13

15
sec)
17
31
44



18

38
18
45
03
25
02
39
00
07
54

05
08
07
47
29
07
53
00
45
50
32
28
01
08
08
35
20
37
04
10
23

17
STAC
Height
(m)
24.08

23.77
23.77
23.77
23.77
22.86
76.20









19.81
15.85




60.96







36.58



64.01



36.58
16.76

K P A
Temp.
(k)
449.80

449.80
449.80
449.80
449.80
449.80
449.80









449.80
449.80




449 . 80







449.80



449.80



449 . 80
449.80

RAM
Dia.
(n)
2.59

1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.52
3.05









0.98
0.21




2.10







1.49



2.13



1.49
0.67

E T E R S
Velocity
(m .s-1)
0.3JO

0.30
0.30
0.91
0.30
6.71
10.67









6.10
6.10




3.66







2.13



6.10



35.36
23.16

(continued)
                                      22

-------
                              TABLE 10 (continued)
                   LOCATION
STACK  PARAMETERS
LATITUDE
Number
M-41-1
M-41-2
M-41-3
M-42-1
M-42-2
M-43-1
M-43-2
M-44
M-45
M-46
M-47
M-48
M-49-1
M-49-2
M-50-1
M-50-2
M-51
M-52
M-53
M-54
M-55
M-56-1
M-56-2
M-57
M-58
M-59
M-60
M-61
M-62-1
M-62-2
M-63-1
M-63-2
M-64
M-65
M-66
M-67
M-68
M-69
M-70
M-71-1
M-71-2
M-72
(deg)
40


40

40

40
40
40
40
40
40

40

40
40
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40

40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40
(min)
31


31

30

30
30
30
22
31
27

26

24
27
31
38
36
35

34
38
38
39
39
40

39

40
41
41
41
40
42
43
44

43
(sec)
49


39

06

37
17
58
51
08
01

00

09
52
08
19
18
00

36
29
54
04
14
10

56

12
49
49
08
47
37
54
04

37
LONGITUDE
(deg)
74


74

74

74
74
74
74
74
74

74

74
74
74
74
74
73

73
74
74
74
74
74

74

73
74
73
73
74
73
73
74

74
(min)
15


15

16

17
20
22
25
25
20

20

01
00
14
10
02
59

58
02
01
01
01
01

00

59
00
59
59
58
58
57
57

57
(sec)
44


44

51

32
28
29
38
38
28

41

20
26
10
20
14
59

52
14
39
25
11
07

23

59
23
51
29
52
25
25
17

17
Height
(m)
44.20
67.06
21.34
68.58
12.19
56.69
61.57





30.48
30.48
18.29
42.67



38.40

60.96
60.96
30.48


80.47
48.77
11.89
11.89
60.96
60.96



6.10
36.58
80.16
32.00
60.96
60.96

Temp.
(k)
449.80
357.50
1072.52
449.80
449.80
811.20
811.20





449.80
449.80
299.68
358.62



491.50

652.74
652.74
530.62


499.84
491.50
572.12
572.12
702.78
702.78



463.70
491.50
463.70
491.50
697.22
697.22

Dia.
(m)
2.41
0.61
0.91
1.98
0.91
2.13
1.58





1.83
1.83
0.27
0.61



1.46

3.32
3.32
2.29


3.93
1.83
0.91
0.91
3.32
3.32



0.88
1.19
4.33
3.66
3.32
3.32

Velocity
(m.s-1)
24.38
21.95
20.12
9.14
15.24
14.94
14.63





7.01
7.01
17.68
14.33



1.22

14.02
14.02
1.22


1.52
1.52
4.57
4.57
18.29
18.29



6.10
2.44
2.44
0.30
18.29
18.29

(continued)
                                      23

-------
                              TABLE 10 (continued)


L
OCA
LATITUDE
Number
M-73
M-74
M-75
M-76-1
M-76-2
M-77
M-78
M-79
M-80
M-81
M-82
M-83
M-84
M-85-1
M-85-2
M-86
M-87
M-88
M-89
M-90-1
M-90-2
M-91
M-92
M-93
M-94
M-95
M-96
M-97-1
M-97-2
M-97-3
M-98
M-99
M-100
M-101
M-102
M-103
M-104
M-105
M-106-1
M-106-2
M-107
M-108
(deg)
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40


40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40
40
(min)
42
41
40
39

44
42
42
47
42
42
43
43
43

44
44
44
45
44

44
45
45
45
45
51
51


48
49
48
52
49
41
39
44
45

49
53
(sec)
10
49
28
28

04
30
40
16
41
51
17
23
47

56
56
31
08
04

21
37
58
37
47
39
49


49
14
53
31
14
39
45
04
17

55
41
T I 0 N
STACK PA
LONGITUDE
(deg)
73
73
73
73

73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73

73
73
73
73
74

74
73
73
73
73
73
73


73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73

73
73
(min)
56
56
53
52

57
50
30
51
55
55
55
55
55

55
55
56
56
00

00
59
59
59
57
55
55


53
55
53
53
51
38
34
29
28

44
49
(sec)
23
15
27
06

44
31
45
03
02
15
15
15
02

15
24
36
50
53

07
59
54
09
33
21
07


54
56
46
46
12
09
38
35
34

46
51
Height
(m)

50.29
44.20
60.96
60.96




16.76
32.92
27.43

72.85
72.85


45.72
53.34
60.96
60.96
36.58
12.19

118.26
65.23
51.82
46.33
46.33
46.33
38.10
45.72
44.77

46.33

30.48

41.15
41.15

30.48
Temp.
(k)

586.02
491.50
658.30
658.30




508.18
435.90
49.50

725.02
725.02


530.42
502.06
811.20
811.20
641.62
491.50

447.02
524.86
463.70
811.20
811.20
811.20
502.62
613.82
447.02

811.20

463.70

811.20
811.20

816.20
RAMETERS
Dia.
(m)

1.01
1.49
3.32
3.32




0.61
1.37
1.37

3.11
3.11


3.05
2.71
3.35
3.35
9.11
0.91

0.88
4.88
2.90
3.05
3.05
3.05
1.22
1.98
1.49

3.02

1.31

2.59
2.59

1.58
Velocity
(m«s~l)

6.40
2.44
19.81
19.81




20.42
1.83
3.05

24.38
24.38


0.30
0.30
14.02
14.02
0.30
6.71

3.66
5.18
0.91
18.29
18.29
18.29
3.66
3.05
1.22

7.01

6.10

32.61
33.83

6.71
(continued)
                                      24

-------
                             TABLE 10 (continued)


L
OCA
LATITUDE
Number
M-109
M-110
M-lll-1
M-lll-2
M-112
M-113
M-114
M-115
M-116
M-117
M-118
M-119
M-120
M-121
M-122
M-123-1
M-123-2
M-124
M-125
M-126-1
M-126-2
M-126-3
M-127
M-128
M-129
M-130
H-l
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
H-ll
H-12
H-13
H-14
H-15
H-16
(deg)
40
40
40

40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
40
40
40

40
40
40


40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
(min)
55
55
59

59
02
03
05
11
02
02
05
48
48
52
42

40
34
27


15
36
43
41
53
57
53
53
50
50
49
47
45
45
44
43
42
44
44
43
(sec)
06
37
24

34
44
18
01
17
10
57
57
49
59
31
30

16
25
11


26
29
33
49
58
05
12
58
41
47
18
37
47
00
30
43
26
25
15
13
T I 0 N


LONGITUDE
(deg)
73
73
73

73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
73

74
74
74


74
74
73
74
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
(min)
52
55
53

40
46
52
52
53
55
57
10
24
25
37
58

19
37
29


16
26
56
03
58
03
03
14
12
14
14
11
14
14
10
11
13
02
03
04
(sec)
47
02
36

48
30
33
47
41
24
23
20
58
32
20
08

20
33
09


06
29
19
32
31
59
22
16
49
53
01
12
33
37
47
03
16
22
03
29
                                               STACK  PARAMETERS
                                               Height  Temp.
                                                (m)      (k)
Dia.  Velocity
(m)   (m-s"1-)
                                                22.86  416.44  1.37    19.20

                                                29.87  491.50  2.04     1.22
                                                24.08  491.50  1.89     1.83
                                                23.16  558.22  1.22     3.35
                                                19.81  477.60  1.83    10.06

                                                18.29  477.60  1.92     8.84
                                                45.72  449.80  1.83     3.96
                                                22.86  485.38  1.37     6.71
                                                41.15  456.47  1.52     6.40
                                                19.20  349.72  0.40    25.91
                                                17.07  349.72  0.79    30.48
                                                45.72  349.72  0.79    30.48
                                                60.96  508.18  4.21     0.61
(continued)
                                      25

-------
                              TABLE 10 (continued)


L
OCA
LATITUDE
Number
H-17
H-18
H-19
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-29
H-30
H-31
H-32-1
H-32-2
H-33
H-34
H-35
H-36-1
H-36-2
H-37
H-38
H-39
H-40
H-41
H-42-1
H-42-2
H-43
H-44
H-45
H-46A
H-46B
H-47
H-48
H-49
H-50
H-51
H-52
H-53
H-54
(deg)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
(min)
39
40
31
30
29
27
37
35
38
37
39
39
41
40
41
43

44
43
44
43

43
44
44
45
46
48

48
48
49
30
49
50
51
51
52
51
50
01
13
(sec)
24
47
08
00
39
52
10
00
23
52
14
35
18
58
54
02

00
43
21
50

54
25
39
06
25
08

22
31
01
12
49
57
39
33
33
07
32
18
59
T I 0 N


LONGITUDE
(deg) i
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
73
73
73
74
73
73
73

73
73
73
73

73
73
73
73
73
73

73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
Ctnin) (
12
24
17
27
27
27
04
58
00
57
56
56
00
59
49
48

44
49
53
59

59
58
59
57
57
58

58
56
57
57
55
55
54
53
53
51
50
45
56
sec)
43
17
05
00
07
18
56
12
18
36
58
18
26
29
51
03

40
45
36
59

16
48
30
44
58
11

05
50
39
01
51
15
40
27
14
25
58
56
23
STAC
Height
(»)







30.48
45.72
53.34
68.58

62.79

51.82
25.30
30.18
62.79
53.34
72.24
55.47
48.77
62.10

73.46
122.83
70.10
44.20
44.50
36.88
42.37
36.27
71.63
53.34
48.77
49.68
53.34
25.91
53.34
68.58
33.53

K P A
Temp.
(k)







530.42
558.22
502.62
613.82

491.50

491.50
502.62
503.18
558.22
474.26
491.50
473.71
473.15
603.26

491.50
463.70
463.70
552.66
530.42
530.42
491.50
585.46
530.42
491.50
473.15
463.70
586.02
473.15
463.70
475.38
472.04

RAM
Dia.
(m)







2.71
2.04
6.46
5.94

2.71

2.19
0.58
1.52
2.71
4.11
2.13
2.83
2.10
1.46

1.80
4.75
1.89
1.98
1.37
2.38
1.83
3.93
3.72
2.83
2.10
1.68
1.68
1.83
2.71
3.29
1.98

E T E R S
Velocity
(m.s"1)







0.61
1.22
0.30
0.91

0.61

1.83
8.53
1.83
2.74
0.30
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22

1.22
0.91
1.83
1.83
3.96
1.83
3.05
0.30
1.83
0.30
1.23
2.13
1.22
3.05
1.52
0.6,.
1.22

(continued)
                                      26

-------
                              TABLE 10 (continued)
                  LOCATION
Number
H-55
H-56
H-57
H-58
H-59
H-60
H-61
H-62
LATITUDE
(deg)
41
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
(min)
11
02
49
47
40
34
20
17
(sec)
36
41
45
38
02
04
43
50
LONGITUDE
(deg)
74
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
(min)
00
52
30
28
33
35
14
59
(sec)
00
38
21
20
31
59
23
37
STACK  PARAMETERS
                Dia.   Velocity
                (m)
(m.s"1)
Height  Temp.
 (m)     (k)
 61.87  530.42  3.41
   1.22
                                       27

-------
40-82 3'	
40-37,8'	
                                                                          	40-S1.5'
                                      (a)
   Figure  2.   Location of point sources of S02  in NYC area during 1965.
                                       28

-------
(b)

-------
Cc)

-------
section under ANTHRCPOGENIC HEAT EMISSION RATES.  Given the uncertainties of
stack temperature measurements, it might be more accurate to compute all of
the plume rise heights using the stack heat emission data rather than the
tabulated stack parameters.

     The plumes from large point sources are capable of breaking through the
top of a surface-based inversion, or of penetrating through one of the weak
elevated inversions found over NYC by Bornstein (1968).  A procedure for
predicting the circumstances during which these breakthroughs will occur can
be found in Briggs (1966).

DAILY AND HOURLY EMISSION RATES

     Annual emission rates must be converted into hourly emission rates, which
are needed as input to urban air pollution models.  Point and area sources
have different day-to-day and hour-to-hour emission patterns, and the methods
used to convert the annual emission rates into hourly emission rates are
different for each of the two types of sources.

     To obtain data for estimating the hour-to-hour emission patterns from
area sources during different seasons, timers were attached to boilers located
in selected buildings in the NYC area.  Estimates of the diurnal variation of
boiler usage were obtained and the resulting data were used by Halpern, Simon
and Randall (1971) to relate the number of minutes per day that the boilers
were in operation to the degree day value (Figure 3).  The degree day value D
is computed as follows:

                             D = 65 - T,  T < 65,                       (7)
or
                                D = O,  T  < 65,                         (8)

where T is the average daily temperature in units of degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
The daily degree values for each day of 1965 and 1966, the period encompassing
                                      31

-------
     40
     20
        BOILER TIME ON v». DEGREE DAYS FOR APARTMENT HOUSES FOR ALL DAYS WITH MEAN TEMP<60*F
                                      r • 0.86
                     OlcuhMd Line
                     ol Lust Squam
      175 200
                   300
                             400        500         600
                              Total Minutes on Per Hay 1966
                                                            700
                                                                      800
Figure 3.   Boiler operating  time for apartment  houses as a function
        of  degree days  as observed  in NYC area for 1966 (from
                          Halpern,  et  al., 1971).
                                    32

-------
the 12 test periods of the New York City Air Pollution Project, are given in
Tables 11 and 12.

     The boiler timer data were then used to develop the following equation
relating daily emission rates of S02 to annual emission rates:

                                       D + M> SA'
where Sp is the daily emission rate of S02 from a particular area source on a
particular day, and S. is the annual emission rate of S02 from that source.

     The above relationship shows that 30% of the annual emission of S02 from
each area source is due to the production of hot water at a uniform rate
throughout the year.  The remaining 70% is due to space heating, which is
dependent on the average daily temperature.  Note that the annual sum of the
daily degree day values for NYC  is the 4871 appearing in Equation (9).

