SERA
United SIMM
Environmental Protection
Aoancy
Air, NolM and Radiation Branch
Ragion 7
324 East Elavanth St
Kanaai Ctty. Mo. 64106
IPA607/0-M-002
August 1963
Linn County,
Iowa
Non-Traditional
Fugitive Dust Study
-------
-------
LINN COUNTY, IOWA
NON-TRADITIONAL FUGITIVE DUST STUDY
by
Edward T. Brookman
TRC Environmental consultants, Inc.
800 Connecticut Boulevard
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
Contract No. 68-02-3514
Work Assignment No. 25
TRC Project No. 2078-L81
Project Officer
Michael T. Marshall
Report No. EPA 907/9-83-002
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
AIR BRANCH
324 EAST ELEVENTH STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106
August 1983
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Final Report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., East Hartford, Connecticut in
fulfillment of contract Number 68-02-3514, Assignment Number 25. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and
not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency or of
cooperating agencies. Mention of company or product name is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Linn County, Iowa is one of the State's four primary non-attainment
areas for total suspended particulate matter. Since non-traditional fugitive
dust sources can be significant contributors to ambient air quality, they
must be properly inventoried and evaluated before control strategies can be
identified. This report presents the results of a study that was performed
to assist the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality in the definition of
the non-traditional sources of fugitive dust in Linn County.
The study was separated into three tasks: update the area source
inventory, analyze the existing monitoring data to determine source impacts,
and provide a control strategy for non-traditional sources.
The results of the study indicate that (1) all future large scale
construction projects must incorporate fugitive dust controls, (2) surfacing
of unpaved roads throughout the region should be continued, and (3) the
impact of industrial fugitive dust sources should be reduced.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ll1
Figures v
Tables vi
Acknowledgements viil
1. introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations *
4. Task I - Area source inventory 8
Review and evaluation of existing information .... 8
Gathering of new information to update inventory ... 12
Preparation of updated area source emissions
inventory 1*
5. Task II - TSP Ambient Monitoring Data Analysis 31
Data base and technical approach 31
Results and conclusions of data analyses 35
6. Task III - Control Strategy for Area Source Emissions ... 78
Traffic-related sources of fugitive dust 78
industrial sources of fugitive dust 79
Construction activity sources of fugitive dust .... 80
Air quality improvement due to control strategy ... 81
Changes to control strategy due to changes in air
quality standard . . 82
References *
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 Primary and secondary non-attainment areas for total suspended
particulate 2
4-1 Example of data gathering form for industrial traffic sources . . 16
4-2 Example of data gathering form for industrial materials
handling sources 17
5-1 Monitoring locations in Linn County 42
5-2 Effect of precipitation on yearly geometric mean particulate
levels at Backbone State Park 43
5-3 Yearly geometric mean particulate levels 44
5-4 Yearly geometric mean particulate levels with background
removed 45
5-5 Monthly arithmetic mean particulate levels - 1982 46
5-6 Pollution roses: 1982 data arithmetic means 47
5-7 Non-traditional source impact at monitoring sites 48
-------
TABLES
Number *
2-1 Results of Area Source Emissions Inventory for Linn County . . 5
4-1 Emission Factors used by PEDCo (1981) ............. 18
4-2 Input Data and Results for PEDCo (1981) Inventory ....... 19
4-3 Emission Factors used in the Updated Area Source Inventory:
Agriculture, Construction, Traffic on County Paved and
Unpaved Roads ........................ 2
4-4 Emission Factors used in the Updated Area Source Inventory:
Industrial Sources of Fuqitive Dust ............. 21
4-5 Input Data and Results for Updated Area Source Inventory:
Wind Blown Dust Emissions from Agriculture ......... 23
4-6 Input Data and Results for Updated Area Source Inventory:
Emissions from Agricultural Activity ............ 24
4-7 input Data and Results for Updated Area Source Inventory:
Emissions From Construction Activity ............ 25
4-8 County Paved and Unpaved Road information Obtained from the
Iowa Department of Transportation .............. 26
4-9 Input Data and Results for Updated Area Source Inventory:
Emissions from Traffic on County Paved and Unpaved Roads . . 27
4-10 input Data and Results for Updated Area Source Inventory:
Emissions from Traffic on Municipal Roads in Cedar Rapids . . 28
4-11 Results for Updated Area Source Inventory: Emissions from
industrial Sources ..................... 29
5-1 Yearly Geometric Mean Particulate Levels (ug/m3) ...... _ 49
5-2 Yearly Geometric Mean Particulate Levels with Background
Removed (ug/m3) ....... ...............
5-3 Monthly Geometric Mean Particulate Levels-1976 to 1982 (wg/m3). 51
5-4 Monthly Arithmetic Mean Particulate Levels - 1982 (wg/m3) ... 52
vi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
5-5 Meteorological Summary for 1976 (P>0.71) 53
5-6 Meteorological Summary for 1977 (P>0.71) 54
5-7 Meteorological Summary for 1978 (P>0.71) 55
5-8 Meteorological Summary for 1979 (P>0.71) 56
5-9 Meteorological Summary for 1980 (PX).71) 57
5-10 Meteorological Summary for 1981 (P>0.71) 58
5-11 Meteorological Summary for 1982 (PX).71) 59
5-12 Wind Frequency per Wind Direction Category based on 1963-1967 Data 60
5-13 Wind Frequency per Wind Direction Category based on 1976-1979 Data 61
5-14 Frequency of Wind Direction on Sampling Days (%), P>0.71 ... 62
5-15 Arithmetic Mean Particulate Levels by Wind Sector for all days
with PXK71 (ug/m3) 63
5-16 Spatial Correlations: Winds from North Sector 65
5-17 Spatial Correlations: Winds from Northeast Sector 66
5-18 Spatial Correlations: Winds from East Sector 67
5-19 Spatial Correlations: Winds from Southeast Sector 68
5-20 Spatial Correlations: Winds from South Sector 70
5-21 Spatial Correlations: Winds from Southwest Sector 72
5-22 Spatial Correlations: Winds from West Sector 73
5-23 Spatial Correlations: Winds from Northwest Sector 74
5-24 Estimated Source impacts at Monitoring Locations (Geometric
Equivalents in ug/m3) 77
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Mr. Robert Madson
of the Cedar Rapids Department of Planning and Redevelopment and Mr. Gregory
Slager of the Linn County Health Department for their enthusiastic
cooperation with this study. The Cedar Rapids Department of pluming and
Redevelopment provide staff report for the Linn County Regional Planning
commission which is the designated lead local pi annm,IM«c* f«
transportation-air quality issues. The Linn County Health Department^ has
been delegated authority for air pollution control programs in Linn County
and" as such, issues permits for new sources and carries out inspection and
enforcement activities for industrial and mobile sources.
The author also wants to extend his gratitude to Mr. Jerry Tonneson of
the Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management for his assistance,
guidance, and encouragement with this project.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required all states to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIP's) for demonstrating the attainment of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by December 31, 1982. Linn County,
Iowa (Cedar Rapids area) is one of the State's four primary non-attainment
areas for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter (Figure 1-1). The SIP
addressed attainment through further controls on traditional sources and
possible control of non-traditional sources.
Non-traditional fugitive dust sources (i.e., those sources where
particulate matter become airborne, excluding heating sources and process
sources which emit through a stack) can have a major impact on ambient
particulate air quality. To properly address the non-attainment problem in
the Cedar Rapids area, these fugitive sources must be properly inventoried
and evaluated before control strategies can be identified. Since such an
evaluation has not been adequately performed for regulation impact, the Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) requested assistance in order to
complete their SIP for attainment of the NAAQS for TSP. TRC Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (TRC) was contracted by EPA Region VII to assist the IDEQ
in this area.
The work performed by TRC was divided into three separate tasks. The
purpose of Task I was to prepare a detailed source inventory listing of those
area sources contributing to the TSP non-attainment problem in Linn County.
The purpose of Task II was to analyze the TSP ambient monitoring data to
determine the contribution by non-traditional fugitive dust sources to the
ambient TSP levels. The purpose of Task III was to utilize the results of
Tasks I and II to provide a strategy for the reduction of the impact of
fugitive sources for the attainment of the TSP NAAQS.
This report discusses the technical approach to each of the three tasks,
presents the results of the analyses, and provides conclusions and
recommendations based on the results. All procedures, assumptions and
calculations used to develop the proposed regulatory control strategy are
identified and documented.
-------
Figure 1-1. Primary and secondary non-attainment areas for total suspended oarticulate,
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The yearly geometric mean TSP levels recorded at each of the five Linn
County air quality monitorinq stations were below the NAAQS for TSP during
the past year (1982). The three main factors contributing to this reduction
in TSP levels were an inordinate amount of precipitation durinq the year, a
hiatus in major construction activities* and a continued reduction in
industrial activity due to the depressed economic situation that exists
throughout the country. Based on the results of the analyses performed
durinq this study, it is concluded that, without additional control measures,
violations of the TSP NAAQS could aqain oc^ur as a result of increased
industrial productivity and/or less than normal precipitation levels and/or a
major construction project in the vicinity of a monitorinq station. General
conclusions regarding the non-traditional sources contributing to the
measured air quality and the additional control measures that could be
implemented to reduce the impact of these sources are discussed below.
Specific conclusions are presented in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this report for
the area source inventory, ambient air impact, and control strategy tasks,
respectively.
AREA SOURCE INVENTORY
Based on the updated area source inventory that resulted from Task I of
this study, traffic on paved and unpaved roads produce the greatest amount of
emissions. Table 2-1 is a summary of the yearly emission totals for each of
the major fuqitive dust source categories. While it is noted that
agricultural sources of fugitive dust are also significant, such sources are
seasonal, further removed from population centers, and not readily
controllable. They should thus not be part of an overall control strategy.
Although the inventory gives relative emission rates for the various
source categories, the lack of more specific input coupled with the relative
uncertainties in emission factors and control efficiencies results in a
product of somewhat limited use. The intended use of most inventories is for
computer modeling to predict ambient air quality impact. While this
inventory could certainly be used for modeling, it is concluded ttiat a much
more detailed inventory should be prepared for the paved and unpaved road
source categories. The other categories are felt to be fairly representative
and they also have a lesser impact on the ambient air quality. This will be
discussed further in the Recommendations section.
-------
AMBIENT AIR IMPACT OF AREA SOURCES
The major area source currently contributing to the air quality data
recorded at the five Linn County monitoring stations is traffic on urban
paved and unpaved roads and industrial roadways. It is concluded3 that
traffic-related emissions annually contribute 15 to 20 «/m at
monitoring Sites 2, 4, and 5 (751 Center Point Road, 445 First Street, and
4401 Sixth Street, respectively) and 5 to 10 Mg/mJ at Sites 1 and 3 (4426
Council Street and 14th Avenue and 10th Street, respectively).
Industrial fugitive emissions also contribute significantly to the
overall particulate levels recorded at several of the sites. Site 3 is
affected by fugitive dust sources at the Wilson Company and Cargill - 16th
Street to the extent of 5 to 10 ug/m3 annually. Area source emissions
from penick & Ford annually contribute approximately 5 to 6 wg/ra to the
particulate levels recorded at Site 4.
To a lesser extent, localized area sources contribute to the particulate
levels recorded at various monitoring stations. The principal example of
this is the Hawkeye Downs fairgrounds where activities contribute
approximately 2 to 3 wg/ra3 to the particulate levels recorded at Site 5.
In the past, highway construction has caused an overwhelming impact on
air quality. The emissions produced by the construction of Route 380 through
the middle of Cedar Rapids resulted in an additional 35 ug/ra-> annual
impact at Site 2 in 1977. Likewise, the construction of Routes 380 and 30
resulted in an additional 20 wg/m3 annual impact at Site 5 in 1978.
AREA SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
To preclude the possibility of another annual NAAQS violation, controls
for specific area sources should be considered.
Since large scale construction activities have been shown to produce the
greatest impact on ambient air quality of any area source category, such
activities should be controlled and strictly enforced. A variety of control
techniques can be applied to construction activities and these are discussed
in Section 6.
The second greatest impact on air quality stems from traffic on paved
and unpaved roads. Emissions from paved roads in the core area are currently
being addressed through a very extensive street cleaning program. This
program could be extended to the environs of Cedar Rapids and also examined
to ensure that clean-up is occurring immediately after sanding and salting
events in the winter. Unpaved roads should be treated as time and budget
allow. Efforts should be initially directed to the unpaved streets in the
core area.
An industrial fugitive dust reduction plan should be initiated to reduce
the impact of this source category. In general, good housekeeping practices
such as road cleaning, spill clean-up .and wheel washes will greately reduce
the quantity of dust being emitted.
-------
TABLE 2-1. RESULTS OF AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR LINN COUNTY
Emission rate
Souce category (tons/year)
Agriculture
Wind erosion 4485
Soil preparation activities 1660
construction 172
Traffic on County Roads
Municipal primary 1223
Municipal interstate 29
Municipal streets 6526
Rural primary 1371
Rural interstate 5
Rural secondary
Unimproved 2
Graded and drained 377
Gravel 50324
Bituminous 75
Paved 1943
Traffic on roads in Cedar Rapids
Paved 6782
Unimproved 37
Gravel or stone . 13832
Oil surface on non-prepared base 12910
Industrial fugitives
Traffic on paved roads/lots 366
Traffic on unpaved roads/lots 181
Storage pile/materials handling 190
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analyses performed during this study, it was possible to
establish area source contributions to ambient air quality to a fair degree
of certainty in most instances. It was then possible to propose a control
strategy that could be implemented to reduce these contributions. However,
there are certain areas of uncertainty that still exist and further work
could be done to better define these particular areas.
INVENTORY ACCURACY
The main recommendation is to prepare a more detailed paved and unpaved
road emission inventory. The data on mileage, VMT, and road type exist, but
require considerable manipulation in order to be meaningful. Once these data
are prepared, then emissions can be estimated to a greater degree of
certainty and future modeling becomes more precise and useful.
It should be noted that a completely accurate area source inventory can
never be realistically achieved since this would require detailed testing of
each and every source. This means that there will always be some uncertainty
in the use of air quality models. There are, however, receptor modeling
techniques that could be used to "fine tune" the results, but, based on the
current situation in Linn County, such detailed analyses are not recommended.
SOURCE IMPACT DEFINITION
In several cases, there is uncertainty as to the degree of impact of
specific area sources on a particular monitor. One example is Site 3 where
winds from the south, southwest carry emissions to the monitor from several
types of sources (landfill, industrial fugitives, unpaved roads). It is
recommended that scanning electron microscope analyses be performed on
selected filters to help distinguish individual source impacts. This
technique has proved very successful in similar instances in defining
particle types and size spectra. The results of such a study would be very
useful for fine tuning the proposed control strategy. The results would also
be useful for determining ambient air quality impacts of material less than
10 um so that the affect of the proposed PM10 standard is addressed.
-------
INDUSTRIAL AWARENESS
Industrial fugitive emissions were shown to impact several monitoring
sites. While the questionnaires received from the industries are a giant
step in recognizing the types and extents of industrial fugitive sources,
they also tend to show a general lack of awareness of what fugitive sources
are and what controls can accomplish. It is recommended that some type of
"awareness" program be undertaken to educate the industrial community in the
area of fugitive emissions and their control. This can take the form of
individual plant visits and discussions with plant managers, either by a
consultant or a local air pollution official, or it can be in the form of a
general seminar conducted by an expert for representatives from all
industries.
-------
SECTION 4
TASK I - AREA SOURCE INVENTORY
The purpose of Task I was to prepare a detailed source inventory listing
of those area sources contributing to the TSP non-attainment problem in Linn
County, Iowa. This was to be accomplished in the following manner:
Review and evaluate all existing information to establish a data
base to be updated.
Gather new emissions information necessary for updating the data
base.
*-*
Prepare a new, updated area source emissions inventory.
The subsections that follow describe in detail the various activities
required to complete Task I.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION
TRC reviewed four reports that contain fugitive dust information
relating to Iowa in general and Linn County in particular. These four
reports were:
Inventory of Particulate Area Sources in the State of Iowa.
EPA-907/9-81-010, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., December 1981.
Iowa State Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Air
Pollution. Iowa Department of Environmental Quality.
Air Quality Plan (Draft). Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.,
September 1982.
Filter Analysis and Particulate Identification - Volume I
(Draft). PEDCo Environmental, Inc., March 1982.
The purpose of the review was to evaluate the thoroughness and accuracy
of the existing area source inventory. Those areas requiring revision and
updating and those sources omitted from the inventory were to be identified.
Upon completion of the reviews, -it was evident that the bulk of the
material pertinent to Task I was contained in the PEDCo (1981) report. The
8
-------
PEOCo (1982) report presents microinventory and filter analyses results that
were useful for the Task II work, but not for Task I. The Barton-Aschman
(1982) report presents recommendations for control strategies for emissions
from roads that were useful for the Task III work. Their emissions
estimations were based, in part, on the PEDCo (1981) work. The Iowa SIP
report presents a very general area source inventory which was based on very
general emission factors. The PEDCo (1981) report is felt to contain much
more specific information. This information is evaluated below.
Evaluation of Existing Area Source Inventory Information
PEDCo calculated emissions for Linn County from four categories of
fugitive dust sources: agriculture, construction, unpaved roads, and paved
roads. The emission factor equations they used in these calculations, the
input data, and the results are summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4.2. TRC's
evaluations of these factors and inputs are presented in the following
paragraphs.
Agriculture
The wind erosion equation used for estimating the wind blown emissions
is widely used and accepted. The input values selected by PEDCo are
acceptable with the possible exception of V. The values selected for V
were obtained from the interpolation of a graph in a region of the graph that
is not well defined by the curves. TRC could not obtain the reference which
presents the data that made up the curves (Craig and Turelle, "Guide for Wind
Erosion Control on Cropland in the Great Plains States," USDA Soil
Conservation Service, 1964), so PEDCo's interpolation has to suffice. The
only area for updating is the planted acreage which PEDCo obtained from the
Iowa Department of Agriculture for the years 1977-197.9.