     If S. was spread uniformly  over the year, then on each day 0.27% of the
total would be emitted.  However, when Equation (9) is used to prorate S.
according to T (Figure 4), it is found that the value of (SD/SA) • 100%
varies linearly from 1.02% for a T of 0°F to 0.08% for a T equal to or greater
than 65°F.  Thus the emission on a cold day can be more than an order of
magnitude greater than that on a hot day.  The same boiler timer data were
used to develop the curves of Figures 5(a) and 5(b), which show the diurnal
variation of S02 emissions from  an area source at various average daily
temperatures.  Note that the values in the figures are for the 2-hour periods
used as the time step of integration by Shieh (1969) and thus must be divided
in half to obtain hourly emission values.

     The hour-to-hour and day-to-day emission patterns for point sources are
dependent on the type of point source under consideration.  Suggested methods
for prorating annual point source emissions into daily and hourly emission
rates are shown in Table 13.  The suggested methods are based on the following
assumptions:  (1) manufacturing  and industrial operations do not shut down,
except for repairs or maintenance; (2) commercial businesses operate only

                                      33

-------
TABLE 11.  DEGREE DAY VALUES AT CENTRAL PARK FOR 1965
DAY
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
31
JAN
34
38
37
32
28
25
27
20
17
31
35
33
28
40
50
50
52
46
44
35
34
25
29
37
31
28
31
35
44
49
43
PER
40
36
45
46
42
23
20
10
21
28
22
23
27
37
32
25
29
23
40
43
26
33
43
34
23
35
37
24
-
-
-
MARCH
28
22
19
14
22
25
18
19
18
22
31
31
28
24
24
21
24
27
21
34
36
32
17
25
26
25
24
23
27
28
30
APRIL
26
24
23
19
12
11
21
12
15
10
12
5
17
12
14
11
14
19
21
17
11
4
15
17
18
19
13
10
4
0
-
MAY
2
0
0
0
0
0
16
11
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
7
3
JUNE
0
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
6
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JULY
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
AUG
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
5
5
3
SEPT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
11
12
4
7
-
OCT
1
3
3
18
20
17
8
1
4
4
6
3
8
4
0
4
11
9
0
0
0
3
1
11
17
10
10
19
25
14
5
NOV
17
26
13
9
20
13
3
12
17
24
18
17
12
20
25
14
21
25
21
19
15
19
19
21
22
15
10
16
28
29
-
DEC
28
23
19
20
23
23
30
28
25
20
24
25
21
18
20
21
23
27
32
38
34
30
21
15
12
32
40
30
25
20
8
                         34

-------
TABLE 12.  DEGREE DAY VALUES AT CENTRAL PARK FOR 1966
DAY
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
JAN
8
20
22
26
21
21
21
34
42
26
34
44
42
28
32
46
35
30
32
28
26
29
29
33
38
43
38
51
48
36
44
FEE
38
34
31
33
37
41
38
33
28
20
11
13
19
16
24
30
31
30
37
49
40
33
31
30
29
27
26
21
-
-
-
MARCH
17
17
14
22
23
27
29
32
29
19
19
26
27
23
20
26
21
13
16
16
16
15
19
16
28
25
30
34
27
19
20
APRIL
23
20
18
19
20
18
15
19
18
19
17
16
23
15
11
11
12
9
14
20
9
6
7
14
2
4
19
24
15
14
-
MAY
8
11
8
13
8
0
10
9
19
18
12
10
5
8
3
3
6
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
JUNE
4
2
0
0
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
0
0
JULY
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
AUG
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
SEPT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
1
0
0
3
2
2
2
8
4
9
11
7
5
1
—
OCT
14
11
9
1
5
12
6
1
0
2
5
11
10
c
J
c
~>
•q
15
16
8
14
13
Q
4
c
8
Q
12
r
8
24
18
NOV
6
3
13
26
19
19
21
10
5
1
6
15
21
24
22
22
11
9
19
29
24
23
20
12
8
13
15
12
22
25
—
DEC
25
32
45
44
34
24
19
9
5
7
17
27
31
30
30
31
22
16
32
34
3^
33
36
41
37
37
35
39
27
34
3^
                          35

-------
   1.0
   0.8
< 0.6
U-
o
   0.4
o
<
CE:
   0.2
                                                T
                                            T
                      Horizontal line is value
                      of the average daily
                      emission.
                                  i.
                             1
               10
20       30        40        50

  MEAN DAILY TEMPERATURE  (°F)
60
70
     Figure 4.  Fraction of annual area source emissions  in NYC as a
                   function of mean daily temperature.
                                   36

-------
CO
   % of Doily
   Total Output
     I0r
      8
                                                       for mean daily temp, of 20°-29°F.

                                                       for mean daily temp, of 30°-39°F.
             0200  0400  0600  0800   1000    1200  1400
                                         Two - Hourly  Intervals
600   1800  2000  220O  2400
                        Figure 5.  Diurnal variation of 862 emissions from area sources at
                         various average daily temperatures (from Halpern, et al., 1971}.
                             (a)  At mean daily temperatures of less than 40°F.

-------
% of Daily
Total  Output
  I4r
  12
  10
   8
for mean daily  temp, of 40*-49*F
for mean daily  temp, of 50*-59* F
for mean daily  temp, of *• 60° F
         0200  0400  0600
0800  1000   1200   1400  1600
      Two- Hourly  Intervals
               1800   2000 2200   2400
                       (b)  At mean daily temperatures of 40 F or higher.

-------
               TABLE 13.  SUGGESTED METHODS OF PROBATING ANNUAL POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS INTO
                                    DAILY AND HOURLY EMISSIONS
            Type
      Days per Week
      Hours  per  Day
        Manufacturing
Uniformly for  seven  days
per week.
Uniformly  for  24  hours per
day.
CO
co
        Commercial
        Hospitals
Uniformly for  five working
days per week.
Non-uniformly  for  seven
days per week,  as  given
in text for  area sources.
Uniformly  for  eight working
hours per  day.
Non-uniformly  for  24 hours
per day, as given  in text
for area sources.
        Power plants
Non-uniformly  for  seven
days per week,  as  given
in text.
Non-uniformly  for  24 hours
per day, as given  in text«

-------
during normal working hours; and (3) hospitals have emission patterns similar
to those of residences.

     Since S02 emissions from power plants are much larger than those from
other point sources, an attempt was made during the New York City Air Pollu-
tion Project to obtain hourly fuel usage records from such sources in order to
compute their actual hour-by-hour S02 emissions.  The resulting data, when
available for the days of the three primary test periods, are given in Volume
II.

     Estimates of the hourly and daily S02 emissions from the remaining power
plants can be obtained from Figure 6(a) and 6(b), which show the diurnal
variations of the average total electrical load generated by Consolidated
Edison during the winter and summer of 1963, respectively.

     The average hourly generation rate (horizontal dashed line) for winter
was less than that for summer, i.e., 2995 MW versus 3162 MW, due to the pro-
duction of energy needed for air conditioning.  Had the hourly emission rates
been assumed to be uniform throughout the year, the average hourly emission
would have been 3078 MW (solid horizontal lines).

     If the hourly summer and winter rates cited above are each assumed to be
valid for 6 months, then it can be shown that 0.281% of the annual power plant
emissions will occur on each summer day, while on each winter day, 0.266% will
be emitted.  Again, had the emission rate been assumed to be uniform through-
out the year, the value would have been 0.274%.

     Had the hourly emission rates been assumed to be equal throughout the
day,  then 4.167% of the daily emission rate would have been emitted each hour.
Obviously, this is not the case, as shown by the curves of Figures 6(a) and
6(b).  However, this value, in conjunction with the average summer and winttr
hourly megawatt generation values cited above, can be used to compute the
summer and winter megawatt values corresponding to the percentages given on
the vertical axes in Figures 6(a) and 6(b).  These values can be used in
conjunction with the average winter and summer daily power plant emission
                                     40

-------
o
o:
Ld
Z
LJ
e?
(T
^
a
    4,000 -
    3,500 -
    3,000 = _
a  2,500
LJ
2,000
     1,500 -
 ,000 -
      500-
         0
          0
                       8
 12       16

t(LST)
                                                                 o
                                                                 Q
                                                        -2  o
  Figure 6.  Diurnal variation of average total hourly electrical load
           generated during winter and simmer by the entire
             Consolidated Edison power production system.
                           (a)  Winter


                                41

-------
   4,500 -
   4,000 -
    3,500 -
C/)

<  3,000
Q
LU
or
   2,500 -
o 2,000
LU
>   1,500 -
or
=3
O
I
    1,000 -
     500-
       0.
        0

-------
percentages cited above to obtain the desired winter and sunmer hourly power
plant S02 emission rates for those sites not having such values tabulated in
Volume II.

     In summary, information concerning the annual, daily, and hourly emission
rates of SO2 from area and point sources are presented.  This information can
also be used to obtain the daily and hourly emission rates of anthropogenic
heat and moisture from the annual emission rates of these quantities discussed
in the following two subsections.

ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT EMISSION RATES

     The heat production rates and densities for each fuel type used in NYC
are shown in Table 14.  The values in the table were obtained by measuring the
heat produced by the complete combustion of a unit quantity of fuel in an
oxygen-bomb calorimeter under carefully defined conditions.  Since the energy
contents listed in the table are the available energies (the sensible heat
produced upon combustion) as opposed to the thermal contents (the available
energy plus the energy required to vaporize the liquid water in the fuel) of
the fuel, the latent heat produced by the combustion process is not included
in the values computed by the method described in the following paragraph.

     The following equation was applied to the SO2 emissions from each area
source grid in the five boroughs of NYC to compute the magnitude of the
annual anthropogenic heat production term:
                                     7  S-P -H
                               H  =  E   A  *  \                        (10)
                                A   1=1    &i
where HA  is  the annual emission of heat from a particular area source grid in
       ri.
Btu per year,  S.  is the annual emission of SO2 in the grid in tons per year
                £\
(from Volume II),  P.  is the percent of the total SO2 emission in the grid from
the usage of the i-th fuel (from Table 7), Si is the SO2 emission factor for
                                      43

-------
the i-th fuel (from Table 5), and H. is the heat emission factor for the i-th
fuel (Table 14).

     Note that Sfl«P. gives the annual emission of S02 from the i-th fuel in a
                A  1
grid in tons per year, while S.-P./S, gives the annual usage of the i-th fuel
                              ri  1  1
in the grid.  This procedure, in which the values of Pi were kept constant in
each borough, was used because the usage of each fuel in all of the area
source grids was not available, as indicated in Section 1 under LIST OF
ARCHIVED DATA.  Where the values were available, a random check showed that
the magnitudes of P. in a given borough were within ±5% of the mean values
used in Equation (10).

     Results from the computation are tabulated in Volume II for:  (1) the 1-
mile by 1-mile grid; (2) the 0.5-mile by 0.5-mile grid; and (3) those point
sources in the inventory for which fuel usage data was available.

     In a typical dwelling, anywhere from 60 to 85% of the sensible heat
produced by combustion is used for space heating.  The remaining energy is
exhausted through the chimney.  However, space heating is performed mainly to
overcome the loss of energy to the atmosphere through walls and windows.  Thus
all of the energy produced by area source combustion processes has been
assumed to mix directly into the atmosphere.  Breakdown of the area source
anthropogenic heat emission rates by borough, fuel type, and fuel source are
given in Tables 15, 16, and 17.

     The procedure defined in Equation (10) could only be used for those point
sources having available fuel usage data.  In order to estimate the heat
production due to combustion for the remaining point sources, regression
equations were developed between the annual heat and S02 emissions for those
point sources having available fuel usage data.  These resulting correlations
are shown in Figures 7(a) — (d) for power plants, hospitals, commercial
establishments,  and manufacturing concerns, respectively.  These correlations
are less than unity because the various point sources within each type do not
all use the same kind of fuel.  Point sources having their annual heat emis-
sions so estimated are shown in Volume II with an asterisk next to their site
number.

-------
                TABLE 14.  ENERGY CONTENT OF FUELS USED IN NYC
   FUEL TYPE                   DENSITY (Ib/unit)      ENERGY CONTENT (Btu/unit)

Bituminous coal                        -                14,500 Btu/lb

Anthracite coal                        -                13,500 Btu/lb

Grade #4 oil                    7.6 Ib/gal             145,000 Btu/gal

Grade #6 oil                    8.1 Ib/gal             150,000 Btu/gal

Natural gas                     0.052 lb/ft3             1,025 Btu/ft3

Gasoline                        6.9 Ib/gal             138,000 Btu/gal

Diesel                          6.9 Ib/gal             131,000 Btu/gal
          TABLE 15.  EMISSION OF ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT FROM AREA SOURCES
                         IN NYC DURING 1965 BY BOROUGH

Borough
Queens
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Bronx
Staten Island
Totals
Btu/Year
3.5 x lO14
3.0 x 1011*
2.6 x I0lk
1.4 x 1014
0.4 x 1011+
10.9 x 1011+
% of Total
32
27
24
13
4
100%
                                      45

-------
TABLE 16.  MISSION OF ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT FRCM AREA
              IN NYC DURING 1965 BY FUEL TYPE
Fuel Type
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
Gasoline
Diesel
Total
Total Heat Production
(1013 Btu/Year)
15.60
1.95
21.75
38.79
17.11
15.02
0.87
111.09
Percentage
14.0
1.8
19.6
34.9
15.4
13.5
0.8
100.0%

TABLE 17.
EMISSION OF ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT FROM AREA
IN NYC DURING 1965 BY FUEL USAGE
SOURCES

Fuel Use
Domestic
Industrial
Government-
Cornnercial
Power Plants
Motor Vehicle
Total
Total Heat Production
(1013 Btu/Year)
38.67
15.12
6.15
35.20
15.90
111.04
Percentage
34.8
13.6
5.6
31.7
14.3
100.0%
                           46

-------
 n
 
-------
                                        H = 0.08S - 1.42x10


                                        r = 1.00
                                                           -3
00
                           12
                           10
                       1-1
                       <0
                       0)
o
4J
O
2    6
                                                       I
                                         20
40          60

 Heat  (10  Btu/year)
                                                                              80
                                                                    100
                                                  (b)  Hospitals.

-------
                 H =  0.1S  -  25.1


                 r =  0.92
CO
 o
 4-1
 <=>   3
  CM


 8   2
                   100
200         300


 Heat (10  Btu/year)
400
500
600
                         (c)  Coranercial establishments.

-------
Cn

O
                      16
                      14
                      12
                      10
o

8
o
                   CM

                  O

                  CO
                                  H = 0.06S -H 26.4



                                  r = 0.72
                                    40
                              80
120
160
200
240
                                                         ,10
                                                 Heat (10  Btu/year)
                                           (d)  Manufacturing concerns.

-------
     The heat produced by combustion in most point sources is divided as
follows:  (1) heat exhausted through the stack; (2) heat lost in the condenser
system, and drained in the form of water; (3) heat used for power; and (4)
heat lost by radiation and other forms of leakage.  The average sum of the
last three items is generally given as 85% for most types of point sources,
and as 90% for power plants.

     Thus only either 10 or 15% of the heat computed from Equation (10), and
tabulated in Volume II, actually enters the atmosphere in the form of "point
source" sensible heat emissions.  It is this amount of heat, rather than that
computed from the stack temperatures, that could be used in the plume rise
computation discussed in this section under ANNUAL S02 EMISSION RATES.

     The remaining 90% of the energy produced by the power plants, and 85% of
the energy produced by the other point sources, eventually does enter the
atmosphere.  Thus this energy should be added to the "area source" heat
emission value (given in Volume II) for the grid area in which the particular
point source is located.  Note again that the latent energy leaving the stack
is not  included in the values computed by Equation (10), but is discussed in
the following subsection.

ANTHROPOGENIC MOISTURE EMISSION RATES

     Production rates of water vapor from the combustion of coal and of gas/oil
can be  caluclated using Equation (5) and (3), respectively.  For coal, 1 gram
of hydrogen  (H2) produces 18 grams of water, while y grams of H2 per mole of
gas or  oil produces 18 y/2 or 9 y grams of water per mole, where 9 is the
ratio of the molecular weights of water and hydrogen.

     The composition of natural gas is given in Table 3, as are the water
contents by volume and by mass of each component.  The  "by volume" values were
evaluated by multiplying each coefficient of the  final  term of Equation  (5),
i.e., y/2, by each percentage in the second column of the table.  The "by
mass" values were obtained by multiplying each percentage in the second column
by the  ratio of the total mass of water formed to the mass of the particular
                                      51

-------
hydrocarbon being combusted.  Water production factors for each of the fuel
types are shown in Table 18, where the liquid water content of each coal was
determined by drying under standard conditions for 1 hour at temperatures
ranging from 104° to 110°C.

     The following equation, analogous to Equation (10), was used for the
evaluation of the magnitude of annual anthropogenic moisture production from
each of the area sources:

                                   7  S.-P.-M.
where M. is the annual emission of moisture from a particular area source grid
in grams per year; and M. is the moisture emission factor for the i-th fuel
(from Table 18).  Note that the values of P. were again kept constant in each
borough, as described in the previous subsection.

     Results from the computation are tabulated in Volume II for (1) the 1-
mile by 1-mile grid, (2) the 0.5-mile by 0.5-mile grid, and (3) those point
sources in the inventory for which fuel usage data was available.  Breakdowns
of the area source anthropogenic moisture emission rates by borough, fuel
type, and fuel source are given in Table 19, 20, and 21, respectively.  A
summary is presented in Table 22.

     Again, the procedure defined in Equation (11) could only be carried out
for those point sources for which fuel usage data was available.  R>r the
other point sources, the regression equations of Figures 8(a) — (d) were used
to estimate the annual anthropogenic moisture emission rates.  These correla-
tions differ from those shown in the previous subsection because the various
point sources within each type do not all use the same kind of fuel.  Point
sources having their annual moisture emissions so estimated (see Volume II for
the tabulated values) are shown in Volume II with an asterisk next to their
site number.
                                      52

-------
Ol
CO
                           TABLE 18.   MOISTURE CONTENT OF FUELS USED IN NEW YORK CITY
                                             (PERCENTS ARE BY MASS)

Fuel Type
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Gasoline
Diesel
H2 (%)
5.14
2.70
11.63
11.63

15.00
15.00
Gaseous
H(~> fOf \
2u ^ id)
46.26
24.30
104.67
1O4.67
220.80
135.00
135.00
Liquid Total
H20 (%) H20 (%)
2.0 48.26
2.2 26.50
104.67
104.67
220.80
135.00
135.00
H20 Released
Per Unit
0.4826 Ib/lb
0.265 Ib/lb
7.955 Ib/gal
8.478 Ib/gal
0.11 lb/ft3
9.315 Ib/gal
9.315 Ib/gal

-------
TABLE 19.  EMISSION OF AjmffiQPOGENIC MOISTURE FROM AREA SOURCES IN NYC
                        DURING 1965 BY BOROUGH

Borough
Queens
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Bronx
Staten Island
12
Production (10 gm/year)
10.13
8.60
7.06
3-99
0.92
TOTAL 30.69
Percentage
of Total
33
28
23
13
3
100

-------
Ol
Ul
                     TABLE 20.  EMISSION OF ANTHROPOGENIC MOISTURE FROM AREA SOURCES IN NYC
                                            DURING 1965 BY FUEL TYPE

Fuel Type
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal

Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Gasoline
Diesel
TOTAL
12
Production (10 gm/year)
2.35
0.17
*'
5.05
9.93
8.32
4.59
0.28
30.69
Percentage of
Total
7.7
0.6

16.4
32.3
27-1
15.0
0.9
100.0

-------
TABLE 21.  MISSION OF ANTHROPOGENIC MOISTURE FROM AREA SOURCES IN NYC
                       DURING 1965 BY FUEL USAGE

Source Type
Domestic
Industrial
Government &
Commercial
Power Plants
Motor Vehicle

12
Production (10 gm/year)
10.91
1.78
4.18
8.95
4.87
TOTAL 30.69
Percentage
of Total
35-5
5-8
13.6
29-2
15.9
100.0

-------
TABLE 22.  SUMMARY OF ANTHROPOGENIC MOISTURE EMISSION FROM AREA SOURCES
             IN NEW YORK CITY DURING 1965 IN 1010 gm/YEAR

FUEL
DOMESTIC FUEL
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural Gas
COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
INDUSTRIAL FUEL
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
POWER PLANTS
Bituminous coal
Residual oil
Natural gas
TRAFFIC
Gasoline
Diesel
TOTAL MOISTURE PRODUCTION
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
BRONX

0.28
2.89
44.45
82.81
37.47

0.44
1.00
17.33
24.65
14.21

0.88
—
2.16
6.69
6.13

_
47.02
47.57

61.43
3.76

1.59
3.89
63.95
161.17
105.38
BROOKLYN

0.17
3.56
162.33
89.53
147.17

0.28
1.61
51.40
69.04
31.60

0.92
—
8.50
44.82
15.14

18.90
97.36
3.95

98.67
5.78

20.26
5.17
222.23
300.75
197.87
STATEN
ISLAND

0.02
0.16
9.60
5.66
24.53

0.04
0.73
5.19
2.78
5.27

0.04
—
2.08
5:14
2.52

29.28
1.52
-

13.51
1.08

29.39
0.88
16.87
15.09
32.32
MANHATTAN

0.40
4.21
6.16
153.07
24.03

0.44
1.54
11.05
32.72
36.37

0.88
_
3.23
12.82
16.67

97.63
71.07
123.47

106.83
5.71

99.35
5.76
20.43
269.67
200.55
QUEENS

0.10
0.90
138.98
46.09
106.47

0.13
0.76
37.94
45.31
26.44

0.66
-
4.49
31.90
12.53

83.80
123.14
150.11

178.96
11.76

84.68
1.66
181.41
246.44
295.55
                                 57

-------
                      M  =  2.26xlO"3S  -  6.99

                      r  =  0.77
en
oo
       CO
       
-------
                M = 1.97x!0"3S + 3.65x!0"3

                r = 1.00
    14
    12
    10
o
2    6
 CM
                  0.5
1.0
1.5
 10
2.0
                               Moisture (10  gm/year)
2.5
3.0
                                  (b)  Hospitals.

-------
                  M = 3.3xlO~3S  -  1.65


                  r = 0.89
     7  r
 «B
 
-------
                  M = 2.34x!0"3S + 0.16


                  r = 0.86
    16
    1A
    12
    10
CB

0)
o

8
o
O

w    4
                                Moisture  (10   gm/year)
                           (d)  Manuf act taring concerns.

-------
     Whether or not the latent energy associated with these anthropogenic
emissions of water vapor is converted to sensible heat as a result of atmos-
pheric condensation processes depends on atmospheric conditions at the time of
the emission.  Results from Tarn and Bornstein (1975) have demonstrated some
effects on the dynamics of the urban boundary layer resulting from the emis-
sion of anthropogenic moisture.
                                     62

-------
                                   SECTION 3

                            AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PROGRAM

FLIGHT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

     The main objective of the aircraft flight program, carried out by the
Sign-X Labs of Essex, Connecticutt, was to determine the three dimensional
distributions of temperature, humidity, and S02 concentrations over metro-
politan NYC.  The area covered by the flights was roughly circular, approxi-
mately 40 km in radius, and centered on Manhattan.  The vertical dimensions of
the area extended upwards from the surface to about 1 km.

     Particular flight patterns followed by the aircraft, as well as the
selection of the appropriate aircraft to be flown, were based on the indivi-
dual mission to be carried out.  The missions included determination of heat
island characteristics, atmospheric stability, and horizontal and vertical
fluxes of SO2.

     Soundings were generally taken during each 2-hour flight as follows:
first at rural locations upwind of NYC, then over suburban and urban areas,
and finally downwind of the city.  In addition to the soundings taken in the
vertical plane along the wind, soundings in vertical planes across the wind
were also made, bringing the total number of soundings for each flight to
about 12.  There were generally three such flights per day:  one near sunrise,
one near midday, and one in the late afternoon.

     The optimum flight pattern needed to accomplish the above missions
consisted of a series of climbing traverses and spiral descents.  The descents
were made over an area generally less than 1 km in diameter, using coordinated
turns and producing a helical pattern.
                                      63

-------
     When the primary objective of a flight was to obtain the S02 flux along
and across several significant levels,  a series of horizontal traverses normal
to the wind were made at the appropriate heights.   The first set of traverses
was made upwind of the source, and the final set was made at a distance of
from 16 to 32 km downwind.  The downwind distance  divided by the time between
the first and last traverses was,  ideally,  equal to the mean windspeed.  When
information was desired at distances up to 80 km downwind of NYC, observations
were taken at heights up to 2 km above the surface, and a light plane was used
instead of a helicopter.

AIRCRAFT INSTRUMEOTATION

     The primary crafts used in the study were a Brantly B2 helicopter and a
Piper PA-12 light plane.  On missions where the size and weight capabilities
of the B2 were insufficient, a Bell 47J helicopter was used.  The Brantly B2
is capable of carrying two persons (a pilot and an observer) and approximately
35 kg of equipment.  It is capable of maintaining speeds of from zero to
approximately 40 m-s"1, and it can fly for approximately 2.25 hours.  Although
its weight and size capabilities are limited, the specially designed equipment
used in the study made its use feasible at a cost  significantly lower than
that associated with other helicopters.

     The Piper PA-12 is capable of carrying three persons and a small equip-
ment load, or two people (pilot and observer) with as much as 70 kg of equip-
ment, and it has about 50% more available space than the B2.  Its speed range
is from about 29 to 51 m-s"1 and its maximum flight duration is about 6 hours.
The Bell 47J can carry as much as 160 kg and can fly up to 45 m-s-1, but it
has a shorter flight duration of about 1.75 hours.  More recent models have
improved performance capabilities.

     Initially, concern existed as to whether transducers could be located .'n
undisturbed air when mounted outside of a helicopter.  Since the blades
constitute a rotating wind, and not a thrust device, for speeds above about
4.5 m-s-1 and at altitudes greater than 3 m, the "downwash" area was located
aft of transducers placed ahead of, or on, the forward position of the skid.

                                      64

-------
Tufts, or short streamers, were placed on a probe attached to, and extending
ahead of, the skids.  At airspeeds above 13 m-s"1, the "downwash" area occur-
red aft of the cockpit door.  During traverses, the helicopters were flown at
speeds of approximately 35 m-s"1.  During soundings, a speed of 27 m-s-1 was
maintained.  On the light plane, the transducers were located in the undis-
turbed air below the leading edge of the wing and were a considerable distance
from the effect of "prop wash."

     The Brantly B2 helicopter was selected as the primary vehicle for the
small scale studies because of its comparatively low operating costs.  How-
ever, because of its relatively small size, special attention had to be given
to the size, weight, and power requirements of the instrument package.  The
instrument package also had to be designed so that it could be quickly in-
stalled or removed from the helicopter, so as to avoid "down time" charges.
The helicopter was leased from a commercial operator, and when not flown on
the pollution study, it was used for charter and student instruction.  Once
the size and weight problems of the Brantly were satisfied, the package could
be easily installed in the larger aircraft, i.e., the Bell and the Piper.

      The following four measurements were generally made during the 1964 and
1965  flights:  temperature, wet-bulb depression, pressure-height, and sulfur
dioxide concentration.  However, due to a lack of interest in the moisture
measurements, wet-bulb observations were generally not taken in 1966.

      The temperature sensor consisted of a semiconductor head.  The output of
the head was a linear function of temperature and had a time constant of
approximately 0.2 s.  The overall temperature measuring system, consisting of
sensor, amplifier, and recorder, had a relative accuracy of 0.2°C and an
absolute accuracy of 0.5°C.  The wet-bulb depression sensor consisted of a
double thermocouple.  Each thermocouple had 30 thermof unctions, and one
thermocouple was fed with distilled water.  The time constant of the wet-bulb
depression sensor was 0.1-0.2 s, and its accuracy was 0.2°C.

      The pressure-height unit had two aneroid cells driving a potentiometer.
The output of the potentiometer was linear with pressure-height according to

                                      65

-------
the standard atmosphere.  The time constant of the unit was less than 0.05 ms
and its accuracy was about 10 m.   The sulfur dioxide unit was of the electro-
conductivity type, with a time constant of approximately 30 s.  However, the
electroconductivity method is not specific for SO2; the main interference is
from C02.  The calibration procedure described in Section 6 under CALIBRATION
PROCEDURES includes this effect and allows for a probable accuracy of 10-30%.
The S02 measurements required a unit separate from the rest of the instrument
package, so the unit was located in the baggage compartment  of the helicopter
or over the baggage compartment in the plane.

         The temperature and wet-bulb depression units were located in a
double radiation shielded housing mounted to the forward tip of the left skid
of the helicopter, or on the junction of the strut and the left wing on the
plane.  The S02 intake was at roughly the same point on the helicopter, but
somewhat more inboard on the plane.  The pressure-height unit was fed from a
point of static pressure known to be unaffected by airspeed.

     The outputs of the transducers were amplified and fed to a four-channel
rectilinear ink strip chart recorder.  The recorder's channel width was 40 mm
and its chart speed was either 0.5 or 2.0 mm-s"1.  Two event-markers allowed
for the timing and recording of miscellaneous information, such as location,
notes, and photograph number.  The recording point and about 6 inches of
recordings were visible to the flight observer.
     The scales used were as follows:  temperature and wet-bulb depression at
0.2 C per mm; pressure-height at 10 m-mnr1; and S02 at 2.5 pphm-imr1.  There
were six temperature scales of 8°C, which overlapped for 2°C; two wet-bulb
depression scales of 8 C, which overlapped for 2°C; six pressure-height scales
of 400 m, which overlapped for 100 m; and two SO2 scales of 0-1 and 0-5 ppm.
     Analogue records of pressure-height, temperature, wet-bulb depression,
and S02 concentration versus time were obtained from each flight.  An obser-
ver's notebook gave location and other information corresponding to the event
marks on the chart record.  These notes were written on the chart record at
                                      66

-------
the appropriate times, and a map of the flight path was drawn showing the
geographic location of the vertical soundings and horizontal and/or climbing
traverses.

     Prior to and after each flight, laboratory calibrations of pressure-
height, temperature, and wet-bulb depression were made.  In addition, a
comparison was made in the field, prior to and after each flight, between the
indicated temperature and a standard thermometer.  Flight measurements,
conducted to determine effect of dynamic heating, showed that at the flight
speeds used (27-35 m-s-1) the effect was about 0.3°C.  The S02 unit was
periodically calibrated in the laboratory for both SO2 and 002, as described
in Section 6 under CALIBRATION PROCEDURES.