The equation used for estimating the emissions from agricultural tilling
is outdated. Midwest Research Institute (MRI) has produced a new set of
emission factors for soil preparation activities and published the
information.^ Their latest equation is as follows:
E - k (4.8) (s)°-6 Ibs/acre/year
where s = soil silt content (%)
k = 1.0 for total particulate (all particle sizes)
=» 0.8 for total suspended particulate
= 0.25 for inhalable particulate (<15 im)
=» 0.10 for fine particulate (<2.5 in)
To account for differences in climatic conditions, this equation should
contain a (PE/45)2 correction term (the factor was based on test data
obtained in the Sacramento area of California, PE 41, and Kansas, PE 50,
and so an average value of 45 is selected as the correction parameter). This
-------
factor should also contain a correction term to account for the percentage of
all agricultural emissions represented by soil preparation. Based on
discussions with individuals who have worked in the agricultural area and
TRC's extensive experience with fugitive emissions, it is felt that the soil
preparation phase of the agricultural yearly cycle probably accounts for up
to 70 percent of all of the emissions produced during the year. Harvesting
would account for about 20.percent and all other activities would probably
account for 10 percent.
Incorporating these correction terms, the equation for all agricultural
activity becomes:
E - k (6.86) (s) " Ibs/acre/year
(PE/45)2
Substituting the values of 45 for s and 98 for PE (as assumed by PEDCo), the
resulting emission factor is:
E » k (14.2) Ibs/acre/year
Again, the planted acreage information can be updated.
Construction
The emission factor used for estimating construction emissions is the
only one available. While many assumptions were made by PEDCo in the
emission calculations (construction durations and acreage), they appear to be
reasonable. The only area for updating is to use 1982 data instead of the
1980 data used by PEDCo.
Unpaved Roads
A recent draft report by MRI2 presents several emission factors for
unpaved roads that are more applicable and up-to-date than the one used by
PEDCo. The most useful factor for rural unpaved roads is the one developed
by McCaldin and Heidel3 from tests conducted on dirt roads in the southwest:
E = 0.00035 s S2 Ibs/VMT
where s = silt content of surface material (%)
S » vehicle speed (rai/hr)
TRC feels that a correction term of the form d/365 should be included in this
equation when calculating yearly emissions to account for the number of dry
days per year (d).
The segregation of road types by PEDCo with the associated, silt and
speed values are felt to be representative and will be used in the updated
inventory. However, the latest information on VMT can be used.
Paved Roads
MRI has also recently developed and published4 a new set of emission
10
-------
factors for urban paved roads which should be used instead of the one used by
PEDCo. The latest factors are:
0.0208
Elp - 0.0090
(*r
EIQ - 0.0081 / sL\ °'8
Epp - 0.0036 / 8L\ °*6
\o.7/
where E = emission factor, Ibs/VMT
TSP a total suspended particulate
IP = inhalable particulate (<15 yn)
10 = particulate <10 in
FP = fine particulate (<2.5 in)
sL = silt loading, grains/ft2
In this same document MRI presents representative sL values for various
roadway types that can be used in lieu of actual data from a particular study
area. These sL values and the roadway definitions are as follows:
Average Daily Traffic Number of sL
Roadway Type (APT) Lanes (grains/ft2)
Freeways/Expressways >10,000 >4 0.03
Major Streets/Highways >10,000 >4 0.52
Collector Streets 500-10,000 ~2* 1.32
Local Streets <500 2t 2.02
* Total roadway width >32 ft.
t Total roadway width <32 ft.
Substituting these values into the emission factor equations yields the
following recommended emission factors for specific roadway categories and
particle size fractions:
Emission Factor (Ib/VMT)
TSP <15 in <10 nn <2'.S
Local
Collector
Major
Expressway
0.053
0.035
0.016
0.0012
0.021
0.015
0.0071
0.00074
0.018
0.013
0.0064
0.00067
0.0067
0.0053
0.0030
0.00057
11
-------
the s.
the roadway categories.
information omitted From
Area Source inventor
The existing area source emission inventory
information on industrial *"^£
are included in the suspended particulate
document) and this
identified in this inventory, with the
(Iowa SIP
fugltlve sources
for the Corn
There is no
£ as
from these industrial sources must be included.
GATHERING OF NEW INFORMATION TO UPDATE INVENTORY
the individual plants.
Linn County Health plant
sources of fugitive dust (traffic on plant
parking lots) and one for
roads, unpaved roads, and
E ' fugitive dust
are presented in
Figures 4-1 and 4-2.
Copies of the forms were sent by the Health Department to the following
Linn County industries:
12
-------
o ADM corn Sweeteners
o B.L. Anderson, Inc.
Robins Quarry
Lisbon Quarry
C.R. Sand Plant
Ivanhoe Sand Plant
o Cargill, Inc.
6th Street SE
10th Avenue NW
16th Street
o Cedar Rapids Asphalt & Paving Co.
J Street SW
Marion
o Century Engineering Co.
o Cherry Burrell
o City of Cedar Rapids Hater Pollution Control Facilities
o E. Conn & Sons
Wilson Avenue
3rd Street SW
L Street SW
o Cryovac Division of W.R. Grace & Co.
o Diamond V. Mills
o Farmland Industries
6th Street
Bowling Street
C Street
o General Mills
o Harnischfeger
o Hubbard Milling Co.
o Iowa Electric Light & Power
6th Street NE
Prairie Creek
o Iowa Manufacturing Co.
o Iowa Steel and Iron
o Katz Salvage
13
-------
o Lee Crawford Quarry Co.
o Le Febure Corporation
o Martin Marietta
o Midland Forge
o National Oats
o Penick & Ford, Limited
o Quaker Oats
o Rockwell International
Collins Road
Graphic Systems Division
o Wilson Foods
PREPARATION OF UPDATED AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
A summary of the emission factors used in the preparation of the updated
area source emissions inventory is presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4.
Table 4-3 presents the factors for the source categories of agriculture/
construction, and traffic on county paved and unpaved roads. Table 4-4
presents the factors for the industrial sources of fugitive dust. While
emission factors in general are usually only accurate to within a few orders
of magnitude when used on sources other than those tested in the original
development of the factor, it is TRC's opinion that the ones selected for use
in this study are the best documented and, therefore, the most acceptable.
Tables 4-5 through 4-7 present the results of the updated area source
inventory for the agriculture and construction source categories. All
assumptions pertinent to the calculations of the emissions are included with
the tables unless otherwise noted. Where possible, emissions are also given
by particle size.
All of the input information necessary for a detailed updating of the
area source inventory for the paved and unpaved roads categories was not
obtainable from IDOT. The information that IDOT transmitted is summarized in
Table 4-8. Additional breakdowns of road type, etc., would require computer
programming work and additional data processing on the part of IDOT which was
outside the scope and resources of this project. Some additional information
was obtained directly from the Linn County Department of Planning and
Redevelopment. This information, which pertains only to unpaved roads in
Cedar Rapids, is summarized below:
14
-------
Road Type Miles Annual VMT
Unimproved 3.69 42,231
Gravel or Stone 85.34 7,727,181
Oil Surface on Non-Prepared Base 37.95 8,664,326
Based on the limited road data, an emissions inventory for
traffic-related sources can be prepared but will require many assumptions.
Table 4-9 presents the inventory for Linn county paved and unpaved roads
(Cedar Rapids included) and Table 4-10 presents the inventory for just Cedar
Rapids. Again, all assumptions are included with the tables and particle
size information is given where possible. Perhaps the most inaccurate
assumption is the one that all county municipal roads are paved. As can be
seen in Table 4-10, this is not the case in Cedar Rapids where the emissions
contribution from the unpaved roads exceed those from paved roads. More
detailed input information is required for the traffic-related area source
inventory to be more accurate.
Table 4-11 presents the results of the updated area source inventory for
the industrial fugitive dust source category along with the pertinent
assumptions.
15
-------
;E TYPE; VEHICULAR TBAfTTC ON INDUSTRIE- MAPS/PARKING LOTS
COHPAK7:
ROAD SEGMENT
LENGTH (MILES)
SILT CONTESTS
SURFACE LOADING
NO£R YEAR
NO. PER YEAR
, a >' AVG. WEIGHT (TONS)
AVG. NO. OF WHEELS
a? I NO. PER YEAR
3 « ' AVG. SPEED CMFH)
AVG. WEIGHT (TONS)
AVC. SPEED (MPH)
AVC. WEIGHT (TONS)
2 I AVC. SPEED (MPH)
- , AVC. '."EIGHT (TONS)
I AVC. SO. OF JHIELS
DESCRIPTION OF DUST CONTROL >ffiTHOD(S) NOW USED OR PLANNED AND FREQUENCY Of APPLICATION:
a: Paved, unpavtd, gravel, tec.
b: ror parking loe: assune aid-potne of loe co axlt
c: Paved roads only
i: Paved areas only
Figure 4-1. Example of data gathering form for traffic sources,
16
-------
SOUHCE TYPE: MATERIAL IIANUI.INC
COMPANY:
TYPE or oi- EH AT ION"
TYPE OF MATEHIAI.
PILE tXTKHT
-------
Source
C vegetative cover factor
easureil .11 parlicul.itu-i
Agriculture
Agricultural activity
(5)(0.8) 11.4) a
(PE/50)2
Construction
Unpaved roads
Construction activity
Traffic
1.2
(PE/50>
00
Paved roads
Traffic
E emission factor (Ibs/acie/year)
5 - arbitrary constant to account for combined emissions ot all phases of activity
0.8 - 801 of the emissions predicted are likely to remain as suspended t>articuldt^::
1.4 constant developed by MRI in original emission factor
s silt content of surface soil (%)
.2
(PE/50I
correction term to account for climatic differences
PE Thornthwalte's precipitation-evaporation Index
E - emission factor (tons/acre/aonth)
1.2 emission factor developed by HRI
2
(PE/50)
correction term to account for climatic differences
PE Thornthwalte's precipitation-evaporation imlex
E » emission factor (lt>s/VMT(
t » constant to account for percent likely to remain as suspended
U-O.J2 for unimproved and graded and drained roads t t»0.62 tor gravel ioa silt content of road surface material (*)
S ° average vehicle speed (ml/hr)
JO - constant developed by HRI In original emission factor
(365-w)/36S * correction term to account tor precipitation
w - annual number of days with 0.01 Inch or more o£ raintall und
I Inch or more of snow cover
E - emission factor (g/VMT)
5.1 » constant developed by HRI
-------
TABLE 4-2.
JJ'rjSUift
!!1**1 111611 INVKNTOHf
Source
category
Agriculture
Source
activity
Hiiwlblown dust
Agriculture
Construction
Agricultural activity
Construction activity
vO
Unpaved roads
Paved roads
Traffic
Traffic
Crop type
Corn 0
Wheat 0
Odts 0
Sorqhua 0
Soybeans 0
Alfalfa 0
Hay (other) 0
s
45
Construction
Residential -
Residential -
Residential -
Coonerclal
Industrial
Public
Koad type
Unimproved
.
a I
.025 56
.025 56
.025 56
.025 56
.025 56
.025 56
.025 56
PE Index
98
Input
K C
0.6 0.08
0.6 0.08
0.8 0.08
0.5 0.08
0.6 0.08
1.0 0.08
0.8 0.08
E
11.1
type Exposed acres
1 faaily
2 family
3 family
Hlles
0.1
Graded and drained 11.6
Gravel
Annual 10 J VHT
451886
935.5
0.1
0.1
O.S
0.5
2.5
2.5
Dally VHT
8
714
74595
data
L1 V1
0.75 0.24
0.75 0
0.80 0
0.72 0
0.75 0.61
0.72 0
0.80 0
5 x E Planted
65.6 282.
baismonr.
(lons/yptir )
E Planted
0.01 150.
neq
neq 19.
neq 1.
0.01 85.
nuq 21,
neq 4.
acres
200
Duration Pecnlts PE index
4 BUS. 164
4 nus. 12
4 nos. 41
6 BOB. 86
6 BOS. 19
6 nos. 58
Annual 10JVMT
1 0
268 0
27227 0
98
98
98
98
98
9tf
t s S
.12 12 25
.32 12 JO
.62 12 15
acres
000
200
500
100
000
700
700
E
0.11
0.11
O.J1
0.31
0.11
0. Jl
w K
111 1.80
111 2.16
111 4.89
150 II
-
-
-
2550
-
-
9256
JO
2
J7
HO
8H
/70
1
289
66570
2540
-------
Source
category
Source
activity
Emma ion factor/
equation
Principal
references
. _- _ __
Doscr Ipt ion ol vnr iables/con
-------
TABLE 4-4. EMISSION FACTORS USED IN THE UPDATED ARF.A SOURCE INVENTORY:
Source
category
Source
activity
Emission factor/
equation
Principal
references
Unpaved roads/
parking lots
Traffic
w °-7- °'5
-
Paved roads/
packing lots
Traffic
0.7
Description ot var iolile-./comlmits
ro
E - emission factor (Ihs/VHTI
k =1.0 for total sunpemleil partlculate
- 0.57 for material <15 \m
* 0.45 for material * number of wheels
d > annual number of days with less than 0.01 men ul rainlall
or I Inch of snow cover
5.9, 12. 10. ). 4. 365 ° constants developed uy MR I
E - emission factor (Iba/VHT)
k » 1.0 for total suspended partlculate
- 0.64 for material <15 in
» O.S1 for material <10 in
0.17 for material <2.S in
I Industrial road augmentation factor
> 7 for larqe truck carry-out
3.5 for vehicles hittinq berms 20% of time
1.0 for all traffic on paved surfaces
n number of traffic lanes
s silt content of surface material (t)
L - surface loading (Ibs/ml)
H vehicle weight (tons)
0.09. 4. 10. 1000. 1 - constants developed by MH1
(continued)
-------
Source
category
Source
activity
Roil S3 ion factor/
equation
Principal
references
Materials
handling
Batch drop (front-end/
bucket loader I
Materials
handling
Continuous drop
E -
ro
Materials
hand1 ins
Storage
pile
Rallcar/truck
unloading
Windage
E - 0.001
Description ol vorlablcs/coiittlants
E - emission lac tor (His/ton)
k 1.0 tot total suspended partlculate
- 0.48 for material <15 K*
- 0.16 tor material <1O va
- 0.13 Cor Material <2.*> i*»
s silt content of material (%)
U - wind speed (mi/hr)
H - drop height (ft)
H moisture content of eater Ial (»)
by MHI
p| HKJ IBLUK Q \,»*iifc^ii*i
v caoacltv of unloading device (Yd')
0.0018^ 11". 5. 2. * - constants developed
E emission factor (Iba/ton)
k 1.0 for total suspended partlculate
- 0.49 for material <1S V»
- 0.37 for material <10 urn
- 0.11 for material <2.5 iM
8 > silt content of material (*)
U - wind speed (mi/hr)
H - drop height (ft)
M - moisture content of material (t)
0.0018. 5, 5. 10. 1 ' constants developed by NK1
B - emission factor (Iba/ton)
O.OOL - emission factor developed by TKC
B emission factor (Ibs/acre/day)
a silt content of material (t)
d - annual number of days with less th-n O.O1 me,, of rainlall ur
1 inch of snow cover , > _.,
f . percent of time that unobstructed wind soeed exceeds 12 «ph
at the mean pile helqlit
1.7. 1.5, 235. 15 - constants developed by HKI
-------
TMl(.n 4-5. INPUT DATA ANI1 RESULTS FOR UPDATED AREA 3UUKCE 1NVKNTURY; WINDBLOWN OUST EMISSIONS FKOM AGHICUI.TUKE
Crop type a
Corn 0.025
Wheat 0.025
Oats 0.025
Sorghum 0.02S
Soybeans 0.025
Hay, alfalfa, other 0.025
1
56
56
56
56
56
56
Input parameters
K C L1 V
0.6 O.OB 0.75 0.24
0.6 O.OB 0.75 0
0.8 O.OB 0.80 0
0.5 0.08 0.72 0
0.6 0.08 0.75 0.61
0.8 0.08 0.80 0
Emission factor
(tons/acre/year )
0.01
neq
ncg
neg
0.01
neg
Total
Total suspended
pacticulale emissions
Planted acres (tons/year I
156,000 1560
200
16.600
100
97,500 2925
21,700
292.100 4485
Notes/assunpt ions:
Values of Input parameters (a. I. K. C, L'. V) same as used by PEDCo (1981).
Information on planted acres Is Cor 1981 and was obtained from Mr. Bernle Janssen of the Iowa Department of Agriculture.
to
-------
TABI.K 4-6. INPUT DATA AND RESULTS FOR
~~ . . =^= ^ Ealsstgiio Uons/gearJ.
" " "Total "suspended Material Material
_,,. _-,»_,. emission factor Total partlculate partlculatc <1S u> <2.5 tr«
' PB index »££.*"« Pl.ntedac.es |k-i... U-O.W *--« »-»
»e 14.21 k 292.100 2075 1660 519 207
Notes/assumptions:
Values of Input parameters (s. PE) sane as used by PEUCo (1981).
.. information on planted acres is for 1981 and was obtained fro. Hr. Bern.e Janssen of the Iowa Oepart-ent of *,rIculture.
-------
Construction Emission factor
type PE index ( 1 bs/ac re/year) Exposed acres
Residential - 1 family 98 0.31 0.1
Residential - 2 family 98 0.31 0.1
Residential - 3 family 98 0.31 0.5
Commercial 98 0.31 0.5
Industrial 98 0.31 2.5
Public 98 0.31 2.5
Total suspended
participate emissions
Duration (months) Number ot permits (tons/year)
4 141 18
4 I neg
4 42 26
6 51 48
6 10 47
6 7 33
Total 17^
Notes/assunpt ions:
values of Input parameters (PE Index, exposed acres, duration) same as used by PBDCo (1981).
Information on number of permits is for 1981 and was transmitted by Mr. Robert Hadson of the Linn County Department of Planning and
Redevelopment.
ro
in
-------
TABLE 4-8. COUNTY PAVED AND UNPAVED ROAD INFORMATION OBTAINED PROM THE IOWA
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
System
Municipal primary
Municipal interstate
Municipal streets
Rural primary
Rural interstate
Rural secondary
Legal
Unimproved
Graded and drained
Gravel
Bituminous
Paved
Proposed
Miscellaneous
Total
Miles
40.08
8.84
633.34
102.64
1.72
15.52
0.25
33.53
934.16
10.33
179.27
5.12
5.50
1,970.30
ADT
10,448
15,077
1,644
4,574
13,116
6
786
77,024
7,715
200,830
-
45,160
Miles
w/ADT zero
0.15
12.10
15.52
-
5.12
5.50
38.39
Annual VMT
152,857,602
47,809,525
372,927,973
171,370,617
8,224,180
2,190
286,890
28,113,760
2,815,975
73,302,950
~
857,709,241
Note: This information is for all of Linn County which includes the
following towns:
Alburnett
Bertram
Cedar Rapids
Center Point
Central City
Coggon
Ely
Fairfax
Hiawatha
Lisbon
Marion
Mount Vernon
Palo
Prairieburg
Robins
Springville
Walker
For Cedar Rapids itself the only data obtained were the following:
478.76 miles of municipal roads with 476,616,000 VMT. The road
mileage is broken down as follows: 351.78 paved, 3.69 unimproved,
85.34 gravel or stone, and 37.95 oil surface on non-prepared
base. The breakdown of the VMT is given in Table 4-10.
26
-------
TABLE
Road type
Municipal primary
Municipal interstate
Municipal streets
Kural pr imary
Rural interstate
Rural secondary
Unimproved
Graded t drained
Uravel
Bituminous
Paved
Notes/assumptions :
Assumed all
4-9. INPUT DATA ANU RESULTS FOR UPDATED AREA SOURCE INVENTORY: EMISSIONS FROM TRAFFIC UN COUNI'Y PAVU)
Averaqe
vehicle
Silt content, speed
a (percent) Slmi/hi)
12 25
12 )0
12 35
municipal streets to be
Dry days Emission factor Annual
per year, d ( Ibs/acre/year) VMT
a(0.743)b 152.857.602
a(0.043)b 47.809.525
a(l.B86)b 372.927.973
a(0.743)b 171.370,617
a(0.043)b 8,224.180
254 1.83 2.190
254 2.63 286.890
254 3.58 28.113,760
a(2.886)b 2.815.975
a(2.886)° 73,302.950
Total suspended
partlculate
(a*. 0208, b=.9>
1.223
29
6.526
1.371
5
2
377
50,324
75
1,943
Knissluns {
Material
urn
(a°.00<»0. b=.8)
041
18
2,797
608
1
--
--
30
770
ANU UNPAVEU KUAUS
tuns/year)
Material Mjturlal
<10 um '2.1 pm
(a*. 0081. b=.8) (a=.UUJ6, u=.6|
489 22*
16 14
2,424 988
548 ir>l
1 I
--
--
--
25 »
660 ^46
paved since more detailed Information not available.
Assumed municipal and rural Interstatea to be similar to MRI freeway/expressway
M
»a fro K» alnllar fro MR! Maxtor at reet/tiiahwav
classification.
class If Icatinn.
Assumed municipal streets to be similar to MRI collector classification.
Assumed rural secondary paved roads to be similar to MRI local classification. f
silt contents, average vehicle speeds, and dry days per year same as used In PEDCo Inventory.
-------
2*^ '^ .NPUJTJ^J^
Average ToTr~8unpended " - '
vclllcle ... ..._ Annual
N-l«..f
..
H-tcr.-l
lload type
Paved
Unimproved
Gravel or stone
Oil surface on
non-prepared base
Silt content,
S (percent)
12
12
10
speeo
5 (mi/hi)
25
35
35
pec year, d (Iba/VMTI
a I- -OU90. > .
460.102.262 6.7H2 l.*ll 2'54
42.211 3'
7,727.181 13,832
8.664.126 12,910
~
TRC estimates.
... Annual VMT ... paved ,tceets obtained by subtractin, unpaved VHT's ere, data obtained
.BeCe. to Table 4-8,.
to
oo
-------
TADI.E 4-11. RESULTS FOR UPDATED AREA SOURCE INVENTORY: LMISS1ONS FIIOM INDUSTRIAL SOUKCES
Storage pile emissions
Vehicular emissions (tons/year) (tons/year)
Company
ADM Corn Sweeteners
B.L. Anderson. Inc. - Robins Quarry
- Lisbon Quarry
- C.R. Sand Plant
- Ivanhoe Sand Plant
Cargill. inc. - 6th Street SW
- 10th Avenue NH
- 16th Street
Cedar Rapidn Asphalt - J Street
- Marion
Century Engineering Co.
Cherry Burrell
City Water Pollution Control
1!. Cohn t Sons - Wilson Avenue
- 3rd Street SH
- L Street SW
Cryovac Div. of H.R. Grace t Co.
Diamond V. Mills. Inc.
Farmland Industries
PMC - Sixth Street
- Bowling Street
- C Street
General Mills. Inc.
Harnlschfeger
lluhbard Milling Co.
Iowa Electric - 6th Street
- Prairie Creek
Iowa Manufacturing Co.
Paved Paved
roads lots
25.8 kr
1.5 kt
0.6 k1
-
5.3 kf neg.
14.7 ki 0.2 k|
2.1 kL
0.6 kt
1.1 kt
4.4 k1 1.2 k1
2.8 kj
neg.
neg.
0.2 kt 0.6 kx
0.1 ki
23.4 kt
46.1 kj
15.2 kr
8.4 ^
79.0 ^
--
_
0.9 kt
14.7 k.
Unpaved Unsaved Load Uoait Hind Material handling emissions - loading/
roads lots in out erosion unloading! truck/rai Iccic (tuns/year)
3.8 k2 0.1 k2 0.2
neg. 60.9
neg. 39.0
1.7 k2 -- neg. -- 12.2
2.0 k2 neg. 4.9
0.2 k2
neg. -- -- neg.
47.0 k2 ~ neg.
5 . 7 k 2 - - neg . neg . 1 . B
neg. -- neg. neg. 1.0
--
1.2 k2 -- -- neg.
neg.
neg.
neg.
__
neg. -- -- -- neg.
3.5 k2 -- neg.
0.1 k2
2.3 k2
neg.
2.8 k2
--
7.9 k2 -- -- -- -- neg.
0.7 k2 0.7 k2 ~ 0.1
10. 0 k2 0.3 0.3 41.9
0.4 k?
Iowa Steel t Iron
Katz Salvage
neg.
neg.
neg.
neg.
neg.
0.4 k2
(continued)
-------
I continued)
=====
vehicular enlssions (tons/year)
Conpany
Lee Crawford Quarry Co.
LeFebure Corp.
Martin Marietta
Midland Forge
National Oats
Penick k Ford. Ltd.
Quaker Oats
Rockwell Int. - Collins Road HE
- Graphic Systeaa Div.
Wilson Foods
Paved Paved Unpaved unpaved
roads lots roads lots
5.2 ki
7.3 kj
0.8 k|
0.9 kj
0.6 kt
9.2 k|
31.4 kj
19.5 kj
27.5 k|
37 9 d.
--
32.4 kj
1.4 k!
0.1 k( -- 1-9 k2
0.4 ki 18.5 k2
6.9 k|
-_
"~ ~~ """
6.0 ki
Storage pile emissions
(tons/year)
Load Load Wind Material handling emissions - loaning/
ln out erosion unloading: truck/rallcar (tons/year)
0.3 0.3 k3 11.0
--
0.2 k] 0.2 k) 12.2 »-2 h3
--
neg.
neg.
neg.
neg. neg. 2.2 "e9-
Notes/assunpt Ions :
Negligible emissions are those less than 0.1 tons/year
.. unless specified in th ..... tlonn.lr... the value, of the input p.ra.eters lor the elation, presented in Table 4-4 -ere assu.ed to be the blowing:
I - 2 lor paved roads and 1 for paved parking lots
s : lo'p'erc.nr^r'unplved'r'o.d. and 20 percent for paved road, (based on TRC field tests,
a - 5 percent for Mteilals handling except for washed coal -here s - 1.5 percent
L - SOO Ibs/VMT (based on TRC field tests) ,-.,> i
U - 10.6 «i/hr (based on 5 years of historical .eteorological data fro. Linn county)
f - 32.7 percent (based on 5 years of historical .eteorologlcal data fro. Linn county)
d - 254 (sa«« as used by PEDCo)
H - 5 ft. for batch drops and 10 ft. for continuous drops
SO percent foe -aterlng storage piles (Lee cca-ford Quarry)
550° K2 !o" 3J.JS -npfveS'load. ^"".U Light . Power. H.rtln Marietta. City Mater Pollution,
50 percent for oiling a gravel road (Penick t Ford)
75 percent for oil and water on roads (Lee Crawford Quarry)
For total suspended partlculate emissions: kt - k2 kj 1.0
for «1 Batons of suterlal <15 urn: kj - 0.57. k2 - 0.64. kj - 0.48
for enisslons of Material <10 MB: kj - 0.45. kj - 0.51. kj 0.36
for e.lsslons of ateclal <2.5 vm: k, 0.16. k? - 0.17. kj 0.13
-------
SECTION 5
TASK II - TSP AMBIENT MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of Task II was to analyze the TSP ambient monitoring data to
determine the contribution by non-traditional fugitive dust sources to the
ambient TSP levels. The approach taken to perform this task included the
following steps:
Gather data and perform analyses
Gather historical TSP data
Perform background analysis
Perform yearly trend analysis-with and without removal of
background
Perform monthly trend analysis
Gather and analyze meteorological data
Perform pollution rose analysis
Perform spatial correlation analysis
Gather additional reference materials
Assimilate information: results and conclusions.
The details of each of these steps are presented in the following
subsections.
DATA BASE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH
Historical TSP Data
Historical TSP data were obtained from the IDEQ for the five monitoring
sites in Linn County for the years 1976-1982. The locations of the sites are
as follows:
Site 1 - Noelridge Park
4426 Council Street NE
Site 2 - Linn County Health Department
751 Center Point Road NE
Site 3 - Jane Boyd Community Center
14th Avenue and 10th Street SB
31
-------
o Site 4 - City Garages
445 First Street SW
o Site 5 - Grant Hood Building
4401 Sixth Street SW
Historical TSP data were also obtained for a background station located
at Backbone State Park which is approximately 45 miles north of Cedar Rapids
in Dundee. Data for this site were from the years 1978-1982. Descriptions
of the five Linn County sites can be found in Reference 9. A description of
the Dundee site can be found in Reference 10. A map depicting the locations
of the five Linn county sites is presented in Figure 5-1.
Background Analysis
The monitoring station at Backbone State Park is located in a very
isolated and rural area of Iowa. The TSP levels recorded by this monitor are
considered by the IDEQ to be representative of the background conditions that
exist throughout the State. Contributions to the background TSP levels are
assumed to come from natural sources (worldwide and continental), unpaved
roads, and agricultural activities.
s^
When the IDEQ prepared their SIP (Reference 9), they assumed a constant,
yearly background level of 36 ug/m for the area around Backbone State
Park. They then performed an analysis of agricultural activity throughout
the state and arrived at a background level of 40 iig/m for Linn County.
While this approach is appropriate for modeling purposes, it is misleading
for the work to be performed during this current study. To understand
fluctuations in the TSP levels in Linn County, any fluctuations in the
background levels have to be known and the reasons for the fluctuations have
to be understood. Thus, a background analysis was performed.
As the first step in the background analysis, the historical TSP data
recorded at Backbone State Park were analyzed and the yearly geometric means
were calculated, as follows (no data were recorded at this site prior to
1978):
Year:
TSP Level (vg/m3):
The next step was to hypothesize that the yearly fluctuations in TSP
levels coincided with yearly fluctuations in precipitation. To test this
hypothesis, the total yearly precipitation recorded in Cedar Rapids was
obtained from Reference 10 (it must be assumed that Backbone State Park
experienced similar yearly precipitation fluctuations), as follows:
Year: 1976 1977 1978 1979
Precipitation (inches): 23 35 36 39
Since the precipitation data available for the years 1981 and 1982 were
insufficient to calculate yearly totals, only three years of precipitation
and TSP data can be compared. Plotting TSP versus precipitation for the
years 1978-1980 (Figure 5-2) yields a linear relationship of the form:
32
-------
TSP 63.1 - 0.7 (inches of precipitation)
The hypothesis thus appears to be accurate.
Assuming that the above relationship is valid, then interpolated
background levels can be obtained for the years 1976 and 1977 based on the
recorded precipitation for those years. These levels are as follows:
Year:
TSP Level (ug/m3):
Yearly Trend Analysis
The historical TSP data were analyzed and the yearly geometric mean
particulate levels were calculated for the five monitoring locations in Linn
County. Table 5-1 and Figure 5-3 present the results with the background
levels also included.
To remove the effects of yearly fluctuations in precipitation from the
data, the background levels were subtracted from the levels recorded at the
five Linn county stations. The results are presented in Table 5-2 and
Figure 5-4.
An important point to note at this time is that 1982 was an extremely
wet* year which produced a low background level (26 jig/m ). This is one
of the main reasons that all stations recorded levels that were below the
primary standard. The average background level for the seven year period was
37.5 ug/m3, almost 12 pg/m3 higher than the 1982 level. This point
will be discussed in more detail in a later section.
Monthly Trend Analysis
Another analysis technique used was the calculation of monthly means to
note any monthly or seasonal trends that might help characterize the data.
Again, the historical TSP data were analyzed and the monthly* means were
calculated for all study years combined (1976-1982) and for 1982 alone. The
results are presented in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. Figure 5-5 graphically presents
the 1982 data.
Meteorological Data
To perform the pollution rose and spatial correlation analyses as well
as to provide overall insight into fluctuations in TSP levels, meteorological
data were required for the study area. The only meteorological station in
the area that collected the type of data necessary for analysis was the one
located at the Cedar Rapids Municipal. Airport. The data as received from the
National Climatic .Center in Ashville, North Carolina, were in "raw*,
unprocessed form instead of the usual presentation of Local Climatological
Data (LCD) summaries which give daily averages of all recorded parameters as
well as three-hour averages of selected variables. The cedar Rapids data
were in the form of hourly values for each day of the year with no daily
summaries provided. Another drawback of the format of the meteorological
33
-------
data was the lack of meaningful precipitation information for the years
1976-1979.
The parameters that were calculated included average wind speed,
resultant wind speed, resultant wind direction, and wind persistence. Wind
persistence (P) is defined as the ratio of the vector average (resultant)
wind speed to the average wind speed over the 24 hour period and is a measure
of the wind variability. A persistence >0.71 is equivalent to an hourly
wind direction deviation of <45°. In conducting the pollution rose and
spatial correlation analyses, only those days with P>0.71 are used.
The results of the calculations are presented in Tables 5-5 through 5-11
for those days on which TSP data were recorded at any of the monitors and the
wind persistence was >0.71. The information received covers the period of
January 1976 through October 1982.
An additional set of meteorological data was obtained from the National
Climatic Center: surface wind tabulations for the five year period of
1963-1967. These data were used to calculate historical wind frequencies for
the study area. These frequencies are summarized in Table 5-12. For
comparison purposes, the 1976-1979 data set was analyzed in an identical
manner. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5-13.
One final meteorological data analysis was performed based on the wind
directions on days when ambient air samples were obtained. The results of
this wind frequency analysis are presented in Table 5-14 for each monitoring
site for each of the study years and for all the years combined.
Pollution Rose Analysis
For the pollution rose analysis, the historical TSP data for each
monitoring station are segregated into eight wind direction categories and
then the average particulate level for each category is calculated. Only
those data recorded on days with PX).71 are used. The *"»"*""
years are presented in Table 5-15. Figure 5-6 presents the pollution roses
for 1982.
Spatial Correlation Analysis
The spatial correlation analysis consists of comparing the recorded TSP
levels at the monitoring stations on a daily basis for each wind sector.
Only the data recorded on days with P>0.71 are used. This analysis is used
to help determine which monitors are being affected by local sources and in
what direction these sources might be located. The results are presented in
Tables 5-16 through 5-23.
Additional Reference Materials
The final step of the technical approach prior to drawing conclusions
was to gather additional information that might prove useful in looting
sources or understanding source impact. The information collected included
34
-------
the following items:
Aerial photographs of the study area taken on April 18, 1980
having a scale of 1" 300'.
O.S.G.S. topographic maps of the study area having a scale of 1"
2000*.
A detailed road map of the study area, copyrighted 1982.
The four references received as part of Task I of this study
(References 9-12).
Traffic volume flow maps for 1977, 1979, and 1981 provided by the
Traffic Engineering Department of the City of Cedar Rapids.
A map showing the completion dates for various segments of Route
380.
Correspondence from Robert Madson, Assistant Director, Department
of Planning and Redevelopment, Cedar Rapids, providing some
details on construction, traffic, and street sweeping practices.
Hawkeye Downs activity data for 1982.