     A miniature version of the Davis electroconductivity unit was required
for airborne measurements of SC>2 when the Brantly B2 helicopter was used.  A
variety of techniques were considered to decrease the size and weight of the
unit to acceptable values, but all of the new versions were designed around
the same combined absorption and conductivity cell used in the regular Davis
instrument.  Consideration was given to nonrecirculating systems, and to the
use of a venturi or the engine manifold as a source of vacuum.  However, both
were discarded when calculations and tests showed that a deionizing reservoir
with a smaller amount of water and resin would suffice when a suitable pump
was used.

     The resulting miniature version, therefore, has the identical system
components as a Davis instrument.  With the exception of the cell, all of the
components are small copies of those in the large version.  Considerable size
and weight reductions were accomplished through the use of a different voltage
regulating technique.

     Surface pressure readings were obtained during the flight, generally from
airports such as LaGuardia, Kennedy, or Newark, so that true heights could be
determined from the standard atmosphere and from the record of pressure-
height.  Indicated temperatures were corrected for dynamic heating, and all
variables were corrected, when necessary, according to the various calibrations.

                                      67

-------
     Soundings were plotted manually at the same scales as the chart records
to show the vertical distributions of temperature,  S02 concentration, and wet-
bulb temperature (when available).  Values obtained from the traverses were
also plotted (at their geographic positions) for various significant altitudes.

     The helicopter data previously described were used to investigate the
horizontal and vertical distribution of temperature (Bornstein, 1968) and
moisture (Bornstein, Lorenzen,  and Johnson, 1972) in the boundary layer over
NYC.  In addition, the data were used to validate the URBMET (urban meteor-
ology) boundary layer model of Bornstein (1972a,b,  1975) and Bornstein and
Robock (1976).

DATA TABULATION AT SJSU

     When the data collected by the NYU group were brought to SJSU, it was
discovered that a few of the original helicopter strip charts and almost all
of the plotted soundings from 1966 had been lost while the data were stored at
NYU.  It thus became necessary to repeat the procedures originally carried out
by Sign-X to reproduce the plotted soundings.  However, some helicopter
soundings that had been replotted at NYU during the Project were in the data.

     Thus, there are three different sources for the helicopter soundings
included in Volume II, as shown in Table 1.  The characteristics of the sound-
ings are as follows:  (1) "Sign-X" soundings were produced in the manner
described in this section under AIRCRAFT INSTRUMENTATION, using data at 25-m
intervals in addition to data at various significant levels; (2) "NYU" sound-
ings were constructed during the Project from the original (but now lost)
Sign-X soundings by averaging data over 50-m layers; and (3) "SJSU" soundings
were produced from the original strip charts using data extracted at 10- or
25-m intervals.  After the "SJSUIO" (soundings produced from the original
strip charts using data extracted at 10-m intervals) were judged to be too
irregular, the interval between successive data points was changed to 25 m,
thus producing the "SJSU25" soundings listed in the table.
                                      68

-------
     If a Sign-X version of a particular sounding was available, it was
included in Volume II; if not, a NYU version of the sounding was included.  If
neither was available, then the following procedure was carried out to produce
the "SJSU" soundings:

     (1) Conversion of pressure-height to height above mean sea level.

         This was done by knowing the elevations above sea level of the air-
         ports at which flights began and terminated.  The pressure-height
         reading obtained when the aircraft was on the runway was set equal to
         the known elevation of the station above sea level.  If the pressure
         at a particular airport changed with time during a flight, or if the
         correction was inconsistent for the beginning and terminating air-
         ports, then the difference in the correction was prorated over the
         entire flight.  If this procedure could not be followed, i.e., if the
         takeoff and landing soundings were missing, then the sounding in
         which the aircraft came closest to the surface was determined, and
         the bottom of the sounding was assumed to be located at 30 m above
         ground level.  The sounding at 155th Street was used for this purpose
         whenever possible, due to its location at the Hudson River.

     (2) Naming of a sounding.

         A list of all of the names applied to the sites at which the sound-
         ings given in Volume II were taken is given alphabetically in Table
         23, and their locations are shown in Figures 9(a) and 9(b).

     (3) Time of sounding.

         All times appearing in this report have been corrected to EST.   In
         the absence of information from Sign-X, it was assumed that all  times
         given in the raw data were "time of the realm," i.e., EST or EOT.
                                       69

-------
         TABLE 23.  ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF HELICOPTER SOUNDING SITES
                        APPEARING IN FIGURES 9a AND 9b
               SITE
MAP
CODE
NAME
             LOCATION
    LATITUDE           LONGITUDE
(DEG.  MIN.  SEC.)    (DEG.  MIN.  SEC.)
B
A/B
A/B
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
A
A
B
B
A/B
B
A/B
A
B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
B
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
A/B
B
B
A/B
A/B
A/B
ARM
ATS
AST
AFB
BRK
BAT
BAB
BAYP
BYPK
BRP
BCL


CWA
CGR
CPP
CLT
CLP

CWL
CHR
EPY
ERV
ERP
EIL
ECB
FLH
FPK
FPT
FWP
GSP
GAR
GWB

GID
GND
GVB
GKL
GNK
HAD
HOH
HAB
HVR
HTL
Armonk
Army Terminal Brooklyn
Astoria
Atlantic & Flatbush
Barker Pt.
Battery
Bayonne Bridge
Bayonne Park
Bay Park
Bronx River Park
Brooklyn College
Brooklyn Navy
Brooklyn VA Hospital
Caldwell-Wright Airport
Cedar Grove Reservoir
Central Park
Clifton
Cloves Lake Park
Cloisters
Crestwood Lake
Cypress Hills
East Parkway
East River
East River Park
Ellis Island
Eastchester Bay
Flushing Airport
Forest Park
Fox Point
Ft. Washington Park
Garden State Pkwy.
Garfield
George Washington Bridge
Goethal
Governors Island
Grand
Gravesend Bay
Great Kills
Great Neck
Hadley Airport
Hastings on Hudson
Henry Hudson Bridge
Hillview Reservoir
Holland Tunnel
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
07
45
47
41
51
42
38
41
38
50
37
42
39
52
51
47
38
37
52
57
41
39
44
43
42
51
47
42
54
50
51
53
51
38
41
43
35
33
48
33
00
52
55
44


30



30

30


30


30

30


30
30

30


30

30
30


30

30

30





30


73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
73
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
73
74
74
73
74
74
73
74
73
73
73
74
42
56
54
58
44
01
08
07
40
52
57
58
56
17
13
58
05
06
56
49
53
55
58
58
03
49
50
51
35
57
10
05
56
11
01
53
01
08
44
26
53
55
52
02






30














30






30

30
30
30








30


(continued) 7n

-------
                            TABLE 23.  (continued)
               SITE
MAP
OCDE
(continued)
NAME
             LOCATION
    LATITUDE           LONGITUDE
(DBG.  MIN.  SEC.)    (DEC.  MIN.  SEC.)
A/B
B
A/B


B
A/B
A/B
A
B
A/B
B
A/B
B

A/B
A/B
B
B
A
A/B
A/B
A/B
B
B
A/B
B
A
B
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
B
A/B
B
B
B
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
A/B
B
JRT
KLL
KPK


LAP
LIE
LYN

MAS
MLK
MER
MAP
MTF

NAW
NBG
NJTP
NRL

NYT
NYU
NPT
OAK
OLD
OBC
OT3

PAT
PLG
PGC
Q14
QLI
RAN
RVW
RAW
RBK
RIR
RSP
ROV
3&21
SWL
SC
SHA
Jerome Reservoir
Kill
Kissena Park
Lexington Reservoir
Lincoln Tunnel
Linden Airport
Long Island Expwy.
Lyndhurst
McCarren Park
Meadowbrook & Sunrise
Meadow Lake
Merrick
Miller Airport
Mitchell Field
Montclair
Narrows
Narrows Bridge
New Jersey Turnpike
New Rochelle
Newton Creek
New York Thcroughway
New York University
Norton Point
Oakland
Old Bridge
Orchard Beach
Outer Bridge
Overpeck Creek
Patterson
Pelham Golf Course
Pleasantdale Golf Course
Queens & 14th
Queens & Long Island Expwy.
Raritan
Ravenswood
Raway
Red Bank
Ridgewood Reservoir
Riverside Park
Rossville
Route 3 & 21
Saw Mill
Seacaucus
Somerset Hill Airport
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
53
32 30
45
05
48
37
45
48
43
39
43 30
40
34
43
51 30
37
36
32
52
44 30
56
52
34
01 30
24 30
52
31 30
51
57
52
45
46
44
29 30
45
36
20
59
47
33 30
50
46
48
42
73
74
73
73
74
74
73
74
73
73
73
73
74
73
74
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
73
74
74
74
73
74
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
73
74
74
73
74
74
53
13
48
48
00
15
47
07
57
34
50
33
06
36
13
02
03
18
47
57
53
54
00
14
22
47
15
01
08
49
21
51
53
57
57
17
05
04
58
13
08
53
03
34
30
30
30
30



30











30


30
30







30







30


30

                                      71

-------
                           TABLE 23.  (continued)
MAP
ODE
               SITE
NAME
             LOCATION
    LATITUDE          LONGITUDE
(DEG.  ION.  SEC.)    (DEC. MIN.  SEC.)
A/B
A
A/B
A/B
A
B
B
B
B
A/B
A
A/B
B
A/B
A/B
B
B
A/B
B
A/B
B
B
B
A/B
A
A/B
A
A
A/B
A
STA

SWP
TNB

TWP
TEP
TAH
UBB
UPP


VSSP
VAL
VCP
WAN
HPN
WID
WPS
WILL
WYC
YCN
ZAP
HPP

40NJ


155

Staten Island Airport
Statue of Liberty
Swamp
Throgs Neck Bridge
Todd Shipyard
Totoura-Wayne Airport
Tremley Point
Truckahoe
Union Beach
Upper Bay
VA Hospital (Bronx)
Valley Stream
Valley Stream State Park
Valray Street
Van Cortland Park
Wantagh
Westchester
Welfare Island
White Plains
Willowbrook Park
Wyckoff
Yonkers
Zahs Airport
30th St. Heliport
40th
40th & New Jersey
79th & Hudson River
125th
155th
167th & 155th
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
41
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
36
31 30
49
33
46
54
36
56 30
27
40
52
39
41
52
53 30
41
04
46
05
36
01
58
42 30
45
45 30
45 30
47
49
50
50 30
74
74
74
73
73
74
74
73
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
73
73
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
10
03
06
48
59
15
12
50
11
02
54
43
42
55
53
29
43
56
48
09
10
51
40
00
00
46
59
58
56
55


30

30












30
30




30
30





                                     72

-------
           74' 30'
                         74* 15'
                                       74* OO1
                                                    73*43'
                                                                  73*30'
                                                                                73* IS1
 41-00'
40*45'
40* 3O'
                                                                                   41'00'
                                                                                   40*45'
                                                                                   40* 30'
          74* 30'
                        74' 15'
                                       74* 00'
                                                     73*45'
                                                                   73* 30'
                                           (a)
         Figure 9.   Location of helicopter sounding sites designated by
                      abbreviations or names used in Table 23.
                                             73

-------
40-52.5'
 40° 45'
40" 37.5'
                                                                                            J
                                                                                           • PELHAM GOLF COURSE
                 74° 07.5'
                                             74*00
                                                                         73-52.5'
                                                                                                    73° 45'
                                                       (b)
                                                       74

-------
(4) Plotting the sounding.

    Draftsmen were instructed to "smooth" the data when tracing a plotted
    sounding, but they were also told not to change the sounding signifi-
    cantly in the process of smoothing out small perturbations.

(5) Temperature scale.

    Electronic drifts of the zero point of the various scales were pro-
    rated into the data.

(6) S02 scale.

    The actual calibration procedures for the Davis instruments are
    described in Section 6 under CALIBRATION PROCEDURES.  Calibration
    curves (Figure 18, example) were assumed to be represented by the
    following linear equation
                                R  - R
                                 d
                              a-c(Vb)-

    where S is the SC-2 concentration in ppm; R, is scale deflection
    caused by the effects of both the ambient SC»2 and CO2; a, b, and c
    are constants, determined by the slopes of the calibration curves for
    each of the Davis instruments in the surface network discussed in
    Section 6 and for those instruments used in the aircraft; and R  is
    the scale deflection due only to the ambient 002 and thus is used as
    the zero point for the SO2 concentration scale.  The values of the
    three constants for the aircraft Davis instruments changed on July 6,
    1966 when Sign-X installed a new cell in the Davis instrument in the
    helicopter.  Equation (12) was used directly on data from the surface
    network of Davis instruments but it could not be directly applied to
    the Davis instruments mounted on the aircraft because the aircraft
    instruments lacked a scrubber (see Section 6, CALIBRATION PROCEDURES).
    For these data, R  was assumed to be the smallest scale deflection
    recorded during a particular flight.  This value (RW) generally

                                 75

-------
         occurred in soundings taken at upwind rural sites, and/or in the
         upper levels of urban soundings, and was generally constant with
         height over several hundred meters.  After R  was determined, Equa-
         tion (12) was solved for R,, which corresponded to a value (con-
         centration) of S of 0.1 ppm.  Since the equation is linear, the
         magnitude of this distance gave the constant scale interval for each
         0.1 ppm increase of S for a particular flight.

     All of the soundings from the three primary test periods are given in
Volume II.  The soundings from the remaining periods of Table 1 are at SJSU,
but are not included in this report because the lack of time and money pre-
vented their completion.

     Additional vertical temperature profiles were obtained from the National
Weather Service rawinsonde site at John F. Kennedy Airport (see Figure 14).
A summary of the data obtained from these launches is given in Appendix II.
These soundings were routinely taken twice a day (at 0615 and 1215 EST) until
the end of February 1966, and from then until the end of the Project, two
additional launches were taken daily at 0015 and 1815 EST.  The lack of data
for a particular time indicates that no inversion was present in the sounding
below 4 km.  Inversions were defined as layers in which temperature either
increased with height or remained constant with height.  In cases of multiple
inversions, only the lowest layer was reported.
                                      76

-------
                                   SECTICN 4

                               SURFACE WIND DATA

SAMPLING AREA

     A mesoscale network of anemometers was established in and around NYC as
part of the New York City Air Pollution Project.  This network (Figure 10 and
Table 24) consisted of 97 sites located in a rectangle centered on the west
side of mid-town Manhattan.  The rectangle was 200 km long in the E-W direc-
tion and 100 km long in the N-S direction.  Data from the network were used to
study mesoscale perturbations on synoptic scale flows (Scudder, 1965); meso-
scale trajectories (Dryan, 1968); urban-rural wind velocity differences
(Bornstein, et al. 1972, Johnson and Bornstein, 1974, and Johnson, 1975); and
urban effects on frontal movement (Loose and Bornstein, 1975).

ANALYSIS

     Data were collected from 14 airport stations (National Weather Service
and Federal Aviation Administration), 4 military bases (Air Weather Service
and Naval Weather Service), 10 Coast Guard bases, 15 utility companies, 14
industrial sites, 29 public agencies and institutions (Public Health, sani-
tation, schools, etc.), and 11 sites set up by New York University.

     The wind data were averaged over 1 hour, centered on the hour, except for
data from airport, military, and Coast Guard stations, which were standard
hourly synoptic observations.  During the shakedown period before Tl, wind-
speeds were corrected to a height of 30.5 m by use of power law profiles.
However, since the magnitude of the corrections was generally less than 1 m-s"1,
the procedure was not carried out on data obtained during the 12 regular test
periods.
                                      77

-------
Figure 10.  Location of surface anemometer sites by abbreviations
                        used in Table 2A.

-------
TABLE 24.   ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SURFACE ANEMMETER SITES APPEARING IN FIGURE 10

Code
Letters
AE
AG
AL
AS
BA
BB
BDR
BG
BO
BR
BT
BU
CA
CC
CE
CH
CL
CN
CP
CR
CW
CY
DA
EN
ER
EWR
FH
FI
FK
FM
FOK
FV
(continued)
Station Name
Albert Einstein Sen.
Astoria Generator
Allenhurst
Ambrose Light Ship
Bayonne
Bliss Bldg. , NYU
Bridgeport Airport
Bergen Generator
Bound Brook
Bayway Refinery
Yonkers
Buchanan
Oaldwell Airport
Cos Cob
Chester
Christadora House
Crawford Hill
Grumran Aircraft
Central Park
Perth Atriboy
Comnonwelth Water
City College of N.Y.
Con. Edison
Eatons Neck
Execution Rocks
Newark Airport
Fort Hamilton
Fire Island
Falkners Island
Fort Monmouth
Suffolk
Fairview

Lat.
(D M S)
40 51 00
40 47 06
40 15
40 27 20
40 41
40 51 40
41 10
40 50 25
40 33 30
40 38 40
40 58
41 16 10
40 52 35
41 01 48
40 48
40 43 30
40 23
40 55
40 46 45
40 32 05
40 15
40 49 15
40 38 40
40 52 02
40 52 40
40 31 00
40 36
40 37 05
41 12 07
40 11
40 50
40 49

Long.
(D M S)
73 50 45
73 54 45
74 00
73 50 00
74 07
73 54 45
73 07
74 01 40
74 30 30
74 12 30
73 53
73 57 00
74 16 55
73 35 54
74 42
73 58 50
74 11
72 47
73 58 10
74 15 48
74 21
73 57
74 06 40
73 23 07
73 44 00
74 09 30
74 01
73 15 06
73 39 02
74 04
72 40
74 00

Data
Type
A
A
A
O2
U
B3
W
B
U
A
U*
A
0
A
A
B
B
W
Q
A
U
A
B
WQ
WQ
W
U
WQ
WQ
B
W
U

Obstructed
Arc l Problems
WNW
L
D


NW

ME L,D
L
NW S
S
L

L
L,F
L
F

NW L


D







E

L,F


-------
TABLE 24.  (continued)
Code
Letters
GB
GK
GR
HE
HG

HI
HL
HP

HPN
HR
HVN
o IR
3 IS
ISP
IT
JFK
KP
LA
IB
LGA
LGA
LH
LL
ID
LU
LV

MA
MC
ML
MO
(continued)
Station Name
Bathpage
Great Kills
Glenrock School
Stamford
Hudson Generator

Merrick
Hoffman Laroche
Pier 68 Heliport

White Plains Airport
West Henpstead
New Haven Airport
Plainsboro
Westwood
Islip Airport
Nutley
JFK Intn'l. Airport
Kings Point Academy
Linden Airport
Long Branch
La Guardia Airport
La Guardia Airport
Laural Hills
Long Is. Lighting
Lamont Tower
Latouratte
Lehigh Valley

Fort Miller
Medical Center
Mineola
wioriches

Lot.
(D M S)
40 44
40 32 45
40 57 28
41 02 26
40 44 41

40 38 59
40 49 48
40 45 15

41 04
40 42
41 16
40 20 47
40 59
40 43
40 49 18
40 38 05
40 48 50
40 37
40 18
40 46 50
40 46 50
40 44 12
40 45 48
40 57 30
40 34 30
40 44 30

40 34 08
40 50 25
40 44 10
04 47 02

Long.
(D M S)
73 29
74 07 26
74 07 29
73 23 39
74 04 24

73 33 45
74 09 30
74 00 30

73 44
73 39
72 58
74 34 10
74 00 54
73 06
74 08 18
73 46 45
74 45 55
74 14
74 00
73 52 35
73 52 35
73 55 48
73 30 48
73 55 25
74 03 55
73 58 20

74 24 08
73 56 30
73 30 00
72 45 00

Data
Type
WQ
P
B
U
B

U
A
B

W
0
W
B
Q
W
U
W
B
U
U
W
Q
A
B
A
P
B

B
P
B
WQ

Obstructed
Arc1



NW
SW/
NW


NE/
S

WNW


NNW








NW



SSW/
NNE





Problems



D



D
L










F


S,D
D
D
D

L,D



D



-------
00
Code
Letters
MP
m
NEL
NL
NR
NS
NSC
OB
OC
ED
PH
PP
RA
RB
RC
RP
RU
SB
SH
SM
ST
SU
TB
TEE
TW
US
VS
WE
WF
WP
WRI
WS
WW
Station Name
Morristown Airport
Morristown
Lakehurst
Nation Lead
New Rochelle
Tbtenville
Floyd Bennett
Oyster Bay
Cceanside
Phelps Dodge
Pelham Manor
Palisades Park
Republic Aviation
NYU Research No. 4
Rockaway
Roselle Park
Rutgers Univ.
Sheraton Bldg.
Sandy Hook
Stamford
Stratford Shoals
Maritime College
NY Telephone Co.
Teterboro Airport
Totawe Wayne Airport
U.S. Metals
Memorial School
West End
Whitehall Ferry
Westchester
McGuire
Wall Street
West Wharton
TABLE 24. (continued)
Lat . Long .
(D MS) (DM S)
40 47 50
40 46 45
40 10
40 29 50
40 54
40 32
40 35
40 46 15
40 37 10
40 38 05
40 53 55
40 49 45
40 44
40 48 35
40 33 02
40 39
40 30
40 42 15
40 28 01
41 08
40 03 04
40 48 20
40 42 50
40 46
40 54 35
40 35 55
40 40 35
40 46 05
40 42
41 04 45
40 00 40
40 42 15
40 55
74 25 05
74 27 00
74 15
74 18 35
73 47
74 14
73 53
73 28 40
73 38 21
74 12 10
73 49 00
73 53 30
73 25
74 03 45
73 56 02
74 16
74 27
74 01 00
74 01 00
73 32
73 06 01
73 47 42
74 00 45
74 03 55
74 14 39
74 13 15
73 41 50
73 59 10
74 00 45
73 48 20
74 36 40
74 00 30
74 36
Data Obstructed
Type Arc1
U
A 6
W
A
U
A
W
B 6
U
B
P
P
U
B
WQ
U
B
Q
WQ
Q
WQ
B
B
W
0
B
0
B 7
B N/NE
B
W
B
A
Problems

D



D


D
S


D

D
S
L




D



L
L


D


S,D
   (continued)

-------
oo
DO


Code
Letters
YC
ZA


Station Name
Yatch Club
Zahn's Airport
TABLE 24. ( continued)
Lat. Long. Data Obstructed
(D M S) (D M S) Type Arc1 Problems
40 54 10 73 30 45 B
40 42 73 24 W

NOTES
I.

:


TYPE OF DATA
A
B
0
P
Q
W
WQ
ft
- TWO ROLL BENDIX
- ONE ROLL BENDIX
- VISUALLY OBSERVED
- FROM SECOND LEVEL OF PIBAL
- QUADRUPLE, TRIPLE, OR DOUBLE REGISTER
- WBAN 10 OR SERVICE A
- COAST GUARD CIRCUIT (QUADRUPLE REGISTER)
•- UNKNOWN
          v \'.NOTES

              v>' TWO DIRECTIONS GIVEN, FIRST IS BEGINNING OF OBSTRUCTED ARC AND LAST IS ITS END, MOVING
              :?•: A CLOCKWISE SENSE.
          2.  \<'-Y^ SPEED CONVERTED FROM BEAUFORT.
          3.  IP vVND RECORDER INOPERATIVE, PIBAL WINDS SOMETIMES USED.
          4.  WIND SPEEDS REPORTED EITHER AS 2.5 OR 7.5 MPH; DATA NOT USED.
          5.  USED CNLY WHEN RECORDER WAS INOPERATIVE.
          6.  ROOF AERODYNAMIC EFFECT.
          7.  ALL QUADRANTS.
          8.  287 m ABOVE GROUND LEVEL.
    Ill.   PROBLEMS
          D -- ORIENTATION PROBLEMS
          F - TOO FAST
L - LOCAL EFFECTS
S - TOO SLOW

-------
     The hourly-average windspeed and direction data were plotted onto maps,
and streamflow and isotach analyses were made for each hour during the days of
the primary test periods.  A streamflow line is here defined to be everywhere
parallel to the flow; however, the spacing between adjacent lines is not
proportional to flow speed.  A typical analysis is shown in Figure 11; the
solid lines are streamf low lines and the dashed lines are isotachs in mph.
The original wind observations are also shown with speed in mph plotted at the
head of the arrow (the arrow points in the direction the wind is going) and
direction given at the back of the arrow.

     In addition to missing data (about 25% for a given map), various problems
were encountered during the analysis of the flow fields, e.g., instrument
orientation problems, local channeling effects, and incorrect plotted direc-
tions.  A summary of the various problems encountered at each site is given in
Table 24.  Most of the problems were transitory in nature, and the vast major-
ity of the data was good enough to be included in the NYU and SJSU analyses,
even under low windspeed conditions.

     The primary considerations behind the analyses were to maintain a conti-
nuity of the patterns from map to map and to reproduce a realistic but simple
pattern of the general mesoscale flow in the region.  Continuity was achieved
by viewing three maps simultaneously on a light table.  Features appearing on
only a few charts were viewed suspiciously.  A major determination of the
validity of such features was the number and quality of the reporting stations
in the area of the feature.

SUMMARY OF FLDW PATTERNS

     The flow patterns for two of the "primary" test periods are generally
fairly smooth, although in a few instances the flow rotates 180 degrees in a
period of several hours.  However, the test period of March 1966 includes an
interesting example of the mesoscale effect of NYC on the passage of  a synop-
tic scale front (Figure 12).  This period also includes a case study  showing
the development, penetration, and dissipation of a complex sea breeze circula-
tion system (Figure 13).
                                      83

-------
Figure 11.  Streamflow and isotach (in mph) analyses for 1900 EST on
                           March 10,  1966.

-------
Figure 12.  Streamflow and isotach (in nph) analyses for 0800 EST on
      March 11, 1966 showing frictional retardation of synoptic
                           front over NYC.

-------
                                                                          	40*19
   X,          t
Figure 13.  Streamflow and isotach (in nph) analyses for 1200 EST on
March 9, 1966 showing complex sea breeze front (darker dashed lines)
                        penetration pattern.

-------
     All of the hourly maps from the 11 days comprising the three primary test
periods are on the microfilm on file at NTIS.
                                      87

-------
                                   SECTION 5

                             UPPER LEVEL WIND DATA

     During the Project, upper level wind data in the lowest kilometer of the
atmosphere were obtained by the following methods:   (1) a single theodolite
tracking a single free-rising pilot balloon;  (2) two theodolites tracking a
single free-rising pilot balloon;  (3) four theodolites tracking two free-
rising pilot balloons; and (4) radar-tracked radiosonde launches at the U.S.
Weather Service site at John F. Kennedy (JFK) Airport.

     When four theodolites were used in an experiment,  two of them were vised
to track each balloon.  The two balloons were released from sites separated by
about 1 mile and were tracked so that simultaneous readings were taken of each
balloon by its two tracking theodolites.   Results were used to estimate the
time rate of change of the correlation coefficients obtained from the two
velocity data sets.

     The above pibal and rawinsonde data have been analyzed at SJSU by the
following series of computer programs:  (1) DATA CHK,  which checks punched
cards containing the original pibal and JFK observations for various key-
punching and filing errors; (2) DATA, which transfers the original observa-
tions from the cards to a "BCD" formatted, unblocked,  7-track, 800-bpi com-
puter input data tape and then prints the data;  (3) DUMP, which lists any part
of the input data tape; (4) EDIT,  which can correct any errors found in the
input data; (5) WIND, which computes and prints wind velocities for particular
pibal runs using the data on the input data tape; (6) WIND2, which computes
wind velocities from the input data tape for particular runs and then puts the
output onto a new "BCD" formatted, unblocked, 7-track,  800-bpi computer tape;
and (7) EPATAP, which reads the new tape generated by WIND2 and then lists the
wind velocities for particular pibal runs.
                                      88

-------
     The tape generated by the WIND2 computer program, and the EPATAP program
necessary to read that tape and to list the velocities from particular pibal
runs, are available at NTIS.

     Program DATA assigns a run number to each pibal launch chronologically
and separates the launches into various files according to launch site (shown
in Figure 14) and date.  The list of files so created is given in Table 25.
Those runs from the three primary test periods, and thus on the NTIS tape, are
indicated by asterisks preceding their file numbers.

     The input cards needed for program EPATAP are shown in Figure 15.  Each
card gives the starting and terminating run numbers of a group of pibal runs
to be read from the NTIS tape and printed.  The starting and terminating run
numbers must end in the fifth and tenth columns, respectively.  Any number of
groups of pibal runs can be read from the tape during a single computer run.
A blank card stops the run selection process and terminates the computer run.

     The listing of the output from a typical pibal launch is shown in Table
26.  The top line gives the site location.  The second line lists the run
number, the date of the launch, the time of the launch in EST, and the height
of the launch site in meters above mean sea level (MSL) and above ground level
(AGL).  The actual tabulated data includes the following input data at various
levels:  (1) the azimuth angle in degrees east of true north; (2) the eleva-
tion angle in degrees above the horizontal; and (3) the height of the balloon
above mean sea level in meters at the midpoint of the layer through which it
passed during the period between the latest (to that time) two sets of act-
ually obtained (excluding missed sets) azimuth and elevation angles.

     A constant rate of ascent of 150 m-min"1 has been assumed to obtain the
height of the balloon at any given moment above the local ground level.  Most
of the theodolite azimuth and elevation readings were taken at 15-s intervals,
although on occasion 30- or 60-s intervals were used.  The 15-s interval
yielded computed velocities at 37.5-m intervals, except in the case of missing
levels, while a knowledge of the height of the launch site above mean sea
level allowed for the data to be listed at heights above mean sea  level.

-------
Figure 14.  Location of pibal launch sites and NWS radiosonde site at JFK
                       Airport listed in Table 25.

-------
TABLE 25.  LIST OF FILES GENERATED BY PROGRAM DATA
Table 1 for dates included In -the various test periods.