Traffic data for the year 1981 provided by the Iowa Department of
Transportation.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF DATA ANALYSES
To determine the impact of particulate emissions from non-traditional
sources at the monitoring sites, the influences of background and traditional
sources must be subtracted out. For the purposes of this study, the
following definitions are used for traditional and non-traditional sources:
Traditional sources - stacks, fuel combustion, solid waste
disposal, auto exhaust.
Non-traditional sources - industrial fugitive emissions, paved
roads, unpaved roads, construction, exposed areas (playgrounds,
racetracks, etc.)
Background levels have already been addressed (Section 4) and their
influence can be accounted for. The impact of traditional sources on the
five monitoring locations has been modeled for the years 1977 and 1982
(Reference 9). It is felt that modeling of traditional sources is* at least
as accurate as the source apportionment techniques used in this study and 'can
therefore be used as an adjunct method. This is not true, however, for
non-traditional sources where there is such uncertainty in the inventory and
in the emission strengths of the various sources (since the emission factors
are not well defined, as discussed previously). Thus, the
35
-------
modeling results presented in Reference 9 for the non-traditional sources
will not be used.
Table 5-24 presents the traditional source impacts, the background
levels the measured particulate levels, and, by difference, the
impacts were assumed identical to the 1977 levels.
Figure 5-7 presents the estimated non-traditional source impacts j»t ^ each
of the monitoring sites for each of the study years. These impacts are
discussed in the following subsections for each monitoring site.
Site 1 - 4426 Council Street
«ito«.l sources . le«« »
srs
in 1980.
it is
Based on the information presented and discussed in *""*»/* it is
concluded that traffic-related sources are contributing the bulk, if not all,
of the 14 «/m3. In addition, the primary influence is from the ^ region
northwest through northeast influence since the prevailing winds are thus
oriented in the winter (Tables 5-12 through 5-14) (This ^a^n°tn,gnaayndal^
be partly due to increased sanding and salting in the winter months and to
increased residential fuel use) .
The pollution rose data (Figure 5-6) again track background
i±l ir
36
-------
arithmetic to geometric levels). This correlates well with the modeled
values (Table 5-24).
Referring to Figure 5-7, the downwards variation in 1978 can be
reasonably explained by the data presented in Table 5-14 which show an
abnormal increase in southerly wind flow for the sampling days that year.
Thus, the influence of traffic in the Collins Road area would be much less.
The1 upwards variation in 1980 is most likely due to the land clearing phase
of the construction of Route 380.
Based on the maps, aerial photographs and the site visit, the conclusion
reached for Site 1 is logical. There is a very large industrial park in the
Collins Road area. Many of the large corporations that are located in this
area (Martin Marietta and Rockwell International, for example) have been
shown to have substantial traffic-related emissions with few materials
handling emissions (Section 4). The large volume of traffic in the area
would definitely impact the monitor located in Noelridge Park.
Site 2 - 751 Center Point Road
The air quality data recorded at Site 2 (Figure 5-3) indicate that the
yearly geometric mean particulate levels have been above the NAAQS standard
for all years except 1982. However, it must be remembered that 1982 was a
very "wet" year, as discussed previously. Assuming no change in emission
strengths throughout the area, then Site 2 would again most likely record
particulate levels above the NAAQS standard should precipitation levels be
slightly lower than normal. For 1982, the yearly geometric mean particulate
level was approximately 35 yg/ra3 above background (Figure 5-4) with
approximately 14 ug/ra3 of this amount attributable to traditional sources
(Table 5-24). The remaining 21 yg/m3 are due to non-traditional sources.
Based on the information presented and discussed in this report, it is
concluded that, for 1982, traffic-related sources are contributing the bulk
of the 21 ug/m3 with the rest being essentially attributable to
industrial operations to the south, southwest. In the years previous to
1982, the construction of Route 380 overwhelmingly impacted the particulate
levels recorded at the monitor, up to 35 yg/ra3 on a yearly basis. The
reasoning behind these conclusions is discussed in the following paragraphs.
In general, the data recorded at Site 2 for 1981 and 1982 have tracked
the data recorded at Site 1 very closely. Again, this indicates general,
traffic-related sources. The higher levels recorded at Site 2 are indicative
of greater traffic density and the monitor's closer proximity to traffic
sources. The montly averages (Figure 5-5) are higher in February, March and
April at this site than at Site 1 and this is may be due to the sanding and
salting in the area.
The pollution rose data (Figure 5-6 and Table 5-15) again show good
tracking between Sites 1 and 2 with a typical difference in levels of about
10-20 ug/m3. When the winds are from the south, southwest, this
difference increases somewhat. This is indicative of a slight influence from
37
-------
the industries in that are. (Quaker Oat. «*«'»- EleCt'1C "** *
Power), both fro*. traditional and non-traditional sources.
discussed mote fully in Section 6.
Site 3 - 14th Street and 10th Avenue
12 wg/m3 ace attributable to non-traditional sources.
on the information presented and discussed in this report, it is
!fn«ill acroM the river to the soath are Impacting the «onitor. The
realonin, t^hi-Td th«. conclusion, and further details on the., sources are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Site 3 is severely impacted by local industrial sources, as indited by
area.
immediately to the south of the »«»«^I>J^V^^^)U^lchlili
degree of current influence on local air quality.
The yearly trend data (Figure 5-4) show a decrease in P«ticulat*
economy.
38
-------
The monthly trend data for 1982 (Figure 5-5) show a pattern very
dissimilar to that displayed by the background data and those displayed by
Sites 1 and 2. This is highly indicative of localized, directional sources.
The pollution rose data (Figure 5-6) clearly show the influence of
sources located to the southeast, south, and southwest with the southwest
direction displaying the greatest impact. Again, this is indicative of local
sources located in these directions from the monitoring station. The spatial
correlation data (Tables 5-16 through 5-23) likewise show this directional
influence.
One additional piece of information attesting to the directional impact
relates to the discussion presented previously for Site 1. In that case, the
lower particulate level seen in Figure 5-7 was due to southerly winds which
reduced the impact of traffic-related sources to the north. In this case,
those same southerly winds increased the impact of the local sources as can
be seen in the figure.
The data available for this study are not of the type that allow for
further definition of source impact. Additional studies, such as microscopic
analysis of filter collections or additional monitoring, would be necessary
for such definition. These are further discussed in the Recommendations
section of this report.
Site 4 - 445 First Street
The air quality data recorded at Site 4 (Figure 5-3) indicate that the
yearly geometric mean particulate levels have been above the NAAQS standard
for all years except 1982. However, as in the situation at Sites 2 and 3,
violations might again occur during a year with less precipitation and
increased industrial activity. For 1982, the yearly geometric mean
particulate level was approximately 35 vg/m3 above background
(Figure 5-4) with approximately 11 w/m3 of this amount attributable to
traditional sources (Table 5-24) and the remaining 24 wg/m3 thus
attributable to non-traditional sources.
Based on the information presented and discussed in this report, it is
concluded that traffic-related sources are contributing at least half to
three-quarters of the 24 ug/m3 with another quarter attributable to
industrial fugitive sources at Penick & Ford, situated one-quarter mile away
to the southeast of the monitor. The remainder is most likely due to
operations in an equipment storge lot adjacent to the building upon which the
monitor is situated. The reasoning behind this conclusion is discussed in
the following paragraphs.
In general, the data recorded at Site 4 have tracked the data recorded
at Site 1 and Backbone State Park fairly well, indicating general source
influence. This is seen in both Figures 5-3 and 5-4. The slightly higher
levels in 1976 and 1977 are more than likely due to the construction of Route
380.
39
-------
The monthly data for 1982 (Figure 5-5) also track Site 1 and Backbone
State Park data with the exception of a large peak in April. This peak is
the result of one high value of 168 ug/m3 being averaged into the data
set. This value was recorded on April 14, a day when the winds were very
persistent from the southeast and no other monitors recorded data
(Table 5-19). This is indicative of a local, directional source.
The pollution rose data (Figure 5-6) suggest a significant source
located to the east and southeast of the monitoring site. It would be
expected that Sites 2 and 4 would be affected by general downtown traffic in
a similar manner and thus their pollution rose data should track fairly
well. This is true for winds from the south through the northwest. However,
when the winds are from the east and southeast, the Site 4 data are much
greater than the Site 2 data. It is postulated that operations at Penick &
Ford are the cause of this peak. When the winds are from the north and
northeast, the Site 2 data are higher than the Site 4 data. This is expected
since the Cedar River lies immediately to the north, northeast of Site 4
while Center Point Road is near Site 2. By using the frequency of wind data
in conjunction with the pollution rose data, a fugitive dust source
contribution of 5-6 wg/m3 can be assumed to be attributable to Penick &
Ford on a yearly basis.
The spatial correlation data presented in Tables 5-16 through 5-23
clearly show the presence of a local source to the east, southeast. Although
the equipment parking area is also located on this side of the building upon
which the monitor is situated, the monitor's height above ground
(approximately 50 feet) would tend to preclude a significant impact from this
source.
Figure 5-7 shows two interesting features. The first is the increased
levels in 1976 and 1977. These again show the degree of impact that can
result from large scale construction activities. The second item of interest
is the increase in levels in 1980 and 1981. Discussions with local health
department personnel have indicated that Penick & Ford increased production
during this time period, thus further lending credance to the influence of
this source on the air quality data recorded at Site 4.
Site 5 - 4401 Sixth Street
The air quality data recorded at Site 5 (Figure 5-3) indicate that the
yearly geometric mean particulate levels have been below the NAAQS standard
for the last four years. Even in a very dry year, the monitor should not
record a violation of the yearly standard of 75 wg/m-». For 1982, the
yearly geometric mean particulate level was approximately 29 wg/m above
background (Figure 5-4) with approximately 6 wg/mj of this amount
attributable to traditional sources (Table 5-24). The remaining 23 ug/m
can be attributed to non-traditional sources.
Based on the information presented and discussed in this report, if is
concluded that traffic-related sources are contributing to the bulk of the
23 wg/m3. Activities at Hawkeye Downs, a dirt racetrack and fairgrounds
located across the street from the monitor to the west, southwest, also
40
-------
impact the air quality recorded at the monitor. Industrial fugitive sources
to the southwest (ADM Corn Sweeteners and Harnischfeger) also affect the
particulate levels. In previous years, highway construction has
significantly impacted the dust levels in the area. The reasoning behind
these conclusions is discussed in the following paragraphs.
The yearly trend data for the past three years have tracked the data
recorded at Site 1 and at Backbone State Park very well (Figures 5-3 and
5-4). Prior to that, the levels were severely affected by the construction
of highways 380 and 30 with the interchange being immediately to the south,
southwest of the monitor.
The monthly data (Figure 5-5) tend to follow the same general trends as
Site 1 and background with the exception of showing more pronounced
excursions. This indicates some local, directional source which skews the
data set upwards when the winds are from that direction.
The pollution rose data (Figure 5-6) clearly show the presence of a
local influence to the southwest of the site. Again, there are two types of
sources in this direction - Hawkeye Downs within a thousand feet and two
major industries within a mile. The pollution rose data for the south and
southwest wind directions for the years 1976-1978 (Table 5-15) show the
effect of construction on the particulate levels very dramatically.
The spatial correlation data (Tables 5-16 through 5-23) not only show
the local influence, they also shed some light on the degree of impact of
activities at Hawkeye Downs. Referring to Tables 5-20 and 5-21, it can be
noted that the particulate levels recorded at Site 5 on April 25, 1982, and
July 4, 1982 were higher than expected in relation to the data recorded at
the other sites. Discussions with personnel at Hawkeye Downs revealed that a
large bluegrass festival was being held on April 23 and their annual fair was
being held from July 1-8. The roadways and parking areas within the
fairgrounds are unpaved and the large volume of traffic inherent to certain
festivities would naturally result in dust emissions. However, these events
occur only sporatically and coupled with the frequency of wind from the
south, southwest should have an impact on the monitor of only 2-3 ug/nr
on an annual basis.
Figure 5-7 again shows the degree to which construction can affect the
air quality in an area. An impact of approximately 20 ug/m3 can be
attributed to construction in 1978.
41
-------
Figure 5-1. Monitoring locations in Linn County.
42
-------
u>
50
40
m
30
20
10
20
EQUATION OF LINE: TSP = 63.1-0.7 (Inches of rainfall)
J.
J_
25
30 35 40 45
TOTAL YEARLY RAINFALL (Inches)
50
55
Figure 5-2. Effect of precipitation on yearly geometric mean participate levels at Backbone State Park.
-------
4*
.U
CO
0»
UJ
LU
60 -
50 -
40
30
20
10
0
INTERPOLATED FROM
RAINFALL DATA
1976
1977
LEGEND
4426 COUNCIL ST. ASITE 4 - 445 FIRST ST.
751 CENTER POINT RD. OSITE 5 - 4401 SIXTH ST.
14th and 10th ^BACKBONE STATE PARK
J
1980
1978
1979
YEAR
1981
Figure 5-3. .Yearly geometric mean participate levels.
NAAQS^
STANDARD!
1982
-------
U1
100
90
80
^ 70
01
^ 60
UJ
UJ
50
3 40
ii
Of
2 30
20
10
1976
"1
SITE 1
SITE 2
OSITE 3
T
T
LEGEND
4426 COUNCIL ST. ASITE 4
751 CENTER POINT RD. Q SITE 5
14th and 10th
1
445 FIRST ST.
4401 SIXTH ST.
_L
1977
1978
1979
YEAR
1980
1981
1982
Figure 5-4. Yearly geometric mean participate levels with background removed.
-------
LEGEND
SITE 1 - 4426 COUNCIL ST. A SITE 4 - 445 FIRST ST.
SITE 2 - 751 CENTER POINT RD D SITE 5 - 4401 SIXTH ST
OSITE 3 - 14th and 10th + BACKBONE STATE PARK
N
Figure
5-5. Monthly arithmetic mean participate levels - 1982.
-------
120
110
100
_ 90
n
E
o»
i 80
UJ
Q£
<
a.
70
60
50
40
30
20
LEGEND
SITE 1 - 4426 COUNCIL ST.
SITE 2 - 751 CENTER POINT RD.
O SITE 3 - 14th and 10th
A SITE 4 - 445 FIRST ST.
D SITE 5 - 4401 SIXTH ST.
4 BACKBONE STATE PARK
10
I
I
I
N
NE
NW
E SE S SW W
WIND DIRECTION CATEGORY
Figure 5-6. Pollution roses: 1982 data arithmetic means,
47
-------
00
1976
SITE 1
SITE 2
O SITE 3
A SITE 4
D SITE 5
4426 COUNCIL ST. .
751 CENTER POINT RD.
14th and 10th
445 FIRST ST.
4401 SIXTH ST.
1982
Figure 5-7. Non-traditional source Impact at monitoring sites (geometric equivalents)
-------
Year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Site 1
4426 Council St.
45.9
54.1
66. 5
S7.8
51.6
62.0
70.5
Site 2
751 Center Pt. Rd.
60.9
80.0
106.5
95.0
90.6
109.3
98.8
Site 3
14th and 10th
60.8
72.7
84.8
81.8
89.)
85.2
10S.7
Site 4
445 Klrst St.
60.5
76.6
81.0
73.2
75.1
84.1
97.9
Site 5
4401 Sixth St
54.8
61.7
70.4
73.9
85.6
74.0
94.2
Backbone
btdte Park
26.0
36. 5
40.7
Jb.8
37.9
38.6*
47.0«
* Interpolated levels based on yearly rainfall
1O
-------
Year
1982
1*81
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
TAIII.E 5-2. YKAUI.Y
Site 1
4426 roiiiicll St.
19.9
17.6
25.8
22.0
15.7
21.4
23.5
CUOMETH1C MEAN PARTICU
Site 2
751 Center Pt. R««.
34.9
41.5
65.8
59.2
52.7
70.7
51.8
I.ATE LEVELS WITH Hi
Site J
14th and 10th
14.8
16.2
44.1
46.0
51.4
46.6
58.7
HlKWfUUHU iwnuvc.
Site 4
445 Pirat St.
14.5
40.1
40.1
17.4
17.2
45.5
so.y
i.LBl/.'^J
Site 5
4401 Sixth St.
28.8
25.^
29.7
J8.1
4f.7
15.4
47.2
in
O
-------
Site
1 - 4426 Council St. NB
J - 751 Center Pt. Kd. NB
3 - 14th Ave. and 10th St. SB
4 - 445 Fust St. SH
5 - 4401 Sixth St. SW
Backbone State Park*
1978 - 1962 data
January
55.6
70.3
73.4
58.0
56. 4
28.0
February
56.5
70.8
72.8
67.8
61.6
28.5
March
54.7
88.2
83.7
81.1
64.7
32.7
April
51.7
92.6
79.2
77.7
64.7
34.7
May
73.8
119.8
104.5
101.2
90.9
48.3
June
62.5
106.1
89.9
86.2
82.5
52.6
July
63.4
95.1
79.0
80.8
78.1
40.2
August
62.7
105.2
88.5
90.6
85.5
42.0
September
58.9
106.8
89.4
83.0
79. *
31.1
October
56.7
H6.5
93.4
80.4
71.1
27.7
November
5^.0
HO. 5
72. b
72.7
65.2
34.0
IK-ci-wlx: c
bu.6
n.b
b7.l>
fcj.fr
S4.4
43.4
-------
TABLE 5-4. MONTHLY ARITHMETIC
Site
1 - 44.6 Council St. NB
2 - 751 Center Pt. Rd. NB
3 - 14th Ave. and 10th St. SB
4 - 445 First St. SH
5 - 4401 Sixth St. SH
Backbone State Park
January
88.5
89.4
78.2
73.4
89.8
29.5
February
58.7
77.6
71.0
70.6
57.8
24.8
March
37.4
65.2
58.2
70.2
53.0
22.3
April
55.0
82.2
86.6
96.6
72.0
38.0
MEAN PAH
May
51.0
64.2
85.0
68.6
55.8
37.6
IT 1 GUI AT R
June -
54.0
64.0
55.6
59.2
66.6
43.8
I.BVEI.S -
July
45.6
54.5
54.4
54.2
53.4
28.6
1982 ug/
Auquit
76.4
85.4
94.8
BJ.4
76.4
41.0
PLJ - .