FILE NO.
1
2
3
4
*5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
*16
17
-1- i
18
19
*20
*21
22
23
£- J
24
25
*— _>
26
27
^- I
29
^- >
31
*32
*33
34
36
-) ^J
*3fi
30
40
42
(continued)
STATION
G.S.L.
ii
Jones Beach
Metuchen
it
Prospect Park
Rockefeller Lookout
Great Kills
ti it
ii ii
ii it
Kennedy Airport
ii ii
ii ii
it it
tt it
it it
n it
ii it
n n
it it
Latourette
NYU Tech.
n n
n n
ti n
tt n
n n
ii it
1! 11
II II
It II
II II
Pelhara Manor
n n
tt ti
ii ii
n n
ii n
Research Bldg. #4
it n ii
tt ii it

PERIOD
1-7/8
1-8/9
PT-1
T-9
T-12
PT-1
PT-1
PT-1
T-7
T-8
T-9
PT-1
T-2
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
T-12
PT-1
PT-1
T-l
T-2
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
T-12
PT-1
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
T-12
PT-1
T-4
T-5

RUN NOS.
1001-1002
1003-1007
2001-2002
3001-3023
3024-3064
4001-4003
5001-5010
6001-6123
6124-6145
6146-6147
6148-6149
7001-7165
7166-7180
7181-7196
7197-7210
7211-7228
7229-7246
7247-7258
7259-7261
7262-7277
7278-7288
8001-8138
9001-9104
9105-9148
9149-9198
9199-9264
9267-9310
9311-9404
9405-9488
9489-9521
9522-9543
9544-9606
9607-9668
10001-10166
10167-10195
10196-10204
10205-10213
10214-10247
10248-10286
11001-11142
11143-11188
11189-11247

                        91

-------
                          TABLE 25 (continued)
FILE NO.              STATION              PERIOD         RUN NOS.

  *43           Research Bldg. #4          T-6           11248-11340
   44               "      "    "          T-7           11341-11432
   45           Welfare Island             T-8           12001-12030
   46              "      "                1-8/9         12031-12045
   47              "      "                T-9           12046-12064
  *48              "      "                T-10          12065-12125
  *49              "      "                T-12          12126-12171
                                92

-------
                        (End Selection)
           4102 4119
             2118
r
     3005 3015 (Selection Runs)
 Figure 15.  Input data deck for program EPATAP.
                      93

-------
TABLE 26.  LISTING OF OUTPUT FROM PROGRAM EPATAP FOR A TYPICAL PIBAL LAUNCH

RUN NUMBER 11345 DATE 5/
AZIMUTH ELEVATION
(DEG. ) (DEG. )
STATION NAME RESEARCH BLDG. NO. 4
3/66 TIME 1320 EST STATION HEIGHT 10 M(MSL)
HEIGHT U V DIRECTION
(M) (MPS) (MPS) (DEG)
0 M(AGL)
SPEED
(MPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

28.78
15.64
28,75
4.30
7,83
208.78
8.93
MISSING DATA
32.78
32.48
33.50
34.04
33.67
33.52
33.60
33.66
33.67
34.02
AVERAGE DIRECTION
16.04
16.11
15.79
15.29
14.95
14.62
14.30
13.84
13.38
13.72
= 214.02
85.00
141.25
178.75
216.25
253.75
291.25
328.75
366.25
403.75
441.25
DEGREES
4.91
4.47
5.80
6.32
5.62
6.00
6.51
7.40
7.85
4.65
AVERAGE
7.05
7.27
7.65
8.61
9.08
9.38
9.60
10.94
11.75
5.63
WINDSPEED =
214.86
211.56
217.18
216.28
211.77
212.64
214.13
214.06
213.74
219.57
10.25 m-S-1
8.59
8.54
9.61
10.67
10.68
11.13
11.60
13.21
14.14
7.30


-------
     Fran the input azimuth angle, elevation angle, and height values, the
following are computed at the heights defined just above:  (1) the u or west
to east component of the wind in meters per second (mps); (2) the v or south
to north component of the wind in mps; (3) the horizontal wind direction in
degrees east of true north; and (4) the total horizontal windspeed in mps.
Below these tabulated values are the averaged wind direction in degrees east
of north and the averaged total horizontal windspeed in mps for the entire
launch.  The averaged total horizontal windspeed was obtained by averaging the
speeds at all levels, instead of by averaging computed u and v components at
each level, as is done to compute the average wind direction.

     The radiosonde data obtained by the U.S. Weather Service at JFK Airport and
the output from the EPATAP program for a typical JFK launch is identical to
that in Table 26.  The main difference between the JFK launches and the pibal
launches is the six "known heights" that the Weather Service supplies for each
JFK launch.  Thus, there is no need to assume a constant rate of ascent.  A
sroothing routine is used with the JFK data so that three readings, taken at
6-s intervals, are used to compute a single wind over a layer of about 90 m.
                                       95

-------
                                   SECTION 6

                           SURFACE S02 OBSERVATIONS

SAMPLING AREA

     The surface S02 observational network consisted of 33 fixed sites, two
instrumented automobiles, and one instrumented truck.  The geographic distri-
bution of the fixed sites, shown in Figure 16, was as follows:  10 in Manhat-
tan; 6 in Brooklyn; 8 in Queens; 6 in The Bronx;  1 in Richmond;  and 2 in New
Jersey.  Generally 70 to 80% of the fixed stations were in operation at any
given time.  The readings from each instrument were averaged for 1-hour periods,
centered on the half-hour.

     In addition to the data measured at the fixed station network, observa-
tions were also obtained from instrumented cars and trucks driven over the
specified routes shown in Figure 17.  At each of the numbered sites shown in
the figure and listed in Table 27, the vehicles were stopped and concentra-
tions were recorded over periods of 2 to 3 minutes.  Depending on the wind
direction, the instrumented cars followed one of the routes listed in Table
28.

INSTRUMENTATION

     For analysis purposes, the 33 fixed sites were placed into three cate-
gories, as shown in Table 29, according to the group maintaining the parti-
cular monitoring device.  The eight stations in Group I were instrumented witL
electroconductivity devices manufactured by the Davis Company.  These devices
were installed and maintained by Project members from NYU.  The calibration of
these instruments included compensation for interference associated with
atmospheric 002, and is discussed in the following subsection.
                                      96

-------
«o* sr i' —	
       Figure 16.  Location of fixed surface S02 monitoring sites.
                                    97

-------
Figure 17.  Location of stops made by the mobile S02 monitors, as
                       listed in Table 27.
                               98

-------
     TABLE 27.  POSSIBLE STOPS IN MOBILE SURFACE SO2 SAMPLING PROGRAM





                        A.   Car No.  1



Stop No.                     Site



   1.        Brooklyn Queens Exp.  & Queens Blvd.



   2.        Northern Blvd.  &  Junction Blvd.



   3.             "       "    &  Grand Central Fkwy.



   4.        Grand  Central Pkwy. & Long Island Exp.



   5.           "       "      "   & Interborough Pkwy.




   6.        Interborough Pkwy. & Woodhaven Blvd.



   7.               "        "   & Cypress Ave.



   8.               "        "   & Bushwick Ave.




   9.        Bushwick Ave. & Gates Ave.



  10.             "      "   & Brooklyn Queens  Exp.



  11.        Brooklyn Queens Exp. at Kosciuszko Bridge.




  12.        Queens Blvd. & Woodhaven Blvd.







(continued)
                               99

-------
                        TABLE 27 (continued)
                        B.   Car No.   2
Stop No.                     Site



    1.         Eastern  Pkwy.  at  Brooklyn Public Library.



    2.         Ocean  Pkwy.  &  Church Ave.



    3.           "      "    &  Foster Ave.



    4.           "      "    &  Ave.  P.



    5.           "      "    &  Shore  Pkwy. (Belt Pkwy.)



    6.         Shore  Pkwy.  (Belt Pkwy.)  & Knapp St.



    7.           "      "    &  Flatbush Ave.



    8.           "      "    &  Bridge over Paerdegat Basin,



    9.           "      "    &  Rockaway Pkwy.



   10.         Rockaway Pkwy.  &  Flatlands Ave.



   11.            "        "   &  Linden Blvd.



   12.         Eastern  Pkwy.  & Utica Ave.



   13.            "       "    & Bedford Ave.



   14.         Flatbush Ave.  & Ave. P.



   15.             "      "    & Flatlands Ave.



   16.             "      "    & Ave. I.



   17.             "      "    & Foster Ave.



   18.             "      "    & Empire Blvd.





(continued)
                               100

-------
                        TABLE 27  (continued)
C. Truck (Route No. 1)
Stop No.
1.
2.
3-
4.
5-
6.
7-
8.
9-
10.
11.
12.
13-
14.
Site
Park Ave. & 28 St.
" " & 42 St.
" " & 65 St.
" " & 85 St.
11 " & 105 St.
" " & 125 St.
125 St. & Lenox Ave.
" " & Broadway.
Broadway & 116 St.
" & 96 St.
" & 72 St.
" & 55 St.
" & 42 St.
" & 28 St.
(continued)
                                    101

-------
                        TABLE 27 (continued)





                   D.  Truck (Route No. 2)
Stop No.                    Site



   1.         Sedgwick Ave.  at GSL.



   2.            MI.   at NYU Hall of Fame.




   3.            "      "   & Tremont Ave.



   4.         W- Tremont Ave. & University Ave.



   5.              "      "    & Jerome Ave.



   6.         E. Tremont Ave. & Webster Ave.



   7.              "      "    & Southern Blvd.



   8.              "      "    & White Plains Rd.



   9.              "      "    & Hutchinson River Pkwy



  10.         Eastchester Rd. & Williams Bridge Rd.



  11.              "       "  & Pelham Pkwy.



  12.              "       "  & Boston Rd.



  13-         Boston Rd. & Provost Ave.



  14.         E. 233 St. & Baychester Ave.



  15-            "    "  & Bronx River Pkwy.



  16.            "    "  & Jerome Ave.



  17-         Sedgwick Ave.  & Gun Hill Rd.



  18.            "      "   & W. 197 St.
                              102

-------
TABLE 28.  ROUTES FOLLOWED BY INSTRUMENTED AUTOMOBILES




            Site lumbers  listed in Table 27.







              A.   Car  No.  1








          Route      Site Numbers





            A            1-11



            B         1, 12,  7-11










              B.   Car  No.  2







          Route      Site Numbers






            A            1-13



            B         1-7, 14-18



            C       1,   18-14,  7-13
                      103

-------
TABLE 29.  SITES IN FIXED SO2 MCNITORING NETWORK

GROUP I. (NYU/DAVIS)

1.
2.
3-
4.
5-
6.
7-
8.
Site

Passaic
Pollack
Central Park (Belvedere)
Prospect Park
JFK Airport
Einstein
NYU/GSL
Library
Longitude
(Deg. Min. Sec.)
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
GROUP II. (CONSOLIDATED

1.
2.
3-
4.
5.
6.
7-
8.
9.
10.
Site

Empire State
Irving Place
Queens Blvd.
Atlantic & Jamaica
Pitkin Ave .
West End Ave.
125th St.
Van Nest
Queens College
Jamaica
07
03
57
58
46
50
54
57
35
54
58
24
24
20
05
51
(Deg
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Latitude

. Min. Sec.)
51
43
46
40
39
51
52
40
26
28
47
10
38
15
01
22
EDISON/DAVIS)
Longitude
(Deg. Min. Sec. )
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
59
59
53
53
54
59
56
51
48
47
02
18
40
53
39
02
27
08
26
35
(Deg
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Latitude

. Min. Sec.)
45
44
44
40
40
46
48
50
45
42
00
10
20
39
22
37
23
43
20
22
(continued)
                       104

-------
 TABLE 29 (continued)
GROUP III.   (NYC)
            Longitude            Latitude


Site

(Deg.

Min.

Sec. )

(Deg.

Min.

Sec . )

A. Davis
1.
B. Wet
1.
2.
3-
4.
5-
6.
7-
8.
9-
10.
11.
12.
13-
14.
121st St.
Chemistry
Wlllowbrook
Battery
Community College
Green Point
Skillman Ave .
Bus Terminal
Arsenal
Astoria
La Guardia
Samuel Gompers H.S.
168th St.
NYU/TECH
Wyckoff
Boyce Thompson
73

7^
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
56

09
00
59
56
56
59
57
55
52
54
56
54
51
51
20

15
53
52
31
35
43
50
22
51
24
10
43
21
32
40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
47

36
42
41
42
44
45
45
45
46
48
50
51
42
53
59

50
24
30
52
52
31
46
53
19
33
12
19
55
55
        105

-------
     The 10 stations in Group II were also equipped with electroconductivity
instruments from the Davis Company.  However, these instruments were operated
by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, and some of the data concern-
ing the magnitude of the proper 002 correction is questionable.  The remaining
stations (Group III) were operated by NYC.  At all but one of the Group III
sites, SC-2 concentrations were determined by use of the West-Gaeke wet chemi-
cal method and the data were not cross-checked against Davis observations.
The remaining station in this group was equipped with a Davis elect roconductivity
device.

CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

     At the beginning of the Project, six Davis electroconductivity instru-
ments were purchased for continuous analysis and recording of ambient SO2
concentrations in the range 0-5 ppm.  (The instruments were identified as 64-
336, 64-337, 64-338, 64-339, 64-340 and truck Davis, but the prefix 64, indi-
cating the year of manufacture, was later dropped for convenience.)  These
instruments were a modified version of a previous Davis instrument that had
been designed to measure high S02 concentrations in stacks.  In adapting it
for use with low concentrations in ambient air, the manufacturer had not had
sufficient experience to guard against the instabilities and interferences
that accompany such measurements.

     When the instruments were put into operation at the NYU offices at Sedg-
wick Avenue, attempts were made to check instrument readouts against S02
concentrations measured by the West-Gaeke and Wilson wet chemical methods.
Little success resulted in the very low concentration range.  The observations
indicated that the Davis instruments were experiencing interference from CO2.
Thus a gas dilution bench, using premixes of both S02 in nitrogen (N2) and
C02 in N2 combined with dry air to produce gas mixtures of known S02 and CO2
concentrations, was constructed in order to obtain calibration curves for each
Davis instrument.

     While instruments number 336-340 were being studied during the summer of
1965, Sign-X Corporation of Essex, Connecticut was developing a miniaturized
                                     106

-------
Davis instrument for an instrumented helicopter.  It was calibrated in Septem-
ber 1965 using the same system described above.  Concurrently with development
of the calibration bench, arrangements were made to place the five Davis in-
struments at fixed installations in the field.

     It was during this period that a solution to the problem of identifying
the 002 concentration  in a field sample of air was found.  The solution is
based on the high solubility of S02 and low solubility of 002 in water.  If a
field sample is bubbled through an impinger containing de-ionized water, all
of the S02 and little  of the C02 will be trapped in the water.  The effluent
gas leaving the impinger will contain essentially the same 002 concentration
as the original, but no S02.  Therefore the Davis response to the scrubbed
effluent should be the same as its response to a mixture of O32 and dry air,
except for small changes due to differences between the humidities of the
impinger effluent and  the dry sample.