Scplcatier
41.0
54.2
62.8
58. 8
62.0
23.0
October
50.4
67.4
R2.8
80.4
68.6
37.2
: ^:^:--i--- = "- :--
NowmlMM Uf«cijBhor
36-2 1'i.i
47.0 55.2
48.0 53.8
58.2 42-B
56.8 J»-7
_9.4 17.3
in
to
-------
TABLE 5-5. METEOROUOCtCAI. SUMMARY POR 1976 (P>0.71)
I/I
tJ
Date
01-01-76
01-07-76
01-11-76
01-25-76
01-31-76
02-06-76
02-12-76
02-14-76
02-18-76
02-24-76
01-01-76
03-07-76
03-19-76
01-25-76
03-31-76
04-12-76
04-30-76
05-06-76
05-12-76
05-24-76
05-30-76
06-05-76
06-11-76
06-17-76
06-21-76
Average
wiml speed
(i>l>h)
14.7
18.4
13.0
12.0
12.5
15.8
16.9
16.8
13.1
9.5
18.3
14.0
16.5
14.6
12.5
9.5
10.0
14.7
14.1
10.1
7.8
11.5
12.1
14.1
10.7
Hind
persistence
0.914
0.938
0.903
0.807
0.876
0.969
0.945
0.957
0.842
0.973
0.963
0.794
0.973
0.938
0.912
0.930
0.759
0.941
0.954
0.938
0.926
0.912
0.959
0.971
0.907
Renultant
Mind
direction
116.0
130.1
316.6
357.5
242.4
107.5
214.4
137.2
314.3
186. 5
76.6
312.9
179.3
162.6
299.0
147.4
260.8
10.5
148.5
44.6
48.8
103.2
181.8
164.6
108.2
Date
07-11-76
07-17-76
07-23-76
07-29-76
08-04-76
08-10-76
08-16-76
08-22-76
08-28-76
09-03-76
09-09-76
09-10-76
09-15-76
09-21-76
09-27-76
10-01-76
10-15-76
10-21-76
11-08-76
11-14-76
11-20-76
11-26-76
12-14-76
12-20-76
12-26-76
Average
wind speed
(nph)
10.7
6.9
5.6
4.4
11.0
11.3
8.5
6.7
8.1
12.6
11.2
9.5
9.1
10.1
7.5
10.5
17.8
14.0
12.1
6.6
7.6
16.2
14.4
21.8
12.9
Hind
persistence
.811
.801
.719
.784
.970
.975
.924
.928
.948
.787
.974
.847
.912
.859
.902
.914
.977
.958
.809
.882
.784
.884
.912
.984
.761
Resultant
wind
direction
278.7
265.0
271.9
78.5
182.0
170.2
121.6
174.2
112.9
211.5
117.5
277.0
14.3
122.1
157.1
133.8
109.5
285.5
181.9
202.2
286.3
148.9
216.2
118.1
304.2
-------
TAUIK 5-6. METKOROU1T.ICAL SUMMARY FOR lj{I-l.p-u- " ' -===_ ::." :--=-. ~-
Date
01-01-77
01-25-77
02-01-77
02-06-77
02-12-77
02-18-77
02-19-77
02-24-77
01-02-77
03-OJ-77
03-08-77
03-14-77
01-26-77
04-01-77
04-13-77
04-19-77
04-25-77
OS-01-77
05-07-77
05-10-77
05-13-77
05-17-77
05-19-77
05-25-77
05-31-77
06-01-77
06-06-77
06-09-77
06-12-77
06-15-77
06-18-77
06-22-77
06-24-77
Average
wlrul apeed
(mph)
12.6
15.4
12.1
10.9
19.0
11.2
13.0
20.1
14.3
16.6
13.2
12.5
16.6
15.0
9.3
9.8
10.7
10.0
10.5
7.9
9.9
12.9
10.9
4.7
18.3
14.5
15.3
8.7
13.1
8.2
12.8
12.4
7.0
Wind
persistence
.976
.954
.901
.986
.890
.892
.977
.904
.978
.931
.955
.915
.976
.835
.900
.855
.933
.855
.899
.905
.972
.923
.951
.785
.988
.903
.955
.872
.951
.106
.951
.902
.840
Resultant
wind
direction
302.1
296.2
293.0
331.5
296.5
297. B
327.8
252.8
124.8
140. 1
189.8
145.2
157.5
137.2
236.2
145.9
335.9
188.6
62.1
141.8
229.6
185.3
178.4
126.2
295.6
317.9
354.5
115.9
60.9
129.9
299.8
116.8
225.6
Averatjc
wi nil fipood
Data (mph)
07-06-77
07-12-77
07-18-77
07-30-77
08-05-77
08-11-77
08-17-77
08-23-77
08-25-77
08-26-77
09-10-77
09-13-77
10-04-77
10-22-77
10-26-77
10-28-77
11-03-77
11-09-77
11-15-77
11-21-77
12-03-77
12-09-77
12-15-77
12-21-77
12-27-77
9.9
8.8
11.1
8.1
6.3
7.2
9.1
8.9
10.9
10.7
7.7
8.8
8.6
14.7
7.2
10.3
5.9
21.1
11.2
12.8
7.5
24.0
10.5
19.3
10.4
Mind
persistency
.881
.824
.806
.051
.839
.906
.964
.809
.943
.974
.809
.914
.949
.920
.854
.941
.716
.815
.786
.940
.885
.995
.957
.996
.757
Husultant
H 1 fill
ill reel Ion
216.8
299.6
172.0
173. 1
226.8
118.3
114.5
47.0
141.0
175.2
320.6
13.5
185.2
60.0
175.5
83.3
341.6
200.6
244.4
281.5
322.8
301.1
150.9
303.6
280.9
-------
TABLE 5-7.
Date
01-02-78
01-08-78
01-14-78
01-20-78
01-26-78
02-02-78
02-07-78
02-08-78
02-11-78
02-19-78
02-25-78
03-01-78
01-07-78
01-09-78
01-15-78
01-16-78
01-21-78
01-27-78
04-02-78
04-04-78
04-08-78
04-20-78
05-08-78
05-10-78
05-14-78
05-16-78
05-20-78
05-26-78
06-01-78
06-02-78
06-14-78
06-15-78
06-19-78
06-25-78
Averaqe
wind spoeil
(nph)
13.9
24.4
12.0
12.1
26.7
8.4
6.9
5.7
17.1
5.5
19.0
14.2
15.0
6.6
7.1
11. J
11.0
10.0
19.8
15.0
18.2
15.9
15.0
9.9
18.1
7.6
12.2
11.1
12.5
9.1
11.2
14.1
10.9
9.7
Hlnrl
persistence
.919
.997
.865
.900
.999
.864
.891
.855
.957
.967
.995
.985
.981
.919
.927
.955
.778
.907
.964
.875
.971
.965
.911
.960
.912
.879
.777
.970
.918
.877
.919
.899
.963
.919
Resultant
wind
direction
272.1
317.4
146.4
141.0
J00.8
128.0
150.1
352.6
41.9
187.7
307.2
318.1
62.0
212.2
291.1
102.7
282.7
191.0
106.7
305.9
98.7
106.7
215.4
190.1
342.0
77.7
101.4
175.4
286.5
120.6
174.5
167.0
171.6
177.4
Date
07-01-78
07-11-78
07-19-78
07-25-78
07-11-78
08-06-78
08-08-78
08-12-78
08-18-78
08-24-78
09-05-78
09-11-78
09-17-78
09-21-78
09-18-78
09-29-78
10-05-78
10-11-78
10-17-78
10-21-78
10-29-78
11-10-78
11-11-78
11-16-78
11-22-78
12-04-78
12-10-78
12-16-78
12-22-78
12-28-78
Averaqe
wind speed
(mph)
9.5
10.5
8.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
11.7
6.7
6.9
8.6
11.9
7.1
6.4
B.i
14.1
7.2
9.8
6.7
15.0
8.6
11.2
10.4
10.7
14.6
8.5
11. 5
15.1
20.1
Wind
persistence
.846
.976
.916
.905
.727
.878
.925
.878
.892
.728
.965
.985
.7H5
.887
.729
.794
.961
.805
.971
.952
.954
.890
.87]
.961
.961
.936
.922
.966
.917
.966
Resultant
wind
direction
142.)
161.5
195. 1
170.9
68.0
218.7
195.0
141.8
160.5
230.5
171.7
lfll.7
46.4
171.6
181.2
199.6
291.0
198.8
171.3
151.1
148.0
144.4
15.8
69.8
108.1
211.7
154.6
288.0
272.0
139.2
-------
in
Average
wind speed
Date (nph)
01-03-79
01-09-79
01-11-79
01-15-79
01-21-79
01-24-79
01-27-79
02-08-79
02-10-79
02-14-79
02-19-79
02-20-79
03-04-79
03-05-79
03-10-79
03-16-79
03-22-79
04-03-79
04-09-79
04-15-79
04-21-79
04-27-79
05-03-79
05-09-79
05-15-79
05-22-79
05-24-79
05-27-79
11.0
12.5
15.7
8.1
18.1
21.6
10.0
12.9
11.3
9.5
12.0
13.0
11.4
13. B
19.7
11.8
8.5
5.9
10.7
10.9
11.1
19.8
16.5
13.4
8.0
14.2
9.9
7.1
Mind
persistence
.972
.899
.935
.758
.976
.973
.817
.838
.984
.890
.984
.990
.967
.993
.995
.974
.989
.810
.863
.973
.977
.810
.978
.892
.872
.768
.918
.886
Resultant
wind
direction
254.0
297.8
127.1
159.6
315.8
318.7
352.1
357.3
106.5
127.6
161.2
164.3
284.3
286.7
295.7
156.4
96.3
327.3
351.0
311.4
334.2
315.0
346.1
172.1
329.3
177.4
359.1
300.0
i
Date
06-02-79
06-08-79
06-14-79
06-20-79
06-26-79
07-02-79
07-08-79
07-22-79
08-07-79
08-21-79
08-31-79
09-06-79
09-18-79
09-24-79
10-06-79
10-12-79
10-18-79
10-24-79
10-30-79
11-11-79
11-17-79
11-23-79
11-29-79
12-05-79
12-17-79
12-29-79
Average
Ind speed
(nph)
9.7
9.3
14.4
16.1
10.2
10.3
4.8
4.6
7.0
8.0
8.3
8.3
9.4
6.0
13.1
16.2
13.1
6.2
17.1
13.9
10.5
10.3
18.2
16.6
10.5
6.2
Hind
persistence
.851
.804
.961
.854
.886
.943
.922
.852
.947
.904
.S56
.928
.828
.833
.969
.988
.876
.965
.989
.992
.963
.938
.990
.759
.896
.879
Hesullant
wind
direction
245.2
357.4
163.7
211.3
195.0
119.6
121.7
162. I
233.8
102.5
163.3
321.1
314.4
152.4
303.0
307.9
134.6
296.1
120. 1
167.0
197.8
234.6
293.2
265.4
192.8
1.2
-------
TABLE 5-9.
in
Date
01-04-80
01-10-80
01-22-80
01-28-80
02-01-80
02-09-80
02-15-80
02-16-80
02-21-80
01-04-80
01-10-80
01-22-80
01-28-80
04-09-80
04-15-80
04-21-80
04-27-80
05-09-80
05-15-80
06-08-80
06-21-80
Average
wind speed
(mpli)
7.7
17.2
19.
12.
7.
7.
17.
15.7
16.2
11.6
19.8
12.5
16.0
18.2
10.2
11.2
12.1
8.9
9.7
11. 5
6.9
Mind
persistence
.777
.944
.951
.987
.965
.901
.871
.965
.984
.766
.844
.811
.994
.991
.910
.850
.816
.950
.958
.917
.964
Resultant
wind
direction
120.7
151.9
295.5
112.1
61.2
104.5
158.1
105.2
81.9
8.8
100.1
96.8
56.1
100.2
117.2
168.9
150.2
187.1
61.1
112.8
186.1
Average
wind speed
Date
07-02-80
07-14-80
07-^6-80
08-07-80
08-19-80
08-25-80
09-24-80
10-12-80
10-18-80
10-24-80
10-10-80
11-11-80
11-17-80
11-29-80
12-05-80
12-11-80
12-29-80
<«ph)
5.8
11.0
8.2
10.0
8.9
10.1
4.1
1.9
12.9
15.1
10.6
10.2
10.1
16.2
8.4
7.4
8.9
Hind
persistence
.712
.975
.717
.954
.893
.984
.817
.798
.955
.982
.914
.967
.984
.866
.890
.860
.925
lleaultdnt
wind
direct ion
21.0
175.8
14.9
175.1
179.6
161.6
152.2
114.2
271.1
297.
217.
111.
159.
275.
127.6
98.7
141.6
-------
TABLE 5-10. HETEOHOUXjICAI. SUKMARY FOR ^B
in
oo
Average
wind speed Wind
Date (nph) persistence
01-04-81
01-10-81
01-16-81
01-22-81
01-28-81
02-01-81
02-03-81
02-15-81
02-21-81
03-05-81
03-11-81
03-14-81
01-23-81
03-29-81
04-01-81
04-04-81
04-10-81
04-16-81
05-04-81
05-10-81
05-11-81
05-16-81
05-22-81
05-28-81
06-03-81
06-27-81
7.0
6.3
13.4
9.3
10.5
19.4
11.6
17.5
14.7
10.7
11.2
9.4
S.2
18.8
21.5
19.9
11.5
13.0
12.4
15.S
17.1
11.3
16.8
9.8
10.1
12.0
.712
.891
.986
.947
.940
.919
.970
.986
.882
.858
.848
.832
.801
.868
.876
.856
.835
.985
.777
.990
.917
.958
.969
.758
.967
.955
Resultant
wind
direction
59.4
326.9
312.8
298.3
303.0
283.5
272.8
177.2
105.6
319.6
292.2
216.4
317.0
174.5
277.8
277.6
157.6
170.5
194.1
17.1
7.3
136.0
156.3
171.0
302.1
151.2
Average
wind speed
Date («ph)
07-03-81
07-09-81
07-15-81
07-16-81
07-27-81
08-02-81
08-08-81
08-20-81
09-01-81
09-13-81
09-19-81
09-25-81
10-01-81
10-07-81
10-13-81
10-19-81
11-06-81
11-12-81
11-18-81
11-30-81
12-06-81
12-12-81
12-18-81
12-24-81
12-30-81
6.7
6.3
6.0
5.9
10.1
6.1
6.3
3.5
7.6
2.5
9.0
8.8
15.1
4.3
9.6
9.0
8.1
6.3
13.0
14.2
10.8
6.1
18.2
9.4
11.4
Hind
persistence
.932
.918
.710
.943
.963
.755
.750
.743
.980
.911
.717
.955
.952
.710
.974
.841
.988
.877
.915
.973
.961
.954
.986
.878
.965
Hesultant
wlrvl
direction
120.7
3^9.9
42.9
74.0
75.6
90.3
303.1
54.4
323.0
192.2
255.4
153.1
301.6
342.7
143.3
213.5
293.4
131.2
96.6
102.2
171.1
153.3
312.1
226.5
142.7
-------
TABLE 5-11. METEOROIOCICftr. SUMHAHY POR 1982 (P>0. 711
Ul
VO
Date
01-06-82
01-11-82
01-17-82
01-23-82
01-29-82
02-04-82
02-10-82
02-16-82
02-22-82
03-06-82
03-18-82
03-24-82
03-30-82
04-05-82
04-11-82
04-14-82
04-17-82
04-23-82
04-29-82
05-17-82
Average
«1 nil speed
«npt>)
16.6
16.5
14.4
27.9
8.6
7.8
9.5
9.9
10.8
8.7
6.2
10.2
21.8
18.1
8.5
11.4
18.6
11.1
13.8
13.2
Wind
persistence
.960
.978
.980
.955
.839
.943
.971
.980
.917
.710
.753
.913
.812
.819
.798
.963
.980
.946
.965
.832
Resultant
wind
direction
335.0
297.6
162.3
270.7
L12.7
333.2
177.0
57.2
169.6
275.
23.
299.
201.
29.
127.
140.7
299.8
212.5
94.2
164.5
Date
06-04-82
06-10-82
06-22-82
07-04-82
07-16-82
07-22-82
07-28-82
08-03-82
08-09-82
08-15-82
08-27-82
09-02-82
09-08-82
09-14-82
09-20-82
10-08-82
10-14-82
10-20-82
10-26-82
Average
wind speed
(nph)
9.0
12.1
6.0
6.B
9.3
8.6
6.3
10.6
9.6
6.3
8.8
10.4
7.0
7.6
9.5
8.6
9.5
16.3
8.4
Mind
persistence
.955
.942
.728
.720
.901
.850
.789
.976
.951
.803
.767
.893
.918
.786
.934
.938
.965
.965
.973
Hesultant
wl ml
direction
69.8
305.9
20.5
165.8
182.5
11.3
27.1
I9b.2
JOS. 5
111.5
7.8
297.2
140.5
17.0
334.1
104.7
240.3
290.7
144.2
-------
TABLE 5-12. WIND FREQUENCY PER WIND DIRECTION CATEGORY BASED ON 1963-1967
u
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
average
N
10.2
13.3
15.8
9.7
8.9
6.7
9.7
9.9
9.6
11.2
9.6
10.4
10.3
NE
5.9
6.2
6.2
6.8
6.9
6.4
5.2
3.6
7.9
3.0
2.0
4.7
5.3
E
6.4
8.0
8.7
15.4
13.8
10.8
11.0
6.7
13.2
5.0
5.0
5.4
9.2
SE
6.9
7.8
11.0
15.8
11.5
13.8
13.3
10.0
14.6
8.7
9.0
9.1
10.9
S
16.0
17.6
17.4
16.2
19.9
26.3
20.6
20.6
19.3
26.0
25.0
19.9
20.5
SW
10.3
10.5
7.6
7.4
12.5
16.2
11.3
11.9
9.3
12.1
10.7
9.4
10.7
W
14.
10.
10.
9.
9.
^^v
^^^
2
2
0
0
6
7.6
8.1
9.8
7.9
11.1
13
13
10
.0
.4
.3
^^v^^«
NW
25.
23.
21.
17.
12.
^^B
7
3
1
2
1
7.2
11.
14,
10
18
23
25
17
,5
.9
.5
.6
.1
.7
.6
Calm
4.5
3.2
2.4
2.7
5.0
5.3
9.5
12.8
8.0
4.3
2.8
2.2
5.2
60
-------
TABLE 5-13. WIND FREQUENCY PER WIND DIRECTION CATEGORY BASED ON 1976-1979
DATA
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
average
N
12.2
16.9
11.6
13.8
16.0
12.4
21.4
15.2
17.3
14.5
10.6
12.0
14.5
NE
3.8
6.9
6.2
9.2
8.9
5.3
6.3
5.5
6.8
5.1
6.8
3.1
6.1
E
3.7
9.1
9.4
16.2
14.2
10.5
10.4
8.6
8.1
7.9
6.1
6.4
9.2
SE
6.7
7.8
13.7
14.5
12.1
11.8
11.6
13.6
10.9
9.6
8.3
9.0
10.8
S
11.8
15.2
17.7
15.9
23.1
25.6
24.9
29.2
28.3
21.2
19.5
18.5
20.9
SW
6.6
6.3
7.3
6.4
8.7
11.1
8.1
10.1
8.3
7.3
9.6
8.2
8.2
W
19.1
13.9
11.7
8.1
6.1
10.8
6.3
6.8
7.6
13.4
17.9
15.7
11.4
NW
36.2
23.7
22.4
16.0
10.8
12.5
11.1
11.0
12.8
21.0
21.2
27.2
18.8
61
-------
Monitoring
Year location
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
All
years
combined
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Wind Direction Sector
N
4.8
6.5
6.4
6.5
4.8
4.5
4.5
2.3
6.4
5.4
10.2
9.6
7.8
7.7
10.2
13.0
11.1
13.3
13.3
15.6
15.2
18.2
18.2
17.1
17.1
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
11.1
8.3
10.8
10.8
10.8
8.8
8.6
8.6
9.1
10.0
NE
7.1
8.7
8.5
8.7
4.8
9.1
4.5
6.8
8.5
10.8
6.1
7.7
5.9
5.8
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
12.1
12.1
11.4
11.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
11.1
11.1
10.8
10.8
10.8
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.0
E
4.8
8.7
8.5
8.7
4.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.7
10.2
7.7
9.8
11.5
10.2
2.2
4.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
8.6
8.6
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
11.1
11.1
10.8
10.8
10.8
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.4
SE
14.3
8.7
10.6
10.9
4.8
18.2
15.9
15.9
19.1
18.9
12.2
11.5
11.8
11.5
10.2
17.4
15.6
15.6
17.8
13.3
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.3
14.3
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
11.1
11.1
10.8
10.8
10.8
15.5
13.9
14.2
14.9
13.7
S
21.4
21.7
21.3
21.7
23.8
13.6
18.2
20.5
14.9
13.5
28.6
28.8
31.4
28.8
26.5
19.6
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
15.2
18.2
15.2
17.1
17.1
17.4
17.4
17.4
15.2
17.4
19.4
22.2
18.9
18.9
18.9
19.6
21.2
21.1
19.8
19.6
SW
4.8
8.7
8.5
8.7
4.8
13.6
13.6
11.4
12.8
13.5
10.2
9.6
7.8
9.6
10.2
8.7
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.4
7.4
7.9
7.3
7.8
7.4
W
16.7
13.0
12.8
13.0
23.8
4.5
6.8
6.8
6.4
2.7
12.2
13.5
13.7
13.5
14.3
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.1
3.0
3.0
5.7
5.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
10.9
8.7
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
*.l
8.9
8.9
9.4
9.2
NW
26.2
23.9
23.4
21.7
28.6
34.1
34.1
34.1
29.8
32.4
10.2
11.5
11.8
11.5
12.2
32.6
33.3
33.3
31.1
33.3
24.2
21.2
24.2
22.9
22.9
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
22.2
22.2
24.3
24.3
24.3
25.3
24.8
25.4
24.0
25.6
62
-------
u>
Site 1 - 4426 Council Street
Year
1982
1981
1980
1479
1978
1977
1976
Average
N
45.814)
44.5121
62.8(5)
40.7(6)
36.2(5)
93.0(2)
50.5(2)
49.9(26)
NE
47.5(41
60. 0(Jt
70.8(4)
--
46.7(3)
50.3(4)
65.0(3)
56.6(21)
K
74.0(4)
41.2(5)
63.7(3)
88.0(1)
52.8(5)
51.0(1)
41.5(2)
56.1(21)
SK
50.3(4)
66.7(91
71.6(5)
86.1(8)
63.3(6)
71.9(8)
90.5(6)
72.7(46)
Site 2 - 751
year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Average
1 Year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Average
N
6J.7IJ)
63.5(2)
91.0(6)
102.0(5)
63.6(5)
172.5(2)
62.7(3)
85.6(26)
N
44.0(4)
51-5(2)
61.3(6)
50.7(6)
58.0(4)
75.0(1)
71.3(3)
56.6(26)
NE
68.8(4)
87.3(3)
104.5(4)
118.0(4)
124.0(2)
102.3(4)
99.2(21)
NE
48.8(4)
70.3(3)
70.0(4)
54.3(3)
85.3(3)
91.0(4)
70.0(21)
E
83.1(4)
67.6(5)
91.7(3)
109.0(2)
83.3(4)
129.0(1)
97.5(4)
87.7(23)
Site
E
85.5(4)
60.2(51
73.7(3)
119.0(1)
80.8(5)
67.0(11
88.3(4)
78.6(23)
SB
76.3(4)
94.8(9)
118.4(5)
127.9(7)
95.8(6)
134.4(7)
131.3(4)
111.6(42)
S
57.7(7)
63.4(8)
126.8(5)
73.7(9)
74.3(14)
72.5(6)
97.0(9)
78.5(58)
Center Point
S
82.4(8)
90.1(8)
178.2(6)
118.6(9)
129.3(15)
145.8(8)
160.6(10)
128.5(64)
3 - 14th Avenue and 10th
SB
98.5(4)
90.9(9)
90.6(5)
146.1(7)
94.5(6)
103.1(71
133.2(5)
108.0(43)
S
94.0(7)
90.9(8)
204.8(5)
130.019)
131.1(16)
110.2(9)
150.4(10)
125.6(64)
SH
60.0(2)
38.0(2)
48.0(1)
74.8(4)
68.0(5)
81.7(6)
47.0(2)
66.7(22)
Road
SW
86.512)
59.0(2)
100.0(1)
141.8(4)
100.2(5)
200.2(6)
112.0(4)
129.5(24)
Street
SH
113.5(2)
72.0(2)
104.0(1)
113.0(4)
111.0(4)
112.6(5)
134.8(4)
112.4(22)
H
40.1(31
55.0141
48.0(2)
46. 3(1)
39.2(6)
44.5(2)
71.4(7)
5^.4(27)
M
44.3(3)
71.8(4)
J7.0U)
54.0(3)
57.1(7)
66.0(3)
99.0(6)
67.1(27)
H
50.0(3)
79.3(4)
36.0(1)
70.3(3)
90.6(7)
88.0(3)
105.7(6)
8J.2(27)
NM
60.6(8)
64.2(M)
84.1(8)
56.2(15)
46.2(5)
87.1(15)
98.1(11)
67.4(75)
NW
69.4(8)
97.3(13)
126.6(7)
103.9(15)
130.316)
115.9(15)
85.3(11)
103.0(75)
NM
59.6(9)
88.5(13)
102.0(8)
79.1(15)
110.8(6)
97.1(151
109.9(11)
90.4(77)
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-15 (continuooi _ -- = --
Year
1982
1981
I960
1979
1978
1971
1976
Avera9e
Year
1982
1961
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Average
Year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
Average
N
S2.5(4)
62.5(2)
71.7(6)
51. 8(6)
45.8(4)
92.7(3)
37.0(3)
62.4(28)
N
55.5(41
50.0(2)
56.2(6)
64.0(7)
61.6(5)
83.5(2)
58.0(1)
60.7(27)
N
24.8(41
25.0(21
38.6(5)
29.7(3)
24.2(5)
29.1(19)
NE
54.5(4)
76.0(3)
88.3(4)
56.3(3)
62.0(4)
63.8(4)
66.9(22)
NE
52.0(4)
66.0(3)
87.8(4)
83.3(3)
63.5(4)
85.0(1)
70.8(19)
HE
26.8(4)
51.5(2)
42.5(4)
33.5(2)
37.3(12)
E
94.0(4)
62.4(5)
75.3(3)
118.0(1)
93.8(6)
97.0(1)
93.3(4)
86.0(24)
E
87.3(4)
43.0(5)
60.3(3)
94.0(1)
81.6(5)
100.0(1)
67.0(1)
70.7(20)
B
69.5(4)
34.0(6)
33.0(3)
47.5(2)
41.3(4)
44.3(19)
Site 4 - 445 First Street.
SB S
118.3(4)
108.4(9)
88.0(5)
117.3(8)
86.3(6)
132.8(9)
165.4(5)
116.7(46)
Site 5 - 4401
SB
83.4(7)
87.0(7)
151.3(6)
95.0(9)
103.7(15)
110.1(7)
209.1(10)
120.9(61)
Sixth Street
S
64.0(4) 67.9(7)
68.1(9) 64.3(8)
65.6(5) 129.0(6)
116.0(6) 95.7(9]
87.0(5) 152.5(13)
76.0(7) 72.6(5)
42.0(1) 121.2(5)
78.4(37) 105.2(53)
Backbone State Pack
SB
41.3(3)
59.9(9)
50.5(2)
37.7(3)
82.5(21
54.8(19)
S
28.4(7)
45.8(8)
73.3(6)
56.7(7)
44.0(10)
48.5(38)
SM
85.0(2)
55.0(2)
81.0(1)
89.5(4)
77.8(5)
107.2(6)
95.8(4)
90.6(24)
SH
93.5(2)
38.5(2)
59.0(1)
121.3(4)
144.0(5)
161.0(5)
65.0(1)
119.9(20)
SH
50.0(2)
30.0(2)
43.0(1)
82.3(3)
39.3(3)
51.6(11)
M
40.7U)
83.8(5)
54.5(2)
51.3U)
56.7(7)
6b.O(J)
94.8(61
67.9(29)
H
48.3(3)
91.8(4)
43.0(2)
50.7(3)
50.6(7)
76.0(1)
114.8(5)
70.2(25)
M
20.5(2)
39.7(3)
39.5(2)
21.5(2)
24.0(4)
28.5(13)
IIH
57.1(91
BO.O(U)
98.8(81
66.2(14)
77.3(6)
96.2(14)
99.2(10)
82.1(74)
NM
70.7(9)
84.2(13)
85.8(8)
72.5(15)
161.7(6)
101.8(12)
140.2(6)
94.7(69)
NH
21.8(6)
34.6(9)
45.b(7)
35.3(7)
50.5(6)
36.3(351
~Note: Numbers In parentheses Indicate number of observations
-------
TAIH.E 5-16. SPATlftL COIIKELATIONS: HINI1S PROM NOKTH 3ECTOH
Participate level (in/ra1)
Date
01-25-76
09-27-76
11-26-76
06-06-77
09-13-77
11-03-77
01-14-78
01-20-78
02-07-78
02-08-78
05-14-78
10-23-78
01-27-79
02-08-79
04-09-79
05-03-79
05-24-79
06-08-79
12-29-79
02-15-80
03-04-80
04-27-80
07-26-80
11-17-80
12-29-80
05-10-81
05-11-81
10-07-81
06-22-82
07-22-82
08-27-82
09-14-82
Site I
41
60
--
136
SO
21
46
34
-_
31
49
26
28
42
43
35
70
41
59
76
81
57
49
40
47
40
71
25
Site 2
38
81
69
ISO
--
195
25
92
59
_-
56
86
28
126
150
95
111
52
84
153
56
114
87
71
56
64
--
84
43
Site 3
75
83
56
._
75
28
60
37
--
107
27
30
71
59
--
SO
67
51
64
99
36
58
60
51
--
52
49
36
59
32
Site 4
26
97
48
112
71
95
29
61
54
--
79
26
32
55
66
--
58
74
51
68
101
44
90
76
59
66
55
46
72
37
Site 5
..
--
58
70
97
32
56
84
--
30
106
21
30
55
61
157
52
72
50
67
70
32
54
64
47
53
69
40
71
42
Backbone
State Park
..
--
~
10
20
26
24
41
35
36
18
__
33
40
29
59
32
37
13
25
26
33
15
Average
wind speed
(mph)
12.0
7.5
16.2
15.3
8.8
5.9
12.0
12.3
6.9
5.7
18.3
6.7
10.0
12.9
10.7
16.5
9.9
9.3
6.2
17.1
11.6
12.3
8.2
10.3
8.9
15.5
17.1
4.3
6.0
8.6
8.8
7.6
Persinteni:
-------
TAIH.B 5-17. SPATIAL CORRELATIONS: MINUS FKOM NIIRTIIBAST SECTOH
Particulate level
Date
05-06-76
05-24-76
05-10-76
09-15-76
05-07-77
06-12-77
08-21-77
10-22-77
02-11-78
03-07-78
04-26-78
09-17-78
11-11-78
02-03-80
03-28-80
05-15-80
07-02-80
01-04-81
07-15-81
08-20-81
02-16-82
03-18-82
04-05-82
07-28-82
Site 1
74
63
--
58
75
51
49
26
36
65
19
75
80
46
82
51
52
75
65
19
11
51
Site 2
118
107
101
83
139
109
--
45
141
228
58
--
95
132
80
111
58
91
111
82
102
19
52
Site 3
81
68
69
144
168
55
11
41
79
41
--
69
90
45
76
45
69
97
63
54
36
42
Site 4
66
68
50
71
88
52
68
40
34
90
45
74
113
55
111
44
67
117
68
68
32
50
(W/nJl
Site 5
as
94
52
71
37
47
--
153
50
--
62
111
55
123
45
52
101
70
51
14
51
Backbone
State Park
--
--
__
--
16
150
--
51
18
58
24
50
27
76
44
18
17
28
Average
wind speed
14.7
10.1
7.8
9.1
10.5
11.1
8.9
14.7
17.1
15.0
6.8
11.9
11.2
7.1
16.0
9.7
5.8
7.0
6.0
1.5
9.9
6.2 '
18.1
6.3
Persistence
.941
.938
.926
.932
.899
.951
.809
.920
.957
.983
.890
.785
.873
.965
.994
.958
.732
.712
.710
.743
.980
.753
.819
.789
Keiultant
wind
direction
31
4S
49
34
62
61
47
60
42
62
19
46
16
61
56
61
21
59
41
54
57
21
10
27
-------
TABLE 5-18.
Date
01-01-76
06-05-76
06-21-76
07-29-76
10-28-77
04-02-78
04-08-78
05-16-78
07-31-78
11-16-78
11-22-78
02-10-79
03-22-79
08-21-79
02-21-80
03-22-80
12-11-80
02-21-81
07-16-81
07-27-81
08-02-81
11-lB-Bl
11-30-01
04-29-82
06-04-82
08-15-82
10-08-82
Site I
25
58
51
68
29
74
35
58
_.
88
69
52
70
59
17
38
46
46
108
56
84
48
Site
42
138
123
87
129
55
103
67
108
54
164
--
77
83
115
80
48
58
90
62
142
74
80
37
Partlculate
2 Site 3
40
123
lie
72
67
135
40
__
112
31
86
__
119
--
66
64
91
87
20
46
91
57
131
46
89
76
SPATIAL
level 1
Site 4
27
113
124
89
97
83
19
191
125
41
84
118
72
66
88
77
31
50
85
69
144
55
97
80
CORRELATIONS: HINDS
h«J/m3)
Site 5
..
--
67
100
116
35
__
128
51
78
94
60
52
69
56
21
16
60
42
138
71
84
56
Backbone
State Park
..