     Based on the arguments presented above, new calibration curves were
prepared for each of the Davises (see Figure 18 for an example) as follows:
(1) at a given S02 concentration, the scale deflection associated with O02
concentrations of 0, 200, 400, 600, 800, or 1000 ppm were determined; (2) the
above step was repeated for SO2 concentrations of 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and
1.0 ppm; (3) the curves shown on the right-hand side of Figure 18 were con-
structed; and (4) the  curves from the right-hand side of the figure were used
to construct the smoothed curves on the left-hand side of the figure.

     The O02 content of a sample can be identified by plotting the Davis
reading (ordinate) for the scrubbed sample on  a calibration curve  (on the
left-hand side of the  figure) at an SO2 concentration  (abscissa) of zero.  A
calibration curve for  that particular sample can then be  interpolated between
the nearest curves of  the family of curves on  the sheet.  The unscrubbed Davis
reading for the same sample, used with the interpolated curve, then yields the
sample S02 concentration.  It was found that the easiest  way to  obtain  the
actual S02 values was  to convert the calibration curves of  Figure  18 to tabu-
lated values by use of Equation  (12).
                                      107

-------
  100
o
ui
Q
            02
0.4      0.6

 SOztppm)
0.8
1.0
0  200 400 600 800 1000

           (ppm)
       Figure 18.   Calibration curves  for a particular Davis S02 monitoring

            instrument.   See text  for  explanation of how to use curves.
                                       108

-------
     Sometime prior to March 15, 1966, Sign-X was conmissioned to build two
miniaturized Davis instruments for mobile traverses by car.  These two units,
identified as Car Davis 1 and Car Davis 2, were calibrated on March 15 and 17,
1966, respectively, using the new calibration procedures.

     Early in 1966, the Davis Company produced an improved version of their
bubbler instrument that incorporated a cycling bubbler for C02 determination
and an improved electronic circuit for (supposedly) reducing the nonlinearity
of the calibration curves in the lower SO2 range.  Two of these instruments
were purchased, designated as #66-2 and #66-3, and calibrated on April 26,
1966 using the new calibration procedures.   Subsequent calibrations were
carried out several times after slight improvements to the calibration bench,
e.g., standardization of the pressures of each of the flowmeter balls.  How-
ever, the results of the new calibrations were generally not different from
those shown in Figure 18.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

     For the three "primary" test periods reanalyzed in the present study,
isopleth analyses of S02 concentration were  completed at 2-hour intervals
using the averaged data described in Section 6 (SAMPLING AREA and INSTRU-
MENTATION).  Examples of the resulting analyses are shown in Figures 19-21, in
which mobile data from the time periods one-half of an hour before and after
the indicated times have been used in the analyses.  All of the 132 analyses
from the 11 days of the three reanalyzed test periods are currently on a
single microfilm roll available from NTIS.

     The surface SO2 charts were originally  analyzed at 2-hour intervals at
NYU so that they would coincide with output  from the Gaussian puff model of
Shieh (1969), which used that period as a time step of integration.  This time
scale coincides with the space scale defined by the average spacing between
the sites in the surface SO2 network, and thus little  information is lost
during the 2 hours between successive maps.
                                      109

-------
                                                    SURFACE SO, ANALYSIS

                                                  DATE, (f .DE£

                                                  Tl«iE_J_03Q_ .	E
Figure  19.   Analyzed valioes of  surface S02  concentrations in pphm
                 for 1030 EST on December 6,  1966.
                                 110

-------
Figure 20.  Analyzed values of surface S02 concentrations in pphm
                 for 1630 EST on March 10, 1966.
                               Ill

-------
1O° 52 5' 	
                                                        SURFACE SO, ANALYSIS
                                                      DATE S_MAR,
                                                      TIME _l 4 30	EST
     Figure 21.   Analyzed values of surface S02  concentrations in pphm
                       for 1430 1ST on March 8, 1966.
                                      112

-------
     The isopleth interval used in the analyses was usually 8 pphm, but when
the maximum concentration fell below 32 pphm, a 4-ppbm interval was used.  On
occasion, intermediate isopleths were drawn if their inclusion would provide
significant additional information.

     V/hen the isopleth analyses were constructed, the observations from the
Group I stations were explicitly drawn for.  Values from the Group II stations
were looked at next (except during times when G02 corrections were not avail-
able), and then the Group III stations were examined to aid in determining
the isopleth patterns.  Finally, the data from the mobile observation sites
were used to "fill in the gaps" and to provide more detail to the analyses.

     The above "ranking" was carried out because:  (1) the Group I Davises
were calibrated by project personnel; (2) the Group II Davises were not
calibrated by project personnel nor were they cross-calibrated against Group
I Davises; (3) the Group III wet chemistry instruments were not calibrated by
project personnel, nor were they cross-calibrated against readings from
Davises; and (4) the mobile observations were not hourly averages, nor were
they necessarily taken at the exact time for which the chart was constructed.

     Additional input to the analyses was provided by the area and point
source distributions discussed in Section 2.  These distributions were used as
aids in determining the location and horizontal extent of areas of maximum
concentrations.  The surface wind data discussed in Section 4 were also used
in deteimining the directions in which the maximum concentrations would be
advected, usually reflected in the configurations of the S02 isopleths.

DISCUSSICN OF ANALYSES

     Analyses for the area of eastern New Jersey is somewhat dubious due to
the sparsity of data in that region.  In addition, isopleths were frequently
curved in the vicinity of the large bodies of water in the study area in order
to reflect the lower concentrations probably existing over these source-free
regions.  However, the effects of the smaller rivers and of Central Park
rarely show up in the analyses, due to the absence of number of data points
                                      113

-------
required to resolve details in the concentration field on the space scale of
these geographic features.

     Thus it is suggested that the present analyzed observed surface 862
concentration patterns be validated against simulated concentration patterns
resulting from air pollution models using a horizontal area source grid spac-
ing of about 2-3 km.  Such a grid spacing was used in the Gaussian puff model
of Shieh (1969), and in general his predicted S02 patterns in the area of
Manhattan and The Bronx (Figure 22) compared quite well with the observed
patterns for that area (Figure 21).  V/hen the grid spacing used in that model
was reduced by a factor of five, finer detail resulted in the predicted S02
pattern (Figure 23), e.g., see the effect of the rivers around Manhattan, and
of Central Park, in producing areas of reduced concentration.

     A tabulation of the hourly averaged 302 values measured at all of the
stations during the three "primary" test periods is given in Volume II.  These
values can be compared by applying quantitative statistical techniques to
predicted concentrations obtained from an urban air pollution model, but care
should be taken in using the Group II and Group III data for the reasons
discussed above.

     In addition, a series of S02 concentration profiles across Manhattan
(along 79th Street) were constructed by Jurgrau (1969) using data obtained
with the instrumented truck.  He was interested in the effects of the source-
free Central Park area on the buildup of S02 concentrations across Manhattan.
The location of 79th Street is shown as the dashed line across Manhattan in
Figure 23, while Central Park appears in the figure as the rectangular box in
the middle of Manhattan.  The actual sites where the truck stopped and made 5-
minute S02 readings are given in Table 30.  The western and eastern boundaries
of the park are Central Park West and 5th Avenue, respectively.

     As shown in Table 1, these traverses are only extant for one of the three
re-analyzed test periods, i.e., the November 1966 period.  However, the data
were used by Shieh (1969) to compare predicted and observed concentration
profiles across Manhattan (Figure 24).  All of the traverses for the November
1966 period are included in Volume II.
                                     114

-------
4I°00'H
40°45' h
40°30' \-
              74°30
74°I5'
74°00'
73°45'
                                                                           7 3° 30
      Figure 22.  Predicted 862 concentration field for a 1-mile by 1-mile
                  computational  grid at 1200 EST on  March 8,  1966
                                 (from Shieh, 1969).

-------
        40°50.625'h
         40°48.75' h
        40°46.875h
         40°43.I25'
                            74°00'
                                               73" 56.25'
73e>52.51
Figure  23.   Predicted S02 concentration  field for a 0.2-mile  by 0 2-mile
   computational  grid at 1200 EOT on March 8, 1966  (from Shieh,  1969).
                                      116

-------
TABLE 30.  SITES APPEARING IN 79th bTRKhT TRAVERSES


79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
79th
8lst
8lst
8lst
8lst
Site
& East End
& York
& First Ave-
& Second Ave.
& Third Ave.
& Lexington
& Park
& Madison
& Fifth Ave.
& Central Park West
& Columbus
& Amsterdam
& Broadway
& West End
& Riverside
Abbreviation
E.E.
York
1st
2nd
3rd
-
Park Ave.
-
5th Ave.
C.P.W.
Col. Ave.
Amst .
B'Way
W.E.
R.D.
                        117

-------
00
                0.3
              E
              a
              Ok
              o 0.2
c
o
u
c
o
O

 N
O
               O.I
               JAN. 30.1966
   TIME(EST)

X 1115- 1242

A 1339-1434

o 1436-1539
     WIND

(3I2«- I3mph)

( 3l5°-l6mph)

(3l5»-l6mph)
                                              Theoretical: u « 12.5 mph
                                                                        3rd Avc
                                  0.5
                                      1.0
                      1.5
                                                                              E.E.
                         2.0
                                                        Miles
                   Figure 24.  Predicted S02 concentrations (solid lines) versus observed data

                    along a 79th Street crosstown traverse in the direction of the mean flow

                                               (from Shieh, 1969).

-------
                                   SECTION 7

                                    SUMMARY

     Volume I describes the data set collected during the New York City Air
Pollution Project, conducted by New York University under the directon of the
late Dr. Ben Davidson of the Department of Meteorology and Oceanography, New
York University.  Volume II includes tabulations of several of the more
extensive components of the data set.  Other parts of the data set are on file
at the National Technical Information Service in Springfield, Virginia.

     The data set includes mesoscale surface wind and SO2 analyses, helicopter
soundings of temperature and S02, emission inventories of S02, heat, and
moisture from area and point sources, and pibal wind soundings.  Data were
collected during 12 observational periods carried out during the project, but
complete data sets are presented in Volumes I and II for only three of the
more interesting periods.  In addition, Volume I includes a discussion of
calibration and verification procedures.

     The data collected during this Project have already proved useful in
several air pollution and urban climate studies.  It is hoped that others
working in related fields will be able to make use of this unique data set.
                                      119

-------
                                  REFERENCES

*Bornstein,  R.D.,  1968:  Observations of the urban heat island effect in New
     York City.   J.  Appl. Meteor.,  7, 575-582.

*Bornstein,  R.D.,  1972a:   Two dimensional simulations of the nighttime flow
     over a rough warm city.   Ph.D.  Thesis,  Dept.  of Meteorology and Ocean-
     ography,  New York University.   Available from University Microfilm, Inc.

*Bornstein,  R.D.,  1972b:   Two dimensional simulations of the flow over a city.
     Preprints,  Amer.  Meteor. Soc.  Conference on the Urban Environment,
     Philadelphia, Pa., Oct.  31-Nov. 2,  1972.

*Bornstein,  R.D.,  A. Lorenzen, and D. Johnson,  1972:  Recent observations of
     urban effects on winds,  temperature and moisture in New York City, Pre-
     prints of the Amer.  Meteor.  Soc. Conference on the Urban Environment,
     Philadelphia, Pa., Oct.  31-Nov. 2,  1972.

*Bornstein,  R.D.  and Y.-T. Tarn, 1975:  Anthropogenic moisture production and
     its effect on boundary layer circulations over New York City, Proceedings
     of the Amer.  Meteor. Soc. Conference on the Urban Physical Environment,
     Aug. 25-29,  1975, Syracuse,  New York.

*Bornstein,  R.D.,  1975:  The two-dimensional URBMET urban boundary layer
     model.   J.  Appl.  Meteor., 14,  1459-1477.

*Bornstein,  R.D.  and A.D. Robock,  1976:   Effects of variable and unequal time
     steps for the advective and diffusive processes, to appear in Mon. Wea.
     Rev.

 Briggs, G.A., 1966:  Penetration of inversions by plumes, Contribution No.
     20, ATDL, ESSA, Oak Ridge.

 CONCAWE Group,  1966:   The calculation of atmospheric dispersion from a stack,
     CONCAWE publication, Netherlands.

*Davidson, B., 1967:  A summary of the New York University Urban Air Pollution
     Dynamics Research Program.  J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 17(3), p. 154.

*Druyan, L.M., 1968:  A comparison of low-level trajectories in an urban
     atmosphere,  J.  Appl. Meteor.,  jT(4), 583-590.

*Halpern, P.,  C.  Simon, and L. Randall,  1971:  Source emissions and the
     vertically integrated mass flux of sulfur dioxide across  the New York
     City area,  J. Appl. Meteor.,  10, 715-724,


                                      120

-------
*Ingram, W. ,  E. Kaiser and C. Simon, 1965:  Source-emission inventory  for  SO2
     in the New York Metropolitan area.  Unpublished New York University
     report.

* Johnson, D. , and R.D. Bornstein, 1974:  Urban-rural wind velocity differences
     and their effects on computed pollution concentrations in New York City.
     Preprints of Amer. Meteor. Soc. Symposium on Atmospheric Diffusion and
     Air Pollution, Santa Barbara, Calif. ,
* Johnson, D., 1975:  Urban-rural wind velocity differences  in New York City
     and their effect on the transport and dispersion of pollutants.  M.S.
     Thesis, Dept. of Meteorology, San Jose State University, San Jose,
     Calif.

*Jurgrau, M. , 1967:  A meteorological analysis of the effect of Central Park
     on SO2 concentrations in New York City.  M.S. Thesis,  New York University.

*Leahey, D.M. , 1969:  An urban heat island model.  Ph.D. Thesis,  Dept. of
     Meteorology and Oceanography, New York University.

*Leahey, D.M. and J.P. Friend, 1971:  A model for predicting depth of the
     mixing layer over an urban heat island with applications to  New York
     City, J. Appl. Meteor. , 10, 1162-1173.

*loose, T. and R.D. Bornstein, 1975:  Mesoscale effects of  New York City on
     synoptic scale fronts.  Presented at 9th Annual Congress of  the Canadian
     Meteorological Society, Vancouver, B.C.

*Lorenzen, A., 1972:  The vertical and horizontal moisture  distribution in the
     New York City area.  M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Meteorology, San  Jose State
     University, San Jose, Calif.

*Reddi, M.J. , 1966:  Statistical and meteorological analysis of SO2 concentra-
     tion in New York City, M.S. Thesis, New York University.

*Scudder, B.E., 1965:  Diagnosing the mesoscale wind field  over an urban area
     by means of synoptic data.  M.S. Thesis, New York University.

*Shieh, L.J., 1969:  A multiple source model of turbulent diffusion and
     dispersion in urban atmospheres.  Ph.D. Thesis, New York University.

*Shieh, L.J., B. Davidson, and J.P. Friend, 1969:  A model  of diffusion in
     urban atmospheres:  S02 in greater New York.  Preprints of the Symposium
     on Multiple Source Urban Diffusion Models, Chapel Hill, N.C.