--
--
--
34
51
__
59
21
--
59
36
31
11
37
44
51
16
23
15
15
88
76
84
10
FKOM EAST SECTOR
Avezage
wind speed
(nph)
18.1
11.5
10.7
4.4
10.1
19.8
18.2
7.6
5.4
10.4
10.7
11.3
8.5
8.0
16.2
12.5
7.4
14.7
5.9
10.1
6.1
11.0
14.2
11.8
9.0
6.1
8.6
Persistence
.961
.912
.907
.784
.941
.964
.971
.879
.727
.963
.961
.984
.989
.904
.984
.831
.860
.882
.943
.961
.755
.915
.973
.965
.955
.803
.938
Renultant
wind
direction
77
10J
108
79
83
107
99
78
68
70
108
107
96
101
84
97
99
106
74
76
90
97
102
94
70
112
105
-------
ff>
00
T
ABLE 5-1
1. arm
""
Date Site 1 Site 2 Site 1 Site 4 Site 5 State Park
01-01-76
02-14-76
04-12-76
05-12-76
08-16-76
10-01-76
01-02-77
01-01-77
01-14-77
01-26-77
04-01-77
04-19-77
05-10-77
05-25-77
06-09-77
06-15-77
06-22-77
08-25-77
11-29-77
12-15-77
07-01-78
08-12-78
10-29-78
11-10-78
12-10-78
12-28-78
97
88
94
109
66
89
70
84
74
54
49
100
--
102
42
60
88
57
85
49
41
151
161
84
127
119
129
119
154
184
~
156
"" ""
60
75
118
98
118
65
81
121
133
170
100
142
127
120
101
81
104
118
47
85
137
96
131
49
67
"
66
158
215
125
241
127
146
129
118
152
149
160
147
67
71
131
88
127
51
48
--
42
85
80
152
57
19
__
__ __
19
114 84
71 Bl
141
38
51
wind speed
l«iph»
14.7
16.8
9.5
14.1
8.5
10.5
14.1
16.6
12.5
16.6
15.0
9.8
7.9
4.7
8.7
8.2
12.4
10.9
7.7
10.5
9.5
5.6
15.0
8.6
8.5
20.1
Persistence
.914
.957
.930
.954
.924
.914
.978
.911
.915
.976
.815
.855
.90S
.785
.872
.906
.902
.941
.917
.957
.846
.878
.954
.890
.922
.996
KOSIlltdflt
wind
direction
116
1J7
147
149
122
114
125
140
145
157
117
146
142
126
116
110
117
141
145
151
142
144
148
144
155
119
(continuedI
-------
Part leu late level (iq/m1)
Date
01-11-79
02-14-79
02-22-79
01-16-79
07-02-79
07-08-79
09-2«-79
10-18-79
10-30-79
01-04-80
01--10-80
09-24-80
11-11-80
12-05-80
OS-16-81
05-22-81
06-27-81
07-03-81
09-25-81
10-13-81
11-12-81
12-12-81
12-30-81
01-29-82
04-11-82
04-14-82
09-08-82
Site 1
108
45
as
78
97
72
118
86
72
78
79
73
56
65
76
64
91
47
66
78
57
56
31
11
--
54
Site 2
__
104
--
154
140
106
137
171
81
104
56
267
105
60
91
123
105
106
65
80
116
86
79
45
S3
71
Site 1
__ _
135
--
190
141
12S
105
171
154
88
80
126
93
66
83
123
92
120
70
90
120
60
60
49
86
127
Site 4
65
101
--
122
122
119
97
165
145
55
78
110
102
75
91
137
92
113
71
120
141
83
128
51
168
107
Backbone
Site 5 State Park
..
92
..
124
114
70
137
159
51
64
89
79
45
62
76
61
78
45
65
106
59
59
18
34
--
58
57
48
--
a
34
--
67
73
95
62
97
34
27
63
45
43
_ _
17
36
Average
wind speed
(roph)
15.7
9.5
16.8
11.8
10.1
4.8
6.0
13.1
17.1
7.7
17.2
4.1
10.2
8.4
11.1
16.8
12.0
6.7
8.8
9.6
6.1
6.1
11.4
8.6
8.5
11.4
7.0
Pemistrnco
.915
.890
.977
.974
.941
.922
.813
.876
.989
.777
.944
.817
.967
.890
.958
.969
.955
.912
.955
.974
.877
.954
.965
.819
.798
.961
.918
Rciultanr
wind
direction
127
128
121
154
120
122
15J
115
120
121
152
152
113
128
136
156
151
121
153
143
111
IS1
141
111
127
141
141
-------
-J
o
TABLE *-20. SPATIAL CORHELATIONS: WINDS FROM .BOOTH SIOTOR __._..
Partlculate level (w^/n1)
Backbone
Date Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 State Park
02-24-76
01-19-76
01-25-76
06-11-76
06-17-76
08-04-76
08-10-76
08-22-76
11-08-76
11-14-76
01-08-77
05-01-77
05-17-77
05-19-77
07-18-77
07-10-77
08-26-77
10-04-77
10-26-77
11-09-77
02-19-78
01-27-78
05-10-78
05-26-78
06-14-78
06-15-78
06-19-78
06-25-78
07-11-78
07-19-78
07-25-78
08-08-78
03-18-78
09-05-78
09-11-78
09-21-78
09-28-78
09-29-78
10-11-78
10-17-78
101
114
121
75
70
105
100
85
102
107
77
--
117
51
58
--
21
90
112
101
--
66
82
14
76
64
77
104
64
--
58
44
66
155
180
210
141
186
158
162
111
145
114
174
122
242
78
116
252
111
69
108
140
221
--
--
108
99
91
57
183
152
173
179
109
--
104
79
132
95
61
250
147
194
177
154
112
178
116
158
108
100
175
70
85
120
129
47
84
206
170
197
~~"
109
102
77
70
149
118
148
1/9
118
~"
121
107
142
117
214
354
182
289
175
224
162
221
113
188
115
~
162
65
88
~-
89
44
78
114
184
"~
99
101
80
54
100
96
126
154
82
"
79
65
121
145
106
134
102
119
80
114
48
59
86
100
401
299
172
104
99
171
75
77
109
29
84
51
14
7 j
52
24
21
36
Average
wind speed
(nph)
9.5
16.5
14.6
12.1
14.1
11.0
11.3
6.7
12.1
6.6
13.2
10.0
12.9
10.9
11.1
8.1
10.7
8.6
7.2
21.1
5.5
10.0
9.9
11.3
13.2
14.1
10.9
9.7
10.5
8.2
4.5
5.5
11.7
6.9
8.6
' 7.1
6.4
8.5
7.2
9.B
Persistence
.971
.9/1
.918
.959
.971
.970
.975
.928
.809
.882
.955
.855
.921
.951
.806
.851
.974
.949
.854
.815
.967
.907
.960
.970
.919
.899
.961
.919
.976
.916
.905
.925
.892
.965
.985
.887
.729
.794
.80S
.971
.n --=^
wind
direction
187
17V
161
182
165
182
170
174
182
202
190
189
185
178
172
173
175
185
176
201
188
193
190
175
175
167
172
177
164
195
171
195
161
171
182
174
181
200
199
171
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-20
(continued)
Participate level dq/n1)
Date
01-15-79
02-19-79
02-20-79
05-09-79
05-22-79
06-14-79
06-26-79
07-22-79
08-31-79
11-11-79
11-17-79
12-17-79
04-21-80
05-09-80
06-21-80
07-14-80
08-07-80
08-19-80
08-25-80
02-15-81
03-29-81
04-10-81
04-16-81
05-04-81
05-28-81
09-13-81
12-06-81
01-17-82
02-10-82
02-22-82
03-30-82
05-17-82
07-04-82
07-16-82
08-03-82
Site 1
41
118
127
64
66
--
64
37
81
65
165
143
134
79
113
68
61
53
52
61
75
85
52
55
56
41
44
55
42
111
Site 2
51
--
82
201
128
225
--
128
59
107
86
209
227
258
111
118
146
68
89
87
75
78
123
135
66
96
84
89
67
72
64
52
135
Site 3
37
--
79
292
190
153
--
159
61
89
110
271
196
204
127
--
226
76
79
112
91
88
114
119
48
__
70
83
75
130
93
63
144
Site 4
31
--
68
172
122
131
--
109
44
93
85
214
200
170
106
84
134
68
98
72
60
98
128
85
__
69
85
95
83
70
58
124
Site 5
35
59
190
98
199
--
92
32
84
72
176
201
126
76
94
101
56
71
58
49
59
79
104
38
__
41
57
71
59
94
42
111
Backbone
State Park
__
38
78
92
35
70
36
48
119
67
87
34
49
84
51
40
47
44
51
49
58
26
__
23
15
32
38
43
24
24
Average
wind speed
<»ph)
8.3
12.0
13.0
13.4
14.2
14.4
10.2
4.6
8.3
13.9
10.5
10.5
11.2
8.9
6.9
11.0
10.0
8.9
10.1
17.5
18.8
11.5
13.0
12.4
9.8
2.5
10.8
14.4
9.5
10.8
21.8
13.2
6.8
9.3
10.6
Persistence
.758
.984
.990
.802
.768
.961
.886
.852
.956
.992
.963
.896
.850
.950
.964
.975
.954
.893
.984
.986
.868
.835
.985
.777
.758
.911
.961
.980
.971
.917
.812
.832
.720
.901
.976
Resultant
wind
direction
160
161
164
173
177
164
195
162
163
167
198
19)
169
187
186
176
175
180
162
177
175
158
171
194
171
192
171
162
177
170
202
165
166
183
196
-------
TABI.F 5-21. SPATIAL CORRELATIONS:
Pattlculate
Date
01-31-76
02-12-76
09-03-76
12-14-76
04-13-77
05-13-77
06-24-77
07-06-77
08-05-77
1L-15-77
03-09-7B
05-08-78
08-06*78
08-24-78
12-04-78
06-02-79
06-20-79
08-07-79
11-23-79
10-30-80
03-14-81
10-19-81
12-24-81
04-23-82
10-14-82
level (in/a1)
MINI)!! FROM SOUTHWEST
Backbone
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 State Park
54
40
111
133
66
88
41
51
124
31
74
87
24
90
75
108
26
48
40
36
76
44
59
121
204
64
163
362
191
234
90
161
169
45
122
133
32
135
IBS
219
28
100
71
47
118
55
101
171
173
94
166
106
111
71
109
177
105
111
51
124
136
141
51
104
99
45
141
86
55
105
153
70
143
166
75
99
61
97
155
47
94
103
30
88
91
136
43
81
62
48
111
59
65
165
231
169
111
129
147
42
344
157
30
158
109
180
38
59
39
38
124
63
46
20
52
129
95
23
43
40
20
60
40
Averse
(nphl
12.5
16.9
12.6
14.4
9.3
9.9
7.0
9.9
6.3
11.2
6.6
15.0
5.6
6.7
14.6
9.7
16.1
7.0
10.3
10.6
9.4
9.0
9.4
11.1
9.5
Pernl3tence
.876
.445
.787
.912
.900
.972
.840
.881
.839
.786
.919
.911
.878
.728
.936
.851
.854
.947
.938
.914
.832
.841
.878
.946
.965
Resultant
wind
direction
242
214
212
216
216
230
226
217
227
244
232
215
219
231
232
245
211
234
235
218
216
214
227
213
240
-------
TADI.E 5-22. SPATIAL CORRELATIONS; WIMPS FROM H&ST SBCTUR
-J
OJ
Partlculate level (M/nJ)
Date
04-30-76
07-11-76
07-17-7S
07-23-76
09-10-76
10-21-76
11-20-76
02-24-77
11-21-77
12-27-77
01-02-78
03-15-78
03-21-78
06-01-78
10-05-78
12-16-78
12-22-78
01-03-79
03-04-79
03-05-79
12-05-79
10-18-80
11-29-80
02-01-81
02-03-81
03-11-81
04-01-81
04-04-81
09-19-81
01-23-82
03-06-82
10-20-82
Site 1
91
85
90
65
47
47
89
-_
39
50
32
34
45
33
48
4!
29
20
--
90
26
70
__
50
48
37
85
62
44
15
Site 2
98
93
122
89
--
S3
139
52
61
85
34
56
82
54
77
54
43
24
22
116
37
--
48
79
50
110
53
63
17
Site 3
128
79
109
91
76
151
91
74
99
36
121
133
153
81
43
67
58
24
--
129
36
63
98
--
50
106
64
63
23
Site 4
93
112
111
94
56
103
50
66
82
33
72
91
54
50
41
56
35
23
--
96
31
78
58
74
132
51
104
37
66
19
Backbone
Site 5 State Park
__
173
122
105
61
113
__
76
33
47
75
79
47
36
37
31
22
-_
99
31
55
55
87
41
184
70
55
20
..
-_
--
__
--
--
23
--
22
21
22
21
22
34
45
46
..
23
50
35
6
Average
wind speed
(nph)
10.0
10.7
6.9
5.6
9.5
14.0
7.6
20.1
12.8
10.4
13.9
7.3 '
13.0
12.5
14.1
13.5
15.1
11.0
11.
13.
16.
12.
16.
19.
11.
11.
21.
19.
9.
27.9
8.7
16.3
Resultant
wind
Persistence direction
.759
.833
.801
.739
.847
.958
.784
.904
.940
.757
.939
.927
.778
.938
.963
.966
.917
.972
.967
.993
.759
.955
.866
.919
.970
.848
.876
.856
.717
.955
.710
.965
261
279
265
272
277
286
286
253
282
281
272
291
283
287
291
2BO
272
254
284
287
265
271
276
284
273
292
278
278
255
271
275
291
-------
SECTOR
-J
*>.
TABLE 5-21. SPATIAL CORRELATIONS 1 ninua rnwi nwnninsoi -«^.-^ ______
PartLeulate
level tuq/Pi1) '
' ' Backbone
Date Site I Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 State Park
01-07-76
01-11-76
02-06-76
02-18-76
03-07-76
03-31-76
08-28-76
09-09-76
09-21-76
10-15-76
12-20-76
12-26-76
01-01-77
01-25-77
02-01-77
02-06-77
02-12-77
02-18-77
02-19-77
04-25-77
05-31-77
06-01-77
06-18-77
07-12-77
08-11-77
08-17-77
09-10-77
12-03-77
12-09-77
12-21-77
01-08-78
01-26-78
02-02-78
02-25-78
03-01-78
03-16-78
04-04-78
04-20-78
05-20-78
06-02-78
111
80
97
27
31
43
102
60
401
71
56
53
34
65
44
67
69
81
111
--
80
57
45
49
40
455
56
60
30
40
-
14
87
-~
141
130
72
S3
68
55
75
93
65
107
79
54
18
64
62
84
125
126
182
--
147
94
91
110
61
446
54
77
309
25
~
217
24
130
~~
174
144
141
57
62
121
103
77
450
111
74
58
42
111
57
89
91
127
49
109
73
60
75
62
371
80
81
251
82
61
34
154
134
116
90
49
40
39
93
64
290
77
49
23
87
48
53
124
114
26S
41
86
~
80
-
63
267
47
65
185
36
48
26
104
--
130
94
99
334
116
68
48
26
66
46
92
116
88
57
54
"
434
68
96
624
35
49
29
137
~
~
27
101
34
18
22
85
101
Average
wind npeed
(mphl
18.4
11.0
15.8
13.1
14.0
12.5
8.3
13.2
10 1
17.8
21.8
12.9
12.6
15.4
12.1
10.9
19 0
11 2
13.0
10.7
18.3
14.5
12.8
7 2
91
7 7
7 5
24.0
19.3
24.4
26.7
8.4
19.0
14.2
11.1
15.0
15.9
12.2
9.1
Petal ntence
.938
.901
.969
.842
.794
.912
.948
.974
.859
.977
.984
.761
.976
.954
.901
.986
.890
.892
.977
.913
.988
.903
.951
.824
.906
.964
.809
.885
.995
.996
.997
.999
.864
.995
.985
.955
.875
.965
.777
.877
Resultant
wind
direction
330
317
108
114
111
299
111
JIB
122
110
118
JO 4
302
296
291
112
297
298
128
116
296
118
100
100
118
115
121
323
301
304
317
301
328
1U7
118
103
306
307
103
321
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-J3 (continued)
l/i
[articulate level
Date
01-09-79
01-21-79
01-24-79
03-10-79
04-0 J-79
04-15-79
04-21-79
04-27-79
05-15-79
05-27-79
09-06-79
09-18-79
10-06-79
10-12-79
10-24-79
11-29-79
01-22-80
01-28-80
02-09-80
02-16-80
03-10-80
04-09-80
04-15-80
06-08-80
10-12-80
01-10-81
01-16-81
01-22-81
01-28-81
03-05-81
03-23-81
06-03-81
07-09-B1
08-08-81
09-01-81
10-01-81
11-06-81
12-18-81
Site 1
38
39
50
40
68
56
27
92
69
52
111
85
39
39
38
118
41
122
-.
71
18
59
138
106
52
51
95
54
42
120
43
99
41
61
64
56
57
Site 2
31
30
64
179
94
120
85
209
96
101
192
147
96
75
38
107
92
--
--
96
21
168
129
273
91
68
134
80
64
191
60
123
92
98
100
66
98
Site 3
45
34
95
89
70
75
57
121
83
69
132
111
65
68
73
132
72
125
106
36
104
121
120
70
79
140
87
63
160
58
108
56
80
80
93
77
Site 4
_ _
28
63
73
S3
77
46
85
62
61
123
95
47
63
51
113
61
137
_-
92
25
122
125
115
66
65
110
64
6S
166
49
118
51
81
55
81
69
(W/n1)
Site 5
38
36
58
59
68
57
49
106
68
100
159
122
59
66
43
113
67
126
83
19
76
100
102
63
81
120
71
46
173
91
107
51
74
78
61
78
Backbone
State Park
_
--
34
22
-_
89
--
--
31
24
28
19
75
17
21
40
7
24
105
51
__.
19
34
48
21
60
39
28
35
__
27
Average
wind speed
(mph)
12.5
18.1
21.6
19.7
5.9
10.9
11.1
19.8
8.0
7.1
8.3
9.4
13.1
16.2
6.2
18.2
19.3
12.1
7.4
15.7
19.8
18.2
10.2
13.5
3.9
6.3
13.4
9(3
10.5
10.7
5.2
10. 1
6.3
6.3
7.6
15.1
8.1
18.2
Persistence
.899
.976
.973
.99S
.810
.973
.977
.810
.872
.886
.928
.828
.969
.988
.965
.990
.951
.987
.903
.965
.844
.993
.930
.917
.798
.891
.986
.947
.940
.858
.801
.967
.91R
.750
.980
.952
.988
.986
Kciultant
Willll
direction
298
316
319
296
327
311
334
315
329
300
321
314
303
308
296
293
296
312
305
305
300
300
317
313
314
327
313
298
303
320
317
302
330
303
323
302
293
312
(continued)
-------
TAULE 5-23 (continued)
Particulate level
Date
01-06-82
01-11-82
02-04-82
03-24-82
04-17-82
06-10-82
08-09-82
09-02-82
09-20-82
Site 1
186
40
24
27
73
51
57
27
Site 2
196
52
42
59
64
49
59
34
Site 3
43
141
47
46
39
72
50
69
29
Site 4
40
130
62
45
28
74
47
51
37
CM/..3)
Site 5
47
210
62
44
30
86
51
66
40
Backbone
State Park
~
12
8
44
28
28
11
Av,e r aqe
wln.i speed
(nph) Persisted
16.
16.
7.
10.
18.
12.
9.
10.
.960
.978
.943
.913
.980
.942
.951
.893
.934
Resultant
wind
direction
335
298
333
299
300
306
106
297
334
-------
-o
-J
Site 1 - 4426 Council Street
Source Type
BdCkgrouml
Traditional:
Stack
Fuel cunlnistion
Solid waste disposal
Auto exhaust
Annual recorded mean
Non-traditional impact
Source Type
Background
Traditional:
Stack
Fuel conbustion
Solid waste disposal
Auto exhaust
Annual recorded mean
Non-traditional impact
1976 1977 1978 1979
47.0 38.6 17.9 33.8
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
0.5 O.S 0.5 0.5
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
70.5 62.0 5J.6 57. 8
16.5 16.4 8.8 1S.1
Site J - 14th Avenue and
1976 1977 1978 1979
47.0 38.6 37.9 35.8
24.9 24.9 21.6 22.2
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6
2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6
10S.7 8S. 2 89.1 81.8
28.6 16.5 22.6 18.7
Source Type
Background
Traditional i
Stack
Fuel conbustion
Solid waste disposal
Auto exhaust
Annual recorded Bean
Non-traditional impact
1980
40.7
4.0
O.S
0.9
l.S
66.5
18.9
1981
16.5
4.0
O.S
0.9
l.S
S4.1
10.7
1982
26.0
4.0
O.S
0.8
l.S
4S.9
13.1
1976
47.0
8.8
1.0
2.1
2.7
98.8
17.2
Site 2 - 7bl Center
1977
Jb.6
8.8
1.0
2. 1
2.7
109.1
S6.1
10th Street
1980
40.7
20.9
0.9
1.4
2.7
84.8
18.2
1976
47.0
0.2
O.S
0.8
94.2
41.2
1981
16. 5
19. 5
0.9
1.3
2.7
72.7
11.8
1977
18.6
0.2
O.S
0.8
74.0
29.4
1982
26.0
18.2
0.9
1.2
2.8
60.8
11.7
Site 5 -
1978
17.9
0.2
O.S
0.8
85.6
41.7
1976
47.0
10. B
0.8
1.8
1.0
97.9
14. S
4401 Sixth Street
1979 1980
IS. 8 40.7
0.2 0.2
O.S 0.4
0.8 0.9
71.9 70.4
12.1 21.7
1977
18.6
10.8
0.8
1.8
1.0
84.1
29.1
1981
16. 5
0.2
0.4
0.9
61.7
19.2
1V7H
17. 9
8.8
1.0
2.0
2.7
90.6
18.2
Site 4 -
1978
37.9
9.8
0.8
1.7
1.0
75.1
21.9
1982
26. U
4.S
0.2
0.4
0.9
i4.8
22.8
1979
IS. 8
B.«
1.0
i. a
2.7
9S.O
44.9
445 Pirst
1979
3S.8
8.7
O.B
1.6
3.1
73.2
23.2
Point Road
19BO 14HI 11U4
40.7 36.5 tb.U
O.B U H 8 B
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.7 1.^ 14
J.8 2.H ^.8
106. S 80. U bO.y
Sl.S .49.4 20. V
Street
1980 1981 1«»B/
40.7 36. S 26.0
7.7 6.6 S.6
0.8 O.B O.B
1.4 1.3 1.2
3.1 J.2 3.2
81.0 76.6 60.5
27.3 28.2 23.7
-------
SECTION 6
TASK III - CONTROL STRATEGY FOR AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
The purpose of Task III was to provide a strategy for the reduction of
the impact of non-traditional fugitive dust sources for the attainment of the
TSP NAAQS. This was to be based on the most current emission inventory
information (Task I) and the available meteorological and TSP ambient
monitoring information (Task II) .
The first step in developing this strategy was to determine the degree
of emissions reduction required. As discussed in Section 5 (Task II), the
yearly geometric mean TSP levels at all monitoring stations were below the
NAAQS for 1982 (refer to Figure 5-3). However, as mentioned previously, 1982
was a very "wet" year and the background level was well below average
(approximately 12 gg/m3) . While the addition of 12 wg/m-1 to the
recorded 1982 levels would still result in all stations being in attainment,
it is felt that this same addition coupled with increased industrial activity
(which should occur if the economy recovers) would again result in NAAQS
violations. Likewise, should a very "dry" year again occur (as in 1976), the
increased background level could result in violations at several of the
monitoring stations. Lastly, increased construction activity near a
particular monitoring station (as in the current situation near Site 4) can
cause TSP exceedences as noted in Section 5. Therefore, a dust control
strategy should be implemented throughout the area with the aim of producing
the following reductions in the yearly geometric mean TSP levels:
Site 1 - 4426 Council Street: No reduction needed
Site 2 - 751 Center Point Road: 5-10 «/m3
Site 3 - 14th Street and 10th Avenue: 5-10
Site 4 - 445 First Street: 5-10 gg/m3
Site 5 - 4401 Sixth Street: 0-5
Based on the results of Tasks I and II, the primary ambient air impacts
due to non-traditional emissions are caused by traffic-related sources,
industrial fugitive sources, and construction activity sources. Each of
these categories of sources should be addressed in the control strategy for
the study area.
TRAFFIC-RELATED SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST
It was concluded in Task II that emissions from traffic on paved and
unpaved roads throughout the study area produce the greatest ambient air
78
-------
impact of any of the non-traditional sources. Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc. conducted a study for the Linn County Regional Planning Commission that
addressed control measures and costs for traffic-related sources.^ They
looked at various options for paved roads including improved sweeping,
staggered work hours, mass transit, etc.
Their options for unpaved roads included speed reductions, paving,
oiling, watering, and others. Their recommended control packages for
traffic-related sources were:
1) Treat approximately two miles of unpaved roads in the core area
(downtown Cedar Rapids) with chip seal.
2) Speed reductions on unpaved roads in the study area.
3) Restrict multi-tired vehicles from unpaved roads in the study
area.
It should be noted that these recommendations are all for unpaved roads.
As a result of this present study, it is felt that these control
strategies are worthwhile and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Such actions should result in immediate air quality monitoring responses at
Sites 2, 3 and 4. However, some further specification is needed. Treating
the unpaved roads in the core area with chip seal should be effective in
reducing fugitive dust. However, the surfaces must be properly maintained
and use by multi-tired, heavy equipment should be restricted. In addition to
the core area, unpaved roads throughout the non-attainment area should be
treated. The preferred, long-term method of treatment would be. sealing or
paving, in the short-term, watering or oiling could be done during extensive
dry spells and neglected during wetter periods.
For those roads that are not sealed, speed reductions and heavy
equipment restrictions are necessary. The latter of the two is felt to be
more effective since previous work by TRC has shown that, even at extremely
low speeds (<5 mph), multi-tired, heavy equipment can produce significant
emissions when travelling over unpaved areas.
For paved, urban roads, Barton-Aschman did not recommend any
cost-effective control strategies. Due to the extensive street cleaning
program that already exists in the core area and, to a lesser extent its
environs, it is agreed that further urban paved road controls are not really
practical. The only point to stress is that cleaning should be performed
immediately after sanding and salting in the winter months. it is also
recommended that the after-storm clean-up be extended to all major roads in
the non-attainment area and not just the core area.
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST
Another major result of the Task II analyses was that fugitive dust from
traffic and materials handling activities within Linn County industries were
directly affecting the ambient air quality. This was particularly evident at
79
-------
Sites 3, 4, and 5. The overall control strategy should include provisions
for reductions in industrial fugitive dust source emissions.
The main areas to address within the industries are the traffic
sources: paved and unpaved roads and parking lots. As seen in Table 4-10,
these sources predominate. According to many of the comments given on the
inventory questionnaires, very little is being done to keep these source
emissions minimized. Typical responses to the question on controls,
there were responses, were "the paved areas are swept once a year... and
when deemed necessary we sweep the lots'. While some plants seem to be
making an honest effort at controlling their dust problems, the majority
apparently are not doing anything at all. Dust control programs should be
instituted at all major industries and these programs should concentrate on
the traffic-related dust areas. In particular, the following controls should
be considered (with particular emphasis on items 1, 2, 4 and 5):
1) Sweep 'and/or flush all paved areas on a regular basis
(immediately after sanding and salting, otherwise two to three
times weekly).
2) Stabilize all unpaved areas or, at the very least, institute
speed controls.
3) Reduce the amount of material being deposited on the various
plant surfaces through truck covers, wheel washes, etc.
4) Add curbs to un-curbed paved roads.
5) Eliminate bare areas in the plant vicinity through vegetation
or stabilization; in particular, roadway berms.
6) Provide perimeter parking and shuttle buses for employees,
where feasible, to reduce traffic on plant roads.
The other category of industrial fugitive dust sources is materials
handling activities. Based upon the emission inventory, there does not
appear to be a lot of dusty materials handling operations in Linn County;
unlike some non-attainment areas where the contribution from this category
has been shown to be significnat (such as areas with iron and steel plants).
Those that are shown to be significant, such as the quarries, are further
removed from the general populace and should not really impact the measured
ambient air quality. Whether the low emission levels calculated for the
inventory accurately reflect the actual situation in Linn County or whether
they are the result of using inappropriate emission factors for grain
handling operations is not known. Unfortunately, there are no better factors
available for use for those types of operations. Therefore, until such time
that there are better factors available for use or testing shows significant
impacts from these operations, county-wide control programs -cannot be
recommended other than to stress that good maintenance practices be follpwed
such as watering, spill clean-up, etc.
80
-------
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST
It has been shown that extensive construction projects, such as the
building of highways 30 and 380, significantly affect the ambient air
quality. Smaller-scale construction, such as office complexes and shopping
malls, would likewise impact the air quality, but the impact would be more
localized. In the future, all construction projects must not be undertaken
without fugitive dust control measures as standard operating procedure.
Measures to be considered would include the following (with particular
emphasis on items 3 and 5):
1) Minimization of time that erodible soil is exposed through
stabilization or vegetation and by more careful site planning.
2) Wheel washes for all vehicles leaving the site.
3) Immediate clean-up of any carry-out that occurs from the site.
4) Truck covers on all vehicles.
5) Frequent waterings of exposed areas (up to several times per
day during dry spells).
6) Wetting down of loading/unloading areas during activity.
7) Installation of wind breaks and barriers around the site.
8) Restriction of certain activities (such as blasting), where
possible, on dry, windy days. I
Barton-Aschman also recommended construction controls and some associated
costs are provided in their report. 12
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DUE TO CONTROL STRATEGY
The recommended controls for the traffic-related and industrial sources
of fugitive dust should result in the desired reductions discussed at the
beginning of this section. The costs of such controls, except where given in
Reference 12, are not provided as part of this study. It is felt that local
contractors and industrial personnel can establish these costs much more
accurately than could be established within the framework of this study.
Ideally, these controls should be instituted immediately and
continuously applied. Realistically, from both an economic and environmental
standpoint, the control program need only be incorporated on an as warranted
basis. The data from all monitoring stations currently indicate no NAAQS
violations. Should dry spells occur or should industrial* activity
significantly increase, then the control program might have to be applied to
ensure compliance.
81
-------
On the other hand, the recommended control strategy for construction
activity sources should be incorporated for all future projects of
considerable extent. NAAQS violations will definitely be recorded at
monitoring stations nearby any large scale construction activity that does
not incorporate a good fugitive dust control program. Again, costs
associated with this type of control program are not provided with this
report for the reasons stated above.
CHANGES TO CONTROL STRATEGY DUE TO CHANGES IN AIR QUALITY STANDARD
Over the past several years the Environmental Protection Agency has been
formulating a policy designed to change the current TSP standard. The
current standard is associated with a particle mass-median diameter of
approximately 30 urn. The new policy would be to compare the ambient air
quality to a standard based on a smaller mass-median diameter - one that more
accurately represents a health hazard to the general populace. As of this
writing, the median particle size being considered is 10 urn and the
standard is known as PM10.
While some particle size data have been recently collected within Linn
County, not enough information exists to determine on a statistically sound
basis the current ambient level of particulate material having a mass-median
diameter of 10 urn. Even if this information was available, it could not be
compared to any new standard since one has not yet been determined. It is
entirely conceivable that the air quality in Linn County would be well below
the standard and thus a dust control program would not be necessary.
Alternatively, it is also possible that the county would still be designated
non-attainment, but that the primary reason for violations would be the
emissions from traditional sources of particulate and thus a dust control
program would not be cost-effective. The third possibility is that the
county would still be non-attainment and that fugitive dust sources would
still be the primary contributors to the violations.
Control efficiencies of techniques applied to fugitive dust sources have
not been determined with any degree of statistical accuracy. Added to the
inaccuracy in control efficiencies for total particulate is the inaccuracy in
the measurement of particle sizes. Most of the historical work done in
determining control technique effectiveness has either been in the form of
engineering judgment or else through the use of high volume air samplers
which collects material having a mass-median diameter of 30 un. In recent
years, some data have been collected using size-fractionating devices
(cyclone preseparators, cascade impactors, size selective inlets, dichotomous
samplers), but the accuracy of these devices is dependent on wind speed,
sampling velocity, degree to which isokinetic sampling was maintained, etc.
In summary, there is a paucity of reliable data regarding the efficiency of
fugitive dust control techniques for all size ranges and particularly the
smaller size ranges. The impact of the recommended control strategy on fine
particles therefore has to be almost entirely speculative.
Based on TRC's experience, the following general comments can be made
regarding the effect of controls on fine particulate:
82
-------
o Watering, particularly with a fine, atomized spray, will be
effective.
o Street sweeping using broom-type sweepers will be ineffective.
o Paving, sealing, and oiling will still be as effective initially
but will remain as effective only with proper maintenance (i.e.,
sweeping of paved areas is ineffective).
o Speed reductions and multi-tire vehicle restrictions should
remain effective.
83
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Role of Agricultural Practices in Fugitive Dust Emissions. Prepared
by MRI for the California Air Resources Board. NTIS Report No.
PB81-219073, June 8, 1981.
2. Draft Final Report. Fugitive Dust Emission Factor Update for AP-42.
Prepared by MRI for the U.S. EPA, December 8, 1982.
3. McCaldin, R.O. and K.J. Heidel. Particulate Emissions from Vehicle
Traffic Over Unpaved Roads. Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, Texas, June 25-30, 1978.
4. Cowherd, C. and P.J. Englehart. Characterization of Fine Particulate
Emission Factors for Paved Roads. Presented at the Fifth Symposium on
Fugitive Emissions, Measurement and Control, Charleston, South Carolina,
May 3-5, 1982.
5. Richard, G. and D. Safriet. Guideline for Development of Control
Strategies in Areas with Fugitive Dust Problems. Prepared by TRW for
EPA. EPA-450/2-77-029, October 1977.
6. Woodruff, N.P. and F.H. Siddoway. A Wind Erosion Equation. Soil
Science Society of America Proceedings. 29(5):602-608, September-
October 1965.
7. Cowherd, C. et al. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
Sources. Prepared by MRI for U.S. EPA. EPA-450/3-74-037, June 1974.
8. Davis, E.A., J.H. Meyer, P.M. Dunbar, D.H. Carnes. A Project to Measure
Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from a Rotary Railcar Dumper. Presented at
the APCA Speciality Conference on Fugitive Dust Issues in the Coal Use
Cycle, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 11-13, 1983.
9. Iowa State Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Air Pollution. Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality.
10. Filter Analysis and Particulate Identification - Volume I (Draft).
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., March 1982.
11. Inventory of Particulate Area Sources in the State of Iowa. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. EPA 907/9-81-010, December 1981.
12. Air Quality Plan. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., September 1982.
84
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleat nod Intoucnont on the revene be fan completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 907/9-83-002
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
*. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Linn County, Iowa
Non-traditional Fugitive Dust Study
6. REPORT DATE
August. 1983
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTMOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
TRC Project No. 2078-1-81
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
800 Connecticut Boulevard
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3514
int- Mn
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
324 East 11th Street
Kansas City. MiggnniH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOS
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require all states to submit state implementation
plans (SIPs) for demonstratijag the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) by December 31, 1982. Liim County, Iowa (Cedar Rapids area) is one of the
state's four primary non-attainment areas for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter.
The SIP demonstrated attainment through further controls on traditional as well as
nontraditional sources.
This report presents the results of a study that was performed to assist the Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality in the definition of the non-traditional sources
of fugitive dust in Linn County.
The study was separated into three tasks: update the area source inventory, analyze
the existing monitoring data to determine source Impacts, and provide a control
strategy for non-traditional sources.
The results of the study indicate that (1) all future large scale construction projects
must incorporate fugitive dust controls, (2) surfacing of unpaced roads.throughout
the region should be continued, and (3) the impact of industrial fugitive dust sources
should be reduced.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Group
Fugitive dust control
TSP
Non-traditional fugitive
dust
Non-traditional fugitive
dust controls
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS
------- |