*Simon, C., 1968:  Plume rise and plume concentration distribution from
     Consolidated Edison Plants in New York City.  Final Report No. 68-15, New
     York University.
                                      121

-------
*Simon, C.,  and B.W. Proudfit,  1967:   Some observations of plume rise and
     plume concentration distribution over New York City,  Presented at the
     60th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollut.  Control Assoc., Cleveland, Ohio.
*Designates paper using NYU/NYC data set,  and available at SJSU.
                                     122

-------
                    APPENDIX I




SUMMARY OF SYNOPTIC CONDITIONS DURING TEST PERIODS
                        123

-------
                                    TEST 1

     Sept. 19, 1965:  An anticyclone dominated the east coast south of NYC with
a quasi-stationary front through the center of New York State (NYS) and
Connecticut.  The front moved (east to west) through NYC between 1800 and
2100Z, and the high associated with the new air mass was centered 400 miles
east of NYC.

     Sept. 20. 1965:  The front that passed through NYC on the 19th washed out
in central Pennsylvania by 1800Z, resulting in a large high forming over the
entire east coast and western Atlantic.

     Sept. 21, 1965:  No change.

     Sept. 22, 1965:  No change on east coast, but after OOOOZ, a cold front
moved into the Ohio Valley.

     Sept. 23, 1965:  The front slowed in the Ohio Valley, but as the high on
the east coast weakened, the front began to move eastward with many waves.

     Sept. 24, 1965:  The front entered eastern NYS by 0600Z, but remained
quasi-stationary with waving.  It passed NYC at 0300Z, moving from west to
east.
                                    TEST 2
     Oct. 13, 1965:  An anticyclone moved from West Virginia to Delaware,
following a front located in the western Atlantic.

     Oct. 14, 1965:  The high moved northeast, but high pressure still domi-
nated the entire) east coast.
                                      124

-------
      Oct.  15,  1965:  A ridge still existed over  the east  coast,  but by the end
of the day a cold  front moved into upper NYS.

      Oct.  16,  1965:  The front passed through NYC at about  0600Z,  followed by
a high fron Ontario.

      Oct.  17,  1965:  The high first moved northeast,  and  then moved down the
Hudson River to a position over NYC at 2100Z.

      Get.  18,  1965:  The high remained stationary over NYC.

                                    TEST 3

      Cancelled
                                    TEST 4
     Dec. 7, 1965:  A high was centered over the midwest, with ridging into
the northeast.  The high later moved southeast.

     Dec. 8, 1965:  The high moved into the southeast, still ridging into the
northeast.  By 1800Z, a front moved into upper NYS, and by 2100Z there was
frontolysis, with a "peanut" low centered over Syracuse and Dover Air Force
Base.

     Dec. 9, 1965:  The ridge was re-established by 0600Z, and the high became
quasi-stationary over the southeast.

     Dec. 10, 1965:  A cold front entered upper NYS at 0900Z.  It passed NYC
at 1200Z, and by 1800Z the ridge formed a high centered in Ontario.

     Dec. 11, 1965:  The surface ridge line moved into northwestern New
England, and there was a warm front through Washington, D. C.
                                      125

-------
     Dec. 12, 1965:  The Canadian high intensified,  increasing the ridging
over the east coast.

                                    TEST 5

     Feb. 2, 1966:  A trough formed over the east coast between a low near
Greenland and another low (with a frontal system) over Virginia.

     Feb. 3. 1966:  Weak ridging from Philadelphia to Oklahoma.

     Feb. 4. 1966:  A front entered upper NYS by 1500Z, with a wave centered
over southeastern Ontario.   Frontolysis occurred at  2100Z.

     Feb. 5. 1966:  A high centered over the Mississippi Valley dominated the
entire eastern part of the country.



     March 8, 1966;  A long wave trough was over the northeast, with jets
through the Ohio Valley and off the coast at Martha's Vineyard.  At the sur-
face, a dynamic high dominated the east.

     March 9t 1980;  Th© long wave trough weakened and the jet moved northward
into N¥B,  Th© highest speeds moved into Maine  and §, short wavt ridge mevtd
into the southwestern part of the Ohio Valley.  The  surface high msved north-
east across the Ohio Valley into NYS.  By 1200Z it began to msve south.

     March 10. 1000;  The long mv© ridge aloft was  building ovtr the western
Ohio Valley,  Th© Jet maximum was accompanying  a, short w&vt ridge and mm
       strength.  The surface high became stationary ©vtr IterfoUs, Virginia
    tofgan changing its theiml ftructurt.  By 21002  a eeld front had jugt
       Watertown, New York (moving south) and th@ high was br@aking &m\.

           11. 10@i;  A second jtt ne^imin m§  ©vir  Qaebt© ia atseeiation
                 short «IVB trough and a, closed lew  at §00 nfe ever

-------
The front moved through NYC at 1200Z.  Following the front there was ridging
from a dynamic high over Quebec.  The ridge was bridging the front in the NYC
area during the afternoon.

     March 12, 1966:  The upper level system moved eastward across the mari-
time provinces and a weak short wave ridge developed in association with the
convergence zone of the jet maximum.  The long wave pattern remained unchanged.
By 0300Z the surface front moved southward to Washington, B.C., and the high
moved south-southeast with its center remaining in Quebec.
                                    TEST 7
     May 3, 1966:  A high was centered over the Missouri Valley with ridging
into the northeast.  There was frontogenesis over Maine, and a cold front
moved rapidly into NYC.

     May 4, 1966:  The front moved into the NYC area by OOOOZ and a post
frontal high in Maine moved southeast through the Washington, B.C. area.

     May 5, 1966:  The high moved off the coast, and a second front was over
Maine.

     May 6, 1966:  The front moved through NYC between 0600 and 1200Z.  At
1200Z, a short wave formed over Cleveland a wave moved through NYC after
1800Z.

     May 7, 1966:  A post frontal trough remained over the northeast.

                                    TEST 8

     Oct. 4. 1966:  A stationary high existed in the Atlantic off of NYC and
a cold front moved through the Ohio Valley into NYS by 0100Z.
                                      127

-------
     Oct. 5. 1966:  The front passed NYC between 0600 and 1200Z, and the
"triple point" also went through.  A post frontal high was centered over the
Missouri Valley.

     Oct. 6, 1966:  The high moved northeastward into the Ohio Valley.

                                    TEST 9

     Nov. 1, 1966:  A front with waves moved through the middle of NYC and
then remained stationary.

     Nov. 2, 1966:  A major wave developed over Georgia and moved northward
along the front into Pennsylvania.

                                    TEST 10

     Nov. 15, 1966:  At OOOOZ, the jet was through the Ohio Valley and off of
the coast at Cape Hatteras.  The axis of the long wave trough was through an
area northeast and east of NYC.  By 1200Z, the jet moved to a position north
of the city, and there was a jet maximum over northwest Ontario.  At the
surface  at  0600Z, a dynamic high was centered in northwest Ontario, with
ridging  into the Ohio Valley.

     Nov. 16, 1966:  The flow was becoming more zonal, with the jet split into
two cores.  The primary core was over southern Quebec, while the secondary
core was over the southern Ohio Valley.  At OOOOZ, the surface ridge was in
NYS, while  six hours later the high was centered over Alabama.  By 1800Z, the
flow at  NYC was southwest, with a warm front near Buffalo.

     Nov. 17, 1966:  The two jet cores merged and came off of the east coast
at Washington, B.C.  A strong maximum was developed over Wisconsin.  At OOOOZ,
the surface front extended from Watertown, NYS to Providence, RI.  It then
moved northward and became quasi-stationary in northern New England, with
southwesterly flow remaining over NYC.
                                      128

-------
                                    TEST 11

     Nov. 23, 1966:  A high centered over Washington, B.C. dominated the
entire east coast.

     Nov. 24, 1966:  The high moved southward into Georgia.

     Nov. 25, 1966:  Weakening of the ridge in the northeast allowed some
quasi-stationary frontal activity in the northwestern part of New England.

                                    TEST 12

     Dec. 6, 1966:  At OOOOZ, a dynamic high at 850 mb over Charlestown, S.C.
dominated the entire east coast.  It was beginning to change its structure to
a warm core high.  The surface pattern was generally the same as that at 850
mb.

     Dec. 7, 1966:  The high at 850 mb was a stationary warm core high centered
at SON and 75W.  The surface pattern was generally the same as that at 850 mb.

     Dec. 8, 1966:  By OOOOZ a front at 850 mb was pushing into the Olio
Valley,  increasing the wind speed over NYC up to  30 kts.  (from the west).  By
0600Z, the surface high was off of the coast, and there was strong south-
westerly flow through the entire east coast.
                                      129

-------
                        APPENDIX II
   SUMMARY OF INVERSION DATA FROM SOUNDING TAKEN AT THE
      NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SITE AT J.F.K.  AIRPORT
  Data includes elevation of inversion base Zg,  elevation
of inversion top z™, temperature increase through inversion
            AT, and thickness of inversion Az.
                           130

-------
                                  APPENDIX II

Date
10/16/64
10/28/64
10/29/64
03/02/65
03/03/65
10/14/65
10/15/65
02/02/66
03/09/66
03/10/66

03/11/66

05/03/66



05/04/66



05/05/66



05/06/66



03/23/66

05/07/66



05/08/66
05/25/66

06/09/66

Time (EST)
0615
0615
0615
0615
0615
0615
0615
1215
0615
0015
0615
0015
0615
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0015
0615
0015
0615
V"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
380
0
230
0
0
0
360
2100
1920
158
2390
1840
2210
4170
1480
2200
200
146
0
0
3470
1120
280
340
1350
1150
1520
260
440
180
0
0
0
V-)
510
440
610
310
300
290
380
490
310
330
230
360
200
480
2450
2070
480
2500
1970
2330
4490
1810
2690
310
1510
1020
150
3700
1600
530
830
1650
1980
1680
410
880
310
540
320
320
AT(C)
7.7
9.1
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.1
2.5
1.4
0.7
1.7
3.9
3.7
3.9
0.8
2.9
1.2
3.9
0.0
1.1
1.5
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
5.9
1.9
1.1
2.0
8.9
6.8
0.2
2.8
2.6
2.1
3.4
1.8
0.3
2.5
2.5
Az(m)
510
440
610
310
300
290
380
110
310
100
230
360
200
120
350
150
322
110
130
120
320
330
440
110
1364
1020
150
230
480
250
490
300
830
160
150
440
130
540
320
320
(continued)
                                     131

-------
                            APPENDIX II (continued)




  Date        Tune (EST)        z^ra)        2^,(m)         AT(C)         Az(m)
06/16/66


06/22/66
07/20/66
07/21/66
09/08/66
10/04/66



10/05/66


10/06/66



10/07/66
10/26/66

10/27/66

11/01/66



11/02/67
11/15/66



11/16/66



11/17/66



11/18/66
11/23/66



0015
0615
1215
0615
0615
0615
0615
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0015
0615
0015
0615
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0015
0615
1215
1815
0
0
110
380
480
170
490
920
1700
210
190
2280
1210
2080

1530
1426
1300
750
0
0
0
0
1290
0
1070
1170
0
1970
1410

1490
300
810
1040
1160
730
280
340
0
0
0
0
430
0
220
90
250
650
550
320
610
1120
1920
330
320
2470
1270
2390
NONE
1680
1730
3730
900
90
350
280
290
1540
380
1270
1400
280
2160
2300
NONE
2480
670
1290
1560
1500
1040
640
490
206
620
1000
950
600
221
1.0
4.0
5.8
2.4
2.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
3.9
0.0
1.6
0.3
2.3
0.2

3.1
2.7
3.6
0.6
3.8
3.2
1.2
2.0
1.1
.5
1.1
0.6
2.2
.4
5.4

1.8
0
3.5
4.0
3.6
0.4
3.0
1.8
3.2
1.0
0.7
8.3
2.3
1.8
220
90
140
270
70
150
120
200
220
120
130
190
60
310

150
310
2430
150
90
350
280
290
250
380
200
230
280
190
890

990
370
480
520
340
310
360
150
206
620
1000
950
170
221
(continued)



                                     132

-------
                          APPENDIX II (continued)
Date
Time
AT(C)
Az(m)
11/24/66



11/25/66



11/26/66
12/06/66



12/07/66



12/08/66



12/09/66
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0615
1215
1815
0015
0
0
470
0
0
0
1090
0
0
1220
450
1150
790
0
870
740
480
0
0
0
0
0
550
320
700
185
110
440
1530
200
160
1950
1060
1280
1190
1522
1300
1440
1360
1470
710
570
230
139
7.3
12.4
2.5
5.0
7.1
6.3
0
3.8
2.3
1.4
3.6
7.5
6.4
1.8
4.2
3.7
2.3
1.1
8.1
1.8
4.9
6.7
550
320
230
185
110
440
440
200
160
730
610
130
400
1522
430
700
880
1470
710
570
230
139
                                    133

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 . REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/4-77-035a
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 NEW YORK AIR POLLUTION PROJECT OF 1964-1969
 Volume I.  Description of Data
                                                         5. REPORT DATE
                                                           August 1977
                                                         6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                           . RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
7. AUTHOR(S)
 Robert D. Bornstein, Tim Morgan,  Yam-Tong Tarn, Tim
 Loose, Ken Leap, Jim Sigafoose,  Carl Berkowitz
                                                          8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Department of Meteorology
 San Jose  State University
 San Jose, California  95192
                                                         10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                                           1AA603
                                                         11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                           68-02-1284
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                          13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Environmental  Sciences Research Laboratory-RTP, NC
Office Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711	
                                                            Final 4/74-9/76	
                                                          14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                            EPA/600/09
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 Volume II, a magnetic tape,  and a roll of microfilm contain aerometric field data
 that are available from OTIS.   EPA-600/4-77-035b
16. ABSTRACT

      Volume  I documents the meteorological and sulfur dioxide  data collected during
 three test periods of  the New York City Air Pollution Project  of 1964-1969.  A
 detailed description of all the data is presented in Volume  I.   Volume II supplements
 Volume I and contains:  (1) emission rates of sulfur dioxide, heat,  and moisture; (2)
 sulfur dioxide  concentrations measured from fixed sites and  from automotive platforms;
 and (3) vertical profiles of sulfur dioxide concentrations and temperature made from
 helicopters.  Other data collected during the Project are available on microfilm:
 (1) hourly synoptic maps showing "surface" windspeed and direction at 97 sites and
 showing streamline and isotach analyses; and (2) 132 bihourly  maps of hourly average
 sulfur dioxide  concentration isopleths for the 11 days of the  three "primary" test
 periods.  Pibal measurements of winds aloft (578) balloon launches) are available on
 magnetic tape.  The purpose of documenting and publishing all  these data (in Volume I,
 Volume II, microfilm,  and magnetic tape) is to make these valuable data readily
 available for further  research and applications.

      Volume  II , the microfilm, and the magnetic tape (with card deck and print-out for
 reading the  tape)  are  available from the National Technical  Information Service in
 Springfield, Virginia.
17.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                            b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COS AT I Field/Group
 * Air pollution
 * Sulfur dioxide
 * Field Tests
 * Meteorological  data
 * Air circulation
   Helicopters
                                               New York City
    13B
    07B
    14B
    04B
    04A
    QIC
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

   RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                                             19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                               UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
      146
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                       22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            134

-------